Comparative Ethics and Social Responsibility for Society

Question: Discuss about theComparative Ethics and Social Responsibility for Society. Answer: Introduction Ethics may mean acceptable behavior that every business must adhere to (Okoli Amadi 2014). The code of behavior explains how the company is supposed to relate with both internally and externally stakeholders. This governs all activities of the business to ensure that the organization does not exploit employees, customers, suppliers, the society, the government and all other stakeholders of the organization (Schmit, 2010). Social responsibility is an ethical framework which states that the entity, whether an individual or organization is obligated to act in the best interest of the society as a whole(Woodman and Mitchell, 2011). In this case, the organization must ensure that it avoids any activity that would breach this implied contract to the society. It must, therefore, be very careful to mitigate all possible risks that its operation may cause to the physical environment and peoples' lives regarding health(Skogdalen, Utne, Vinnem, 2011). The organization is also obliged to providing necessary facilities e.g. social amenities to the society as well as ensuring that it affects economic lives of the people around it in the course of its operation (Foxon and Pearson, 2007). It has to consider its impact on four main areas within the society before embarking on the actual process. These areas are; environmental pollution, health factors, social factors and economic factors. Ethics and social responsibility go together at all times. It is from the above definitions that this article seeks to establish in studying the oil and gas industry and its implication upon omitting this critical aspect in carrying out their operations. The ways in which the Control of Ethical Related Perils could Minimize Accidents. Management of unforeseen eventualities related to ethics is crucial when it comes to avoidance and reduction of accidents in oil and gas industries. This can be achieved through the establishment of proper conduct oriented influence which is to be emulated by all stakeholders in the organization. This character must be induced in the workers at all levels and be taught to take responsibility on any incident as a result of failure to adhere to accepted regulations. (Bigliani, 2013). For example, Exxon Valdez Ltd could not have allowed the firm without a license to carry out the assignment accorded to it. This was very high risk taken by this company which could have been managed. The fact that there was no license was enough to alarm raised for the officials of Exxon Valdez to know that Third Party was unqualified for the task at hand. Since these officials overlooked this danger alarm raised and went ahead to allow it to take over the ship, the consequence was much felt when the vess el caused the worst accident ever. Logically, if this risk was managed by the officials, then this accident could not have occurred, and hence the complete loss and burden could have been prevented (Okoli Amadi, 2014). Therefore, this illustration shows how managing ethical risks can obviously help in avoiding accidents. The ethical risk was seen when the officials having done alcohol detoxification program and found out that the person operating the vessel had an excess level than required. With a clear prior knowledge of this fact, the managerial team decided to contract such a person assuming the dangers involved since it was seen as a breach of shipping law. Piloting under the influence of alcohol, the in-charge lost control. Therefore, he went against the normal direction which resulted to unnecessary oil spill and eventually causing a material destruction. This accident could have been prevented the Exxon Valdez official denied the captain access to the vessel given the fact that his blood-alcohol level was past the one recommended by the coast guard officials. The captain lost control of the ship since he was drunk, a high ethical misconduct leading to a great loss. In the real sense, if the vessel officials could have managed this moral risk, then this accident could have been avoided entirel y (Andeobu, Hettihewa, Wright, 2015). The third ethical risk leading to this fateful accident is when the ship captain, Hazelwood, showed disobedience and failed to take the instructions of the Coast Guards who warned him in advance of the dangers that could result from kicking off. Ignoring this warning and instead exerted a lot of effort for a long time in rolling the vessel (Ojukwu-Ogba, 2009). This made the spill even more severe causing it to spread all over for a long period of time. This in turn suffocated sea life ranging from bigger to smaller living organisms both plants and animals. Coast Guards is tasked purely to monitor the movement of all the fleet on water and guide the captains on any looming danger. Ethically, it's required that when warned by the guards, the captain must obey and follow the instructions to the latter to avoid causing any damage (Bigliani, 2013). Failure to follow these instructions is an ethical risk. This can easily be managed when the captains are trained that they are under the inst ructions from the Coast Guard and should heed any warning from them. In this case, it might be assumed that the captain was not instructed on about the warning from