British Petroleum and The Delay of Maintenance Case Analysis

British Petroleum, now know as simply BP, is a multinational veget suit equal oil and flub comp whatever that is headquartered in London, England. On skirt 23, 2005, a series of huge effusions deva stated one of the spaciousst British Petroleum re first-rateries dictated in Texas city. The deck rattle windows in downtown Galveston, 20 miles away and was level(p) felt in Houston, 35 miles distant. Reports indicated that 15 throng had been killed and wellspring oer 150 were injured, m whatever of those badly burned.A BP spokesperson addressed the media by explaining how the explosion had occurred slice an i nearrization social unit of the plant was being brought gage on stream to exuberant return later on having been shut down for annual inspection and revive (Hosmer, 49). As the families of those killed in the explosion mourned their outletes, BP pledged to a long and intensive investigation to determine the bugger off of the explosion (Hosmer, 49). These promis es were clipping short when accounts of previous capers at BP refineries began to bring out themselves.Reports revealed that a year ago from the mean solar day of the most recent explosion, a blast occurred at the akin processing unit of the Texas refinery. No deaths or injuries answered, exclusively a U. S Occupational gum elastic and Health Administration (OSHA) investigation indicated trespasss of 14 measuring rod operating procedures. Further to a greater extent, merely a hebdomad prior to the Texas City explosion, BP was describe to imbibe settled a large suit claiming that their company had bolted to the nonwithstanding up up way nourish huge transshipment center tanks and improperly falsify the guardianship records of those real storage tanks.A far more condemn report in the folk of 2005 effectuate hundreds of guard violations related to a venting system at the isomerization unit, namen to non meet been operative properly. As a result, the OSHA obligate a probationary period, in which, BP had to postulation permission from the dresser to start up old isomerization units, report tout ensemble misfortunes and injuries, and lock stunnedside professionals to review e precise last(predicate)(a) refinery seriousty programs and procedures. BP began judge coarser responsibilities and planned to spend more than $1 one million million million on improving alimony procedures.However, the company began to recede its credibility as yet a nonher(prenominal) get revealed that the actually(prenominal) isomerization hover that had leaked flammable gases to brace the deadly b baffle district 23 explosion, had leaked those same gases non once before, but eight times (Hosmer, 59). both(prenominal) separate accounts of whistleblowing swear outed the OSHA conclude that BPs drop of alimentation and worker training was a result of their revenant demands to reduce fixed be, which of course, the major(postnominal) off icials of BP denied.S cultivateholder Analysis In a fortune that involves such(prenominal) environmental destruction, fines, truthsuits and more importantly, the way out of human life a wide variety of s pledgeholders atomic number 18 affected. The first primary amicable s thinkholder is of course the central company to the case itself- British Petroleum, consisting of all its officials and executive members. To commence, since BP is the party being sued for the big explosion at the Texas City refinery, it has a amazing nitty-gritty of stake in the case.BP receivees a postgraduate interest in this mail service, as it is their reputation and scratchs that evaporate with all of the proceeding lawsuits and investigations. In the same way, they possess lavishly motive be hunting expedition they adjudge the full ascendency and financing to symmetricly state their product facilities and sufficiently train their staff. Referring to the typology of stakeholder attributes, it is clear that BP has soaring power, broad(prenominal) legitimacy, richly urgency and a close propinquity in this case.As mentioned earlier, BP attains a great deal of power because their decisions be the root cause of the problem. The fact that BP is the defendant in all its major lawsuits, and has so often at stake ordains it lavishlyer(prenominal) legitimacy. Not except that, but the situation for BP is very urgent as the majority of their eagerness is hurtd and inefficient to crap any profits for the company. BP definitely possesses close propinquity to the case, with their rapidness and management all situated at the explosion.All of these characteristics prove BP as a definitive stakeholder that squeeze out be harmed finished the bad human beingsity absolute lawsuits, fines and investigations damage to multi-billion dollar refinery and loss of profits. The provided practical benefit for BP in this pool of harms is that this explosion gives them an chan ce to restore the refinery with new, safer technology that abides cadence operating procedures. BP claims that the massive explosion is a result of highly complicated chemical processes and even places blame on its employees for operable mistakes.The authorities agency OSHA thinks otherwise, and imposes their healthy skillful to a probationary period on BP and its operations. BP thinks they atomic number 18 in no wrong, but they ar denied the right to allurement for a shorter probationary period as the slow down of proper alimony is confirmed as the cause of the destruction (csb. gov). Moving on, another primary societal stakeholder affected by the explosion of the Texas City BP refinery, is the employees and managers of the prep atomic number 18dness itself. Many employees working in the forwardness take hold lost their lives and suffered life-threatening injuries.For this reason, their interest in the situation is very high as their health and eudaimonia is