Justice, Individual Rights, and Responsibilities to Stakeholders

• Investors
Under the concept of Justice for Musk as Buffett in each of his positions find that it is fair for
each of them what they are doing. Because for Musk his goal through his company Solar City is
to deliver sustainable solar energy to consumers with an initial investment in installation
equipment and that the public will pay it over time. and for Buffet the objective is to offer the
service of conventional hydroelectric energy through his company Nevada Energy where he has
invested millions of dollars in renewable energies for the population of Nevada
As an advisor to NPUC (Nevada Public Utility Commission) the recommendation under the
parameter of justice the billionaire winner is Buffett because his investments over time have
been to reinvest in his citizens and pay taxes that are returned to his citizens also generating
thousands of long-term jobs
According to the protection of human rights initially, with Solar City owned by Musk as an
advisor to NPUC, we can determine that Musk's rights were violated because the public service
commission did not allow free competition in Nevada by increasing user rates with which it
ceased to be an attractive investment and had to finally withdraw from Nevada leaving the way
free to Nevada Energy owned by Buffet. and sole end provider of energy service in Nevada
As for the responsibility of investors, they limited themselves to protecting their economic
interests where the winner was Buffett because he managed to get the utility commission to
increase energy rates for the population that used Musk's solar panels.
• Customers
As for Justice for customers or end consumers Musk as an advisor to NPUC, Musk is the investor
that provides in the short time a better benefit for customers because with the investment in
the leasing of installation equipment they will pay lower monthly energy service costs while
continuing with conventional energy service with Nevada Energy owned by Buffett will continue
to pay higher rates for the Same service
Solar City customers like Musk saw their rights violated because they initially paid for leasing an
investment of installation equipment and solar panels and in the end by the decision of the
Nevada Public Utilities Commission were affected because they lost their investment and, in the
end, had to pay increased rates
As for shareholder responsibility to customers where what is promised must be fulfilled, as well
as being honest and direct, Solar City customers were affected because they could not recover
their investments due to the final increase in electric service rates.
• Communities
According to the justice, the communities with Musk's proposal initially benefited since with an
initial investment they began to pay a lower value for the same service, however, after the
Nevada Public Utilities Commission increased the rates to recover the lost costs they were
highly affected. In this sense, the winner, in the end, ended up being Buffet who remained in
Nevada providing the energy service, and Musk seeing that the profitability was not the same
withdrew from Nevada the community was harmed by having paid for solar energy installation
equipment that in the end could not recover because the cost of the public service ended up
being the same as it paid with the energy service. conventional
For the communities, human rights were not considered by any of the investors, neither Musk
nor Buffett because they ended up being used only as instruments for the personal wealth of
investors.
Concerning shareholder responsibility for communities, both Solar City and Nevada Energy met
what was necessary for the communities by offering a quality service.
• Environment
Under the aspect of justice when evolving in renewable energies, both the investments of Musk
and Buffett provide benefits for the environment in general.
The winner in this case with both proposals is, in general, the environment and the use of
natural resources such as water and solar energy.
Under the environmental issue, human rights were violated because renewable energies were
not qualified in the first place, but on the contrary environmental rights were in the
background.
For the responsibility of shareholders with the environment, the investor who triumphed was
Musk with Solar City because initially when he arrived in Nevada, he provided environmentally
friendly energy by using solar panels.
• Employees
The concept of employee justice ended up being inequitable for Musk-owned Solar City
employees who lost their jobs once the company pulled out of Nevada.
After Musk determined his investment was not paying off due to increased rates for users of his
energy services.
In the case of the Nevada Energy employees owned by Buffett, the decision of the Nevada
Public Utilities Commission was fair because initially when Solar City arrived in Nevada offering
solar panels decreasing the cost of the service, they were harmed, but after they increased the
rates the community had only to rehire the services of Nevada Energy, thus maintaining their
jobs
Under the aspect of human rights for employees, there was no social responsibility to
employees in the case of Musk because once it ceased to be a good investment, the Solar City
company closed its operations in Nevada.
As for the Responsibilities to Stakeholders where the first responsibility of an organization is to
provide a job to employees Keep people employed and allow them to have time to enjoy the
fruits of their labor in the case of Solar City, it was not taken into account that employees were
harmed once the operation in Nevada ceased to be profitable, while Nevada Energy
employees, on the contrary, continued to keep their jobs