case study #1
Tortor11111
CaseStudy1.docxCase Study #1
Due online September 11th
20 Points
|
Assignment Component |
Points Possible |
Points Awarded |
|
Write-up
|
|
|
|
Introductory paragraph discussing what ethical issue you will consider
|
5 |
|
|
2-3 questions w/ answers |
10 |
|
|
Further reading list |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
20 |
|
Description of Exercise
Now that you have considered the case of Ritz-Carlton Hotel in class, you will be asked to explore an ethical problem related to the case. An ethical problem can include issues such as privacy, public safety, intellectual property, product liability, applicable laws or ethical guidelines (like those protecting human subjects participating in research) that need to be considered, issues relating to how the team works together, responsibilities to project sponsors, local communities, etc. For more help identifying an ethical dilemma, please see the website for the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (CSEP).
The final result should be a one to two page case study highlighting an ethical concern or issue directly related to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Each report should contain an introductory paragraph discussing what ethical issue you will consider. The introductory paragraph must be accompanied by two to three questions that would help a reader recognize the ethical issues that loom large in the case. A “further reading” list of sources should be cited at the end of the case. For example, if you are writing a case on conflict of interest, your citations may include a reading you found explaining what conflict of interest is, an example of a conflict of interest policy developed by a company, and a news article you found describing a real-life instance of conflict of interest.
Case Example: BP
A week after the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you are hired by BP to act as a consultant on the cleanup of a section of the Louisiana coastline. At an early meeting of the expert advising committee, one of your colleagues, Dr. Sanderson, suggests that dispersants can be used to help break up the dense oil that is continuing to accumulate on the surface of the ocean and making its way towards the shore. He suggests using the product line Corexit, as BP already has a relationship with the manufacturer of this family of dispersants and can get a large amount for a reasonable price. He further urges adopting this line of action as a large amount of the chemical has already been shipped to other parts of Louisiana, so it is readily on hand. At the end of the meeting, all the committee members agree that rapid action is needed, as the oil is quickly moving closer to the shoreline.
That evening, you talk about this situation with a friend of yours, an environmental scientist who expressed interest in your work on the oil spill. When she hears that your committee is thinking about recommending Corexit, she warns you that the product line is no longer approved for use in Britain because laboratory tests found the dispersant harmful to sea life that inhabits rocky shores. The next day you do some research and talk to a representative from Nalco Corporation, the manufacturer of Corexit who tells you that these findings likely have no relevance in the current situation, as in Louisiana the dispersant will be used in the open sea, not on the shore. However, you are worried about the sheer amount of the dispersant that is going to be used, and that some of it might get to the shoreline. The representative tells you that this should not be a problem and directs you to the safety information sheets on Corexit available off of the Nalco web site. When reading these sheets, you find out that a number of the ingredients in the dispersant are labeled as “proprietary”. In an answer to an email you send, the Nalco representative tells you that some ingredients are listed as proprietary to protect the company’s trade secrets. The next day, you communicate all of this information to your fellow committee members by email, knowing that you have a second meeting scheduled in two days time. At this meeting, the expert committee is going to have to decide on what recommendation to make.
Questions
Who are the major stakeholders in this situation?
What problems is the proprietary nature of some of these ingredients in Corexit likely to pose? Is Nalco ethically justified in keeping these ingredients secret?
As a committee member, whose interests should you be representing? What are the major factors and concerns you need to consider and communicate to your fellow committee members?
What recommendation should the committee make, and why? Be sure to justify your answer.
Further Reading List
Case based on facts drawn from New York Times article,”In Gulf of Mexico, Chemicals Under Scrutiny.“ May 5, 2010. Elisabeth Rosenthal. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/science/earth/06dispersants. html
Nalco. “COREXIT Technology”. Nalco North American Web site. 2010. Last viewed December 10, 2010. http://www.nalco.com/applications/corexit-technology.htm
Weil, Vivian and John W. Snapper (1989). Owning Scientific and Technical Information: Values and Ethical Issues. New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press. pp. 3-9.
© 2010 Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology. Can be used with proper acknowledgements for educational purposes.
