Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility
Introduction
It is not ethical for origin energy or any organization in obtaining CSG against the will of landowners. Coal seam gas operations in Queensland’s have developed scenes of conflict, confusion as well as the occurrence of chaos (MacKinnon, 2012). The center of this issue is based on land conflict as the land owners are entitled to their individual rights. The owners of land are entitled to restraining those that access their land based on the right of property protection. The land conflict has thus led to the development of community associations that are purposed at restraining accompanies accessing lands without obtaining consents from the land owners. In queen land, CSG operations are rapidly growing and this has led to the rise of communal concern as more companies are accessing and damaging land thus increasing anxiety on the owners (MacKinnon, 2012). Landowners are ethically allowed to restrain corporations from accessing and damaging lands in the quest of exploiting CSG. This paper will thus present an analysis of the unethical conduct of Origin energy in accessing CSG without the consent of land owners using theories of ethics, corporate social responsibility, stakeholder management and ASX principles and recommendations.
It is unethical for a corporation to access CSG without the permission of the land owner. This is mainly because individuals in Australian perceive land as a form of a palace and they hold lands as desired assets (MacKinnon, 2012). The view is, therefore, essential in capturing the mutual Australian right perception in regard to land ownership. This view is therefore accepted generally in the common land law in which the landowner’s holds absolute rights of determining those that accesses the land and those that should remain in their particular land property. In doing this the owner of the land in a significant manner enjoys the ability of his right of excluding any individual from accessing their land (MacKinnon, 2012).
The common law, therefore, places the owners of land the control right, reserve entitlement and control the access of exploiting petroleum or other minerals. Origin energy behavior was unethical because ethics offers a set of conduct standards that assists individuals in developing decisions of the suitable thing to in a range of options (Aristotle, & Reeve, 2014). In the general sense, ethics can be described as the way of developing decisions and providing a suitable rationale on why the decision was settled upon. Incorporate operations developing decisions about the right or the wrong thing to do in a common thing as it is involved in all levels of operation. Acting in a proper way as an organization is essential in developing a socially responsible organization and governance thus developing an ethical society. Ethics helps a corporation in deciding on the right and the wrong things to do as a corporation (Aristotle, & Reeve, 2014). Ethics is a philosophy branch that primarily seeks to understand and determine how the actions of human beings can be judged in the context of either right or wrong. These decisions are made based on ethics theories which include virtue, natural law, and consequentialism and Kantian deontologist (Aristotle, & Reeve, 2014).
Based on consequentialism theory the act of origin energy of accessing CSG without the permission of the landowner is unethical. This is because of the concepts of consequentialism theory hold that the rightness or the un-wellness of any decision or action can only be judged by the consequences that it leads to (Aristotle, & Reeve, 2014). The major form of this theory is utilitarianism concept which is often referred as social consequentialism theory which suggests that all the actions number conducted in a form that generates the greatest form of good for the greatest statistical number. The thing that makes an activity to be termed as either positive or negative or right or wrong is based on what the act produces. In order for the corporation to have acted ethically based on this concept, the action of accessing CSG should have generated the greatest pleasure amount which should not have caused any pain to the society or the land owners thus generating more good to more individuals. This is a principle that is based on the greatest happiness which implies that the action of the origin energy corporation was unethical. According to the theory, the corporation should aim at maximizing the good effects for the greatest individual’s number thus reducing the occurrence of negative outcomes. This means that the corporation should have opted for a decision that would benefit most individuals. For this reason, the action of the corporation was based on attaining personal pleasure thus ignoring the interest of the landowners a society in general (Aristotle, & Reeve, 2014).
Based on egoism theory of ethics the corporate acted in an ethical way. This is mainly because the theory holds that an individual should pursue only those actions that a result to increase self-desires (Duignan, 2011). The concept is mainly based on self in that the needs or the effects of other parties are not considered much as compared to others. On the other hand based on the theory of deontologist the corporation acting was unethical. The theory claims that any operation to conduct should be accomplished base on the fact that the action is characterized by appropriateness. This means that the action must be good with the interests of everyone or the actions are in a match with the moral laws of the particular society that a corporation opts in. Based on this theoretical perceptive the right and the wrong side of an action are independent of all the impacts generated because the action itself can be judged as either good or evil. It is thus clear from this concept that the corporation acted unethically because the action was meant to generate damage to the land and the operation was unethical because the company failed to access permission from the owners (Duignan, 2011).
