Case Study: Author Name, Institutional Affiliation, Course N

5case Studyauthor Nameinstitutional Affiliationcourse N

This assignment involves analyzing a case study related to safety incidents in an industrial setting, specifically focusing on concepts like near misses, normalization of deviance, biases affecting decision-making, and ethical considerations including rights-based and duty-based ethics. The task requires defining key terms, identifying examples from the case, explaining underlying psychological traps, and critically discussing the ethical implications of the company's actions concerning employee safety, environmental protection, and organizational culture.

The case study deals with safety neglect in BP's operational practices, the normalization of risk, decision-making biases, and the ethical responsibilities of corporations toward employees, communities, and the environment. The core focus is to evaluate how organizational culture, decision processes, and ethical considerations underpin safety failures, culminating in a major disaster, including the oil spill disaster, and its broader societal impacts.

Paper For Above instruction

The safety culture within large corporations profoundly influences the occurrence or prevention of workplace incidents. An essential element in understanding safety failures is grasping the concept of a “near miss.” A near miss is a situation where an accident or injury almost occurs but ultimately does not, often due to luck rather than deliberate safety measures. It is a critical indicator of latent hazards in the workplace that require attention before actual accidents materialize (). In the context of BP, near misses included issues such as delayed repairs, unsafe operational practices, and overlooked safety hazards that could have led to catastrophic consequences if ignored.

From the case, four notable examples of near misses were evident. First, the deferred maintenance on the deep-water rig exemplified a serious risk—although the rigs continued operating normally for a time, they harbored critical safety deficiencies, like defective pipes and malfunctioning alarms. Second, the lack of oversight over exploration targets and safety procedures created opportunities for accidents to occur unnoticed. Third, the failure of safety systems, such as the malfunctioning alarm and emergency systems, represented near misses that could have escalated into disasters had the systems failed completely. Fourth, the inadequate protective gear provided to workers involved in oil spill cleanup operations posed a risk of injury or exposure to toxic chemicals, which was a near miss due to the potential for harm if an incident had occurred.

Normalization of deviance is a concept describing how organizations become desensitized to risk by repeatedly accepting substandard practices that initially seemed unacceptable but gradually became routine. This normalization occurs when unsafe practices, like deferred repairs and cost-cutting on safety measures, continue without immediate consequences and are thus perceived as acceptable. An illustrative example from the BP case involved the 390 unresolved repairs in the deep-water rig that persisted over time. Despite the fact that these repairs posed significant safety risks, they were ignored, and the rig continued to operate seamlessly—until the disaster occurred. This exemplifies how organizations can normalize risky deviations from safety protocols, increasing the likelihood of catastrophic failure ().

Understanding Normalization of Deviance

Organizations tend to justify continued unsafe practices when early warnings or minor incidents do not lead to immediate consequences. Over time, these deviations become ingrained in the operational culture, diminishing the perception of risk and undermining safety standards. In BP’s case, the repeated overlooking of necessary repairs and safety checks created a false sense of security and led to dangerous complacency. This normalization ultimately contributed to the blowout, as critical safety systems failed or were bypassed altogether. The failure to recognize the cumulative danger of these small deviations prevented organizations from addressing underlying risks, culminating in the Gulf oil spill disaster.

Hidden Traps and Decision-Making Biases

Decisions in organizational settings are susceptible to various biases, most notably the status quo bias, where individuals prefer maintaining current conditions rather than undertaking potentially uncomfortable changes. In BP, each manager was responsible for their site’s safety, but with limited oversight and incentives for shared safety practices, this fostered siloed behavior and a fragmented safety culture (). This environment made it easier for employees and managers to accept compromised safety standards because the perceived cost or effort to maintain safety seemed higher than the risk of an incident. Additionally, optimism bias likely played a role, as decision-makers underestimated the likelihood of a disaster despite warning signs.

The psychological tendency to protect oneself from risks—yet simultaneously ignore or downplay hazards—perpetuated unsafe practices in BP. The absence of shared safety goals or accountability mechanisms reinforced the normalization of deviance and limited organizational learning from near misses. Recognizing these biases is essential for implementing safety interventions that challenge complacency and foster a culture of proactive risk management.

Ethical Analysis: Rights-Based and Duty-Based Perspectives

The ethical evaluation of BP’s actions reveals significant violations of employee and environmental rights. Rights-based ethics emphasize respecting human dignity and ensuring individuals' entitlement to safe working conditions and environmental protections. BP’s failure to uphold these rights is evident in its neglect of safety protocols, inadequate communication regarding hazards, and neglect of environmental safeguards. The oil spill caused devastating ecological damage, affecting ocean life, fisheries, and local communities dependent on tourism and fishing industries ().

Specifically, employees' right to life and safety was compromised when the company delayed repairs, ignored safety warnings, and failed to provide adequate protective gear, representing a breach of fundamental human rights. The company’s neglect of safety resulted in injuries and fatalities, violating the ethical obligation to protect workers’ well-being. Furthermore, environmental rights were trampled as BP prioritized profit over ecological integrity, leading to a massive oil spill that harmed marine ecosystems and local economies.

From a duty-based perspective, BP’s moral obligation was to adhere to safety standards, maintain infrastructure, and prevent harm, regardless of cost or operational pressure. The company’s repeated deferment of maintenance, failure to repair critical safety systems, and lack of transparent communication contravened their duty to act responsibly. Even with claims of unlikely catastrophe, their inaction demonstrated a moral negligence that prioritized exploration and profit over safety and environmental stewardship ().

Conclusion

The case of BP exemplifies how organizational culture, decision-making biases, and ethical lapses converge to produce tragic outcomes. Recognizing the impact of normalization of deviance, understanding the psychological traps influencing decisions, and adhering to ethical principles are crucial for fostering a safety culture that prioritizes human life, environmental integrity, and moral responsibility. Organizations must implement robust safety protocols, encourage transparent communication, and cultivate an ethical climate that discourages complacency and promotes proactive risk management to prevent future disasters.

References

• Ahumada, M. P. (2020). Near miss reporting systems in safety management. Safety Science, 126, 104674.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Schwartz, M. S. (2020). Beyond petroleum or bottom line profits only? An ethical analysis of BP and the Gulf oil spill. Business and Society Review, 125(1), 71-88.
• Vaughan, D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
• Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate Publishing.
• Dekker, S. (2007). Just culture: Balancing safety and accountability. Ashgate Publishing.
• Hale, A., & Hovden, J. (1998). Management of safety and health: Perspectives on fundamental themes. Journal of Safety Research, 29(1), 15-23.
• Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press.
• Leveson, N. (2011). Engineering a safer world: System safety and the higher-level system approach. MIT Press.
• Fichter, R., & Moore, R. (2020). Organizational culture and safety: A systematic review. Safety Science, 124, 104603.