It is hard not to dwell on the crisis management aspect of PR when it is at the forefront of publicity. Think about it, you know all about Enron but when's the last time you read a press release regarding the mayor of Oregon's plan to open a new general store on Main Street? Crisis management is important because instead of making the mistakes yourself, you can watch others and learn what NOT to do. We once discussed the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 as an example of ineffective crisis management. Obviously, the crisis in question was detrimental to the environment of Cordova, Alaska but it seems that there are lasting effects on Exxon as well. Today the Associated Press issued a release citing that Exxon will go before the U.S. Supreme Court this Wednesday. Why, you may ask? Well, in 1994 a jury in Anchorage, Alaska awarded the victims of the incident $5 billon in punitive damages (recall the video the former Exxon CEO's response to how to fix the damages to the Alaskan fishing industry). Following the court ruling, Exxon Mobil Corp. made a series of court appeals and the amount to be paid in damages has since been cut in half. Now, it turns out that $2.5 billion is too much for a company which made a profit of $40.6 billion in 2007! Is it really so "unconstitutional" to ask Exxon to pay punitive damages which equates to a measly 6% of their annual profit? Is it cruel and unusual punishment to ask them to pay for an incident which is their fault?
33,000 plaintiffs including Alaskan commercial fisherman, natives, landowners, businesses, and local governments stand to lose the $2.5 billion judgment if the high court sides with Exxon. For the record, the oil spill ruined 1,200 miles of Alaskan shoreline and killed hundreds and thousands of animals which were indigenous to the region. In actually there is not amount of money that can make up for the loss of life to an ecosystem, but punitive damages meant to be paid out of moral responsibility apparently hurt big business far more.
In my opinion, Exxon seems to maintain a tone of insensitivity on the matter. Apparently Exxon should no longer be held accountable for the incident because of an estimated $3.5 billion paid in clean up costs (even though there is still an estimated 85 tons of lingering crude). Not to mention the fact that the skipper of the Exxon Valdez was the true culprit. Last time I checked, in a corporation the liability in a crisis does not rest on individuals.
33,000 plaintiffs including Alaskan commercial fisherman, natives, landowners, businesses, and local governments stand to lose the $2.5 billion judgment if the high court sides with Exxon. For the record, the oil spill ruined 1,200 miles of Alaskan shoreline and killed hundreds and thousands of animals which were indigenous to the region. In actually there is not amount of money that can make up for the loss of life to an ecosystem, but punitive damages meant to be paid out of moral responsibility apparently hurt big business far more.
In my opinion, Exxon seems to maintain a tone of insensitivity on the matter. Apparently Exxon should no longer be held accountable for the incident because of an estimated $3.5 billion paid in clean up costs (even though there is still an estimated 85 tons of lingering crude). Not to mention the fact that the skipper of the Exxon Valdez was the true culprit. Last time I checked, in a corporation the liability in a crisis does not rest on individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment