Name BTM free essay sample

Make sure you save your files in accessible action. BATHMAT-8 Advanced Scholarly Writing Week 1 Assignment: Referencing Peer Reviewed Studies Faculty use Only ;:Date Graded> Referencing Peer Reviewed Studies BATHMAT-8,week 1 Name Professor January 04, 2015 The mission of Northwestern University is to educate professionals throughout the world and enable them for success. At the beginning of every course, the student must check their email, review the course syllabus, grading rubric, course content, and policies.The course syllabus will lay the foundation for he course guidelines and provide a timeline for assignments. The main reason chose a DAB is that a PhD is to advance knowledge, whereas the primary goal of a DAB is to advance professional practice. Began my course by reviewing the syllabus, rubric, and course content. The UNCLE Rubric can also be found on the Academic Success Center. The NICE Rubric states that content consists of 70% and writing (including PAP formatting) is 30% of your overall grade. We will write a custom essay sample on Name BTM or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page I reviewed the course content and determined how I would have to manage my time, each week.Weeks 1-7 will require a 5-7 page paper ND week 8 will be 12-15 page paper. The Northwestern Academic Success Center is the one-stop area for all academic services. The center offers coaching in scholarly writing, time management courses, library resources, tutorials, and guidance on turning reporting. The Northwestern Library is a centralized and unprecedented global resource that provides high-quality informational resources. The Road Runner search allows you to search conveniently for full text, scholarly, and peer-reviewed articles.The Northwestern Academic Integrity Policy site is a resource for students o be aware of the appropriate guidelines to follow. If a violation of academic integrity, has been discovered, then the students instructor will complete the Notice of Possible Academic Integrity Violation. After the review has been completed, the Dean will notify the student and the instructor of the outcome (Importance of Reading and Understanding This Policy, 2012). In the Library and under popular databases, I explored the different sources for research and articles. In three of the databases, I searched for Organizational Leadership.

Memory Leak Notification in Delphi on Program Exit

Memory Leak Notification in Delphi on Program Exit All Delphi versions since Delphi 2006 have an updated memory manager that is faster and more feature rich. One of the nicest features of the new memory manager allows applications to register (and unregister) expected memory leaks, and optionally report unexpected memory leaks on program shutdown. When creating WIN32 applications with Delphi it is imperative to make sure that you free all the objects (memory) you create dynamically. A memory (or resource) leak occurs when the program loses the ability to free the memory it consumes. Report Memory Leaks on Shutdown Memory leak detecting and reporting are set to false by default. To enable it, you need to set the global variable ReportMemoryLeaksOnShutdown to TRUE. When the application is closed, if there are unexpected memory leaks the application will display the Unexpected Memory Leak dialog box. The best place for the ReportMemoryLeaksOnShutdown would be in the programs source code (dpr) file. begin   Ã‚  ReportMemoryLeaksOnShutdown : DebugHook 0;   Ã‚  //source by Delphi   Ã‚  Application.Initialize;   Ã‚  Application.MainFormOnTaskbar : True;   Ã‚  Application.CreateForm(TMainForm, MainForm) ;   Ã‚  Application.Run; end. Note: a global variable DebugHook is used above to make sure memory leaks are displayed when the application is run in debug mode - when you fit F9 from the Delphi IDE. Test Drive: Memory Leak Detection Having ReportMemoryLeaksOnShutdown set to TRUE, add the following code in the main forms OnCreate event handler. var   Ã‚  sl : TStringList; begin   Ã‚  sl : TStringList.Create;   Ã‚  sl.Add(Memory leak!) ; end; Run the application in debug mode, exit the application - you should see the memory leak dialog box. Note: If you are looking for a tool to catch your Delphi application errors such as memory corruption, memory leaks, memory allocation errors, variable initialization errors, variable definition conflicts, pointer errors ... take a look at madExcept and EurekaLog Delphi Tips Navigator Date Time SQL Queries: Formatting Date Time Values for Access SQL in DelphiForce TListViews Edit Mode using a Keyboard Shortcut

Assessing the effects of evolving consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy on the shareholder and stakeholder primacy models of CSR. A case study of Marks and Spencer

In other words, it involves spending organization’s resources for the benefit of society. It is usually done directly or through a company’s foundation. In some cases, donations are in the form of an organization’s facilities, products and services. The areas covered under corporate philanthropy consist of education, health, art and environment (Council on Foundations, 1982). On the other hand, CSR or corporate social responsibility is an enterprise level program designed to bring positive change in society. The primary effect of the evolution of consumer expectation on CSR is the incorporation of this concept into corporate strategy of such organizations. Likewise, the effect on the shareholder’s model of CSR is also considerable. The incorporation of the CSR model within corporate strategy enables the shareholder to enjoy returns from the CSR program of the organization. The returns usually manifest in the form of increased sales and profits, which resul ts from the goodwill created by the CSR program (Urip, 2010). One of the distinctive features of the CSR concept is the involvement and participation of all the stakeholders including shareholders, employees, customers, supply chain partners, community and government. This feature is the central point of the stakeholder’s primacy model of CSR. According to this model, the CSR incorporates the interests of the society at both the strategic and operational level. Furthermore, this concept also entails the interaction and relationship of all the key stakeholders in the context of CSR. This means that an integral aspect of CSR is the interaction of the organization with internal and external stakeholders. The internal stakeholders consist in the form of employees, top management and shareholders, whereas external stakeholders consist of government, non-government organization and community. The scope of issues that CSR covers ranges from the environment, economic and social faced by the community and society at large. The stakeholder’s primacy model on CSR also entails that CSR should be considered separate from the core operations and activities of the business. This means that CSR should be given similar importance compared to other core functions such as marketing, sales, finance and HR. However, according to this model, CSR is a voluntary concept. Nevertheless, it should be noted that changing a consumer’s expectations has made this concept more of an obligation. This is due to the fact that consumers increasingly hold the view that corporations are directly responsible for the well being of the society and, therefore, should play their due role (Fernando, 2011). 2.2. Aim: To assess the effects of evolving and changing consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy on the shareholder and stakeholder’s primacy models of CSR 2.2.1. Objectives: To understand how the evolving consumer expectations has affected the CSR programs of Marks and Spencer. To determine the changes in consumer expectations in regard to corporate philanthropy. 2.2.2. Research questions For the purpose of attaining research objective, this study will make use of following research questions: Is the CSR program of Marks and Spencer part of the organization’s corporate strategy Is the CSR program of Marks and Spencer affected by the evolving consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy What areas of society are covered by the Marks and Spencer CSR program Does Marks and Spencer’s CSR program come under stakeholder’s primacy model of CSR 3.0 Literature Review The literature reviews enable the understanding of the topic in the context of different theories. The theories, which are brought under discussion usually exists in academic journals, books and other research dissertations The literature review will enable the research to determine the effects of customers’ expectations of corporate philanthropic initiatives on an organization’s primary CSR model. However, before delineating these effects, it is imperative that a clear understanding of the meaning and scope of CSR is made. Usually CSR referred to all the activities, which are conducted by a private organization for the well-being of the general public or community. These activities can relate to different social and environmental issues. The CSR activities do not differ from each other regarding the amount spent on each activity but on the basis of the way in which an organization indulges in that CSR activity (Werther Chandler, 2010). The importance of CSR and its im plications are vital for any global or national business. As a result, the changes in the consumer expectations have assumed vital importance for the nature of organization’s CSR model. Business concern for society is not a new concept but can be traced backed many centuries.. Initially, the activities, which are now categorized as CSR, were seen as merely corporate or business philanthropy. The perception and expectation from the consumer that companies or businesses are an important part of society and, therefore, has responsibility towards society originated in last few years. This led to the development of formal concepts of CSR (Carroll, 1999). Likewise, academic and scholarly work on CSR and corporate philanthropy started in the last century, which led to the belief that CSR is an obligation of every corporate entity. Bowen, who is considered the father of the modern concept of CSR, classified CSR as those activities, which enables businesses and companies to achieve ob jectives, which are desirable for any society (Bowen, 1953). This definition is very simplistic in nature and does not cover the entire spectrum of CSR activities. Davis (1960) sees CSR as a responsibility on the part of a firm, which forces it to admit to duties, which are present in areas beyond the domain of commercial interest. Resultantly, firms will be engaging in politics, community welfare, education and health. Walton (1967) sees CSR as an activity, which will cost the organization without any material gain for the business. Therefore, such activity must be done on a voluntary basis. From this concept, it can be seen that CSR was seen as a matter of moral duty instead of something, which could generate material gain for the organization. However, this consideration has started to change as many firms expect intangible returns from their CSR initiatives. The intangible initiatives can be in the shape of goodwill and creation of a friendly image in the public eye (Louche et a l., 2010). On the other hand, the prevalence of CSR in the modern world has made it necessary for the organization to perform CSR activities. In the case by which an organization decides not to participate in CSR initiatives, it risks losing its customer base. This can be attributed to constant expectations from the consumers for socially responsible behaviour from the companies. Such consumers have increasingly become socially and environmentally conscious and support only those firms, which are involved in CSR and in the provision of sustainable products. The importance of such customers for businesses can be gauged from the recent researches, which show consumer’s preferences for socially responsible firms (Lindgreen Swaen, 2010). One such study showed that the market of those customers, who live their life according to the new concepts of health and environment, is expected to grow to 30% alone in the US (Forster, 2007). The customers are increasingly expecting a great a mount of sustainability from the corporate entities. This is one of the new trends, which have originated in the customer’s way of thinking as far as corporate philanthropy. Initially, consumers’ view any activity, intended to bring positive in the society, as part of corporate philanthropic initiative. Such initiative was considered separate and discrete from organization’s core activities, where were the provision of products and services to customers. Now, such initiative, which comes under the domain of CSR, needs to be considered a core business activity and, hence, part of organizational corporate strategy. Therefore, the primary effect of the changing and evolving expectations of corporate philanthropy on the consumers is the incorporation of CSR model in the organization’s main strategy. This incorporation will enable the organization to provide products and services, which are up to the social and environmental standards. And at the same time, it will enable the organization to launch separate but related initiatives intended to bring positive change in the society. Any organization, which fails to perform this, can risk losing customer base within the market. Therefore, the CSR model has now become an integral part of corporate strategy of all large multinational organizations (Fernando, 2011). The effects of changing consumer expectations has led to the development of the concept of ‘sustainable development’. According it is viewed as the responsibility of businesses to conduct their core activities in such manner, which will not affect the ability of the future generation to meet their basic needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). It can be seen from this concept that sustainability in the organization’s activities has now become an integral part of the customers. An organization can fulfil this expectation by integrating the economic, social and environmental consideration in its corporate strategy. This will enable it to achieve sustainability in all aspects of an organization’s operations ( (Visser et al., 2007). Another effect of evolving consumers’ expectation of corporate philanthropy on organization’s CSR model is the adoption of concept of â€Å"Triple Bottom Line† (TBL) by the organization. Ac cording to such, it is the obligation of the organization to put its focus on three main aspects. The first is related to the responsibility of economic success. Secondly, it is related to the responsibility to the environment and thirdly is related to the responsibility of the individuals and the community in general (Elkington, 1998). With this concept, the business organization has transformed itself from a primary economic entity to an organization, which is responsible for fulfilling social and environmental needs of the society alongside achieving their objective of profit generation. This change in the approach of conducting business is attributed to the evolving consumer’s expectation of corporate philanthropy. In the past, any activity on the part of the corporation for the well-being of the community was looked as an initiative taken on the part of shareholders and the high-management. However, with the emergence of CSR, such activities have come under the domain of institutions. Now all activities, taken for the improvement of society have assumed institutional shape (Gainer, 2010). It is equally important to understand the reasons, which led to the evolution of consumers’ expectations of business philanthropy. One pertinent factor responsible for the change is the increase in consumers’ awareness. Consumer awareness has gone a long way in changing the perception of business activities of the corporations. Consumers have now increasingly become aware of their rights. Moreover, this awareness is usually backed by legal and regulatory support , which increases the overall bargaining power of consumers in relation to the organizations. This has enabled the consumers to hold expectations from the corporate entities to perform their due share in the well-being of society. If any organizations fail to perform its obligations, it will not only face legal repercussions but also risk losing consumers in the market. In addition to this, h igh competition in the market is also one of the factors responsible in the shift of customers’ expectations. High forces of competition in the market have required the organization to look for new avenues to build and sustain their competitive advantage. One such technique is through the creation of goodwill within the general public. And the best method for creating such goodwill is through CSR. Furthermore, the effects of culture on CSR expectations are also considerable. For instance, according to Matten Moon (2004), in Europe, the CSR is viewed more in terms of philanthropy than the US, where it is most likely viewed as institutional activity. This difference is primarily attributed to the dissimilarity in the institutional environment and cultural values of the regions. This is the reason, why organizations usually incorporate CSR initiatives in the corporate policies and programs. On the other hand, in Europe, it is mostly viewed as an informal business activity. This shows that customers’ expectations of corporate philanthropy have not matured in Europe as it has done in the US (Baden et al., 2011). For the clear understanding of the problem, it is also important to allow comprehension of the stakeholders’ primacy model of CSR. It is not sufficient to only understand the activities but, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of all the stakeholders, who are directly and indirectly involved in it. Overall, the CSR model is focused on the improvement of society. Resultantly, it should incorporate all the values of society (Carroll, 1979). On the other hand, there is another school of thought, which views CSR as entirely aimed at addressing the issues of different stakeholders in place of the entire society. One proponent of this school of thought is Clarkson (1995). According to Clarkson (1995), the activities including CSR of any business entity are aimed at fulfilling the needs of stakeholders. According to this concept, corporations are free from any obligation concerning society. Instead, there are only responsible for the welfare of the community, which is direc tly affected by their activities. Likewise, (Maignan et al., 2005) also supports this assertion. According to (Maignan et al., 2005), businesses and corporations are responsible for satisfying economic and noneconomic needs of the stakeholders. However, it is difficult to ascertain the exact boundaries of stakeholders especially in the case of multinationals, whose activities spread to different dimensions and areas of society. Nevertheless, the stakeholder model of CSR provides a framework, which can be used to analyze the relationship of the business with the society in the context of CSR (Carroll Shabana, 2010). This theory plays more a complementary role than conflict, when viewed in the milieu of CSR. This theory allows a better understanding of relationship between principal factors involved in the provision of CSR related initiative. According to this theory, corporate units can be better understood through the relationship of different actors, which have a stake in the oper ations of the business (Friedman, 1970). This means that the objectives of any CSR initiative taken by the organization are indirectly related to the primary goal of the organization, which is profit maximization. It means any CSR activity conducted by the organization will eventually increase the customer base for the organization and will subsequently translate in the form of higher returns for the organization. This approach creates a win-win situation for all stakeholders. The community gets the benefit from the CSR activities whereas shareholders and management of the organization receive benefits in the form of increased profits (Freeman, 1984). Theoretically, this model is very effective in transforming capitalism into serving the interest of different stakeholders, excluding shareholders. Within the framework of this theory, the implications of the evolving consumer’s expectations are considerable. The new set of consumer’s belief expects the organization to wo rk for the wellbeing of actors who do not come under the category of stakeholders. As a result, it has become necessary for the organization to redefine the boundaries of stakeholders and include all those actors within society, who are not directly related to the activities of the organization. The primary implication of this for the organization is increased cost related to CSR initiatives without any translations of returns for the organization. In other words, the organization fails to achieve something tangible from such initiative. Moreover, such initiative has departed from pure CSR and has returned to the scope of corporate philanthropy. Previously, only stakeholder’s interest was considered in the CSR program, which is regarded as vital for the existence and success of the organization. This concept also takes into account the importance of power dependent relationships, which suggests that an organization customizes its CSR program according to the power enjoyed by certain stakeholder groups over the firm (Pirsch, 2007). 