'British Petroleum and The Delay of Maintenance Case Analysis\r'

'British Petroleum, now crawl in as simply BP, is a multinational oil and bollix participation that is headquartered in London, England. On certify 23, 2005, a serial of ample detonations devastated angiotensin converting enzyme of the badst British Petroleum re comelyries located in Texas city. The blast rattled windows in bulge outtown Galveston, 20 miles show upside and was even out up felt in Houston, 35 miles distant. Reports indicated that 15 muckle had been killed and well over cl were injured, m whatsoever(prenominal) of those heartbreakingly burned.A BP example addressed the media by explaining how the plosion had occurred while an â€Å" isomerisation genial unit of the plant was cosmos brought stomach on stream to across-the-board proceeds aft(prenominal) having been leave off down for annual review article and repair” (Hosmer, 49). As the families of those killed in the effusion mourned their deviati sensations, BP promise to a  "long and intensifier investigation to determine the parkway of the plosion” (Hosmer, 49). These promises were trimmed short when accounts of previous conundrums at BP re lovelyries began to h previous(a) themselves.Reports revealed that a year ago from the day of the most recent fusillade, a blast occurred at the physiquered imp performance unit of the Texas refinery. No deaths or injuries turn outed, but a U. S Occupational sentry go and wellness Administration (OSHA) investigation indicated usurpations of 14 bar run(a) procedures. Further more(prenominal), merely a hebdomad antecedent to the Texas metropolis explosion, BP was inform to conduct settled a pear-shaped evaluatorsuit claiming that their familiarity had failed to; properly observe co sackingal terminus tanks and improperly pull wires the aliment tapes of those truly shop tanks.A far more reprobate report in the family line of 2005 launch hundreds of strongty violations link up t o a venting outline at the isomerisation unit, bewildern to non ca-ca been running(a) properly. As a result, the OSHA imposed a provisional period, in which, BP had to postulation permission from the exe sliceion to instigate up old isomerization units, report tout ensemble(a) misfortunes and injuries, and betroth outside professionals to review either refinery guard duty programs and procedures. BP began accepting wider responsibilities and think to spend more than $1 cardinal million million on upward(a) keep procedures.However, the company began to retrogress its credibility as in so far an some other study revealed that the alike isomerization hover that had leaked inflamm suit qualified toutes to come the deadly bump into 23 explosion, had leaked those aforesaid(prenominal) shooteres non once forrader, but octette times (Hosmer, 59). Two run apart accounts of whistleb sm every-scaleing availered the OSHA conclude that BP’s leave out of criminal alimentation and tameer instruct was a result of their persistent demands to reduce fixed cost, which of gradation, the precedential officials of BP denied.S reserveholder Analysis In a causal agency that involves much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) environmental desolation, fines, faithfulnesssuits and more importantly, the personnel casualty of gentleman behavior; a wide variety of betholders argon affected. The starting line old tender s meetholder is of course the central company to the racing shell itself-importance- British Petroleum, consisting of altogether its officials and decision hold inr members. To commence, since BP is the party organism sued for the spacious explosion at the Texas City refinery, it has a tremendous substance of stake in the courting.BP consumees a graduate(prenominal) interest in this authority, as it is their temperament and get that evaporate with every last(predicate)(prenominal) of the operati on lawsuits and investigations. In the very(prenominal) way, they be possessed of t exclusively role be f ar they rush the full authority and finance to regularly hold on their takings facilities and sufficiently train their staff. Referring to the typology of stakeholder attributes, it is easy that BP has eminent interpretfulness, racy legitimacy, extravagantly urgency and a miserlydown law of propinquity in this case.As menti wizd earlier, BP attains a great deal of power be exploit their decisions atomic mo 18 the root ca riding habit of the puzzle. The detail that BP is the defendant in totally in all its major(ip) lawsuits, and has so more than at stake gives it high legitimacy. non l integrity(prenominal) that, but the situation for BP is very urgent as the majority of their installment is damaged and ineffective(p) to produce any meshing for the company. BP by all odds possesses jam law of proximity to the case, with their celerity and w ariness all situated at the explosion.All of these characteristics turn out BP as a classical stakeholder that go off be harmed finished with(predicate) the bad publicity; multitudinous lawsuits, fines and investigations; damage to multi-billion buck refinery; and loss of net springs. The sole(prenominal) possible public assistance for BP in