Ethics "Somethings Rotten In Hondu"

Something’s Rotten in Hondo

The decision makers in the “Something’s Rotten in Hondo” are George the Plant Manager and Bill George’s boss. The Stakeholders are George, George’s family, the town of Hondo, Environmental Protection Agency, all who are affected by the plants pollution, the Mexican town, and the environment. George had moved from El Paso, Texas to Hondo, Texas with his family four years ago to assume the roll of the manager at Ardnak Plastic Inc. This plant manufactures plastic parts for small equipment and has several hundred workers from the town of Hondo. For the past few months George has been getting calls from his boss Bill because the emissions from the plants smokestacks were constantly above Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and if the problem is not resolved immediately there will be fines to pay. George has admitted this has been a constant problem but without new smokestack scrubbers, which corporate headquarters has denied, he was out of ideas. As George continued to contemplate this dilemma he began making phone calls to other Ardnak plants and discovered that they schedule the mass of their production at night to evade the Environmental Protection Agency periodic emission readings. A month later George, still contemplating on what to do had received another phone call from Bill expressing his discontentment. Bill reminded George that industrial jobs were hard to find and if a he could not find a solution to the problem then Ardnak would be have to move the company 15 miles south of Hondo to Mexico, where there is no Environmental Protection Agency. This relocation would result in a massive layoff and continue to pollute the air. George is faced with an immense ethical issue. Should he schedule production at night to evade the Environmental Protection Agency’s high emission readings or move the company to Mexican territory where there is no Environmental Protection Agency and be forced to hire Mexican workers. If George were to schedule the bulk of production at night, when the Environmental Protection Agency does not take emission readings, Ardnak Plastic Inc. would be able to remain in Hondo and hundred of workers would not lose their jobs. This of course would not resolve the constant concern of the level of pollutants being pumped into the air on a daily biases. By applying Kant’s Categorical Imperative Theory, Mill’s theory or Utilitarianism, Kohlberg’s Level of Moral Development Theory, John Locke’s Theory of Rights, and John Rawls Theory of Justice we are able to consider several ethical and socially responsible alternatives to George’s decision-making process.

Ethics and social responsibility is the backbone of American businesses, or at least they should be. Whether a business or an individual has good or bad ethical standards they must uphold their social responsibilities and conduct themselves in a professional and ethical manner. Often, it is harder to go through with a morally correct decision even though they know it is the right thing to do. More often than not, the temptation to take the easy way out, such as Ardnak Plastic Inc. is suggesting by moving the plant to Mexico to evade the Environmental Protection Agency, is irresistible to most. People and business’s have obligations to do what is right and to not hurt other people. Ethics involves people’s perceptions about what “should” be. Most people are ethical because of what they believe to be right. Ethics and social responsibility are of growing importance in today’s economic world. In the long run they will make or break a company. This takes us back to a saying: “cheaters never win”. Running a clean and honest business not only puts the individual ahead in life; it will also move the organization forward with a clean conscience. Stakeholders will recognize that they are being treated fairly and continue to return to a company that provides good, ethical services. Stakeholders do not want to deal with someone whom they believe is always trying to “pull the wool over their eyes”. Most people appreciate an honest, hardworking company with a code of ethics or mission statement hanging on the wall in the office (Gamonal, 2007).

Kant’s Categorical Imperative Theory suggests that, if a person feels it is ethical to lie then that person should feel it is ethical for everyone to lie under the same circumstances in order to protect themselves from punishment (eGuide to Ethics and the Legal Environment, chap. 1, p.5). Therefore, if George feels it is ethical to evade the Environmental Protection Agency he must believe that it is ethical for everyone to evade the Environmental Protection Agency under the same situation. If George’s decision is to do what the other Ardnak plants do and schedule the bulk of production at night to evade the Environmental Protection Agency in order to save jobs then his decision would be considered ethical. If George was to base his decision according to Kant’s theory he would have to believe that it is alright and therefore must believe that it is ok of everyone else to do the same. (eGuide to Ethics and the Legal Environment, chap. 1, p.5).

Under Mill’s Theory of Utilitarianism George’s decision to schedule the bulk of production at night to evade the Environmental Protection Agency in order to save jobs would be considered ethical based on whether or not the good outweighs the bad. In this case the good would be, if George decided to Schedule mass production at night, is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s emission readings would be low, there would be no fines, and hundreds of people would not lose their jobs. The bad in this case would be the constant pollution that goes into the air which can cause problems such as smog, acid rain, the green-house effect, which is also referred to as global warming, and "holes" in the ozone layer. Each of these problems has serious implications for our health and well-being as well as for the entire environment. What decision would ensure the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number? Does the good outweigh the bad? How does one make such a moral decision?

Based on Kohlberg’s Level of Moral Development people make moral decisions based on the consequences of his or her actions in regards to punishment or reward. He identified six developmental stages that a person goes through form childhood into adulthood with regards to his or her reactions to a moral dilemma. The six stages are divided into three main types: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. In the pre-conventional