Lufthansa Sues Passenger for Hidden City Ticketing (April 2016)

Case Description
Lufthansa is one of the largest airlines in Germany and has been flown on by hundreds of millions of people. They provide world wide flights and aren’t very costly depending on the destination. The airline has great ratings all around and majority of people that have flown Lufthansa have enjoyed their flight. Today, Lufthansa has over 540 subsidies and associated companies world wide (Vox 1). This airline is consistently growing and providing many safe travels for people all over the world. As great of an airline as Lufthansa is, they’ve been having a problem with their passengers regarding flights. Over time, passengers have developed a tactic that enables them to save money on certain flights called “Hidden City Ticketing”. Hidden city ticketing is the act of booking a flight from one destination to another with a layover that is the desired location. The passenger would then board the flight and once it landed at the layover the passenger would leave and not finish the final leg of the flight.
Hidden city ticketing was never a big scandal within the news until Lufthansa decided to take action against one unsuspecting passenger. In April 2016, a passenger that hasn’t been named, participated in hidden city ticketing on one of their flights. The passenger booked a flight from Seattle to Oslo, Norway with a layover flight in Frankfurt, Germany (Vox 1). Instead of continuing onto the connecting flight to Frankfurt, the passenger jumped onto a different Lufthansa flight and went to Berlin. After the airline had caught the passenger, they began the process of filing a lawsuit for the damages incurred. Lufthansa came up with the estimate of 2,112 euros which comes out to approximately $2300 in US currency (Vox 1).
When it comes to the Lufthansa case, it’s unclear as to what will happen to the passenger and the airline. The lawsuit was thrown out by the Berlin-Mitte court however, Lufthansa has applied for an appeal (Simplyflying 1). The court had said the reason Lufthansa is suing the passenger was valid but, the reasoning for the pricing had lacked transparency. They want to ensure that this sends a message for future passengers that it will not be tolerating this type of behavior and abuse of the system. However, no matter how to case ends up, Lufthansa will still look like the bad guy since the population seems to side against airlines rather than the passengers.


Stakeholders
The three main stakeholders within this case is the airline Lufthansa, the unnamed passenger being sued and the general population of people who use planes for travel. The airline Lufthansa was affected because they were a victim of hidden city ticketing and ended up losing money because of it. The passenger was affected by using this scamming method to get a cheaper flight and then getting sued by the airline after being caught. Lastly, the general population of flight travelers are affected because this same situation can happen to them.

Individualism Within the Case
Taking an individualistic approach is when the only goal of a business is to maximize profit within the constructs of the law. Within the case of Lufthansa suing the passenger, both of these parties used an individualistic approach. The passenger found a loophole along with not having any clear information about the consequences to enable himself to get the best deal. They knew this process wasn’t illegal so there was no second guessing it when the cheaper route was figured out. There was also little to no transparency in the court case because this isn’t an illegal practice, however it’s very frowned upon in airlines. After being dismissed in December of 2016, Lufthansa filed for an appeal to the case because they still believe the customers actions were unlawful. The airline took the individualistic approach by suing the passenger because they had the right in regards to trying to maximize their own profit. Lufthansa suing the passenger for the $2300 shows they were trying to maximize the profits of this case because a flight like that doesn’t cost that much. They tried suing for the “estimated” cost of the flight, demand of the flight, and inconveniences they endured after flying this customer.



Utilitarianism Within the Case
In utilitarian beliefs, they believe that the ultimate goal is to maximize happiness in every way possible for each stakeholder. Utilitarianism played a role within the Lufthansa case because there were different conclusions to maximize happiness for the stakeholders in this case. It applied to the passenger being sued because they were able to use hidden city ticketing without any risk, since the process is used in order to save money. Future passengers can use these hidden city ticketing sites in order to save themselves money which in turn maximizes their happiness. While this process isn’t illegal, it’s very unethical to airlines because of the potential damages and inconveniences it may cause. A conclusion the airline can come up with to maximize their happiness would be to lower their prices on flights. While the price decrease seems like a let down, lowering prices will keep passengers in their seats for the full flight rather than getting on different ones. Doing this would eliminate hidden city ticketing for airlines and give the passengers a price on tickets that doesn’t drive them to find a loophole in the system.

