Pollution Dilemma in the Company - Case Study Example

Any decision in the company affects the decision taken by EPA later, Jonica and other executives, besides the company itself, are stakeholders. A dip in the profitability of the company will affect the perception of other stakeholders regarding the management’s ability to make decisions that may lead to profitability, or which may prefer the pollution of the lake. Any decision they make will affect the management of the company. There are different moral considerations in the above issue; the first ethical consideration involves an ethical dilemma.

Though Jonica and the administration have an obligation to ensure the profitability of the company, it would be ethical to make a decision for the good of the environment, despite the cost to the company. Ethically, it would be preferable for the company to suffer a loss that year, but be recognized for its strong ethical CSR. On the overhand, although EPA has not made a declaration of the steps necessary to reduce the emissions, Jonica and the management have an ethical duty to act for the good of the environment based on the scientific conclusions given.

Acting to reduce these emissions based on the scientific study provided even before EPA steps in to intervene will increase the ethical standing of the company among its stakeholders. Therefore, acting on the contrary to attain profitability would be a moral lapse on the part of the management. Foregoing, profits and implementing the technology to reduce emissions would be a tough tradeoff, which will result in a right-right situation, unlike ignoring the scientific findings, which is a moral lapse.

The company would stand to gain from such strong moral values as it would gain favor from customers in the market In resolving the situation, Janica and the management did not have an option, as the technology would be forced through when EPA backed by the public to get the scientific findings.