The Exxon Mobil Disaster

Modern consumers are increasingly sensitive to the environmental performance of corporations (Arana and Leon 2009), and recognise that at all stages of business operations, there is the potential to generate a negative impact on ecological systems (Handfield et al., as cited in Setthasakko 2009). For a multi-national corporation like ExxonMobil, recognised as the largest privately owned oil company in the world, (Skjaerseth 2003), the potential for environmental harm as a result of their business practises both immediately and in the long term is of particular concern (Plender 1999). This paper examines how ExxonMobil has performed in relation to the environment. It examines their conduct in the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS), and in their dealings with the Save the Tiger Fund (STF), showing both strengths and weaknesses in their operations and their impact on the environment and stakeholders.

The case against ExxonMobil

Most notable is ExxonMobil’s environmental performance in relation to the Exxon Valdez Tanker Oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska (Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division 1992). This spill of approximately 11 million gallons of oil occurred in 1989 (Graham 2003). It impacted both the environment and human communities considerably. Effects on animal life have included the immediate death of thousands of animals and an overall reduction in the populations of various ocean animals (Graham 2003; Fry 1993). The spill impacted economically on numerous stakeholders, interestingly in both positive and negative ways (Hirsch 1996). On the positive side for business, there were strong, but short term, increases in spill related business in the major clean-up areas and in business sectors such as hote...

... middle of paper ...

...ty expects that they do no harm to the various stakeholders and environments in which they work. However, their delaying tactics, their focus on minimising their obligations, and their manipulation of information can be seen as a failure to adequately address the environmental impact that followed the EVOS and indicates a lack of care for the constituent communities (both human and wildlife) that the company operates in. Irrespective of company efforts, there is considerable evidence to show that Exxon Mobil has failed to live up to its end of this social contract, both immediately following the spill and even now in evaluating the ongoing impact. The breaches of their obligations to the environment in their core business overshadows their positive contribution through the STF and results in an environmental contribution that is unsatisfactory to say the least.