4.0 Methodology 4.1 Research approach: The research approach adopted for this thesis is the case-based approach. The case study approach will provide profound understanding of the effects of changing consumer’s expectations on an organization’s CSR models. The case study approach is preferred because it allows the collection of in-depth information, which can be comprehensively analyzed in order to reach definite conclusions (Kumar, n.d.). This approach will also enable understanding of the problem in isolation, which is not possible with any other research approach (Bergh Ketchen, 2009). As a result, a comprehensive study of the case will be conducted, which will enable identification and analysis of the factors affecting the consumer expectation of corporate philanthropy on the stakeholder primacy model of CSR. Due to the nature of the case study, the research approach will be primarily qualitative in nature. This approach is ideal because it allows clear comprehension of the all the dimensions of the top ic under discussion (Maxwell, 2005). Therefore, the first stage of this research will consists of in-depth research and review of the relevant literature. The stage will also consist of the study of primacy models of CSR in the context of organizational strategy. This approach will enable the fulfilment of the objective of ascertaining the effects of fluctuating consumer’s expectations on the stakeholder primacy models of CSR. 4.2 Case selection This research will study the case of Marks and Spencer as a model organization for understanding and concluding the effects of evolving customer’s expectation on organization’s dominant models of CSR. The case study approach is ideal in the present scenario because it will allow the research to investigate the problem while retaining the holistic point of view, which is necessary for accurate results (Henn, 2009). The reason Marks and Spencer is selected rests in its long history of corporate philanthropy in the shape of CSR. Likewise, it is a large organization, which makes it representative for all other organizations. This case is also appropriate as it will lead the research to accurate theory development. It should be noted here that the fact the each business unit of Mark and Spenser develops its own CSR strategy makes it relevant for this research. This case will also allow the understanding and identification of the issues concerning the CSR model of Marks and S penser. CSR has an integral position in the organization of Marks and Spenser. This can be attributed to the founders of MS who intended to build sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships with all stakeholders including the community and employees. This model of CSR was implemented with the belief that it will ensure long-term success for the organization. MS launched a number of initiatives under its CSR model relating to education, health, environment and employability. This model has led to the creation of trustworthy images of the company in the general public and the community (Hallbauer, 2008). 4.3 Sample size This research will use a sample of 25 to 40 respondents. This size is ideal to reach a representative conclusion and at the same time eliminates bias in the research. The information from the respondents from the sample will provide additional data and perspective to the information derived from literature and theory review. 4.4 Data collection Primary data: In order to ascertain the effects of evolving customer’s expectations of corporate philanthropy, a large chunk of data will be collected from comprehensive primary research. The case study approach will allow triangulation of data from multiple sources, which will further allow a balanced understating of the problem under discussion. The primary data will be collected from semi structured interviews, which will provide insight into the thought process of the respondents being interviewed. The respondents will include the customers alongside employees of the organization, which will permit an incorporation of the view points of both sides. The questions for the interview are divided according to the respondent type. The following tentative and semi structured questions will be presented the customers: What areas should be targeted in the organization’s CSR strategy Have you witnessed any changes in the the CSR activities of the organizations in last 5 years Do you consider corporate philanthropy an integral responsibility of the organization On the other hand, managerial staff of the organization will be asked to follow main questions: How many changes have taken place in the scope of CSR activities of the organization How much of this change reflects the changes in the customer expectations from the organization’s CSR model How much organization’s philanthropy has been transformed into formalized CSR system Using these questions, this study will collect the relevant data, which will later be used in collaboration with the literature review to address the concerned topic. Secondary data: This research study will also make use of a variety of sources of secondary data alongside primary data, collected from interviews. The secondary data will consist of the website and annual reports of the concerned organization. In addition to this, academic journals and books relating to the topic will also come under the purview of this research. The purpose of the secondary data collection is to determine the effects of evolving customers’ expectations of corporate philanthropy on the organization’s primary CSR model. In addition to this, external reports originating from third party sources, such as the government, will also be used to provide all-encompassing analysis of the topic. The secondary data will enable a balanced understanding of the organization’s CSR model in the wake of evolving customer expectations from corporate philanthropy. 4.5 Pilot study The main objective of the pilot study was to ensure that the terminologies used in the research methodology are correct. As a result, the pilot study was conducted in the shape of interviews from a narrow range of respondents. The method used for the pilot study was a face-to-face to interview. This method enabled direct feedback from the respondents. In addition to this, the method also allowed the interviewer to ask relevant and pertinent questions, which were not present in the question guide, for the sole purpose of clarity. 4.6 Data analysis The data collected from the interview will consist of qualitative data. Therefore, it will not be possible to apply statistical principles and techniques, which can be applied to quantitative data, to extract trends and patterns. As a result, the information collected from interviews will be analyzed to deduce normative patterns for further understanding. However, for the purpose of categorization, the data will be coded and compared according to the research questions. The purpose of this activity is to identify any gaps in the research. In the case of identification of certain gaps, extended data collection will be conducted to eliminate any deficiencies. Moreover, the comparisons will also lead to the elimination of discrepancies before the final stage, when this data will be used to derive concrete findings. The main objective of the data analysis is to find the different dimensions of the topic under discussion. As the data in question primarily consists of primary information, it will provide more realistic picture of all aspects of the problem. Furthermore, this data analysis could also be used with the literature review, which will allow an incorporation of primary data with the theory development in the research finding stage (Miles Huberman, 1994). 5.0 Conclusion The purpose of this research is to assess the effects of the evolving customer expectations in regard to corporate philanthropy on the stakeholder’s primacy model of CSR. For this purpose, the case of Marks and Spencer is selected. Marks and Spencer has a long history of CSR and, therefore, provides a representative model for research study. This research will make use of qualitative data for the purpose of analysis and deriving conclusions. The qualitative data will provide normative insight into the problem, which will enable accurate assessment of the problem under discussion. This research will make use of both primary and secondary data. The primary data will be collected from semi structured interview, which will be conducted from the sample of 25 to 40 respondents. The respondents are divided into two categories in the form of consumers and employees of the said discussion. The data collected will be used in collaboration with secondary data. The secondary data will con sist of academic journals, books, websites and external reports. The secondary data will enable the analysis of primary data in a more comprehensive and balanced manner. With this research methodology, the research study intends to achieve its objective, which is to assess the effects of evolving and changing consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy on the shareholder and stakeholder primacy models of CSR. 6.0 References Baden, Tonne Meyer, 2011. The effect of context and type of corporate philanthropy on moral capital. Journal of Business Ethics . Bergh, D.D. Ketchen, D.J., 2009. Research methodology in strategy and management. Emerald Group Publishing. Bowen, H., 1953. Social responsibility of the businessman. New York: Harper Row. Carroll, A., 1979. A Three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp.497-505. Carroll, A., 1999. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a defnitional construct. Business and Society, 39, p.268–295. Carroll, A.B. Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), p.85–105. Clarkson, M., 1995. The Toronto conference: Refections on stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 33(1), p.82–131. Council on Foundations, 1982. Corporate philanthropy: Philosophy, management, trends, future, background. Council on Foundations. Davis, K., 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities. California Management Review, 2(3), p.70–76. Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st Century business. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Fernando, A., 2011. Business environment. Pearson Education India. Forster, T., 2004. Die grunen Yuppies. Werben Verkaufen, 51, p.45. Freeman, R., 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc. Friedman, M., 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gainer, B., 2010. Corporate social responsibility. Third Sector Research, pp.187-200. Hallbauer, S., 2008. Retail marketing and new retail idea – Marks Spencer. GRIN Verlag. Henn, S.K., 2009. Business ethics: A case study approach. John Wiley Sons. Kumar, R., n.d. Research methodology. APH Publishing. Lindgreen, A. Swaen, V., 2010. Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp.1-7. Louche, C., Idowu, S.O. Filho, W.L., 2010. Innovative Csr: From risk management to value creation. Greenleaf Publishing. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. Ferrell, L., 2005. A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 29(9/10), p.956–977. Matten, D. Moon, J., 2004. Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe. ICCSR Research Paper Series, (29). Maxwell, J.A., 2005. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications. Miles, M.B. Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications. Pirsch, J., 2007. A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), pp.125-40. Urip, S., 2010. CSR strategies: Corporate Social Responsibility for a competitive edge in emerging markets. John Wiley Sons. Visser, W., Matten, D. Pohl, M., 2007. The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility: A complete reference guide to concepts, codes and organisations. London: Wiley. Walton, C., 1967. Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA, USA.: Wadsworth. Werther, W.B. Chandler, D., 2010. Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. SAGE. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Assessing the effects of evolving consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy on the shareholder and stakeholder primacy models of CSR. A case study of Marks and Spencer In other words, it involves spending organization’s resources for the benefit of society. It is usually done directly or through a company’s foundation. In some cases, donations are in the form of an organization’s facilities, products and services. The areas covered under corporate philanthropy consist of education, health, art and environment (Council on Foundations, 1982). On the other hand, CSR or corporate social responsibility is an enterprise level program designed to bring positive change in society. The primary effect of the evolution of consumer expectation on CSR is the incorporation of this concept into corporate strategy of such organizations. Likewise, the effect on the shareholder’s model of CSR is also considerable. The incorporation of the CSR model within corporate strategy enables the shareholder to enjoy returns from the CSR program of the organization. The returns usually manifest in the form of increased sales and profits, which resul ts from the goodwill created by the CSR program (Urip, 2010). One of the distinctive features of the CSR concept is the involvement and participation of all the stakeholders including shareholders, employees, customers, supply chain partners, community and government. This feature is the central point of the stakeholder’s primacy model of CSR. According to this model, the CSR incorporates the interests of the society at both the strategic and operational level. Furthermore, this concept also entails the interaction and relationship of all the key stakeholders in the context of CSR. This means that an integral aspect of CSR is the interaction of the organization with internal and external stakeholders. The internal stakeholders consist in the form of employees, top management and shareholders, whereas external stakeholders consist of government, non-government organization and community. The scope of issues that CSR covers ranges from the environment, economic and social faced by the community and society at large. The stakeholder’s primacy model on CSR also entails that CSR should be considered separate from the core operations and activities of the business. This means that CSR should be given similar importance compared to other core functions such as marketing, sales, finance and HR. However, according to this model, CSR is a voluntary concept. Nevertheless, it should be noted that changing a consumer’s expectations has made this concept more of an obligation. This is due to the fact that consumers increasingly hold the view that corporations are directly responsible for the well being of the society and, therefore, should play their due role (Fernando, 2011). 2.2. Aim: To assess the effects of evolving and changing consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy on the shareholder and stakeholder’s primacy models of CSR 2.2.1. Objectives: To understand how the evolving consumer expectations has affected the CSR programs of Marks and Spencer. To determine the changes in consumer expectations in regard to corporate philanthropy. 