The paper "Business and Government in Global Context - BPs Oil " is an outstanding example of a business case study. The explosion and sinking of the BPs oil well in the Gulf of Mexico caused massive oil spillage which posed detrimental effects on both wildlife and marine habits (King & Library of Congress 2010). Subsequently, the massive destruction of aquatic life had adverse economic impacts on fishing and tourism industries, as well as impacting human health concerns. At the end of the day, either the firm or the state had to be accountable and accept the responsibility for the oil spill.
The answer to this question is not straightforward nevertheless. With the help of theoretical Susan Strange’ s body of work model, there are possible ways in which accountability can be attained. The accountability can be achieved through the influence of firm, state and diplomacy over the contentious issue. Globalization and internationalization have taken another viewpoint of the accountability of the oil spill by creating dilemma situations. Additionally, Steve Lukes’ power theory provides a various dimension of power. The power to argue, influence and decide over others is paramount in arguing the case oil spill accountability. Internationalization The issue of internationalization has brought a new siding point of deciding who should be accountable and who should accept the responsibility for the explosion and oil spill, and consequent damage on the aquatic environment.
Internalization was caused by the structure change due to globalization. Therefore, structural change seems to be exploited by some interested groups than others, has modified the discernment of policy-makers mostly in poor states and some firms (Tencati & Perrini 2011).
This modification of policy-makers’ perception gyrates on both issues of nature of the system and great opportunities it present to key players for the present and times to come. In order to determine who is accountable in this case, the key player must possess a structural advantage over others. The striking shift between the firm and state policies have influence and power over who should be held responsible, and who should be accountable (Strange 1991). State-Firm Diplomacy The other contentious issue is the state-firm diplomacy which expresses the strength of the bargaining power between states and foreign firms such as BPs.
This diplomacy is a result of net structural change in the way state and firms interrelate. The stiff competition is compelling states to thoroughly bargain with foreign firms such as BPs to install their facilities and operations within the state’ s territory. Therefore, bargaining is the main component of yet a new diplomacy dimension. It is in order to state categorically that transnational firms have got an arsenal command of economic weapons that are exclusively needed by states. Eventually, the state-firm diplomacy has influence over who should accept to be responsible or accountable because states find it difficult to lose transnational firms and benefits associated with these firms.
This intricacy is much resolved when the concerns about globalization are known (Strange 1992). Globalization and Environmental Dilemma The other determinant of who should accept the responsibility and who should be accountable for the BP oil spill is the issue of globalization. It is noted with much concern that globalization urges firms to disregard environmental issues while ignoring the state power to inflict environmental controls. For example, Mexico as a state has the power to exercise environment controls.
However, BP as a big corporation diminishes Mexico’ s power over environmental policies. Therefore, as in the case of the BP oil spill, a dilemma presents itself between who should be accountable and who should accept the responsibility for the aquatic endangering (Freudenburg & Gramling 2011). This dilemma reduces as we become more conversant with the issues of globalization that decreases political accountability to create a deficit in a democratic system. However, the issue of the environment has created a more pronounced and inevitable dilemma.
The large corporations such as BP become motivated in the world of economic savvy. These corporate players pollute and damage the environment. Therefore, the international principles of sovereignty, law, and the like have curtailed the state’ s countervailing power. This situation has made it difficult to ascertain who should accept the responsibility of damaging the environment (Strange 1992).