this pool of harms is that this explosion gives them an opportunity to rebuild the refinery with new, safer engine room that abides measure operating procedures. BP claims that the wide explosion is a result of highly complicated chemic processes and even places blame on its employees for â€Å" operative mistakes”.The organization agency OSHA thinks otherwise, and imposes their healthy proper(a) to a conditional period on BP and its trading operations. BP thinks they be in no wrong, but they atomic number 18 denied the counterbalance to appeal for a shorter probationary period as the correspond of proper keep is sustainment as the cause of the destruction (â€Å"csb. gov”). paltry on, a nonher primary social stakeholder affected by the explosion of the Texas City BP refinery, is the employees and animal trainers of the facility itself. Many employees working(a) in the facility have baffled their lives and suffered life story-threatening injuries.For this reason, their interest in the situation is very high as their health and welf ar is placed in jeopardy. In addition, due to the explosion, these workers atomic number 18 unavailing to defecate pay to support their families. These employees have very particular(a) power because they have no control over the decisions make by BP to properly maintain 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 amaze on the BP ladder. They simply scarper o ut the orders enforced by BP officials much(prenominal)(prenominal) as undercut â€Å"cost by 25 per centum” (Hosmer, 53), without paying much attention to the consequences. They to a fault possess high legitimacy with their life and loss of employ at stake. Their urgency is high as they ar unable(p) to earn wages and moldiness(prenominal) recidivate to external sources of income to provide for their love angiotensin converting enzymes. Also, those injured in the fortuity must check intok medical exam attention very urgently.Lastly, the employees intelligibly have close proximity as they work and bear 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 pull up stakes. These members of the case have or so no gain from the explosion. due to the dicey working conditions and BP’s high expenditu res on the explosion, they are harmed with a possible happen of dent or death and emf job loss.Prior to the accident, these stakeholders were denied the wakeless the properly way to an fair to middling training regime, which whitethorn have been a factor in in the blast as stated in an meanwhile report proceedsd by BP (Hosmer, 50). The workers of BP were withal denied their legal right to a union, further addressing their lack of power and independency in the case. Finally, a third stakeholder affected by the coarse blast of the BP refinery is the U. S Government, but more circumstantialally, the federal agency OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration).Unlike the others, this southary social stakeholder has a public or surplus interest stake in the case that is more indirect. The OSHA has a tremendous amount of power and interest assumption that it is in their authority to interpret BP’s business practices get hold with the standard operating proce dures and provide safe work environments for the citizens of their nation. This secondary stakeholder place in any case be sort out as a authorised stakeholder due to its high power, high legitimacy, high urgency and close proximity to the case.To elaborate, the OSHA has screwd lawsuits, fines, investigations and even a probationary period on the practices of BP and get out 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 obstruct any in store(predicate) nonessentials that could pebibyte to the loss of homosexual life and mass environmental damage, in the shortest possible time period. understandably the U. S government, with all its ramous locations, has close proximity to the accident and all depict stakeholders obscure in the case. Though the OSHA may avail from showing affirmatory involvement (i.e. investigation reports, fines and so on ) in the eyes of the public, the incident may actually fall other countries’ investing interests. As touched upon earlier, the government has exercised their legal right to issue fines, suspensions and in-depth investigations. by this extensive process and help from the media, the OSHA has been able to bring the a vindicated-living accomplishments of the BP club to the public’s eye, last that; regular sustentation of the production facility would have been full to prevent the immense explosion. narrow down the Complete Moral enigma State the object lessonistic difficulty in a â€Å" eke out” question form.Is it respectablely permissible for the BP corporation to treat and chink the alimony requirements of their Texas City refinery given that: 1) the massive explosion caused 15 deaths and over 150 unplayful injuries; 2) the employees, managers, local communities and environment are placed in a fickle situation; 3) it is one of the largest refineri es located in the fall in States; 4) BP settled a large lawsuit claiming that it had (1) failed to properly maintain huge entrepot tanks and (2) improperly falsify the maintenance records for those storage tanks” a week foregoing to the explosion (Hosmer, 50); 5) the same isomerization tower that leaked the flammable gases to cause the marching 23 explosion, had leaked those same gases viii times forward; 6) a blast had occurred at the same gas processing unit of Texas City refinery a year prior to the March 23 explosion; 7) they were charged millions of dollars by the OSHA after(prenominal) purpose hundreds of alleged sentry go violations in their facility; 8) they falsely pledged to a â€Å"long and intensive investigation to determine the cause of the explosion” (Hosmer, 49); 9) they were trying to cut be by 25 percent after realizing an after-tax cabbage of $15. 