Chevron: identity of the various stakeholders and their interests or concerns

Stakeholders in Chevron Controversies On 15 February an Ecuadorian court found Chevron guilty of pollution in the country’s Amazon forest region by Texaco from 1972 to 1992. Chevron acquired Texaco in 2000. The court fined Chevron $8. 6 billion for extensive damage to rivers and forests and subsequent harm to human health in the Amazon region. The stakeholders in this case are Chevron and the indigenous peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Chevron is a stakeholder because the alleged pollution was carried out by Texaco, which is now a subsidiary of Chevron. The indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon are stakeholders because the alleged pollution that Texaco is responsible for, resulted in contamination to forest and water resources which their livelihoods depend on. Consequently, their health has been adversely affected over the years as evidenced by increased cancer rates and loss of farm animals and crops. Chevron’s interest in the case is maximization of profits. Chevron has denied the charges because it will incur loss of profits due to damages that it claims it is not responsible for inflicting. Similarly, Texaco’s interests when committing the offense was to reduce costs and, therefore, reduce oil prices by $3 per barrel.
In Richmond, California, Chevron is held responsible for pollution of the environment resulting from the activities of its refinery in the area. The refinery generated up to 11 million pounds of toxic waste, bypassed waste water treatments and failed to inform the public about the toxic releases. Chevron also violated the Clean Air Act by releasing large amounts of nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Consequently, the Environment Protection Agency took action against Chevron which resulted in the company being fined $56 million. The stakeholders in this case are Chevron, the locals of Richmond, California, and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Chevron is accused of carrying out the pollution which resulted in environmental and health damages. The locals of Richmond suffered from adverse health effects due to the environmental pollution carried out by Chevron. On the other hand, the EPA is a stakeholder in this case because it bears the responsible of protecting American citizens from harmful pollution. Therefore, it filed charges against Chevron on behalf of the people of Richmond.
On August 6 2012, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) fined Chevron $1 million for safety standard violations which lead to a massive fire at Chevron’s Richmond Refinery. Although the fire resulted in no serious worker injuries, 15, 000 residents of surrounding communities reportedly sought treatment for breathing emissions from the fire. The stakeholders in this case are Chevron, residents of Richmond, and Cal/OSHA. Cal/OSHA accuses Chevron of negligence and violation of safety rules that lead to the fire, whereas the residents of Richmond are stakeholders because they suffered negative health effects due to breathing fumes from the fire.
Chevron has heavily invested in the Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada, which contain large deposits of bitumen. However, the Canadian government has raised concerns that extraction of the bitumen has resulted in massive pollution to the environment, including formation of toxic “ tailings” lakes, massive greenhouse gas emission, and destruction of habitats for various species of animals. The stakeholders in this issue are Chevron, and the Canadian government, whose concern is that pollution of the environment is leading to negative health impacts on both people and wildlife. The government holds Chevron responsible for the pollution as one of the developers of the Athabasca oil sands.
Works Cited
Baker, David. Critics’ Annual Report Blasts Chevron. The True Cost of Chevron, 2010. Retrieved 3 Mar 2013 from http://truecostofchevron. com/20100519-critics-annual-report-blasts-chevron. html