Kantianism Within the Case
One who follows Kantianism believes that everyone should act rationally with their decisions, help others make rational decisions, respect others and their autonomy, and to always be motivated by good will. The three main parts of this formula is humanity which means rationality, end which is something valuable in itself, for its own sake, and means which is something that is valuable as a way to get something else. The passenger in this case did not follow Kantianism because they only looked into their own self interest and not the airlines. Even though what the passenger did wasn’t illegal it is frowned upon and violated the terms and conditions of the airline. They didn’t think about the cost the airline would take and they figured themself to be exempt from the rules and conditions. Also, the passenger violated the formula of humanity because instead of focusing on humanity, ends, and means they only focused on means by caring about themself rather than the outcome of the airline. Lufthansa followed Kantianism as they are treating every customer fairly and providing all passengers with the ability to book flights fairly. They weren’t trying to gain an advantage by suing this passenger all they wanted was compensation for being scammed out of the money they were expecting.

Virtue Theory
Virtuism has four main virtues of character which are courage, honesty, temperance/self control, and justice/fairness. Within the Lufthansa vs. passenger case, courage was shown by the passenger when they got off on the layover for the cheaper price, instead of finishing out his flight. Also, courage is shown by the airline calling out this passenger for what they’ve done and suing them for what the airline believes it’s worth. Honesty wasn’t shown by the passenger in this case because when the airline sued, the passenger would’ve made an agreement and fessed up that they had committed this act. Instead, the customer let the case get dismissed and make the airline file for an appeal. With the virtue of temperance/self control, there wasn’t either displayed by the passenger or the airline in this case. Finally, justice/fairness comes into play because it isn’t fair for the other passengers on the flight and the company that the unnamed passenger skipping the flight. This costed the airline money that they could’ve spent on another passenger and the passengers lost valuable time waiting for this passenger on their flight.

Justified Ethics Evaluation
In my opinion of this case, the passenger wasn’t ethically right in making his decision about cheating the airline. While it was more cost effective and seemed like a smart thing to do, the passenger messed with the airline and the other passengers on the plane. He screwed the airline out of that seat on the flight which could’ve been provided to someone else costing the airline money. Also, they screwed over the other passengers because they had to wait for them to board when there was no chance of the passenger ever boarding the plane. For the airlines point of view, I believe they had every right to sue the passenger and it was ethical of them to do so. If someone wrongly cheated me out of money I would feel the same way and demand my money back. The passenger wasted the airlines time and made everything harder than it needed to be. The passenger was very unethical in their decision making while the airline made the proper ethical choice of suing them for what they are owed.

Action Plan
  First off, this problem can be solved in a number of ways such as performing a roll call before the layover flight takes off to ensure that everyone who's supposed to be on the flight is aboard. While this process could take a couple minutes, it saves the airline money by making sure no ones skipping and that all seats are accounted for. Also, if certain people are caught missing their flights, then they should be legally charged with the full price of the ticket purchased even though they missed the flight. This would prevent people from skip lagging and save the airlines money because people will be too afraid to attempt the loophole. Lastly, if a certain passenger is caught repeating this process more than once, they should be banned from the airline usage entirely. It isn’t fair that other passengers go through the normal flight patterns while one person gets to skip around and do as they please.
In order to prevent hidden city ticketing from occurring, Lufthansa will have to change its terms and conditions to ensure people know it isn’t allowed. By adding a section into the terms and conditions stating that the passengers will be held accountable for skip lagging, it will prevent cases like these. When people know they can be held accountable for things that will get them into trouble, they tend to do it less often if not ever. Also, flight attendants should manager a double check system to ensure everyone that’s supposed to be on the flight is on the flight. These are just a few possible ways Lufthansa can cut down on hidden city ticketing and prevent it in the future to help ensure they’re a profitable airline. Another thing Lufthansa could do is develop a television commercial to show customers that they ensure customer satisfaction rather than money. The lawsuit gave off Lufthansa as being money hungry and that’s not a label any company wants. The commercial could show how the flight attendants treat the passengers on the flight and how easy it is to book flights through Lufthansa.