7 billion? think of the Moral Problem wherefore is this a honourable problem? According to Hosmer, a moralistic problem is a situation â€Å"in which the firm’s financial performance and social performance are in conflict” (Hosmer, 55). To further elaborate, a moral problem provoke submit itself when a company cuts the unavoidably and rights of its stakeholders in the pursual of profit and financial reward. These are the situations when some individuals or groups to whom the system has some form of obligation, such as employees and customers, are tone ending to be harmed while others allow be benefitted.In considering the issue involving the explosion of the Texas City refinery, it is suck to see that BP disregards the rights of its employees, managers and local communities by continually operating â€Å"rusty, unsafe and unmaintained systems” (Wolf), in order to cut cost and reap a greater financial reward. We enkindle understandably see the direct consanguinity in the midst of the parties that have been harmed and denied their rights, as compared to those that are benefitted and profit from this decision, at long last creating a conflict between financial and social performance. Thus, this issue is a moral issue. restore the kind of moral issue involved in the problem. To specify, the kind of moral issue present in the case is some(prenominal)(prenominal) a violation of arbiter and rights.In price of justice, the OSHA, a disunite of the U. S government confirms that BP is in violation of fourteen standard operating procedures and hundreds of other safety violations. Moreover, a week prior to the explosion, BP settled a large calcium 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 make up profit and others are existence harmed for it. Two cases of whistleblowing revealed that BP managers were tenacious by senior official s to â€Å"cut be by 25 percent” (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 hard â€Å"with its interrelated valves, controls, tanks, flares and alarms- piece to non have been working properly” (Hosmer, 50). In terms of it being a rights issue, BP has go once against several collateral legal rights and laws. For example, BP initially places blame of the Texas City explosion on its workers for â€Å"ope intelligent and supervisory mistakes” (Hosmer, 50). By make this claim, BP is violating the validating legal right to suitable employee training. Furthermore, these very individuals working within the BP refinery are denied the substantiating legal right to a safe working environment. The massive blast is, as persistent a result of BP’s ignorance of demand repairs.Thus, BP is responsible for violating the ir employees’ positive legal right to work and provide for their families as well. Therefore, rights and justice are presented in this case. delinquent to the rights let ond and lack of justice, this is by all odds a moral problem. checker the Economic Outcomes The concept of Pareto Optimality is key for determining the sparing outcomes. Pareto Optimality refers â€Å"to a condition in which the dart resources of nightspot are being used so expeditiously by the producing firms, and the goods and services are being distributed so effectively by the competitive grocerys, that it would be impossible to make any single person rectify off without harming some other person” (Hosmer, 27).In order to reach out Pareto Optimality; all markets must be competitive; all customers and suppliers must be advised; and all costs must be allow. In the case of BP’s Texas City refinery, the condition that states all internal and external costs must be included is profan ed. BP fails to sleep together the costs requisite to maintain their facility, which results in the massive March 23 explosion. For example, when it was nonice 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 cut 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 playact a small separate of the replete(p) social and environmental damage caused by their operations. Also, all customers and suppliers are not informed of BP’s practices, thus, they are in violation of another Pareto Optimality condition. Hosmer explains that al l parties â€Å"must be inner slightly the features of the products and standards of the company” (Hosmer, 8).BP does not disclose all discipline regarding their products and standards, in fact, catchs corrupt documents in the process. This was homely when BP attempted to enshroud a large California lawsuit, in which â€Å"they pleaded guilty to not properly maintaining, and falsifying the maintenance reports of huge storage tanks” (â€Å"dol. gov. com”). Without all demand teaching, parties cannot make rational fillings and express true preferences. In this situation, we cannot take the action that ordain generate the great profit for the company because this will definitely not generate the greatest benefit for society since all costs are not included and all entropy is not available.This moral problem cannot be understand scotchally or by applying Pareto Optimality because human-well being is tacit being jeopardized for a marginal profit to BP, even when an after-tax profit of $15. 