Introduction
Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation bestows electrical power and natural gas to approximately 16 million people. The organization also owns the dissemination lines that precipitated the California Camp Fire in November 2018. The arson caused the demise of eighty-five persons, destroyed land, killed wildlife, and destroyed Paradise’s town. Based on investigations conducted, it was clear that the organization was directly responsible for the fire due to the mismanagement of infrastructure. There were forty-none steel towers demanding replacement before the fire. Sadly, the organization’s equipment, developed in the early 1900s, was still operational, yet the equipment has a life expectancy of sixty-five years. In that respect, a better number of towers operational were those installed in the 1900s. Another 6900 towers were operational but had no records exhibiting their age.
Ethical Issues
Instead of focusing on upgrading the existing systems, the organization opted to delay the amelioration and instead focus on developing alternative ways to generate profits, such as substation upgrades. Commuters will appreciate a newly refurbished train due to aspects such as comfort. Still, they will not think about the towers and grids supplying them electricity as long as there is no power outage. Inarguably, this must have been Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation’s way of thinking. With such at-risk equipment, the thought of a drought in the region would imply that the outcome would be devastating to the whole town, to the environment, and the lives of many. Sadly, regardless of out-of-service equipment, while other utilities were required to shut-down power lines after tempestuous conditions prevailed during the drought period, Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation’s power lines remained operational. Yet, their equipment posed a more severe threat compared to others. It is then in light of the events that it can be asserted that PG&E acted out of greed for profits at the expense of human lives, property, and the environment.
The organization focused too much on generating compensation and dividends instead of maintaining and making its infrastructure safe. Instead of accepting the failure, the organization opted for bankruptcy protection. The move will result in escalated rates, and those expenses will have to be paid by the customers. That then leaves many to wonder why victims would pay up for the irresponsibility of an organization that resulted in the damage of property, pollution of the environment, and lastly, the loss of lives? PG&E from the fire is directly responsible for ethical issues intertwined with land management, protection of the environment, climate change, protection of property and lives, and responsibility. Their irresponsibility directly resulted in the loss of property and lives and pollution of the environment, which affected the climate by releasing wasteful gases into the atmosphere and pollution of land.
Stakeholders are those associated with the daily operation of a business. Those crediting or investing, those acquiring and supplying services from the organization as well as employees. Other stakeholders are trade unions, government agencies, along with the media. PG&E’s actions implied that investors had to undergo severe losses. The fact that there were critical mismanagement issues and a decision to value profits over safety measures indicated that the decision was primarily built upon greed. Customers had to endure massive losses due to the power outage during the fire. Other customers had to grieve the loss of eighty-five lives and a large scale of the property. Government agencies had to worry about the land pollution ushered in as well as considerable pollution to the environment after the fire released harmful pollutants to the land, water and air. The decision to pursue profits at the expense of everything else meant that trade unions, along with government agencies, had to step up measures to ensure policies were adhered to ensuring compliance of ethical issues. They also were left with the challenge to give answers to the nation on how did they get by-passed by such a sad truth that out-of-service equipment remained operational for so long. They also had to answer to the country how the organization’s power lines remained functional when other power utilities had to shut down. Nonetheless, the event exhibited a severe and worrying disregard for ethical provisions in businesses for PG&E as well as other stakeholders mandated the task of regulating the operation of electrical and gas companies.
According to Kant’s postulation, an action’s wrongness or rightfulness does not depend on the actions’ outcomes. Instead, they both depend on whether the operations liaise in a manner that fulfills a responsibility (Li, 2018). Arguing it in this respect, the duty of PG&E was to supply electricity, and thus to discuss shallowly, the organization acted on a proper scope. Nonetheless, as they provide power to the consumers, it is their responsibility that the power lines continue to protect human lives, property, and the environment at large. With out-of-service equipment, then as much as their duty to supply power is met, it has not met the obligation to protect human lives, property, and the environment. Such equipment has no difference to a grenade without a safety pin in that they could usher in devastating effects at any instant. In this respect, according to Kant’s theory, the action was immoral and unethical.
Utilitarianism is an ethical supposition that ascertains what is right from what is wrong by concentrating on the results. According to utilitarianism, the most ethical option is to flourish the greatest goof for the most considerable number of persons (Herschel,2017). Managers at PG&E would perhaps argue that even when it’s windy, the demand for power does not reduce. According to them, anyone second without power is a loss of millions of dollars to the country. Arguing in this respect, then they would assume that their actions and decisions remain ethical. However, what would happen if the out-of-service equipment failed and caused substantial harm to more people like it did in California? Thinking in that direction, it then implies that the decision to focus on other revenue-generating options at the expense of the safety of the millions of electricity users depending on PG&E’s power lines is ultimately unethical.
PG&E depends on its consumers for the generation of profits. These consumers are confident that they are safe as they drive by the organization’s power lines. They have confided in PG&E’s ability to protect them as they continually supply power to them at any time of the day. It then means that the organization has the ultimate obligation to ensure that its consumers have nothing to worry about. With this, the organization should have been honest about its moral shortcoming. Failure to be honest with their consumers means that they value their profits more than they value their clients, and that poses substantial deficits to the corporation that it would by being honest with their clients. No client will confide in them supplying power to them again, but being honest would inflict not-so impactive effects for some time before the clients appreciate the organization’s moral obligation.
To sum up, evident from Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation, organizations often fall shorty of adhering to ethical obligations and instead seek to find alternative means to generate profits at the expense of their consumers. The definition of a moral choice by Kant is based upon one’s ability to fulfill an obligation. With that, then the actions taken can define a right or a wrong. The process of fulfilling the obligation should, however, embrace all aspects advocated for by regulatory measures. The utilitarianism theory similarly describes an ethical choice from the actions taken to meet an outcome. With that, a wrong or a right can be determined. Ethicality should not only kick in when there is a goal to achieve but also in the process of meeting the goal. For instance, there is no ethical value in taking the lives of a million people to save two million people. However, there is moral value in seeking to protect the lives of all three million lives consequentially. In this respect, businesses must consider the magnitude of possible implications on an ethical perspective and act upon them in place of allowing ignorance and negligence to have the upper hand.