Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the reason punishment is meted out, is to ensure that a given negative action, taken by a perpetrator, is not repeated. Punishment is a means to stop a cause. Punishment is not a means to enrich government. It is not a means to increase the power of a political Elite nor is it a means to keep a group down.
Another important factor to take into account is the actual perpetrator should be the one punished. Punishing an innocent bystander is not effective at stopping behavior in a person who has no morals. To be effective, punishment must be meted out to the perpetrator. To do otherwise renders it utterly ineffective.
Take the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It continues to be a politicized environmental catastrophe. News reports indicate that millions of barrels of oil have been released into the water. Underwater plumes of oil are fouling dolphins and coral. Beaches are in dire threat of being overrun with oil and tar. The entire ecosystem in the gulf is reeling under the weight of this disaster.
There are now reports that BP had a culture of intimidation when it came to bringing up safety concerns. Employees who voiced a safety question were routinely intimidated and harassed by management. This in direct conflict with every manual and the corporate safety philosophy. I.e.… Safety before production.
Many are calling for punishing BP. Withholding future leases in US waters. Perhaps stopping present leases and forcing BP to pay for all the environmental cleanup as well as huge fines. Perhaps to the point of bankrupting the company to make an example of it.
Who would be punished in this scenario? The shareholders of the company. BP is a dividend paying company, so, it is primarily held by retirees. I suspect retirees in Briton. So all the punishments put forward so far have been financial against BP. The only interests damaged in this scenario are those of retirees. Innocent bystanders…
Would the managers that created the, anti safety, corporate environment be punished? No… probably not. Under the most draconian scenario they would have to get another job. (No other scenario has a negative consequence). With a background in oil and production they would probably get a lateral transfer to another company. Those who have the most hubris will probably get promotions at another company. Where they can spread their insidious effect on the safety mindset to another company… like a virus.
I personally don’t think this would help improve the safety of oil drilling in US waters. In fact I imagine that it could make matters worse. The incentives line up that way. No matter how draconian government treats BP it will not lessen the likelihood of a future catastrophe.
So what to do? Well here’s a thought… Punish the people that created the corporate attitude minimizing safety. Criminally punish the managers that caused the disaster… What incentive would this set up for future corporations drilling in US waters?
Corporations are made up of human beings. Self interested maximizes. The managers who have made it to the top are generally pretty crafty. To effect the way a corporation works you have to effect the way the managers think. If a manager thinks, with no malevolence, that safety should suffer to production, that manager should have an example of another who thought the same thing. If that example is a promotion what is the incentive? If the example is, quality time in jail, what incentive does this set? Moreover what is the aggregate corporate incentive, in the future, towards safety?
The means to protect the environment is not to bankrupt BP… It is to criminally charge the managers that set up the corporate ethos that production trumps safety. In direct contravention of BP’s stated policy.
Get the incentives right and this will never happen again. Get the incentives wrong and you insure a repeat.