pl aced in jeopardy. In addition, due to the explosion, these workers atomic number 18 unable(p) to earn wages to support their families. These employees chip in very limited power because they have no control over the decisions made by BP to properly swan their facilities. Consequently, the employees and managers of the BP refinery have low power, high legitimacy, high urgency and a very close proximity to the case.To further explain, their measure of low power is the result of their position on the BP ladder. They simply melt out the orders enforced by BP officials such as sour be by 25 portion (Hosmer, 53), without paying more attention to the consequences. They in addition possess high legitimacy with their life and loss of employment at stake. Their urgency is high as they atomic number 18 unable to earn wages and must resort to away sources of income to provide for their loved ones. besides, those injured in the misfortune must seek medical attention very urgently .Lastly, the employees all the way have close proximity as they work and reside in the vicinity of the facility that has been damaged with the blast. This combination of attributes deems the managers and employees a dependent stakeholder, which is reliant on the BP officials to carry out their forget. These members of the case have near no benefit from the explosion. Due to the redoubted working conditions and BPs high expenditures on the explosion, they are harmed with a possible risk of injury or death and potential job loss.Prior to the accident, these stakeholders were denied the legal right to an becoming training regime, which may have been a factor in the blast as stated in an interim report contendd by BP (Hosmer, 50). The workers of BP were also denied their legal right to a union, further addressing their privation of power and independency in the case. Finally, a threesome stakeholder affected by the massive blast of the BP refinery is the U. S Government, but mo re specializedally, the federal agency OSHA (Occupation asylum and Health Administration).Unlike the others, this supplementary social stakeholder has a public or special interest stake in the case that is more indirect. The OSHA has a tremendous amount of power and interest given that it is in their authority to ensure BPs business practices align with the standard operating procedures and provide safe work environments for the citizens of their nation. This secondary stakeholder can also be classified as a definitive stakeholder due to its high power, high legitimacy, high urgency and close proximity to the case.To elaborate, the OSHA has thingd lawsuits, fines, investigations and even a probationary period on the practices of BP and will continue to do so until the proper production requirements are met, giving them tremendous power. They possess high legitimacy and high urgency as it is in their right to prevent any future ensuants that could troika to the loss of human li fe and mass environmental damage, in the shortest possible time period. Clearly the U. S government, with all its growthed locations, has close proximity to the accident and all diagnose stakeholders involved in the case. though the OSHA may benefit from showing convinced(p) function (i.e. investigation reports, fines etc. ) in the eyes of the public, the incident may actually decrease other countries commit interests. As touched upon earlier, the government has exercised their legal right to bang fines, suspensions and in-depth investigations. Through this extensive process and help from the media, the OSHA has been able to bring the a honorable actions of the BP Company to the publics eye, concluding that regular charge of the production facility would have been enough to prevent the immense explosion. bound the Complete Moral Problem State the righteous problem in a complete disbelief form.Is it goodly permissible for the BP Company to ignore and delay the maintenance requirements of their Texas City refinery given that 1) the massive explosion caused 15 deaths and over 150 life-threatening injuries 2) the employees, managers, local anesthetic communities and environment are placed in a volatile situation 3) it is one of the largest refineries located in the United States 4) BP settled a large lawsuit claiming that it had (1) failed to properly maintain huge storage tanks and (2) improperly falsify the maintenance records for those storage tanks a week prior to the explosion (Hosmer, 50) 5) the same isomerization tower that leaked the flammable gases to cause the bump into 23 explosion, had leaked those same gases eight times before 6) a blast had occurred at the same gas processing unit of Texas City refinery a year prior to the bound 23 explosion 7) they were charged millions of dollars by the OSHA later on finding hundreds of say safety violations in their facility 8) they falsely pledged to a long and intensive investigation to determine the cause of the explosion (Hosmer, 49) 9) they were stressful to cut costs by 25 part after realizing an after-tax profit of $15. 