Part 1.1
The title of the EPA audit policy is “Incentives for self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violation”. The policy is developed to empower and sensitize the organizations about the need for policing themselves and earn benefits relation to environmental regulations.
Part 1.2
There are four incentives announced by the EPA for self-policing. 1. Elimination of gravity-based penalties, 2.Reduction in gravity-based penalties (75%), 3. No recommendation for criminal procedures, and 4. No routine requests for audit reports. With these benefits the organizations can be proactive in protecting the human health and environment and earn goodwill among the government agencies.
Part 1.3
Penalties proposed by EPA in assessing the violation are linked to two elements, economic benefit component, and, the gravity-based component. The economic benefit is the economic gains received by the entity (business organization) by violating the EPA regulations. Gravity is the total impact on the environment (tangible and intangible effects) due to environmental violation by the entity (business organization). Gravity-based penalty might be several times more than the economic benefits gained by violation. Gravity based penalties are apparently more effective, because the impact is more than the gains to the organization.
Part 1.4
There are nine conditions to be met by the company to avail the benefits declared by the EPA. For avoiding gravity-based penalties the company must perform at least two of the nine conditions. If a company meets eight of the conditions except the -systematic discovery of the violation, is eligible for 75% of the gravity-based penalty. A company that meets all the nine conditions is eligible for 100% mitigation. The organization must report the violation to the authorities within 21 days of the discovery, and violation must be rectified within 60 calendar days from the date of discovery. The EPA policies on Self-policing are very practical and non-taxing to the organizations, and it forces the organizations’ to develop discipline in protecting environment and human health.
Part 1.5
Ethics means we need to act for the good of others and must not harm others. But each time the industrial production happens, the company is damaging the environment, which is affecting millions of people around the world. Hence, organizations’ must practice ethics for the sustenance of their business and the society. If an organization practices the principles of ethics such as principle of least harm, beneficence, etc. it would be easier for the organizations to comply with the EPA regulations. Government has formulated EPA policies for the good of the society and the organizations’ must voluntarily follow them (deontology).
Part 2.1
Everybody experiences ethical dilemma every now and then in their lives. For many people ethical dilemmas are like weeds in the garden; they reappear after one issue is solved. They can occur anytime and anywhere, and when they strike, they can create psychologically frustrating hiccups. They can impede personal effectiveness and thwart personal and professional achievements. An ethical problem is a complex covert situation that involves moral constraints, and forces one to make a choice. An ethical problem is triggered in a situation of two or more conflicting and competing values which require distinct responses to each one. Ethical conflicts can be simple and direct, or they may be complex and subtle.
In the contexts involving ethics, a person usually views oneself as practicing certain principles, and would weigh the alternatives in decisions based on those principles. The critical aspects in conflicting situation are that the individual can act for both the issues, leave both the issues or choose any one of them. Whatever action the person in quandary takes, it may not satisfy the ethical requirement of one or both the issues and that is why the ethical problems are painful. The issues must have somewhat equal value to the individual, if the ethical requirement of one value dominates the other, then the dilemma cannot occur.
The student intern, Carly LeBlanc is undergoing an ethical dilemma in the case study. Her career, organization and country are equally important to her, but at this moment she cannot choose for all. She must act at the cost of the other. Her career and the organization (Fashionforward) is important to her, at the same time environmental protection and social justice are also her concerns. If she buys the T-shits from Chinese company, she would be saving substantial amount for her organization, but she will be hurting the environment and promoting the social injustice. This situation places Ms. LeBlanc with two questions: ‘What should I do?’ and ‘Why should I do it?’ Ms. LeBlanc is young, early in her career and very effective in marketing strategies. The question is should she worry about the environment and social justice. Her age and stature is misfit for a favorable decision of giving the order to San Francisco based Fair Trade Company. It is apparent that EPA compliance is not required in the case, because neither buying from China is prohibited nor compliance is required for buying non-organic textile. However, the conflict is personal to the Ms. LeBlanc and she must take a decision.
Part 2.2
The matters of ethics, integrity, cooperation, corruption and morality are beyond age, and many youngsters, irrespective of their socio-economic background show keen interest in such matters and practice their own ethics. From a freedom context, Ms. LeBlanc has all the right to stick to her values. But, the current situation seems to be too complex for her to handle. In ethical decision making, not only the personal satisfaction need to be cared, it requires to consider the consequences of decision / actions on others (the stakeholders in the situation). Ms. Le Blanc must be wary of consequences of her ethical action on Chinese vendor and its employees, San Francisco supplier and its producers, the users of the T-shirts, the company (Fashionforward), the Federal government and, of course herself.
After assessing the pros and cons of both the decisions from an ethical perspective, the student intern must take the decision. If she chooses to buy the T-shirts from Chinese supplier, it will benefit Fashionforward, the Chinese supplier and her career positively. While a decision in favor of T-shirt using organic and eco-friendly textiles will help the environment, the fair trade company, and herself (as an environmental activist), but shall bring financial losses to Fashionforward. If she takes decision to go for organic T-shirt, she will be breaching faith invested on her by the company (unless the company has explicit environmental policy). If she goes for Chinese made T-shirts she will be loyal to the company, but will be acting against human health and social justice. One important point Ms. LeBlanc must pay attention is that, though the Californian T-shirt costs higher to the company, it will help the company to position itself as an ethical company among students (who prefer environment friendly materials). Under this circumstance, she should continue her internship and take a decision boldly, because it is going to define her character and personality, and also would influence her career.
