Collusion between BP and the Government to Commit Environmental Crimes - Case Study Example

ARE CORPORATIONS TOO POWERFUL AND PRESENTING AS A THREAT TO GLOBAL ECONOMIES, CIVIL SOCIETIES, AND THE ENVIRONMENT? Student’s Name Student’s Number Tutor’s Name Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Chinese Companies Making iPads for Apple 4 3.0 Collusion between BP and the Government to Commit Environmental Crimes 6 4.0 Volkswagen Threats to the Economy, Environment, and Civil Society 8 5.0 Conclusion 10 Reference List 11 Are Corporations Too Powerful and Presenting as a Threat to Global Economies, Civil Societies, and the Environment? Executive Summary The corporations have become too powerful thus presenting a threat to the global economies, civil societies, and the environment. Some of the companies that have proven to be a threat include Apple, BP, and Volkswagen. Apple had exposed it workers to unhealthy working condition and polluted the environment through use of toxic substances. Its influence in the China’s economy has made the civil society irrelevant whenever they are in a tussle. BP also has made significant marine pollution. Due to its financial power, it has made the Obama administration to cover its pollution activities in the Gulf of Mexico. It has also managed to ensure that it controls the civil society organisations through influencing their activities. BP ensured that the media and other civil societies could not access the polluted area so as to ensure that the information do not get to the public. Lastly, Volkswagen emission scandal has proven that the corporations are growing too strong even for the regulatory agencies. Even through the scandal was revealed in 2013 through the International Council on Clean Transportation, the action came to be taken only in 2015. Volkswagen had managed to convince the Environmental Protection Agency that the non-governmental organisation was not right in asserting that the company gave false information concerning its emission test. In the same time, it had managed to trick the government agencies of its rate and content of emissions. It is clear that the corporations only care about the profits and not corporate responsibility. 1.0 Introduction The aim of the report is to justify that the corporations have become too powerful thus hard to control. As a result, they have caused threats to the environment, civil societies, and global economies with no entity to control them. The context of the report is the global corporations and how they negatively affect the environment, civil societies, and economies. There are several examples of which corporations have proven to be a threat to the sustainable development of humans in the world in general. First, the Chinese factories that develop iPads for Apple company have made the workers live in unsustainable working conditions over years. Second, major corporations such as BP has managed to influence the government due to their financial muscles thus not held accountable for their environmental crimes. Third, Volkswagen Group has not only been a threat to the environment, but also to the government and civil societies. The background rationale of the study is to help understand the unsustainable conditions associated with too strong corporations. When the corporations are too strong, they tend to overshadow the other structures that ought to regulate their practices such as the civil societies and governments at the local, national, and international levels. As a result, they might make huge profits as private entities at the expense of the global economies that will have to bear the cost of their negative social, political, and environmental impacts. The key terms in the report is defined in the body part. 2.0 Chinese Companies Making iPads for Apple Chinese factories that develop iPads for Apple have exposed workers to unhealthy working conditions. The Apple manufacturing centres in China include Foxconn factory in Longhua, Honn Hai Precision Industry, and Chengdu plant (Duell 2012). According to Duell (2012) the Chinese factories that manufacture Apple products were forcing the workers to work overtime without even a single day during the week to rest. In addition, the worked were forced to live in crowded dorms together in which they were exposed to life-threatening chemicals (Trevino & Brown 2004). Environmental pollutions have also been associated with the factories since they have been releasing aluminium dust in the atmosphere. In 2011, there were two explosions that occurred in China courtesy of the aluminium dust and four workers lost their lives. Reports have also indicated that the toxin in the factories have injured approximately 140 workers (Duell 2012). It is the role of the government to protect its citizens. A corporation that threatens the lives of the civilians is, therefore, a threat to the government. The Chinese companies that work under Apple in China have been a great threat to the government as it puts it workers to work overtime and without time to rest (Duell 2012). Making the worker to live in crowded areas and standing for long period has health risks such as swelling of the legs and difficulty in walking after the 24- hour work shift. In addition, studies allege that the Apple’s manufacturing centres in China disposed their hazardous wastes improperly that negatively affecting governance. The improper records that are produced in the process often aim to ensure that the least amount of revenue is given to the authorities. Two years ago, approximately 140 workers in the companies were poisoned with a chemical that they use to clean the screens of the iPhones (Duell 2012). Added to the two explosions in China that killed more than seventy-five people are a clear indication that the companies are a threat to the global economies. Due to the financial strength of Apple Company, government has done little to ensure that it is held on account on the negative impacts it causes its