2.2.2. Research questions For the purpose of attaining research objective, this study will make use of following research questions: Is the CSR program of Marks and Spencer part of the organization’s corporate strategy Is the CSR program of Marks and Spencer affected by the evolving consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy What areas of society are covered by the Marks and Spencer CSR program Does Marks and Spencer’s CSR program come under stakeholder’s primacy model of CSR 3.0 Literature Review The literature reviews enable the understanding of the topic in the context of different theories. The theories, which are brought under discussion usually exists in academic journals, books and other research dissertations The literature review will enable the research to determine the effects of customers’ expectations of corporate philanthropic initiatives on an organization’s primary CSR model. However, before delineating these effects, it is imperative that a clear understanding of the meaning and scope of CSR is made. Usually CSR referred to all the activities, which are conducted by a private organization for the well-being of the general public or community. These activities can relate to different social and environmental issues. The CSR activities do not differ from each other regarding the amount spent on each activity but on the basis of the way in which an organization indulges in that CSR activity (Werther Chandler, 2010). The importance of CSR and its im plications are vital for any global or national business. As a result, the changes in the consumer expectations have assumed vital importance for the nature of organization’s CSR model. Business concern for society is not a new concept but can be traced backed many centuries.. Initially, the activities, which are now categorized as CSR, were seen as merely corporate or business philanthropy. The perception and expectation from the consumer that companies or businesses are an important part of society and, therefore, has responsibility towards society originated in last few years. This led to the development of formal concepts of CSR (Carroll, 1999). Likewise, academic and scholarly work on CSR and corporate philanthropy started in the last century, which led to the belief that CSR is an obligation of every corporate entity. Bowen, who is considered the father of the modern concept of CSR, classified CSR as those activities, which enables businesses and companies to achieve ob jectives, which are desirable for any society (Bowen, 1953). This definition is very simplistic in nature and does not cover the entire spectrum of CSR activities. Davis (1960) sees CSR as a responsibility on the part of a firm, which forces it to admit to duties, which are present in areas beyond the domain of commercial interest. Resultantly, firms will be engaging in politics, community welfare, education and health. Walton (1967) sees CSR as an activity, which will cost the organization without any material gain for the business. Therefore, such activity must be done on a voluntary basis. From this concept, it can be seen that CSR was seen as a matter of moral duty instead of something, which could generate material gain for the organization. However, this consideration has started to change as many firms expect intangible returns from their CSR initiatives. The intangible initiatives can be in the shape of goodwill and creation of a friendly image in the public eye (Louche et a l., 2010). On the other hand, the prevalence of CSR in the modern world has made it necessary for the organization to perform CSR activities. In the case by which an organization decides not to participate in CSR initiatives, it risks losing its customer base. This can be attributed to constant expectations from the consumers for socially responsible behaviour from the companies. Such consumers have increasingly become socially and environmentally conscious and support only those firms, which are involved in CSR and in the provision of sustainable products. The importance of such customers for businesses can be gauged from the recent researches, which show consumer’s preferences for socially responsible firms (Lindgreen Swaen, 2010). One such study showed that the market of those customers, who live their life according to the new concepts of health and environment, is expected to grow to 30% alone in the US (Forster, 2007). The customers are increasingly expecting a great a mount of sustainability from the corporate entities. This is one of the new trends, which have originated in the customer’s way of thinking as far as corporate philanthropy. Initially, consumers’ view any activity, intended to bring positive in the society, as part of corporate philanthropic initiative. Such initiative was considered separate and discrete from organization’s core activities, where were the provision of products and services to customers. Now, such initiative, which comes under the domain of CSR, needs to be considered a core business activity and, hence, part of organizational corporate strategy. Therefore, the primary effect of the changing and evolving expectations of corporate philanthropy on the consumers is the incorporation of CSR model in the organization’s main strategy. This incorporation will enable the organization to provide products and services, which are up to the social and environmental standards. And at the same time, it will enable the organization to launch separate but related initiatives intended to bring positive change in the society. Any organization, which fails to perform this, can risk losing customer base within the market. Therefore, the CSR model has now become an integral part of corporate strategy of all large multinational organizations (Fernando, 2011). The effects of changing consumer expectations has led to the development of the concept of ‘sustainable development’. According it is viewed as the responsibility of businesses to conduct their core activities in such manner, which will not affect the ability of the future generation to meet their basic needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). It can be seen from this concept that sustainability in the organization’s activities has now become an integral part of the customers. An organization can fulfil this expectation by integrating the economic, social and environmental consideration in its corporate strategy. This will enable it to achieve sustainability in all aspects of an organization’s operations ( (Visser et al., 2007). Another effect of evolving consumers’ expectation of corporate philanthropy on organization’s CSR model is the adoption of concept of â€Å"Triple Bottom Line† (TBL) by the organization. Ac cording to such, it is the obligation of the organization to put its focus on three main aspects. The first is related to the responsibility of economic success. Secondly, it is related to the responsibility to the environment and thirdly is related to the responsibility of the individuals and the community in general (Elkington, 1998). With this concept, the business organization has transformed itself from a primary economic entity to an organization, which is responsible for fulfilling social and environmental needs of the society alongside achieving their objective of profit generation. This change in the approach of conducting business is attributed to the evolving consumer’s expectation of corporate philanthropy. In the past, any activity on the part of the corporation for the well-being of the community was looked as an initiative taken on the part of shareholders and the high-management. However, with the emergence of CSR, such activities have come under the domain of institutions. Now all activities, taken for the improvement of society have assumed institutional shape (Gainer, 2010). It is equally important to understand the reasons, which led to the evolution of consumers’ expectations of business philanthropy. One pertinent factor responsible for the change is the increase in consumers’ awareness. Consumer awareness has gone a long way in changing the perception of business activities of the corporations. Consumers have now increasingly become aware of their rights. Moreover, this awareness is usually backed by legal and regulatory support , which increases the overall bargaining power of consumers in relation to the organizations. This has enabled the consumers to hold expectations from the corporate entities to perform their due share in the well-being of society. If any organizations fail to perform its obligations, it will not only face legal repercussions but also risk losing consumers in the market. In addition to this, h igh competition in the market is also one of the factors responsible in the shift of customers’ expectations. High forces of competition in the market have required the organization to look for new avenues to build and sustain their competitive advantage. One such technique is through the creation of goodwill within the general public. And the best method for creating such goodwill is through CSR. Furthermore, the effects of culture on CSR expectations are also considerable. For instance, according to Matten Moon (2004), in Europe, the CSR is viewed more in terms of philanthropy than the US, where it is most likely viewed as institutional activity. This difference is primarily attributed to the dissimilarity in the institutional environment and cultural values of the regions. This is the reason, why organizations usually incorporate CSR initiatives in the corporate policies and programs. On the other hand, in Europe, it is mostly viewed as an informal business activity. This shows that customers’ expectations of corporate philanthropy have not matured in Europe as it has done in the US (Baden et al., 2011). For the clear understanding of the problem, it is also important to allow comprehension of the stakeholders’ primacy model of CSR. It is not sufficient to only understand the activities but, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of all the stakeholders, who are directly and indirectly involved in it. Overall, the CSR model is focused on the improvement of society. Resultantly, it should incorporate all the values of society (Carroll, 1979). On the other hand, there is another school of thought, which views CSR as entirely aimed at addressing the issues of different stakeholders in place of the entire society. One proponent of this school of thought is Clarkson (1995). According to Clarkson (1995), the activities including CSR of any business entity are aimed at fulfilling the needs of stakeholders. According to this concept, corporations are free from any obligation concerning society. Instead, there are only responsible for the welfare of the community, which is direc tly affected by their activities. Likewise, (Maignan et al., 2005) also supports this assertion. According to (Maignan et al., 2005), businesses and corporations are responsible for satisfying economic and noneconomic needs of the stakeholders. However, it is difficult to ascertain the exact boundaries of stakeholders especially in the case of multinationals, whose activities spread to different dimensions and areas of society. Nevertheless, the stakeholder model of CSR provides a framework, which can be used to analyze the relationship of the business with the society in the context of CSR (Carroll Shabana, 2010). This theory plays more a complementary role than conflict, when viewed in the milieu of CSR. This theory allows a better understanding of relationship between principal factors involved in the provision of CSR related initiative. According to this theory, corporate units can be better understood through the relationship of different actors, which have a stake in the oper ations of the business (Friedman, 1970). This means that the objectives of any CSR initiative taken by the organization are indirectly related to the primary goal of the organization, which is profit maximization. It means any CSR activity conducted by the organization will eventually increase the customer base for the organization and will subsequently translate in the form of higher returns for the organization. This approach creates a win-win situation for all stakeholders. The community gets the benefit from the CSR activities whereas shareholders and management of the organization receive benefits in the form of increased profits (Freeman, 1984). Theoretically, this model is very effective in transforming capitalism into serving the interest of different stakeholders, excluding shareholders. Within the framework of this theory, the implications of the evolving consumer’s expectations are considerable. The new set of consumer’s belief expects the organization to wo rk for the wellbeing of actors who do not come under the category of stakeholders. As a result, it has become necessary for the organization to redefine the boundaries of stakeholders and include all those actors within society, who are not directly related to the activities of the organization. The primary implication of this for the organization is increased cost related to CSR initiatives without any translations of returns for the organization. In other words, the organization fails to achieve something tangible from such initiative. Moreover, such initiative has departed from pure CSR and has returned to the scope of corporate philanthropy. Previously, only stakeholder’s interest was considered in the CSR program, which is regarded as vital for the existence and success of the organization. This concept also takes into account the importance of power dependent relationships, which suggests that an organization customizes its CSR program according to the power enjoyed by certain stakeholder groups over the firm (Pirsch, 2007). 4.0 Methodology 4.1 Research approach: The research approach adopted for this thesis is the case-based approach. The case study approach will provide profound understanding of the effects of changing consumer’s expectations on an organization’s CSR models. The case study approach is preferred because it allows the collection of in-depth information, which can be comprehensively analyzed in order to reach definite conclusions (Kumar, n.d.). This approach will also enable understanding of the problem in isolation, which is not possible with any other research approach (Bergh Ketchen, 2009). As a result, a comprehensive study of the case will be conducted, which will enable identification and analysis of the factors affecting the consumer expectation of corporate philanthropy on the stakeholder primacy model of CSR. Due to the nature of the case study, the research approach will be primarily qualitative in nature. This approach is ideal because it allows clear comprehension of the all the dimensions of the top ic under discussion (Maxwell, 2005). Therefore, the first stage of this research will consists of in-depth research and review of the relevant literature. The stage will also consist of the study of primacy models of CSR in the context of organizational strategy. This approach will enable the fulfilment of the objective of ascertaining the effects of fluctuating consumer’s expectations on the stakeholder primacy models of CSR. 4.2 Case selection This research will study the case of Marks and Spencer as a model organization for understanding and concluding the effects of evolving customer’s expectation on organization’s dominant models of CSR. The case study approach is ideal in the present scenario because it will allow the research to investigate the problem while retaining the holistic point of view, which is necessary for accurate results (Henn, 2009). The reason Marks and Spencer is selected rests in its long history of corporate philanthropy in the shape of CSR. Likewise, it is a large organization, which makes it representative for all other organizations. This case is also appropriate as it will lead the research to accurate theory development. It should be noted here that the fact the each business unit of Mark and Spenser develops its own CSR strategy makes it relevant for this research. This case will also allow the understanding and identification of the issues concerning the CSR model of Marks and S penser. CSR has an integral position in the organization of Marks and Spenser. This can be attributed to the founders of MS who intended to build sustainable and mutually beneficial relationships with all stakeholders including the community and employees. This model of CSR was implemented with the belief that it will ensure long-term success for the organization. MS launched a number of initiatives under its CSR model relating to education, health, environment and employability. This model has led to the creation of trustworthy images of the company in the general public and the community (Hallbauer, 2008). 4.3 Sample size This research will use a sample of 25 to 40 respondents. This size is ideal to reach a representative conclusion and at the same time eliminates bias in the research. The information from the respondents from the sample will provide additional data and perspective to the information derived from literature and theory review. 4.4 Data collection Primary data: In order to ascertain the effects of evolving customer’s expectations of corporate philanthropy, a large chunk of data will be collected from comprehensive primary research. The case study approach will allow triangulation of data from multiple sources, which will further allow a balanced understating of the problem under discussion. The primary data will be collected from semi structured interviews, which will provide insight into the thought process of the respondents being interviewed. The respondents will include the customers alongside employees of the organization, which will permit an incorporation of the view points of both sides. The questions for the interview are divided according to the respondent type. The following tentative and semi structured questions will be presented the customers: What areas should be targeted in the organization’s CSR strategy Have you witnessed any changes in the the CSR activities of the organizations in last 5 years Do you consider corporate philanthropy an integral responsibility of the organization On the other hand, managerial staff of the organization will be asked to follow main questions: How many changes have taken place in the scope of CSR activities of the organization How much of this change reflects the changes in the customer expectations from the organization’s CSR model How much organization’s philanthropy has been transformed into formalized CSR system Using these questions, this study will collect the relevant data, which will later be used in collaboration with the literature review to address the concerned topic. Secondary data: This research study will also make use of a variety of sources of secondary data alongside primary data, collected from interviews. The secondary data will consist of the website and annual reports of the concerned organization. In addition to this, academic journals and books relating to the topic will also come under the purview of this research. The purpose of the secondary data collection is to determine the effects of evolving customers’ expectations of corporate philanthropy on the organization’s primary CSR model. In addition to this, external reports originating from third party sources, such as the government, will also be used to provide all-encompassing analysis of the topic. The secondary data will enable a balanced understanding of the organization’s CSR model in the wake of evolving customer expectations from corporate philanthropy. 4.5 Pilot study The main objective of the pilot study was to ensure that the terminologies used in the research methodology are correct. As a result, the pilot study was conducted in the shape of interviews from a narrow range of respondents. The method used for the pilot study was a face-to-face to interview. This method enabled direct feedback from the respondents. In addition to this, the method also allowed the interviewer to ask relevant and pertinent questions, which were not present in the question guide, for the sole purpose of clarity. 