Corporate Social Responsibility in Action

Reality-Based Education Case #1 Nathan Rosillo should take his case to the highest levels of the Chem-Tech corporate ladder. And if that doesn't work, he should conduct some ground-level research, which will be spelled out in this paper. He not only should work diligently and professionally towards presenting his case -- that the company should avoid dumping waste into the Dutch Valley River -- because it's the river he loves.

He should press his case because it's the right thing to do for the environment and because ultimately, if his work is successful, it would show that Chem-Tech is a corporately responsible organization. So, Nathan should follow the first choice in Case #1; he should not be a passive bystander. He should begin his quest to save the river by researching applicable laws (The Clean Water Act), and he should research those regulatory agencies that have loosened requirements on dumping waste directly into the river.

He needs to -- on his own time, so he could never be accused of undercutting his own company's policies -- find out specifically, what legal justification did the local regulatory agencies use to make the decision to allow dumping? He needs to find out the names of all members on the board of that agency, how the board members were selected, and the political backgrounds of the members as well.

For example, were there political appointments and did key members of the board get their positions based on a quid pro quo? If that is true, that key board members on the regulatory agency (who made up the majority voting to relax environmental standards) were given their positions because they are very pro-business and anti-environment, Nathan should contact an investigative journalist from a local or regional newspaper (or television station, although newspapers are more apt to be interested).

Nathan should get assurances from the journalist that he (Nathan) is just working behind the scenes and could lose his job if the company found out he was trying to change the company's policy towards dumping. The Clean Water Act of 1972 made it "unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source in navigable waters, unless a permit is obtained" (EPA). That sounds like any local or regional regulatory agency could simply bypass the law.

The EPA does have a "Compliance and Enforcement Process" however, and Nathan should contact the EPA about its "Plan EJ 2014" ("EJ" stands for environmental justice) (EPA). Before Nathan contacts an investigative reporter to look into how the regulatory agency made its decision (and who on the board is not really qualified but is a political appointee), Nathan should have a conversation with the manufacturing vice president, who is coming to the plant soon.

He should discuss corporate social responsibility (CSR) with her, and though she may already know about CSR, she may be impressed with a young man's passion for social and environmental responsible principles. Research shows CSR enhances trust and does the following: a) creates satisfied employees; b) customers develop "improved attitudes towards the company"; c) CSR creates "positive PR"; d) CSR also results in costs reductions; and e) "more business opportunities" open up when the market knows the company is corporately responsible (csrinparctice.com).

He could mention an article in Forbes magazine; the writer (Thorpe) interviewed Garratt Hasenstab, sustainable director for a huge real estate development firm (Verdigris Group), who said his company benefits from CSR in several ways (which Chem-Tech could learn from): a) social good will; b) setting a good example; c) inspiring other companies in the community to bring about "a more.