Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility: DuPont Case Study

This discussion post analyzes the unethical practices of DuPont, a science company, focusing on its handling of the toxic chemical C8. The case study details how DuPont knowingly released millions of pounds of C8 into the environment, contaminating water supplies and causing health issues for residents near its chemical plant. Despite internal warnings and evidence of harm, DuPont concealed information, manipulated data, and fought legal battles to protect its profits. The post highlights the role of attorney Rob Bilott in exposing DuPont's actions and the resulting class-action lawsuits. It underscores the severe consequences of corporate irresponsibility, including environmental pollution, health impacts, and the need for stricter ethical standards and accountability for corporate executives. The case study reveals the company's efforts to evade regulatory scrutiny and its use of public relations tactics to downplay the dangers of C8, emphasizing the long-term consequences of prioritizing profits over human and environmental health.

Week 1 Discussion Question

Table of Contents
Answer Discussion Question...........................................................................................................3
References........................................................................................................................................5

Answer Discussion Question
DuPont is a science company which claims to pursue renewable, innovative, sustainable
solutions to make the lives of people on the earth better, safer and healthier. Its strengths in
advanced material, bio-based industrials, agriculture and nutrition address the challenges and
provide solutions to healthier foods, renewable sources, and ample energy. This multinational
company which boasts of introducing Zorvec technology that can give better quality, increased
and improved productivity displayed the most unethical behavior in the world history (DuPont,
2018).
In the early 1980s DuPont ran a chemical plant named Washington Works in the vicinity of
nearby Parkersburg. It purchased the local Tennants land to be used as landfill to dump their
non-toxic material. But this was a big hoax because the Tennants realized that something was
fishy as their farm animals began to die and his family had breathing problems. Convinced that
the landfill was the main culprit, the Tennants hired Rob Bilott, an attorney to file a class-action
lawsuit against DuPont for dumping high levels of toxic chemical C8 in the areas water supplies
(Blake, 2018).
On investigation, it was found that C8 is the chemical used in DuPont’s products Teflon non-
stick cookware across the world. Between 1951 and 2003, DuPont dumped and released million
pounds of C8 in air and water. The material contaminated soils, wells and groundwater and even
reached the Ohio River and flowed into its tributaries. In 2005, residents around 2 miles of
Parkersburg showed high levels of C8 in their blood stream as per the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) guidelines (Mordock, 2016).
Rob Bilott took up this case and exposed DuPont’s long history of chemical pollution and
exposed its corrupt practices and its unethical behavior. Despite the scientists of University of

Columbia’s claims that exposure to Teflon and vinyl causes cancer, DuPont just ignored it.
Instead, the American Chemistry Council hired Hill & Knowlton which deployed all tactics to
prove that Teflon was safe. When its Teflon coated Happy Pan rolled out, the chief toxicologist,
Dorothy Hood at DuPont cautioned the company against the toxic effects of C8 but DuPont
ignored because it brought huge business. The female workers exposed to C8 gave birth to
deformed babies but the doctors at DuPont played the blame game (Nair, 2017).
Despite knowing the clear dangers of C8, DuPont did not inform the hazardous effects of this
chemical to its workers nor did it take any safety precautions. Thousands of employees handled
this chemical with bare hands and developed asthma, stomach pain, diarrhea, liver swelling, and
other health hazards. DuPont was the areas supplier of economic life blood - job versus health
and thus no one spoke against it. The company would shell off money, pay fine, bamboozle
regulators of EPA, evade regulatory crackdown, and continued to pump the toxins in the
environment. It even destroyed the documents of the chemical and when in 2003, it was proved
in class-action suit that C8 was toxic, DuPont brought in ‘product defense’ firm which later on
established and propagated that C8 is not toxic “but that it offers real health benefits” (The
Editorial Board, 2016).
In this manner, DuPont concealed evidence of the harmful effects of C8 on the environment and
the living beings in the surrounding areas. The findings revealed that there is a ‘probable link’
between C8 and six conditions which include kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis,
thyroid disease, birth deformities, miscarriage and other life threatening conditions. DuPont was
sued a class action lawsuit for contaminating water and tampering with the regulations. It agreed
to fund medical monitoring programs and install water treatment systems. Three law firms Hill,
Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, PLC, are representing people and fighting the C-8 class action

litigation so that people get fair justice and DuPont gets punishment for violating environmental
laws and endangered lives of people and other habitat by exposing them to toxic chemicals. Had
it not been for these three firms, Tennants and Rob Bilott, DuPont would have continued to
pump in toxins in the world for its selfish gains (Hill Peterson Carper, 2018).
Although, DuPont has agreed to pay $671 million cash to settle the class action lawsuits, but the
company has no remorse. Now, it is using the cousins of C8 like C5, C6, C7, C9 and C10 whose
effects on human health are unknown. From the above case study it is evident that DuPont used
unethical means to serve its selfish ends. It played with people’s emotions, manipulated their
needs, paid them in cash and kind and deprived them of their basic rights. DuPont purposefully
poisoned the community and environment for decades and used all corrupt means to justify its
actions. The acts are unpardonable and need much harsher statements than just paying in cash or
kind for knowingly crippling a community for decades. The executives responsible for these
heinous acts must be charged with the most criminal charges for deliberately destroying the
world for mere profits of the company (Soylent News, 2015).
References
Blake, M. (2018). Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia. Retrieved may 9, 2018,
from Huffingtonpost.com: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-
beautiful-parkersburg/
DuPont. (2018). Overcoming Global Challenges. Retrieved may 9, 2018, from Dupont.com:
http://www.dupont.com/corporate-functions/our-approach/global-challenges.html
Hill Peterson Carper. (2018). C8 Class Action Settlement. Retrieved may 9, 2018, from
Hpcbd.com: https://www.hpcbd.com/Personal-Injury/DuPont-C8/C8-Class-Action-

Settlement.shtml
Mordock, J. (2016). Taking on DuPont: Illnesses, deaths blamed on pollution from W. Va. plant.
Retrieved may 9, 2018, from The News Journal:
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2016/04/01/dupont-illnesses-deaths-
c8/81151346/
Nair, A. S. (2017, February 13). DuPont settles lawsuits over leak of chemical used to make
Teflon. Retrieved may 9, 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-du-pont-lawsuit-
west-virginia-idUSKBN15S18U
Soylent News. (2015, August 28). Historic and Pervasive Corruption With DuPont Reveals
Premeditated Poisoning of the World. Retrieved May 9, 2018, from Soylentnews.org:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/08/28/0150244
The Editorial Board. (2016, January 12). Despite Clear Dangers, DuPont Kept Using a Toxic
Chemical. Retrieved may 9, 2018, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/despite-clear-dangers-dupont-kept-using-
a-toxic-chemical.html