Case Study: Unocal in Burma
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 attracted Unocal `s attention and Unocal decided to invest in the international project.
In this project, Unocal paid US$ 8.6 million to Total S.A to became 28,26% of the Yadana Field project, while the other investors are Total S.A (31,24%), Thailand’s PTT Exploration & Production Public. Co (25, 5%) and the Burmese government (15%) (Velasquez, 2011). Undoubtedly, Unocal, Total S.A, Thailand`s PTT Exploration & Production Public and the Burmese government are main stakeholders of this project. Stakeholders are defined by groups or individuals who can affect or be affected by the achievements of a business ("Financial times lexicon”). Obvious stakeholders are: employees, consumers and customers, competitors, suppliers, stockholders, the local community, distributors, and the environment. Thus, local community was also a significant stakeholder, especially the hundreds of Karen who were forced as labors and also forced to relocate to accommodate the pipeline project.
According to the case study, one dilemma has been generated: whether it is right or not that Unocal decided to invest in the pipeline project, because Unocal was being accused of complicity in doing human rights abuses with Burmese military after the company invested
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 attracted Unocal `s attention and Unocal decided to invest in the international project.
In this project, Unocal paid US$ 8.6 million to Total S.A to became 28,26% of the Yadana Field project, while the other investors are Total S.A (31,24%), Thailand’s PTT Exploration & Production Public. Co (25, 5%) and the Burmese government (15%) (Velasquez, 2011). Undoubtedly, Unocal, Total S.A, Thailand`s PTT Exploration & Production Public and the Burmese government are main stakeholders of this project. Stakeholders are defined by groups or individuals who can affect or be affected by the achievements of a business ("Financial times lexicon”). Obvious stakeholders are: employees, consumers and customers, competitors, suppliers, stockholders, the local community, distributors, and the environment. Thus, local community was also a significant stakeholder, especially the hundreds of Karen who were forced as labors and also forced to relocate to accommodate the pipeline project.
According to the case study, one dilemma has been generated: whether it is right or not that Unocal decided to invest in the pipeline project, because Unocal was being accused of complicity in doing human rights abuses with Burmese military after the company invested