This case study, "Managerial Decision", describes a situation in which you, as the Plant Manager of a chemical factory, must try to find a way forward through a very difficult decision having international implications. This is a very complex issue, one that requires you to combine strategic thinking with ethical considerations. This is truly a "wrong versus wrong" decision-making scenario of a type that you, as managers, are very likely to face one day. You are to construct a formal business memo to the company owner with your recommendations for the plant in this case scenario. You are to construct this memo as if it is a real-world setting and not an assignment for a class and you must specifically apply and discuss the ethical practices you will use to make this decision. Be sure to focus on the ethics of the case and an ethical framework for your decision with just a brief summary of the facts and events. You must support your position and it cannot be based on opinion or emotion. You must reference material from the text a minimum of 3 times -- particularly the decision-making protocols that are presented in the chapters. Cite your reasons from Chapters 3-6 of your textbook. Discuss and address your personal bias to ensure you stay away from personal bias in the ethical decision-making process. As you work through the case, consider whether there might be a "third way" out of the problem (preferably a way that is still ethical at its core).

You are the plant manager of a chemical firm north of Midland, Michigan. The fumes from your plant are toxic and usually blow in a northeasterly direction into Ontario, Canada. The fallout from the fumes is killing the forests in the wind's path. Your plant's employees are all partially handicapped. Yours is the only firm in the state that goes out of its way to hire the handicapped. Without these jobs, at least 300 of them could not find work elsewhere. There is a 70% chance that 140 of the 300 would see their families break up. The cost of putting scrubbers in the smokestacks is prohibitive. The firm will shut down the plant as inefficient if the pollution has to be cleaned up. You are 61 years old and one year away from retirement. You have no savings, since your spouse has severe allergies and takes care of your 30-year-old handicapped child. If the plant closes down, you will be terminated with a $100,000 lump sum retirement fee. If you can last until retirement, the firm will give you $35,000 per year for the rest of your life. There's a 90-100% likelihood that your age and skills would not enable you to find another job in the area. Your spouse's allergies demand that you live in the area. The Canadians have commissioned a scientific study that has arrived at the following conclusions: 1. Your plant alone is the major cause of forest devastation in a 100 square-mile area of Ontario. 2. The cost in lost timber is $100,000 per year. (The loss of jobs to your handicapped workers who probably could find other employment would cost them $1 million in wages per year.) 3. There is an 80% chance that the 300 Canadians living in that wooded area of Ontario will have their lives shortened by five years if the pollution continues for six more months. About three of those Canadians will develop cancer because of the pollution (if it continues) and die painfully. All of the 300 Canadians in that area live in a religious commune. The Canadians demand that you clean up or shut down. The U.S. government refuses to interfere. The firm's CEO says the decision is yours. Before recording your decision below, consider the following questions: your perception of the situation? What factors make this a morally intense issue? How do these factors influence 2. What destructive motivations might influence your decision? 3. What cognitive biases could undermine your choice in this scenario? 4. What steps can you take to avoid these cognitive biases? 5. What role should moral emotions play in this decision?