Whistle-Blowing
Essay title: Whistle-Blowing
SESSION ASSIGNMENT
Whistle-blowing
SUMMARY
This paper reviews a case study regarding whistle-blowing in a corporate environment revolving an environmental pollution issue. The purpose of this study is to take a pro- disclosure position in the case presented. The main topics of discussion are:
The case at hand, The presenting factions, and The ethical Position.
Session Eight Final Assignment:
Members of the board: Memo,
The case at Hand:
Recently, one of our environmental inspectors was doing an audit and discovered a discrepancy in the records. Upon investigation of the situation it was found that our employee had Intentionally falsified logs and improperly disposed of contaminated vessel waste. In light of this situation to us, the board, three factions for handling the issue has arisen.
The presenting Factions:
“Faction one argues that since there is no legal duty to disclose, FLL should not disclose. Faction one argues that FLL has taken corrective action and that there is nothing that can be done about past practices. Faction one favors allowing the Plant Manager to take an early buy-out and retire early, thereby ensuring his silence” (Holy Family Materials 2006).
“Faction two would be happy to side with Faction one except for the fact that Faction two members are concerned that this matter will get out no matter what” (Holy Family Materials 2006). Faction two also indicates the concern that this issue may get out no matter what..
“Faction three argues that Faction one is wrong to assume that nothing can be done about the harm from past practices. Faction three notes that if the information is divulged, the disposal sites that accepted the inappropriate material might be able to locate, remove and properly dispose of the inappropriate material before it completely leaks from the vessels into the environment.
While these costs would be significant and bourne by FLL, these costs would be much less than those incurred by FLL if a Superfund cleanup needed to be undertaken in the future. Faction three also objects to letting the Plant Manager buyout. Faction three argues this would make FLL a partner in crime with the plant manager. Instead, Faction three wants to cooperate with governmental officials and see the plant manager prosecuted to the full extent of the law as an example to others” (Holy Family Materials 2006).
The Ethical Positions:
Faction one argues that since there is no legal duty to disclose, however there may be an ethical duty to disclose in regards to this situation. It is simply wrong not to disclose a situation that may present harm in this manner to the environment or any person within or outside of the company. Members of the board, deontologicaly speaking our moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. We need to make the correct moral choices, and do the right thing (About Deontology 2006). Allowing the Plant Manager to retire early, to insure his silence is also wrong. This manager has knowingly and intentionally is the direct cause of harmful activities that may have negative affect on the environment other people and this company. What this person has done in the performance of his duties here, acting on his own accord is absolutely wrong and unethical as well. We have a duty to see this man brought to justice for his actions. As pointed out earlier by the board, a superfund cleanup may be that disclosure would needlessly subject FLL to potential criminal liability, however by disclosing now before it was discovered may take much of the heat off our company.
FLL must disclose and take responsibility for this clean-up now and if those disposal sites become Superfund sites in the future. It is the right thing to do being that it was our responsibility to properly manage the and control the actions of our employee’s, and we failed to do so. Even though we may not be directly responsible for the action taken by a manager he is operating in our behalf. There is no guarantee that a merger with Behemoth International Group (“BIG”) make take place at all as it is still in a talking stage and owning to our responsibility may be a good show of character on our part.
If a merger of FLL into BIG would be an advantage of mutually beneficial economies there may be no reason not to merge even after