Whose duty?NY Times and other guides have carried an article by Thomas Zeller posing an alternate query Does case study solution responsbility solely rest with TEPCO?Perhaps not GE, case study answer maker of this reactor and case study solution Japanese executive both have roles to play. GE advertised such Mark 1 Fukushima type reactors as lower priced than alternate options and US regulators also began identifiying its weaknesses very early on. The article goes on to conclude that GE’s legal responsibility in Japan is limited as Japan’s regulatory system places most legal responsibility on case study answer plant operator in this case Tokyo Electric Power. Even in face of catastrophe, although, electric powered power agencies have a social obligation to deliver a stable supply of electrical energy and are therefore expected to take a complete strategy towards unforeseen injuries and disasters so goes case study answer disaster response initiative of TEPCO in its 2010 Sustainability Report. In failing to keep its credo, TEPCO’s response to this disaster previously has been barely adequate. It has declined to supply details about case study answer ‘Fukushima 50’ case study solution faceless heroes 50 men of alternative ages, some volunteers, some retirees operating at giant private risk to save case study solution lives of others.