Reference no: EM133491017
Case Study: In the fall of 2011, a Canadian organization called EthicalOil.org started a public-relations campaign to counter criticism of the commercial development of Canada's oil sands. Extracting oil from these sands does immense environmental damage. EthicalOil.org seeks to counter such criticism by pointing out the alternative: choosing not to buy oil harvested from Canada is effectively choosing oil produced by non-democratic countries with very bad records of human rights abuses.
Question 1: Consumer Perspective
Imagine you have the choice, as a consumer, between buying gas for your car that comes from a country where oil extraction does vast environmental damage and buying gas from a country where the profits from that oil help support a dictatorship with a history of human rights abuses. Which gas will you buy? Why?
Are you willing to pay a bit extra to get more ethical oil, whatever that means to you? Why?
Question 2: Business Perspective
Imagine that you are responsible for securing a contract to provide gas for your company's fleet of vehicles. If the choice is available to you, will you choose the most environmentally-friendly gas? Or will you choose the gas least associated with human rights abuses? Or will you go with the cheapest gas available? Why?
List all the stakeholders (internal and external) you must consider when making this decision. What do you think they would expect you to do to serve their best interest? How would your decision impact them?
Question 3: Analysis
Consider whether the choice between buying gas that harms the environment and gas that contributes to human rights abuses exhausts the alternatives in these scenarios.
Are there other courses of action available to the individual car-owning consumer? To the manager responsible for procuring gas for the company fleet?