Reference no: EM132943765

Questions -

Question 1: Identify the stakeholder(s) of British Petroleum (BP) that were directly and indirectly impacted by the Deepwater Horizon Disaster of 2010. For each stakeholder, critically comment on the level of accountability demanded by them from BP.

Question 2: Critically comment on the role(s) of British government's role in Corporate Social Responsibility towards British Petroleum (BP).

Question 3: Critically comment on the "company's risk averse culture" (p. 3) and "little incentive to share best practices on risk management among the various BP exploration sites" (p. 4) as mentioned in the case study. You may discuss your answer in light of the need of risk management in businesses.

Question 4: "BP in the late 1980s comprised several layers of management in a matrix structure that made it difficult for anyone to make decisions quickly" (p. 4). Evaluate this statement in light of good corporate governance principles and the need for having well-structured corporate governance mechanisms for effective decision making. Also, does "tone at the top" impact such mechanisms?

Question 5: Evaluate on the investments that BP undertook over the years in light of best business practices by BP as their growth strategy. For each investment strategies highlight its impacts.

Question 6: Critically evaluate the safety issues at BP and BP's response to The Baker Report. Are these actions ethically justifiable? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Question 7: List the ethical debacle(s) of The Macondo Well Project and the Deepwater Horizon Rig. Explain why you perceive them as an ethical debacle.

Question 8: "By February 28, 2011, the GCFF had received over 500,000 claims, and 170,000 people and businesses had been paid over $3.6 billion" (p. 18). Critically comment whether these restitutions were adequate on ethical grounds. Justify with facts from the case study.

Question 9: Critically evaluate on the behavior of Cocales and Guide who "later testified that neither had read page 18 - both had merely skimmed the report for the information they were most interested in" (p.15). Is this ethically justifiable?