the coast guard. This translates to why he was not licensed and also given the fact that he was drunk (Duruigbo, 2008). If this failure to take instructions was well managed, then this accident could have been avoided. BP encountered a significant risk which led to a massive explosion when it subcontracted an oil rig from Transocean Ltd in venturing in a highly profitable business in the Mexican country. Later, rigging exploded resulting in loss of several lives of workers at the site. This explosion was due to poor management of the risk clearly seen when BP took actions which made the well more vulnerable. It also shortened the measures to be taken to test the viability of the equipment before undertaking the activity. The decision undertaken in usage of cheap equipment was an alarm to an impending peril. If BP could have managed these risks, then it's more than certain that all these accidents could not have materialized. Comparing Perils Encountered by the three Firms in Attempt to Respond to Demand. Risks Being Faced by BP Beyond Petroleum, BP failed to live up to its promises of being socially responsible and sustainable (Schmit, 2010). Despite its rebrand, it failed to merge the intended meaning to the operations. This was evidenced by an explosion in one of the entities where it was playing an oversight role. BP experienced a series of major scandals in an attempt to increase its production levels. For example, there was the Texas refinery explosion killing fifteen employees. This happened when the management at BP decided to use shortcuts to increase oil production and in return make huge profits without considering the ethical responsibility that it was supposed to take. This exposed so many employees to danger hence an explosion occurred resulting in the death of fifteen employees. BP again engaged in another risk by subcontracting an oil rig from Transocean Ltd in order to increase its revenues in future. By so doing, there resulted an accident which put to death a number of workers. The site where this had happened collapsed later with enormous negative impacts in relation to the oil spills resulting to environmental catastrophe. Proper investigations of the site could have been undertaken before sub contraction. Assumption of this vital step made the firm to blindly entering into this contract which resulted to more regrets (Parloff, 2010). In addition to the above risks, during an explosion, BP started drilling other holes in the hope of relieving tension at the destroyed site. Unfortunately, the results were unwelcome and caused further damage and losses than ever before in the amounts of oil waste. The result of this was a further depletion of sea life together with a decline in trade activities done by the locals and the people who solely depended on water organisms as their means of livelihood. Abetter remedy would have been undertaken to curb the accident other than this alternative (Sylves Comfort, 2012). BP was solely responsible for its downfall. This can be traced from the measures it used to take in case of an occurrence. The actions taken by BP made the well more vulnerable. Also, the firms decision procedurally not being satisfactory to the required standard, with personal selfish intentions was a major blow. The firm intentionally omitted necessary logistics that would have saved it from the dangers that it faced at the implementation of the incomplete steps. Thirdly, the desire to reduce expenses as much as possible in purchasing and installing the equipment was another undoing. It is the intention of every business to cut down costs as much as possible. However, the problem arises when it fails to consider main areas more so those touching the society and the environment at large. In addition, the spill became such a wide-scale disaster due to a faulty blowout preventer which accelerated leakages within the tube. With trained and ethical engineers, this would have been notice d in advance and proper management put in place to prevent the disaster (Sylves Comfort, 2012). It is also said that the firms technicians might have assumed the prior signs and advices before the actual activity being undertaken. Ignorance of such signs gives an impression of incompetence among the people involved. Should they have heed, the evidenced explosion would not have occurred. Risks Being faced by Exxon Exxon has several risks in trying to increase its supply to the market. First, it allowed unauthorized firm to be in charge of the vessel. This was a big mess as far as ethics is concerned. The firm assumed its personal responsibility in case something worse happened as result of such undertaking.