Us Chemical Company Case Study

Desi Gallegos

Business Ethics

Professor Mike Gough

U.S Chemical Company Case Study

Groups benefited:

If I was the product manager for a line of insecticides and pesticides produced by a large U.S. chemical company and I was given the option to send the agricultural authority, which represent all countries in North and East Africa, $25 million worth of Dieldrin there would be multiple groups benefited.  The first group to benefit would my company. My company has easy access to convert one of our existing processes to manufacture the chemical Dieldrin at a low cost. Along with the achievable process, we would be increasing not only our sales but also our profit figures, which overall benefits our company as well. If my company is benefited from this decision, then I will evidently be benefited as well. I will be able to be on a competitive level with the rest of the firms operating in this branch of business. Along with my company, and myself another group being benefited would be the agriculture authorities. By sending them these specific pesticides, they will be able to essentially kill of the locusts that are becoming a large problem to their land and crops. 20%-30% of total crop is destroyed in a bad year due to the locust problem. Therefore if they received Dieldrin, North and East Africa could potentially put an end to the destruction. Landowners would be another group benefited by receiving Dieldrin. Because of the destruction of crops, landowners begin to face financial losses. They are not able to produce the amount of crops they usually do due to the locust killing the vegetation. The last group that would benefit from the shipping of Dieldrin would be the poor. Since there are fewer crops, prices would rise in correlation. If Dieldrin were sent, it would potentially control the locust problem, resulting in more vegetation and crops as well as lower and more suitable costs.

Groups harmed:

        On the opposing side, if I were to send Dieldrin to this country there are groups that can potentially be harmed by this decision. Animals are one of the existing groups that would be harmed. It was recorded in the 1970’s that there was a decline of birds as well as other animals that lived in the wild; this was one of the reasons why Dieldrin was banned. Although it does kill off locusts and other insects that have a “grub stage”, it tends to affect other animals that come into contact with this toxic pesticide. Another grouped that will be harmed is the farmers and their families. There were reported illnesses and deaths where Dieldrin was applied. This is due to the fact that Dieldrin builds up in the liver, and begins to cause illnesses. Studies had shown that in places where Dieldrin was extensively used, liver related illness had increased a whole 4.8%; another reasoning behind the banning of Dieldrin. By sending this toxic chemical, benefiting myself will also be counteracted and I could be harmed as well. Although a corporate attorney said, I would be upheld in the courts, I am still risking that chance that an environmental group could hear about this issue and could question me in court. Also the Senior Vice President told me that you he was sure I would make the right decision. If I send this chemical and someone gets sick or there is a slight chance that the locusts become immune, I then have the liability on my shoulders.

Extended/Uncertain consequences:

        (1) Dieldrin could cause sicknesses in the animals and people would be the first extended consequence that could be perceived to happen. Since it has already been proven that extensive use of this toxic chemical has effected not only the environment, but also peoples’ health, there is going to be a high risk of this happening again when the use of the chemical is put into place.

        (2) If I were to send these troubled countries Dieldrin, I am then putting my company at risk of getting not only myself but also my company in trouble. Although this would help our competitiveness and profit, Dieldrin was already banned due to the build-up of toxic residues in birds, animals, and causing the illnesses to farm workers and families. This toxin is obviously banned for a reason, and although it is not necessarily illegal to do so, sending this chemical could cause potential court issues.

        (3) If I don’t send them this chemical then the locust problem could potentially worse. Locust do already contribute to the poverty, so if nothing is done soon then the locust could lead to the starvation or mass malnutrition of this area. Not getting the locust under control is putting this area at major risk of larger problems.

Alternatives:

        (1) Since studies provided showed that illnesses increased 4.8% when Dieldrin had been “extensively” used, an alternative would be to ship small amounts of Dieldrin. This could prevent possible sicknesses of both animals and people, but still maintain the locust problems. Since this product is so toxic, if smaller amounts are used in fully aware atmosphere then these sicknesses could possibly be prevented.