Part 2.3
The student intern has just been successful in the viral campaign and guerrilla marketing at sorority centers. Her decision to repeat the successful model to other sorority sites is logical and welcome action. Her enthusiasm, the popularity of the event, the company’s support and the people’s trend of joining the Fashionforward scheme, may not be enduring too long; hence she must act quickly to capture the benefit of her already-working strategy. She must ask for an extension of the internship, not to delay the decision on ethical dilemma, but to consolidate her competence to run an effective marketing campaign. Learning by doing is the best way to acquire skills, hence Ms. LeBlanc must use this opportunity to do the campaign and learn from it. In building a successful career, one of the most important aspects is the knowledge of what happens when things go wrong. The intern must get an extension to advance the marketing project she has undertaken, and boldly take a decision on the ethical matter of ordering T-shirts according to her principles. Once Henry Ford said, “If you think you can – you are right, if you think you can’t! Still you are right. ” Hence Ms. LeBlanc must lead the marketing project and take decisions that will help the company and herself better.
Part 2.4 and Part 2.5
There are many theories and principles that govern ethical decision making. Ethical principles are a set of common goals that determines the priorities of the decision maker in order to be ethically successful. These goals include beneficence, respect for autonomy, least harm, and justice. The principle of beneficence prompts to do what is good. This primacy of intent to do good helps to choose a course of action and makes the dilemma situation vanish. This value of doing good is related to the principle of utility, which posits that largest ratio of good over evil, must be attempted. The second principle of ethics is related to ‘least harm’, which states that when both the choices are not beneficial, accept the least harmful to the people involved in the context. The third is the principle of autonomy, which conveys that people should have the liberty to reign themselves, and an outside force must not interfere in other’s lives or lifestyles.
Along with the principles, there are theories too that explain the phenomenon of ethics. Two theories are very important in the discipline of ethical decisions, i.e. deontology and utilitarianism. According to deontological theory, people should conform to the responsibilities and duties when evaluating an ethical dilemma, which means that a person must follow his or her responsibilities to another individual or community because preserving one's duty is considered ethically right. Deontology prescribes special duties and responsibilities to different people, such as the head of the family, elder brother, mother in law, General manger of the unit, leader of opposition, member of local council, etc.
The utilitarian theory of ethics is based on the ability to foresee the consequences of an action. An action choice that produces the greatest benefit to the most people is ethically right one. One benefit of this theory is that we can compare similar solutions using an evaluation system to determine which choice is more beneficial to the people. The point system acts as a logical basis for each decision. There are two categories of utilitarianism, one act utilitarianism and second, rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, a person must act for the benefit of most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal restrictions. Rule utilitarianism, however, respects the existing laws and is values fairness. A rule utilitarian looks for the benefit of most people through fair and unbiased approach. Rule utilitarianism embraces beneficence and respects justice at the same time.
Ms. LeBlanc is fortunate to have the help of many ethical theories and principles that provide a framework to reach ethically correct decisions, and each principle is valuable. When the issue is looked through a framework (such as the theories and principles mentioned above), it is easy to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the ethical choices available. For example, the EPA mandates has the characteristics of deontology, which stipulates the responsibility of self- policing and the discovery of violation of environmental laws. Any individual or organization, either through formal audit or through accidental observation, discovers violation of federal laws for environment and human health, are supposed to inform the agency voluntarily, or must take action not to repeat the violation. Hence it is the duty of Ms. LeBlanc to avoid the violation of the law .i.e. she knows that Chinese T-shirts are produced using underpaid laborers and environmentally harmful materials, and she would be against the law if she buys from Chinese market. Buying T-shirts from San Francisco may not be pragmatic, but deontologically proper for the student intern. Similarly, from utilitarian angle too buying from San Francisco is ethical. The number of people benefitting from the purchase by Fashionforward is more than buying from Chinese manufacturer. The San Francisco producers and the users (at least 300 people) will be benefitted by the purchase eco-friendly T-Shirts. If she decides for fair trade company, she would also be acting within the principle of beneficence (do good) and acting in the best interests of the company (positioning among customers), users (environment friendly T-shirts), Federal government (effective regulation in environment protection), San Francisco Company (value for fair trade practices) and herself (feeling of principled individual) . When she acts on the principles of ethics it brings greatest value to all stakeholders regardless of the awareness of the benefits.
Part 2.6
The assumption of Ms. LeBlanc that Chinese manufacturers are not treating the laborers fairly is likely to be true. The price of the shirt made in San Francisco is $28.65, while in China, it costs only $ 5.50. Looking at the costs of materials, consumables, transportation and packing of Chinese T-shirts, it can be inferred that there is hardly any margin left for paying for the labor. It is obvious that the Chinese manufacturers are making profits at the cost of laborers or they are losing out in the business; the chances for the latter are unlikely. Though the company may be gaining through the purchase from China, in the long run the cost of environmental degradation and social injustice will be higher than the difference of prices i.e. $ 7,495. The company must look for the long term sustainability rather than concerned with short term profits, for which Ms. LeBlanc must negotiate and raise awareness about the environment and customer positioning, with the top management of Fashionforward.
Part 2.7
Once the ethical problems are framed properly, the next step is to evaluate the courses of actions based on the ethical principles and select the most appropriate one. Utilitarian theory is a tool to assess the course of ethical action. It is very easy to grasp the ethical principles of utilitarianism, but its implications are widespread. With respect to utilitarian principles, all ethical decisions should be for the good of greatest number of people, regardless of who gets offended in the process. According to utilitarian approach, as we have seen earlier, choosing the San Francisco T-shirts is going to help maximum number of individuals. The producer groups associated with the fair trade company, the users of the T-shirt, the federal agency, the Fashionforward Company and many more will be positively benefitted by the decision. However, the Chinese manufacturer and its laborers will be affected negatively, but the number of beneficiaries is more. Hence the decision of placing the order with San Francisco Company is advantageous according to utilitarian theory.
REFERENCES