From the theory of natural law, the corporation act of accessing CSG without the consent of the landowner was not ethical. The theory states that through a rational observation of nature an individual or corporation is bound to discover bad and the bad principles that direct their actions in a model that fulfills human needs. The theory, therefore, makes a suggestion that individuals hold the capacity within selves for paternal actualization. This theory, therefore, suggests that the actions of the origin energy corporation are not ethical (Duignan, 2011). In practical wisdom, the conduct of the corporation is unethical because it failed in incorporating the right decision. The acting in wisdom is a terminology that best describes the ability or an individual or a corporation in selecting actions patterns which can be termed as desirable. The actions patterns are informed through developing critical and moral thoughts which are driven by virtual experience. This can be achieved through the utilization of decisions as well duties in accomplishing particular things in the society. Based on ethical theories nature it is clear that the action of Origin Energy Corporation can be criticized (Duignan, 2011).
Corporate social responsibility refers to the practices of business that involves those particular initiatives that are aimed at benefitting the general society (De, 2015). Corporation is therefore expected to utilize and incorporate wider ranges of strategies which may involve giving charity or ensuring that the business conducts those activities that are sustainable. This, therefore, implies to incorporating programs that are aimed at ensuring that the future of other generations is secure through maintaining and developing the environment (De, 2015). Wastes materials or activities that promote environmental pollution are not encouraged in corporate responsibility because of their failure in considering the well-being and the interests of the public in general. From the definition, it is clear that Origin Energy Corporation acted in an unethical way because it failed in considering the wellbeing of the society. This was not a way of helping but destroying the environment.
Social responsibility can be depicted in various forms. One form that helps in explaining that the corporation was not socially responsible in this action is the environmental efforts that are incorporated (De, 2015). The major focus of corporate responsibility is the surrounding. In regard to corporate performance, any business regardless of its size is responsible for maintaining the environment based on the emissions that it generates (De, 2015). This, therefore, implies that the actions taken by origin energy were not socially responsible. The drilling of coal seam gas results in land damage as well as the environment. The corporation did not account for this as it additionally ignored the interest of the owner by failing to obtain consent.
Social responsibility in the modern business world is no longer measured by the general contribution of charity by an organization to the society (De, 2015). This is because it is measured by the general activities involvement that develops the quality of individual’s lives in the society. This was therefore not the case for origin energy. A corporation ethics and responsibility generally involves considering and undertaking those actions that are right morally. This involves performing activates that can be considered as appropriate in regard to moral standards. The corporation, therefore, focused on the expected profit that was to be generated from the action that forgetting to incorporate other things (De, 2015).
Social responsibility is the thought of being concerned within development human kind. Corporate responsibility is a significant subject in business operation as it helps in enveloping a good reputation for the corporation (Rajak, 2011). Through social responsibility concepts, it is clear that the organization should contribute to the society not b provision but by considering the effects of their decisions to the society as well as the economic world. It can be noted that the action that was undertaken by Origin Energy Corporation in obtaining CSG without the permission of the owner of the land does not meet the ethical standards that are required in the corporate responsibility surrounding (Rajak, 2011). The action of the organization can be seen as a devastating thing because of the devastating impacts on the large societal population. This action can thus be described as unethical because of the company gains from the practice while the society including the land owners loses their interests because of the negative effects that the particular action generates (Rajak, 2011). This means that through this particular practice most individuals in the society are bound to be subjected to suffering and especially those that owns the lands.
Businesses are considered as essential areas of the society from which their practices are conducted. Extended success of a corporation is highly dependent on the well-being of the society (Rajak, 2011). Therefore intelligent and well-governed organization clearly understands that they can never achieve prosperity if the society is not well. The failure of any society can be viewed through governance, social as well as environmental difficulties (Rajak, 2011). The society holds a high expectation of the corporation industry in the context of responsibility, development as well as ethical conduct. This is in that the services, as well as the brands that are offered by an organization, are expected to be a clear reflection of environmental and social responsibility. On the other hand, the shareholders largely expect the maximization of revenue to be based on social responsibility which helps in developing additional opportunities. Corporate responsibility growing interested is clearly visible. For the case of origin energy, the concern in regard to environmental degradation is an essential factor that helps in establishing the unethical performance of the corporation (Rajak, 2011). Environmental conservation is now an increasing significant for every individual in the society. The corporation, therefore, failed in accomplishing the concern of the public because it did not consider the effects of its actions on the environment. Social responsibility in the environmental context basically refers to protection all the aspects of the environment. The social responsibility of the corporation is that it was expected to ensure that fairness was ensured in running all its activities which generally involved obtaining CSG with the general consent of the corporation (Rajak, 2011).
