Case Study on BHP

Q1. Define the six factors that impact ethical intensity when making decisions. Identify two factors that you think BHP ignored in their planning process and Explain why. Identify two factors that you think were responsible for BHP putting their plan on hold and Explain why.
The following are some of the six factors that impact the intensity of decision making
a. The probability that the decision that an institution has arrived at will lead the company to the predicted outcomes.
b. Concentration of affect- This is as per the number of people whom will be affected when the decision has been made.
c. Magnitude- This is how diverse the decision made will have impact on the institution
d. Temporal Immediacy- This is the time that has elapsed between the time when the decision was made and when the expected results happened or occurred.
e. Proximity- This how the decision made will affect the decision maker or who will benefit from the decision that has been made.
f. Social Consensus- This how the decision made will impact the company or the institution either positively or negatively.
Factors that you think BHP ignored in their planning process
a. Concentration of affect- The challenge was to design a simple and consistent system for managing contractors on-site, which would be applicable to all contractors regardless of the size of the contracting organization or nature of their work.
b. Social Consensus- Iron Ore identified that its method of managing contractors in the Australian business was not meeting business expectations. The process in place to select, mobilize, manage and demobilize contractors was inconsistent across operations.
Identify two factors that you think were responsible for BHP putting their plan on hold and Explain why
a. Temporal Immediacy- This is the time that has elapsed between the time when the decision was made and when the expected results happened or occurred. The approach to land compensation is developed and undertaken on a case-by-case basis. Consideration is first given to what land we need. We then look at our possible impacts on that land, both short term and long term, the present and past use of the land and the effects that our use may have on existing land owners and occupiers.
b. Proximity- The climatic change and greenhouse gas (GHG) effects may impact the BHP operations and markets both positively and negatively. The company is a major producer of energy-related products such as energy coal, oil, gas, liquefied natural gas and uranium. Energy is also a significant input in a number of the Group’s mining and processing operations
Q2. BHP paused their plans after widespread public protests. Define advocacy groups and
Analyze how advocacy groups impacted BHP’s organizational environment and planning
Following demonstrations from Australia’s most influential lobby groups the giant mining company BHP was forced to set standards on the organizational environment and planning through which they did it through advocating for the Paris agreement-aligned emissions reductions and stop backing energy policies that favor fossil fuels over renewables.
According to the BHP’s expectation was for the advocacy groups that they should target to increase their aims and targets towards achieving a net-zero emission by the year 2050. Nevertheless, the company was forced to plan on policies that support the transition that comprises the price on carbon

The advocacy groups also forced the company to have new standards that suggest that their lobbying must be balanced such that they prohibit them from putting emphasis on the cost of climatic change without taking into consideration the cost of inaction. However, this was to ensure that their lobbying does not promote or attack one commodity or energy source over the other. For instance, advocating for coal towards renewable energy. All of the lobbying that could result to “unduly exacerbate” policy tensions, such as support for the federal government’s use of Kyoto carryover credits to meet national emissions goals, must also be avoided.
Q3. BHP stated that it would recommence operations only after re-engaging and consulting the traditional owners of the land. Can this type of social responsiveness be described as reactive, defensive, accommodative, or proactive? Justify your answer.
This social responsiveness can be viewed as accommodative because the company views the relationship between the traditional owners as a partnership that is grounded on trust and mutual respect. On the other hand the BHP company recognizes what has been lost before not only the loss of the a site of unique and deep living cultural heritage but can be seen as a loss of trust not only for the company but also to the entire resource industry at large. This is accommodative because the BHP Company accepted to listen to the indigenous elders from the operational areas and Australia as a state. On behalf of the company they have been able to clarify their approach and commitment towards the cultural heritage management and introduced learning in order to strengthen their approach. Nevertheless, the BHP Company confirmed to the traditional owners that the consistent with its normal process, the Company will not act on the acting section 18 which are approvals from the WA government without proper mediation from the traditional owners. There is a current ongoing project called the South Flank project through which the Company has set up a Heritage Advisory Council which will be able to communicate with the traditional owner in order to come up with the best approach that each team will be favored at the end. All the agreements that the Company has made all vary across Australia which brings different aspects of good relationship with the traditional owners.
Q4. Imagine you are the CEO of BHP prior to this incident. The South Flank Iron Ore project team has approached you to approve their plan. Justify whether or not Pilbara’s indigenous community is an important stakeholder group to this plan. Explain if/how you would engage Pilbara’s indigenous community in the decision-making process?
One of the BHP was given the task to make a joint investigation through which the South Flank Iron Ore Project caused a rock fall that affected Pilbara’s indigenous community. As the BHP CEO I will look at some of recommendations made from both the community and the committee came into conclusion where considering the Pilbara’s which is an indigenous group I would proudly approve the set plan.
The BHP Company has been able to discover the damage that occurred to the site and immediately put a task force to probe on the effect that created a lot of discourse to the Pilbara’s indigenous group. The Pilbara’s indigenous community is very important stakeholder in this area because we as a company have been working on their area hence they form the bigger community. However, this site from the the probe done by the task process some claimed that the site was not part of the current mining operation which makes the cause of the rock fall not known.
It’s clear that the mining area C form the BHP company $3.4 billion south flack replacement project in the Pilbara’s area. Considering that the miners are also facing scrutiny on how we could do to help the Pilbara’s indigenous people, it’s important to note that the Company has acquired a permit to destroy the said sites. Therefore, going forward its important to include the Pilbara’s community so as to come up with a lasting solution.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *