Your team has fallen far short of its fundraising goals and you are about to leave on a water quality project in about a month. One team member has been independently sending letters to companies with foreign interests who are based in your home country; they get a response from a mining company that has sites in the country you will be volunteering in. The mining company is willing to contribute the remaining shortfall in your volunteer project’s budget, but you must be willing to meet with them to discuss their interests for the project. You are apprehensive. In the past, Indigenous Rights violations have been committed by mining companies in the community you are going to. Should you consider their offer for funding?
1. Ethics of care
Ethics of care talks about how volunteers entering a community should take extra care because their actions can have consequences that make host communities vulnerable. In this case, ethics of care would not support considering funding from the mining company because there is a history, and a risk of further Indigenous rights violations. Some questions may arise regarding “ethics of care” in this case:
- Is there a problem with accepting money from companies with poor histories in community even if the money will be put into a well-intentioned project?
- How might accepting funding for the project from this mining company make the host community more vulnerable?
- Should anyone talk to the team member who has been independently contacting the mining companies about their motivations for volunteering on the project?
2. Non-Maleficence/Beneficence
These two frameworks emphasize that volunteers should not do anything that would harm the host community, but rather take action that would be beneficial. In this case, knowing about Indigenous rights violations that take place should prompt the volunteer to question the motivations of the mining company and to promote action that would benefit the host community. Some questions may arise regarding nonmaleficence and beneficence in this case:
- How could you find out what the mining company’s motivations for funding the project are?
- How might one’s own motivations for participating in the project affect good judgment when evaluating companies for funding?
- Who should take part in the decision-making process regarding funding in order to ensure that no harm is done to the community?
- What kind of motivations for project success might be more likely to cause harm in the community?
3. Autonomy
When autonomy is held as the most important consideration, the preferences of the community are respected. In this case, it would mean communicating with the community directly to ascertain how they feel about the funding opportunity and acting as they see appropriate. Some questions may arise regarding autonomy in this case:
- How might you go about asking the community partners their opinion?
- If you get an answer that you were not expecting, how do you deal with your emotions and respect the communities wishes?
- What is more important, the project or the community?
The mining company has requested that your tests aim to discount the claims of pollution and environmental degradation against their mining efforts. The community you will be working with, and your project team/mandate, focuses on developing sustainable water purification technology at the community level. You are skeptical you can find other funding within the short time before your team is scheduled to leave and this may result in a significant delay of the project. Should you proceed with a project without secured full funding? Should you proceed with a project whose mandate is not approved by the community but which has financial security? What factors do you need to consider when making this choice?
1. Ethics of care
Ethics of care would advocate that a decision be made after weighing the positive and negative impacts that the project may have on the host community. It would support the option that would have the fewest negative impacts on the community. Some questions may arise regarding “ethics of care” in this case:
- Are the motivations of the mining company to provide funding acceptable to the project, the voluneers and community partners involved?
- Will the benefit from the purification technology outweigh the consequences of covering up the mining companies actions in the long run?
- How might the course of action differ depending if volunteers are motivated to help the community, or to complete the project for other reasons?
2. Non-Maleficence/Beneficence
Both of these frameworks emphasize the need to do no harm and to maximize good for host communities. It is important to assess all parties motivations for discounting claims against mining efforts, and completing the project. Some questions may arise regarding non-maleficence and beneficence in this case:
- How might the community react to your team if they find out you are sponsored by a mining company and must portray the company in a positive light?
- What kinds of motivations would volunteers have if they wanted to continue with the project after the mandate changed?
- Does the new mandate change the amount of harm and benefit that will be experienced by the community?
3. Autonomy
Autonomy would not support proceeding with a project whose mandate has not been approved by the community. It is important to ascertain how the community feels about discounting claims of water pollution in order to secure funding for the project before accepting the mining company’s offer. Some questions may arise regarding autonomy in this case:
- Is the project important enough to the community that they would like to proceed with funding even if it means discounting any negative effects that mining has on their water?
- If the community does not want the mining company to fund the project how might volunteers react?
- What do different reactions say about individual’s motivations for engaging in the project?
