Background 3 Timeline 3 Ethical Issues 3 Ethical dilemma faced by the CC 4 Ethical issue from GVMs Perspective 5 Economic Responsibility 5 Legal Responsibility 5 Social Responsibility 5 CSR Plans 6 Ecosystem 6 Conservation of Heritage 6 Courses of Actions 7 Filing for Injunction 7 Do nothing – Let other companies resolve the issue 7 Sub lease or outsourcing the project 7 Our Recommendation 8 Settle in private 8 The Problem 8 1st step of the solution – Better Communication 8 2nd step of the solution – Start the Dovik Creek Project 9 3rd step of the solution – Highlight benefits of Project and calm fears over destruction of the environment 9 Conclusion 10 Apart from this, if GVM analyses its situation objectively they might realise the harm that they could cause and thus not go ahead with the project (Social Justice, Veil of Ignorance).
However to assess the level of social responsibility owed, we need to look at various stakeholders that are effected by GVMs actions (Utilitarianism table[3]). As mentioned before, the benefits to GVFN outweigh the harms, same being true for GVM, and another important stakeholder is the Canadian Government who greatly benefit by this as coal is a major contributor to the GDP.
In conclusion we believe that GVM should go ahead with the project. The reason for our conclusion being that from an economic and a legal responsibility stand point GVM is in no breach but for the Social responsibility it’s not as clear. Thus we suggest that GVM carry out CSR plans to minimise the consequences of their actions (Virtue Ethics, Corrective/ Compensatory Justice).
CSR Plans
The CSR plans that we suggest to GVM to pick from are the following. Our CSR aim is to try to prevent harm and to do good for society. The plans are divided into two categories: Plans for the Ecosystem and Conservation of Heritage.
Ecosystem
To prevent the ecosystem GVM can try and adopt Responsible mining practises. Such
