Stakeholders and ethics in the manufacture of potato chips

I can see at least two different ethical issues on the Case 3.1 that it could be interesting to discuss separately: the ethics case stating the Case 3.1, and the waste disposal issue.

1) Stating the Case 3.1

The state of the Case reveals some intention from the authors of this book to set a position, a clear biased position based on the partial and incomplete analysis. Without any doubt the authors introduce the Case to drag the reader to a mental corner of everything is wrong; then, the authors create a negative atmosphere around this Case (e.g.: contamination, pollution, waste disposal).

I’d like to expose with a simple example the biased information exposed by the authors in this Case. The authors assume that if the 3,000 do not travel in the ship, they do not develop any activity. For example:

if we assume a 15 days trip between Halifax and the Caribbean during our winter, the energy expended by the ship is equivalent to the energy expended by the 3000 people in average Albertan activities (living, working, etc) (*). If part of the energy (electricity) comes from Coal Power Plants (AB, SK and NB) the emission released to the atmosphere is higher; if the energy (electricity) come from Nuclear Power Plants (ON, QC, NB) the waste disposal has extremely higher long term effects.
Waste disposal, if we compare the effect of the ship waste disposal with nuclear technology, and analyze them under Mill utilitarism ethical theory considering the long term effect, the meaning and conclusions could significantly change.

So, this misinformation could represents a breach of the duty of care (innocent, negligent or fraudulent) with is in contradiction with the four ethical theories.

The first line of stakeholders for this issue is basically students and instructors. But the damage could be higher if we consider the light assessment for a very important issue in the people education. The word education apply in both senses the strict formation of students and instructors, and the social education in environmental issues.

1) Waste disposal:

At first glance it looks to be more a legal issue that an ethical; if we have regulations in place to deal with waste disposal and they do not fulfill these regulations, it is not an ethical problem such as Royal Caribbean case show us.

But in those places where the regulation is not very well defined, the ethical issue arises. It these cases I think it is not fair that the company could take the advantage of not at all clear regulation (or with lower development); the company policy should be to apply the higher standards in waste disposal that other regulations impose, as baseline.

I assume that the regulation in place represent the just equilibrium between economic development and all the duties of care that the development of the sector should take. Softer regulation in those countries or regions where is prioritized the economic development over many cares should not to be taken as an extra advantage for the cruiser companies. Two scenarios raise here:

The company really has as paramount the people and environment welfare and health. They should apply the higher standards in place (they are higher that the regulations standards) without to consider the local regulation and its possible lacks.
The company does not have as paramount the people and environment welfare and health. They will play at the limit of local regulations taking any possible advantage. Probably ethical issues will rise constantly under this management approach. The ability, skill and experience of the managers and directors (and the lawyer department) from the company will be key in the success of this strongly profit oriented management vision.

The stakeholders for this potential ethic issues are all those people who could be affected by the action (or lack of action). Because the ocean contamination affects (in different degree) every one in the world, the individual stakeholders are all people. Different group of people also could be identified, such as people living close to the problem rise, shareholders (for the profit or lack of), management (for possible legal implications), labor, countries where the tourism is injured, tourism industry.