I.

Problem Statement
a. Facts of the Case
Nathan Rosillo grew up along the Dutch Valley River, and was hoping his children would
enjoy its view as much as he had as a child. Unfortunately, he realized his job as a key product
developer at Chem-Tech Corporation could put this dream at risk. Despite being an industry
leader, his company has experienced awful financial performance for several quarters; now,
Nathan and his colleagues are excited because they believe their newly-developed lubricant
product may be their turning point. Their top executives are thrilled that they can produce this
new item at a lower cost because of lax environmental policy regulations, enabling them to
release waste directly into the Dutch Valley River. Despite wanting the company to survive,
Nathan is against this because he cares about the river and the ethical and social implications of
their actions. He tells his colleagues about his opinion, but it falls on deaf ears because they are
not violating any laws. Nathan is now choosing between risking his reputation by talking to the
manufacturing vice president about their ethical and environmental responsibility, or keeping
his mouth shut to be a “team player”.
b. Key Problem/s
i. General Problem
1. Should the manufacturing vice president side with Nathan against
dumping waste into the river due to its ethical and social
implications, or should they push through with the original plan in
order to keep the company afloat?
ii. Specific Problems
1. How should Nathan approach the manufacturing vice president
and convince her to side with him?
2. How can they produce their new product at a significant cost
savings without harming the environment?
3. How can Nathan convince his colleagues that the Dutch Valley
River is worth preserving over the company?
II. Key Objectives
a. To determine an ethical decision that will protect both the river and the
company’s interest
b. To convince the manufacturing vice president and workers that the river must be
spared from waste despite lax policy regulations
c. To recommend possible methods on how to improve the company’s financial
performance
III. Analysis of Causes
a. Framework, Principles, Tools
i. It may be easy for some people to think that all laws are ethical; after all,
these should be made with the people’s best interests in mind. However,
this way of thinking may be too ideal; not everything that is legal is
ethical and vice versa. While some businesses may be more focused on
surviving or making profit, it is important for them to realize how their
actions may have an impact on the environment, customers, employees,
 etc. Businesses should remember that they do not exist as an individual
unit, but are part of a larger hierarchical system that affects all those
around them.
ii. Philosophical Principles – Philosophy sets ethical principles that can guide
how businesses make decisions
1. Utilitarian Principle – the decision should be based on whatever
produces the most happiness/good for the most number of
people. This is good for quantitative choices where one measures
efficiency or analyzes the costs and benefits.
2. Virtue Ethics Approach – the decision is based on moral behavior
that comes from one’s virtues. It can be based on one’s
background, past experiences, beliefs, and morals.
3. Moral Rights Principle – the decision should be based on whatever
choice maintains or upholds the fundamental rights of the lives
affected.
iii. Corporate Social Responsibility – this concept states that an organization
has economic, ethical, and legal responsibilities. Companies are obligated
to make choices that contribute to the welfare of society and of the
environment.

IV. Development and Selection of Alternatives

Course of Action Advantages Disadvantages
Nathan and the  The company may  It will increase the
manufacturing vice market themselves production cost,
president stop the as ethical for thus making their
company from minimizing new lubricant
dumping waste into environmental product more
the river effects; this may expensive
help boost their  Their company has
status as an been performing
industrial leader poorly and this
 It will avoid health may push them
or hazard effects for over the edge of
the animals and no return
people living  If they are unable
in/around the river to turn the
 They may entice company’s
more customers, performance
especially around, they
environmentalists, might have to
who care about downsize
ethically responsible operations, lay off
businesses workers, or even
 They can avoid a close the business
 stained reputation  If the
in case manufacturing
environmentalists vice president
call out companies does not agree
polluting into the with Nathan’s
river plan, he may risk
 They won’t need to his job
worry about  Nathan (and the
reparations in case manufacturing
there are policy vice president)
changes or certain may become
bodies trying to hold disliked by their
them accountable colleagues for not
 It is easier to being “team
prevent waste from players”
entering the river
than to have to
clean it up later on
The company proceeds  They will be able to  They may have a
with dumping their save on costs bad reputation if
wastes into the Dutch  Higher profit may people find out
Valley River break their poor  Polluting the river
financial will harm the
performance streak health of those
 They can possibly who depend on it
regain their status for food and clean
as an industry water (people,
leader animals, plants,
 Most workers are on etc.)
board with the plan  It will be harder to
 Even if clean up the river
environmentalists than it is to
and other prevent waste
organizations from entering
protest, they cannot
be held accountable
because they are
not violating any
laws
Nathan should talk to  Company will be  This is limited by
his local government obliged to adjust time constraints; it
and ask them to their plans may take a while
enforce stricter  People won’t hold it to propose and
 environment-friendly against Nathan if enforce new laws,
policies they don’t know disseminate it to
he’s the one who stakeholders
prompted the involved, etc.
government for  Chem-Tech needs
stricter laws an immediate
 The river is spared solution to fix their
from waste not just financial
from Chem-Tech, performance
but from other  The local
companies that may government may
also be situated not agree with his
along the river plan
 Other companies
may argue and go
after Nathan if it
will also affect
their performance
and production
costs

V. Recommendations and/or Conclusions

The manufacturing vice president is faced with the dilemma of choosing whether or not to
allow the company to dump their waste into the river. This ethical decision will not only affect
Chem-Tech, but also those whose lives depend on the river. Their choice has serious hazard and
health implications on the animals, plants, and people in and around the Dutch Valley River. In
terms of the Utilitarian Principle, choosing not to dump their waste will provide more happiness
and benefits to a higher number of people/living things. In terms of the Moral Rights Principle,
the company should respect and uphold the fundamental rights of those who will be affected –
again, Chem-Tech must keep in mind the interest of those living in and around the river. The
Virtue Ethics Approach and concepts from Corporate Social Responsibility both point to the
same decision as well. Preserving the river instead of dumping their waste into it for the sake of
cost-efficiency is for the welfare and common good of their community.

In terms of alternatives, stopping the company from dumping their waste into the river also
seems to be the best choice of action due to it having the most number of advantages. First,
preserving their environment may allow the company to market themselves as ethical for
minimizing environmental effects – this may help boost their status as an industrial leader and
boost their competitive advantage/reputation over others. Environmental groups will not need
to protest their company’s actions, and might even become customers to support their
decision. Next, doing so will also avoid health or hazard effects for the animals and people living
in/around the river. Those who rely on the river for food and clean drinking water will not have
to worry about any toxic waste affecting their consumption and health. Additionally, they are
unsure how long the lax policy regulations will last. If their local government decides to change
their policies to protect the environment, the company may have to deal with pricier charges.
Thus, prevention is key – they should protect the river to avoid dealing with possible
reparations later on.

Overall, the best decision for the company would be for the manufacturing vice
president to hinder them from dumping their waste into the river. While they may have to re-
strategize how they will improve their financial performance, this decision benefits not only
their company but the situation and long-term future of those who depend on the river for
their survival.