Corporate Regulatory Simulation: Alumina Inc.Alumina is a $4 billion aluminum producer based in the United States. Although the company operates in 8 different countries, 70% of Alumina's sales come from the US market. Five years ago, during a regular compliance inspection, alumina was found to be in violation of environmental discharge regulations due to high levels of PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Following this discovery, the EPA ordered a cleanup, and Alumina was found compliant during subsequent inspections. Although this was Alumina's first breach in history, the company recently found itself in local news headlines due to a town resident's allegations that Alumina was environmentally responsible for his daughter's leukemia. As with many corporate ethical dilemmas, Alumina executives unexpectedly found themselves walking the difficult line between adhering to their personal values ​​and helping their company survive. When local resident Kelly Bates claimed that Alumina was responsible for her ten-year-old daughter's leukemia, the company's employees were not only faced with the question of right and wrong, but also between right and right. From a ends-based perspective, employees understood that Alumina wanted to arrive at a resolution that would provide the greatest good for the company and its investors. For this reason, Alumina's management team chose to limit disclosure of its environmental compliance documents rather than reveal all the information that was available when the plaintiff requested to invoke the Freedom of Information Act. In different circumstances, employees of Alumina may have responded differently and allowed full disclosure so that the plaintiff could demonstrate the merits of her allegations or discover the lack thereof. After all, while a company's reputation is critical to its success, it is less important than humanity and life itself. However, under the circumstances, Alumina's reputation was of paramount importance to its employees, so protecting Alumina from negative press became the priority. As is often the case, circumstances and context have a major influence on how individuals will respond to ethical questions. If indeed Alumina was responsible for Mrs. Bates' daughters' leukemia, then the company and its employees shared an ethical obligation to share their information in the spirit of true disclosure. It would be unethical for Alumina to assert itself and protect itself from the consequences of known environmental violations. On the other hand, it would also be ethically wrong for Ms. Bates to seek compensatory and punitive damages from Alumina if the company had nothing to do with her daughter's leukemia..