Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility Dilemma and Solutions

This case study examines an ethical dilemma faced by Kirk, an assistant controller in a manufacturing firm. The company's president and other managers have decided not to upgrade the waste treatment system, despite the environmental impact of a new plant. Kirk grapples with the conflict between his environmental accountability and the company's decision. The analysis identifies stakeholders such as the president, chemical engineer, and controller, and evaluates potential actions for Kirk, including leaving the company, ignoring the issue, expressing disapproval, or partnering with environmentalists. The paper recommends that Kirk partner with environmentalists to advocate for stricter federal regulations, aligning his actions with corporate social responsibility and the common good. The case study utilizes ethical decision-making approaches such as utilitarian, justice, rights, common good, and virtue to arrive at the optimal solution.

Running head: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 1
Corporate Social Responsibility
Student’s (Name)
Institution

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILY 2
Introduction
Ethics are moral guidelines, standards and behaviors that inform how we should act in
situations that we are confronted with whether formal or informal (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015).
These decisions in some cases are very difficult to make especially if they are differences in
basis of ethical standards and their application (Lehnert, et al. 2016). An ethical dilemma is
presented before Kirk an assistant controller in a manufacturing firm challenging his corporate
social responsibility .This paper seeks to explore into the nature of this dilemma by providing all
the relevant facts, the stakeholders , the ethical issues involved and finally the best practical
solution to Kirks dilemma. The decision will be based on a combination of approaches to making
ethical decision which are utilitarian approach, justice approach, rights approach, common good
approach and virtue approach (Wittmer, 2016).
Analysis and Recommendations
Kirk, the assistant controller is in a dilemma on what to do next after the president,
chemical engineer, controller and other managers have decided that the waste treatment system
should not be upgraded despite the new manufacturing plant that the company has added to the
current location. Their decision is based on the fact that the manufacturing plant does not violate
the federal regulation though it will go against the industry standards which are more stringent
than the government regulations, thus affecting the environment negatively. Kirk recognizes his
need for environmental accountability according to corporate social responsibility but at the
same time he recognizes the politics in play, this confusion has led to him thinking of leaving the
company.
The stakeholders in this case are Bob the president of the manufacturing company ,John
the chemical engineer ,Henry the controller and other managers. These managers are set to

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILY 3
benefit from the decision of failing to upgrade the waste treatment facility since it will reduce
expenses.
The decisions that Kirk can make are
Leaving the company : Kirk may decide to leave the company without any complains.
This mean he would have lost his job and any aspirations he had of becoming the controller .
When Kirk does this, he would have saved himself from the guilt of polluting the environment,
but the situation of environmental polluting would continue since the facility will operate as
usual earning its revenue , therefore ,either way untreated waste would continue dripping into the
environment. This decision would not have benefitted Kirk nor the environment equally
(Grayson & Hodges, 2017).
Ignoring the issue: Kirk may decide to ignore this issue of upgrading the waste treatment
facility continuing with his work as the assistant controller. With this he would be waiting to be
the controller which would mean more privileges. In doing this he would live with the guilt of
ignoring the untreated waste from the new plant ,however, he could continue with his work
hoping that there will reach a time when the industrial regulations would have been at per with
the federal regulations in order for the firm to upgrade the waste treatment facility.
Express his disapproval to the managers and the president: Kirk could decide to find a
way to express his disapproval regarding the decision made by the managers and the president
through a letter or other means such as rallying the other employees to demonstrate against that
move. While this might help in temporarily stopping the new plant from operating it might lead
to Kirk still losing his job and dreams of becoming the controller.
Partnership with environmentalists: Kirk may decide to partner with other
environmentalists to pressure for better federal standards while the manufacturing company’s

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILY 4
new plant operates. This decision will see him continuing to do his job while at the same time
fighting for an upgrade in the company indirectly, the only problem with this approach will be if
the environmentalist fail to succeed in their push for better regulations in the federal level.
Most of the decisions available for Kirk affects his position and dreams within the
company for the benefit of the community due to corporate social responsibility, yet, the best
approach should result to benefit of Kirk and the environment (Wang & Calvano, 2015). The
best approach therefore is to partner with environmentalist in championing for the federal
regulations to be stringent.
Conclusion
In conclusion , Kirk does not have to quit his job as a result of guilt or failure to uphold
corporate social responsibility since this will not solve the situation in question, instead he
should join the environmentalists on championing for more stringent regulations. This decision
will be for the common good of every stakeholder, enabling Kirk not to lose a sense of who he is
eve in trying to make the best moral decision in his position (Crowther, & Seifi, (Eds.) (2018).

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILY 5
Reference
Crowther, D., & Seifi, S. (Eds.). (2018). Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility. Emerald
Group Publishing.
Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Nelson
Education.
Grayson, D., & Hodges, A. (2017). Corporate social opportunity!: Seven steps to make
corporate social responsibility work for your business. Routledge.
Lehnert, K., Craft, J., Singh, N., & Park, Y. H. (2016). The human experience of ethics: A
review of a decade of qualitative ethical decision‐making research. Business ethics: A
European review, 25(4), 498-537.
Wang, L. C., & Calvano, L. (2015). Is business ethics education effective? An analysis of
gender, personal ethical perspectives, and moral judgment. Journal of Business
Ethics, 126(4), 591-602.
Wittmer, D. P. (2016). Developing a behavioral model for ethical decision making in
organizations: Conceptual and empirical research. In Ethics in public management (pp.
57-77). Routledge.

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILY 6