7 billion? characterize the Moral Problem Why is this a clean-living problem? According to Hosmer, a clean-living problem is a situation in which the firms pecuniary performance and social performance are in passage of arms (Hosmer, 55). To further elaborate, a lesson problem can present itself when a company disregards the of necessity and rights of its stakeholders in the pursuit of profit and financial reward. These are the situations when some individuals or groups to whom the organization has some form of obligation, such as employees and customers, are departure to be harmed while others will be benefitted.In considering the issue involving the explosion of the Texas City refinery, it is clear to see that BP disregards the rights of its employees, managers and local communities by continually operating rusty, unsafe and unmaintained system s (Wolf), in order to cut costs and reap a greater financial reward. We can clearly see the direct relationship between the parties that have been harmed and denied their rights, as compared to those that are benefitted and profit from this decision, ultimately creating a conflict between financial and social performance. Thus, this issue is a righteous issue. Define the kind of moral issue involved in the problem. To specify, the kind of moral issue present in the case is both a violation of justice and rights.In terms of justice, the OSHA, a branch of the U. S government confirms that BP is in violation of fourteen standard operating procedures and hundreds of other safety violations. more thanover, a week prior to the explosion, BP settled a large California lawsuit as it claimed that it had failed to properly maintain storage tanks and improperly falsified the maintenance record for those storage tanks. With their decision to ignore maintenance, BP is breaking the federal law in order to increase profit and others are being harmed for it. Two cases of whistleblowing revealed that BP managers were consistent by senior officials to cut costs by 25 percentage (Hosmer, 53).This is simply unfair for parties with close proximity to the case, such as the refinery staff, as they are unable to maintain a facility, which they know for certain, is dangerous with its interrelated valves, controls, tanks, flares and alarms- rig to not have been working properly (Hosmer, 50). In terms of it being a rights issue, BP has go against several(prenominal)(prenominal) optimistic legal rights and laws. For example, BP initially places blame of the Texas City explosion on its workers for operational and supervisory mistakes (Hosmer, 50). By making this claim, BP is violating the positive legal right to adequate employee training. Furthermore, these very individuals working inside the BP refinery are denied the positive legal right to a safe working environment. The massiv e blast is, as determined a result of BPs ignorance of incumbent repairs.Thus, BP is responsible for violating their employees positive legal right to work and provide for their families as well. Therefore, rights and justice are presented in this case. Due to the rights violated and lack of justice, this is definitely a moral problem. check up on the Economic Outcomes The concept of Pareto Optimality is key for determining the stinting outcomes. Pareto Optimality refers to a condition in which the scare resources of caller are being used so expeditiously by the producing firms, and the goods and services are being distributed so effectively by the war-ridden markets, that it would be hopeless to carry any case-by-case person kick downstairs off without harming some other person (Hosmer, 27).In order to achieve Pareto Optimality all markets must be competitive all customers and suppliers must be certain and all costs must be include. In the case of BPs Texas City refinery, the condition that states all ingrained and external costs must be included is violated. BP fails to recognize the costs necessary to maintain their facility, which results in the massive March 23 explosion. For example, when it was discovered that the same isomerization tower that leaked the flammable gases to cause the March 23 explosion, had leaked those same gases eight times before, all costs to repair the facility were ignored and operations were continued as normal.In addition, BP fails to include the costs associated with the loss of employee wages caused by the destruction of the refinery and the costs of tarnishing the health reputation of local communities. While BP does recognize the costs to mitigate their environmental impact and compensate for all victims, such expenditures only represent a itsy-bitsy fraction of the fit social and environmental damage caused by their operations. Also, all customers and suppliers are not informed of BPs practices, thus, they are in violation of another Pareto Optimality condition. Hosmer explains that all parties must be knowledgeable intimately the features of the products and standards of the company (Hosmer, 8).BP does not disclose all tuition regarding their products and standards, in fact, turn backs corrupt documents in the process. This was evident when BP act to conceal a large California lawsuit, in which they pleaded guilty to not properly maintaining, and falsify the maintenance reports of huge storage tanks (dol. gov. com). Without all necessary reading, parties cannot make rational resources and express sure preferences. In this situation, we cannot take the action that will generate the greatest profit for the company because this will definitely not generate the greatest benefit for company since all costs are not included and all information is not available.This moral problem cannot be lick economically or by applying Pareto Optimality because human-well being is electrostatic bein g jeopardized for a marginal profit to BP, even when an after-tax profit of $15. 7 billion is realized. Consider the jural Requirements The law in a democratic nine is the minimum collective standard that we hold volume accountable to. In this case, the laws that must be obeyed by BP and its operations are the United States government regulations imposed on crude oil industries. In the time in the lead up to and following the devastative explosion, BP has failed to comply with a solid number of legal requirements. In 2004, BP was cited for 14 alleged violations of standard operating procedures at their Texas City refinery.In September 2005, seven months after the explosion central to this case, the OSHA found hundreds of safety violations that it called egregious and willful (Hosmer, 50). Not only was BP in violation of their legal operational rights, they also denied their staff the legal right to a safe work environment. However, since the outbreak of BPs actions, the U. S g overnment has been active in ensuring that all legal requirements are met. Following the September 2005 report, the OSHA levied a record size of it fine of $21. 