Ardnak Plastic Inc., Emmisions Case
Issues related to environmental conservation have resulted in a dilemma to Ardnak Plastic Inc., which is responsible forenvironmental pollution within the affected region. Companies that contribute to environmental pollution are faced with legal, social, and ethical dilemmas in relation to managing, conserving, andreducing environmental pollution. In the case of “Something’s Rotten in Hondo”,there are a number of ethical dilemmas that face organizations and stakeholders involved in the pollution of the environment. Ardnak Plastic Inc. has established that its emissions were way above the EPA guidelines. The organization is in a dilemma on the direction to take in relation to addressing the issue of excess emissions. Environmental pollution affects various stakeholders thus presenting them with social and ethical dilemmas on the direction to take regarding the reduction of emission in line with the guidelines of the EPA.
First, it is vital to note that all the stakeholders have interests in regard to emissions involved at Hondo by Ardnak Plastic Inc. George Mackee is a stakeholder in his capacity as the manager of Ardnak Plastic Inc. He is a person of interest owing to the crucial role of making decisions that would eventually affect the rate of emission. Bill is also a stakeholder in this case as he takes the position of a plant manager at Ardnak Plastic Inc. At the conany, Bill will be involved in ratifying and approving the decisions taken by George in regard to emissions. He will therefore play a vital role in regulating emissions at the plant. Additionally, the citizens of Hondo are stakeholders since their health will be affected by the emissions. They need to push the company to adhere with the EPA guidelines to ensure that their environment is safe. Therefore, the Honda case presents George, Bill and the citizens of Hondo, who all have an interest to the emissions by Ardnak Plastic Inc.
Legal Analysis
Consequently, the case of Ardnak Plastic Inc. is affected by various environmental laws. The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 is the law that controls the emission of pollutants from industries and manufacturers (Burns, Lynch and Stretesky, 2008). The National ambient air-quality (NAAQs) determines and regulates the quantity of pollutants in the form of compounds, particulates, and toxins that can be released into the atmosphere. The pollutants have a significant contribution to the creation of acidic rain, depletion of stratospheric ozone, and are dangerous to the health of the people. The effluent released into the atmosphere has to be controlled to ensure that the environment and the health of people are fully protected. Equally important, the CAA is actualized through the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are approved by the EPA. Ardnak Plastic Inc. is in violation of the CAA since their emissions exceed those set by the EPA. Therefore, the Hondo case perfectly falls within the environmental laws that ensure that regulation of emissions into the atmosphere.
Ethical Analysis
Various ethical issues arise in the case of Ardnak Plastic Inc. in the course of decisions taken in countering the impacts of emissions. government regulations and fines raise the ethical issue of “pay to play”0000. The pay to play system requires that the fines and penalties imposed on the organizations that violate the EPA guidelines are not enough deterrents.Therefoe, the affected parties can continue violating the regulation and comfortably pay for their damage. Therefore, the fines and penalties on violation of EPA should be tough enough to deter the industries from violation the emission regulations. The relocation of an industry does not change the ethical responsibility rearding the reulation of theemissions. The fact that organizations relocated due to emission restrictions means that the same organization will continue to pollute the environment and this is ethically incorrect. However, the organizations need to make the necessary steps such as investing in the reduction of emissions into the air. The dilemma on whether to end emission that will affect the provisions for families compared to continuing with emissions presents another dilemma. In this case, adhering to the EPA in the interest of environment for common good is ethical compared to violating the rules for personal and family satisfaction. Therefore, violating EPA guidelines in the interest of one’s family is ethically wrong.
Conclusion
It is clear that there are ethical and legal dilemmas that face decision makers in making deliberation regarding emissions. The dilemma in this case includes provisions to make the wrong or right decision in consideration of the interest of various stakeholders. The decisions on issues of environment need to be made based on the common good of everyone in the globe as opposed to the interest of a few parties to ensure that conservation efforts are attained.The emission decision made should be based on laws and policies set by various authorities. The decision makers ought to observe and honor environmental conservation guidelines. Additionally, the decision makers need to make decisions in the interest of the common good as opposed to the individual and organizational interest. Finally, decision makers need to resolve on policies through consultation with the relevant authorities. Consulation during decision making ensures that caution istaken in approaching issues of environmental conservation such that all the relevant guidelines are observed.
References
Burns, R. G., Lynch, M. J., & Stretesky, P. (2008). Environmental law, crime, and justice (p. 103). LFB Scholarly Pub.

Published by

Essays

View all posts