College of Business Administration

Exxon Valdez

1) “There’s plenty of blame to go around. Everyone can beat up Exxon; they’re easy. I believe… the State of Alaska is as much to blame as anybody. And maybe the Federal government for believing that we’re grown ups up here and we can take of ourselves.”

Are the State and Federal governments partly to blame? Should the federal government do more for areas that are more at risk of natural disasters?

2) At the end of the Exxon video, specific changes are mentioned that perhaps could have prevented the devastating oil spill -- double hulls, double engines, captains/co-captains, smaller ships, traffic control. Cousteau interviews a ship engineer who explains that double hulls would replace load capacity, which woul lead to increased transportation costs. He asks, “Does society want to pay for that?”

Does society want to pay for that?

3) Following the Exxon Valdez spill, workers flocked to the area and got jobs. One clean-up engineer stated that he hasn’t been out of work for years. Hawken asserts that business must “add” value to the economy and the society in order to make a positive contribution.

Did the clean-up crew of the Exxon spill make a positive contribution?

Hawken Reading, ch. 3 & 11

4) Hawken asserts that industry created myths about environmental waste in order to change its image: “The critical myth is the assumption that we can “clean up” our environment.”

Recall that Exxon renamed their efforts in Alaska from a “clean up” to treatment.

Can companies clean-up the environment?
What would you consider clean?

5) According to Hawken, toxic organochlorines are building up in the environment and steadily accumulating in our water, food – and in our bodies. These toxic compounds are never metabolized.

Should the food industry (manufacturers, distributors, etc.) be responsible for warning consumers of the potential consequences of their products? Why or Why not?
Is this any different from the suggestion that fast food be accountable for obesity?

6) Hawken concedes that scientific studies may never provide conclusive evidence of the link between toxic pollution and permanent genetic damage to humans. He perceives this uncertainty as a potential catalyst for prevention: “Admitting one’s ignorance can be a powerful inducement to caution’.

Are companies ready and/or willing to admit ignorance? Under what conditions?
Companies seem to err on the side of caution when it comes to contingency planning for natural disasters, data back-up systems, diversification of investments. Why not be cautious with the impact on environment?

7) According to Hawken, “Efforts to limit toxins and emissions did control many pollutants, but those efforts have been subsumed by an overall increase in the manufacture and distribution of waste by industry due to rising demand for products that create toxic and hazardous waste, i..e, pesticides, plastics, and automobiles.

Are consumers to blame for the pollutants in our environment? If not, why not?

8) “The corporate version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs”, according to Hawken, “places environmental concerns as a “higher” need that can only be acted upon in a condition of rising affluence. As long as the environment does not detract from or restrict growth, environmental needs are admissible.”

Do you agree/disagree? Why?

9) Throughout his book, Hawken asserts that companies can save money, and therefore be more profitable, by reducing waste in their business practices. Yet, he cites, “throughout the U.S. and richer nations, the search for productivity and higher profits is leading to massive restructuring and layoffs of workers.”

Why might companies be more willing to remove human (labor) “waste” than environmental waste?

10) In chapter 11, Hawken explains that green taxes must dramatically change the cost relationship between sustainable and nonrenewable resources to be effective.

Do you think government officials are prepared to impose dramatically higher taxes on companies using traditional energy sources?
Are increased taxes an intrusion to the capitalistic system? Can’t we leave it up to companies to make the shift to more innovative technologies on their own?

11) Is it fair that only the wealthy can afford foods grown without toxic chemicals? Do lower income families have a right to “clean” food?

12) Big chemical companies seem to have a band of allies – trade groups, lobbyist groups, scientists, marketing firms – all working to keep demand high and dismiss concerns about the impact of their products on human welfare. Do you think these people believe these products are not harmful?