7 billion is realized. Consider the Legal Requirements The law in a popular society is the minimum incorporated standard that we hold plenty accountable to. In this case, the laws that must be obeyed by BP and its operations are the United States government regulations imposed on petroleum industries. In the time booster cable up to and hobby the devastative explosion, BP has failed to sur humeral cloak with a significant number of legal requirements. In 2004, BP was cited for 14 alleged violations of standard operating procedures at their Texas City refinery.In folk 2005, seven months after the explosion central to this case, the OSHA found hundreds of safety violations that it called â€Å"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 BP’s actions, the U. S governme nt has been active in ensuring that all legal requirements are met. Following the September 2005 report, the OSHA levied a record size fine of $21. 4 million on BP. Also imposed, was a three-year probationary period in which BP â€Å"had to request permission from the agency before starting up old refinery units and report all accidents and injuries, irrespective of cause, to the agency on a regular basis” (Hosmer, 51).Now, although the OSHA was able to bring some positive change, on that point are still problems with the law relevant to the case. Initially, the aforesaid(prenominal) 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 company’s mai ntenance fraud. The legal information observed in this case tends to lag behind the necessary regulations and moral standards of society, proving that the law is damage by extended delays.Due to the lose 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 society’s needs especially when human well being is being jeopardized. Even with federal regulations in place, in 2006, BP caused â€Å"the largest oil verbalize on the North dispose of Alaska” because their major pipeline â€Å"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 â€Å"much more a minor sub ject area for BP, [who] had reported an after-tax profit of $15. 7 billion” (Hosmer, 50). Thus, the law cannot be used to solve this moral problem as BP is both lawful and immoral. Evaluate the estimable Duties In order to apprise a ascendant to a moral dilemma as such, it is crucial to analyze the ethical duties of BP and the various ethical theories that apply. First, the article of faith of Personal Virtues comes in to play. It implies that one should â€Å" neer take any decision or action that is not open, open and truthful, and one that you would feel proud to see astray reported” (Hosmer, 99). It is clear that BP’s actions have like a shot violated this prescript.Their decision to knowingly delay the maintenance of their gnarly facility without informing umpteen key stakeholders is definitely not open. BP also settled a lawsuit in which they â€Å"falsified the maintenance records for storage tanks” (Hosmer, 50), which is neither honest n or truthful. The key stakeholders in the case, such as the management of the refinery have not been open, 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 â€Å"claimed that he had been ordered to cut costs by 25 percent in early 2005” and another BP executive â€Å"had been directed to keep his maintenance expenditures low” (Hosmer, 53).Since both of these members of the BP Company were â€Å"laid off” following the press release, it is clear that BP did not want the leaked information widely reported. Therefore, BP violates the rationale of Personal Virtues. Moving on, the theory of Utilitarian Benefits is one that takes an instrumental approach, adduceing costs and benefits to an outcome. It states that one should â€Å"never take any decision or action that does not generate greater benefits than harms for the society of which you are a part” (Hosm er, 99). establish on the classical discrepancy 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 operate 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 set up facility. This benefit is very minute so we can assign it a 4 out of 10. Diametrically, the aforementioned(prenominal) decision creates numerous 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 fitting 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 all the way see that the harms outweigh the benefits, thus, there is overwhelming evidence to interpret the Utilitarian Benefits principle is violated.Furthermore, the principle of universal proposition Duties implies that you should â€Å"never take any decision or action that you would not be wiling to see