Wenson and Gommi Ltd (WGL) produces babycare products. WGL prides itself on its commitment to environmental protection and many of its advertisements focus on its slogan, Taking care of your baby, and your babys future.

One of their most popular products is a sky-blue nappy with pictures of the earth that glow softly in the dark. Producing this effect requires a chemical process that produces dioxins (a highly toxic and persistent organic chemical) as a waste product. The Australian government introduced a national approach to deal with dioxins that included measurement and reduction programs.

In response WGL decided to outsource production to a Pacific island nation where unemployment is a major problem. WGL does not have any ownership interests in this production company, but is its only customer. The government of this Pacific nation was very pleased to have this employment opportunity moving to their country and has been willing to ignore the possible detrimental impact on their environment. Now the only problem facing WGL are criticisms that the nappies are not biodegradable. WGL is not concerned, however, since that is a problem for its customers.

Need Help with the below two questions (In 500 words)

1) What options might be available to manage WGLs environmental impact?

2) What arguments can you provide for WGL to incur additional costs to reduce the environmental impact of the production and disposal of their nappies, even though production and disposal are performed by others?