4.6 Data analysis The data collected from the interview will consist of qualitative data. Therefore, it will not be possible to apply statistical principles and techniques, which can be applied to quantitative data, to extract trends and patterns. As a result, the information collected from interviews will be analyzed to deduce normative patterns for further understanding. However, for the purpose of categorization, the data will be coded and compared according to the research questions. The purpose of this activity is to identify any gaps in the research. In the case of identification of certain gaps, extended data collection will be conducted to eliminate any deficiencies. Moreover, the comparisons will also lead to the elimination of discrepancies before the final stage, when this data will be used to derive concrete findings. The main objective of the data analysis is to find the different dimensions of the topic under discussion. As the data in question primarily consists of primary information, it will provide more realistic picture of all aspects of the problem. Furthermore, this data analysis could also be used with the literature review, which will allow an incorporation of primary data with the theory development in the research finding stage (Miles Huberman, 1994). 5.0 Conclusion The purpose of this research is to assess the effects of the evolving customer expectations in regard to corporate philanthropy on the stakeholder’s primacy model of CSR. For this purpose, the case of Marks and Spencer is selected. Marks and Spencer has a long history of CSR and, therefore, provides a representative model for research study. This research will make use of qualitative data for the purpose of analysis and deriving conclusions. The qualitative data will provide normative insight into the problem, which will enable accurate assessment of the problem under discussion. This research will make use of both primary and secondary data. The primary data will be collected from semi structured interview, which will be conducted from the sample of 25 to 40 respondents. The respondents are divided into two categories in the form of consumers and employees of the said discussion. The data collected will be used in collaboration with secondary data. The secondary data will con sist of academic journals, books, websites and external reports. The secondary data will enable the analysis of primary data in a more comprehensive and balanced manner. With this research methodology, the research study intends to achieve its objective, which is to assess the effects of evolving and changing consumer expectations of corporate philanthropy on the shareholder and stakeholder primacy models of CSR. 6.0 References Baden, Tonne Meyer, 2011. The effect of context and type of corporate philanthropy on moral capital. Journal of Business Ethics . Bergh, D.D. Ketchen, D.J., 2009. Research methodology in strategy and management. Emerald Group Publishing. Bowen, H., 1953. Social responsibility of the businessman. New York: Harper Row. Carroll, A., 1979. A Three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp.497-505. Carroll, A., 1999. Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a defnitional construct. Business and Society, 39, p.268–295. Carroll, A.B. Shabana, K.M., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), p.85–105. Clarkson, M., 1995. The Toronto conference: Refections on stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 33(1), p.82–131. Council on Foundations, 1982. Corporate philanthropy: Philosophy, management, trends, future, background. Council on Foundations. Davis, K., 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities. California Management Review, 2(3), p.70–76. Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st Century business. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Fernando, A., 2011. Business environment. Pearson Education India. Forster, T., 2004. Die grunen Yuppies. Werben Verkaufen, 51, p.45. Freeman, R., 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder perspective. Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc. Friedman, M., 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gainer, B., 2010. Corporate social responsibility. Third Sector Research, pp.187-200. Hallbauer, S., 2008. Retail marketing and new retail idea – Marks Spencer. GRIN Verlag. Henn, S.K., 2009. Business ethics: A case study approach. John Wiley Sons. Kumar, R., n.d. Research methodology. APH Publishing. Lindgreen, A. Swaen, V., 2010. Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp.1-7. Louche, C., Idowu, S.O. Filho, W.L., 2010. Innovative Csr: From risk management to value creation. Greenleaf Publishing. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. Ferrell, L., 2005. A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 29(9/10), p.956–977. Matten, D. Moon, J., 2004. Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for understanding CSR in Europe. ICCSR Research Paper Series, (29). Maxwell, J.A., 2005. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications. Miles, M.B. Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications. Pirsch, J., 2007. A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(2), pp.125-40. Urip, S., 2010. CSR strategies: Corporate Social Responsibility for a competitive edge in emerging markets. John Wiley Sons. Visser, W., Matten, D. Pohl, M., 2007. The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility: A complete reference guide to concepts, codes and organisations. London: Wiley. Walton, C., 1967. Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA, USA.: Wadsworth. Werther, W.B. Chandler, D., 2010. Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. SAGE. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sustainable Talent Management Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Sustainable Talent Management - Research Paper Example hanges within the employees sector. In this paper we are going to evaluate different talent management processes to sustain the talents and the organization’s work force in the lon run. Context of Performance management Process Performance management seeks to ensure efficiency and reliability in achieving the pre-defined goals in line with the laid out procedures. In modern organizations there are different departments which are run/ assigned to different professionals who have not only specialized with the field but have other side skills and talents which can be modelled to fit with the department/ organization’s culture. Performance and potential of a given employees forms the basis of employing optimum measure and prediction of his/ reliability in future (Cokins, 2009). Long Cycle performance measure: This is whereby I evaluate the employee’s productivity annually, semi-annually or on quarterly basis. This process gives an insight of long term fairing of the employee’s reaction to the business environment, application of his extra skills and how they converge/interact with his immediate tasks over the given period of time and the changes from the external business forces. Short-Cycle Performance measure: On this evaluation, I would consider gauging the employee’s performance on either weekly, by-weekly or on monthly basis. Depending on the nature of the project, some areas require urgency and to ascertain the individual to be assigned to these areas require critical analysis of their speed in responding to critical issues within a selected department. For instance, a qualified Accountant with extra skills in software management and can work with strict deadlines, will be a resource towards the end of a project where much needs to be done with a fixed deadline. Micro Performance measure: Measurement based on shortest time spans of minute, hours or a day. The diversity of talents within an organization will enable me to asce rtain who can work better on some issues during different hours of the day and how much he can achieve with respect to his/her colleagues. The above performance measure processes can be pegged on Program specific output which generally defines the expected departmental results; Program specific performance measure due to diversity of program/department needs and the corporate culture/ laid out policies/procedures within that department; Respective employee’s specialization and performance within an assigned task, and all governed by the organization’s strategic goal and objective. This will ensure a sustainable talent management because reliable data will be available on the employee’s competencies, their time response and consolidation with the organization’s goals with time. In management of talent pools managers are required to develop both short term and long term talent review process to maintain smooth running of the organization’s personnel. With major objectives of recruiting, developing, rewarding and maintaining a sustainable work

Contingency Planning in Action Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Contingency Planning in Action - Term Paper Example In case the initial plan does not work out, the organization should have already identified an alternative to curb the risk (Doughty, K. 2001). The risks should first be identified and prioritized in order of the impacts they could have to the organization. Plan development should be the next step where certain guidelines such as definition of time periods should be done. The next step should be maintenance of the plan; it should be kept practical and relevant. Rephox is an organization based in India. It has its headquarters in Mumbai and a branch in Delhi. The organization has fifty employees in total, thirty of which work at the headquarters and the rest work in Delhi. It is an organization that provides auditing and accounting services. It helps its clients with cost accounting systems, preparation of financial statements, financial reporting, internal audits and services that provide assurance. The organization depends on technology for the provision of their services to clients. It has systems that protect information systems which comply with regulatory requirements. The organization provides information controls for the reduction of costs and gaining of competitive advantage. It uses professional accreditations where personnel handling the information systems must qualify. The business faces certain threats which include internet insecurity. Internet and firewall threats also exist where viruses may infect the audit systems through online services. There is also network and data insecurity threat when transferring information from the branch to the headquarters and vice versa. The organization’s systems might be hacked into and security details such as passwords and biometric controls interfered with. The wide area network for the organization may be interfered with affecting the clients’ servers. The mission of the organization is to serve public interest. This is done by contribution to development of standards and guidance of

Alternative Minimum Tax Essay Example for Free

Alternative Minimum Tax Essay Good to hear from you Alex. Estate and gift tax can be a burden so let me help you clear the air and give you a fresh take on what to do. First I’m going to want to explain to you the estate tax formula. Then I will discuss the interplay between gift and estate taxes. I have a few strategies for you to minimize estate taxes that I can let you in on and will help you on the long run. I would also like to explain the generation-skipping transfer tax and its relationship to gift and estate tax, because this might relate to you. From all this I will give you my advice on whether to invest in your son and his business idea. I would like to explain the estate tax formula and how it is computed. The first step is to gather or compile the gross estate and that consists of all the property in which you have an interest in. This would be the total dollar value of all the property and assets you have at the time of your death. The gross estate figure will be before liabilities like debt and taxes are deducted. The next step will be to subtract all the debt, funeral, and administration expenses. This will give you the adjusted gross estate. We would then normally subtract the property passing to the surviving spouse. In your case, your spouse no longer plays a factor but that may come to play if you decide to remarry and include your possible future spouse in your will. After we have taken out these items we would come up with your taxable estate. We will have to add the adjusted taxable gifts. This would be the excess of $13,000 annual gift exclusion amount. Under some special circumstances, if the gift was included in the gross estate it would not have to be reported again. Once this is done we will have you estate tax base. We then can find your tentative estate tax from the tax table. Our next step would be to subtract gift taxes payable on gifts includible in the estate tax base. We also have to subtract the applicable credit amount. The applicable credit is also known as the unified credit. This credit applies to both the gift and estate taxes. In 2012 the maximum unified credit is at $1,772,800 and the applicable exclusion amount is at $5,120,000. If after all this is done and a tax is still payable we will subtract other possible credits. These credits would include state tax credits, the credit for prior transfers and the foreign tax credit. The final result would be the tax payable that is due with the estate tax return. Gift and estate taxes work together and there is a specific purpose to that. While you are alive, and gift transfers may be subject to the federal gift tax. After your death, the estate transfers (property and assets) may be subject to federal estate tax. The reason these two taxes work together is so at the time of your death you cannot avoid the estate tax by giving away your property. The one good thing is that they both have exclusions that we can take advantage to avoid taxes. A gift and estate lifetime exclusion can work together to allow you to transfer up to $5,120,000 of lifetime gifts. They both will not be imposed with gift or estate tax. Anything after this exclusion will be subject to the 35% tax rate and that goes for both gift and estate tax. Another way they are intertwined is that if you have to make large gift tax payments during your lifetime this would result in lower estate taxes. In some circumstances the combine total of the early gift taxes and the later estate tax would give you an even lower estate tax that you would have gotten with the estate tax alone. This would then allow you to pass on even higher values to your beneficiaries. There are a few estate tax strategies that I want you in on and that will eventually lower you estate tax. First is marital transfer, which neither lifetime gifts nor bequests at death to one’s spouse are subject to estate taxes. This type of transfer might be an incentive for you to remarry but don’t recommend that be your only reason for remarriage. Another strategy is lifetime gifts to children and grandchildren. An example of this is to give annual gifts of $12,000 to any number of persons. By giving this gift a husband and wife can give a collective amount of $24,000 per year per recipient without having to incur a gift tax. This can add up to a substantial amount over a number of years. Uniform transfer to minors is another option. You can accomplish this by gifting to the children that are still minors which is usually given to a custodian for the benefit of the child. This would be distributed to the child when the child reaches 18 and like other gifts would be subject to an annual exclusion for lifetime gifts. Irrevocable life insurance trusts are available for you to use. To do this you would be transferring small amounts of your estate that are equal to the amount of a life insurance premium to an irrevocable life insurance trust. When this is done, you will be reducing your taxable estate and creating a much larger asset outside of the estate. The life insurance proceeds are generally not taxable. A private annuity can be made to make a sale of an asset to a younger generation in exchange for an unsecured promise. This promise is to pay annual amounts to the seller for the seller’s lifetime. Furthermore, charitable transfers can reduce the size of the estate and thereby reduce the estate taxes. Lifetime gifts provide an additional benefit of an income tax deduction. This last one I think is one of your best bets for transferring your estate to your child or children. A family limited partnership can provide a valuable estate planning tool to assist your family in transferring ownership of family owned businesses. This would also help protect your family assets from creditors as an added bonus. Considering that you will be making larger amounts of money, this option permits taxation of partnership income at your child’s lower tax rates. This plan offers plenty of intriguing options but also the added features of the family limited partnership flexibility and revocability. With your son’s possible criminal record, this gives you control in case things don’t pan out like you wish. What is generation skipping transfer? A generation skipping transfer is shift of property by gift to a person who is two or more generations below that of you. For years wealthy individuals gave away their fortune or property to grandchildren without paying federal estate taxes. This tax was made to prevent people avoiding this tax by skipping generations. This tax is only due when a skip person receives amount in excess of GST estate tax credit. One good thing is that most people will never encounter the GST tax because the tax credit levels are pretty high. Currently taxpayers are entitled to a $5 million GST tax exemption. Leaving a dynasty trust offers two advantages to the GST exemption. One is that the trust will escape all transfer taxes when the child dies. I would then pass tax-free to the grandchildren. The trust can be protected from the claims of creditors and to some extent, money seeking ex-spouses. Overall I hope I have given you some ideas on what to do and how to avoid estate taxes. Estate taxes can be avoided and you don’t have to take it sitting down. There are plenty of tax loopholes that you can still take advantage of. Now for the matter of your son it is in my personal recommendation for you not to just give your child, Jackson, the gift of three million. As there will be a gift tax that will apply to it for this current year that can be avoided. Instead I hope you decide to make a family limited partnership as to give you control of that money and still give your son the opportunity to pursue his dream to make custom cabinets. Eventually you can leave the company to Jackson after you know that the felony charges will not affect him and he has shown promise in maintaining the company. This once again is my recommendation but you have the option to do as you see fit. You are not limited to this and we can always work together to find something that will fit your c hildren or family needs.

