Something’s Rotten in Hondo
A stakeholder is a person or a group of individuals who are interested in the outcome of a project or business. They may either have a positive or negative influence on the result of a venture (Halbert & Ingulli, 2011). In this case, the stakeholders are Bill, the owner of the plant; George who was the manager of the Ardnak Plastics Inc.; employees; and the government. The manager is the leader of the company and the direction it takes greatly depends on the leader’s focus. The company’s employees are stakeholders since they earn income from working in the company. Additionally, they drive the organization towards achieving its objectives. Another stakeholder is the government since it is interested not only in the operations of the business but also the environment in which it operates.
The Polluter Pays Principle from the digital book applies in this case since according to the economists, most the environmental hazards are caused by manufacturers who externalize the cost of their activities. An example is a plant that emits unfiltered air into the atmosphere or discharges untreated chemicals into rivers to reduce the cost of or avoid paying for disposing of waste. Consequently, the entire society faces the consequences of improperly disposing wastes. The precautionary principle is also relevant in this case since it applies in areas that are characterized by high levels of uncertainty. It is close to impossible to predict the effects that certain activities will have on the quality of human health or the environment. It is difficult to project whether or not certain levels of air pollution will result in respiratory diseases or increased mortality rates. The precautionary principle states that if it is suspected that specific activities may cause harm to the environment, it is best to put preventive measures in place (Portney, 2016). The laws do not apply to the action in this case because it had been made clear assurance that the air restrictions would not be applied upon moving 15 miles south of Hondo.
Government regulations and fines are a “pay to play” system allowing firms’ acceptance of penalties and continued violation of environmental protection laws in the event doing the same contributes to profitability. According to the article, the Ardnak Plastics Inc. had broken the environmental regulations, but since it offered employment to several hundred workers, it was not closed immediately. Instead, it was given a chance to relocate so that it would remain a source of employment. However, ethical responsibilities should not change with relocation despite the law in the new jurisdiction being different. If the company posed a danger to the environment of a specific region, moving to a different place does not stop the entity from doing the same to the new place. The decision-makers’ responsibilities to provide for his family outweigh his ethical duty to stakeholders since he is more concerned about the family’s welfare.
One of the primary causes of air pollution is the emission of gaseous waster and fumes by factories and power plants. I suggest that the installation of electronic smoke precipitators using static electricity to facilitate trapping of dust and soot coming from industrial wastes be a requirement for factories and power plants. This will help to control or regulate pollution caused by gaseous wastes released into the atmosphere. Additionally, manufacturing businesses must be fitted with Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD), also referred to as scrubbing (Schnelle, Dunn, & Ternes, 2015). Ardnak Plastics Inc. should not have been allowed to operate for a whole month despite lacking scrubbers. It should be a requirement that for any company to operate, it has to be fitted with all necessary equipment to promote environmental conservation.
I recommend raising awareness through advocacy and campaigns in the case in question. As much as technological advancements and anti-pollution laws have been established to reduce air pollution, they are not enough. Raising awareness will make individuals realize the sources and effects of pollution. From that point, it will be easy for individuals to make collective or personal decisions on how to reduce pollution even if they are forced to look for alternative sources of income (Schnelle, Dunn, & Ternes, 2015). Carrying out campaigns through advocacy and campaigns significantly addresses cases of pollution and at times prevents them from happening.
From the article, I have learned that several environmental policies define how plants and manufacturing companies should dispose of their waste. An example is the Polluter Pays Principle, which states that those producing the wastes should incur the cost of managing them to prevent the damage to the environment and human health. I have also learned that government regulations and fines are a “pay to play” system allowing firms’ acceptance of penalties and continued violation of environmental protection laws in the event doing the same contributes to profitability. Pollution can be minimized through cleaning the smokestacks and raising awareness through advocacy and campaigns. The vice should be stopped since it poses a threat to both the human health and the environment.
Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2011). Law and Ethics in the Business Environment. Cengage Learning.
Portney, P. R. (Ed.). (2016). Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Routledge.
Schnelle Jr, K. B., Dunn, R. F., & Ternes, M. E. (2015). Air Pollution Control Technology Handbook. CRC press.