Exceeding Pollution Limits
I
Marvin Johnson is Environmental Engineer for Wolfog
Manufacturing, one of several local plants whose water
discharges flow into a lake in a flourishing tourist area.
Included in Marvin's responsibilities is the monitoring of
water and air discharges at his plant and the periodic
preparation of reports to be submitted to the Department of
Natural Resources.
Marvin has just prepared a report that indicates that the
level of pollution in the plant's water discharges slightly
exceeds the legal limitations. However, there is little reason
to believe that this excessive amount poses any danger to
people in the area; at worst, it will endanger a small number
of fish. On the other hand, solving the problem will cost the
plant more than $200,000.
Marvin's supervisor, Plant Manager Edgar Owens, says the
excess should be regarded as a mere "technicality," and he asks
Marvin to "adjust" the data so that the plant appears to be in
compliance. He explains: "We can't afford the $200,000. It
might even cost a few jobs. No doubt it would set us behind our
competitors. Besides the bad publicity we'd get, it might scare
off some of tourist industry, making it worse for
everybody."
How do you think Marvin should respond to Edgar's
request?
II
No doubt many people in the area besides Marvin Johnson and
Edgar Owens have an important stake in how Marvin responds to
Edgar's request. How many kinds of people who have a stake in
this can you think of? [E.g., employees at Wolfog.]
III
Deborah Randle works for the Department of Natural
Resources. One of her major responsibilities is to evaluate
periodic water and air discharge reports from local industry to
see if they are in compliance with anti-pollution requirements.
Do you think Deborah would agree with the Plant Manager's idea
that the excess should be regarded as a "mere
technicality"?
IV
Consider the situation as local parents of children who swim
in the lake. Would they agree that the excess is a "mere
technicality"?
V
A basic ethical principle is "Whatever is right (or wrong)
for one person is right (or wrong) for any relevantly similar
persons in a relevantly similar situation." This is called the
principle of universalizability. Suppose there are several
plants in the area whose emissions are, like Wolfog
Manufacturing's, slightly in excess of the legal limitations.
According to the principle of universalizability, if it is
right for Marvin Johnson to submit an inaccurate report, it is
right for all the other environmental engineers to do likewise
(and for their plant managers to ask them to do so). What if
all the plants submitted reports like the one Edgar Owens wants
Marvin Johnson to submit?
VI
Now that you have looked at the situation at Wolfog from a
number of different perspectives, has your view of what Marvin
Johnson do changed from your first answer?
[This case is an adaptation of "Cover-up Temptation," one of
several short scenarios in Roger Ricklefs, "Executives Apply
Stiffer Standards Than Public to Ethical Dilemmas," The
Wall Street Journal, November 3, 1983.]