Here is a debate case I wrote a while ago:
Oil Company Case
Case Statement: You are the CEO of a major oil company. The Paris Climate Change Summit is coming up on December 11 and several companies have chosen whether or not to support the summit, including the CEOs of other top 10 oil companies. However, the summit is also receiving massive opposition, majoritively coming from Exonn-Mobil. Your top financial advisor reports the proposed plans discussed in the summit will lead to financial loss and possibly massive financial loss. OPP Choice: Do you contribute to advancing climate change initiatives or do you contribute to the opposition?
Caveat: You hold the majority shares of the company, that way whichever decision you make will not enable shareholders to throw you out.
You have the money on hand to enact your decision
Support the Summit
Moral Obligations
Citizens United established legal precedence that corporations are people and have rights, any form of right will also bare a level of responsibilities (Treating humans with dignity); if you buy that than you can also extend these responsibilities into protecting the world
Environmental destruction is derived from humans which forms three separate moral obligations and 2 practical obligations
You have contributed to the destruction more than others because you are an oil company
Human to human obligations
You inherited this environment and you have a moral obligations to fix it or “leave it better than you found it”
Human Rights are mechanisms for survival
For example, we don’t kill because we know that killing each other hinders human survival, protecting Earth enables human survivability
Practical Obligations
If your customers are human, which they are, and they have this moral obligation, which they do, and they want to abide to these obligations, which I’ve already discussed the massive protests during case construct to prove this, then you ought to pander to their obligations or they simply won’t want to purchase from you
If you want a long-term consumer base, it is best to try keep them alive
Oil Industry is dying. As the actor, the CEO of the company, you must recognize this
Demand for oil is decreasing
As climate change grows, the demand for alternative energies is growing, as such demand for divestment grows and inversely the demand for oil decreases
BP chief economist warns that it is unlikely that we will even use up the Oil reserves before we divest
I repeat, the demand for alternative energies are growing, this means you have a market (which is not that radically different from yours) to go to
Climate Agreement will benefit you twofold
Scenario 1: Climate Agreement is successful
Have the support of both nations and citizens to transition your company into a greener industry (example for MG: Google+ investments in wind energy)
Market support because you advocated their cause
Government support because you lobbied for their interests
Corporate support, because you are now a part of this small group that is trying to make the world a better place
Out of this support, you will have a larger market for whichever endeavor you take
Scenario 2: Climate Agreement is unsuccessful
Good Appearance will boost sales
BP Oil Spill dropped sales (obviously), but Valero criticism of BP boosted their sales
If it fails, and you can still become green; moreover, you will be seen as a pioneer in the industry
Summary: Few times in history where public, private, and grassroots sectors come together in agreement. This is one of those times. Climate Change is becoming a real threat to our world and support for solutions are growing incomprehensibly. In London, we see riots to encourage Parliament to participate in actions. In Paris, record-breaking amounts of activists are preparing for the summit, to literally block negotiators inside the summit until an agreement is made. In the United States, companies are preparing for green investments. And in the globe, countries are preparing to support each other on this endeavor. Simply put, madam / sir speaker, do you want to be on the wrong side of history?
Contribute to Opposition
Role of Corporation
Self-Interest
Making the most profit
Wasting money on aiding other nations is not the role of the company, but the role of a government
Appeasing shareholders
Angry shareholders = shift in stocks = risks of corporate collapse
What are the two decisions?
Supporting = explorative measures
Opposing = preventative measures
If you support these initiatives, you will be cutting yourself
Climate Agreement encompesses over 130 nations with varying commitments, some upwards of 40% divestment
Moreover, the stances some of these companies are making are indicating they are ready to leave the market. This provides a vacuum for you to fill
You will gain the support of the fourth largest oil company in the world (Exxonmobil)
Climate Agreement might not even work
Quarrels between nations
Expensive endeavor for everyone
Nation’s commitment down the road
Partnership with Exxonn Mobil is inherently good
Expand
Summary: Opportunity has presented itself. Either you go against your most trusted advisors and risk your company, or you stay true to who you are. You are in the oil business. Supporting climate agreement would not only be counter intuitive, but too risky of an endeavor to rationalize. Meanwhile, protecting yourself is not only wise, but profitable.