Exxon Valdez Oil Spill - Case Study Example

Introduction3

Theoretical / Conceptual Approaches and Analysis5

Duty of Ethics5

Definition of the approach5

Relevance5

Weaknesses of the approach6

Application to the accident6

Findings7

Utilitarianism8

Definition of the approach8

Relevance8

Weaknesses of the approach9

Application to the accident9

Findings10

Discussion and Conclusion10

Introduction

One would make no mistake suggesting that business has a significant impact on the environment these days. Indeed, today people are able to extract and trade materials which were not found in the ancient world. However, these materials can be extremely dangerous to nature. A good example is oil. While oil has been produced for a considerable period of time, only relatively recently the human started transporting it in large quantities. The negative side of this is the increased danger of oil spills. The purpose of this report can be identified in many ways. First of all, it will examine the two approaches to business ethics, namely Ethics of Duty and Utilitarianism; in addition to that, it also aims to apply these contrasting approaches to Exxon Valdez oil spill. Finally, it is written to show the differences between the two approaches when it comes to evaluation of business ethics of the company in question.

It may be quite logical to provide a brief overview of the company. In spite of the fact that the incidence took place in 1989 when Exxon and Mobil were two independent companies, it may be important to treat them as one since in ten years they merged. Thus, Skjærseth and Skodvin (2009) insist that ExxonMobil is one of the largest oil producing companies of the world. Baer (2014) suggests that there is a term that is used in the industry that denotes the largest and most influential companies, Big Oil, and ExxonMobil is included in it. That is why it would not be a mistake to suggest that it should be regarded as one of the major players in the market. Another point that should be mentioned is that unlike other companies that try to greenwash their business, ExxonMobil is known for its continuous lobbying of global warming denial.

Now, one should turn the attention to the actual accident. On March 24th 1989, the oil tanker which was named Exxon Valdez hit Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef (Leacock 2005). As one may easily guess, the tanker was not empty which means that once it was hit by the reef, it started spilling oil into the surrounding ecosystem. The problem with this oil spill was that the reef was located in a place that was very difficult to reach. As a result, adequate help was able to get there only after two days. Needless to say that in the period of those two days, the crew could do nothing to prevent oil from leaking. It is generally suggested that this was one of the biggest man-made disasters and was considered to be the biggest oil spill in the waters of the United States before 2010.

The report is structured in the following manner. The major part of it is divided into two sections. Each of the sections reflects a particular approach to business ethics. The first section represents Ethics of Duty. It provides a brief definition of it, explains why this approach is relevant to the case and shows the weaknesses of it. In addition to that, the particular aspects of the accident are included and analyse in the light of this approach. The next section presents the findings and their interpretation. The same pattern is repeated for the second sections which represent Utilitarianism. The concluding part compares and contrasts the findings which were articulated in the major section. In addition to that, it also reflects whether the aims which were stated in the introduction were achieved. The very end of the last section features a brief subjection that summarizes the content of the report.

Theoretical / Conceptual Approaches and Analysis

Duty of Ethics

Definition of the approach

If one takes a close look at Ethics of Duty, one will be able to say that it is one of the most remarkable ethical theories that were developed. Tännsjö (2008) states that the fundamental part of it focuses on the concept of duty which is something that is to govern the entire life of a person. Another point that should be mention is that people are expected to follow the duty always and without any exceptions. Consider the example of lying: it is generally expected that people must no lie; that is why no form of lying is acceptable, even white lies. Ethics of Duty insists that a person should check whether one’s action does not cause harm to the mankind if it becomes a universal maxim. Continuing the example of lying, one will be able to see that if all people lied, then the world would be in chaos. That is why lying is prohibited.

Relevance

Some might suggest that Ethics of Duty should be regarded as an abstract theory that can hardly be applied to the real-life business world. However, this may not be particularly true. Thus, there are points where most people are likely to agree. Thus, Finas (2015) insist that environmental disasters which were caused by human activity, for example, oil spills, are objectively bad. That is why it is logical to urge every company to avoid them. What is more important is that business is supposed to be guided by clear regulations and the latter must be adhered to. This is very similar to the perception of Ethics of Duty. That is why it is quite logical that the latter is to be applied to business situations.