The Homeless †Mentally Ill, or Just Lazy? Essay -- Exploratory Essays

The Homeless – Mentally Ill, or Just Lazy? What causes homelessness? Is homelessness the result of job loss? Does it result from drug and alcohol addiction? Just who are the homeless? The homeless are a mixture of people with many different problems. Many of them are mentally ill patients released from institutions. Some are single women with children. As John Grisham stated, 40% are substance abusers (Grisham 14). Some of the homeless want and need help, but to others being homeless is a conscious choice. The choices a person makes will largely determine what kind of life he or she has. Outside factors, such as unexpected job loss, may drastically alter a person’s lifestyle for a while, but most people get back on their feet before long. As the GM worker said in Roger and Me, "It’s never pleasant when something like this comes to an end, but life goes on." The majority of people will make the choice to look for another job, no matter what they have to do to get one. This may include moving to another part of the state or country (the lady at the Flint post office said they had 82,000 address changes). It may also result in a cut in pay. Most workers are willing to make the sacrifices it takes to continue to be employed. Yet there are others who decide to give up, start to drink, or take drugs, and end up on the street. Watching Roger and Me in 2004 does not have the same impact it had in 1989. GM was one of the first companies to "downsize," and it was a big shock to everyone when it happened. Since then downsizing has become a trend with thousands of companies, and people nowadays are not surprised when they are laid off. Roger Smith is only one of many CEO’s who make millions while lower employees lose their jo... ...ay find themselves jobless and homeless. Everyone faces obstacles in their life. How one chooses to deal with them - to fight or to give up - will determine the quality of life he or she will have. Works Cited Crimmins, James C.   The American Promise.   San Francisco: KQED Books,   1995.    Grisham, John.   "Somewhere for Everyone."   Newsweek February 9, 1998: 14.    Marin, Peter.   "Helping and Hating the Homeless:   The Struggle at the Margins of America." Writing For Change: A Community Reader.   Ed.   Ann Watters and Marjorie Ford. NY McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995.   270-283.    Moore, Michael, Dir.   Roger & Me.   Videocassette.   Dog Eat Dog/Warner Bros., 1989.   VHS.   Ã‚   83 min.    Terkel, Studs.   "Mike LeFevre:   Who Built the Pyramids?"   Writing For Change - A Community Reader.   Ed.   Ann Watters and Marjorie Ford.   NY McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995.   209-216.

The Importance of Organizational Ethics

In today's world, it is all too prevalent to see more and more people hungry to gain success at an ever-increasing rate. Modern culture can and indeed is labelled ‘greedy' and ‘thoughtless'. Through my relatively short time spent in business, I have encountered many of these types of people. But who are they hungry for? Who benefits from their thoughtlessness, and why do they do what they do? More importantly, who is to blame when things don't go according to plan? These are all questions asked constantly in the business domain, questions that often seem to include the word ‘ethics' in their answer. Whether we look to consequentialism and always consider the outcome of a particular action, or conform to a more deontological form of ethical thinking and focus on always acting in a manner that seems ‘right', I believe that a person cannot always be ‘ethical', all of the time. If it were that easy, ethics would be a very small area of study. So what does the word ‘ethical' mean? To me, it is to take into account every aspect involved in any given situation, peoples' feelings, thoughts and well-being, both now and in the future, and act as best one can to achieve the most satisfactory outcome for all concerned. From my viewpoint, acting in an ethical manner comes from each and every individual, each having learned from the environment in which they have grown and developed. Should the judgement, therefore, always be left to the individual? This is certainly not the case, as more and more organisations in the business world develop codes of ethics that they expect each member to follow. This definition and management of ethics can be seen as a control-oriented position. This control paradigm for organisational ethics is largely concerned with extracting the best possible results for the organisation as a whole. When acting within a certain environment, be it local, national or global, the organisation must be seen to be ‘socially acceptable'. I believe this idea of control of the organisation's self-interest together with maintaining a good standing in the public eye to be the main factor for preparing these ethical codes. Both of these can only be achieved through clearly defined codes of ethics from which individuals' roles can conform through a manner of standardisation. However, through the enforcement of ethical codes, people revoke to a basic level of thinking, judgement and acting as identified in Lawrence Kohlberg's pre-conventional level. When put simply, it allows little room for individual thought or expression, only rewarding good actions and punishing those that are bad. Can it be right to control tasks that involve ethical reasoning by individuals? This is certainly much different than, say, controlling how someone operates a particular machine. Conversely, the autonomy paradigm, present in some organisations' ethical policies, is put in place to promote individual critique through their moral thought and judgement. It emphasises a feeling of a ‘moral community', seen before in Kant's work, and from which Kohlberg developed his post-conventional level, that allows people to apply their own reasoning to daily situations. As Durkheim suggests and with which I agree, individuals submit to the environment in which they work and how others have previously cast out norms and values. This applies to general situations and therefore the majority. At other times, in more complex situations, an individual would then be left to choose their own actions. McMahon identifies that the legitimacy of managerial authority lies within a contract or promise. An employee, therefore, willingly submits to the thoughts and ideals of the organisation when they sign the contract of employment. â€Å"That is, the exchange of labour for wages in which employment consists involves a promise on the part of employees to accept the directives of managers. To be sure, employees may be expected to use their own judgement in carrying out the tasks assigned to them. But if a managerial directive conflicts with an employee's judgement, the directive must take precedence. Otherwise the employee is attempting to renege on a morally binding agreement† (McMahon, 1989). Whilst this in law is true, I feel that it should be left wholly to the individual's own moral judgement. What is to say that those who have prepared the code of ethics for a particular organisation are better ‘ethically equipped' to make the decisions for others? That is to say, why is a senior manager more ethically right than a lower employee? I don't believe that as a rule he/she is, more they and others responsible for making the decisions would like to think they are. Yes they may have more experience in their particular industry or even technical and conceptual skills, but that does not make them better suited to exert their moral judgement over another individual's. Once again, this control is clearly forcing employees back down to a Kohlbergian pre-conventional level. In such free-speaking times as we now live therefore, why do organisations attempt to dictate our thoughts and actions? As I earlier identified, the organisation does not want to be seen to be ‘socially unacceptable' whilst simultaneously achieving the best possible results. Therefore, from where do the key decisions originate? Should it be left to the managers to ensure that employees follow an ethical code or should it be left to the individual's judgement? In my view, autonomy is the generally the best approach as I am a firm believer in individual expression. We have moved from such times as to rule with an iron fist, we should go on from here and not regress. Do many organisations simply issue a code of ethics because it is the ‘done thing', a reactive gesture rather than a proactive exercise? Is it the case that they are only acting merely not to appear unethical? This certainly is the case in many organisations in my opinion. What is left to examine is which organisation subscribes to which approach and for what reasons? I consider the major factor in this to be the issue of responsibility. The term responsible is â€Å"firstly, sometimes used to mean ‘trustworthy' or ‘dependable'†¦ second, the term is used to mean ‘obligation'. Third, responsibility is sometimes used to indicate that an action or its consequences are attributable to a certain agent† (Velasquez, 1983). It is this third explanation that I shall focus on. Can corporations have moral responsibility? This is a question that certainly needs addressing here, and one that has been previously considered by Richard De George. He focused on collective responsibility as it related to organisations, and identified two views, the organisational view and the moralistic view. â€Å"The organisational view maintains that moral responsibility cannot properly be assigned either to a corporation, nor to the agents of a corporation when they act as corporate agents. As legal entities corporations can be legally restrained and can have legal responsibility. But they cannot logically be held morally responsible or have moral responsibility. For they are not moral agents or entities† (De George, 1981). His moralistic view, as he claims, is extremely outrageous. In essence, it states that organisations have moral immunity, whereby an individual could be morally condemned for their actions, they could not if they were pursuing the goals of their organisation. De George lists the example of morally condemning a murderer for their actions, but how â€Å"Murders Inc. cannot be faulted from a moral point of view for pursuing its goal, nor can its agents for doing what is necessary to achieve the organisation's ends. Whilst this addresses the issue of whether organisations can be morally responsible, it does not answer the question. Therefore, we have to determine whether it is the organisation that acts, the management or the people. â€Å"Whenever organisations act, people act, and for every act of an organisation there are at least some acts of individuals such that if these individuals had not performed their acts, and no one else had, then the organisation would not have performed the act attributed to it† (Haworth, 1959). This quote, in my opinion begins to attribute responsibility wholly to individuals, and thus removes any need for a control-oriented approach. Since the organisation as an entity cannot be held responsible, why then should any body of people seek to control the moral judgement and actions of others? If I am likely to be held accountable for my actions, then I know I want to exert my own moral judgement before acting. Therefore, as it appears to me, it is the actions of the people (be it a manager or a cleaner) that are accountable, and consequently the people who are responsible! So why do some organisations take this control-oriented approach? I'm sure that with some it is simply to keep the power in their own hands; these people think they need to have power in order to be successful. However, I think a more pertinent reason as to why some organisations take this approach is to hide behind the organisation themselves. Many individuals within organisations are scared of the book stopping with them so they create a ‘code of ethics' which, in terms of blame, is large enough to hide behind. Surely then, with the control-oriented approach the organisation should be responsible? On the contrary, with an organisation that employs the autonomous approach, each individual must be responsible for their own actions since they are solely attributable for every part of every move they make. In listing these two types of approaches and the degree of control that they attempt to possess, can it be said of any one organisation that it has successfully adopted a control-oriented or autonomous approach, and that there is no middle ground? I believe there to be a large scope for contention with any organisation that states outright it has employed one of the two approaches in its entirety. Perhaps the two approaches are simply styles of operating, maybe even ideal? Having looked into the two different styles, therefore, I think that to control someone's moral and ethical thinking with the ultimate aim to enforce them to acting in a particular way is wrong. Each individual, unless impaired by disability, has the power to determine what is right for them in a certain situation and therefore should have the opportunity to act accordingly. A person should not be told what to think simply for the corporate ‘good'. â€Å"If we are to deter corporate wrongdoing and be assured that corporate members will comply with our moral and legal norms, our blame and punishment must travel beyond the corporate veil to lodge with those who knowingly bring about the corporation's acts† (Velasquez, 1983). In conclusion, if we as individuals want the power to think and judge for ourselves then we must accept the consequences of our own actions. Organisations should give us this choice.