Work Cited

Hill, Catey. “This Airline Sued a Passenger for Skipping His Flight - Why We Should All Take Note.” MarketWatch, 23 Feb. 2019, www.marketwatch.com/story/this-airline-sued-a-passenger-for-skipping-his-flight-why-we-should-all-take-note-2019-02-13.

Valle, Gaby Del. “An Airline Is Suing a Customer Who Skipped a Leg of His Flight to Save Money.” Vox, Vox, 13 Feb. 2019, www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/2/13/18223833/lufthansa-sues-passenger-hidden-city-ticketing.

Chappell, Bill. “Lufthansa Airlines Sues Customer Who Skipped Part Of His Return Flight.” NPR, NPR, 13 Feb. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/02/13/694352593/lufthansa-airlines-sues-customer-who-skipped-part-of-his-return-flight.

“Lufthansa Is Trying To Sue Passengers For Skiplagging.” Simple Flying, 11 Feb. 2019, www.simpleflying.com/lufthansa-is-trying-to-sue-passengers-for-skiplagging/.

“Germany: Number of Passengers of Lufthansa Group 2007-2017 | Statistic.” Statista, www.statista.com/statistics/734402/number-of-passengers-of-lufthansa-group/.

Lufthansa Group AG. “History.” Lufthansa Group, www.lufthansagroup.com/en/company/history.html.

“Why Hidden City Ticketing Really Is Too Good to Be True (Video).” Travel + Leisure, www.travelandleisure.com/travel-tips/hidden-city-ticketing-consequences.

Fresenius Kabi, In Lawsuit against State of Nebraska (2018)

Abstract

Carey Dean Moore was sentenced to death in 1980 for the murder of two cab drivers. A federal judge rejected the request by German drug company Fresenius Kabi to restrict Nebraska from including their drugs in the 4 drug cocktail, “contained diazepam, a tranquilizer; fentanyl citrate, a powerful synthetic opioid that can block breathing and knock out consciousness; cisatracurium besylate, a muscle relaxant; and potassium chloride, which stops the heart,” (NY Times) which will be used to kill the Death Row inmate. Although Fresenius Kabi does not take a position on lethal injection, the company thinks the use of their drug should not be permitted. 

            In this paper these theories, Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism and Virtue will be applied to this case. For starters the company was trying to protect their reputation by keeping their drug away from the the death penalty scene. By doing that it could reduce their profit income. Which would be the opposite of what individualists want. When it comes to the death penalty happiness is never involved and should never be, utilitarian’s would argue that it is unethical for the company to allow Nebraska to use their drugs. Kantianism would argue the case is unethical because Nebraska is not being loyal to the drug company and putting their drug to use regardless of what the company has to say. Virtue Theory will not apply to this case because the drug company will not fulfil the four characteristics courage, honesty, temperance/self-control, and justice/fairness. After reviewing these 4 ethical theories, the drug company Fresenius Kabi should focus on restricting their products and ensuring the only people that can get their hands on them are hospitals around the world to prove their drugs are manufactured to help people not kill them. 

Ethics Case Controversy

In August of 1979 a man by the name Carey Dean Moore was arrested for robbing and 

killing two cab drivers in Omaha, Nebraska. On August 22nd 1979 the 22 year old murdered the first victim Reuel Eugene Van Ness Jr. a 47 year old Korean War veteran. His brother who was 14 years old, was in the back seat of the cab with Moore when Van Ness was shot in the back three times. The brothers then stole $140 from the driver to buy marijuana and porn magazines. 5 days later on August 27th he murdered Maynard Heldgeland who was also a 47 year old Korean War veteran and was working through family issues. Moore got in the taxi and put three bullets into Heldgeland’s head. Moore was sentenced to death in 1980 and fought for 27 years to appeal his visit with the electric chair making his sentence to death row the longest in the country. The sentence was overruled by Nebraska Supreme Court so they can check the constitutionality of the electric chair. 

