Case studies

This case features a county planning director as he approves or turns down a permit application for the Harvest Wind Farm Project, located in Klickitat County on the Columbia Plateau in Washington State. The utilities involved and Klickitat County stood to benefit through new revenue generation and a favorable federal construction grant associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and certain landowners stood to make substantial royalties. However, other landowners were also worried about declining property values, environmental groups had raised objections to the effect of turbines on the pristine Columbia River view, and uncertainty about health effects had recently become more of an issue. Nationally, “wind turbine syndrome” and “shadow-flicker” effects had been linked to wind farm operations. Given these concerns and the uncertainty, would the gains to stakeholders justify signing off on the project?

In 2007, BP sought and received regulatory approval to expand operations at its Whiting Refinery in northwest Indiana. Had the project gone forward as planned, the refinery would have discharged significantly higher levels of pollutants into Lake Michigan, but would have also contributed to economic development in the region. The result of BP seeking and being granted regulatory approval triggered a firestorm of controversy from multiple segments of society. This case study draws from secondary sources to examine the positions of a variety of stakeholders who influenced BP's decision as to whether or not it should expand its Whiting Refinery. Relevant stakeholders included for analysis are citizen and environmental organizations, political groups, trade associations, BP's employees, and stockholders. The intended target audience for this case is upper-level undergraduate business students studying issues related to business and society, such as corporate social responsibility and sustainable development.

This case examines the ethical issues raised when businesses contract for the military during time of war. Dow Chemical Company was a military contractor during the Vietnam War and the primary producer of Agent Orange - a defoliant used to clear vegetation. Agent Orange has been linked to a number of serious medical conditions in war veterans and Vietnamese civilians. In 2004, Vietnamese citizens filed suit against Dow for illnesses they believe were caused by exposure to Agent Orange. Dow thought the issue should have been addressed through political and social policy, while Vietnamese citizens and U.S. Vietnam war veterans believed Dow was ethically responsible. As the case moved through the U.S. judicial system, some of Dow's investors grew uncomfortable with how it was handled. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris was left to wonder what his company could have done differently and what they could learn from the Agent Orange episode that might prevent similar problems in the future. This incident appeared to be a relatively distinct case, but in July of 2007 it was reported that the number of private contract employees in Iraq exceeded that of U.S. military personnel. Consequently, it is likely that companies and their stakeholders will have to address similar issues.

This case presents the dilemma of a multinational oil and gas company, ExxonMobil, as it factors in the ethical issues related to the environment and cultural differences in deciding whether to proceed with building a pipeline in Chad and Cameroon, two of the poorest and most corrupt developing countries in West Africa. The many players in this project included the World Bank--which cofinanced the project and put restrictions into place that would hopefully prevent pipeline-related government corruption in both Chad and Cameroon--and many environmental and human rights groups that warned of potential disaster. The case also covers the environmental and social analysis of the areas that would be affected by the pipeline.