The Council of Community Colleges of Jamaica

3/19/2009

CASE 2: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

Name: Rahanna Meikle

ID#: 07T5400
Lecturer: Miss Clarke
Course: Business Ethics
 Table of Contents

Introduction (Case 2)……………………………………………………………………………

Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………………

Questions: Who is responsible? Justify your response using theoretic framework………………

Against whom should criminal charges be leveled? .........................................................................

What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself? ..............................................

What about the CEO? Rationalize your response…………………………………………………..

What policies may be put in place to prevent a recurrence? .............................................................

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………….

Reference…………………………………………………………………………………………

2
 Introduction (Case 2)

In January of last year, the S.S. Vulgass, an oil tanker of the Big Dirty Oil Company ran around
in the area just north of Vancouver, spilling millions of gallons of crude into the waters and onto
the beaches of British Columbia and southern Alaska. The damage to the beaches and wildlife
and consequently to the tourist industry, the ecology and the quality of life of the local residents
is incalculable, but in any case will require many millions of dollars for even the most minimal
clean-up.

The ship struck a small atoll, well-marked on the navigational maps, but it was a dark night and
the boat was well off course. On further investigation, it was discovered that the Captain of the
Vulgass, Mr. Slosh, had been drinking heavily. Leaving the navigation of the ship to his first
mate, Mr. Mudd, he retired to his cabin, to "sleep it off." Mr. Mudd had never taken charge of the
ship before, and it is now clear that he misread the maps, misjudged the waters, maintained a
speed that was inappropriate and the accident occurred. Subsequent inquiries showed that
Captain Slosh had been arrested on two drunken driving convictions within months of the
accident. The Vulgass itself, a double-hulled tanker, was long due for renovation and, it was
suggested, would not have cracked up if the hull had been trebly reinforced, as some current
tankers were.

R. U. Rich, the Chief Executive Officer of Big Dirty Oil declared the accident a "tragedy" and
offered two million dollars to aid in the clean up. The Premier of British Columbia was outraged.
Environmental groups began a consumer campaign against Big Dirty Oil, urging customers to
cut up and send in their Big Dirty Oil credit cards in protest. In a meeting to the shareholders just
last month, CEO Rich proudly announced the largest quarterly profit in the history of the Big
Dirty Oil Company. He dismissed the protests as "the outpourings of Greenies and other
fanatics" and assured the shareholders that his obligation was, and would always be, to assure the
highest profits possible in the turmoil of today's market.

Questions:

The question is who is responsible? Justify your response using theoretic framework.

Against whom should criminal charges be leveled?

What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself?

What about the CEO? Rationalize your response.

What policies may be put in place to prevent recurrence?

Acknowledgement

3
First and foremost I would like to thank the Almighty Father for giving me the strength and

understanding to approach this coursework. I would also like to thank my Business Ethics

Teacher Miss Clarke for giving me this individual coursework. It has widened my knowledge on

Corporate Responsibility and how theories can be linked to such case. I would also like to thank

my friends who motivated me to complete this coursework. Thanks to you all.

4
 1) The question is who is responsible? Justify your response using theoretic

framework.

According to the Dictionary.com, responsible is defined as being answerable or accountable, as

for something within one's power, control, or management.

In the above case, we are presented with a few numbers of characters. The persons responsible

are the captain, which were Mr. Slosh, the first mate Mr. Mudd and the Company because all

contributed to the situation so therefore all characters are responsible for the tragedy. First and

foremost the company which is controlled by Mr. Rich should be held responsible for allowing

Mr. Slosh to be the captain knowing that he got arrested on two drunken driving convictions

within two months of the accident. It should have been the company’s right and duty to fire him

or replace him with another captain. The company should have also ensured that his first mate

Mr. Mudd knew how to control the ship and read the map for the safety of them onboard. Mr.