workers. For instance, the Shangai explosion just occurred seven months after the Chengdu explosions yet the government did nothing to the company. Concerning the labour abuses in the company, the former executive of Apple once said that “the system works” for them thus the delay for justice for the workers against the company on labour abuses account (Duell 2012). Apple’s manufacturing centres in China has caused great negative environmental impacts. In explanation, even though it is alleged that the Apple Company was informed of the hazardous situation within the Chengdu plant in the southwest China before the occurrence of the explosions it did nothing (New York Times, cited in Duell 2012). If the company was informed, the relevant authorities ought to be reprehended. The company took advantage of the flaws in the China's environmental policy thus ended up being catastrophic. It is in the same year that Apple announced a $13 billion profits made from $ 46 billion sales (Duell 2012). But despite the huge profits, the company have made little efforts to ensure it environmental impact are mitigated or prevented through using environmentally friendly technology. The companies working with Apple in China has also been a threat to the civil societies. Introduction of backward policies found in banners in the companies such as that found in the Chengdu plant has been associated with the strikes among the workers in the country. The Chengdu plant reads “Work hard on the job today or work hard to find job tomorrow” (Duell 2012). As the strikes become a threat to the economies due to the hostile conditions in some of these companies, the government and the corporations turn to blame the non-governmental organisations. The non-governmental organisations have been blamed for worker activism (Griffiths 2016). As a result, the government has initiated crackdowns on the civil societies thus creating a climate of fear and inhibiting them from conducting their activities appropriately. The pressure has made non-governmental organisations such as Guangdong group to flee its premises and stop its activities due to pressure. 3.0 Collusion between BP and the Government to Commit Environmental Crimes BP is a petroleum company that was formerly known as the British Petroleum. The company changed its name from British Petroleum to BP in 1998 based on the argument that it was “moving Beyond Petroleum” (Tomlinson 2015). It is a multinational gas and oil Company whose headquarter is in London, England. The company gave an image that it was going to take serious the issue of corporate social responsibility. Upon the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, the world came to learn that the company’s interest was only profit and not the safety of the environment and society in general. Due to the influence of the company, it has been able to affect the influence the actions of the government and civil societies thus going escort free upon polluting the environment (Bradshaw 2014). BP has caused serious environmental damages. On 22 April 2010, a rig toppled into the Gulf of Mexico releasing about 4.9 million barrels of oil from the BP Plc known as the Macondo well (Bradshaw 2014). The incident happened two days after Deepwater Horizon oil ring that is owned by Transocean exploded in the same Gulf injuring 17 people and killing 11. The oil continued to gush even after being capped until January 2013 (On Wings of Care, cited in Bradshaw 2014). Even though legal actions seeking for compensation is ongoing, the effect that the oil companies had on the Gulf of Mexico has not yet been approximated. Dispersants are often used in the operations of oil spills since they enable the breaking up of the oil spills into microscopic droplets that allow them to sink in the bottom part of the ocean. However, the dilution of the water column changes only the oil form and not the quantity thus ineffective. Efforts should be put in place to ensure that the environmental and economic impacts associated with them are minimised (Robertson & Sullivan 2009). Even though the use of dispersants might be of help to the animal life on the onshore but the aquatic animals that live underneath the water column will be significantly affected. The act of using dispersants is usually a trade-off between the immediate negative impacts of the oil concentration washed ashore and the long-term effects of dispersing the concentrated oil throughout the water column. It is important to note that the BP was the winner in the use of chemical dispersants since it managed to reduce its financial liability through concealing the volume of oil visible on the surface and the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico. The amount of chemical dispersants that were used were over 1.84 million gallons that were injected directly, dumped by boat, and sprayed by plane at the wellhead (Bradshaw 2014). On the other hand, the total amount of chemical dispersants during the spill of Exxon Valdez case was 5,500 gallons that were considered controversial at the time. There has never been an attempt to ensure that a sustainable use of the chemicals dispersants is ensured since there has not been research on its how it might affect the marine life. BP and the government work together to commit environmental crimes during the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Upon the occurrence of the leakage, the main goal of the company and the government was to prevent the spread of information on the public (Bradshaw 2014). As a result, the two parties initiated the spread of the chemical dispersants to the wellhead and the surface to prevent the spread of the oil to the shore. Due to the toxicity of the dispersants, the Environmental Protection Agency made efforts to ensure that BP limited the use of the chemical but to no avail. The Coast Guard was already in collaboration with the company thus concealing the extent of environmental impacts and oil released into the Gulf. The