            Since the ban for lethal injection in 2016 was overturned by voters this execution would be the first act of Capital Punishment in 21 years and the first ever Lethal Injection. Which is a more efficient and effective way to deal with this situation. Nebraska officials are pushing to carry through with the plans they have set for Moore. Being the first Lethal Injection in Nebraska, the drug company Fresenius Kabi opposes the use of the drugs Diazepam and Fentanyl. The company claims Nebraska Illegally obtained the drugs and does not want their drugs apart of the execution. Although this company does not take position in Capital Punishment they are still protecting their reputation and claim their drugs are not made for that reason and purposely do not sell them to correctional facilities. The state of Nebraska executed Carey Dean Moore leaving the German drug company with no say in had happened. 

Stakeholders

            Fresenius Kabi, Nebraska Officials, and the Inmate Carey Dean Moore and his family are stakeholders for this case. Fresenius Kabi is a stakeholder because the make the product being used in the execution of Moore. Nebraska Officials because they are the reason this company’s product is being used in the execution. The Inmate Carey Dean Moore who is the reason the company and the state of Nebraska are in this mess. Lastly the inmates family who had to deal with the controversy and watch from the outside as Moore was waiting on death row for all those years.

Individualism

There are two ways one can view the individualist theory. Milton Friedman and Tibor Machan both have their point of views on this theory. Friedman’s version is, the only goal of a business is to maximize profit within the constraints of the law. Whereas Machan the only goal of a business is to profit and the only goal of a business person is to maximize profit. 

            Fresenius Kabi filed lawsuits and fought to keep their product away from penitentiaries, jails, and prisons. If this company wanted to maximize profit they would not care where their product goes as long as they are making money. Capital Punishment is legal in the United States, therefore this company would be maximizing profit within the constraints of the law. However the company wanted their drugs as far away from the death penalty scene as possible.

Utilitarianism

According to the Utilitarianism theory, the primary goal is to maximize happiness in all people. Death penalty and happiness are words that do not go together. In the drug company, Fresenius Kabi’s point of view, they are only creating hate because it looks bad they are letting their drugs be used for lethal injection. Their main concern is losing their reputation, business relationships, and business partners. Defending their company is the main concern, they are known for selling their product to hospitals to help people in need, not to be used as a method of killing. If the company had control over where their products were going it could be considered an ethical case. 

From Nebraska’s point of view this case is unethical because all they did was raise controversy between state officials and the drug company itself. 

Kantianism

The Kantian theory states that rational decisions need to be ethical and need to be made from a business person’s vision not self-interest. While at the same time staying honest and loyal to all involved in the business. Which raises the question, did Fresenius Kabi act unethical with this theory applied? As stated before the company does not take a position on Capital Punishment, but they do not want their drugs used. The company did all they could by filing lawsuits stating the prison illegally obtained the drugs used to execute Carey Dean Moore. They stayed honest and loyal to their company trying to protect their reputation, the drug company acted ethical according to the Kantian theory. On the other hand the state of Nebraska acted unethical by making the decision themselves. From a business perspective if they had asked Fresenius Kabi for legal rights to the drugs then the company would not have brought this case to the court.  

Virtue Theory

There are four main virtues of character courage, honesty, temperance/self-control, and justice/fairness. When a business abides by these four characteristics they are acting ethical according to the Virtue theory. Courage meaning one is willing take a stand in the right beliefs and ideas and take a risk without knowing the reward. Fresenius Kabi stuck to their word by saying they do not support their drugs being used for Lethal Injection, although they did not take a side in Capital Punishment they wanted to prove to people that their drugs are being used for the good and not for the bad. They were trying to protect their reputation by staying true to their word and keeping their drugs out of that scene. 

            Honesty is the agreement to be truthful with the public, the company themselves, and other companies. Just by Fresenius Kabi filing the lawsuit shows they were being honest with not only themselves but the public too. They were doing this in hope the judge will pick their side and rule it unlawful for the state of Nebraska to use these drugs. 

