3.Provide three Issue related factors in ethical decision making to explain the residents’ unwillingness to act against the mine company. Use case material to illustrate your arguments.
4.Give two Examples of how Xstrata can promote Ethical Decision Making in the mine as a Workplace. Use case Material to Illustrate your arguments.
1.The reasons behind the government not having a fundamental commitment to the issue of the company polluting the environment are because the enterprise is a greater contributor offering many local people of Mount Isa jobs. The company also has put into place systems to reduce pollution by removing pollutants in the Mount Isa River and projects intended to reduce pollution. The manager of the company argues it has the most extensive system in Australia. However, the government has the duty to regulate the business instead of letting it manage its emission as it may be biased (Crane, Matten, & Spence, 2008).
2.Carry out intensive research on the complaints that the locals bring about the lead emissions and the duties of the company to make better decisions on the steps to take.
Consult when making a decision and take into considerations the finding of other researchers instead of arguing they are baseless to cover a situation they are clearly aware it is dangerous.
Be ethical in making decision to protect the people from any harm. It is unethical for them to allow the company destroy the lives of the people regardless of the contributions to the economy. Firms have an obligation to conserve the environment (Weber, 2008, pp. 247-261).
The findings reveal that the areas are not safe for people to live but they argue that all this are false as some have lived there for many years without any effects. Workers are not aware of precautionary measures, and they wash their overalls at homes like Jeffrey increasing the infection rates. Vehicles from the mine leave when they are dusty, and this increases pollution
The individuals are ignorance of the fact that there is pollution; they do not care as long as the effects are not affecting their lives. The people are only thinking of the financial benefits they get from the company because of employments. Louise Armstrong, an indigenous inhabitant, does not believe lead pollution and does not care to test his children. The company had not started mining, so there was no exposure before.
Dependency on the enterprise.
The people depend on the company both directly and indirectly for survival. The company has employed 4000 people, and 5000 rely on it indirectly. These factors make the people unable to act against the company as it is the source of their daily incomes.
4.Control pollution of the company to the environment. It is true that the company is monitoring its emissions as Ed Turley, the company's environmental manager notes but it seems that something is wrong or cover-ups among the concerned parties. Research findings by Northern Territory's Charles Darwin University, Niels Munksgaard and Mark Taylor, of Sydney's Macquarie University, indicated that the mine was producing high levels of lead that other places like Romania and Japan yet their findings were ignored. The parents who are victims like Powe are assumed too, but the fact remains that the company is causing more harm to the people than good (Trevino, & Nelson, 2010).
Take responsibility and compensate the children who have been victims of the lead poisoning in Mount Isa. Brenda Oliver and her husband, Jeffrey come to the area to look for greener pastures, but the lead emission made their 13yr old son Ryan have learning and behavioural difficulties. Daphne Hare also came to work, but her daughter Stella recorded high levels of lead of 17mcg/dl and could frequently get sick. She decided to sue the parties involved before returning to her hometown. All this point to the evils of the company despite no actions taken to compensate the families for the harms they caused (De George, 2011).
5.I would surveys and questionaries to get information from the people. The two methods would enable me to get information from the people even those who fear to thunder in fears of losing their jobs. In this ways, true information will be obtained (Taylor, Bogdan, & DeVault, 2015).
6.Surveys and questionnaires may limit the range of data I received from the respondents making the research not useful. The respondents may be reluctant to give complete information on the fear of it being used against them in case it gets on unauthorized persons (Hoonakker, & Carayon, 2009, pp.348-373).
Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (Eds.). (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. London: Routledge.
De George, R. T. (2011). Business ethics. Pearson Education India.
Hoonakker, P., & Carayon, P. (2009). Questionnaire survey nonresponse: A comparison of postal mail and internet surveys. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(5), 348-373.
Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2010). Managing business ethics. John Wiley & Sons.
Weber, M. (2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), 247-261.