Nuclear Power- Ethics Study

VALUE ISSUES IN DECISION-MAKING ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION: AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS Report drawn up for Afrosearch by Prof. Johan Hattingh and Me. Leanne Seeliger Unit for Environmental Ethics University of Stellenbosch March 2002 1 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 3 1. INTRODUCTION †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 4 2. METH ODOLOGY †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 6 3. THE BASIS AND STRUCTURE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 6 4. A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE EMERGENCE OF VALUE ISSUES †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦11 RELATED TO NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION 4. 1 The nuclear debate in the USA †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦13 4. 2 The nuclear debate in Western Europe †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦21 4. 3 The nuclear debate in South Africa †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦25 5. THE ORIGINS, PARAMETERS AND IDEOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF THE SOCIOPOLITICAL DEBATE ABOUT NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦35 6. IDENTIFYING CORE ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUE ISSUES IN THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. †¦45 6. 1 A schematic overview †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 45 6. 2 On the question whether nuclear power is clean or not †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦52 6. 3 On the question whether nuclear power is safe or not †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 56 6. 4 Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 64 6. 5 On the question whether nuclear power is affordable or not †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦67 7. CONCLUSION †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 69 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ 75 ADDENDUM 1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 80 ADDENDUM 2: FOCUSING ON VALUES IN PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING: IMPORTANCE, METHODOLOGY AND VALUE ADDED †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 92 GLOSSARY†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦98 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of S tellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report gives an overview of the value and ethical issues relevant to decision-making about nuclear power generation in general. An historical overview of the emergence of these value issues as they respectively related to the USA, Western Europe and South Africa was traced in Section 4.Questions with regards to the ambivalence towards nuclear power generation (i. e. strong opposition versus strong support) that emerged from this historical overview were analyzed in Section 5 and 6, where they were placed within the context of a social-cultural as well as an analysis of ideology. In this regard it was found that nuclear science and technology has brought modernism to its peak, but exactly this has also raised problems that cannot be overcome from within the framework of conventional responses of modernism itself.Section 6 of this report has been devoted to a close analysis of particular arguments pro- and contra nuclear power generation as they relate to value issues with regards to nuclear power generation in general. Particular attention was given to issues of:  § Clean energy  § Safety  § Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons  § The cost of nuclear energy. The recommendations for decision-making that we make, have been based on the principles and contents of common morality, the contours of which are discussed in Section 3. These recommendations are stated in the report within the context from which they have emerged.All of these recommendations have been consolidated in a separate list at the end of this report (see Addendum 1). It is important to note that these recommendations should be read in conjunction with one another, and not in isolation from one another. *** Since the nature, methodology, importance and implications of an ethical analysis of the value issues pertaining to nuclear power generation is not e vident from the outset, these themes were discussed in Addendum 2 in which the following questions were addressed:  § Why is it important to focus on values in a process of decision-making on nuclear? What is the nature of an ethical analysis of the value issues involved?  § What is the difference that such an ethical analysis can make to decision-making? 3 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. 1. INTRODUCTION This report gives an overview of the value and ethical issues relevant to decision-making about nuclear power generation in general.The brief for this study was to do a desktop study in which the value issues are identified that are related to the use of nuclear power generation (in general), to analyze these issues f rom an ethical point of view, to show what the implications of these issues are for decision-making, and to make recommendations about appropriate responses to these value issues. The terms of reference of this study also required an overview and critical analysis of the main arguments for and against nuclear power generation.This analysis of pro- and antinuclear positions will endeavour to bring rational understanding to a terrain where informed debate seems to have made way for â€Å"an anarchy of values, interests, and perspectives† (Barrie 1994: 173), adversarial confrontation, and ideological posturing. Part of the aim of this overview is to identify strategies to come to grips with this situation. It should be borne in mind that the context of this study is the process of decision-making about the proposed siting of a demonstration model pebblebed modular nuclear reactor (PBMR) in South Africa, either at Koeberg near Cape Town, or at Pelindaba near Pretoria.Associated w ith this proposal, but subject to different assessments in their own right are proposals about a fuel manufacturing plant for the PBMR at Pelindaba, as well as the importation and transportation of raw material and manufactured fuel along certain routes. However, in terms of our brief, it falls outside the terms of reference for this study to address the particular value issues pertaining to the complex of proposals pertaining to the siting of a PBMR in South Africa.The results of this study, though, will be used to alert decision-makers to the value issues related to the PBMR proposals that may require in depth attention. In the study that we have conducted, the methodology of which is described below, the following have been identified as the main areas about which the pro- and anti-nuclear positions differ deeply and fundamentally.  § The question of the health hazards of radioactivity  § The problem of the disposal of nuclear waste  § The problem of the risk of catastrophi c reactor accidents  § The problem of external costs and affordability Nuclear proliferation.  § Terrorism  § Sabotage 4 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. For the purpose of our investigation, we have distinguished between stronger and weaker variants in the anti- and pro-nuclear positions, and have identified the main reasons why these differences occur.As we will show in the course of our study, these differences have to do with different sets of opposing, and in some instances, incommensurable assumptions that are adopted on a variety of issues – which explains why the divide between the stronger variants of the pro- and anti-nuclear positions appears to be unbridgeable, and why it is virtually impossible to negotiate one's way in the nuclear debate without facing strong counter-arguments and even deep-seated emotions.We acknowledge that all of the problem areas listed above clearly cannot be divorced from involved technical and scientific considerations, which raises the problem of the vast difference in the levels of knowledge between experts working in the nuclear field and the public that is expected to comment on proposals in this regard, as well as that of effective public participation.However, the focus of this report will fall on the value dimensions of these problems and the ethical issues that are brought forward by them. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the facts with regards to technical aspects of nuclear power generation are known and well understood. It should also be stated at the outset that his report is written against the background of an emerging international trend in risk decision-making, amely to acknowledge and incorporate value and ethical issues in the whole of the process, from feasibility studies, scoping studies, impact assessments, generation and consideration of alternatives, right up to the final decision-making and implementation phase (see Nye 1986; Brown 1995; Lemons 1995; Cothern 1996, Newton and Dillingham 1996; Harris, Pritchard and Rabins 2000; Reason in Practice 2001, Shrader-Frechette 1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 2000 ).Since not everyone involved in the process of risk decision-making is aware of, or in agreement with this emerging trend, a brief overview of what is entailed here is given in Addendum 2 attached to this study. Before we proceed with the analysis of the value and ethical issues pertaining to decisionmaking about nuclear power generation, it is important to first provide an overview of the historical and socio-political context within which the nuclear debate is currently situated internationally, as well as locally within South Africa. In this regard we will give a brief overview of the Hi storical emergence of the nuclear debate in the USA, Western Europe and South Africa  § The deeper cultural and socio-political assumptions informing the nuclear debate. 5 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. The rationale of this study is to determine what the implications of an thical analysis of the value issues involved are for public decision-making about nuclear power generation. These recommendations will be identified during the course of this report at the places where they arise. A full articulation and a consolidated list of these recommendations will be given at the end of this study. 2. METHODOLOGY In order to execute this brief, a survey of local and international publications about the history of the socio-pol itical debate about nuclear energy was undertaken. In this regard, the focus fell particularly on literature devoted to the values that are at issue in this debate.Literature from the subject fields of philosophy and ethics were of great help in this regard. In the main part of this report, a close analysis of the arguments for and against nuclear power generation is given, focusing on different variants of the pro- and anti-positions in this debate, and concentrating in particular on the different assumptions informing each variant. On the basis of this analysis, a number of value issues (or ethical risk areas) were identified that should receive due consideration in any public decision-making on nuclear power generation.What these ethical risk areas entail, and what an appropriate ethical response to it could entail, was captured in a number of recommendations that are consolidated at the end of our study. A number of interviews with specialists on the scientific and technical asp ects of nuclear power generation have also been conducted. Since some of them have instructed us not to mention their names in this report, we withhold all names in this regard for the sake of consistency. 3. THE BASIS AND STRUCTURE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONSIn order to overcome the problem of casting our recommendations in a prescriptive, moralistic tone that could be easily dismissed as biased or subjective (cf. Stout 1993: 215), we have opted to formulate them either in terms of ethical risk areas, or in terms of issues about which decision-makers will need to have clarity if they wish to make any ethically defensible decision at all. These ethical risk areas or issues have been identified on the basis of what is generally known in the literature as â€Å"common morality† (cf. Outka and Reeder 1993; Reeder 1993; Stout 1993).This common morality comprises a cluster of values and assumptions that a substantive majority in society adhere to in their daily lives, setting the param eters of what one can reasonably expect of human behaviour within society, in particular within the public domain. 6 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas.It is assumed within this study that common morality is based on the notion of acknowledging and respecting certain common traits shared to a large degree by all human beings (Harris, Pritchard, Rabins 2000: 32-33). These common traits include:  § Vulnerability (The ability to suffer and to experience pain and unhappiness; the limitations of bodily existence and susceptibility to diseases and disability; the fact of growing old and dying. )  § Autonomy (All humans share to some degree the ability of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. )  §Interdepende ncy (All humans depend on others to help them get what they want, through co-operative endeavour and division of labour. Our well-being also depends on others refraining from harming us. )  § Shared expectations and goals (Besides wanting things for ourselves as individuals, we may want things together, as groups working toward shared ends. These groups may range from caring relationships between two or more individuals to larger groups, such as a particular profession, religious institution, nation, or even an international organization as the United Nations.  § Common moral traits (Humans typically display shared moral traits such as fairmindedness, self-respect, respect for others, compassion, benevolence etc. Despite individual differences in the strength, scope, and constancy of these traits, they are found to some degree in all humans. ) It is not claimed here that this list is complete, but it does give us a reasonable basis for understanding why common morality would inc lude general moral rules or principles about duties such as (Harris, Pritchard, Rabins 2000: 33; Rachels 1997: 10):  § Not to harm others.  §To make reparations for harms done to others.  § Not to lie or cheat.  § To keep our promises.  § Not to interfere with the freedom of others.  § To respect others' capacity to make rational decisions about matters affecting their lives.  § To treat others fairly.  § To help those in need.  § To be open and honest in one's dealing with others.  § To take special care when one can cause great harm to others. It is furthermore important to know that different standard approaches exist to prioritize these duties and obligations, or to cluster them around a more general principle.Utilitarianism, for instance, in one of its versions, would support the principle of maximizing human well-being 7 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Uni t for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. (i. e. ensuring satisfaction of human welfare for the greatest number of people for the longest time).Certain rule-based approaches, on the other hand, will relate these core duties and obligations of humankind to a morality of respect for persons. For the purposes of this overview, these different approaches are important in so far as they make use of different argumentative channels to arrive at a decision about what should be done. However, in spite of the differences in â€Å"logic† that they display, substantive overlap exists in the conclusions that they reach.Utilitarian morality (typically focusing on a close analysis of consequences in terms of costs and benefits: the morally acceptable option is the one with the best consequences) and a respect-for-persons morality (typically making use of respect for human a utonomy as point of departure, or emphasizing the importance of special obligations, justice and human rights) may indeed differ in terms of what they appeal to, and accordingly what they offer as reasons for or against a certain course of action.However, despite different approaches to justify moral choices, often these different approaches arrive at remarkable similarities in what they support as morally acceptable and what they reject as morally unacceptable. Both approaches also have fairly well developed strategies to overcome differences if they find that they make diverging recommendations (Harris, Pritchard, Rabins 2000: 60, 93; cf. also Jonsen and Toulmin 1988: 1-20).That such a thing as common morality exists, is evident from the fact that the gist of the duties and obligations listed above is informally codified in strong societal notions of what constitutes the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Similarly, much of the â€Å"spirit† of these duties and obligations form the basis of formal instruments within society, for example legislation and acts.The Bill of Rights in South Africa's Constitution, for example, is one possible codification of common morality – conceptualized as a set of shared norms and principles that the majority of reasonable and thinking people in society would like to see realized. The same can be said of about every act of Parliament that has been passed since the transformation to democracy in 1994, and about many others that have been passed before that.They all, to a greater or lesser degree, codify some aspect of common morality thereby setting standards below which we would not like people to go in their choices and actions. As such, common morality entails a â€Å"thin† layer of consensus among people in a society where a line is drawn below which no-one is allowed to venture without a very good justification. This observation highlights the phenomenon that any deviation from t he minimum standards of common morality are frowned upon by society, and that such deviations are only allowed if very good reasons exist to do so.For example: to respect freedom of movement is one of the instances of respecting the autonomy of persons, but one would be foolish if one insists on this freedom if it will interfere with government rendering assistance to people 8 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. uffering from a natural disaster such as a flood. In such a case, it is apparent that good reasons exist to temporarily restrict the right of the public to move freely in certain areas. Another important point to bear in mind, is that the standards of individual morality may differ from that of common morality. Many i ndividuals ascribe to moral standards that are much higher than that of common morality. These could be referred to as moral ideals, and as such, it would not be reasonable for society to expect everyone to adhere to the same standards.An apt example would be the self-sacrifice of Mother Theresa in her humanitarian service to the poor and destitute of society. We