General Overview
Dominion Energy Company in Virginia faces an ethical dilemma regarding its coal ash disposal practices. The company is accused of dumping toxic coal ash into unlined pits, which has contaminated groundwater and posed a risk to human health. Dominion has denied these allegations, but the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has issued a notice of violation and is investigating the matter. This situation presents a difficult ethical dilemma for Dominion, as it must choose between protecting the environment and the health of its customers or maximizing profits by continuing its current disposal practices (Seidler & Malloy 2020). The ethical issues involved in this case include environmental pollution, human health and safety, and corporate responsibility. Dominion Energy is accused of causing environmental pollution by dumping toxic coal ash into unlined pits. This risks human health and safety, as coal ash can contaminate groundwater and cause health problems.
Furthermore, Dominion is responsible to its customers and the public to ensure that its coal ash disposal practices are safe and do not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Dominion Energy has a few possible courses of action that it could take in this case. The company could continue its current disposal practices, which may maximize profits but could also cause further environmental pollution and risk human health. Alternatively, Dominion could change its disposal practices to be more environmentally friendly and safe, which could cost the company more money. Finally, Dominion could try to negotiate a compromise with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, in which the company agrees to make some changes to its disposal practices but does not have to make significant changes that would significantly impact its profits. If Dominion Energy continues its current disposal practices, the company will likely face increased regulation from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and potential fines.
Moreover, the company may face public backlash and lose customers if the public becomes aware of the risks posed by its coal ash disposal practices. The company will likely incur additional costs if Dominion changes its disposal practices to be more environmentally friendly. However, this could improve the company’s public image and potentially attract new customers (Mill, 2010). Finally, suppose Dominion tries to negotiate a compromise with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. In that case, the company may be able to avoid significant changes to its practices that could impact its profits. Dominion Energy should consult with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and other environmental regulators in making its decision.
The company should also consult with its customers and the public to get feedback on the risks posed by its current disposal practices. A few external pressures may influence Dominion Energy’s decision in this case. First, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality investigates the company’s disposal practices and has issued a notice of violation. This could lead to increased regulation of the company’s rules, which could impact its profits. Additionally, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the risks of coal ash disposal. Dominion may face a public backlash if it does not change its practices.
Training Exercise or Intervention
The purpose of this training exercise is to help Dominion Energy Company employees in Virginia State understand the ethical dilemma they are facing and consider the possible options for resolving it. In this exercise, employees will first be asked to read a short description of the Dominion Energy coal ash case. They will then be asked to identify the stakeholders in the case and consider each stakeholder’s interests. Next, employees will be asked to consider the solution’s options and determine each option’s possible risks and benefits. Finally, employees will be asked to choose the option they believe is the most ethically defensible and to explain their reasoning. This training exercise will help Dominion Energy Company employees in Virginia State understand the ethical dilemma they are facing and consider the possible options to resolve it.
Audience to Intervene
The three main reasons to intervene in the Dominion Energy case include protecting the environment and public health by upholding the company’s values and avoiding reputational damage. The coal ash pits at Dominion Energy’s power plant in Virginia are leaking, and the company has failed to take adequate action to clean up the contamination. This poses a severe risk to the environment and public health (Skinner, 1984). Secondly, Dominion Energy’s values include “safety, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility.” The company is not living up to these values in handling the coal ash contamination. Ultimately, the longer Dominion Energy fails to take adequate action to clean up the contamination; the more damage the company’s reputation will suffer. This could have negative consequences for the company’s business. Intervening in this situation is essential for several reasons.
Protecting the environment and public health is crucial, as well as upholding the company’s ethics and avoiding reputational damage. A company’s stakeholders would likely react negatively to learning that the company is harming the environment or public health. This could lead to a loss of business, bad publicity, and a decline in stock value. Given the three main reasons to intervene, the audience to target for intervention is the board of directors. The board of directors is ultimately responsible for the company’s actions, and they are the ones who can make the decisions that are necessary to clean up the contamination and protect the environment and public health. Intervening with the board of directors is likely the most effective way to address the problem. The board of directors can make the necessary decisions to clean up the contamination and protect the environment and public health. They are also the ones who are ultimately responsible for the company’s actions. It is important to note that other audiences could be targeted for intervention, such as the general staff or operations. However, the board of directors is likely to be the most influential audience to target for intervention.
Pluralist Perspective
The Giving Voice to Values (GVV) approach is based on the idea that there are three vital elements to any ethical dilemma: people, principles, and payoffs. People are the individuals involved in or affected by the difficulty. The focus is on the ethical or moral guidelines that should be followed. Payoffs are the benefits or costs of taking a particular course of action. The helpful perspective would be the most substantial in achieving clear goals on the real-world ethical situation faced by Dominion Energy Company in Virginia State on the Coal Ash Case (Bobonich, 2006). The helpful perspective, in this case, would be the practical perspective. This perspective is based on the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that will produce the greatest good for the most significant number of people. In this case, the ethically right course of action would be the one that would minimize the environmental damage caused by the coal ash ponds.
Omissions in the Frameworks
A few possible frameworks could be omitted in achieving clear goals on the real-world ethical situation Dominion Energy Company in Virginia State faced in the Coal Ash Case. Firstly, the company might have overlooked the utilitarianism framework. This is the idea that the morally right thing to do is the thing that will produce the most happiness or pleasure for the most significant number of people. In other words, the morally right thing to do is the thing that will make the greatest good for the most important number of people. According to John Stuart Mill, Dominion Energy Company might have reasoned that it was not morally required to clean up the coal ash because doing so would not produce the greatest good for the most significant number of people. Furthermore, they could have argued that it would be too costly to clean up the coal ash and the money spent elsewhere. The company might have also omitted the rights-based framework. This is the idea that people have certain rights that need respect (Kant, 1988). Dominion Energy Company might have reasoned that it was not morally required to clean up the coal ash because doing so would not respect the rights of the people affected.
References
Bobonich, C. (2006). Aristotle’s ethical treatises. Nicomachean Ethics, 12.
Kant, I. (1988). Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. 1785. English translation by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott.
Mill, J. S. (2010). The basic writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, the Subjection of women and Utilitarianism. Modern Library.
Seidler, M., & Malloy, K. (2020). A Comprehensive Survey of Coal Ash Law and Commercialization: Its Environmental Risks, Disposal Regulation, and Beneficial Use Markets.
Skinner, Q. (1984). The idea of negative liberty: philosophical and historical perspectives. Philosophy in history, 193-221.