[lmi]

Shu wrote :
> It is truly a disheartening and devastating situation unfolding, one with
> so many consequences that it may be years, surely generations, to truly
> understand the scope of it all. Under circumstances of such peril, loss
> and wrong it is only natural to expect knee jerk reactions. Never again,
> we hear. The caution, though, must come.
>
> Corporations have ever right to lobby, for good or ill, just as people do.
> Exercising freedom of speech, as many great organizations, individuals and
> corporations do, for good or ill, should not be so causally disregarded.
> The whole concept of freedom of speech is not to protect that speech which
> we agree with, find tolerable or have no qualm with but with that very
> speech which may upset our centre. I may not care for the lobbying efforts
> made by certain corporations, organizations or individuals, but because
> they have the right to engage, I remain thankful that I do as well.
>
> Finally, greed and profit are not synonyms. Perhaps, if this correlation
> is being made, it is an emotional response based upon a belief that if one
> profits another must suffer a loss. A profit being made does not always
> have to arrive from a zero sum game model, or winner take all. It has been
> my experience that more often than not a profit arises from a win win
> situation versus a win lose.
>
> I only wish I belonged to a group of young, intelligent and enterprising
> engineers well versed in deep water drilling activities that discovered a
> realistic and efficient solution. Perhaps, a win win situation.

Excellent post!

I’m glad you made the point that greed and profits are not synonyms and that economics in the free market is not a zero sum game.

[lmi]

earth1st wrote :
> Ideal: "Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of corporate
> self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy would
> function as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business would
> monitor and ensure their adherence to law, ethical standards, and
> international norms. Business would embrace responsibility for the impact
> of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities,
> stockholders and all other members of the public sphere."
>
> Reality: The Gulf
>
> Large corporations answer only to their shareholders, governments are paid
> off and the concept of CSR has failed.
>
> Your definition of social responsibility is even further removed from
> reality.

Is it in BPs interest for there to be an oil spill?

Obviously it is not and this is what i’m trying to get at. The spill was an ACCIDENT, not the result of greed, profit incentives etc.

Do you agree with this?

Do you agree that cultivating goodwill among consumers is vital to a companies success?

[lmi]

earth1st wrote :

>
> Companies prioritize ROI above social responsibilities. Returns for
> shareholders at all cost.
>

A few things here.

Meeting social responsibilities has a huge impact on a companies profitability, you only have to look at the thousands of huge charities run by businesses around the world and the billions of dollars donated to causes of all all sorts. Why do you think they do this?

A company prioritizing ROI IS socially responsible because in this way they meet consumer demand to the greatest possible extent and use resources most efficiently.

By "Returns for shareholders at all cost" I assume you mean cost that can’t be counted monetarily? If that is the case, then again, as in my first point, acting in a socially responsible way is vital to a companies success.

[lmi]

I’m trying to point out the contradiction in the idea that motivation for profit caused the spill.

Bottom line is this- This disaster is the last thing BP would want to happen precisely because they are motivated by profits. It has destroyed shareholders equity and could very well lead to the takeover of the company.

Would you agree that it’s in BPs(or any driller) best interest for these incidents to not occur?

I agree with you that big business is in bed with government but that is a whole other topic….

[lmi]

earth1st wrote :
> They are deplorable, period, as are the other resource extractors lined up
> to bugger the earth for their selfish profits.
>
> When will governments begin working for people as a whole rather than their
> financial supporters, who just happen to be big businesses like BP?

Care to expand?

Can you explain to me why being motivated by "selfish" profits is a bad thing?
Last I checked this spill was costing money, yes? BP stock is down 40%…. The company has so far spent 1.25 billion dollars on clean up and capping efforts.

Profit incentives insure that companies implement great measures to prevent these types of accidents.

[Author]

Posts