South African Investment

In your judgment, were the possible utilitarian benefits of building the Caltex plant in 1977 more important than the possible violations of moral rights and of justice that may be involved? Justify your answer fully by identifying the possible benefits and the possible violations of rights and justice that you may be associated with the building of the plant and explaining which you think are more important. In my judgment I feel that both possible utilitarian benefits of building the Caltex plant in 1977 and the violations of moral rights and of justice involved.

The building of the Caltex plant provided economic support for South Africa. Caltex plant operations played a huge impact on South Africa economy and other social benefits. The economy of South Africa was driven by Caltex operations in tax revenues, government, politicians and police salaries. The utilitarian benefit that the Caltex plant gave was economic power and income to South Africa government and globalization. Although the government benefited from the Caltex building plant in South Africa, African Americans did not. “Generally speaking, therefore, standards concerned with moral rights have greater weight than either utilitarian standards or standards of justice” (Velasquez, 2006).

Caltex had a code that was a violation of rights and justice to African Americans working conditions. The South African law required detached services and laws that prohibited blacks from becoming apprentices. I think that moral rights and of justice is more important and should be considered in any situation or conflict. “

Social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity” ( Velasquez, 2006). Yes, the Caltex plant had utilitarian benefits that China country as a whole may have benefited from economically, but there still were violations of moral rights and justice that the Chinese workers were forced to endure.

There is no doubt that the shareholders and South African government benefited from Caltex plant building financially as well. In a way Caltex plant building lead to more laws that were inappropriate towards the Chinese workers and moral principles that only the government can change. If you were a stockholder in Texaco or Standard Oil (now named Chevron), how do you believe you ought to vote on the three kinds of stockholder’s resolutions that were proposed (the first asking Caltex to terminate its operations, the second asking Caltex not to sell to the military or police of South Africa, and the third asking Caltex to implement the Tutu principles)?

Justify your answer fully. If I was a stockholder in Texaco or Standard Oil I would vote against the resolution to terminate operations in South Africa.

Texaco Inc, and Chevron, through Caltex is one of the largest U.S. investments in South Africa, with assets of approximately 300 million. Another reason I would vote against the resolution would be “such withdrawal would endanger prospects for the future of all Caltex employees in South Africa regardless of race” (1977). Terminating operations in South Africa would definitely not be a good choice because there are too many investments, profits, economy finances, and jobs that rely on the company operations. This operation seems to be South Africa main source when we speak in terms of income supply. Secondly, I would also vote against asking Caltex not to sell to military or police of South Africa. “

It would be a crime under South Africa’s law were Caltex-South Africa to undertake a commitment to not supply petroleum products for use by the South African military or any other branch of the South African government” ( 1985,p.2). I also feel if stockholders vote against this resolution it lessens the chance that more problems and issues will come from what is already occurred from government and workers. Thirdly, I would vote for the implementation of the Tutu principle because the principle will improve economic and social opportunities for black labor workers.

Black workers moral rights and justice can be enforced through these principles. What kind of responses should the mangers of Texaco and Social have made to each of the three resolutions? Justify your answer fully. The managers of Texaco should have made these three resolutions their top priority to solve. In doing so making sure that labor workers will not be affected by their decisions about these resolutions and be fair, accurate, and clear in the choices that needs to be made.

Also these mangers have a moral duty to come up with resolutions that both sides can benefit from and still be able to protect their investment in the process. “In some cases, the correlative duties imposed by a right may fall not on any specific individual, but on all members of a group” (Velasquez, 2006). So the mangers of Texaco should ensure that each resolution will lead to bigger and better things for the company, workers, and government of South Africa.

In your judgment, does the management of a company have any responsibilities (i.e., duties) beyond ensuring a high return for its stockholders? Should the management of a company look primarily to the law and to the rate on its investment as the ultimate criteria for deciding what investments it should make? Why or Why not? In my opinion and judgment yes, the management of a company have the responsibility beyond ensuring a high return for it stockholders because not doing so could affect the social aggregate of their company.

As a manager of a company it’s your duty to serve the employer as well as their company investments. This shows that the managers are looking out for the interest of the employee and the company returns for returns and investment. I also feel that managers of accompany should look primarily to the law and to the rate on its investment when deciding what investment to make if there are no violations or injustice on an individual moral rights. “If it is morally wrong, then, for a manger to do something out of self-interest” (Velasquez, 2006).

ReferenceInvestor Responsibility Research Center, Analysis E Supplement No. 9, 7 April 1977, p.E.114 The Corporate Examiner, vol. 14, no.5, 1985, p.2.Velasquez, M (2006) Business Ethic: Concepts and Cases (6th end) Upper Saddle River. Pearson Prentice Hall: ISBN: 0131930079