Case Analysis Of British Petroleum 1

Case Analysis Of British Petroleum1case Analysis Of Bri

Companies have the right to exist and carry out their operations while adhering to all the rules and regulations that are in place. In the case of BP, the company greatly failed to effectively carry out its operations and adhere to the rule of law because engaged in a harmful and costly decision that cost human lives, animals, marine creatures and other businesses as well as industries (Kostka, 2011). In the move to reduce costs and increase their profits, the company had to boycott safety measures and caution at the expense of others. The company failed to embrace greater good because they prioritized their interests and ignored that of the public, the environment, creatures and other industries (Frynas, 2005).

The ethical problem is that the company’s greed supersedes the interests of others. The fact that business is influenced by shareholders, decision makers were mainly focusing on personal interest and not the greater good. The economic system of this organization is structured in a way that shareholders make a decision that best suits them and increasing profit at the expense of others. Lack of moral judgment in the figures of the organization greatly impacts its operations in a negative way. The organization is however affected by laws and regulations which requires them to uphold safety measures and caution, managed and regulated drilling, the introduction of green sources of energy and increased number of regulators who ensure that all the safety measures are followed and monitored (Nwilo, 2005).

BP is not justifiable by focusing on profits and cutting down costs at the expense of people, animals, and other industries. The company should practice a greater good by adapting all the safety measures, cautions, rules and regulations as well as good business morals. In the instance of BP, it is important to consider effective, ethical theories which will ensure that the interest of others is catered for as well as that of the business. Utilitarian theory is more appropriate in this situation because it states that the action of one party should be in the interest of others and enhance a greater good. Utilitarian theory can only have exceptions when the condition in place poses doubt.

In the situation of BP, there are no doubts that the actions of the company were harmful and costly to other parties. The utilitarian theory provides for a greater good even if the situation compromises the operations of the business. The theory prohibits breaking the law but advocates for responsibility, accountability, and satisfaction of the majority (Harsanyi, 1995). The actions of BP to save money and taking unnecessary risks at the expense of the environment and people is not appropriate as per utilitarian theory. The company was compromised and affected before by a similar situation, but they failed to take the necessary safety measures and caution.

Repeating a similar mistake due to greed and interests of shareholders shows that the company is irresponsible, unaccountable and lack the interests of the public at hand. The organization should instead embrace a greater good by implementing safety measures, caution and benefiting the public through social programs and not benefiting themselves through the profits gained. Decision makers and the interested parties in the organization need to seek for economic balance and equality by putting the interest of all parties into consideration. As much as the company is profit oriented, the society and the environment is of equal importance, and they should use their morals to create a sustainable environment.

Greater good superseded personal interests and enhanced a good image and reputation of the organization. The company also ignored the advice of the experts on safety measures. The experts provided appropriate guidelines and recommendations, but the organization failed to carefully use their judgments to practice and carry out their operations. Being ignorant at the expense of the public means that the organization is not keen on professionalism, moral responsibility, and accountability for their actions as well as the interests of others. The business is therefore not justifiable because of its evil actions on the society and the environment.

The Utilitarian theory provides a more binding solution because it advocates for greater the good and consideration of all the parties involved. In the process of undertaking a business action, organizations should not prioritize their interests at the expense of others. There is a need for mutual interest, accountability, and transparency. Granting equal importance to all parties enhances sustainability and good working environment. Alternatively, virtue ethics can also be applied to enhance a moral solution in this instance.

From the perspective of virtue ethics, BP took an easy way out of a situation that is tough and sensitive. The company should judge its actions and determine the kind of image that they will portray to the public. The company should have consulted and put the public interest at stake so that their decision could be a reflection of a binding and inclusive approach. Thinking before taking action is very critical. Conclusion In conclusion, companies should be justified while undertaking their operations and decisions so that no party or individual is compromised.

BP should not take the public for granted. They should be keen in observing the set rules and regulations, preventive and safety measures, public interest, environmental conditions and the greater good. The fact that the company needs to make profits and increase savings should not be practiced at the expense of people, environment, animals and other industries. The shareholders should also put their interest aside and determine what is best and justifiable to everyone. The communities are the ones offering labor and support for the business, the environment offers resources, and raw materials for the business and animals offer benefits to the people because they act as sources of food and support human existence.

All these aspects ought to coexist together for the business to prosper. The business, therefore, has to consider the greater good through integrating all these aspects and putting their interests at hand. No single factor is of less importance because they all enhance sustainability. Utilitarian theory is therefore effective in guiding PB and determining appropriate actions to be taken by the business. For relevance and long-lasting impression, the company should prioritize the interest of all and the public good.

References

• Frynas, J. G. (2005). The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from multinational oil companies. International affairs, 81(3).
• Harsanyi, J. C. (1995). A theory of prudential values and a utilitarian rule theory of morality. Social Choice and Welfare, 12(4).
• Kostka, J. E., Prakash, O., Overholt, W. A., Green, S. J., Freyer, G., Canion, A., & Huettel, M. (2011). Hydrocarbon-degrading bacteria and the bacterial community response in Gulf of Mexico beach sands impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Applied and environmental microbiology, 77(22).
• Nwilo, P. C., & Badejo, O. T. (2005). Oil spill problems and management in the Niger Delta. International Oil Spill Conference, 2005.