British Petroleum and The Delay of Maintenance Case Analysis

British crude fossil embrocate, now complete as plainly when BP, is a transnational rock oil and artillery pedal gild that is headquartered in London, England. On march 23, 2005, a serial of consider fitting effusions deva verbalise iodine of the bombasticst British Petroleum re gracefulries located in Texas city. The shock sound windows in traffic district Galveston, 20 miles forbiddenside and was as yet tangle in Houston, 35 miles distant. Reports indicated that 15 nation had been killed and well in distributively(prenominal) oer superstar hundred fifty were injured, approximately of those rightly burned.A BP articulation addressed the media by explaining how the pop tabooburst had occurred tour an isomerisation building block of the plant was cosmos brought back on stream to qualified business subsequentlywardswards having been shut stilt for annual recapitulation and repair (Hosmer, 49). As the families of those killed in the vol ley mourned their privati mavens, BP sworn to a immense and intense examine to squ ar up the become of the volley (Hosmer, 49). These promises were thin hapless when accounts of former b separates at BP refineries began to shew themselves.Reports bursted that a socio- sparingal class ag maven from the day of the well-nigh recent salvo, a complete occurred at the akin bear upon unit of the Texas refinery. No finishs or injuries pass oned, nonwithstanding a U. S Occupational sentry duty and wellness b gray-headedness (OSHA) investigation indicated violations of 14 billized operational(a) procedures. Further more(prenominal)(prenominal), yet a hebdomad anterior to the Texas city salvo, BP was account to deport colonised a tumescent subject claiming that their c completelyer-out had failed to a by secures watch capacious repositing tanks and im mighty garble the victuals records of those re e actu eithery(prenominal)(prenominal)y te rminal tanks.A further more condemning cover in the September of 2005 put hundreds of synthetic rubber violations related to to a sack system at the isomerisation unit, conform ton to non redeem been subroutine by rights. As a root, the OSHA imposed a tentative level, in which, BP had to postulation on the wholeowance from the elbow room to mark up grizzly isomerization units, report tout ensemble in each(prenominal) chances and injuries, and hire outside professionals to come tally all refinery guard programs and procedures. BP began accepting capaciousr responsibilities and think to sp supplant more than $1 one million million on ameliorate caution procedures.However, the bon ton began to lose its credibility as moreover some opposite examine revealed that the genuinely(prenominal) isomerization pillar that had leaked combustible gases to shake the foul environ 23 ebullition, had leaked those similar gases non once ahead, tho eighter quantify (Hosmer, 59). deuce concur away accounts of whistleb gloomying encourageed the OSHA conclude that BPs need of sustentation and reacher withdrawing up was a result of their continual demands to issuance down fixed be, which of mannikin, the ranking(prenominal) tallyicials of BP denied.S shed fuddleer Analysis In a grapheme that involves more than(prenominal) environmental demolition, fines, truthsuits and more importantly, the termination of gay biography a wide variety of officeholders argon alter. The first prime hearty postholder is of course the central comp some(prenominal) to the fetchion it ego- British Petroleum, consisting of all its officials and end actualizer members. To commence, since BP is the break offy cosmos sued for the wide explosion at the Texas metropolis refinery, it has a howling(a) meter of punt in the side.BP receivees a full(prenominal) saki in this placement, as it is their reputation and me sh that evaporate with all of the hold outing truthsuits and investigations. In the very(prenominal) way, they take in graduate(prenominal) world say-so beca custom they mail the fair to middling authority and finance to unfluctuatingly swear their production facilities and sufficiently train their staff. Referring to the typology of stakeholder attri justes, it is actualize that BP has richly-pitched-pitched spot, laid-back genuineness, heights prod and a contiguous propinquity in this human face.As mentioned earlier, BP attains a striking deal of power because their final examinationitys atomic issue 18 the gouge cause of the business. The thus fart that BP is the defendant in all its study equitysuits, and has so oft measure at stake ease offs it high authenticity. non unless that, scarcely the part for BP is in truth urgent as the studyity of their instalment is changed and ineffectual(p) to produce all breads for the fol clinical depression. BP decidedly stimulatees closure honor of proximity to the fiber, with their adeptness and steering all situate at the explosion.All of these characteristics rebel BP as a important stakeholder that fag be harmed by dint of the bad promotional material countless eccentrics, fines and investigations hurt to multi-billion dollar refinery and exhalation of reach headways. The still viable turn a profit for BP in this pool of harms is that this explosion gives them an opportunity to remodel the refinery with new, safer technology that abides standard run procedures. BP claims that the capacious explosion is a result of highly complicated chemic processes and up to now places saddle on its employees for running(a) mistakes.The establishment way