all may admire her for her courage and heroism, but we cannot blame others if they do not follow the same path in their lives. We can only legitimately start to blame someone for unacceptable behaviour and take him/her to task about it if the minimum standards of common morality are transgressed. Similar observations can be made about professional conduct, with the difference that we sometimes can hold professionals accountable at a higher level of morality for unacceptable behaviour.Professional morality often sets standards that are higher than that of common morality, and professional bodies are created to ensure that th ese standards are adhered to. Accordingly, we can take professionals to task if their actions fall below the standards that they have set for themselves. However, if they act in areas where no professional standards exists, the minimum standards of common morality apply in the same manner as in the case of individuals acting in public.The implications of the points mentioned above for public decision-making follow from the fact that a core set of duties and obligations related to common morality can always be identified at any given time in any society. If common morality is not encoded in laws, structures and standard operational procedures, common practice amongst reasonable, thinking people will always yield ample pointers to the contents and basis of such a common morality. As such, common morality will always be available as a point of reference in public decision-making.Similarly, common morality will also always be available as basis for the evaluation of any public decision- making. In fact, where society may to some extent still tolerate individuals who fall below the minimum standards of common morality, less room for tolerance is given to bodies who have to make decisions where the common good and the welfare of the public are at stake. However, if public decisions are made in areas where there is no clear guidance from existing laws, statutes and standard operational procedures, the minimum standards of common morality will be applied.With this in mind, an ethical risk area can in the first place be defined as an actual or a potential course of action in which the letter and the spirit of the minimum standards of 9 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. common morality are ignored, undermined, o r transgressed.The ethical risk factor lies in the fact that society would not easily allow anyone to go below the minimum standards of common morality, or forgive them for that matter if they in fact do so. The frequent occurrence of public scandals (and the victimization of transgressors) is more than enough evidence of this phenomenon. An ethical risk area can further be described as an actual or a potential course of action in which the letter and the spirit of the standards in relevant legislation and regulatory procedures are ignored, undermined, or transgressed.In such cases it is not only a standard operational procedure that is ignored, or a law that is broken; what is compromised is public trust in agencies and officials who, beyond their duties and obligations as individuals, individually and collectively also have special duties and obligations to obey the law, and follow standard procedures to ensure that the interests of the common good and public welfare are well-serv ed.Within the context of decision-making about nuclear power generation, a third level of ethical risk has to do with the fact that the development and application of nuclear technology places extraordinary duties and obligations on those responsible for its management and control since the potential exists within this context for â€Å"acute exposures† and â€Å"catastrophic accidents† (DME 1998: 62).This follows from the reasonable expectations of the public that officials have a duty of due care correlative to the actual or potential dangers related to the processes and procedures that they manage. This injunction is based on the tenet of common morality, which states as follows: Other things being equal, one should exercise due care to avoid contributing to significantly harming others.However, if the dangers or risks involved are extreme, then common morality dictates that we have a correlatively extreme duty to take due care to safeguard the public from such dang ers. In literature on professional ethics, this is referred to as the corollary of proportionate care, and it reads as follows: When one is in a position to contribute to greater harm or when one is in a position to play a more critical part in producing harm than is another person, one must exercise greater care to avoid doing so (Harris, Pritchard and Rabins 1998: 63; cf. also Alpern 1991: 189).In the case of decision-making about nuclear power generation, this exposes officials, regulators and decision-makers to ethical risks if they fail to demonstrate to what extent they indeed can, and in future will be able to meet the reasonable expectations of the public to be protected from disasters or harm to their best interests. Accordingly, the recommendations in this overview are structured in such a manner that they highlight those areas in which a course of action (in this case a decision about nuclear power generation) exposes decision-makers to the three levels of ethical risks m entioned above.Conversely, the recommendations in this report are structured to show which kinds and which 10 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. levels of justifications would be required to legitimately digress, if at all, from the reasonable expectations and minimum standards of common morality. Recommendation 1 General formulationDecision-makers and those commissioned to inform decision-making (e. g. scientists, engineers and environmental assessors) should clearly state which values they are using, and how they are using their values to make their choices and formulate their recommendations. Application This recommendation applies to all of the phases of the scientific and technical studies commissioned to inform decisio n-making. This also applies to all of the phases of decisionmaking. Note This could be done without falling into the traps of subjectivity and relativism by referring back to the minimum standards set by common morality. . A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE EMERGENCE OF VALUE ISSUES RELATED TO NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION For the purposes of this study, the history of the emergence of value issues with regards to nuclear technology in the USA, Western Europe and South Africa will be used as point of departure. This history is fairly well-documented, but it is important to pay attention to it in broad overview to form an understanding of the long period of the sensitization of public opinion against nuclear technology (Piller 1991; Dunlap, Kraft and Rosa 1993; Gerrard 1995).Although there is a substantive overlap in the value issues that have been raised in the nuclear debates in the USA, Western Europe and South Africa respectively (see Mink 1981; Patterson 1982; Welsh 2000), it should be bor ne in mind that similar kinds of value issues have been responded to differently in different countries. For instance, in France where about 75% of its electricity is generated by nuclear power plants, a predominantly positive attitude towards nuclear technology exists that is steadily growing (Koopmans and Duyvendak 1994). This difference, we believe, should not be ascribed to the existence of different value issues, 11Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. but rather to the fact that virtually the same value issues can be responded to in different ways by different societies and communities. It should also be borne in mind that the history of the emergence of value issues regarding nuclear technology the world over should not be seen as one single and coherent phenomenon.As it will be shown in the sections below, this history differs from country to country, depending on numerous national and international factors impacting on the public consciousness of the broad population of a particular country or region. Where some countries (for instance Germany) have experienced a progressive growth in public opposition towards nuclear technology, as well as an increase in levels of mistrust in the institutions responsible for the management and regulation of it, other countries (for example France) have little, if any resistance movement against nuclear technology left to speak of.Recommendation 2 General formulation Decision-makers about nuclear technology should duely acknowledge and respect the differences in the articulations and interpretations of value issues brought forward by any use of nuclear technology. Special attention should be given to the sharp divide between those opposed to nuclear technology, a nd those that support it. Particular formulationIn order, to enable themselves to make up their minds in a rational and reasonable manner in a situation of such differences, decision-makers about nuclear technology should familiarize themselves thoroughly with the nature and structure of these differences, as well as the grounds and the justifications for the different positions that are defended. Application If a decision is made for or against any proposal about nuclear technology, a strong obligation rests on decision-makers to clearly spell out what the grounds and justifications for their choices are, and why these grounds and justifications should be accepted above others. 2 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. 4. 1 The nuclear debate in the USA 4. 1. 1 Value issues in the early history of nuclear technology in the USAA review of relevant literature shows that the early history of the utilization of nuclear technology in the 1940s and 1950s in the USA, whether for the purpose of weapons manufacturing or for the generation of electricity, was characterized by an atmosphere of technological euphoria and optimism (Dunlap et al 1993: 33, 34). At this time, the completion of the Manhattan Project was seen as the â€Å"most remarkable scientific and engineering feat in the history of the human race† (Dunlap et al 1993: 33), and accordingly, everything that was required to establish and promote the fledgling nuclear industry on a commercial basis in the USA was done.The most famous and often quoted articulation of this optimism is found in the words of Lewis Strauss, then Chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission who spoke of â€Å"unlimited power†, and of electricity â€Å"too cheap to m eter†. He also referred to an era in which famines would be remembered only as matters of history. Strauss further argued that people would â€Å"travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds and [would] experience a life span far longer than ours†. In his view, atomic power promised â€Å"an age of peace† (quoted in Dunlap et al: 1993: 35-36).Since the era after the Second World War was also characterized by the Cold War and an accelerating arms race between East and West, the development of nuclear technology was, for understandable reasons of security, covered by a blanket of official secrecy. This secrecy also applied to commercial nuclear facilities, which made it very difficult for the public to gain access to data about potential safety problems of plants. This, in turn, made it virtually impossible for the public to influence either the development of the nuclear industry in the USA, or i ts regulation.In fact, legislation about atomic energy in the fifties made it possible for the US Atomic Energy Commission to leave it largely to the nuclear industry to regulate itself, while the right of the public to hold the industry liable for damages in cases of a major nuclear accident was for all practical purposes suspended. The net result of this was that the industry was provided with a great deal of protection and support, while the ability of the public to scrutinize and intervene in the industry's development was effectively curtailed (Dunlap et al 1993: 34 – 38).It was only during the early 70s after new legislation has been passed that a new approach to regulation was developed in which the public received a greater ability to influence regulatory decisions. Until then, the development of the nuclear industry was very much a foregone conclusion, with little hope for the public to be able to intervene in the direction or momentum of this development process. 13 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002.Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. The central issues that were put on the table from the side of the nuclear industry at this time, were commercial in nature, and had to do with  § patent rights  § ownership of fissionable materials, and  § free competition in private enterprise. From the side of the industry, public health and safety received less attention than the difficulties of establishing a viable commercial enterprise. Public interests, insofar as it was considered at all, was singularly defined as providing consumers with limitless supplies of cheap electricity †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Dunlap et al 1993: 34). From the side of the public though, health, safety and security were central value issues that manifested in c oncerns about:  § The siting of nuclear facilities  § Reactor safety and the risk of catastrophic accidents  § Weapons proliferation. What is clear from the literature is that the problem of nuclear waste storage was of little concern during this time, since the volume of it involved was relatively small.The question whether the use of nuclear technology was really necessary or not, was also not seriously considered in public debates. Both of these questions only moved to centre stage during the 1980s. Recommendation 3 General formulation With the scenario of a new generation civilian nuclear industry being established in South Africa, the temptation may be to promote the industry by protecting it from effective public scrutiny, thereby blocking the ability of the public to influence development and regulatory decisions in this regard.Decision-makers as well as the proponents of nuclear technology should avoid this at all costs. Specific formulation Because nuclear based energ y generation has become a sensitive issue, the ability of the public to participate and influence the process of decision-making should rather be actively promoted and developed. 14 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch.This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. Explanatory note 1 The central value assumption on which this recommendation rests, is that effective public participation in the process of decision-making about nuclear power plants is essential to ensure (a) the health and safety of the public, and (b) to establish trust in both the nuclear industry and the institutions responsible for its regulation on the one hand, and the process of decision-making about it on the other hand.Explanatory note 2 Effective public participation within this context entails at le ast (a) access to adequate information about nuclear technology and its applications that will enable interested and affected parties to make up their own minds about the value issues (e. g. ealth and safety issues) involved; (b) reasonable time allocations for interested and affected parties to digest and understand the information; (c) reasonable time and opportunities for interested and affected parties to convey their views to decision-makers; (d) reasonable time and opportunities for interested and affected parties to explain their views to decision-makers and to answer questions about these views. Recommendation 4 Introductory note The introduction of any new-generation nuclear technology in a country rests on the hidden assumption that it is indeed necessary to establish such a new eneration of nuclear technology. General formulation In order to ensure that the development of new-generation nuclear technology in South Africa is not seen as a foregone conclusion that cannot be changed or influenced by the public, a strong burden of proof rests on the proponents of such technology to make it clear whether they see the development of this technology as necessary or not, what the grounds for this view is, and how these grounds can be justified. ApplicationSuch grounds and justifications given by the proponents should subsequently be made available for public review in a process of effective public participation, and eventually proponents should be able to demonstrate if, how and why these grounds and justifications should be upheld in the face of criticism. 15 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch.This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. 4. 1. 