The paper "Oil Spill in British Columbia" is a great example of a business assignment. Background: Who What Where When Problem Who caused the problem Where did the problem happen When did the problem happen 1. Oil Spill worth gallons harming the ecosystem hugely when the Oil tanker SS Vulgass ran around in British Columbia and South Alaska Captain of the ship Mr. Slosh In the logistics department In January, when the product (Oil) was being transported Analysis of the problem: The captain of the ship was not a responsible man; he had a lot to drink affecting his decision-making ability The tanker was being managed by the first mate, who was inexperienced, thereby making it impossible for him to steer the tanker properly, he mismanaged and took the tanker to an inappropriate speed The captain and the crew were not investigated properly before they were entrusted with a job that required serious work, the captain had been caught of two offenses in the recent past; this was ignored The high disregard is shown for the kind of damage that had been done by the management and the CEO in particular The entire environmental lobby was completely disregarded and a nonchalant attitude was put on display-no remorse for damage shown ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM Problems Effects Drunken and irresponsible behavior by the Captain and its crew The oil spill causing damage to British Columbia and Southern Alaska of immeasurable value Lack of responsible behavior by Big Dirty Oil and its management No remorse or accepting of consequences that their actions have subjected the ecosystem to; The compensation offered is not equivalent to the damage done Need to bring Captain Slosh, Big Dirty Oil and its CEO to justice-making them repay the damage done-No direct law linking the two; Weak environment regulation laws and no consensus about how to handle the guilty Difficult to get the guilty punished The cause of the problem: Manner of management followed by Big Dirty Oil, showing absolute disregard for morality in a bid to make profits Possible Solutions Results 1.
Hold the entire organization responsible for the oil spill under the principle of collective responsibility that is stretched to the point of including all of the firm’ s employees even those typified as the disapproving members (Mellema, 1997). ▲Damages paid would need to be paid by Dirty Oil as an entity and not at personal levels. ▼People not directly related to the incident and completely innocent would also have to bear the burden of mistakes committed by a select few 2.
Charges can be leveled against the captain on account of drunkenness and abandonment of responsibility ▲Bring the guilty to the fore-front thus penalizing the one responsible, preventing such future incidents and allocating punishment where due 3. Press Criminal Charges against the CEO ▲Him being the actual one responsible for the incident the only manner in which to create consensus and awareness about the issue and the damage done ▼Not easy to bring criminal charges against a powerful man, huge costs in a lawsuit; this could also drag the matter out longer than necessary 4.
Build up a big campaign using existing ecology awareness related Infrastructure ▲Would bring the matter to public light, creating some sort of international pressure on Big Dirty Oil to atone damages accrued by its actions 5. Bring the matter to international arbitration courts and get sanctions imposed on Big Dirty Oil ▲The case would gather attention and high chances of bringing Big Dirty Oil to justice ▼Huge costs in litigation, not enough legal backing on international levels to ensure sanctions 6.
Do nothing ▼ Big Dirty Oil gets away with a case of extreme high handedness and negligence ▼ Bear the costs of getting things back to normal, the compensation offered to be pitiful ▲ No costs of following the case and litigation Recommendations: The Corporation has to bear the burdens of its employees and their actions. By virtue of this logic, the action that needs to be taken against the organization is stricter regulation with regards to the decision-making process and it should be made to pay for the damages that have been accrued on account of the oil spill (OSLTF, 1986).
A cue can be taken in this regard from the governing principles of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund of the Gulf of New Mexico Region which states clearly that there can be cost recovery from the parties that are responsible for oil spills. These parties are liable for costs and damages. And there will be the promulgation of penalties which are to be inclusive of civil penalties assessed to the responsible parties. The CEO cannot be inducted in any kind of responsibility directly or on a personal basis as he was not aboard the Tanker when the spill happened.
There is however the issue of him having hired the captain, a man that was arrested twice in the past two months on charges of negligence. Further, he can be brought to trial on accounts of negligence by virtue of the fact that The Vulgass was long due for renovation. The fact remains that it was not just the complacent behavior that leads to the disaster but the fact that the tanker was just not capable enough of the journey in troubled waters or up to the standards of safety.
This brings the CEO in direct limelight for the aberration of responsibility. Ensure that the case is being handled by professional environmental litigation professionals, get international organizations like Greenpeace involved, extensive usage of internet and mass media to arouse the support of the public opinion. In conclusion, therefore, it may be reiterated that on accounts of ethics as well as the law there are serious charges that can be brought against all those responsible for the disaster that occurred the only thing required is correct initiates an application to see justice being brought on those that deserve it.
Mellema G, 1997, Collective Responsibility, Published by Rodopi, p131
US Dept of the interior, OSLTF, accessed June 14, 2009, < http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/regs/laws/osltf.html>