Weaknesses of the approach

Ethics of Duty seems to be quite convincing and it is difficult to image that some scholars might criticise it or find weaknesses in it. Nevertheless, Hogue (2010) suggests that there are several problems that are associated with it. First of all, one should take a look at the fundamental part of the approach, namely the idea that a person must always follow one’s duty regardless of the conditions. Some might suggest that this leaves little room for adaptation to the existing situations. As a result, one will have to act the same way in situations which may differ dramatically. Another point that should be mentioned is that the approach in question may be quite useful in the situation when the negative consequences can be easily identified. However, it may happen so that the situation will be extremely controversial and it would be impossible to make a clear cut decision.

Application to the accident

So, how some aspects of the accident in question can be interpreted in the light of the approach in question? First of all, one should take a look at the working conditions of the crew. Baura (2006) holds that the latter was to work extra shifts because there was not a sufficient number of people on board. In other words, every single crew member had to work at least twice as hard because one was working twice as much. That is why the third mate who was in charge of the navigation of the vessel when it hit the reef was extremely exhausted. The next point that should be mentioned is the absence of radar. Many specialists pointed out that the vessel was not equipped with a working radar that would have warned the third mate about the collision. In other words, it was the responsibility of the company to provide it, but it did not. Finally, the critics of Exxon point out that the organisation was slow to response to the crisis.

Findings

One would make no mistake, suggesting that from the point of view of Ethics of Duty, the performance of Exxon should be condemned. Thus, Chernov and Sornett (2015) claim that the company values profitability more than safety, but it should have been the other way around. Indeed, it is the duty of a company to provide safe working conditions, but those under which the crew work can hardly be called safe. It is obvious that the company wanted to reduce costs of operating a vessel by cutting the number of people on it. In addition to that, it did not install the operating radar because it was too costly. It is quite understandable that before the accident, everything seemed normal and the company believed that it carry on safety, but it was endangering lives of the people and this is against the principles of proper business.

The next point that should be mentioned is the speed of response. Savitz and Weber (2013) rightfully point out that when the accident took place, resolution of it should have become the number one priority for the company. It is true that the reef was located in a remote area that could not be reached easily. However, there is no evidence which shows that Exxon was doing everything that it possibly could to improve its performance. The worst element of the disaster in question is that people started dealing with the damage only several days after it occurred. However, it is expected that a company must take care of the problem ones it emerges. That is why it would not be an exaggeration to suggest that Exxon did not do everything it could to handle the crisis.

Utilitarianism

Definition of the approach

The second approach that will be engaged in this report is referred to as utilitarianism. Keys (2006) states that the fundamental element of this approach is the idea that every action that is performed by a person is able to bring a certain amount of pleasure and a certain amount of pain for the people. It is argued that those actions which bring up the biggest amount of common good should be regarded as ethical while those that bring a lot of common good, but also cause a lot of pain should be rejected. In other words, the evaluation of an action is carried out based on the comparison of its consequences. Another point that should be mentioned about this approach is that it does not provide clear answers, suggesting that numerous aspects of a particular situation should be taken into consideration.

Relevance

The question whether this approach is relevant to the topic in question is quite obvious. Goodin and Pettit (2006) point out that Utilitarianism may be regarded as one of the most suitable approaches for business because it compares gains versus losses. In other words, calculating the amount of pleasure and pain is similar to choosing a business option. One should also keep in mind that Utilitarianism helps greatly when it comes to setting priorities: the best option would be that which generates the biggest amount of good and all others will be ranked accordingly. This may be particularly helpful when it comes to running a business since one should be ready to make tough trade-offs. What is even more important is Utilitarianism reflects the ever-changing nature of the business world which makes it quite suitable for the decision-making process.

Weaknesses of the approach

Similarly to Ethics of Duty, Utilitarianism may be quite convincing, but there are still people who draw attention to the weaknesses of this approach. For example, Pojman and Fieser (2009) believe that one of the biggest disadvantages of the theory in question is the fact that it can justify actions that are possible unethical. Consider the example of lying which was used in the analysis of the previous approach: Utilitarianism would suggest that it is ethical to lie in case the amount of common good that is generated by a lie is greater than the amount of common good that is generated by the truth. Many people would disagree to accept and approach which support unethical actions. Moreover, another significant problem with Utilitarianism is that it does not provide a clear-cut answer to the situation. A person in a crisis needs to have a set of guidelines that one can follow, not some abstract considerations.