            Temperance and self-control are the characteristics that prove a business has realistic expectations and can keep themselves composed in times of trouble. The German drug company did a great job at keeping calm even though nothing was going in their favor. Some may say the lawsuit was pushing it too far but in the eyes of the company they had to protect their brand and block out the hate in order to progress. Which is what they did, while staying composed.

            Finally the last characteristics within Virtue theory are justice and fairness, which preach hard work and fair practice. In a successful company these characteristics are very important to hold because without them malfunction within the company will be very easy. Fresenius Kabi worked hard at keeping their product away from Capital Punishment, if they did not care as much they would not have brought it to court. There is no such thing as working too hard and the company did everything they could but it was too late because the state of Nebraska already had their hands on the two drugs mixed in the four drug cocktail. The company acted ethical under this theory because instead of letting the execution just happen they did act as a roadblock to protect everything they stand for. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation

In my opinion Fresenius Kabi did the right thing in this situation. Nebraska was unethical in a sense that they focused on themselves, they did not follow the proper procedure in this case. Asking the company for use of their drug would have been a start to this process that could have made it run way smoother than it actually did. Fresenius Kabi did only focus on themselves to protect the company and its reputation. Relationships and business partners would be lost, their reputation and everything the company stands for will also be neglected. They wanted to prove their drugs are used to help patients, not kill them. Especially in the particular state we are in with opioids in this country, people may view this case as an OK to use this drug for lethal injection. 

Company Action Plan

The issue at hand is the German drug company Fresenius Kabi is trying to protect their reputation by keeping their products out of prisons, jails, and penitentiaries. Nebraska State Prison is looking to use the drugs Diazepam and Fentanyl which are both products made by Fresenius Kabi. The company claims the Nebraska State Prison illegally obtained these drugs, which are only distributed to hospitals and hospice care centers. Which leaves us with the question, how did the prison obtain these drugs? Fresenius Kabi says they only distribute to hospitals and hospice care centers, yet a prison got their hands on them.

The drug company needs to do a better job at controlling where they are distributed to and who can get their hands on them. Sure it sounds easy to do, but think of all the hospitals across the globe that get these drugs shipped to them regularly. Once the hospitals have the drugs in their possession Fresenius Kabi can no longer control where they go after that. To prevent this problem from happening again the company can construct strict policies to ensure their products do not end up in the wrong hands, they could also get feedback from employees and other business professionals to maybe get better ideas to help keep control of their product. When making the product only manufacture to order, this can be effective because the company can ship the product knowing it will be put to use instead of sit on a shelf or possibly get sold or stolen. The company can also mass produce products and ship them when needed, the downfall to that can be if the product has a shelf life they could possibly expire. By doing this it can ensure ethical productivity in the work place. 

At Fresenius Kabi our job is to give the right tools needed in order to save the people who need it. We strive to work hard on a day to day basis to ensure these tools, whether it is medicine or technology will save lives! Our core values are Accountability, Customer Focus, and Excellence. These values are the roots to this company and all of our workers were trained to incorporate them throughout their work day. Accountability shows other employees, customers, and other companies that we are not afraid to hold ourselves accountable for a misunderstanding or making a mistake while working. Customer Focus shows we revolve our company around customer satisfaction. This ensures our customers are happy at all times. Excellence is very important to us because we are in such a competitive market, we need to be at peak performance at all times. 

References

Berman, Mark. “Nebraska Pushes to Carry out the Country's First Execution Using Fentanyl.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 31 May 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/national/2018/05/31/nebraska-pushes-to-carry-out-the-countrys-first-execution-using-fentanyl/?utm_term=.e3815815e0e3.

Croucher, Shane. “Nebraska Will Make History in Its Execution of a Death Row Inmate.” Newsweek, 14 Aug. 2018,www.newsweek.com/carey-dean-moore-nebraska-fentanyl-lethal-injection-death-row-execution-1071741.

France-Presse, Agence. “German Drug Maker Sues to Halt Planned Execution in Nebraska.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Aug. 2018, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/08/german-drug-maker-sues-to-halt-planned-execution-in-nebraska.

