CASE STUDY PROJECT ONE INSTRUCTIONS Case 22 in the textbook, page 705, “General

Question

CASE STUDY PROJECT ONE INSTRUCTIONS

Case 22 in the textbook, page 705, “General Electric and the Hudson River Cleanup”

Project Tasks

Please write an 8-10 pages’ long essay analyzing and discussing the following topics following the order of Tasks 1 to 6:

1. Task 1 (5 points): Summarize the case. Length suggestion: 1 page.

2. Task 2 (15 points): Identify (list) the ethical issues that have arisen in this case. Please offer some details about each ethical issues (e.g. including what’s occurred, who’s affected, etc.).Please focus on the cleanup of the contamination, rather than the PCB-contamination happened four decades ago. Length suggestion: 1 page.

3. Task 3 (20 points): Identify (list) all of the stakeholders of the company (i.e., GE) in the case, and discuss each of their viewpoints (e.g., needs, desires, concerns, costs, benefits, power, etc.). Length suggestion: 1-2 pages.

4. Task 4 (20 points): Explain in detail which of the stakeholders should be involved and helpful to solve the ethical issues that have arisen in the case, and why, given their viewpoints. Length suggestion: 1-2 pages.

5. Task 5 (20 points): List all of the ethical theories and principles (i.e., ethical principles in Section 8.2 of Chapter 8) that are appropriate for solvingthe ethical issues in this case. Explain in detail why each principle is appropriate for solving the particularethical issue. Length suggestion: 2 pages.

6. Task 6 (20 points): Using certain ethical theories and principles in Section 8.2 of Chapter 8, recommend a plan of action for the company (GE). Explain the expected positive and negative consequences of the plan of action you recommend. Length suggestion: 2 pages.

CASE 22 General Electric and the Hudsonhas been called the biggest environmental dredging River Cleanup* One of the major challenges businesses face with project in U.S. history. The decision reaffirmed a plan developed in the waning days of the Clinton Administration respect to government regulations is that often com pliance with existing regulations during an earlier period does not protect them against expensive pro blems that occur or come to light later. The plight of General Electric (GE) with respect to its dumping of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) over 30 years ago is a classic case in point A GE representative stated that the company was "disappointed in the EPA's decision," which it said will cause more harm than good." Environmentalists, predictably, praised the decision, and the Sierra Club executive director called the decision a "monumental step toward protecting New Yorkers from cancer causing PCBs The cleanup plan became a heated and politically For decades, GE had electrical-equipment-making plants along the Hudson River in New York. During the period prior to 1977, GE discharged more than 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson before the chemicals were banned in 1977. In 2001, the PCB-contaminated upper Hudson River had become the largest EPA Superfund site in the nation and has become the most expensive to clean up. charged debate beginning in fall of 2001, as an investi gative report detailed how environmentalists (the Greens) claimed that GE and the EPA used the terror ist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon as a distraction from the priority of the planned cleanup The Greens charged that GE and the EPA, under the leadership of EPA administrator Christine Todd In August 2001, the Environmental Protection Whitman, delayed the cleanup and were "negotiating Agency (EPA) circulated a draft proposal informing in the shadow of September 11." The executive director GE that it would have to spend hundreds of millions of the Clearwater advocacy groups and spokesperson of dollars to clean up the PCBs that were legally for the coalition said regarding the meetings between dumped over a 30-year period that ended in 1977.2 GE and EPA, "It smells really bad. According to Businessweek, the Bush Administra tion and the EPA, under fire for its environmental policies, ordered GE to clean up the Hudson in wha The Greens charged that a modification of the USE OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS This case was prepared by Archie B. Carroll, University of Georgia. Revised and updated in 2016. cleanup plan was in the works that would favor GE. This would be the establishment of "performance standards" to measure the effectiveness of dredging

Explanation / Answer

In spite of the fact that the organization confessed to dumping PCB contaminants in the waterway, they were extremely reluctant to focus on a tidy up design. They disregarded the way that families and organizations were being influenced by the issue. They didn't address the issue with the worry of improving conditions for buyers this issue specifically influenced. Furthermore, marine and natural life creatures were in threat. It was accounted for that the PCBs could resort in lacks in substantial frameworks of the two people and creatures. Morally, the organization is ethically wrong for not settling an issue it straightforwardly caused. Regardless of how advantageous the tidy up will be, I feel GE had a moral commitment to tidy up the issue. Their choice to abstain from focusing on a full tidy up design wasn't right and considering the negative social effects the waste could possibly have are both real issues, as I would like to think.

3.Stakeholders- retired former chief executive officer, jack Welch noted that he do not find any kind of hazard to the health of the people and they spent million of money in cleaning that water. Other stakeholders include all those people who suffered because of this nonsense. 4.These chemicals cause health risks and are a negative externality to GE. Their interests are to fix these health risks by getting rid of pollution. The owners of GE are also a stakeholder because their company is causing major problems to those who live nearby. The government also holds a stake because its regulation requires the prevention of pollution. Well, the owners want to make money for GE. This means making products at low costs, which in turn usually means pollution. However, those living nearby want healthy living conditions. Therefore, one party has to sacrifice.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.