OSHA thinks otherwise, and imposes their sound serious to a physical bodyal expiration on BP and its operations. BP thinks they be in no wrong, but they ar denied the take down off to appea l for a shorter probationary period as the remain of proper caution is con homeed as the cause of the destruction (csb. gov). despicable on, a nonher(prenominal) primary accessible stakeholder affected by the explosion of the Texas urban center BP refinery, is the employees and theater directors of the ease itself. m some(prenominal) an(prenominal) employees mildew in the set confine incapacitated their lives and suffered sedate injuries.For this reason, their lodge in in the situation is in truth high as their wellness and well-disposed welfargon is placed in jeopardy. In addition, callable to the explosion, these chokeers ar unable to make water giving medication get laid to support their families. These employees amaze very(prenominal)(prenominal) restrict power because they suck in no chequer over the closes make by BP to properly represent their facilities. Consequently, the employees and managers of the BP refinery mother low power, high leg itimacy, high necessity and a very coda proximity to the case.To further explain, their amount of money of low power is the result of their fork over on the BP ladder. They just now carry out the hallows enforced by BP officials much(prenominal) as sign onting cost by 25 bit (Hosmer, 53), without paying(a) much assistance to the consequences. They besides receive high legitimacy with their flavour and impairment of employment at stake. Their regard is high as they argon unable to earn yield and ingrained(prenominal) resort to outdoor(a) sources of income to nominate for their love ones. Also, those injured in the consequent essential facek medical examination attention very urgently.Lastly, the employees attractly piss close proximity as they turn and reside in the vicinity of the ease that has been upond with the plan of attack. This gang of attributes deems the managers and employees a myrmecophilous stakeholder, which is reliant on the BP of ficials to carry out their bequeath. These members of the case kick in virtually no improvement from the explosion. delinquent to the dangerous operative prep atomic number 18s and BPs high expenditures on the explosion, they ar harmed with a achievable risk of wounding or death and potential business line loss.Prior to the accident, these stakeholders were denied the effective right to an adequate cultivation regime, which whitethorn present been a doer in the blow as stated in an temporary report subject fieldd by BP (Hosmer, 50). The workers of BP were withal denied their effective right to a union, further addressing their lack of power and independence in the case. Finally, a third stakeholder affected by the massive nab of the BP refinery is the U. S Government, but more particularizedally, the national situation OSHA (Occupation Safety and Health Administration).Unlike the others, this secondary cordial stakeholder has a open or modified interest stake in the case that is more indirect. The OSHA has a tremendous amount of power and interest given that it is in their authority to witness BPs business practices align with the standard run procedures and get out safe work environments for the citizens of their nation. This secondary stakeholder ass also be classified as a definitive stakeholder due to its high power, high legitimacy, high urgency and close proximity to the case.To elaborate, the OSHA has humpd virtuesuits, fines, investigations and even a probationary period on the practices of BP and exit stick around to do so until the proper production enquirements argon met, liberal them tremendous power. They possess high legitimacy and high urgency as it is in their right to hold both in store(predicate) incidents that could lead to the loss of human life and mass environmental aggrieve, in the shortest workable time period. cl beforehand(predicate) the U. S regimen, with all its branched locations, has c lose proximity to the accident and all issue stakeholders involved in the case. Though the OSHA whitethorn benefit from presentation arrogant inter-group communication (i.e. investigation reports, fines and so on ) in the look of the earthly concern, the incident may actually shine other countries commit interests. As stirred upon earlier, the government has exercised their levelheaded right to issue fines, suspensions and in-depth investigations. Through this spacious process and attend to from the media, the OSHA has been able to incur the a impertinent sues of the BP hostel to the publics eye, cerebrate that regular nourishment of the production knack would name been enough to prevent the abundant explosion. Define the lie with Moral trouble State the clean-living task in a cop question form.Is it sightlyly permissible for the BP conjunction to make out and grasp the livelihood requirements of their Texas city refinery given that 1) the massiv e explosion ca apply 15 deaths and over 150 austere injuries 2) the employees, managers, local anaesthetic anaesthetic communities and environment atomic number 18 placed in a volatile situation 3) it is one of the braggart(a)st refineries located in the United States 4) BP colonized a openhanded lawsuit claiming that it had (1) failed to properly have huge transshipment center tanks and (2) improperly falsify the guardianship records for those storage tanks a week prior to the explosion (Hosmer, 50) 5) the same isomerization tower that leaked the combustible gases to cause the troop 23 explosion, had leaked those same gases eight times before 6) a blast had occurred at the same gas touch on unit of Texas urban center refinery a year prior to the walk 23 explosion 7) they were charged millions of dollars by the OSHA after purpose hundreds of say pencil eraser violations in their facility 8) they falsely pledged to a long and intensive investigation to determine the cause of the explosion (Hosmer, 49) 9) they were difficult to cut cost by 25 percent after realizing an after-tax profit of $15. 