PIQUA CHEMICAL CORP CASE STUDY

PIQUA CHEMICAL CORP CASE STUDY

            Based on the Business dictionary, a stakeholder has been defined as a group, single person or organism or any other organization which has interest or can be linked to an organization directly or indirectly. In accordance to the case scenario of R&D division of Piqua Chemical Corp. (Harrison & John, 2014), it is beyond reasonable doubt that we have “stakeholders” and not “stakeholder”. Many parties will be affected by the actions of this corporation directly and others indirectly. Back to the Business dictionary, some stakeholders also affect or are affected by the business actions, policies and objectives hence in this case government fit in as one of the stakeholders (Harrison & John, 2014).

Piqua Chemical Corp and Finlay Inc. are the direct stakeholders considering the fact that they are the ones behind the project. They will be responsible of organizing and making decisions based on how the project will be executed. This includes the people who are to carry out the spraying activities. In addition to these two organizations, people who will be involved in the packaging and the real spraying activity are also direct stakeholders as they will interact with the chemical knowingly. Lastly on the direct stakeholders, the Killer bees also fit in this category as they are the target behind the manufacture of this chemical (Harrison & John, 2014).

Spraying effects on the surrounding area is hard to control. This is a clear indication that there is likely to be impacts on other organisms as well as human beings who are not even aware of the chemical and what it is supposed to do, indirect stakeholders. This category encompasses the human race around the areas where the spray will be carried out as well as the rest of the insects, plants, animals and birds sharing the same ecosystem with the Killer bees.

In summary, the stakeholders in this case scenario are Finlay Inc., and Piqua chemical Corp. directly and the human race and animals, birds, insects and plants who are going to be exposed to the chemical spray. In short, it is the whole eco system interacting either directly or indirectly with the chemical in stake.

In regard to the ethical stand of the president in this case scenario, it is clear that both the motives and actions of the president are totally unethical. Based on the definition provided for ethical behavior, they are the actions consistent to what the society typically affirms as good values, respecting the key morals of the rest of the people in the society and not being self-centered in whatever the decision one makes (Thomas, Schermerhorn & Dienhart, 2014). There are several incidences which depict the ignorance of the president on the bases of other people’s rights and being driven by personal interest of making profit. He opposes the idea of testing the chemicals which is proposed by the director and which would have proved the side effects of the chemical to the rest of the organisms.

The president’s motive is all about making huge profits by seizing the opportunity at the hand. Despite of the persuasion by the direct to an extend of giving the sense that the company may be sued if the chemical brings side effects, the president just escapes from the truth by suggesting an escape route of establishing a separate corporation to shield Piqua Corp. from the lawsuits. This is a clear indication of how the president is immoral. He is not concerned with anybody else well-being in his attempt to obtain uge profits out of this chemical (Thomas, Schermerhorn & Dienhart, 2014)..

The president has put the ecosystem as well as the human race under serious threat for his short term profit motive. This is because the chemical has not been tested for any possible effects to other plants and animal lives and any side effect will cause havoc for all the affected. He should have waited for at least a year for the lab tests to be carried out instead of taking such hasty and utterly risky actions. This does not even fit in the definition of a responsible person leave alone a business leader. His actions may cause other huge damages for the ecosystem and for the two corporations, Finlay Inc., & Piqua Chemical in particular (Thomas, Schermerhorn & Dienhart, 2014).

One of the methods proposed by the president in regard to shielding Piqua Chemical Corp. against the foreseeable lawsuits by the director in case the chemicals turned to bring side effects were starting the Finlay Inc., the dilemma however remained in the question to whether it could succeed in this way (Martin, 2012). What the president did not know is that in case of a disaster out of this chemical, the corporation could not avoid the losses associated with the lawsuits as the chemical had been developed by the Piqua chemical although sold for eyewash to the Shell Company. Finlay Inc. did not have R&D of its own and was merely a front face of Piqua Chemical. This is a clear indication that in an instance of lawsuits and investigation, the whole truth would be revealed and Piqua chemical Corp. severely would be punished for the losses of its misdeeds.

References

Harrison, J. S., & John, C. H. S. (2014). Strategic management of organizations and           stakeholders: Theory and cases. West Group.

Thomas, T., Schermerhorn, J. R., & Dienhart, J. W. (2014). Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 56-66.

Martin, S. L. (2012). Financing Plaintiffs’ Lawsuits: An Increasingly Popular (and Legal) Business. U. Mich. JL Reform, 33, 57.