Mine Explosion

In this current situation Massey’s approach to ethical and social responsibility   would favor that of a reactive strategy. According to the text, a reactive strategy is ,”a social responsiveness strategy in which a company does less than society expects (p.150). I feel that this fits in terms of their actions because the company has a large amount of violations and instead of paying them knowing their environment is unsafe, they tried to appeal them so that they could fix the problems rather than paying fines. Society would assume that if violations are brought to a company’s attention, they would pay the fines and fix the situation as well. Ethical

Secondly, Massey states that their top priority is safety and that there is a zero tolerance and all are committed to safety. Apparently they are not all committed if there are still safety violations occurring.   The company in my eyes is partaking in workplace deviance since they have not taken care of these safety violations and putting their employees in a dangerous environment such as those who lost their lives in the explosion that could have been prevented. Ethical responsibility is a company’s social responsibility to follow principles of right and wrong and it seems to be that Massey’s company does not follow   this as well considering that 29 of his workers were killed due to an explosion that could have been prevented if safety was their “top priority”.   Legal responsibility is a “company’s social responsibility to obey society’s laws and regulations” (p.148) and I feel that Massey also violates this one as well. Instead of fighting with the legal system about the fines and racking up more violations, he could have resolved this and to me, Massey’s actions show that he is not willing to abide and therefore could have saved the lives of those lost.
I feel that Massey’s current approach to this situation should be to accept the accommodative strategy (p.151). This would mean that Massey should accept...