oil spillage response organisations hired by the BP collaborated with the local, state, and federal government mobilised the resources and people to ensure that the spill was contained. The collaboration between the BP and the government made it a threat to the civil societies as the third force. Based on what the government had learned about the power of imaged from the 1989 Exxon Valdez and 1969 Santa Barbara spills made them take measures that would prevent the media and non-governmental organisations from taking pictures (Bradshaw 2014). The government knew that such images would incite a public reaction. After the oil had made a landfall, photographs that showed the oil-soaked brown pelican were still in the media platforms for public consumption. In reaction, the Unifed Command and BP placed efforts to ensure that the images of the Gulf were censored (Robertson & Sullivan 2009). The efforts were put in place through policing and instituting a sixty-five-foot zone around the animals, equipment, and cleanup workers. The BP hired the local law enforcement, Department of Human Security, and the Coast Guard that worked closely to ensure that the media was blocked from accessing the site. As a result, the civil societies could not conduct their activities since they did have the relevant information to base their work. BP, therefore, worked together with the Obama administration to censor the information and images surrounding the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Since the public, media, and officials continued to demand the information from the federal responders, the information had to be reviewed with those in the more authority before it could be passed for the lower levels. The information had to be approved by the Department of Human Security and the White House before it could have been passed for public consumption. BP focused on working with the subcontractors and contractors alongside the federal respondents. Due to the technical expertise associated with the private forces, it was hard for the federal responders to ensure effective control and supervision of the activities. In the 152 days period that the government and the BP tried to contain the impacts using multi-methods, the oversight of the federal increased significantly with the failures of BP persisting. However, it is argued that the process made by the federal authority to take over the process were untimely thus making it “too little, too late” (Bradshaw 2014, p. 168). 4.0 Volkswagen Threats to the Economy, Environment, and Civil Society Volkswagen Group has been a threat to the environment, governance, and civil societies that attempted to fight it. The company caused a threat to the three entities upon giving false information on its emission tests. The report was on the company’s ethic and sustainability information under the social responsibility report that was applauded globally due to its exemplary nature. Just like BP, the main goal of Volkswagen was profit driven and had nothing to do with corporate responsibility (Tomlinson 2015). Volkswagen goal was to win customers through joining the most sustainable of companies list. As a result, they were to lie that they cared about the future and the community. The company's corporate social responsibility report was, therefore, a stance for public relations. Volkswagen Group emission scandal was a great threat to the economy. The scandal rocked the political establishments and businesses in German thus developing the greatest threats to the economy of Europe at large (Nienaber 2015). Being the biggest car makers in Germany, it is one of the main employers in the country. The company employs more than 270,000 people in the home country with large additional number working at the supply centres. Even though the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Martin Winterkorn, was the sacrificial lamb for the scandal, the impact it had on the economy cannot be ignored (Robertson & Sullivan 2009). A company that was once a pride of the Germany and greater Europe economy was on the downside risk. The fall of the sales in North America associated with the scandal would not only negatively impact the company but also the German economy. In 2014, the company had sold approximately 600,000 vehicles in the United States which makes 6 percent of its global sales that was estimated to be 9.5 million (Nienaber 2015). The measures considered to rectify the scandal was to return the vehicles that had tampered emission system, and that would mean all the sales in the United States were to be retrieved. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the company also could be given a fine that did not exceed $ 18 billion which is more than its 2014 operating profit (Nienaber 2015). Even though in the same year the company had more than $ 24 billion in cash, the charges are more likely to lead to a significant loss of jobs. The main concern of the German government was that the Volkswagen disaster would make BMW and Daimler struggle. Since the auto industry is an important pillar, the scandal would not only affect the German and Europe economy. Volkswagen emission scandal had significant negative impacts on the environment. Volkswagen Group rigged the emission test for about 11 million vehicles which are equivalent to approximately 1 million tonnes of annual air pollution (Mathiesen & Neslen 2015). The rate of pollution is equivalent to that of the combined emission of the agriculture, industries, vehicles, and power stations in the United Kingdom (Jacques 2016). The company was forced to recall 482,000 Volkswagens and Audi brand vehicles in the United States. The action was after the Environmental Protection Agency found that the models had Type EA 189 engines with a fitted device to reduce to amount of nitrogen oxides during the testing conditions (Thomas, Schermerhorn & Dienhart 2004). According to Guardian analysis, the United States vehicles would have released in the atmosphere