Case Analysis 1
Case:
Mark is the environmental compliance manager for AlloyCo, an aluminum manufacturer
operatingin a small town in the country of Rexland. Mark must decide whether to spend money
on a newlydeveloped technology that will reduce the level of mercury emitted into the air from
the dischargepoints in the factory.
AlloyCo's emission levels are already within legal limit set by the Environmental Protection
Agency. However, environmental regulations for mercury are problematic, because mercury
emitted into the air does not distribute itself evenly the way that CO2 does, but tends to settle in
the land and water near to the place where it is emitted. Mercury exposure has been linked to
birthdefects and other health risks. In addition, a scientist from the local university has recently
cautioned that, if emission of mercury stayed at current levels, the fish in the lakes in the area
might soon have to be declared unsafe for human consumption. This is a major issue because
tourism centered on the lake is a major part of the local economy.
The problem is that profit margins in the aluminum industry are tight. If the new technology is
installed, the money spent on it must be passed onto customers through a price increase; passed
onto shareholders by not paying dividends; or absorbed by the management and employees
through wage cuts. Mark is concerned about the impact of using this technology, as customers
maymove to competitor’s products if prices are increased; stockholders may express unhappiness
aboutlower returns for holding shares in AlloyCo; and, as AlloyCo is one of the major employers
in thetown, employees’ morale and spending patterns in the local economy will be impacted
negativelyif there are any wage cuts.
Discuss what Mark should do, focusing on: (i) building arguments that apply all the
theories of duties and rights to determine the appropriate course of action, and (ii)
considering counter-arguments to any arguments or principles of action you propose.
Answer :
Means based ethical theories : Duties and Rights
When it comes to the decision on whether Mark should spend money on a newly
developed technology that will reduce the level of mercury emitted into the air from the
discharge points in the factory or not, few duties and rights theories must be considered in the
ethical evaluation of this situation. Firstly, Mark has a duty to his company and shareholders to
develop AlloyCo and maximize its profits at the minimum risk of losing profits. Hence, Mark is
currently fulfilling this duty by continuing to operate without the new technology installed as it
ensures high profits at low costs, while minimizing the risk of losing customers and laying off
employees. Secondly, Mark also has the right to freedom, as in Mark is free to do whatever he
pleases without the intervention of others, which in this case is not installing the new technology
in order to maximize his profits and prevent potential losses from happening. Similarly, Mark
and his shareholders have a right to happiness and pursuing what brings them satisfaction, which
is maximizing their profits in this case.
However, while Mark possesses the duty to develop his business, the right to freedom,
and the right to happiness, he also has the duties to avoid wronging others and harming the
environment and a beneficence duty to promote the welfare of others. Notably, Mark’s
company’s emissions are currently harming people and causing birth defects. Moreover, the
mercury emissions produced pollute the environment, which means that Mark is failing at
promoting the welfare of others, and that he is harming the environment that his society lives in.
Additionally, according to Rawlsian Rawls’ veil of ignorance, Mark has to consider that his
society needs to sustain a good environment for future generations to live in, as in, mark needs
to put himself in the shoes of a newborn who has not seen the world yet and who needs a good
environment to live in. Hence, given that Mark’s company produces emissions that cause birth
defects and other health risks, even though the emissions produced are below the legal limit,
Mark has to install the new technology and reduce mercury emissions even more, and that is the
most ethical decision to be taken.
As a counter argument, Mark could argue that his company’s production is actually
beneficial for the society as it supplies the society with aluminum that contributes to the total
development of the country and that the mercury emissions produced can be simply avoided by
people staying away from the production site as it is considered as Mark’s private property.
However, this counter argument is not strong enough as Mark also has a duty of the categorical
imperative to avoid harming the environment, as the case is for all human beings, that is why
Mark cannot simply ask people to evacuate the area around the production site. Moreover, using
the first version of the categorical imperative, the act of not harming the environment is universal
as protecting the environment is a rule that can and must be followed by everyone in the society,
not just Mark alone, so protecting the environment matchs the consistency principle. Also,
Mark’s company could still produce the same quantities of aluminum using the new technology,
if not even more, and thus, AlloyCo would still benefit the society and hold its status. Put simply,
by acquiring the new technology, AlloyCo can reduce its mercury emissions and thus reduce the
company’s negative impact on the environment and the people living in the society, at the cost
of some losses of profit that could be recovered in the long run.