“Home - Fresenius Kabi Global.” Home - Fresenius Kabi Global, 2019, www.fresenius-kabi.com/.

Press, The Associated. “Judge Rejects Drugmaker's Attempt to Block Nebraska Execution.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/judge-rejects-drugmakers-attempt-to-block-nebraska-execution.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer.

Royal Dutch Shell: Climate Groups Threaten Lawsuit (2018-Present)

Ethics Case Controversy

Royal Dutch Shell is one of the world’s largest companies and is among the top for the oil and gas corporations.  The company is headquartered the Netherlands but controls all of its own processes from drilling oil to shipping it.  Like most oil and gas companies, Shell has had it fair share of threats and protests from environmental groups that are against the harmful effects that these companies have on the environment and climate.  However, seven human rights and environmental groups led by the Friends of the Earth Netherlands have banded together to file a lawsuit against Shell.           

The Lawsuit seeks to force shell to align its current business model with the goals of the Paris Agreement.  The agreement seeks to “strengthen the global response of the threat of climate change by keeping global temperature rise this century well below two degrees Celsius”, while also strengthening the ability for countries to fight the impacts that climate change has had (UNCC). 

Shell was one of many companies that stated that they “strongly supported” the Paris Agreement, yet they have not taken any action to change their current business strategy.  It was also discovered that Shell was aware of the damages their practices were having on the environment and that they had been for years as well as reports of Shell funding climate denial groups.  This led the environmental groups to file the lawsuit, however they have given Shell until the 5^th of April, 2019 to change their current strategy or they will deliver a court summons to the company.  The suit seeks to make Shell responsible for the environmental damages that they have caused.  It was not until they received pressure from their investors that Shell stated they will establish short term carbon emissions targets in 2020.  Whether or not Shell’s current plans are up to the groups standards has yet to be decided.

Stakeholders

                In the case of the Royal Dutch Shell lawsuit, there are several stakeholders.  The stakeholders in the lawsuit itself are, Shell, which includes employees and shareholders, the Netherlands government were the suit will be taking place, and the seven climate groups going against Shell, which includes Friends of the Earth Netherlands, Greenpeace, ActionAid, Both ENDS, Wadden Sea Forum, Young Friends of the Earth, and Fossil Free

NL.  The global population is also a stakeholder in this case because if the world’s climate were to drastically change, people from all cultures would be seriously affected.

Individualism

                When looking at Shell’s actions from an individualistic standpoint, their current business model aligns with the ethical rule that their actions should maximize the profits for the business while staying within the confines of the law.  Current laws that combat climate change are relatively vague and therefore easy to move around and find loopholes in.  An example of this is the Paris Agreements NDCs, or Nationally Determined Contributions, which leave deciding whether or not a company’s contributions to fighting climate change are adequate or not to the company’s national government.  Therefore, prior to the lawsuit, Shells actions and business model are completely ethical from an individualistic stand point as the company is primarily focused on making profits within the law.  If the lawsuit goes through and the Netherlands government decides that Shell’s current actions are not sufficient enough to meet the Paris Agreement, they will be legally required to change their business model.  If they do not then change in that case, their actions would no longer be individualistically ethical.

Utilitarianism

                A Utilitarian would view Shell’s current business model and practices as being unethical because Utilitarianism seeks happiness for any and all beings that are capable of feeling it and happiness and pleasure are the only things of intrinsic value.  Shell may currently be making its owners happy with the profits it is making off of the current oil business, however it is not maximizing the happiness of the other stakeholders that are affected by its decisions.  The simple fact that environmental and human rights groups are trying to sue Shell for their current practices means they are not happy with what the company is doing and the decisions it is making.  If Shell wished for its actions to be seen as ethical from a utilitarian view the company would need to start shifting towards alternative means of fuel and energy to please environmental and human rights groups, as well as the general public, while also maintaining the happiness of company owners and investors by likely making a profit.

