Priya Blue

This paper considers the ethical dilemmas in the Priya Blue case.

1. What is a stakeholder?

→ A stakeholder is a person or group of people who can affect or are affected by an action or policy.

2. Who are your stakeholders as the owner of the Norway?

Ð'* Environmentalists

Ð'* Myself, my employees, my BOD.

Ð'* My family, the families of my employees, the families of my BOD.

Ð'* My stockholders

Ð'* Consumers of seafood taken from areas where materials from Alana may "infect"

Ð'* Workers of Priya Blue and their families

Ð'* Owers and operators of Priya Blue

3. You sold the rights to break up the Norway to another company, Priya Blue Industries. Do you have any responsibility for how Priya Blue decides to break up the ship?

→ Yes. The manner in which Priya Blue operates was deemed acceptable as a part of the sales contract, at least by implication.

4. Imagine that Priya Blue is not part of the case and that YOU Ð'- as the CEO of Big Shipping Company Ð'- are responsible for breaking down your own ship. Identify three possible strategies for breaking down the ship and the possible consequences of each strategy.

→ Lowest cost. This strategy involves the process that is the lowest cost to the company, regardless of other considerations.

Consequence Ð'- The problems here seem obvious. This strategy takes advantage of low cost labor in a country where environmental regulations are lax. The workers are at risk, both in the short- and long-terms. The workers families share that risk and are possibly at higher risk (loss of male may result in negative financial and social situations). The environment immediately in the area of the shipbreaking yard is suffering due to a lack of environmental protections. The extended environment will suffer due to winds and ocean currents. Organisms who use the affected environment (e.g. sealife) will also suffer. Organisms that eat from the affected environment (e.g. fish feeding in the affected area, creatures that eat fish from the affected area) will suffer.

→ Least Impact. This strategy involves breaking the ship in the safest manner possible given the environmental regulations in place in the country Big Shipping Company is incorporated (spirit of the laws).

Consequence Ð'- This strategy is potentially very costly. There is the positive consequence of controlling the process and oversight of the process. This strategy Ð''feels' good and right because one tends to not pollute the environment from which one eats and drinks. There is a potential for catastrophe, but the probability is higher for that event in a less controlled (e.g. low cost) environment. The company can leverage this type of behavior by embracing this behavior and marketing themselves as environmentally responsible.

→ NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). This strategy involves breaking the ship but not in the vicinity of communities opposed to this type of industry in their area.

Consequence Ð'- This strategy is heard by groups when an industrial site or activity is proposed in their community. The practical result is that the ability to Ð''do the right thing' is hampered and potentially negative results are realized