others, faced with the same or a almost similar situation, be uncaring and even encourage to take” (Hosmer, 99). In the case of BP, their actions nowadays defy the unconditional lordly of the Universalizability Principle, which implies that you should act only fit to the maxim you are free to universalize. If BP universalized their behaviour of ignoring maintenance requirements in oil refineries or their disregard to employee safety and well-being, several ruinous industrial incidents could occur causation deaths, injuries, environmental damage and an overall decrease in the feature of life.In fact, universalizing this behaviour would be self-defeating as the lack of clean water and resources would hinder the gain of petroleum industries. Looking at the Respect version of the categoric al imperative, it is clear that BP is once again in violation. The principle explains how one should use humans â€Å" unendingly as an end and never as a government agency only” (Hosmer, 96). The BP Company uses their employees as merely a authority to an end by guild them to carry out duties inwardly the refinery. Given the numerous risks present in the workplace, the workers are hardened as objects with very elflike care and value, useful only in achieving the company’s aim. BP does not abide with the both aspects of the categorical imperative; therefore, it violates the Universal Duties principle.Another ethical duty expense evaluation is the principle of suffusive Justice. This theory mentions that moral standards are based on the primacy of a single value, justice, and that â€Å"everyone should act to ensure a more true distribution of benefits and burdens”, because this promotes individual self respect, essential for cooperation (Hosmer, 100). T his theory, unlike the others, is theoretical and teleological. If we were to conduct a estimate experiment, whereby we imagine ourselves in the authorized position behind the veil of ignorance, it is clear that BP’s actions violate the Difference principle. Behind the veil of ignorance, we are unaware of our socioeconomic status.However, we are in the original position, which essence we are kindle in ourselves and those that who we care about to succeed; thus, we would want benefits and burdens to be distributed equitably, as we do not know which party we start to. The least advantaged members of the society include the workers of the BP refinery since they earn low restriction wages, taking orders from BP managers and senior officials. With BP’s 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 mayhap encounter life-threatening injur ies or death.BP’s actions fail to benefit the least advantaged members of society, which is unfair. Consequently, BP is not performing in their right moral duty. Moreover, the decision to delay maintenance destroys the BP refinery and does not provide the workers with change magnitude employment (or any employment for that matter). Due to the facts outlined, the social and economic inequalities created through BP’s 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 self-sufficiency 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 â€Å"everyone should act to ensure greater liberty of choice” as this promotes market commuting, essential for social productiveness (Hosmer, 100). Applying th is theory, it becomes clear that BP’s 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 immunity of choice because even though they can see the flaws located in the refinery, they must proceed with the operating instructions from management. In the same way, the management is also denied a freedom to maintain the facility as they are ordered to â€Å"cut costs by 25 percent” or otherwise, risk losing their positions.By suppressing the freedom of these two stakeholders, BP is probable 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 closeness. advise and Defend a declaration After determining the economic outco mes, considering the legal requirements and evaluating the ethical duties, it is bewitch to make my recommendation. My proposed root word to BP’s moral problem is to make its most disadvantaged stakeholders transgress off and implement an ‘Employee work Evaluation syllabus’ as a part of BP’s regular operations. It is important to agate line that this case has already been â€Å"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 in person apologizing to each 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, diet and other services to those families that have either lost or suffered an injury to an earning loved one. In my opinion, this is the least a multi-billion dollar oil corporation can do to begin righting its amoral actions. The second step in my solution entails BP implementing an Employee Workplace Evaluation Program or EWEP, with overview from government governance (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 oldtimer; any hazardous 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 employee’s perspective, thus conforming to principle of Personal Virtues. The solution also holds true for Utilitarian Benefits as the benefits of helping families recover from loneliness 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.\r\n'