between 10,392 and 41,571 tonnes of poisonous gas into the atmosphere per annum if they were to cover average mileage in the country (Cited in Mathiesen & Neslen 2015). On the other hand, if Volkswagen had complied with the Environmental Protection Agency standards, it would have emitted a total of roughly 1,039 nitrogen oxide compounds into the atmosphere per annum. However, not all nitrogen oxide compounds are dangerous. Nitrogen oxide is not dangerous. However, it has been detected that the diesel emissions in the European Union have toxic nitrogen dioxide gas (Mathiesen & Neslen 2015). According to Mills et al. (2015), when human are exposed to nitrogen dioxide on a short-term basis, the number of people who die prematurely from lung and heart diseases increases by 1.09 percent and 0.88 percent respectively. The Volkswagen scandal has proven that the corporations can be a threat to the civil societies. It is in the interest of the environmental non-governmental organisations to have a sustainable development. The emission associated with the Volkswagen was first identified by a small non-governmental organisation called the International Council on Clean Transportation in 2013. However, the action was taken after two years since the non-governmental organisation could not influence the authorities concerning the issue (The Economist Newspaper 2015). The aim of the test was to demonstrate the cleanliness of the engines but instead stirred doubts on the emission systems of Volkswagen. It revealed that the emissions of the vehicles significantly exceeded what the company had stated in its reports. In reaction, the organisation brought the results to the California Air Resource Board that in turn called on Volkswagen to fix the problem voluntarily (Thomas, Schermerhorn & Dienhart 2004). But due to the influence of the company, it knocked down the call arguing the problem was only a technical hitch. The company gave excuses after excuses just to confess later to the Environmental Protection Agency that had received confirmed results from the California Air Resource Board. Corporation can, therefore, make the work of the upcoming civil organisations be overlooked or underestimated. 5.0 Conclusion Multinational corporations have great influence to the economy, civil society, and can greatly impact on the activities of the civil societies. They provide economic activities, employment, and tax revenue to the local and national governments thus influential to the entities. As a result, political entities can offer the multinational corporation lax labour or environmental regulations in fear that they might withdraw from the market. In addition, they might give government assistance, tax breaks, and subsidised infrastructure based on their importance in the economy. Also, the corporations exert power over the political entities since they control the intellectual and technical property. In some of the instances, the corporations use their power to frustrate or intimidate the civil society organisations. Since they are private owned business, the corporations tend to care less about the environmental concerns but the profit margins. Reference List Bradshaw, EA 2014, ‘State-corporate environmental cover-up: The response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill’, State Crime Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 163-181. Duell, M 2012, ‘Forced to stand for 24 hours, suicide nets, toxin exposure and explosions’: Inside the Chinese factories making iPads for Apple, Daily Mail, viewed 6 October 2016, < http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092277/Apple-Poor-working-conditions- inside-Chinese-factories-making-iPads.html >. Griffiths, J 2016, China on Strike, CNN, viewed 6 October 2016, < http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/28/asia/china-strike-worker-protest-trade-union/ >. Jacques, M 2016, The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics, The Guardian, viewed 6 October 2016, < https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/21/death-of-neoliberalism-crisis- in-western-politics >. Mathiesen, K and Neslen, A 2015, VW scandal caused nearly 1m tonnes of extra pollution, the analysis shows, The Guardian, viewed 6 October 2016, < https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/vw-scandal-caused-nearly-1m- tonnes-of-extra-pollution-analysis-shows >. Mills, IC, Atkinson, RW, Kang, S, Walton, H and Anderson, HR 2015, ‘Quantitative systematic review of associations between short-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide and mortality and hospital admissions’, BMJ Open, vol. 5, no. 5, p. E006946 Nienaber, M 2015, Volkswagen could pose bigger threat to German economy than Greek crisis, Reuters, viewed 6 October 2016, < http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-volkswagen- germany-economy-idUSKCN0RN27S20150923 >. Robertson, TJ and Sullivan, LL 2009, ‘Bad boys of business make for bad business decisions: A study in ethics’, Southern Journal of Business and Ethics, vol. 1, pp. 87-100. The Economist Newspaper 2015, A mucky business, The Economist Newspaper Limited, viewed 6 October 2016, < http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21667918-systematic-fraud- worlds-biggest-carmaker-threatens-engulf-entire-industry-and >. Thomas, T, Schermerhorn, JR and Dienhart, JW 2004, ‘Strategic leadership of ethical behavior in business’, The Academy of Management Executive, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.56-66. Tomlinson, C 2015, The truth about corporate ethics is still out there, The Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 6 October 2016, < http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/the-truth- about-corporate-ethics-is-still-out-there-20151008-gk40tf.html >. Trevino, LK and Brown, ME 2004, ‘Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths’, The Academy of Management Executive, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 69-81. Read More