Personal:
Personal ethics are ethical standards that generate from personal morals. They encompass the basic principles of humanity and provide the individual with guidance for what is right, and what is wrong to do. Personal ethics is a root that all of the other levels of ethics develop from, and in the Dupont case, more likely than not, a single individual made an unethical choice that led to more and more unethical choices by others until a 50 year disaster occurred.
Community:
Community ethics are ethical standards that evolve from personal ethics, but have further reaching natural consequences. The ethical guidelines that are laid out in a community setting, whether it is a small community like a family, or a large community like a town, provide a basis for people to govern themselves. Some ethical guidelines for community ethics are not to take advantage of another person strictly for personal gain, and to be honest with your peers. Honesty has been hard to find in Parkersburg when talking about local health care providers, and lawyers who refuse service to people affected by water contamination, which allowed the situation to get much more out of hand.
Professional:
Professional ethics are the first branch of ethics that is not strictly based off of morals of an individual, but also takes into consideration the perception of a business. If a business does not have a strong code of ethics, then other businesses will avoid them because they are more likely to be corrupt and untrustworthy. Dupont did not exhibit a strong code of professional ethics as the employees involved in covering up the disaster were not held accountable and kept their jobs because their lack of moral fiber led to greater profits by the company as a whole. However, now that their "dirty laundry" has been aired, the business' stock values are plummeting due to public perception of how Dupont will fair in the future.
Corporate:
Corporate ethics are ethics that build on professional ethics. Dupont had much worse corporate ethics than most thought since the issue at their plant in Parkersburg was not a quiet event. It involved years of testing, and the EPA was involved. Knowing how a multi million dollar company works from my experience in EHS, the corporate offices were definitely closely involved with anything the EPA had to say about the plant, and may or may not have had something to do with the final say that the EPA had in why so many cattle were getting sick.
State:
State ethics is a governmental branch of ethics, but can also encompass professional/business ethics. State ethics deal with issues that will not just cause harm to a local entity, but also reach out to many other cities, towns, and other state areas. The state government was more or less unmentioned in this article, but they should have been involved heavily as environmental reports must be filed for state and federal agencies at least once a year. Discharge monitoring reports should have shown levels of the C8 contaminated water and should have been targeted for investigation promptly.
Federal:
Federal ethics are what our democratic system is based on. It is why we no longer live under the rule of an individual until he/she dies. It is the reason we have checks and balances between the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government. Federal ethical standards for the EPA may be in question because of how the EPA handled the testing done for C8 water, and how minimal their investigation into the sickness of cattle in the city of Parkersburg was.
After all of the dust settles on the recent Dupont disaster, ethical standards for all of these levels will be discussed, probably in private, but possibly the EPA will make statements about how they need to re-instill a strong ethical code in their employees. Needless to say, ethics at all levels help us make the right choices as even the smallest mistake can have far reaching impacts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html
