Chemical Waste Management<\/p>\n
Student\u2019s Name<\/p>\n
Course Code and Number<\/p>\n
Instructor\u2019s Name<\/p>\n
Date of Submission<\/p>\n
Question 1<\/p>\n
Oftentimes, top management in organizations face a dilemma in daily operations and management when it comes to profitability. An illustration of this is meeting the profit margins of the investors and on the other side meeting corporate social responsibility as required by other stakeholders such as the communities living around where the organization operates (Shanker, 2019). The top management may be having the option of dumping chemical waste such as chromium VI in water bodies to cut the expenses incurred if the right procedures are to be followed in order to dump such chemical waste properly. On the flip side of the coin, the surrounding community will have expectations that organizations are required to act ethically and manage their waste using the most appropriate means that will conserve the environment for the coming generations (Yoshinaga et al., 2018). I may not be convinced to let my firm to dump chemical waste such as chromium VI in water bodies. This is because the short-term gains by cutting operational costs for the organization will be outweighed by the long-term effects of dumping such chemical wastes in the water supply. In certain situations, the organization may lose its operating licence and be ordered to shut down. <\/p>\n
Chromium discharged in bodies of water has the potential to contaminate water and soil. Since chromium is highly attached to soil and is often retained within the silt layer of\u00a0the environment but not\u00a0within the groundwater reservoir, water contamination is fairly\u00a0limited to surface water and will not damage groundwater (Tumolo et al., 2020). When\u00a0water is\u00a0contaminated, it does not accumulate in fish, but it does collect on the gills, creating detrimental health impacts in aquatic species. Furthermore,\u00a0chromium absorption usually leads to escalated\u00a0rates of mortality\u00a0in fish owing to chromium\u00a0contamination. When other animals consume chromium-contaminated water, the health impacts can range from tumour formation, respiratory problems, infertility, reduced capacity for fighting diseases, and birth defects. <\/p>\n
For humans, not only is chromium VI carcinogenic but also come with a range of other health associated problems such as ulcers, allergic reactions, liver damage, skin rush, kidney and liver damage, and may sometimes go to extreme extents such as death (Wojcik et al., 2020). Contamination of water by chromium VI not only cause health problems to human and animals but also may result to penalties and fines by the government for improper disposal. There also exist high chances for corporate image to be damaged as a result of increased consciousness among individuals. Increase use of social media may exacerbate the problems that come with damaged corporate image as this may increase the likelihood of public unrest from the communities living within the vicinity of the organization. All these effects combined will do more harm to the organization thereby rendering the short-term goals of cutting operational costs useless. <\/p>\n
Question 2<\/p>\n
Top management teams are more likely to engage in unethical behaviours in comparison to their individual members. In unpredictable circumstances, most people have questions concerning\u00a0their own judgment (Hassan, 2019). These fears keep individuals from doing things that others might consider to be unethical. Individuals have increased likelihood to participate in their acts whenever\u00a0they have other supporting colleagues who may\u00a0legitimize or support their actions. Often at times, cohesion within the management teams encourage unethical behaviour because affirmation is more probable from fellow colleagues in the management team (Johnson et al., 2018). Due to the cohesiveness found within the members of a management team, they\u00a0may be able to share blame with others whenever they are detected behaving unethically, further\u00a0to receiving social support. The distribution of responsibility that comes with\u00a0making decision as a group\u00a0is perhaps\u00a0the primary reason why people behave differently in groups.<\/p>\n
It is worth noting that both factors, that is,\u00a0social support and responsibility distribution, indicates\u00a0that cohesiveness enhances the likelihood of unethical behaviour since coherence prevents questionable behaviour from being classified as unethical,\u00a0either through the reduction of\u00a0critical thinking or via the\u00a0social support (Grzesiuk, 2016). Although belonging to a coherent team influences one’s view of an action’s ethicality and hence aids immoral behaviour, cohesion may influence one’s inclination to act even if one’s imminent action is perceived as unethical due to post hoc reasoning. Individuals should be able to rationalize their behaviour in order to act in a way that they believe is unethical. Individuals make such reasons largely to themselves, therefore belonging to a coherent team will indeed\u00a0provide a stronger self-justification.\u00a0 Another\u00a0reason why people are more inclined to act unethically in groups in comparison to action on an individual basis\u00a0is because their acts might be justified as serving the group’s interests. In conclusion, social support and responsibility dispersion enable unethical behaviour by creating a setting for doubtful activities to be classified as ethical, whereas rationalization encourages unethical behaviour even when it is classified as unethical.<\/p>\n
Individuals in cohesive organizations understand that their fellow members are extremely dedicated and devoted to the group, and they anticipate elevated levels\u00a0of reciprocity from them. This devotion may be founded on strong personal bonds among team members, although it may be especially strong in groups that are extremely dedicated to attain task-related objectives such as increasing organizations profitability (Lian et al., 2020). This may result in\u00a0the perception that others members within the group may be more\u00a0willing to take accountability for some of their acts, particularly if their acts are driven by a desire to help the entire\u00a0group. Furthermore, individuals of coherent teams identify more with other individuals within\u00a0the group and, as a result, have a larger perception that they can effectively comprehend the group’s intentions and aspirations (De Cremer & Vandekerckhove, 2017). This may indeed\u00a0allow them to behave more boldly on behalf of the entire\u00a0group, knowing that the other teammates will support them. It is also\u00a0worth noting that views of other group members do not have to be true because they have implications for conduct regardless of their correctness. Nevertheless, a person’s ideas concerning\u00a0others assuming accountability for an activity that positively\u00a0serves the group could be valid, in the sense that team members may regard abandoning a team mate who has done an activity\u00a0unethically to serve\u00a0the group’s interest\u00a0to be mistaken. <\/p>\n
