help! suppose you are the CEO of major corporation?

Question

suppose you are the CEO of a major corporation and one of you company's oil tanks has erupted, spilling thousands of gallons of oil into a river that empties into the ocean . what do you need to do to handle the crisis. ?

Answer 1

Your first job is on many fronts but you have to control the damage. You do everything that you can to actually clean up the problems that are going to occur. You get a group of people to identify the problem and start controlling the oil and reduce the spread. You get a group of people to work on the legal problems identifying the government reporting requirements and making sure that everyone is in compliance including any subcontrators. You get a group of people to start the image control insuring that the news media get the right information and have the right spin on the problem. Then you insure that all three groups are communicating with you and each other so that the message is proper.

Answer 2

A CEO can not do anything with that kind of operations.... he will be notify of the impact and the damage it makes and depending on that information he will give order to communicate certain information (to the press).

In general it's the captain (unless he notify the risks in advance in a logbook) too blame and the docks who let the ship out without proper inspection.

Than it's the insurance to pay the damage and look at the situation to pay off the people for cleaning and which party to claim responsibility.

This is what will happen in a nutshell

Answer 3

Assuming I'm a CEO I pay off my politician buddies to get my back.

Just kidding (though It's probably what would happen in many cases).

Ideally, I clean up my mess, make a public apology, and invest in a environmental charity.
My ideal is that even when I mess up, if I act responsibly, people will have much more respect for my company than if I try to avoid the problem.

Answer 4

Put barriers up to contain the spill and keep wildlife from getting into the oil, first thing. Second use grudges to suck the oil into disposal tanks, Third cover area with bacteria that eats crude oil and harmless to the environment. Fourth set up damage control team to handle the press, and keep federal and local officials informed of the problem and progress being made to clean it up.
All the above should be set into motion as soon as the oil has started spilling into the river.

Answer 5

I would first of all not wish to assume such a position as I would be getting beaten all the time. First of all the EPA has certain rules and other states have certain rules and govt has certain rules and the rules have certain rules until you figure out one thing. There are rules for rules and then there are more rules for those rules and if they don't like those rules other rules replace those rules. Rules determine what is to be done. Laws I believe they are called if I am not mistaken. Can you take "all" oil out of water in an ocean that is filled with it, can you take the oil out of a can of oil? You know I often wonder why not just set the dang stuff on fire. It is petroleum after all and will burn. Regardless there will be environmental consequences. No solution is perfect.

Nature at times and history has to determine the course of some rules and nature will at times determine the course of the clean-up - the entire clean up. Not just on the surface. We as man can try to assume that responsibility and we as humans have to follow some sort of decorum but like rules and those rules and those laws that we call rules that are based on those rules and other rules we do what we can call it a day and learn from our mistakes.

You get the idea. We do what we can and if we can do more we do that to but to say we can do it all is forgetting that we are not perfect human beings that not all situations are perfect situations.

An environmentalist might say, "oh please don't destroy that tree, it has such history behind it," for example. Another may say I need it for my house. Would one protest also all wood based products in protesting the destruction of one "sacred" tree for example? Hey where are you going, no where home. But I thought your cupboards were built with wood.

With oil in example, will you place blame on someone and then refuse to drive your automobile? Well unless you wish to gyroscopes and bicycles you may not get very far. Would you not take a jet liner in your protest, would you not go visit your poor old ailing grandma because you need the fuel in the ship to do so? Would you allow the anhiliation of a nation of people in darfur to take place because you did not want to use a ship or plane to get there for it would interfere with your objective or "protest." Would you take a canoe to get there a sailing ship of sorts when every second everyday another human being is killed or slaughtered? You get the idea.

It is uncanny and otherwise at best to assume that such a protest against oil and petroleum based products would result in yours or others full protest. Though you have not stated this who would ask such a question than one in disagreement with one who might have done everything that you might believe they should have done. Though I may be mistaken, I think not.

What we do not do: They are such a lousy operation they should know better. Remember, we all make mistakes. Have you ever spilled a can of paint on the floor, have you ever spilled hair spray or lotion on the sink washed it down the sink. Can we expect to remove it from the environment or can we ensure it will not have "any" affect on the environment. Do you know fully how that oil stain left in your driveway will affect plant and other life or that paint in the carpet or on the walls will truly affect in the long run. Can you see those affects. Can you prevent those effects if you do not know of them?

We follow the rules, we place blame when there is blame and if we place it to hard we must first throw the first stone as we are equally to blame in most instances. Laws also known as rules determine what we may not do and what we must do and if those rules are in error of omission we seek to change those rules. But remember, we are not perfect, and neither is oil and how it will ever be omitted. Take oil out of the equation. There will always be accidents and have you, you should ask yourself that question, have you ever made one?

Stockholder's control control public traded companies. Stockholder's boards of directors ad the list goes on.

Can we prevent oil spills can we build ships that do not run aground or do not like to be blown up and spill oil into the sea? Sure, we just have to float the seas in canoes and tell our neighbors you cannot go to work together your gyroscope is in the shop today. Oh yes to answer your question finally, what would I do, I suppose it would depend on the instance. Would I stand around and place blame or would I say oh well accidents happen.

I like to say, blame though place not less you also be held accountable in the end.

PS we do have companies who are chemical and mining companies just so as you know. We don't support bad business but we do support capitalism. In this sense, Exxon did the right thing and so do other large Corporation's. It may not be right for all, but it is right for the RULES? If not, well what can you do except to change the rules. And tell the ducks to find new nesting grounds. It is a cold thing I agree but reality is something something we must face.

I suppose if we could speak duckease, we might be able to say, when an oil tanker runs ground, "Hey duck your wings will get oil on them if you stick around." Don't worry though, those ducks will get the idea when they do. And why do other ducks not just stay away from the problem when they see their fellow ducks in trouble thrashing around with eventual death looming. Okay, so ducks aren't smart. We could call up Disney and borrow Donald and attempt this solution.

"Said one duck to the other, my wings are oiled up and I need the salvage crew to clean me up. Sorry he had to take a bathroom break."

CEO's for the most part are just like you and I. They are not tryants as some put them off to be. They assess problems, they institute measures to resolve those problems; in the most economically feasible way possible based on available solutions. Sure they may not be perfect but aks yourself, are you perfect?

Would I on your board hire you if you spent all the Corporations' money in support of every single environmental group that decided to put up a complaint. Uh I told you I was a capitalist. I would fire you and replace you with someone who will ensure that my profit in your company is making me money. It is a cold thing I agree but my intention as with many stockholders are to make money. CEO's have responsibility to ensure "good" black as the night sky bottom lines and when they do not we fire them.

The chief issue in the world is one. There are far too many protests wasting far to much revenue to combat those protests. Take a break cool off a bit and go back to learning duckease as that may help more than believing accidents will never take place.

Thank you.

Wayne Barney
President
BC Business Services, Inc.
Http://www.bcbsinc.com