Case 12: Lars and Pollution
Who has moral responsibility for deciding what to do?
In this case we are introduced to Lars Olsen, the current CEO of Electronic Manufacturing Incorporated (EMI). Lars is faced with the ethical dilemma of deciding what to recommend to the board with regards to reducing the cost of recycling their electronic products. EMI is a large manufacturer of wireless mobile devices located in Berengaria, along with all of their consumers. The Berengarian government has recently put into place new environmental legislation, which holds electronic manufacturers responsible for the recycling of any toxic waste found in their products. This legislation outlines that the manufacturers are still legally responsible for the proper …show more content…
The second option would be to send the disposable electronics Kangan, a West-African country where labour is much cheaper and there are no electronic disposal laws. Considering that Lars’ recommendation of how to minimize recycling costs will ultimately be voted and decided on by the board, it can be said that both Lars’ and the rest of the board member’s hold equal moral responsibility in deciding what to do. Lars could potentially suggest an alternative option and convince the board to vote on the alternative, however, when it comes down to it he holds no more or less influence on what the board decides. It is with this in mind that I can say with confidence that the board and Lars hold the moral responsibility of this case’s …show more content…
If EMI were to locate the factory in Berengaria, they would have to consider the shareholders of EMI due the higher cost of labour and strict regulations. We must also consider the considerable long term health issues on the citizens of Berengaria that would be caused by the emissions from the recycling plant. From a non-anthropocentric view, the surrounding wildlife, natural resources and overall ecosystem in Berengaria are also owed moral consideration due to the pollution and environmental damages they would all suffer from. On top of the citizens having their health effected by the emissions, the Berengarian economy would also see implications due to the location of the plant. If businesses workers are forced to take time off due to environmental sickness, then it can be assumed that the businesses themselves will suffer, and in turn the entire economy if health becomes a big enough problem.
To summarize, if the recycling plant is to be located in Berengaria, the EMI shareholders, the Berengarian citizens, wildlife, ecosystem, and economy would all be negatively affected in some way, and thus, are all owed moral
Who has moral responsibility for deciding what to do?
In this case we are introduced to Lars Olsen, the current CEO of Electronic Manufacturing Incorporated (EMI). Lars is faced with the ethical dilemma of deciding what to recommend to the board with regards to reducing the cost of recycling their electronic products. EMI is a large manufacturer of wireless mobile devices located in Berengaria, along with all of their consumers. The Berengarian government has recently put into place new environmental legislation, which holds electronic manufacturers responsible for the recycling of any toxic waste found in their products. This legislation outlines that the manufacturers are still legally responsible for the proper …show more content…
The second option would be to send the disposable electronics Kangan, a West-African country where labour is much cheaper and there are no electronic disposal laws. Considering that Lars’ recommendation of how to minimize recycling costs will ultimately be voted and decided on by the board, it can be said that both Lars’ and the rest of the board member’s hold equal moral responsibility in deciding what to do. Lars could potentially suggest an alternative option and convince the board to vote on the alternative, however, when it comes down to it he holds no more or less influence on what the board decides. It is with this in mind that I can say with confidence that the board and Lars hold the moral responsibility of this case’s …show more content…
If EMI were to locate the factory in Berengaria, they would have to consider the shareholders of EMI due the higher cost of labour and strict regulations. We must also consider the considerable long term health issues on the citizens of Berengaria that would be caused by the emissions from the recycling plant. From a non-anthropocentric view, the surrounding wildlife, natural resources and overall ecosystem in Berengaria are also owed moral consideration due to the pollution and environmental damages they would all suffer from. On top of the citizens having their health effected by the emissions, the Berengarian economy would also see implications due to the location of the plant. If businesses workers are forced to take time off due to environmental sickness, then it can be assumed that the businesses themselves will suffer, and in turn the entire economy if health becomes a big enough problem.
To summarize, if the recycling plant is to be located in Berengaria, the EMI shareholders, the Berengarian citizens, wildlife, ecosystem, and economy would all be negatively affected in some way, and thus, are all owed moral