The main ethical issues and dilemmas faced by British Petroleum in the case
The ethical issues and dilemmas faced by British Petroleum (BP) mainly concerned the environmental effects the creation of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline could have caused. Namely, the problem lied in the possibility of oil spills due to the fact that the pipe is located in the earthquake zone. Besides, the building of the pipeline resulted in the relocation of 30 thousands of people inhabiting the area. Moreover, the pipeline ran through Nagorno-Karabakh, the territory affected by the war, and there were risks of terrorist attacks on the line. Finally, the level of corruption in Azerbaijan and Turkey made it very likely that the project would feed the oligarchies in these countries and create no benefits for less wealthy classes. Apart from all the dangers and risks, the pipeline was an extremely beneficial project for the Western states minimizing their dependency on the oil provided by the Middle Eastern countries making the oil and energy resources of the Central Asia available. In this project, BP operated as the main player.
BP from a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) perspective (ethical and unethical dimensions)
The table below represents the ethical and unethical aspects of actions and decisions made by BP during the pipeline construction. Almost every step they took can be viewed as both ethical and unethical based on the perspective. The project was contradictory, and the company had to take risks to generate benefits.
Alternative actions/recommendations for BP to address its unethical dimensions
Being an oil company BP cannot avoid inducing environmental concerns and exposing the areas where it operates to risks of pollution. Besides, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline was constructed in the areas known for their corrupt economies and political systems. That is why BP should have been extremely careful not to get involved in any of the illegal operations. Interacting with multiple stakeholders (environmental and social organizations, activists, investors, landowners, politicians) the company had to establish a system of priorities. As a result, BP ended up gravitating to those with more power and influence and ignoring those whose rights could be neglected. To address the unethical dimension and prevent the violation of human rights of the landowners, the company needed to create a specific committee dealing with the owners of the land specifically. That way, some of the clashes with the population could be avoided. In other words, BP should have considered shared value of the project and instead of chasing short-term benefits think of the results of the project implementation and pipeline construction that would occur in the long run.
BP from the utilitarian perspective
From the point of view of utilitarianism that promotes the provision of the largest amount of good to the largest number of people, BP’s participation in the construction of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline resulted in the benefits for the richer and more powerful communities instead of less wealthy ones. The construction of the pipeline was conducted on the territory of the states with a higher level of corruption. BP, as the main participant in the project, was to take care of the needs and respond to the interests of all stakeholders. On the surface, a number of investments and initiatives were implemented to promote the sustainability and transparency of the operations. In reality, most of these practices targeted personal interests of the company and, in the long, run showed their egoistic rather than utilitarian nature.
Justice-based perspective
Equality is one of the core emphases of the Western justice system based on the democratic values. In the case of the pipeline construction in Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, BP overlooked the interests of many stakeholders with minor impact and ensured the support of the powerful ones. Besides, even though the creation of the pipeline benefited a number of Western European countries, BP’s cooperation with the leaders of the corrupt countries that are known for the cases of human rights’ violations was widely criticized in Europe as the support of unjust and illegal practices unacceptable in democratic western societies.
Western MNC and corrupt states
As mentioned above, the cooperation of British Petroleum with the corrupt officials of Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan was criticized by the authorities and activists in the West. At the same time, the cooperation with the leaders of these countries was unavoidable while working on a project such as the pipeline. Moreover, knowing about the importance of the pipeline for the shareholders, the corrupt local officials were likely to attempt and win their own piece of the pie. That is why, ideally, a Western MNC such as BP should withdraw itself from all the unjust practices. However, such withdrawal may be quite unrealistic when the local community functions based on the laws of corruption. In other words, the company officials may be forced to participate. Carroll’s model of CSR shows that legal and ethical responsibilities of a company are expected by the society, and this means that all the cooperative actions of the company leaders and the local authorities that resulted in the breach of human rights will result in social problems and dissatisfaction both in the local communities and Western societies. The ratio of costs and benefits of this project is rather confusing. That is why the utilitarian analysis aiming at the organized categorization of all the impacts on each of the stakeholder groups is useful in this case. The creation of a table with all the positive and negative outcomes of the project would demonstrate its dominant characteristic as utilitarian or egoistic.
Ideally, the Western MNC should consider the significance of negative and positive impacts their projects would bring to determine their long-term impact.
Way for BP to respond its ongoing criticism
Responding the criticism BP could apply discourse ethics at it is one of the best ways to address its existing issues practically. This approach is based on an honest and self-aware dialogue between the conflicting sides. Regardless of its time-consuming nature, such dialogue is likely to result in compromise and bring better understanding between the parties. However, the problem is that such conversation is not always possible as an ability of a side to approach its perspective and the perspective of the opposition critically with emotional maturity is quite rare.