Slosh is also responsible in some way; he should have not allowed the captain Mr. Mudd to drink

while on sail for their own safety and the safety of the ship. Mr. Mudd should not have been

drinking because he knew what would have happened but instead he did and caused a tragedy by

leaving the navigation ship to his first mate Mr. Mudd who had no knowledge on how to operate

the ship. Also Mr. Slosh should have known that it’s a law not to drink and drive and he broke

that law so therefore he should be held responsible for the outcome as well. The CEO shouldn't

allow any form of alcoholic beverages on the ship, reason being, to ensure the safety of the

captain and his crew. According to the Virtue theory, it states that whether an intention is right or

wrong, it focuses on whether or not the person is expressing good character. In this case none of
5
the characters were portraying good virtues. Mr. Slosh was being naïve to be drinking and

driving and Mr Rich was being carefree, meaning he did not ensure that the captains were up to

par, all he was concerned about was his money and the profit at the end of the season.

2). Against whom should criminal charges be leveled?

6
Criminal charges should be leveled against the first mate Mr.Mudd and Mr. Slosh because their

responsibilities were somewhat equal.Mr.Mudd knew that Mr. Slosh was drinking and he

Mr.Mudd knew that he could not take over from Mr. Slosh so therefore he should have ensured

that Mr. Slosh didn’t drink any alcohol., so therefore he should be the one to get most of the

charges as well as Mr. Slosh because he was drinking and driving and because of him drinking,

he had to give his first mate to take over and he did not have clue what to do. Due to all this, it

caused the company millions of dollars for even the most minimal clean up. If Mr. Slosh was not

drinking, his first mate Mr. Mudd would not have to take over causing all the damages. Both

parties were acting unethical and so there unethical behavior would lead to consequences. The

justice theory states that when situations arises, we need to compare and weigh the conflicting

claim and strike a balance and in this case both parties did not carry out their duty and so charges

should be leveled against them both.

3). What should be done, if anything, to punish the corporation itself?

7
 To punish the corporation itself, their license should be taken away (suspended). The

company should also be fined for the damages that were done, The government should

ensure that they clean up the place, work with other regulatory bodies to execute a clean up

until they are finished they cannot conduct any business. Also to punish the corporation to

use the license, they will have to clean up everywhere before they can operate any more

business. Also to punish the corporation, the captain Mr.Slosh should be arrested and

charged. Until their ships are up to scratch they should not conduct any business because it

was stated in the case that the double-hulled tanker, was long due for renovation and, it was

suggested, would not have cracked up if the hull had been trebly reinforced, as some current

tankers were.

4). What about the CEO? Rationalize your response.

8
The CEO was being very unethical in not ensuring that the captains were able to sail before

assigning them to the duty. He was also catering for the greater good of the company and

ensuring the majority is happy. According to the Justice theory, it justifies the actions taken

by Mr. Rich, take into consideration his speech. It was aimed at producing higher amounts of

profit with regards to the shareholder. According to him, his shareholders and the increase of

their profits are his priority. Also he was able to do his part in helping with the clean-up by

selling out 2million. These actions justify his cause under this view.

The action of Mr. Rich however one may view it, depends solely on his intentions on doing

that action. One must note that Mr. Richs statement at the end of the case studies. There it

made mention of his obligation to the shareholders, which was to gain much profit as

possible. From this statement alone, we may be able to conclude that Mr. Rich’s intention of

donating the 2million to clean up was to gain better views from the people. Because of that

he may retain the status of his company, despite the oil-spill scenario.

5) What policies may be put in place to prevent recurrence?

9
The policies that may be put in place to prevent recurrence are some Code of Ethics. These

codes will guide the individuals’ behaviors in the company. Also to prevent recurrence, the

company should also review rules and regulations with their employees. Some other policies

that can be put in place are:

• Mission: - Why we are here.

• The goals and objectives.

The company may have regular meetings to keep up with what’s going on with the

employees (captains etc). In doing so, the CEO can be able to see where the company

is going wrong and make adjustments to better the company and also to see more

increase in their profit.

Reference

10
www.uvsc.edu/ethics/curriculum/business/case12.html

http://www.merck.com/corporate-responsibility/

11