A few team members have strongly voiced support to accept the mining company contribution. They would like to prioritize timely completion of a project over the original community-based mandate of water purification technology. The team members have stated: “If we do not show up when we said we were going to they will not trust us and will drop us from the project.” There is a growing consensus among these members that they will break from the team, ask the mining company for the complete budget, and undertake this new project themselves. This approach counters the project’s original approach to have the whole team work with the community on the original project. You are concerned for all team members involved, for the community and for team-community relations. How would you address this situation?
1. Ethics of care
Ethics of care asks that volunteers always be mindful that their actions may have negative consequences on vulnerable host communities. In this case, it is important to consider what would be best for the community. Some questions may arise regarding “ethics of care” in this case:
- Would accepting the mining company’s contribution be less harmful to the community than having the team split into two projects?
- How might the motivations of the volunteers in each of the two projects differ?
- Is it more useful to stay on a project with individual’s who you disagree with to try and influence their opinion, or advocate for change from a distance?
2. Non-Maleficence/Beneficence
Although refusing the contribution from the mining company could potentially jeopardize the project, it is most important to ensure that no harm is done to the community by accepting their funding with strings attached. Some questions may arise regarding nonmaleficence and beneficence in this case:
- Is it more important for volunteers to be motivated by the idea of efficiently completing a project, or by having a genuine interest doing no harm and helping communities?
- How might you open up a dialogue with all of the parties involved to come to a solution where harm reduction is of utmost importance?
- Who could volunteers look to for help in order to ensure that no harm is done in the community?
3. Autonomy
Autonomy places an emphasis on asking about and respecting the preferences of the community. Once community preferences have been self-identified they must be respected and held as the most important consideration on any project. Some questions may arise regarding autonomy in this case:
- Have the community partners approved the new project, or are the volunteers just going to go down and “help” because they want to?
- Might it be useful for the team to sit down together and consider their motivations for engaging in the community?
- Is it important to include the community partners in this dialogue?
Non Academic Resources (4)
(2009). “Bill C-300 – Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas Corporations in Developing Countries.” from http://www.miningwatch.ca/en/bill-c-300-corporate-accountability-activities-mining-oil-or-gas-corporations-developing-countries
Boyson, J. K. and Y. Sera. (2001). “Resources for Mobilizing Funding for Development Projects.” from http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:M-Lm20dku-sJ:siteresources.worldbank.org/INTMACEDONIA/Resources/Resources_for_Mobilizing_Funding_for_Development.doc+development+projects+donor+funding+ethics&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a.
MiningWatch Canada’s International Website from http://www.miningwatch.ca/en/category/4315/4318/4321/4324
UNESCO. Ethical Codes of Practice: Preliminary Concepts for an Ethical Code of Practice for Donors http://www.unesco.org/csi/pub/papers2/map8.htm
Academic Resources (6)
Hamaan, R. (2004). “Corporate Social Responsibility, Partnerships, and Institutional Change: The Case of Mining Companies in South Africa.” A United Nations Sustainable Development Journal. 28(4): 278-290.
Jenkins, H., N. Yakovleva. (2004). “Corporate Social Responsibility in the Mining Industry: Exploring Trends in Social and Environmental Disclosure.” Journal of Cleaner Production. 14(3-4): 271-284.
Kapelus, P. (2004). “Mining, Corporate Social Responsibility and the “Community”: The Case of Rio Tinto, Richards Bay Minerals and the Mbonambi.” Journal of Business Ethics. 39(3): 275-296.
Michelson, G., N. Wailes, S. Van Der Laan, G. Frost. (2004). “Ethical Investment Processes and Outcomes.” Journal of Business Ethics. 52(1): 1-10.
Wirgau, J. S., K. W. Farley, et al. (2010). Is Business Discourse Colonizing Philanthropy? A Critical Discourse Analysis of (PRODUCT) RED, Springer Netherlands.
Wietzner, Vivianne. Exploring Indigenous Perspectives on Consultation and Engagement Within the Mining Sector of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Canada (Phase I). Online. Available: http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/research/archive/2003/10.asp
Total (10)
