Case 22: General Electric and the Hudson River Cleanup
1. What are the social, ethical, and political issues in this case? Which are major and which are
minor?
There are several issues involved in the case. The most significant likely involves whether GE
has any obligation to clean up the disposed waste products. GE was acting in a legal manner
when the PCBs were produced. It was, per the case, a good corporate citizen of the community,
and offered the PCB products for free to those who wished to use them for various building
applications. GE did not know the chemicals might be harmful and in fact there is no evidence
that they cause cancer in humans. The issue, then, is whether a business should be held liable,
2. Who are the stakeholders and what are their stakes? Assess the different stakeholders’
legitimacy, power, and urgency.
Stakeholders here are the citizens along the river, the State of New York, GE, former employees,
3. Do your own research on PCBs. Do your findings clarify their status as being so hazardous
they must be removed? Or are they best left where they have settled?
4. When GE contaminated the Hudson River it was not breaking the law. Who is responsible for
the contaminated Hudson River? GE? The EPA? The State of New York? Local citizens? What
ethical principles help to answer this question?
The concept of non-malfeasance can be applied here, as well as Kant’s categorical imperative, or
generally the deontological perspective of ethics. It would seem that GE did not intend harm to
the river or the community. There is no evidence that they were aware of potential environmental
hazards involved in their processes. The local citizens derived benefit from employment at GE,