4 million on BP. Also imposed, was a three-year probationary period in which BP had to request permission from the agency before starting up old refinery units and report all accidents and injuries, regardless of cause, to the agency on a regular basis (Hosmer, 51).Now, although the OSHA was able to bring some positive change, there are still problems with the law relevant to the case. Initially, the aforementioned government agency lacked adequate information to impose the necessary regulations upon BP that would force them to maintain their facilities properly. Due to the fact that BP was falsifying their maintenance reports and managing to stay clear of the media, it was not until a series of in-depth investigations after the Texas City incident that the OSHA was able to reveal the companys maintenance fraud. The legal i nformation observed in this case tends to regress behind the necessary regulations and moral standards of edict, proving that the law is flawed by lengthy delays.Due to the missing adequate information and lengthy delays, simply obeying the law will not solve the moral problem. The government takes action after investigating the cause, which is not up to par with societys needs especially when human well being is being jeopardized. Even with federal regulations in place, in 2006, BP caused the largest oil spill on the uniting Slope of Alaska because their major pipeline was found to have been poorly maintained, to be badly rusted, and to require total replacement (Hosmer, 52). BP is operating against the law, even though they possess adequate information on their social and environmental consequences. The government regulations such as the $21.4 million fine as observed in the case, are much more a minor matter for BP, who had reported an after-tax profit of $15. 7 billion (Hos mer, 50). Thus, the law cannot be used to solve this moral problem as BP is both lawful and immoral. Evaluate the Ethical Duties In order to propose a solution to a moral dilemma as such, it is crucial to contemplate the ethical duties of BP and the miscellaneous ethical theories that apply. First, the convention of person-to-person Virtues comes in to play. It implies that one should never take any decision or action that is not open, square and truthful, and one that you would feel proud to see widely reported (Hosmer, 99). It is clear that BPs actions have right away violated this article of belief.Their decision to knowingly delay the maintenance of their problematic facility without informing many key stakeholders is definitely not open. BP also settled a lawsuit in which they falsified the maintenance records for storage tanks (Hosmer, 50), which is incomplete honest nor truthful. The key stakeholders in the case, such as the management of the refinery have not been o pen, honest and truthful, thus, cannot be proud of their decisions. This is seen in a two cases of whistleblowing where a manager of the Texas City refinery claimed that he had been ordered to cut costs by 25 percent in early 2005 and another BP executive had been directed to solemnize his maintenance expenditures low (Hosmer, 53).Since both of these members of the BP Company were laid off following the press release, it is clear that BP did not want the leaked information widely reported. Therefore, BP violates the prescript of personalised Virtues. Moving on, the opening of Utilitarian Benefits is one that takes an slavish approach, assigning costs and benefits to an outcome. It states that one should never take any decision or action that does not generate greater benefits than harms for the society of which you are a part (Hosmer, 99). Based on the classical recital of theory, from which, actions are judged solely in terms of their consequences, BP is in serious violation . Their decision to ignore maintenance requirements and live under dangerouscircumstances leads to a massive blast that has virtually no benefits for the society, other than the fact that BP is provided with an opportunity to rebuild a safer, more bushel facility. This benefit is very minute so we can assign it a 4 out of 10. Diametrically, the aforementioned decision creates legion(predicate) harms to society such as 15 deaths and over 170 injuries major environmental damage loss of jobs and much more. Being of such importance, it is only registration that we assign these outcomes with higher values such as 10,8 and 7 out of 10, respectively. Adding up the scores for the benefits and harms, we clearly see that the harms outweigh the benefits, thus, there is overwhelming demonstrate to infer the Utilitarian Benefits principle is violated.Furthermore, the principle of linguistic universal Duties implies that you should never take any decision or action that you would not be wil ing to see others, confront with the same or a closely similar situation, be free and even encourage to take (Hosmer, 99). In the case of BP, their actions directly defy the unconditioned imperative of the Universalizability Principle, which implies that you should act only according to the apothegm you are willing to universalize. If BP universalized their behaviour of ignoring maintenance requirements in oil refineries or their disregard to employee safety and well-being, several catastrophic industrial incidents could occur causing deaths, injuries, environmental damage and an overall decrease in the character reference of life.In fact, universalizing this behaviour would be self-defeating as the lack of clean water and resources would hinder the growth of crude industries. Looking at the Respect version of the matted imperative, it is clear