Dilemma Solving Ethics

...

These are possible solutions according to the strategies from Carroll’s theory of Corporate Social Responsiveness. Next, Global Compact principles on human rights application to the case will be discussed.

Global Compact principles on human rights application to the case

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the rights of local people are violated because the harbour modernization will deny them the right of security and will treat them poorly (Articles 3 and 5), it will interfere with their homes and families (Article 12), and it will deprive the locals of their property (Article 17).

- Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

- Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

- Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

- Article 17. 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

The Nordic shipping company has recently joined Global Compact which is a United Nations initiative to encourage businesses worldwide to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies, and to report on their implementation. The UN Global Compact is a principle-based framework for businesses, stating ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption (Wikipedia).

By joining Global Compact, the Nordic Shipping company has committed to promote sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. Therefore, it should deal according to the United Nations Global Conduct Principles on human rights.

Principle 1 says that businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights through core business activities in support of UN goals and issues, strategic social investment and philanthropy, advocacy and public policy engagement, and partnership and collective action. In this particular case the company should support and protect human rights by preventing the forcible displacement of individuals, groups or communities, and by working to protect the economic livelihood of local communities (United Nations Global Compact Principles).

Principle 2 says that businesses should make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses that another company, government, individual or other group is causing. The risk of complicity in a human rights abuse may be particularly high in areas with weak governance and/or where human rights abuse is widespread. The company should privately and publicly condemn systematic and continuous human rights abuses, identify those functions within the firm that are most at risk of becoming linked to human rights abuses, conduct a human rights impact assessment consisting of an analysis of the possible human rights impacts it may have on the community or region.

Undoubtedly, the harbour modernization project violates the human rights. If the project starts and the local authorities provide no housing alternative for the local people from the harbour area, these citizens are deprived of their living facilities.

The violation of human rights is a major concern for the Nordic shipping company. Using the human rights principles of the Global Compact and Kant’s second maxim about treating people always as an end and never as a means only, the company should make a decision in order to solve this dilemma. It can either choose to stand by, do nothing and rationalize its choice (reaction) or choose a course of action that could benefit all the relevant groups (pro-action).

The reaction response denies all the responsibilities and does not consider the human rights of the locals in the harbour. Using the defence response, the company only tries to build good public recognition, taking the minimum responsibilities and barely supports the human rights of the local citizens. Alternatively, when the company decides to choose the accommodation or pro-action strategies, it respects and supports the human rights by accepting responsibilities and doing what is demanded by the locals (relevant group in this case), the pro-action response even supports the human rights facing the possibility of substantial financial losses and deterioration of relations with the harbour management.

According to the first principle, the company should prevent negative impact on the local society or neutralize it as much as possible. A possible solution could be to establish partnerships with other companies using the harbour by taking collective action in raising funds to help prevent the forcible displacement of the locals and protect their economic livelihood. The united companies should also negotiate with the harbour management and if it will not seem to agree to help the locals, contact NGOs which work on supporting the human rights, contact media and make the campaign public, and contact the local government.

According to the second principle, even though the shipping company is not the one responsible for the construction and not the one to blame for the locals losing their homes, not reacting to the rights violations makes it the culprit together with the harbour management. Therefore, the company should privately and publicly express the concern about this problem, inform the board of directors of such an issue, and work on the strategy of solving the problem.

Two main courses of action analysis using the Navigation Wheel

Recommendations to the shipping company, based on the discussion above

There are two main courses of action that from our perspective are the most feasible for the Nordic shipping company to be implemented and that we analyzed using the Navigation Wheel methodology [1]. To estimate the feasibility of the strategy we used integrated approach that balances ethical and reputational effects with budgeting ones (pro-active response was excluded from the analysis since it’s not feasible given huge expenses).

Alternative 1: (Accommodation)

Cooperate with NGOs for the long-term growth

Cooperation with NGOs will positively affect our company’s reputation and thus present positive figure to the customers and the local society. In this regard, this option can lead