Topic: Laws defining environmental offences typically allow a defence of `due diligence’: if a company has done everything it could to avoid the harm occurring, it can escape blame even if the harm does occur. Why is such a defence a good idea from the ethical point of view? Would BP, on the facts as given in the case scenario, have a defence of `due diligence’ as regards the harm they caused to the environment in Alaska? If so, why? If not, why not?
To study or make reasoning on whether BP’s “due diligence” defense can actually exist, the first thing need to consider is the reasonability of effort in which is used to prevent the incident gave rise to the suit. In order to successfully defend that the company did exercise “reasonable efforts”, there are two main branches need to be satisfied:
First, that the defendant demonstrate that it “reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if proved, would render the prohibited act or omission innocent”. (Thomspon Rivesr University)
In BP’s case, the pass incident of false alarm could be used by BP to defend itself. However, given the fact that 3 alarm warnings were set off during a relative short period of time, it is hard to defend that the “false alarm” excuse can be used to say that the warning was “a mistaken that render the prohibited act or omission innocent”.
Second, the defendant must prove that it took reasonable steps to avoid the particular prohibited event. This second branch is most often used in defence arguments and can be substantiated through written procedures, adequate supervision, appropriate training and instruction, etc. However, based on the case scenario and facts, it was hard to make a clear judgement on whether the procedures, supervision and training/instruction were appropriately and adequately in place. Nonetheless, the case brings up facts such as the low/minimum maintenance