Exxon could not deny that they caused this massive oil spill, but they did try and push off most of the blame and they did not do a good job of taking responsibility for their actions. The corporate apologia theory is one where the company is only interested in defending their reputation, but does not necessarily apologize, will deny most wrongdoing, and even accuses others for the incident. This is exactly what happened in the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil
When an environmental disaster occurs, like massive ocean oil leaks, it should be considered if the company and government employees responsible of taking the decisions acted correctly and therefore, the disaster could not have been avoided. “The Deepwater Horizon disaster is [has been] confirmed as the biggest ever accidental release of oil into the oceans” (Black, 2010, para. 1). This issue has been controversial and much disputed among the last few years; however, there has not been much discussion about the ethical values and behavior of the company. The Government should take action against BP and its executives because the company is acting unethically trying to evade its responsibilities and the consequences of the disaster.
They knew that the rule book said that if a captain went against his contract due to personal feelings, they were obliged to wrest command from him. This idea symbolizes the emotional attachment we have to those around us, and it also demonstrates the mixed feelings we have when somebody we respect does something evil. In the end, this emotional attachment destroyed the crew. Starbuck had a golden opportunity to kill Ahab, but for his own salvation, he undermined the good of the crew and chose to let the Captain live. So, part of the lesson of Moby Dick is not to let sentiment and personal feelings get in the way of our duty.
With inspectors who didn’t really have the same knowledge of drilling as the industry they were attempting to regulate they were at liberty to change the procedures and processes at their whi... ... middle of paper ... ...to regulate itself. They should increase their own standards and donate a portion of their profits to trying to fix the devastation in the gulf. They should be seen trying to clean up the gulf. They should as donate a portion of their proceeds to developing new technology that will aid in the cleanup of spills of this nature. They should be open with their business practices in the future and become a responsible partner in environmental efforts.
The spill resulted from the company’s fail... ... middle of paper ... ...health problem from oil and BP shareholder lawsuits etc. However, BP didn’t assume responsibility even though the investigation indicated BP had most mistakes. As the firm shirked responsibility with other companies, BP didn’t show an ethical corporate culture. Compared with Enron scandal, BP didn’t do any fraud or false accounting. However, as both of these companies claimed that the company’s conduct code is compliance with government and safety regulations, their company scandals revealed that the company didn’t comply with profession ethics, even the regulations.
He was instrumental in this law suit because he had saved documents that PG&E had requested he destroy, because he knew it was unethical to destroy the evidence of harmful chemicals, calling himself a “bad employee” in his own words for his actions. He watched his cousin pass away at only 41 years old, after suffering nose bleeds while cleaning the cooling towers, having his colon and intestines removed, and ultimately dying from kidney tumors. Charles Embry clearly cared about others, the greatest good for the greatest number, and was willing to go against his manager’s direction, to do as he was told (Banaji, 2003, pp. 6-7), and therefore far more ethical than his managers at
In other words, he should resign for the whole incident. Generally speaking, the legal system didn¡¦t play a very active role in this case. First of all, the India government could do more on digging the truth of the gas leak out and set a more strict standard to regulate such dangerous plants in case that another crisis. Second, I didn¡¦t see any one who worked in the Union Carbide¡¦s Bhopal plant should be responsible for that tragedy. Does it mean that all that the India court wanted was money or it just wanted to reduce trial and subsequent appeals because it might have taken more than twenty years?
The commanding captain suggested that some people would need to be thrown overboard in order for anyone to survive. There was a great argument on the boat between the captain and the passengers who opposed his decision. Some suggested that the weakest should be drowned, as miles of rowing the lifeboat would take toll on even the strongest. This reasoning would also make it absurd to draw names of who should be thrown over. Others suggested that if they all stayed onboard no one would be responsible for the deaths, although the captain argued he would be guilty if those who he could have saved perished in the process.
The media would find out about the bombing and the only person to blame for all of the consequences would be the corrupted President Nixon. His own poor egotistical actions led to his downfalls including the downfall of the great Watergate Scandal. He had put this burden upon himself because he carried out actions so freely without having the issue discussed with the Congress and taking advantage of the power of the presidency and going beyond the boundary.
The oil cannot severely hurt or injure humans, but when organizations are cleaning up the oil spills they have to make sure they wear long pants and shirts to reduce skin contact with oil. Fish also get exposed to the oil. They’re scales get coated in oil and then we go to restaurants and end up eating these fish that are coated in oil. Some oil can cause an increase in cancer risk. Researchers say that eating a fished that had oil on it is not a risk to humans (Live Science).