Sivasankar Karunagaran

PGXPM 152SIK

Whistleblowing & the Environment:

the Case of Avco Environmental

What should Chantale do?

Avco Environmental Services is making more money by endangering the public than by
protecting the public. From the views of corporate social responsibility Chantale Leroux has
reasons to blow the whistle, and it's makes complete sense to see herself obligated to society
when she blows the whistle on their company. Her Company and her manager both focused on
profit and not on safety or public welfare. This conflict with her view of protecting Public.

Media is the first alternative she thinks of which might be a good option to consider. She is
trying to reach out to her old friend whom she believes will protect her. She believes
investigative ability of media organizations is compares with and in some circumstances is
superior to that displayed by law-enforcement or regulatory agencies. Its understandable that
respected media friends wont publish or broadcast anything without evidence. And very often,
the press is the only accessible entity that ensures wrongdoers are eventually exposed.

If she is in US , She could also file a complaint that can be filed either in writing by fax or mail
to the administrator's office) or by OSHA's online submission form. There is a tight 30- day time
limitation and hence she should file the complaint as soon as possible. She is protected under
environmental laws Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA, also called RCRA). The Department of Labor provides protection for her under the
above mentioned federal environment law
OSH Act prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees for exercising their
rights under the OSH Act. These rights include filing an OSHA complaint, participating in an
inspection or talking to an inspector, seeking access to employer exposure and injury records,
reporting an injury, and raising a safety or health complaint with the employer. If workers have
been retaliated or discriminated against for exercising their rights, they must file a complaint
with OSHA within 30 days of the alleged adverse action. So if she needs protection after whistle
blowing she can very much approach OSHA for her safety.

In conclusion, Ethics and ethical behavior help run a healthy business using a code of ethics, our
morals, and our values. In a difficult situation, whistle-blowing can help prevent future conflict.
Every dilemma has a solution and the best solution is the best ethical decision.

What are the reasonable limits on loyalty to one's employer?

When reporting another person's or company unethical behavior to a third party often
constitutes a conflict between competing moral concerns. Whistleblowing promotes justice and
fairness but can also appear disloyal. Studies demonstrate that a fairnessloyalty tradeoff predicts
people's willingness to blow the whistle. It demonstrates that individual differences in valuing
fairness over loyalty predict willingness to report unethical behavior. It also demonstrates that
experimentally manipulating endorsement of fairness versus loyalty Increases willingness to
report unethical behavior. Some people recall their decisions to report unethical behavior as
driven by valuation of fairness, whereas people recall decisions not to report unethical behavior
as driven by valuation of loyalty. These findings reveal the psychological determinants of
whistleblowing and shed light on factors that encourage or discourage this practice.

So One need to be loyal to his company, his team and to himself, while operating within a strong
moral compass. If one can demonstrate his loyalty it builds trust, and shows that he has place a
high value on advancing the interests of both the company and his colleagues.
However, he should not ever place loyalty above his other principles, or use it as an excuse for
unethical behavior. He can demonstrate his loyalty but always should make an independent
judgment, and never use information that he has gained in confidence for his or his company
own advancement.
An ethical behavior is one who always obeys the law, and never breaks the rules, regulations or
laws surrounding their business activities. Being ethical means holding yourself accountable, and
acknowledging and accepting personal accountability for their decisions, and any consequences.

There are few recommendations and suggestions on how to promote fairness and to encourage
whistleblowing. One suggestion is to engage brute-force deliberate reasoning to override pre
potent partiality based responses of in group favoritism and bias. Another method may be to
reframe whistleblowing as demonstrating a larger loyalty an allegiance to the superordinate
group of society as a whole and the greater good. Loyalty can reflect allegiance toward a
distinctive in group or toward a more universal social circle, and promoting loyalty toward a
larger social circle may in fact reflect norms of fairness and promote whistleblowing behavior.
Reconciling the conflict between fairness and loyalty in these terms may improve perceptions of
whistleblowing and ultimately encourage ethical behavior across cultures.

Would it make a difference if Chantale had a position of greater authority?

Whistleblowers, by definition, lack power to achieve the organizational change they seek.
If they were sufficiently powerful to correct the perceived problem, there would be no need to
blow the whistle. Moreover, the less powerful they are -- or perceive themselves to be -the more
likely whistleblowers are to seek external influence to change organizational behavior
In this case, I do think this would make a significant difference because of her moral
values and social responsibility she displayed. She initially approached her superior and was shot
down. But her moral values didnt allow her to keep things unnoticed she again went and
approached to operational manager where he too very irritated. Even after all these she still
consider approaching his friend from press who can do some good on this. It clearly shows that
she feels that she has an obligation to do something about this and still values social and moral
ethics. If she had a greater authority she would definitely be grown as an ethical leader

Being an ethical leader means going beyond being a good person. Ethical leaders make ethics a
clear and consistent part of their agendas, set standards, model appropriate behavior, and hold
everyone accountable. When unethical acts do occur in the social environment, employees who
have an ethical leader are more likely to report the wrongdoing to management because ethical
leaders create a psychologically safe environment and are trusted to handle reports fairly and
with care.
Albert Camus, the French Nobel Prize winning author, journalist, and philosopher, said:
Integrity has no need of rules. People of integrity are self-driven to do the right thing. Leaders
of integrity act on the knowledge that their actions are ethical and provide the basis for others in
the workplace to follow their lead. Had Chantale been in greater position of authority , she would
have enforced to follow the law of The Biomedical & Toxic waste disposal , which is a legal
binding on the health care institutions to streamline the process of proper handling of hospital
waste such as segregation, disposal, collection, and treatment. With a view to control the
indiscriminate disposal of hospital waste/biomedical waste, government has the environment
protection and waste management committee according to the respective countries Law. This
will cover granting authorisation for collection, reception, storage, treatment, and disposal of
biomedical waste to implement the Biomedical Waste Management Rules. She would have
implemented all these process into the system and ensured the company been followed and
adherence to all environmental policies.

Would it make a difference if Chantale had scientific expertise?

She asks herself whether maybe Angela was right in arguing that the danger was minimal.
Whistleblowers need to have confidence that they can step forward without subsequently having
reprisal and actually being put on trial. Revealing employer corruption comes with serious risks,
though, including joblessness and potential retaliation from employers and coworkers alike, so it
is important to learn how to do the right thing the right way. But one need not to be Subject
matter expert to know every minute details of the issue. In this occasion, I don't think it really
would make a difference if she had scientific experience as long as she able to address the below
questions
 Has the Organization which Chantale belongs, through its product or policy, do
serious and considerable harm to the public (whether to users of its product, to
innocent bystanders, or to the public at large)?
Does Chantale identified that threat of harm, reported it to her immediate
superior, making clear both the threat itself and the objection to it, and concluded
that the superior will do nothing effective?
Does She exhausted other internal procedures within the organization or at least
made use of as many internal procedures as the danger to others and her own
safety make reasonable?
Has she collated any evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial
observer that her view of the threat is correct?
And Finally does she have good reason to believe that revealing the threat will
(probably) prevent the harm at reasonable cost?

In this case Chantale has already got answers to all the above mentioned questions and hence it
wouldnt make any difference and she need not to be a scientific expert in order to blow the
whistle.