Kantianism

                For Kantianism, one must use the Formula of Humanity as well as making sure that the right motivation is present when looking at Shell’s actions.  Currently they do not follow this formula as they view both the environment where they dig for oil and those who purchase their products as purely a means of making money for the company.  If they saw their customers or the environment as having true value, Shell would likely take more steps to ensure their safety.  Shell also fails to find the right motivation in this case.  They are not motivated to agree with and support the Paris Agreement because it is good for the environment and will help build a more sustainable future, instead they make statements that they agree with and support the agreement to make the company look better and create a better image for themselves.  They acted inconsistently with their own statements to make themselves seem better than they actually were making shells actions unethical from a Kantian perspective.

Virtue Theory

                From a business perspective, there are four main virtues that are used to evaluate a business’s characteristics in Virtue Theory.  The virtues are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.  Shell fails to contain even one of these virtues in their recent actions and practices.  Shell did not show courage but instead cowardice as it did not take any risks in changing its business strategy for the betterment of the environment.  Shell was also not honest in their actions towards the Paris Agreement and were dishonest when saying they supported the Paris Agreement.  They also did not set reasonable expectations and desires for its own practices and instead acted as if their actions were fine and did not affect the environment, which was unreasonable and failing to show temperance. Because shell fails to display any of the four virtues of business, their current strategy is unethical from the point of view of Virtue Theory.

Ethics Evaluations

As it currently stands, Shells business practices and actions are still legal due to some of the vagueness that exists in the Paris Agreement.  However, the outcome of the seven environmental group’s lawsuit could change the Netherlands governments view on what Shell is doing.  Based on these facts, I personally believe Shell to be unethical in this situation because they are claiming to support actions like the Paris Agreement, that act for the better of the environment and the climate, while using loopholes to avoid changing their harmful tactics is very underhanded and unethical.  If all goes well for the Friends of the Earth and the other groups, Shell will need to make some big changes to move its business towards more sustainable activities. 

Action Plan

Shell will need to start changing its current business strategy to better align with the Paris Agreements goals of sustainability.  They will need to create a business plan that will lay out its plan to move towards sustainable energy in the coming years.  Asking the company to switch to renewable energy overnight would impossible to do, so instead, the plan should allow Shell to slowly start to move the companies resources from oil and gas to renewable energy.  They would start by moving the budget used to further develop oil and gas to developing sustainable energy technology. 

Shell would then start to introduce these new products to the public and begin selling them.  Assuming the products are well received and meet the standards of the Paris Agreement, Shell could start to slowly phase out its oil and gas production as the world moves towards more renewable sources.  Doing this will not be a quick or easy task, and in order to make sure the plan is being implemented smoothly a team of both high ranking company personnel and representatives from the Paris Agreement and other sustainable energy companies would be brought in to oversee the changes.  It will not be an easy task to move the world in the direction of renewable energy, but if large corporations like Royal Dutch Shell help pave the way, it could be doable in the foreseeable future.

Trent Robinson

References:

Climate Investigations Center. (n.d.). Shell Climate Documents. Retrieved from https://climateinvestigations.org/shell-oil-climate-documents/

CNN WIRE. (2019, February 12). Climate groups threaten lawsuit to force Shell to ditch oil. Retrieved from https://wgno.com/2019/02/12/climate-groups-threaten-lawsuit-to-force-shell-to-ditch-oil

Drugmand, D. (2019, February 14). Shell faces lawsuit in the Netherlands, a new legal front in climate battle. Retrieved from https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/02/12/shell-netherlands-lawsuit-climate-change/

Hone January 18, D. (2019, February 06). Increasing ambition under the Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://blogs.shell.com/2019/01/18/increasing-ambition-under-the-paris-agreement/

Kottasová, I. (2019, February 12). Climate groups threaten lawsuit to force Shell to ditch oil. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/12/business/climate-change-shell-oil/index.html

Salazar, H. (n.d.). The Business Ethics Case Manual: The Authoritative Step-by-Step Guide to Understanding and Improving the Ethics of Any Business.

Shell Global. (n.d.). What we do. Retrieved from https://www.shell.com/about-us/what-we-do.html

Shell Global. (n.d.). Our values. Retrieved from https://www.shell.com/about-us/our-values.html

UNCC. (n.d.). The Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement