Companies Ethics: Benzene and Toxic-Tobacco Law Brochure Essay

Benzene exposure

Benzene is a toxic substance if consumed above the recommended minimum levels. The company understands all the regulations that are intended to keep the environment clean and non-toxic to human beings and other animals. The decision by the company to release benzene into the local water resources used for domestic purposes is a real issue of concern.

Professionally, the company will not break any laws by releasing the toxins into water resources. The concentration of the toxic substances will be far much below the recommended levels. This implies that if the toxins are released into water, no harmful effects are anticipated (Harris, Pritchard & Rabins, 2009).

Apart from releasing wastes into water, measures will be put in place that will ensure that the concentration of the toxin in water is significantly reduced to lower levels. If the company will implement this measure, then it will demonstrate its concern of ensuring that drinking water is not harmful to both human beings and animals (Harris, Pritchard & Rabins, 2009).

However, as much as the company knows that the current toxic concentrations are harmless, the underlying policy is to supply people with water that is non-toxic. The inclusion of benzene in water (even with mild concentration level) will still register some percentage toxicity.

If the company plans to put up the machinery that can help to detoxify water, why should it then add the toxic benzene to water? Hence, the company should avoid using benzene. Alternatively, the company ought to put up better and harmless measures that can be used to control toxic substances in water.

Benzene is a very reactive organic compound. Its ability to interact with other organic compounds in water is also quite high. There is a possibility of the multiplication of toxins from benzene once the affected water samples are drank. However, this scenario can be avoided.

It is ethical to avoid a problem rather than creating a solution to the problem (Harris, Pritchard & Rabins, 2009). The process of solving this challenge might result in the eventual use of more resources by the company. The second option directly affects the town’s residents and yet they are not involved in any way in the production of the toxins.

The best solution that can be adopted is to explore other ways of disposing toxins since the negative effects associated with this action outweigh the positive effects. It is ethically wrong for a company to use regulation loopholes to harm human life in an attempt to minimize operating expenses.

The Toxic-Tobacco Law Brochure

This is a proposed law that has some ethical dilemmas. The law is proposing the complete legalization, production, sale and marketing of cigarette products (Toxic-tobacco law, 2012). Currently, many countries have put up measures that regulate greenhouse gas emission. These laws target carbon emissions from automobiles and chemical industries. No country has ever targeted emissions from tobacco product.

If this law comes into force, then the emission of carbon from cigarette smoking will greatly reduce. It was unethical to target an individual emitting carbon from his or her car while leaving behind another culprit emitting carbon by cigarette smoking (Harris, Pritchard & Rabins, 2009). The latter is necessity in an attempt to eradicate the dilemma besides dealing with the various health implications that accompany smoking.

Scenarios of Bribery/Gift Giving

The first case scenario is a gift. The sales representative is using gifts to market products of the company. The company’s name on the mug is only meant for advertisement purposes. If the price of the gift is high, then some suspicion may arise. However, if the conditions are still the same, then it qualifies to be a gift. The absence of company name on the mug may now be seen as a bribe because once the ownership of the mug has been transferred; there is no link between the mug and the company.

The issue of lunch is a normal practice in society. It is a normal gift since it is a form of compensation for the lunch duration taken by other activities. The sales representative has developed a friendship with the customer. It is rather difficult for the representative to be seen bribing the customer. A case scenario whereby the company wishes to sponsor a customer to a seminar is a normal advertisement act. It cannot be viewed as bribery.

The above cases can still qualify to be bribery if the person offering the item or the service does not observe the company’s policy (Harris, Pritchard & Rabins, 2009). If the terms and conditions of the organization are fully observed, then the intention of gifts should be analyzed in order to determine the ethical nature of the procedure or intention. This may sometimes be complicated. Other case scenarios are described in the following paragraphs.

A sales representative agrees to sell company’s products to a client from at subsidized prices provided that the client agrees to stick with the company for one year. In addition, a company may offer a client a free air ticket to any destination across the world provided that the latter accepts to sign a supply contract for the company’s products.

However, the aforementioned cases are complex. They appear to be both bribes and gifts. The evaluation of a company’s policy is also crucial in assessingg whether the cases qualify to be bribes or gifts.

References

Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., Rabins, M. J. (2009). Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning.

Toxic-tobacco law (2012). America’s Respoce to the Predators. Web.