This presentation talks about the ethical dilemma in the movie Erin Brokovich

1. ERIN BROCKOVICH
Ethical issues in the movie
Presented by:
Md Haaris Khan(17PGPM12)
Amit Sinha (17PGPM03)
Bikash choudhary (17PGPM10)
Piyush Biswas (17PGPM18)

2. BACKGROUND
❖ Based on a true story, revolves around a women named Erin
brockovich
❖ Erin is a financially troubled single mother of three who eventually
manages to get a job at a law firm
❖ Erin’s main objective in the movie is to uncover and expose the
unethical practices taking place at PG&E
❖ PG&E main unethical practice was its use of an extremely
harmful variation of chromium

3. BACKGROUND (Cont’d)
❖ The lack of social responsibility was amplified by the company’s
attempts to cover up evidence of chromium use and its effects
❖ Erin decided to represent all of the people who were affected by
PG&E’s negligence
❖ Eric was successful in getting justice for PG&E’s victims winning
a lawsuit that had over 600 plaintiffs
❖ The total settlement amount was $333 million for the plaintiffs
along with Erin earning a nice bonus of $2 million

4. FIRST ETHICAL DILEMMA
❖ The most obvious ethical dilemma of this film is the deception of PG&E
❖ PG&E deceived the entire town of Hinkley by allowing them to believe
that their water source was safe
❖ Chromium 6 was used,instead of chromium 3
❖ Company lost the case,and paid $333 million to the people of Hinkley
❖ Company should have done everything to prevent health problems
❖ Proper care should have been taken for people affecting from it

5. SECOND ETHICAL DILEMMA
❖ Second ethical dilemma illustrated was bribery
❖ PG&E representative offered $2’50’000 for Jensen's family to drop charges
❖ PG&E essentially bribed people to go to specific Doctor
❖ Doctor was also bribed for telling that the disease was unrelated to
chromium used at PG&E plants
❖ PG&E essentially should have admitted wrongdoing and apologized for it
❖ PG&E should have payed the people for visiting a doctor of their choice

6. THIRD ETHICAL DILEMMA
❖ The issue of harming the environment was the third ethical dilemma
❖ Hexavalent chromium was clearly dangerous to environment
❖ It didn’t care about sustainability
❖ It kept future generations at danger
❖ It should have added liner to the pools, to keep the flow off water safe.
❖ They should have done this at first step, but legal case and much
damage to the community was required to stop the blitz

7. ❖ The employee of the company , should have stopped the wrongdoing of the
company,They owe a basic responsibility to humanity
❖ It also shows a wrongdoing of a single firm can impact the whole
community at large
❖ It showed admitting wrongdoings could have been avoided,but by not
admitting it they got into the web of problems
❖ They should have resolved this issue originally by removing the hexavalent
chromium from their processes and by admitting wrongdoings
❖ This company should have done everything in their power to prevent health
problems from starting in the first place, or spreading to additional
members of society
❖ They also should have reimbursed everyone affected by hexavalent
chromium at the very beginning.
LEARNINGS