Amtrak Case Study The tragic incident at the Big Bayou Canot Bridge saw the deaths of nearly 50 people after a barge hit the bridge and caused the rail line to shift minutes before a speeding Amtrak train was set to cross. Heavy fog made the conditions necessary for such an incident to take place, but sensors recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board could have prevented the disaster.

Who are the stakeholders in this case? There are several stakeholders in this case: Amtrak is one since it was the train operating service. Because Amtrak was a nationalized service however, receiving subsidies from the federal government, it should be considered that the U.S. government and taxpayers are all stakeholders in this case. Chesapeake System Railroads (CSX) is another and was a Fortune 500 transportation company. CSX is a stakeholder because it owned the track over Big Bayou Canot Bridge. Warrior and Gulf Navigation (WGN) is a third stakeholder, a medium-size operator of barge movers. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) was a stakeholder, as its recommendations for outfitting bridges with sensors had gone unheeded. The U.S. Coast Guard was a stakeholder as it had cleared the waterways for travel. The towboat captain and pilot were stakeholders as they were in charge of the craft that hit the bridge and the Alabama Emergency Response Network was a stakeholder as it was responsible for responding to the accident.

What are the interests of the stakeholders? The stakeholders involved in this case had both monetary and social responsibility interests. Neither Amtrak nor CSX had wanted to oversee installment of bridge damage sensors because of the cost of installation. WGN's interest was to have capable and trained pilots guiding its ships to safety. The NTSB had an interest in preventing just this type of catastrophe. The U.S. Coast Guard had an interest in understanding the waterways and navigability of them. The Alabama Emergency Response Network had an interest in responding adequately to emergencies of this sort.

Corporate Social Responsibility

Amtrak's corporate social responsibility to the various stakeholders in this case before the incident was to ensure the safety of its travelers. The bridge, therefore, should have been outfitted with "sensors to detect bridge damage" per recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board, but Big Bayou Canot Bridge was not (Eisenbeis, Hanks, Barrett, 1999). Amtrak's CSR should have seen to it that any bridge that it navigated was outfitted with these sensors or else refused to use such bridges. A tragedy could have been avoided had it done so.

Likewise, CSX which owned the track on the Big Bayou Canot Bridge where the disaster occurred should have seen to it that the bridge was outfitted with the proper sensors as part of its own CSR.

Additionally Amtrak's signal sensors should have been designed to detect shifts in rail lines and not just breaks. On the Bridge the rail had not broken but only shifted which caused the derailment. Signals gave the all-clear because they were not set up to detect shifts.

In short, all of the interested parties held some degree of CSR for one another because they are each interacting and dependent upon one another. The safety issues were not just one-sided or affecting only one party; their interconnected nature makes them each part of a greater web of responsibility and if one party fails to act responsibly, all of the others pay for it.

Amtrak's corporate social responsibility to the various stakeholders in this case after the incident is to pay reparations to those families who lost loved ones and to those who suffered injuries as a result. While this was a normal accident in the sense that human error was not to blame, it is an accident that could possibly have been prevented had the various agencies, including Amtrak, seen to it that all bridges were outfitted with the appropriate sensors. This was an accident waiting to happen.

Conclusion and Recommendation

In conclusion, every company has a responsibility to protect both itself and the public and in the area of moving and shipping freight and passengers where companies interact and cross it is important that they all look out for one another. There was no good reason after the recommendation by the NTSB to put up sensors for any of the involved parties to fail to do so. It is recommended that Amtrak correct its image by having these sensors installed on all bridges on its routes to ensure that this does not happen again and that it pay for damages to those injured and lost in this tragedy.

It is in accordance with the utilitarian ethical theory (Sandle, 2009) that Amtrak do what is in the interest...

government. Since the people of the U.S. look out for Amtrak, it is only fair that Amtrak look out for its passengers. The greatest good in this case is to ensure that all bridges are outfitted with safety sensors that alert trains if the bridge has been damaged.
References

Eisenbeis, H., Hanks, S., Barrett, B. (1999). The Wreck of Amtrak's Sunset Limited.

Case Research Journal. North American Case Research Association, Inc.

Sandle, M. (2009). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

Hondo: Unit 6 Assignment

Introduction

The Ardnak Plastics plant in Hondo was not passing its emissions test and was now being fined for polluting the air. George's boss Bill told George that he had to either find a way to pass or relocate the plant. The only way to pass, George knew, would be to "fake" the reports because Ardnak did not have the money to fix the problem. Relocating on the other hand would cause Hondo to lose many jobs and still would not fix the problem of pollution. George had to do something, but what?

Who are the stakeholders in this case? In this case, the workers of Hondo are the stakeholders and so is the community. This means from everyone in the town on up to George, Bill, and their bosses up the corporate ladder. The world also is a stakeholder in some regard, because it is being affected by Ardnak in terms of pollution and even has the EPA on the case to ensure that pollution is minimal.

What are the interests of the stakeholders? It is in the interests of the immediate stakeholders to follow the rules put forward by the EPA and fix the problem. This will allow the people of Hondo to keep their jobs and it will put the company in compliance with the EPA's regulations. Stakeholders want to keep their employment and be profitable, however, and the company is not in a position to do both, so says Bill. At the same time, the air should not be polluted as it is, and George knows that. George is responsible to various stakeholders with different interests: below him, stakeholders want to keep their jobs in Hondo. Above him, stakeholders want to pass emissions tests without actually have to pay to fix the problem.

Legal Analysis

As Snyder, Miller and Stavins (2003) note, "the economic and environmental impacts of regulation are affected by the technology choices made by individual plants" (p. 431). The 2007 EPA law regarding polyvinyl chloride productions in plants would apply to this case (Wilner, 2007) and the legal and ethical thing to do would be for George to blow the whistle on the Ardnak facilities circumventing the law by doing heavy emissions at night so that the EPA does not detect and going over Bill's head to report the issue to top management. If top management is in the know and does not want this information made public, George would have no choice but to report this information to the public and blow the whistle on the entire corporate structure. The company's actions are clearly illegal and must be dealt with.

Ethical Analysis

The EPA is not simply a "pay to play" organization as it is designed to keep atmospheres and environments safe. Corporations, however, weight the costs and benefits of following the rules before deciding whether to do so (Fraedrich, 1992). Ethical responsibilities from the standpoint of the common good hold George to a standard of conduct that puts honesty and truthfulness regarding the dangers to the environment affecting many more people than those just in Hondo. Therefore, George has a responsibility to blow the whistle on Ardnak.

Recommendations

George should report his findings to top-tier management: what he has found that other plants are doing in order to keep the EPA at bay is unethical and he will not "play along" in order to keep his job or the jobs in Hondo, although it would be good if they could all stay. As Snyder, Miller and Stavins (2003) have shown, the ball is in the corporation's court: it can do what is right or do what is wrong and pay the price. Either way, it must pay -- better to pay and do the right thing in this case than do the wrong thing and pay…