This group distribution of accountability for the repercussions of their choices and acts may limit critical thinking, which would be less\u00a0likely to occur if an individual were to act on an individual basis and\u00a0bear\u00a0the repercussions of his or her decisions alone (Hosain, 2019). Diffusion of accountability reduces the urge to think critically in relation to a\u00a0planned action, which increases the likelihood to act unethically. People are likely to use their critical thinking abilities to evaluate a form of action if everyone else share in the repercussions,\u00a0both positive and negative, in comparison to when\u00a0they bear\u00a0the ramifications alone. People can participate in immoral behaviour without realizing it because of a lack of critical engagement.<\/p>\n
Question 3<\/p>\n
The outcomes of the two cases, Pacific Gas and Electric which resulted to a direct lawsuit of 333 million dollars and Rongping which amounted to 105,000 dollars in compensation for the communities who suffered the negative impacts of chromium disposed by the two firms. The outcomes of these two cases may have a positive impact on the ethical decisions of management teams in the future. Laws and ethics are virtually everywhere within the societies. They control the actions of people from day to day. The two, law and ethics, usually work together to ensure that individuals behave in a certain manner as well as coordinate the efforts of management teams aimed at protecting the welfare, health and safety of the general public (Zhang, He, & Sun, 2018). While laws encompass different forms of punishment for their violations, on the other hand, ethics do not. In essence, laws usually enforce the conduct that individuals ought to follow whilst ethics suggest what individuals ought to follow and assist them in exploring the options available in order to make the most appropriate decision. <\/p>\n
In the case of management teams and ethics, even though law and ethics are two different things and are not co-extensive, the negative outcomes from the two firms will compel individuals in management positions to act in a manner that does not jeopardize the health, safety and the welfare of the general public. Even if some may sometimes have the urge to act unethically to meet the interests of the organizations, or be willing to act unethically due to the cohesiveness within the management teams, lawsuits and other repercussions for unethical conduct such as shut down will compel these individuals to act in an ethical way (Fehr et al., 2019). It is true that ethical decision making arises from one\u2019s moral sense or in some cases the desire to maintain a good personal and brand image, the consequences of law suit will surely force individuals and organizations to make ethical decisions just to ensure that they remain in business. Organizations will be more conscious of their actions in the future and hence top management will take whatever actions to ensure that they do not go against the law even if it means firing certain individuals. <\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
De Cremer, D., & Vandekerckhove, W. (2017). Managing unethical behavior in<\/p>\n
organizations: The need for a behavioral business ethics approach.\u00a0Journal of Management & Organization,\u00a023(3), 437-455. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1017\/jmo.2016.4Fehr, R., Welsh, D., Yam, K. C., Baer, M., Wei, W., & Vaulont, M. (2019). The role of moral <\/p>\n
decoupling in the causes and consequences of unethical pro-organizational behavior.\u00a0Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,\u00a0153, 27-40.<\/p>\n
Grzesiuk, K. (2016). Unethical Behaviour of Organisations from a Social Network<\/p>\n
Perspective. A Literature Review.\u00a0Annales. Etyka w \u017cyciu gospodarczym,\u00a019(4), 23-37. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.18778\/1899-2226.19.4.02Hassan, S. (2019). We need more research on unethical leadership behavior in public<\/p>\n
organizations. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10999922.2019.1667666Hosain, M. S. (2019). Unethical pro-organisational behaviour: Concepts, motives and<\/p>\n
unintended consequences.\u00a0Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation,\u00a015(4), 133-137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177%2F2319510X19883084Johnson, K. J., Martineau, J. T., Kouam\u00e9, S., Turgut, G., & Poisson-de-Haro, S. (2018). On <\/p>\n
the unethical use of privileged information in strategic decision-making: The effects of peers\u2019 ethicality, perceived cohesion, and team performance.\u00a0Journal of Business Ethics,\u00a0152(4), 917-929.<\/p>\n
Lian, H., Huai, M., Farh, J. L., Huang, J. C., Lee, C., & Chao, M. M. (2020). Leader <\/p>\n
unethical pro-organizational behavior and employee unethical conduct: Social learning of moral disengagement as a behavioral principle.\u00a0Journal of Management, 0149206320959699. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177%2F0149206320959699Shanker, A. K. (2019). Chromium: environmental pollution, health effects and mode of<\/p>\n
action. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/B978-0-12-409548-9.11575-1Tumolo, M., Ancona, V., De Paola, D., Losacco, D., Campanale, C., Massarelli, C., &<\/p>\n
Uricchio, V. F. (2020). Chromium pollution in European water, sources, health risk, and remediation strategies: an overview.\u00a0International journal of environmental research and public health,\u00a017(15), 5438. https:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.3390%2Fijerph17155438W\u00f3jcik, G., Wieszczycka, K., Aksamitowski, P., & Zembrzuska, J. (2020). Elimination of <\/p>\n
carcinogenic chromium (VI) by reduction at two-phase system.\u00a0Separation and Purification Technology,\u00a0238, 116410.<\/p>\n
Yoshinaga, M., Ninomiya, H., Al Hossain, M. A., Sudo, M., Akhand, A. A., Ahsan, N., … &<\/p>\n
Kato, M. (2018). A comprehensive study including monitoring, assessment of health effects and development of a remediation method for chromium pollution.\u00a0Chemosphere,\u00a0201, 667-675. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chemosphere.2018.03.026Zhang, Y., He, B., & Sun, X. (2018). The contagion of unethical pro-organizational behavior:<\/p>\n
From leaders to followers.\u00a0Frontiers in psychology,\u00a09, 1102. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fpsyg.2018.01102<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chemical Waste Management Student\u2019s Name Course Code and Number Instructor\u2019s Name Date of Submission Question 1 Oftentimes, top management in<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n