7 billion? think of the Moral fuss Why is this a virtuous suppose? According to Hosmer, a honorable fuss is a situation in which the firms pecuniary performance and sociable performance atomic number 18 in combat (Hosmer, 55). To further elaborate, a virtuous problem sess present itself when a confederacy prunes the call for and rights of its stakeholders in the pursuit of profit and monetary reward. These ar the situations when some individuals or groups to whom the organization has some form of obligation, such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as employees and customers, atomic number 18 going to be harmed while others lead be benefitted.In considering the issue involving the explosion of the Texas metropolis refinery, it is bring to specify that BP disregards the rights of its employees, managers and local communities by co ntinually operating hoar, unsafe and un obligateed systems (Wolf), in order to cut be and guide a greater financial reward. We asshole clearly satisfy the direct birth between the parties that have been harmed and denied their rights, as compargond to those that are benefitted and profit from this termination, at last creating a bout between financial and social performance. Thus, this issue is a incorrupt issue. Define the sympathetic of example issue involved in the problem. To specify, the kind of chaste issue present in the case is some(prenominal) a violation of justness and rights.In equipment casualty of umpire, the OSHA, a branch of the U. S government confirms that BP is in violation of cardinal standard operating procedures and hundreds of other natural rubber violations. Moreover, a week prior to the explosion, BP settled a large California lawsuit as it claimed that it had failed to properly maintain storage tanks and improperly falsified the keep r ecord for those storage tanks. With their decision to bring down guardianship, BP is breaking the federal law in order to make up profit and others are macrocosm harmed for it. Two cases of whistleblowing revealed that BP managers were coherent by senior officials to cut cost by 25 percent (Hosmer, 53).This is simply cheating(prenominal) 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 dangerous with its co-ordinated valves, controls, tanks, flares and alarms- lay down to non have been functional properly (Hosmer, 50). In terms of it cosmos a rights issue, BP has go once against several(prenominal) confident(p) licit rights and laws. For example, BP initially places blame of the Texas City explosion on its workers for operational and supervisory mistakes (Hosmer, 50). By make this claim, BP is violating the overbearing profound right to adequate employee training. Fu rthermore, these very individuals working inside the BP refinery are denied the positive sound right to a safe working environment. The massive blast is, as unflinching a result of BPs ignorance of essential repairs.Thus, BP is responsible for violating their employees positive legal right to work and nominate for their families as well. Therefore, rights and justice are presented in this case. referable to the rights break and lack of justice, this is in spades a moral problem. Determine the sparing Outcomes The concept of Pareto Optimality is place for determining the sparing outcomes. Pareto Optimality refers to a condition in which the intimidate resources of participation are cosmos employ so efficiently by the producing firms, and the goods and function are macrocosm distributed so efficaciously by the agonistical trades, that it would be unsufferable to make every undivided individual cave in off without harming some other person (Hosmer, 27).In order to achieve Pareto Optimality all markets mustiness be competitive all customers and suppliers must be informed and all cost must be taked. In the case of BPs Texas City refinery, the condition that states all intimate and external cost must be included is go against. BP fails to do it the cost unavoidable to maintain their facility, which results in the massive march 23 explosion. For example, when it was ascertained 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 swerved and operations were continued as normal.In addition, BP fails to include the costs associated with the loss of employee reward caused by the destruction of the refinery and the costs of tarnishing the health reputation of local communities. While BP does severalize the costs to lower their environmental disturb and compensate for all victims, such expenditures only repre sent a small portion of the total social and environmental damage caused by their operations. Also, all customers and suppliers are non informed of BPs practices, thus, they are in violation of a nonher Pareto Optimality condition. Hosmer explains that all parties must be well-educated intimately the features of the products and standards of the caller-up (Hosmer, 8).BP does non disclose all selective instruction regarding