Bp Case
1. The aspects of BP’s ethical culture that could have contributed to the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster include:
* The company tried to assure concerned stakeholders that it took environmental concerns seriously, but BP’s actions have not always concided with its words. BP has engaged in numerous instances of questionable behavior including fraud, environmental, and ethical transgressions clearly demonstrate that the company has a history of disregarding the well-being of stakeholders. The company has claimed to be an ethical company, concerned with stakeholder well-being, but its many violations tell a different story. * BP’s code of conduct was not sufficient to prevent a man made environmental disaster on an unprecedented scale. Apparently, BP’s code did not effectively address specific high risk activities within the scope of daily operations. * An investigation implies that BP cut short procedures and quality testing of the pipe (tests that are meant to detect has in the well). Also, BP used a less costly well design that some investigators deemed “risky”. Installation of this design is easier and costs are lower. Although, BP didn’t break any laws by using this design, they ignored safer alternatives (to save money) that might have prevented, or at least hindered, the accident. * BP admitted that they had ignored several procedures required by the Clean Air Act for ensuring mechanical integrity and a safe startup between 1999 until the explosion in 2005 that killed 15 employees and injured another 170 people. The explosion was the result of a leak of hydrocarbon liquid, and vapor. Another leak that happened in 2006 occurred after BP failed to respond to numerous red flags. One of these flags consisted of a dangerous corrosion in its pipes that had gone unchecked for more than a decade. * To narrow this entire question up, BP took shortcuts in their productions to cut their costs, and ignored defaults, regular routine cleanings,
* The company tried to assure concerned stakeholders that it took environmental concerns seriously, but BP’s actions have not always concided with its words. BP has engaged in numerous instances of questionable behavior including fraud, environmental, and ethical transgressions clearly demonstrate that the company has a history of disregarding the well-being of stakeholders. The company has claimed to be an ethical company, concerned with stakeholder well-being, but its many violations tell a different story. * BP’s code of conduct was not sufficient to prevent a man made environmental disaster on an unprecedented scale. Apparently, BP’s code did not effectively address specific high risk activities within the scope of daily operations. * An investigation implies that BP cut short procedures and quality testing of the pipe (tests that are meant to detect has in the well). Also, BP used a less costly well design that some investigators deemed “risky”. Installation of this design is easier and costs are lower. Although, BP didn’t break any laws by using this design, they ignored safer alternatives (to save money) that might have prevented, or at least hindered, the accident. * BP admitted that they had ignored several procedures required by the Clean Air Act for ensuring mechanical integrity and a safe startup between 1999 until the explosion in 2005 that killed 15 employees and injured another 170 people. The explosion was the result of a leak of hydrocarbon liquid, and vapor. Another leak that happened in 2006 occurred after BP failed to respond to numerous red flags. One of these flags consisted of a dangerous corrosion in its pipes that had gone unchecked for more than a decade. * To narrow this entire question up, BP took shortcuts in their productions to cut their costs, and ignored defaults, regular routine cleanings,