Case Study

In this case, the stakeholders of the chemical refinery company include the shareholders, employees, the government, and the community. Shareholders own the company, the employees run processes, the government regulates the company, and the community consumes the products and effects of the company.

Resolving the dumb requires a collaboration of the top management to create a seamless strategy, which would not detrimentally affect the company. I would convince the management to redesign the organization such that the need for bigger capacity is apparent to stakeholders and the community. Thus, the company would appear as growing, and any people would be willing to buy the company stocks. Then, I would declare a project to increase in capacity, in which the dump would be corrected simultaneously due to its old age.

Yes, I would be morally obligated. It is important to make a disclosure but at the right time. Wrong timing may damage the company’s reputation.

Wrong timing, such as announcing about the dump too soon, would create insecurities from shareholders. Others may sue the company for contamination. This may be a detrimental hit on Wall Street. Besides, the government may investigate the company, find the mistakes, and flag the company.

Yes. My desire to correct the mistake warrants me a wise and informed consent to save the company. Disclosing to the community and the shareholders would be detrimental, and they should not know about the situation, until the two years. Nevertheless, I think it would be okay to disclose to the government about the issue and the correction program or the strategies to take responsibility.