Armed with this data, you are compelled to take action. You arrange a meeting with the CMD of the public sector unit (PSU) to discuss the health audit findings and explore solutions. The CMD acknowledges the poor industrial safety record but is quick to point out the financial constraints faced by the unit. The plant's budget is limited, and no funds are allocated for the necessary safety upgrades. However, after much deliberation, both of you agree that the best course of action would be to relocate the plant to a site 30 kilometres away from the current location. This solution would mitigate the health risks for the local population while allowing the plant to continue operations, albeit at a new location. As plans for the relocation begin, the news leaks out, causing immediate unrest among the plant's workers. The workers, many of whom live near the plant, strongly oppose the relocation. They argue that the new site, 30 kilometres away, would disrupt their lives, increase their commuting time, and add to their expenses. The prospect of losing their jobs or facing hardships travelling to the new site sparks a wave of discontent. The workers organised protests and went on strike, halting production. And the discontent spilled onto the streets. Unknowingly, you had stirred a hornet's nest. (a) What are the issues involved in the above case? (b) What are the options available to you and the CMD? (c) How should you prioritise public health concerns against the potential economic disruptions caused by the relocation of the plant? What ethical principles should guide this decision?

Answered by 1 topper · CSE 2024

Syllabus: Case Studies on above issues.