Gvm Exploration Limited

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s): 1380
  • Published: February 12, 2009
Read full document
Text Preview
Case: GVM Exploration Limited

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background3
Timeline3
Ethical Issues3
Ethical dilemma faced by the CC4
Ethical issue from GVMs Perspective5
Economic Responsibility5
Legal Responsibility5
Social Responsibility5
CSR Plans6
Ecosystem6
Conservation of Heritage6
Courses of Actions7
Filing for Injunction7
Do nothing – Let other companies resolve the issue7
Sub lease or outsourcing the project7
Our Recommendation8
Settle in private8
The Problem8
1st step of the solution – Better Communication8
2nd step of the solution – Start the Dovik Creek Project9 3rd step of the solution – Highlight benefits of Project and calm fears over destruction of the environment9 Conclusion10
Appendix11
Table 111
Table 212
Chart A13
Annex A14
Annex B15
Annex C – UCG (Underground Coal Gasification)17

Background

Timeline

To understand and analyses the ethical issues in this case, we first need a good understanding of the facts and problems of this case. The timeline below shows the flow of actions and activities for GVM Ltd and for the Grizzly Valley First Nations (GVFN) group.

Ethical Issues

a) Does the Central Council (CC) leader have the right to sell off local land resources without the consent of all those in the community? b) Should GVM proceed with the exploration project, with the knowledge that there is dispute within the GVFN group?

Ethical dilemma faced by the CC

To answer this issue our main arguments are based on whether or not the leader is the elected representative of the community? If so, then what rights does he hold as the leader and whether these rights extend to the sale of local land resources without communication of this sale? If he is not the elected representative, then the second question need not be answered. The underlying assumption in this scenario is that the contracts that the leader is entering into are for the benefit of the whole community and not for personal profits.

The CC leader is elected by the bands, and here we assume that it’s based on fair voting by all the 20 CC members, and thus has the right to decide for the community. In other words, the leader that they have elected has the right to decide on their behalf (Libertarianism). Thus just as the bands have the right to pick whom they feel best represent their band in the CC, the same representatives have the right to pick the best CC leader and this leader thus has the right make decision for the GVFN groups, thus giving everyone equal opportunity to express their views (Social Justice, Distributive Justice).

From the CC leader’s perspective, the development of mining will improve the living standard of the bands through job creation and urbanization of the area. This shift could have negative and positive implications but we believe that the effect on the majority are positive (Ethics of Care) and the leader owes care to the majority rather than minority.

The stand that the sale brings about greater benefit for the majority is supported by the fact the Utilitarianism[1] table that shows clearly how the potential benefits of this project outweigh the potential harms from it. The emphasis, again, is based on the fact that the better standard of living for future generations can greatly improve the lifestyles and the cultures of GVFN groups.

However, we also came across possible arguments as to why the leader might not have the right. Even though the elders are minorities of the community, the CC leader should not disregard them during his decision making process and respecting their role, as the Elders of the GVFN groups, should consult them thus respecting their dignity (Kantian Ethics). Also not forgetting that the Elders might not be as adaptable as the younger generation to the fast paced development of grizzly valley (Social Justice, Principle of justice). The Elders should enjoy their rights and no one should suppress them and so they...
tracking img