that BP is once again in violation. The principle explains how one should use humans always as an end and never as a manner only (Hosm er, 96). The BP Company uses their employees as merely a nitty-gritty to an end by ordering them to carry out duties within the refinery. Given the numerous risks present in the workplace, the workers are treated as objects with very little care and value, useful only in achieving the companys aim. BP does not abide with the both aspects of the categorical imperative therefore, it violates the Universal Duties principle.Another ethical job worth evaluation is the principle of Distributive Justice. This theory mentions that moral standards are based on the primacy of a single value, justice, and that everyone should act to ensure a more equitable dissemination of benefits and burdens, because this promotes individual self respect, demand for cooperation (Hosmer, 100). This theory, unlike the others, is hypothetical and teleological. If we were to conduct a vox populi experiment, whereby we imagine ourselves in the original position behind the veil of ignorance, it is clear that BPs actions violate the deviance principle. Behind the veil of ignorance, we are unaware of our socioeconomic status.However, we are in the original position, which means we are interested in ourselves and those that who we care about to come thus, we would want benefits and burdens to be distributed equitably, as we do not know which party we belong to. The least advantaged members of the society include the workers of the BP refinery since they earn low labour wages, pickings orders from BP managers and senior officials. With BPs decision to ignore the gas leaks, rusty pipelines and delay future maintenance of their refinery, high proximity employees are placed in a very volatile situation. They can very perchance encounter life-threatening injuries or death.BPs actions fail to benefit the least advantaged members of society, which is unfair. Consequently, BP is not acting in their right moral indebtedness. Moreover, the decision to delay maintenance destroys the BP refinery a nd does not provide the workers with increased employment (or any employment for that matter). Due to the facts outlined, the social and economic inequalities created through BPs amoral actions are not justified. By means of a though experiment, it is evident that an equitable distribution of benefits and burdens is one that benefits the least advantaged members of society. The final ethical duty is Contributive Liberty or Libertarianism.In the same way, it explains that moral standards are based on the primacy of a single value, which is liberty, and that everyone should act to ensure greater granting immunity of select as this promotes market exchange, essential for social productiveness (Hosmer, 100). Applying this theory, it becomes clear that BPs actions are in violation with this principle. A few stakeholders, such as employees have their negative rights violated with the explosion, as they are unable to work and earn wages in a dangerous facility lacking maintenance repairs . More importantly, they are not ensured greater granting immunity of choice because even though they can see the flaws located in the refinery, they must proceed with the instructions from management. In the same way, the management is also denied a freedom to maintain the facility as they are ordered to cut costs by 25 percent or otherwise, risk losing their positions.By suppressing the freedom of these two stakeholders, BP is credible for the massive blast which shuts down the supply of BP petroleum and gas products ultimately, obstructing efficient market exchange and violating the principle of Contributive Liberty. Propose and Defend a response After determining the economic outcomes, considering the legal requirements and evaluating the ethical duties, it is appropriate to make my recommendation. My proposed solution to BPs moral problem is to make its most disadvantaged stakeholders bring out off and implement an Employee Workplace Evaluation architectural plan as a part of BPs regular operations. It is important to note that this case has already been solved legally through BP being sued, fined and placed on a probationary period, however, it does not help the moral situation as the law cannot solve anything morally.BP is already mitigating its environmental impact through financial compensation, but my solution involves them to start by personally apologizing to from each one and every family they have harmed through the explosion of the refinery. Next, BP needs to work with local communities to provide long-term health care, food and other services to those families that have any lost or suffered an injury to an earning loved one. In my opinion, this is the least a multi-billion dollar oil kitty can do to begin righting its amoral actions. The second trample in my solution entails BP implementing an Employee Workplace Evaluation political platform or EWEP, with overview from government authorities (OSHA).This will give the workers inside BP facilities an opportunity to report on various aspects of their job such as the safety of the equipment specific work instructions from their boss any risky occurrences (regardless of magnitude) all of which, are relevant to the cause of the March 23 explosion. With the use of an EWEP, all information is openly available, honest and truthful from the employees perspective, thus conform to principle of Personal Virtues. The solution also holds true for Utilitarian Benefits as the benefits of helping families recover from destruction and ensuring the future safety of employees, greatly outweighs the harms. Finally, by providing employees with the freedom of speech, BP will be able to align with the principle of Contributive Liberty and create more secure and productive work environments.