The organizational business management is required to act ethically to all stakeholders including the employees, government, and community among others. The primary stakeholders in a business are the employees who directly contribute to the success or failure of a given business entity (Werhane, Freeman, & Dmytriyev, 2017). The government and environmental groups also have a responsibility in enforcing due diligence to organizations and persons who are engaged in environmental pollution. In the event where the MKD transportation is involved in environmental pollution, ethical issues arise and it is the role of the management to respond appropriately to the claims.
Question 1: Ethical Management Behaviour towards Employees
The management of MKD has a moral obligation towards their employees. In any organizational setup, ethical corporate culture is determined by the management commitment and willingness to take responsibility for the implementation of ethics standards (Grayson, & Hodges, 2017). Some of the matters that the ethical behavior towards employees may cover includes; provision of a suitable working environment, inclusiveness in decision making. The management of MKD should ensure that the employee’s safety and security are guaranteed at the place of work, and the employees paid fairly and provided with benefits where applicable. The management should also ensure that a smooth communication channel to ensure that workers can communicate their views, opinions, and ideas.
Question 2: MKD's responsibilities toward the environment
MKD bears the responsibility of protecting the environment beyond the provision of the available legal framework. Engagement in environmental protection strategies guarantees business benefits in the long term (Tai, & Chuang, 2014). In the MKD situation, the general public is exposed to different line of thoughts depending on the organizational response to the leaking of the oily substances off the coast of Belize. The general public would expect the organization to be engaged in efforts to offset the caused pollution. If the organization only responds due to coercion from the government and environment groups, the public would think that MKD has neglected the moral obligation of protecting the environment and thereby be inclined to believe that MKD Company is engaged in other undiscovered environmental pollution activities like waste disposal to the water bodies.
Question 3: MKD Obstructionist Stance
The MKD transporters can opt to employ the obstructionist stance to the pollution media report. In doing so, the company will deny the allegation that oily substances were spilled to the water body. Terming the report as propaganda by the media to ruin the reputation of MKD will redirect the public attention in pushing the organization to clean up the purported damage. For example, to delay or avoid responsibility, the organization will move to the court to prevent the government and the environment groups from taking action to the MKD until thorough investigations are done. The probes may take longer and also the evidence may fade away at the site thereby inhibiting cleanup strategies.
Question 4: MKD Defensive Stance
MKD can also employ defensive stance by justifying that the organization was not in breach of any legal obligation. The organization will claim that the pollution was as a result of negligence by the captain of the ship since he or she did not report the matter in time and not negligence on the part of the firm. To avoid responsibility, for example, the organization will claim that the ship responsible for the spillage was not one of their own; a claim that would stand if no evidence is available since MKD is not the only transporting company operating in the Belize waters.
Question 5: MKD Accommodative Stance
MKD can also apply accommodative stance by going beyond the legal requirements to clean up the mess caused. The company will apologize for the harm caused and also provide all the necessary facts as a show of accountability. For example, the company will be engaged in cleaning up of the marine environment not only as required by the government but also in other areas that need maintenance. The efforts will make all stakeholders know that MKD is a firm believer in social responsibility.
Question 5: MKD Proactive Stance to Social Responsibility
If MKD had adopted a proactive stance in response to the pollution, the situation would have been different because the information would not have gotten to the media yet and the government and the environmental groups would not have resulted to forcing the organization to act responsibly. In so doing, MKD would have been regarded as an excellent example of environmental responsibility building the organizations reputation. The spillage would also have not spread to a broader area, and thus the cleanup costs would be less.
Part B
Pricing Objective
Ruined reputation is one of the situations that would force a company to adopt pricing objectives rather than profit maximization (Grayson, & Hodges, 2017). For example, if an organization has lost customers due to the negligence of social responsibility, an organization may adopt pricing objective to win back the customers trust thereby gaining a competitive advantage. A bad reputation also destroys the goodwill towards an organization by various stakeholders leading to reduced customers.
References
Grayson, D., & Hodges, A. (2017). Corporate social opportunity!: Seven steps to make corporate social responsibility work for your business. Routledge.
Tai, F. M., & Chuang, S. H. (2014). Corporate social responsibility. Business, 6(03), 117.
Werhane, P. H., Freeman, R. E., & Dmytriyev, S. (Eds.). (2017). Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
