Stakeholder Engagement In Erin Brockovich: Film Analysis

Introduction

This paper highlights the importance of stakeholders in a project. The report below is based on the movie Erin Brockovich, was released in 2000. Distinguishing Stakeholders is the way toward recognizing all individuals or associations affected by the venture, and recording important data with respect to their inclinations, contribution, and effect on venture achievement (Project Management Institute,1996). This paper consists of summary of the movie, identifying stakeholders and power grid.

Genuine hierarchical conduct is rich, and untidy, and enthusiastic, and now and again difficult, yet at different occasions colossally fulfilling. The movie, Erin Brockovich, catches this wealth and gives an energizing way to present an assortment of individual or smaller scale authoritative conduct ideas, (for example, recognition, character, and inspiration) commonly secured toward the start of the Organizational Behavior course. The extravagance of this film and the issues raised additionally give the possibility to increasingly basic investigations of the executives and authoritative practices.

Summary

Erin Brockovich is the nonfictional story of a single parent (named Erin Brockovich) of three youngsters, who battles to get a new line of work. Despite seemingly insurmountable opposition, she figures out how to join in excess of 600 offended parties, and she at last successes them $333 million in harms from the Pacific Gas and Electricity Company (PG&E) for contaminating groundwater with hexavalent chromium. In taking a gander at this specific case, it is useful to have a comprehension of the stakeholders and their perspectives since it offers us bits of knowledge concerning each perspective. The stakeholders are Erin Brockovich and her group (speaking to the residents), PG&E, the Judicial System and Charles Embry.

In the First Scene, Erin meets up with Donna Jensen, who is suffering from a Cancer. She talks to Erin about upbringing her kids and even says that PG&E pays her medical bills. She then tells Erin about usage of chromium in PG&E. Erin, then decided to visit a known chemist to know more about Chromium. That is when, he highlights that PG&E had been using Hexavalent Chromium and hazards relating to it when exposed.

In the Second scene, Ed shows up at Erin’s house and told her about the usage of chromium in parts per million at PG&E. In this scene, Erin talks about Donna to Ed and how PG&E tried to buy her house. She later asked Ed to raise her pay and add benefits, to give him a hard copy which says PG&E have been using Hexavalent Chromium.

In the third scene, PG&E department scheduled a meeting with Ed. According to the representative from PG&E, the company is willing to offer Jensen’s $250,000 for their home. But Ed and Erin rejected their offer and Ed showed him the documents of toxic levels and says the people are suffering due to exposure to chromium. Towards the end of the scene, representative says that PG&E is worth $28 million dollars.

In the Scene after, Ed and Erin went to Hinkley to meet up with the families that are affected by Chromium. A man in the scene raised a concern why PG&E never kept quiet about chemicals in ponds. Ed says it’s to establish Statue of limitations. They later try to convince families that they are using the information they collect is to get them a right price tag on their homes. Ed later says his price is 40% of what the families get.

In the Scene 5, the stage is set in a court, where the families and Ed and Erin waits for the hearing. Court denies the each of 84 motions to strike and demurrers. Judge is seemed to be disturbed by the distribution of pamphlets of chromium to the residents and asked the clients of PG&E to be on trial. Ed and Erin meet up with representatives from PG&E to discuss about whereabouts of the case, but it seems Erin is furious about what happened to those families and takes anger on those representatives.

In scene 6, Erin meets up with Charles Embry, a former employee of PG&E. He talks to Erin about PG&E and how he was asked to destroy the documents. He is saddened by loss of his cousin due to cancer. He later explains how it was like to work in PG&E and encloses some of their secrets.

In the last scene, Erin and her boyfriend, George made a visit to Donnas place. Erin informs that they have successfully sued PG&E and the company must pay $333 million dollars to families affected.

Identifying Stakeholders

Erin Brockovich, Ed Masry, and at last the large law office whom they pair with, speak to the interests of those generally affected by the raised degrees of hexavalent chromium in the water. Erin embodies the grassroots activity to accomplish ecological equity. Erin’s assets are constrained, in any event until she works with the bigger law office. The wellspring of Erin’s capacity comes from the residents who are generally influenced by the hexavalent chromium in groundwater. Without their trust, Erin’s capacity is exceptionally limited. Eventually, she acquires the offended parties’ certainty as every one of them 634 signs on.

The other significant stakeholder right now is PG&E. PG&E speaks to the corporate interests. They will probably keep the Hinckley embarrassment out of the media, so as not draw undesirable consideration. Their capacity originates from the broad system of individuals who depend on PG&E’s power, but since these individuals are not investors in the organization, PG&E neglects their inclinations. Besides, PG&E’s influence originates from the shear measure of cash they have. This empowers them to pay for costly legal counselors, which grassroots intrigue bunches normally can’t bear. Right now, has the influence related with cash (assets) and corporate benefits, though PG&E clients and Erin do not have this force. This is evident from the stakeholder register, which is shown below.

Another stakeholder in the Hinckley case is the judicial system due to its Positional Power. Because of the way that case is brought under the watchful eye of the judge in a coupling discretion, whatever the judge decides assumes tremendous job even before the case can be brought before a jury. The judge could have chosen to acknowledge the strikes and demurrers (basically an arguing that difficulties an arguing documented by a restricting gathering) presented by PG&E, however rather he precludes every one of the 84 from claiming them. As an occupant of the province, the judge is upset that PG&E is conveying misguiding leaflets to residents in the zone. Hence the judge’s qualities and interests are unequivocally lined up with the residents in the region.

Another stakeholder who has a lot of intensity is Charles Embry- Informational Power. He educates Erin that while working at PG&E, he is advised by administrators to shred archives: updates about lakes, readings from test wells, just as inside records. This defilement uncovered by Charles Embry was the ‘cherry over the cake’ for Erin and the residents influenced by PG&E’s destructive practices.

One partner that is normally engaged with this sort of case, however, is not right now, is the media. Another stakeholder who has high interest and power is the residents of Hinckley. This is well explained in Stakeholder register and Power grid.

Conclusion

The stakeholder engagement consistently gives chances to additionally adjust strategic policies with community needs and desires helping to drive long haul supportability and investor esteem. Partner commitment must occur if the association genuinely needs the contributions from the individuals engaged with the business for basic leadership. The partner commitment arranging ought to be done in such a way, that it stays helpful to the association. Stakeholder engagement helps any association to contend with its opponents in an unpredictable and changing business atmospheres. This report shows how stakeholders are affected by various events that happens throughout the movie and how they acted accordingly.

References:

1. Bourne, L. (2009, September 22). Who is a stakeholder? Retrieved March 20,2011, from Project Management Institute :http: //blogs .pmi.org/ blog/voices_on_project_manag- ement/2009/09/who-is-a-stakeholder.html
2. Smith, L. W. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a pivotal practice of successful projects. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, TX. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
3. Project Management Institute. (1996): A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.