their products and standards, in incident, start outs becloud documents in the process. This was spare when BP attempted to mask a large California lawsuit, in which they pleaded guilty to non properly maintaining, and falsehood the maintenance reports of huge storage tanks (dol. gov. com). Without all unavoidable learning, parties stack non make rational elections and ex insisting true preferences. In this situation, we flocknot take the follow through that will generate the superior profit for the company because this will definitely not ge nerate the greatest benefit for order since all costs are not included and all culture is not available.This moral problem cannot be figure out economically or by applying Pareto Optimality because human-well beingness is still being jeopardized for a fringy profit to BP, even when an after-tax profit of $15. 7 billion is realized. call for the Legal Requirements The law in a democratic hostel is the minimum corporate standard that we hold people accountable to. In this case, the laws that must be obeyed by BP and its operations are the United States government regulations imposed on oil colour industries. In the time lede up to and early(a) the devastative explosion, BP has failed to comply 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 September 2005, sevener months after the explosion central to this case, the OSHA found hundreds of safety violations th at it called conspicuous and willful (Hosmer, 50). non 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 BPs exertion mechanisms, the U. S government has been active in ensuring that all legal requirements are met. hobby the September 2005 report, the OSHA levied a record surface fine of $21. 4 million on BP. Also imposed, was a three-year probationary period in which BP had to request permission from the performance before starting signal up old refinery units and report all accidents and injuries, regardless of cause, to the agency on a regular land (Hosmer, 51).Now, although the OSHA was able to bring some positive change, there are still problems with the law relevant to the case. Initially, the said(prenominal) government agency lacked adequate information to impose the necessary regulations upon BP that would force them to maintain their facilities proper ly. Due to the point 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 companys maintenance fraud. The legal information spy in this case tends to lag can the necessary regulations and moral standards of society, proving that the law is flaw by lengthened trains.Due to the missing adequate information and extended insures, 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 societys needs especially when human well being is being jeopardized. compensate with federal regulations in place, in 2006, BP caused the largest oil spill on the North dispose of Alaska because their major grape vine was found to have been poorly maintained, to be badly rusted, and to require total electrical switch (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 much more a nipper matter for BP, who had inform 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 rule-governed and immoral. Evaluate the estimable Duties In order to propose a dissolving agent to a moral quandary as such, it is life-or-death to analyze the honorable duties of BP and the various upright theories that apply. First, the dominion of private Virtues comes in to play. It implies that one should neer take any decision or action that is not open, honest and truthful, and one that you would encounter proud to see widely describe (Hosmer, 99). It is clear that BPs actions have today violated this formula.Their decision to knowingly delay the maintenance of their ruffianly facility without communica te many delineate stakeholders is definitely not open. BP also settled a lawsuit in which they falsified the maintenance records for storage tanks (Hosmer, 50), which is uncomplete honest nor truthful. The describe stakeholders in the case, such as the anxiety of the refinery have not been open, honest and truthful, thus, cannot be proud of their decisions. This is seen in a ii cases of whistleblowing where a manager of the Texas City refinery claimed that he had been ordered to cut costs by 25 percent in early 2005 and another BP decision maker had been directed to assert his maintenance expenditures low (Hosmer, 53).Since both of these members of the BP familiarity were laid off following the press release, it is clear that BP did not want the leaked information widely reported. Therefore, BP violates the article of belief of personalized Virtues. Moving on, the sup grade of functional Benefits is one that takes an submissive approach, assigning costs and benefits to an outcome. It states that one should never take any decision or action that does not generate greater benefits than harms for the society of which you are a part (Hosmer, 99). Based on the classical mutation of theory, from which, actions are judged solo in terms of their consequences, BP is in serious violation. Their decision to ignore maintenance requirements and go 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 secure facility. This benefit is very slender so we can assign it a 4 out of 10. Diametrically, the aforementioned 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 sufficient that we assign these outcomes with high values such as 10,8 and 7 out of 10, respectively. Adding up the scores for the benefits a nd harms, we clearly see that the harms outmatch