In social responsibility of a corporation, environmental protection is the central aspect of running effective organizations (Mullerat, & Brennan, 2011). This is therefore argued to be the major concern of corporations as it helps in ensuring the well-being of the society. From the context of social responsibility, it is unethical for origin Energy Corporation to be generating profits at the expense of human beings interests as well as the destruction of the environment. It is, therefore, clear that the corporation should establish better forms of handling activities that may destroy the environment. Before obtaining CSG consent and tests should have to be conducted first. This is to ensure that the safety of both the environment and that of the individuals is ensured. This is to ensure that the lives of individuals and the wellness of the environment are not harmed in any means (Mullerat, & Brennan, 2011). The organization failed in utilizing corporate responsibility as a mechanism of control in maintains reasonability for their practices.
It is clear that social responsibility for any corporation is an essential element in the business world (Mullerat, & Brennan, 2011). This is because it assists in developing a better reputation for the corporation. Social responsibility does necessarily imply to the act of providing an only financial contribution. It is thus unethical for Origin energy to participate in activities which result in environmental degradation. This is because increasing profit gain at the expense of individuals in the society is not an ethical practice. This, therefore, implies that maintaining a corporation that is socially responsible and that observes high standards of ethics is not a choice that corporations are to make because they are obliged to doing so in all operations of the business. Investing s social responsibility is essential in contributing to both investment and obligation objectives of a corporation. This helps in ensuring that the corporation is obliged and responsible for its actions thus ensuring the societal wellbeing via societal justice, economic growth and surrounding friendly practices these elements cannot only be defined as social corporate responsibility features because they help in demonstrating the corporations ability to practice ethics (Mullerat, & Brennan, 2011).
In the context of Stakeholder management concept, the organization should have considered both moral and managing values (Phillips, 2007). The theory of stakeholder management can be described as a conceptual framework and corporation management which addresses both ethical and moral values in an organization’s management. The actions of the stakeholders in a business are essential in determining the business decisions impact. It is clear that the Origin energy organization considered their shareholder's value. This is because the corporation was more targeted at ensuring that it maximized its profit at the expense of the societal interest through exploiting their needs. However, the shareholders are made up of community groups whose interests and consents were ignored (Phillips, 2007). These are particularly the individuals who own the lands. The operations of corporations are determined by consent given by the community. Therefore accessing the consent of the individual simply implies that the corporation had obtained a license to operating freely u a community. Shareholders are basically the employees, consumers, suppliers, and investors. Origin Energy Corporation failed to obtain consent from the landowners who are the general suppliers of CSG. Being attentive to all the shareholders including the government is morally right because this is a social responsibility. This helps in establishing enhances as well as threats in the market (Phillips, 2007). The reputation of an organization is fully determined by having quality relationships with the shareholders. This is a core function of business success. Effective communication should, therefore, be maintained. From this perspective, it is clear that Origin Corporation failed to act in a responsible and ethical manner.
In conclusions, ethics and social responsibility corporate can be referred as self-regulated activities which are additional to large corporations models of business. This can thus be termed as an extended marker which helps in securing the prosperity of each business. Despite the fact that ethical and social responsibilities conducts help in generating more income for the corporation this aspect are helpful as they strengthen the image of a brand thus ensuring that the market consumer base is established. From this perspective, the action of Origin Energy Corporation to obtaining CSG without the permission of the landowners can be criticized as being unethical. This is mainly because the general role of any business is not mainly to generate revenue, employment, brands, and services or even being obedient to the law because they should additionally take respective responsibility for their actions. This should, therefore, be accomplished through encouraging and offering support to the general requirements of the community that are of relevance to the particular business. The corporation, therefore, failed in attaining the required ethical and social responsibility standards in their quest of obtaining CSG without human interests, rights and environmental concerns consideration. This practice can, therefore, be termed as unethical.
References
Aristotle,. & Reeve, C. D. C. (2014). Nicomachean ethics. Hackett Publishing.
De, Z. F. (2015). Enhancing firm sustainability through governance: The relational corporate governance approach.
Duignan, B. (2011). Thinkers and theories in ethics. New York: Britannica Educational Pub. in association with Rosen Education Services.
MacKinnon, B. (2012). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues, concise edition. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Mullerat, R., & Brennan, D. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: The corporate governance of the 21st century. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
Phillips, R. A. (2007). Stakeholder Theory: Impacts and Prospects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.
Rajak, D. (2011). In Good Company: An Anatomy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
