Mains Practice Questions

Approach

• Begin by mentioning your inference from the case study and identifying the various stakeholders involved
• Explain the moral dimensions of the mining company’s actions
• Enumerate the various options the junior manager has and which one would be most preferable

Ans.

(a) Introduction:

The case study is about the recent mass deaths of migratory birds in and around a lake which happens to be surrounded by multiple mines. Prima facie, it appears that leaching of hazardous chemicals has led to the avian deaths. The case involves multiple stakeholders and complex issues of economic viability with environmental sustainability.

Body

Stakeholders Involved

• Junior manager
• Mineworkers
• Mine owner/superiors
• Government
• State pollution control board
• The general public at large

The polluting lake can have long term implications form both sides i.e. ecology and economy besides having the potential of triggering a water-based pandemic over a long course of time. As the hazardous chemicals are leaching into the lake, it is not only perilous for the migratory birds but is also dangerous for the local fauna which is dependent on the lake. As the economy around the lake is largely rural and livestock based, the problem might lead to larger economic turmoil for the region. He can also talk about the potential loss of life in case of some disease breakout in the nearby areas as the miners too are largely local.

Conclusion

Informing public authorities is not only their moral duty but is also a legal obligation, as the chemicals from their mines are leaching untreated in a nearby waterbody which is in violation of Environment Protection Act 1986 and Prevention of Water Pollution Act, 1974.

(b) Introduction:

• He has the following options with him:
  • He can choose to remain quiet like his colleagues.
  • He can quit his job and stop being a part of this immoral setup.
  • He can go to higher authorities highlighting his concern and in case even they don't listen he can become a whistleblower and inform the public authority.

Body

• In the first case, he might be able to save his job which he direly needs but this would mean a compromise with his moral values. This option would result in significant mental trauma for him as he understands the gravity of the situation and ecological crisis which the region may have to suffer.
• In the second case, he might not be a part of this immoral activity but this would result in significant economic loss for him. Given the precarious situation, this step would be highly resented by his family. Moreover, it would not address his primary concern of safeguarding the birds and saving the lake from getting polluted.
• In the third case, if his immediate senior refuses to heed to his concern, he can go to even higher authorities in the company and bring to their notice about the leaching happening in the lake. The senior management might listen to his complaint which might not be liked by his immediate senior but would both save his job and address his concern. In case the senior management too doesn’t listen he can turn a whistleblower and inform the public authority about the grave situation arising due to the incident. This step would also mean that he might be asked to resign from the job. Thus leaving him economically vulnerable but his concern of saving the ecology would be addressed.

Conclusion

Out of the above-mentioned options, option number third seems most appropriate as it shows that he is not a mute spectator and is willing to take the extra step for the greater cause.