(Sylves Comfort, 2012). This was a big risk since a captain who is not licensed should not pilot the ship. Secondly, the official of Exxon Valdez was very much aware of the status of the person who was to be in-charge of the vessel and instead he assumed and proceeded to offer the chance even when he knew the future dangers involved. This might be linked to corruption at the expense of the companys interests. It could not be understood how and why somebody in management could give such a person an assignment with such a high peril. Thirdly, Joseph Hazelwood ignored the Coast Guards alarm on the possible consequences of operating the vessel at that particular moment. The management would have controlled this if it could consider its obligations to the society at large. The ignorance of the captain could either be linked to his blood-alcohol content which was above the expected levels. This could have interfered with his judgments which made him cause a disaster. (Sylves Comfort, 2012). Risks Being Faced by Fracking The firm is responsible for polluting the environment especially water by emptying harmful materials and gases in these bodies. This affects the lives of marine animals as well as polluting water which could have been used otherwise (Srebotnjak Rotkin-Ellman, 2014). It also releases fast-moving gasses such as methane into the atmosphere. The release of these gasses into the air causes air pollution which endangers most life including human life. Fracking as well is accused of causing deviations in seismicity within the society. It uses volumes of water in the course of its operations which is a great danger to life in relation to this important natural resource since it could create artificial droughts due to continuous use of it. It is also claimed that the exclusion from some rules enjoyed by this firm may be detrimental to the general public (Spence, 2013). Further, it is as well receiving some ban in some countries such as France, Germany, Scotland, and Bulgaria. This practice h as resulted to a reduction in value of residents making it less profitable for those affected with the activity to transfer ownership of this precious commodity due to reduced demand for such houses. Due to the fact that these firms are located to densely populated areas, any catastrophe caused would affect a good proportion of the populations .Such risks expose the company to many problems which in future makes the firm to face resistance in the areas it has been operating in. Continuous resistance reduces the goodwill of the firm thus making it hard for the firm to penetrate the market. This leads to low sales accompanied by low profits (Spence, 2013). In comparison, all these companies were substantially involved in high risks which in turn affected their production levels (Merrill Schizer, 2013). All these companies felt the consequences of the different risks they went through in that these risks posed challenges to the immediate environment such as water animals, atmosphere, as well as losing much oil and gas through spills. These costed them a lot of money which would have been used productively by investing in expansion projects. (Sylves Comfort, 2012). Risk Mitigation through Ethical Leadership Moral influence is guided through respect for ethical beliefs and values in ensuring dignity and rights of others in the society. Components of ethical leadership include trust, honesty, consideration and fairness. Every ethical leader must lead by example, championing all ethical issues in the organization and also ensure efficient communication within and without the organization. The above roles are a stepping stone ethical operations without fear of breaking rules or breaching contracts whatsoever (Taylor, 2009). To drive the point home, the paper has looked at the possible causes of the risks encountered in a number of firms and how they can be controlled by help of ethical leadership. To begin with, Exxon Valdez accident which caused a lot of damage both to the environment and sea creatures was due to the following reasons according to the reliable sources: Hazelwood, the captain of the tanker, had an excess blood-alcohol level which is not allowed for captains. To add on this, the captain ignored the warning of the Coast Guard on the risks of rocking the ship at that particular moment. Furthermore, the officials' negligence was noted since they gave Hazelwood the responsibility with their full knowledge that his blood-alcohol level was above the accepted levels for captains as per the rules of the land (Vinnem, 2010). In addition, the containment efforts by Alyeska Pipeline Service to curb the accident were too slow and ineffective as per the observation of Coast Guard in regard to responding to emergencies. Not forgetting communication breakdown at the scene which hampered cleanup efforts, lack of initiative by the management of Exxon and Alyeska to mobilize a fleet of private fishing boats which were available to help in containment and cleanup activities. In addition to these, unpreparedness of Alyeska Company to contain a major disaster increased the spread of the risk. Finally on the causes of these accidents were the managerial decisions to reduce costs in terms of advocating for incomplete procedures and also buying low-quality equipment to save money for other organization's use at the expense of their ethical and social responsibilities. All these were ultravires as far as legal aspect that bound the firm to corporate social responsibility was concerned (Taylor, 2009). Therefore, having looked at the above causes critically, it can be concluded that the company lacked ethical leadership. This is so because such a leadership would have ensured there is no communication breakdown since one of its tenets is effective communication thus mitigating the risk appropriately (Osmundsen, Aven, Erik, 2008). Also, ethical leadership entails leading by example which could not have entertained management's negligence on the captain when his blood-alcohol content was above the acceptable limits. In addition, championing the need for