ovicity
Golden State Industries, California’s largest timber company, has…
Golden State Industries, California’s largest timber company, has been clear-cutting for over 50 years on its vast holdings which include nearly 2 million acres of the state’s forestland. The company has always complied with governmental regulations and actively replants the areas where it logs. Beginning in the 1970s, various environmental groups have criticized the company’s policy of clear-cutting, a procedure wherein all the trees in an area are cut, leaving a patchwork pattern on the mountainsides. Even though the company replants these areas, the environmentalists feel that the practice is destructive to the forest and disrupts the entire eco-system. Lately, these environmental groups have become more vocal, larger in size, supported by growing numbers of sympathetic citizens as a result of social media, as well as more financially viable. As a result, they have created considerable negative press for the company.
The company used to underplay and ignore these concerns based on the fact that it provides logging jobs and economically supports the logging communities. Recently, however, the company has been very concerned with its public image. A recent company study showed that the image of the company and its practices has become increasingly more negative with Californians in particular and with the nation as a whole. There is some indication that this negative press has reduced sales in major markets, but an even larger indication that this negative public sentiment may result in additional government regulation that would be extremely costly to the company. The company is very concerned about this issue, given that clear-cutting also has been named as a contributing factor in the ongoing disappearance of several endangered species, including the spotted owl.
Company president Kit Lewis has deeply pondered these concerns and has asked Vice President of Marketing Sam Fitzgibbons to create an image-building program for the company. Ms. Lewis has given Ms. Fitzgibbons complete freedom to create an image-building program. However, she insists that any program support and publicize her land donation initiative, i.e., that some land that is not profitable for the company will be donated to the government as wilderness areas. Ms. Lewis wants this to be widely promoted through publicity, including social media, and through paid advertising in both traditional and new media.
Ms. Fitzgibbons is not sure about the wisdom of this policy. She fears that people may see it as a token effort to “buy” public support and, indirectly, government support. However, she decides to do what Ms. Lewis has requested, thinking that it will work if it is done right.
Ms. Fitzgibbons decides to assign the project to Pat Petersen. Pat has been with the company for three years. He is doing exceptionally well and has progressed quickly. Pat considers Ms. Fitzgibbons as his mentor and, with her support, is on his way to a fast track in upper management. Ms. Fitzgibbons discusses the project with Pat. Pat strongly doubts the wisdom of the land donation aspect of the project and tries to get out of the assignment based on the fact that he has been a Nature Conservancy member for the past ten years even though his participation has been very peripheral and sporadic. When Ms. Fitzgibbons hears that Pat is a Nature Conservancy member, she is elated, thinking that this perspective will surely enable them to create the right ads. Ms. Fitzgibbons encourages Pat: “Give it your best shot. I’m counting on you.”
Questions: Using the ethical decision-making guidelines
Who is the protagonist and who are the primary stakeholders?
What are the ethical issues?
What could the protagonist do?
What should the protagonist do – and WHY?
