Telus recently installed a cellphone tower on the University of Calgary property near a childcare center. The addition of the tower was a response by the telecommunications company to the increased need for good cellphone reception on the University grounds. However, the placement of the tower near a childcare center put the company in what was considered a "discouraged location." This placement triggered concern from worried parents about the potential hazard from electromagnetic waves.

This concern was supported by World Health Organization (WHO) reports on possible carcinogenic (related to cancer) effects of such waves. The report identified children as being at even greater risk. The guidelines that defined "discouraged locations," were supported in both federal and municipal regulations. The parents' concern stemmed from the fact that the tower was only 84 meters away from the nearest playground. The regulations stipulated that the minimum distance should be about 300 meters. The parents also expressed frustration that they were not consulted in advance of the tower placement decision.

This activism by the parents occurred after the tower placement decision had been made but before the tower was actually built. They were demanding that the tower placement should be changed. A central part of the argument was that while the tower placement may have been legal, its contravention of the placement guidelines made it unethical.

Please answer the questions below:

1. Is there an ethical dilemma here? Why or why not?

2. Assume the role of an executive or leader at Telus. What sort of value judgments and moral standards would you apply in this situation before using a more systematic approach to ethical decision-making?

3. Select and describe three ethical principles the leadership at Telus might apply before making a decision on how to approach the group of concerned parents?