ethical practices in the organization to all workers being one of the roles of ethical leadership would have prevented unnecessary delays and malpractices such purchasing equipment at low cost which increased exposure to risk with the aim of cutting on costs (Schonbeck, Rausand, Rouvroye, 2010). The captains negligence on the Coast Guards advice meant that ethical leadership was lacking since he would not have proceeded to rock the ship at that time. In a nutshell, all these causes would have been contained if a proper ethical leadership would have spearheaded every department. Conclusion From the above article, we learn that it is impossible for any business to operate successfully in a given society without taking into account ethical related issues characterized by that particular ecosystem. Business entities therefore, should deceased from focusing just on its profits and put the whole idea of humanity at heart. Most of these companies make hazardous decisions which expose them to a lot of risks which could have been conveniently avoided. These perils also could have been prevented if a well-designed ethical leadership and compliance programs are embraced by the management of these companies. To ensure sustainability in the oil and gas industry, it's inevitable for these firms to develop proper methods of dealing with any uncertainty in time so as to avoid further dangers. Risks discussed above may be managed to help reduce accidents and loss. The management should put more focus on risk management as these companies prove to be vulnerable to risk. From the compar ison of the risks faced by BP, Exxon, and Fracking, it's clear that the damages and losses could be managed and hence prevented. This is a must do for all companies looking forward to a loss-free engagement. It is therefore recommendable for firms to institute a working and vibrant department within its system to deal with such ethical related issues. This will save the firm from spending on damages caused as well as wasting a lot of time dealing with law suits at the court in regard to such issue. The expenses saved here would be conveniently used to develop other sectors within the organization as well as bettering lives in the society through giving back to it in terms of social facilities and employment creation. References Andeobu, L., Hettihewa, S., Wright, C. S. (2015). Risk Management in the Extractive Industry: An Empirical Investigation of the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry. The Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 17(1), 86. BiglianI, R. (2013). Reducing Risking Oil and Gas Operations: IDC Energy Insights Opinion. Retrieved on May 23, 2017, from https://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/minimizing-operational-risk-in-oil-gas-industry.pdf Duruigbo, E. (2008). The Global Energy Challenge and Nigeria's Emergence as a Major Gas Power: Promise, Peril or Paradox of Plenty.International Environmental Literature.Review.,21, 395. Foxon, T.J., and Pearson, P.J.G. (2007). Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK, Energy Policy, 35(3), 1539-1550. Merrill, T. W., Schizer, D. M. (2013). The shale oil and gas revolution, hydraulic fracturing, and water contamination: a regulatory strategy. Ojukwu-Ogba, N. E. (2009). Legislating Development in Nigeria's Oil-Producing Region: The NDDC Act Seven Years On.African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 17(1), 136-149. Okoli, E. C., Amadi, A. (2014).Sustainable Safety Performance in Drilling Operation. In IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference.Society of Petroleum Engineers. Osmundsen, P., Aven, T., Erik, J. (2008). Safety, economic incentives and insurance in the Norwegian petroleum industry. Reliability Engineering System Safety, 93, 137-143. Parloff, R. (2010). BPs Gulf Coast oil spill: A legal primer. Money. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2010/06/04/news/companies/bp_legal.fortune/index.htm?hpt=T2 Schmit J. (2010). Officials work hard to protect Gulf seafood from the oil spill. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2010-06-04-oilspillfish04_ST_N.htm?csp=34news Schonbeck, M., Rausand, M., Rouvroye, J. (2010). Human and organizational factors in the operational phase of safety instrumented systems: A new approach. Safety Science, 48, 310-318. Skogdalen, J.E., Utne, I.B., Vinnem, J.E. (2011). Developing safety indicators for preventing offshore oil and gas deepwater drilling blowouts. Safety Science, 49, 11871199. Spence, D. B. (2013). Federalism, regulatory lags, and the political economy of energy production. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 431-508. Srebotnjak, T., Rotkin-Ellman, M. (2014).Drilling in California: Who's at Risk?. National Resources Defense Council. Sylves, R. T., Comfort, L. K. (2012). The Exxon Valdez and BP Deepwater Horizon oil spills: Reducing risk in socio-technical systems.American Behavioral Scientist, 56(1), 76-103. Taylor, J., (2009). Defining Systemic Risk Operationally: Ending Government Bailouts As We Know Them, Hoover Press, Stanford University. Vinnem, J., (2010). Risk indicators for major hazards on offshore installations. Safety Science, 48, 770-787. Woodman, B. and Mitchell, C. (2011). Learning from experience: The development of the Renewables Obligation in England and Wales 2002-2010, Energy Policy, 39(7), 3914-3921