preview

Case Study: Unocal in Burma

Good Essays

Case study: Unocal in Burma

Student name: Liyi Wen
Student ID: 5061791
Word Count: 1947 words

Professor: Calvin Hayes

Content
I Dilemma and Stakeholders 3
II Questions 4
III Arguments 5 Utilitarianism perspective: 5 Moral right perspective: 6 Justice perspective: 6
Reference List 7

I Dilemma and Stakeholders
Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) specialized in developing oil fields around Los Angeles and operating all aspects of the oil business such as extraction, refining, distribution, marketing and even retail. Owning to depletion of oil fields in the United States, the company decided to turn to invest in energy projects outside U.S. In 1992, a natural gas field called the “Yadana Field” that belonged to Burma …show more content…

In addition, company has checked the report on Human Rights Practice in 1995 which wrote: “the Burmese military forced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ordinary Burmese to ‘contribute’ their labor, often under harsh working conditions” (Velasquez, 2011). And Unocal contracted a consulting firm to review the 1991 Amnesty International report, which documented abuses against the Burmese by the army. However Unocal still decided to invest into this project on the basis of knowing these human rights violations in Burma, as well as the risks that might occur. Subsequently, in 1995, Unocal hired another consultant to investigate conditions on the Yadana project, and the result revealed its continuous human rights violations. Therefore, on the basis of knowledge of human rights abuse before and after investment, Unocal should be responsible for the injuries inflicted on some of the Karen people.
Principle of ethics: the violation of ethics or moral standard obviously occurred in this case related to Unocal in Burma. According to the Velasquez in his Business Ethics Concept mentioned that: Humans have a clear interest in being provided with work, food, clothing, housing and medical care when they cannot provide for these themselves (Velasquez, 2011). Humans have a clear interest in being free from injury or fraud and in being free to think, associate, speak and live privately as they choose (Velasquez, 2011). The human rights abuse in this case was

Get Access