Application to the accident

If one applies the approach in question to the accident, one will be able to see that there are certain facts that can be best explained by it. For example, Kostro and Riba (2014) insist that while indeed the number of people on the board of the vessel was not sufficient enough, every person who worked two and more shifts receive more money. Another point focuses on the radar. It is true that the vessel was not equipped with the radar that could have prevented the crash. However, the records show that the tanker had not had the radar for about a year and no accident had happened during that time. In other words, the crash cannot be blamed entirely on the absence of the proper equipment. Finally, one should note that while Exxon indeed did not react immediately, it hired the best company to mitigate the negative consequences and involved numerous volunteers.

Findings

From the point of view of Utilitarianism, the actions which were performed by Exxon can be properly explained and justified. Faure, Han, and Shan (2010) insist that the company in question did not exploit the workers. As was reported, they had to work additional shifts because there were not enough people on the vessel. However, there was a clear contract with each of them and this means that every crew member was aware of the amount of workload that one would be exposed to. Therefore, it was their conscious decision to continue working for Exxon. Moreover, the lack of radar can be justified in the following way: for a considerable period of time, the tanker did not experience any accidents. Therefore, purchase of a radar was an expense that did not bring any good. As a result, there was no need to buy it as long as the crew was able to navigate properly without it.

The other line of justification focuses on the response of the company. Wiens (2013) acknowledges that the speed at which Exxon reached could have been higher; however, it must be understood in the right context. First of all, the spill occurred in a rather remote place. Therefore, it is natural that it took a considerable amount of time for the rescuers to get there. Another point that should be mentioned is that while Exxon indeed took a step back and wait for some time, later it did everything that it could to mitigate the damages. It hired a company that specialised on cleaning oil spills and this help was effective. Moreover, it was able to involve volunteers, ultimately increasing the number of people engaged in dealing with that crisis.

Discussion and Conclusion

Since the two approaches that were chosen are contrasting, it is quite obvious that they came to the completely different conclusions regarding the actions of Exxon during the accident. The first point of difference focuses on the way in which the crew was treated. Ethics of Duty insists that the people were exploited since they had to work under terrible conditions and exhaustion may have contributed to the inattentiveness of the third mate and led to the crash. On the other hand, Utilitarianism argues that one can hardly call it exploitation when people take a big amount of work, but also receive decent money for it. In other words, the crew knew what it was doing and it was prepared to work hard even if it involved a lot of exhaustion. Therefore, the two approaches disagree on the manner in which the members of the oil tanker were treated by the employer.

The second point of disagreement is the way in which Exxon reacted to the accident. Ethics of Duty suggest that dealing with the oil spill should have been the highest priority of the company and it is unacceptable that it could reach the site only after several days. In other words, there were some possibilities that were not used by Exxon and it should be blamed for not during everything that it could. Contrary to that, Utilitarianism would argue that a quick, yet ineffective response is not as good as a slower one, yet more prepared. Indeed, Exxon may have taken its time to think about the course of action, but what it did afterward was quite effective: the crisis was contained. All this leads to the understanding that the answer indeed was somewhat slow, but it was justified strategically.

The purpose of this report was to examine two contrasting approaches. This was achieved as Ethics of Duty as well as Utilitarianism were properly explained, including their fundamental concepts, their relevance as well as their weaknesses. After reading the relevant sections, a person will gain a proper understanding of each approach. The second purpose of the report was to apply the two approaches to the accident. This was carried out in two steps. First of all, the important facts were articulated and their relevance for the approach was shown. Secondly, the approaches were applied to the accident, justifying the behavior of the company or suggesting that it should be blamed. The third purpose of the report was to understand the different between two approaches. After the analysis was carried out, the findings were compared and contrasted. It seems that the two approaches mainly disagree on the issue of treatment of the crews, the necessity to buy the radar and the speed of the response.

Having examined all the points which were mentioned in the paragraphs above, one is able to come to the following conclusion: Exxon Valdez oil spill is a horrible natural disaster that had induced a considerable amount of damage to the local environment. However, it may be rather difficult to prove an accurate and clear-cut ethical evaluation of the situation since there are approaches that tend to come to the different conclusions. Therefore, it may not be logical to put the entire burden of blame on Exxon since Utilitarianism justified some of the actions that it performed. Therefore, one should point out that the situation in question is extremely controversial and it may not be logical to give a blunt evaluation which is based on one point of view only. Nevertheless, one should not assume that justification of certain actions makes Exxon innocent.