Your request for a report on ethical issues in my field of study has initiated an interesting body of material. Within the past year, several ethical issues have been raised in the world of business and management. However, in the current year more ethical issues have been raised including; technological innovation especially in the nuclear and oil industries, disaster management in terms of response and preparedness, failed leadership and professionalism in management and the concern of the occupational health and safety of personnel. It is important to be aware of these issues as they could affect our exposure to management. While I believe that we have an obligation to protect the interests of the shareholders and the integrity of the company, we cannot be so conservative as to limit the interests of the personnel and external environment. These issues are linked to each other in a fascinating manner and associated with the prevalent British Petroleum (BP) Gulf oil spill.
A Variety of Issues
Technological Innovation
From the manufacturing, telecommunication, automobile industries and all sectors of the business world to general equipment and appliances for home use, technological development and innovation have been on the increase, yet there are still concerns for reliability of the same especially for the nuclear, manufacturing and heavy end industries. For example, the recent occurrence of the BP gulf oil spill is said to have been caused by the explosion of the offshore drilling rig which was semi-submersible in the Gulf of Mexico just after a blow out had been experienced. While many industry experts believe that this incident is due to the unethical reliance on Blow out Preventers (BOP) that technology industry and academic experts have warned against, others argue that it is attributed to the failure of IT especially the multiple control mechanisms, systems, processes and equipment. None disagree on the fact that technological application in the industry has to be up-to-date and the human performance improved (Meyer and Brysac 22).
Disaster management
Governments, stakeholders and the public are concerned about the disaster management techniques of BP Oil Company. This is mostly in relation to preparedness and its response initiatives to the Gulf oil spill. Although legally speaking the rig involved in the explosion has been found to belong to Trasocean while the well cementing had been done by Halliburton, analysts, regulators and the public feel that BP had an ethical responsibility of ensuring effective disaster preparedness (Fairley 1). Analysts and experts illustrate clearly that BP needed to have effective disaster management in place since it is involved in an industry that has potential of experiencing hazards such as oil spills. Furthermore, many questions are being raised regarding the environmental protection of BP since it is involved in components that pose a threat to the environment especially on water, because of the impact it has on marine life. Analysts believe that BP has acted on ignorance of the regulations and the risk it poses to the environment. Even as government and regulators are looking for ways to avert the impact of the oil spill, they cannot stop to question the lagged manner in which BP has responded to the issue. As Fairley (2) and other analysts believe, it is the pressure of the media that has caused BP to be concerned and take responsibility through increased awareness. Personally, I do not think that BP had clear disaster management in place even as it engages in blame game for the disaster instead of owning up to the problem.
Failed leadership and professionalism
The BP oil spill has not only revealed the leadership and management ineffectiveness of the company, but it has also been a test of leadership in disaster response. Reports suggest that the oil spill is a representation of the failed leadership of BP and the lack of professionalism especially in dealing with crises (Krigsman 2). It is worth noting that Halliburton was responsible for building the well casing while Transocean had the ownership of the rig which BP had the mandate of operation. Following the explosion and investigation of the incidents prior to the explosion, the three companies have been laying blames on each in a vicious circle that shows lack of ownership of responsibility. Good leadership demands ownership of responsibility while it is unprofessional to engage in blame games when a critical situation is still continuing. Although some industry experts claim it is attributed to the failure of IT, reports suggest that earlier investigations had forewarned BP of the system for which management could have stepped up to address. It is clear to industry experts that BP had the opportunity to stop the crisis (Fairley 2). Other analysts blame the middle management for not following the senior management directions (Krigsman 1).
Academic experts and scholars are clearly emphasizing on the core values of true leadership as not attempting to minimize the extent of a problem but rather setting and delivering appropriate expectations (Goble 108). This assertion and many others on the test of true leadership have come up even as BP has continued to promise to contain the situation despite the fact that analysts warn that it requires more assistance to ensure the effects can be minimized. Further revelations show that BP had high expectations and standards of its partners and suppliers thus compromising the ethical issues involved (Fairley 2). Professionalism, as analysts continue to claim, has not been displayed in the communication systems of BP even after the incident while alert systems for containment are questionable (Krigsman 2).
