TICE – Turkish Integrity Center of Excellence
California Wood Harvesting Co.
Case
Key teaching notes
Case
What Are the Relevant Facts?
- The company has been practicing “clear-cutting” for many years and is in compliance with governmental regulations.
- Environmentalists’ strength and pressure have been increasing to such a degree they cannot be ignored by the company.
- The company feels it needs to counteract the negative press from the environmentalists.
- The negative press seems to have reduced sales and may lead to increased governmental regulation.
- Thomas feels that the company’s image would be more favorable if land were donated to the government for wilderness areas.
- The land they intend to donate is not profitable to the company.
- Hollis and John question the wisdom of this approach, but the company president insists on this approach.
- As a Sierra Oub member, John may have a personal conflict with the way that the image-building campaign is being approached.
What Are the Ethical Issues?
- Is clear-cutting an appropriate practice for the company?
- Should unprofitable land be donated as an appeasement to the environmentalists?
- Is it appropriate for John to work on the campaign?
- Should the company use advertising to blot out the effects of negative press?
Who Are the Primary Stakeholders?
- Bob Thomas
- George Hollis
- John Davidson
- Company employees
- Communities supported by logging activities
- Environmentalists
- Government regulators
What Are the Possible Alternatives?
- Stop or reduce the practice of clear-cutting.
- Use alternate methods to build the image of company.
- Continue with the suggested campaign using John.
- Continue with the suggested campaign without using John.
What Are the Ethics of the Alternatives?
- Ask questions based on a “utilitarian” perspective (costs and benefits). For example:
- Which possible alternative would provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number?
- How would costs be measured in this vignette? How much value should be placed on (a) the environment and (b) jobs supporting the local communities?
- Do the benefits of protecting the environment outweigh the economic impacts of this situation?
- Ask questions based on a “rights” perspective. For example:
- What does each stakeholder have the right to expect?
- Which alternative(s) would you no want imposed on you if you were John? Mr. Hollis? Mr. Thomas? The environmentalists? The government regulators? A company employee? A member of the surrounding communities?
- Ask questions based on a “justice” perspective (benefits and burdens). For example:
- Which alternative distributes the benefits and burdens most fairly among the stakeholders?
- Which stakeholders carry the greatest burden if the suggested campaign is carried out?
- Which stakeholders carry the greatest burden if the practice of dear-cutting is continued?
- Which ethical theories (utilitarian, rights, justice) make the most sense to you as they relate to this situation?
What Are the Practical Constraints?
- John needs to consider what will happen if he does or does not participate in the suggested campaign.
- The issue of clear-cutting will probably come up again. Should it be dealt with at the Board level?
- The environmentalists may pick up the campaign and turn it against the company.
What Actions Should Be Taken?
- What actions should be taken by John, the company, and the environmentalists?
- Which alternative would you choose if you were in John’s position? Why would you make that choice?
- Which alternative would you choose if you were in Mr. Hollis’s position? If you were a company board member? Why would you make that choice?
- Which ethical theories (utilitarian, rights, justice) make the most sense to you as they relate to this situation?
Key teaching notes
What Are the Relevant Facts?
- X Chemical has a public policy of doing all that it can to protect the environment from harmful materials.
- X Chemical’s plant on the East River is releasing more waste than the company originally intended.
- The plant supervisor feels meeting the government’s standard, even if it is wrong, is all that the company is required to do; he refuses to do more.
- There is a reasonable chance that the company is endangering the environment, but there is no definite proof at this time.
What Are the Ethical Issues?
- Does the company have the obligation to protect the environment even if it means going beyond government standards?
- Is the company living up to its public promise?
- To what extent is Bryan responsible for taking action and informing others inside the company, such as the Vice President of Operations?
- If no one in the company will listen, should Bryan go to others outside the company (the government agency, the media, etc.) to bring this situation to their attention?
Who Are the Primary Stakeholders?
- Bryan and all other employees of X Chemical
- Stockholders of the company
- The wildlife, livestock, people, etc, dependent on East River for food and/or water
- The recreational users of East River
What Are the Possible Alternatives?
- Try to gather data from the engineers and chemists involved in the initial plan to provide hard evidence for Bryan’s concerns, and approach Bill Gates again.
- Inform the VP of Operations, and let him/her follow it up.
- Become a “whistle blower,” and approach persons outside the company to see that action is taken.
- Do nothing.
What Are the Ethics of the Alternatives?
- Ask questions based on a “utilitarian” perspective.
For example:
- What alternative results in the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people?
- How should the costs of potential harmful waste be measured? How does this compare with the business costs of adding the additional process?
- How do the benefits of being environmentally safe compare with those of following the government’s standards?
- Do the benefits of being true to the company’s public policy outweigh the profits possible by following the letter of the law?
- Ask questions based on a “rights” perspective. For example:
- What rights do the various stakeholders have, including Bryan and the employees of X Chemical, stockholders, the communities dependent on East River, and recreational users of East River?
- Does X Chemical or its employees have any duties, fiduciary or otherwise, to any of the stakeholders?
- Are the rights of any of the stakeholders being violated by what the company is presently doing?
- What does each stakeholder have a right to expect from the others?
- How do the stakeholders outside X Chemical expect it to act?
- Does X Chemical have any duty to the other stakeholders?
- Ask questions based on a “justice” perspective.
For example:
- Which alternatives most fairly distribute the benefits and burdens among the various stakeholders?
- Which stakeholders carry the greatest burden in each alternative?
- Can X Chemical ever recompense those wronged if they are indeed releasing a harmful amount of materials?
What Are the Practical Constraints?
- Bryan has a job to do at the plant, and he does not have a lot of time to commit to the pursuit of his concerns.
- Bryan will need hard evidence to make changes occur since he is new and relatively unknown in the company.
- There could be a deliberate cover-up of sensitive information that could result in Bryan’s being fired if he starts looking too hard.
What Actions Should Be Taken?
- What should Bryan do?
- What would be the “best” action(s) to take?
- What would you do if you were in Bryan’s position?
- What ethical theories (utilitarian, rights, justice) seem most relevant to this situation? Which provides the clearest course of action? Is this necessarily the best course of action?