Question

Every day you your commute bus goes past a factory that emanates smoke out of an old building. The smoke has a “rotten egg” smell. You notice 55 gallons drums stacked behind the factory for long periods of time. After rainstorms, you see water running into a nearby river from the factory. Finally, you become tired of this eyesore and decide to find out if this factory is in compliance with environmental laws. Which laws are involved and what plan of investigation would you utilize?

Answer 1

In this condition I would use Dumpster diving or investigating. Dumpster diving is a process in which waste products of the specific organisation or any other vegetable product is obtained by dumping into trash of any similar place.

Dumpster diving is not illegal in United States of America but in this is specific case the garbage bin was located in the private property of unilever. This is totally identical to dive into the competitors garbage bin to retrieve the information. Dumpster diving is a very common process between the competitors to extract the information from the garbage bins.
This is specific practice has no legal implications if the information was collected from a public dumpster. But if the Dumpster is located inside the premises of the company then it would also come under the trespassing and which would be totally illegal.
Companies should take proper precautions before disposing sensitive information. Sensitive information should be properly destroyed before being disposed or send to the public environment. Once the information is totally destroyed and confirmed by the company it could be sent to the dumpsters or disposing places.
Definitely it would have made a huge difference if the Dumpster would have been at a private property. If somebody has to access the Dumpster in a private property then he also have to tresspass which is totally illegal. If the Dumpster is in public place then according to the United States law, it is not illegal to dive into the dumpster as once the thing is thrown out then it becomes a public entity.

In this specific case I definitely is action was morally required to tell unilever about this specific incident. This is specific practice would definitely create a better example of ethics and code of conduct inside the organisation and improved market relationship between these two companies. By properly following the code of conduct of the company and ensuring that the information which was stolen were not used for the organisation of a process would be very appropriate and right which the chairman had done.
Unilever has responded according to their policy and setting up and independent body for Observation for the information is not being used is also necessary for Unilever to maintain credibility of the information provided by the procter and gamble chairman.

In this case unilever does not own any compensation as the information was not used. Better and ethical terms of the chairman from Procter and gamble has shown ethical side of his decision making by telling about the specific information being gathered by a contractor from Procter and gamble. Reply from unilever could be considered as very professional and by putting the ethical and moral terms inside. This definitely decreases the overall approaches possibility of Procter and gamble in future aspects