Reference no: EM132615714

Question - Frank was employed as management trainee for a position as the controller in a medium-sized manufacturing firm. After Frank's first year, the officers of the firm started to assign and include him in major company functions. For example, he was asked one day to attend the monthly financial statement summary at a leading consulting firm. During one of such meetings, Frank was fascinated at how the financial data he had accumulated and had been transformed by the consultant into illuminating charts and graphs.

Frank was generally optimistic about the session and the company's future until the consultant started talking about a new manufacturing plant the company was adding to the present location and the per-unit costs of the chemically plated products it would produce. At that time, Robert, the president, and John, the chemical engineer, started talking about waste treatment and disposal problems.

John mentioned that the current waste treatment facilities could not handle the waste products of the "ultramodern" new plant in a manner that would meet the industry's fairly high standards, although the plant would still comply with national standards.

Frank's boss, Henry, noted that the estimated per-unit costs would increase if the waste treatment facilities were upgraded according to recent industry standards. Industry standards were presently more stringent than general regulations, and environmentalists were pressuring strongly for stricter regulations at the national. Robert mentioned that since their closest competitor did not have the waste treatment facilities that already existed at their firm, he was not in favor of any more expenditures in that area. Most managers at the meeting unequivocally agreed with Robert, and the business of the meeting proceeded to other topics.

Frank did not hear a word during the rest of the meeting. He kept wondering how the company could possibly have such a casual attitude toward the environment. Yet he did not know if, how, when, or with whom he should share his opinion. Soon, he started reflecting on whether this firm was the right one for him.

Whilst reflecting on the above, Frank overhead a discussion about a 42-year-old worker who suddenly and unexpectedly died of a brain tumor, leaving behind a wife and a child. The Human Resources manager was worried because during a review of that employee's benefits, it was noted that although he was eligible for a company-sponsored life insurance plan used for plant decommissioning purposes, his name was not identified on the insurance rolls.

It was determined that when the employee was promoted to supervisor three years before his death, his paperwork had been submitted to the corporate office for inclusion in the program. Coincidentally, the program was under review at the time, and the employee was not entered into the program due to administrative oversight. A review by the legal department revealed that the program was offered to certain supervisory employees at the discretion of the company. Therefore, there was no legal obligation to pay.

It also came to light that the death benefit was twice the employee's salary. Because the employee was not enrolled in the life insurance program, if the company were to pay any benefit, it would have to come from the general fund (paid from the business unit's annual operating budget).

Using the above case answer the following questions:

a) Using a stakeholder analysis tool of your choice, who are the stakeholders and what are their stakes?

b) Using any framework (s) or standard (s), how would you assess the firm's sustainability or CSR performance? Provide justifications for your choice of framework (s) or standard (s).

c) How should Frank reconcile his personal thinking with the thinking being presented by the firm's management? Why?

In the case of the 42-year-old worker, what are the social issues and what would be your advice to the Human Resource manager? Why?