2 Value issues during the era of the proliferation of nuclear power plants: 1960s and 70s Since the e rection of the first nuclear power plant at Shippingsport, Pennsylvania in 1957, the era roughly spanning the 1960s and 70s, until the accident at Three Mile Island in 1978 can, on the one hand, be characterized as that of the proliferation of nuclear power plants, while on the other hand it can be characterized as the era of the consolidation of ambivalence towards nuclear technology.As it was in the era before, the central concerns about nuclear technology in the mind of the public were the siting of nuclear facilities, reactor safety and the risk of catastrophic accidents, and given the Cold War, the dangers of weapons proliferation. These concerns were based on a greater emphasis placed by the public on health, safety, and the effective management of technological hazards.On the other hand, the nuclear industry was preoccupied with delivery, since utilities finally started to place commercial orders for nuclear reactors after the mid-sixties. This preoccupation was clearly vindi cated retrospectively by the oil crisis of 1973, which opened the eyes of the world to its vulnerability if it only depended on oil as its source of energy. During this time, public participation in decision-making about the siting and regulation of nuclear power plants was virtually non-existent.In terms of the rules of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), AEC staff and utilities worked out their differences behind closed doors, while the public was not even permitted access to the agency's data about potential safety problems of the plants. Notwithstanding these conditions, the public raised several safety issues in public hearings on proposed reactors that the AEC was not able to resolve. Rosa and Freudenburg (in Dunlap et al 1993: 37) pointed out that â€Å"†¦ the AEC's response scarcely indicated ‘excessive sensitivity' to public concern.Rather than holding up the issuance of permits until the questions could be answered, the AEC decided that if a question covered se veral plants, it no longer needed to be decided in an individual licensing case. Instead, it would be treated as a ‘generic' safety issue, the resolution of which would be sought through the ongoing research of the AEC and the industry. In the meantime, the plant could be built and operated. † This meant that the AEC effectively treated safety issues as irrelevant to the licensing of nuclear reactors.The perception was therefore created that the AEC only paid attention to issues that itself found legitimate, and that public opinion was not taken seriously in decisionmaking about nuclear technology. If one further takes into account that the AEC at the time only had minimal safety standards, leaving safety issues largely in the realm of the industry's 16 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch.This Report consists of 98 p ages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. own responsibility, and add to this that the industry was not accustomed to the intensity of management required, sometimes showing indifferent compliance to the minimal AEC procedures at the time, it is no wonder that public trust was lost in the ability of the AEC to effectively regulate the nuclear industry and that an active anti-nuclear movement started to emerge.In 1973 an evaluation of the AEC licensing process funded by the National Science Foundation concluded: â€Å"The whole process as it now stands is nothing more than a charade, the outcome of which is, for all intents and purposes, pre-determined† (quoted in Dunlap et al 1993: 37). In her characterization of this trend as a crisis of participation, political philosopher Robyn Eckersley (1992: 8-11) points out the basic value issue involved here is that of justice.On the one hand, administrative justice requires that people are not only a dequately informed about any imminent public decisions that may impact on their lives, whether these impacts are positive or negative, but also that they are given a reasonable opportunity to participate in the process of making that decision. At the same time, the requirements of distributive justice state that the benefits and burdens of any public decision ought to be distributed fairly among the population.The ideal would, from an ethical point of view be that, if there are burdens, that the population enjoying the benefits completely overlap with the population bearing the burdens. Since this cannot be achieved in all cases, the next issue is raised, namely fair compensation. Since these questions require careful deliberation about siting, management and regulatory decisions, the public value of justice in all of the meanings listed above is seriously compromised if the process of public participation about siting, management and/or regulation has deteriorated into a charade.Re commendation 5 General formulation Decision-makers about any proposed development or application of nuclear technology should be able to clearly demonstrate that public opinion expressed in the process of public participation has been taken seriously, and that concerted efforts have been made to understand and accommodate public opinion in the process of decision-making. Application In order to do this, decision-makers will have to do much more than merely provide a list of concerns and views that have been raised in the process of public participation.They will have to provide in the first place clear and coherent reasons and justifications for their decisions, and show, in the second place with proper arguments why certain concerns and 17 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. iews were dismissed in the process of decision-making, and why others were taken into account. Explanatory note Given the technicalities of the issues related to decision-making about nuclear technology, and given the fact that public concerns can easily be swept off the table by experts in the field as unfounded, a real danger exists that the public can lose its trust in the ability and willingness of decision-makers and regulators to take their concerns seriously.This clearly can happen if the concerns of interested and affected parties are dismissed as unimportant without providing explicit reasons why this is done. Similarly, trust in decision-makers and regulators would be severely underminded if the concerns or views of interested and affected parties were reduced to merely technical or management problems – as challenges that can be addressed by public relations programmes, or information and education campaigns. 4. 1 . 3 Value issues in an era of profound skepticism about nuclear technologyDuring the 80s and early 90s, the ambivalence towards nuclear energy in the USA deepened to the point that virtually no reconciliation between the pro- and the anti-nuclear groups seem possible. During the 80s a profound skepticism emerged about the ability of institutions in the nuclear industry to ensure nuclear safety, in particular the safe storage of nuclear waste. With about 112 commercial nuclear reactors in operation in the USA alone, the problem of a large volume of high level radioactive waste emerged as the most problematic policy challenge that the nuclear industry has ever faced.With public opinion fueled by images of catastrophe after the Chernobyl disaster of April 26, 1986, all of the efforts of the DOE to find a single geological repository for high level nuclear waste storage proved to be unsuccessful. In fact, the studies that were done in order to determine the feasibility of the proposed Y ucca Mountain geological storage site rather concentrated the focus of public opinion, turning it into a general rejection of continuing with any further development of nuclear technology at all.However, in the light of concerns about climate change and the alleged links to high levels of CO2 emissions, a resurgence of interest in nuclear power occurred in the late 80s and early nineties. The first Bush administration, for instance boosted this interest when it stated in its National Energy Strategy of 1991 that the USA's capacity for electricity generation should be increased from its levels of 99. 5 gigawatts in December 1990 to between 190 (double) and 290 (triple) gigawatts. 18 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation.Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. With the advantage of hindsight, after what transpired at the Kyoto Conference on Climate Change in 1997 – the USA chose not to sign the multi-lateral agreement on the curtailment of CO2 emissions – critical observers around the world started to question the very basis of the extremely high levels of energy consumption that is found in the USA.With some basing their questions on concern for fairness toward future generations, and with some basing their questions on concern for fairness towards other nations living on the planet now, it is asked more and more these days to what extent such high levels of energy consumption can be reconciled with the ideals of inter- and intra-generational justice. According to Robyn Eckersley (1993: 17-21), questions like these confronts us with a crisis of culture and character.It confronts us with large, all-encompassing questions about who we are, what kinds of lives we are living, and how we shape our own future and that of the planet by the choices we make now in the present. This in turn not only confronts us with a further set of questions, like: Do we really need this kind of energy and at this level? Do we really need this kind of transport; and this level of consumption in our lives? What does it mean to live a rich and full life?It also confronts us with the question of how we go about settling these questions: on the basis of which considerations, on the basis of which reasons and which justifications? In short, these questions require of us to make explicit what kinds of lives we can justifiably live in the face of scarce resources and global injustices. It furthermore requires of us to make explicit what kinds of institutions and organizations and states we justifiably support in order to realize public values such as justice and fairness.This line of thinking clearly brings us into the realm of a radical questioning of the current social ideals that we support, and structures that we live in, as well as the question whether they should be continued in their present form, or substantively transformed. As Eckersley (1993) sees it, the environmental crisis has created an opportunity for us to emancipate ourselves from the assumptions, ideals, structures and institutional forms that have become problematic in our time. Apparently this seems to be a long ay off from the question of how decisions should be made about the development of nuclear technology in a developing country such as South Africa. It seems as if questions like these take us into the area of idealism, utopianism and aspirational thinking, and that they therefore should not be taken seriously in deliberations about nuclear technology. Our argument in this regard, however, is that these questions cannot be ignored in public decision-making about nuclear energy in South Africa today.They form part of an essential framework of considerations that fundamentally shape the way in which we think about nuclear power and its manageme nt and regulation. This framework has to do with our basic ideas about science and technology, about what we can know, what we ought to do, and what 19 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. e can hope to achieve in the future. This general framework of cultural ideals has to do with what we think of ourselves as human beings, and even what a meaningful life on this earth is, or could entail. As such, this framework provides us with a long-term vision against the background of which we articulate our aspirations and make our plans for the future of ourselves and our children. Without an explicit awareness and a constant critical questioning of this broad framework of cultural ideals, humankind would be like a ship on the open se as that has lost its orientation, drifting aimlessly going nowhere.It is therefore essential that the content and the substance of this framework of deep cultural assumptions is also explicated in decision-making about nuclear technology – albeit in a rudimentary form. Recommendation 6 General formulation Decision-makers about nuclear technology should familiarize themselves with the different answers and kinds of answers that have been given in the socio-political debate about nuclear technology on the radical questions with which the development and application of nuclear technology confronts us (such as: who are we as humans and where are we going in this world with our knowledge and technology).Specific formulation Decision-makers should familiarize themselves with the reasons and justifications given for the different answers provided in the socio-political debate about nuclear technology on the radical framework questions conjured up by the development and application o f nuclear technology. Application When decision-makers decide about any development or application of nuclear energy, they should be able to explain in public why they give precedence to a certain position in the broad socio-political debate on the radical framework questions referred to above, and why that particular position is better than another.Recommendation 7 Granted that the conversation of humankind about the radical framework questions referred to above is incomplete and unending, and that we therefore cannot postpone decision-making about a particular proposal about nuclear technology indefinitely, decision-makers at least have the obligation to show that (a) they are aware of the existence of this conversation, (b) that they are aware that they are implicitly contributing to the substance of this conversation 20 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002.Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethi cs, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. by the choice that they will make, and (c) that they, in the choice that they make, do not foreclose the outcome of that conversation or undermine the conditions for its continuation. 4. 2 The nuclear debate in Western Europe It would be difficult to give an overview of the nuclear debate in Western Europe in terms of distinct historical phases (as it has been done in the case of the USA, and as it will be done in the case of South Africa).The reason for this is that different countries in Western Europe have had different exposures to, and therefore different responses to nuclear technology and its applications. However, what is similar in Europe to the history of the nuclear debate in the USA, is that the capacity for nuclear power generation for civilian purposes was developed during the 1950s, and that most of it was established, albeit against certain levels of public opposition and protest, during the 1960s. In this history, the same issues of official secrecy and government imposition were also experienced (Welsh 2000: 13-15).During the late 1960s and the early 1970s, strong and vocal opposition to nuclear power swept through the whole of Europe, coinciding with the New Left revolution on university campuses, although this didn't represent the attitudes of the majority of the population in most of the West European countries. In some countries, this opposition succeeded to halt any further development of nuclear power generation capacity (for example in the Netherlands in 1974); or to prevent any nuclear power generation capacity to be established at all (Denmark).In some, for instance in the United Kingdom, the anti-nuclear movement only really got off the ground in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In other countries such as France and Belgium, this opposition proved to have no effect at all on the respective country's nuclear power programme. An important fact in the interpretation of the nuclear debate in Europe, is that its intensity, which is much higher than that in the USA, can be linked to the Europeans' direct experience of warfare in their continent, and to he fact that nuclear weapon installations were deployed throughout Western Europe in close proximity to large masses of population in the era after the Second World War (Snow and Benford 1988: 209). With the constant threat of nuclear war, a strong anti-nuclear movement that is not only opposed to nuclear weapons but also to nuclear power generation emerged in Western Europe, although its history and success differs from country to country.In the Netherlands and Denmark, the position of the antinuclear movement was that nuclear energy is both dangerous and unnecessary, and this view has become the dominant viewpoint among the general public, the news media, and a majority of the political parties. In Germany, however, no clear winner h as emerged from the debate between pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear positions – the fight for supremacy continues. 21 Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002.Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. On the other hand, France is the best example in Europe of a country in which the antinuclear movement has lost the debate and has been marginalized by a discourse that emphasizes the safety of the national nuclear industry and the necessity of nuclear power as a guarantee for economic independence and as a source of national grandeur (Koopmans and Duyvendak 1994: 11; Welsh 2000: 18, 21).It is furthermore significant to note that public opposition to nuclear energy in Europe (recorded in attitude surveys in distinction from open protest behaviour) significantly increased t hroughout Europe after the Chernobyl disaster of April 1986, with the exception of France and Belgium where opposition decreased. In countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Denmark in which a majority of people in 1978 thought that nuclear energy was worthwhile to pursue, significant shifts of opinion took place when the figures of 1987 just after the Chernobyl disaster are taken into account.In the United Kingdom, Italy and Denmark, a majority of the public assumed an anti-nuclear energy stance in 1987. In the UK, the shift in opinion was 33%, while in Italy a massive 70% shift was registered, while the shift in Denmark was a substantive 52% (Koopmans and Duyvendak 1994: 12). The Chernobyl disaster of April 1986 also led to a very interesting pattern in the revival of anti-nuclear protest in Western Europe. In a study completed by Koopmans in 1992, it was found that only Germany experienced a spectacular rise in the number of anti-nuclear protest events.In France and Switze rland only a small increase took place, and in the Netherlands no change was detectable. The same pattern emerged when the volume of participation in these events was taken into account. Where Germany saw a substantive increase in the number of protesters, no increases on this level was experienced in the Netherlands and France. A significant increase in the number of protesters was registered in Switzerland though, although not as high as that of Germany (Koopmans en Duyvendak 1994: 4-6).The reaction of politicians and the general public (in distinction from protesters) affirm how wide definitions and interpretations of similar events can differ. For example, in Germany, several state and local governments prohibited the consumption of fresh vegetables, closed children's playgrounds and swimming pools and even cancelled sports events. None of this happened in France: On one side of a Rhine Bridge, at Kehl, in West Germany, the children were forbidden to play on the grass and the le ttuces sat uneaten in the ground.On the French side of the bridge, around Strassbourg, very similar lettuces were declared harmless (Hawkes et al: 1986: 154, quoted in Koopmans and Duyvendak 1994: 7). How can this be explained? According to Koopmans and Duyvendak (1994) these differences have to do with differences in the level of mobilization of protest against nuclear power in a country, and pursuant to that differences in the public image of nuclear power in the public 22Report on Value issues in decision-making about nuclear power generation. Final Version: 15 March 2002. Prepared for Afrosearch by the Unit for Environmental Ethics, University of Stellenbosch. This Report consists of 98 pages in total, including the Executive Summary , Bibliography and Addendas. consciousness of a country. In Germany for instance, the Chernobyl disaster occurred within a period in which public protest against nuclear power was already at a high level and well organized.Public protest was already mobilized during 1985 against a nuclear reprocessing plant in Wackersdorf, Bavaria, so that the Chernobyl disaster only provided further impetus to a movement that was already up and running. This impetus was further supported by the antinuclear stance of a number of German political parties. In the Netherlands however, the antinuclear movement almost came to a standstill after its campaign to close its two existing nuclear power plants failed in 1981.Similarly, the anti-nuclear movement in France was reduced to marginal proportions after the Socialists took office in 1981 (Koopmans and Duyvendak 1994: 7-8). The significance of t