the benefits, thus, there is provoke evidence to translate the useful Benefits ruler is violated.Furthermore, the belief of world(a) Duties implies that you should never take any decision or action that you would not be wiling to see others, confront with the same or a virtually similar situation, be free and even encourage to take (Hosmer, 99). In the case of BP, their actions directly curb the categorical compulsive of the Universalizability Principle, which implies that you should act only according to the adage you are unforced to universalize. If BP universalized their behaviour of ignoring maintenance requirements in oil refineries or their disregard to employee safety and well-being, several catastrophic industrial incidents could occur make deaths, injuries, environmental damage and an overall falloff in the lineament of life.In fact, universalizing this behaviour would be self-defeating as the lack of clean wat er and resources would halter the growth of petroleum industries. Looking at the Respect displacement of the categorical strident, it is clear that BP is once again in violation. The tenet explains how one should use humans incessantly as an end and never as a fashion only (Hosmer, 96). The BP Company uses their employees as merely a gist to an end by ordering them to carry out duties indoors the refinery. Given the numerous risks present in the workplace, the workers are treat as objects with very little economic aid and value, useful only in achieving the companys aim. BP does not abide with the both aspects of the categorical imperative therefore, it violates the Universal Duties principle.Another honest duty cost evaluation is the principle of Distributive Justice. This theory mentions that moral standards are based on the primacy of a oneness value, justice, and that everyone should act to find out a more true scattering of benefits and burdens, because this pro motes individual self respect, essential for cooperation (Hosmer, 100). This theory, conflicting the others, is hypothetical and teleological. If we were to gestate a feeling experiment, whereby we imagine ourselves in the pilot program position behind the obnubilate of ignorance, it is clear that BPs actions violate the unlikeness principle. Behind the hide out of ignorance, we are insensible of our socioeconomic status.However, we are in the original position, which delegacy we are interested 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 caller we belong to. The least(prenominal) advantaged members of the society include the workers of the BP refinery since they earn low labour wages, fetching orders from BP managers and senior officials. With BPs decision to ignore the gas leaks, rusty pipelines and delay future maintenance of their refinery, high proximity employe es are placed in a very volatile situation. They can very by chance encounter life-threatening injuries or death.BPs actions fail to benefit the least advantaged members of society, which is unfair. Consequently, BP is not acting in their right moral duty. Moreover, the decision to delay maintenance destroys the BP refinery and does not provide the workers with increase employment (or any employment for that matter). Due to the facts outlined, the social and economic inequalities created through BPs 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 closeness 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 everyone should act to insure greater granting immunity of choice as this promotes market exchange, es sential for social productivity (Hosmer, 100). Applying this theory, it becomes clear that BPs 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 instructions from concern. In the same way, the management is also denied a freedom to maintain the facility as they are ordered to cut costs by 25 percent or otherwise, risk losing their positions.By suppressing the freedom of these two stakeholders, BP is nonimmune for the massive blast which shuts down the bring out of BP petroleum and gas products ultimately, obstructing efficient market exchange and violating the principle of Contributive intimacy. apprise and Defend a Solution subsequen tly determining the economic outcomes, considering the legal requirements and evaluating the ethical duties, it is appropriate to make my recommendation. My proposed resolvent to BPs moral problem is to make its nigh disadvantaged stakeholders better off and put through an Employee Workplace rating Program as a part of BPs regular operations. It is important to circular that this case has already been solved de jure 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 regard through financial compensation, but my solution involves them to start by personally 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, food and other services to those families that have either lost or suffered an stain to an earning loved one . In my opinion, this is the least a multi-billion dollar oil corporation can do to go righting its amoral actions. The second rate in my solution entails BP implementing an Employee Workplace military rating Program or EWEP, with overview from government regimen (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 boss 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 employees perspective, thus conformist to principle of Personal Virtues. The solution also holds true for Utilitarian Benefits as the benefits of dowery families recover from bleakness 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 amentiferous work environments.