The stakeholders in the scenario are the fishes in the lake. Due to the increased and continuous toxic from the industries that drain in to the river and into the lake, the fish might be declared unsafe for human consumption. This is according to the report quoted in the newspaper from a scientist from the university and an environmental group is watching it. Another stakeholder affected in the proposed application of the new technology is the company. Due to its small budget, implementation of such a project will reduce its profits.
Some ethical question asked is whether the companies should invest in new technology and engage in self-regulation on the issue of environmental conservation. Despite their current emission being within the legal parameters, it is ethical and appropriate if the companies would take self-initiatives and carry implement conservation projects before the Environmental Protection Agency chips in with a mandatory rule that may be expensive and time consuming.
The company faces a fix in decision making whether to invest in the project that serves for the interest of the majority, that is, taking protective measures to protect the environment, or its self-objective interest of making profit. This is due to financial incapability of implementing such an expensive technological project. Though the decision is right, the company executives’ examination on its financial impact on the company may decline it. This is because the project will put the company’s environmental compliance department over-budget and therefore jeopardizing the company’s ability to make profit.
The factory is aware that the emissions are harmful to aquatic life yet it is reluctant in implementing conservative measures. Despite the factory’s emission levels being within regulatory limits, Jonica knows that environmental regulations for the toxic emission of his factory are lagging behind scientific evidence.
The factory could initiate a program where the new technology be implemented over a certain period. This means that due to its financial constraints, the factory should allocate annual budget to fund the project with a long-term vision. This will help the company maintain it profit turnovers and achieve its desired method of toxic emission disposal. In addition, it will be prepared for the expected Environmental Protection Agency proposal of new tech in waste disposal. The company will therefore be working within legal limits now and the introduction of such a policy by EPA will have insignificant impacts.
A better short-term method would be appropriate. The factory can ensure a better treatment way of the emission before releasing them to the rivers. This will make them less harmful to the fish and other aquatic life (Morgan, 2010).
Employment of Emission control; the factory does its best to emit the list possible toxic waste it can. This will reduce their concentration in the rivers.
Recycling of the waste will reduce their concentration through reuse of recyclable waste to cut their toxic level. However, the method is becoming unpopular of late and therefore applicable as a short-term measure (Morgan, 2010).
Incineration and burning of plastic wastes emitted by the factory can reduce the adversity of the wastes. This will ensure a safer component of the toxic waste drains into the river. The aquatic life will be safe (Morgan, 2010). As the company waits to implement the updated technology in residue and toxic waste disposal, the company may consider employing these methods for a short-term solution.
References
Morgan, S. (2010). Waste disposal. Mankato: Sea-to-Sea.
