You are the division manager of Sellwell Co.—a firm that has developed an inexpensive chemical spe cialty that you hope will find a huge market as a household product. You want to package this product in 1 L and 2 L sizes. A number of container materials would appear to be practical—glass, aluminum, treated paper, steel, and various types of plastic. A young engineer whom you hired recently and assigned to the packaging department has done a container-disposal study that shows that the disposal cost for 2 L con tainers can vary by a factor of three—depending on the weight of the container, whether it can be recycled, whether it is easy to incinerate, whether it has good landfill characteristics, etc. Your company’s marketing expert believes that the container material with the highest consumer ap peal is the one that happens to present the biggest disposal problem and cost to communities. He estimates that the sales potential would be at least 10% less if the easiest-to-dispose-of, salvageable, container were used, because this container would be somewhat less distinctive and attractive. Assuming that the actual costs of the containers were about the same, to what extent would you let the disposal problem influence your choice? Would you: (a) Choose the container strictly on its marketing appeal, on the premise that disposal is the community’s problem, not yours (and also that some communities may not be ready to use the recycling approach yet, regardless of which container-material you select). (b) Choose the easiest-to-dispose-of container, and either accept the sales penalty, or try to overcome it by stressing the “good citizenship” angle (even though the marketing department is skeptical about whether this will work). (c) Take the middle road, by accepting a 5% sales penalty to come up with a container that is midway on the disposability scale. Do you think the young engineer who made the container-disposal study (but who is not a marketing expert) has any moral obligation to make strong recommendations as to which container to use? (a) Yes. He should spare no effort in campaigning for what he believes to be socially desirable. (b) No. He should merely point out the disposal-cost differential and not try to inject himself into decisions that also involve marketing considerations about which he may be naive. (Popper and Hughson, 1970)

You are the division manager of Sellwell Co.—a firm that has developed an inexpensive chemical spe cialty that you hope will find a huge market as a household product. You want to package this product in 1 L and 2 L sizes. A number of container materials would appear to be practical—glass, aluminum, treated paper, steel, and various types of plastic. A young engineer whom you hired recently and assigned to the packaging department has done a container-disposal study that shows that the disposal cost for 2 L con tainers can vary by a factor of three—depending on the weight of the container, whether it can be recycled, whether it is easy to incinerate, whether it has good landfill characteristics, etc. Your company’s marketing expert believes that the container material with the highest consumer ap peal is the one that happens to present the biggest disposal problem and cost to communities. He estimates that the sales potential would be at least 10% less if the easiest-to-dispose-of, salvageable, container were used, because this container would be somewhat less distinctive and attractive. Assuming that the actual costs of the containers were about the same, to what extent would you let the disposal problem influence your choice? Would you: (a) Choose the container strictly on its marketing appeal, on the premise that disposal is the community’s problem, not yours (and also that some communities may not be ready to use the recycling approach yet, regardless of which container-material you select). (b) Choose the easiest-to-dispose-of container, and either accept the sales penalty, or try to overcome it by stressing the “good citizenship” angle (even though the marketing department is skeptical about whether this will work). (c) Take the middle road, by accepting a 5% sales penalty to come up with a container that is midway on the disposability scale. Do you think the young engineer who made the container-disposal study (but who is not a marketing expert) has any moral obligation to make strong recommendations as to which container to use? (a) Yes. He should spare no effort in campaigning for what he believes to be socially desirable. (b) No. He should merely point out the disposal-cost differential and not try to inject himself into decisions that also involve marketing considerations about which he may be naive. (Popper and Hughson, 1970)