Questionable Issues and the Subject Matter
Conflict of interest
Some analysts believe that the pressure of BP aiming at increasing production was for the maintenance of its leading position in the industry (Brill 2). I personally agree with the assertion that BP is under pressure to offer good results to the shareholders and maintain a good public image, and as a result has compromised safety and disaster preparedness since these would mean higher costs or minimal time taken for production.
Dysfunctional culture
This is not the first time that BP has faced issues to do with oil spill disasters. In the recent years, the environment and safety records have raised criticisms and questions over its organizational culture. Indeed, its environment records reveal issues that include hazardous substance dumping of 1993-1995, Prudhoe oil spill of 2006 to 2007 and the chemical leak of 2010 at Texas City (Fairley 1). Other issues from environmentalists include concerns to halt the mist mountain project due to the fact that it is adjacent to a peace park and its oil project on Canadian Oil Sands. More criticism has been raised from the issues of the safety record of BP including the Sea Gem offshore oil rig disaster of 1965, the explosion at Texas City refinery of 2005 as well as the fatal accidents in the same refinery between 2006 and 2008. Records of the inspections of OSHA show that between 2007 and 2010, two refineries owned by BP were responsible for willful violations of the Act (Krigsman 2).
Some analysts argue that the oil spill is due to the unethical reliance on Blow out Preventers (BOP). This is a technology industry and academic experts have warned against it due to its inability to guarantee reliability (Meyer and Brysac 20). Although industry experts claim that the costs of establishing and maintaining systems for the oil industry are very high, regulators have remained adamant that the concern have to be on ensuring that systems are never failing (Brill 1). The culture of BP shows that its main interest is to maintain operations despite the risks involved. Personally, I do believe that the culture of an organization needs to be based on ethical, occupational health and safety of the personnel. In addition, emphasis should be made on ensuring that risks are adequately covered and not just motivated by profits or production.
Health and safety of personnel
Although it is an industry requirement that companies such as BP have to comply with OSHA conditions as well as other industry regulations, the safety and environmental record of BP shows a contrast of this (Fairley 1). Most of the disasters involving BP have been accompanied by the death of its employees. For example, the refinery explosion at Texas City caused 15 deaths and injured 180 while the most recent Gulf oil spill caused the death of 11 people and all were employees of BP (Meyer and Brysac 28). Further criticisms have been raised on matters such as fatal incidents in which a worker was killed by a driving metal in 2008, another was electrocuted in 2007, and another was crushed and died in 2006. As Krugsman (2) argues, the issue of employees’ health and safety seems to have been ignored by BP even when they complained about the risks they were exposed to.
Summary
The choice of Summary rather than Conclusion for this section of the report indicates that there are no easy answers to the issues in this report. Regarding technological innovation, I believe that the improvement of personal performance is necessary. The fact that most disasters that question technology have been associated with human error helped me achieve this decision (Goble 208). Personally, I do not think that BP had clear disaster management from the manner in which it responded to the crisis. The leadership and professionalism concerns have not been displayed in the response of management to the crisis. However, concerns for the pressure and expectations laid on management need to be considered.
Many organizations and companies face conflicts of interest mostly between the concerns of the shareholders and the employees’ needs and other regulations. However, ethical decision making is advisable. Concerning the organizational culture, it is my opinion to ensure that effective management is not only profit-motivated, but other concerns of the community are upheld. Regarding the health and safety of personnel, reasonable judgment and the concern for the personnel should be upheld not just to fulfill regulations, but also as a form of human concern and empathy.
Works Cited
Brill, Kennedy. The Real cause of BP’s oil spill, 2010. Web.
Fairley, Peter. How technology failed in the gulf spill, 2010. Web.
Goble, Don. Improvements in system safety. London: Routledge, 2008.
Krigsman, Michael. BP Oil Spill: Leadership and IT failure, 2010. Web.
Meyer, Karl, and Shareen Brysac. Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East. New York: Norton, 2008.