Tata Vs. Turtle: Is Greenpeace Right Or Wrong With Tata‘s Dhamra Project Protest


Published on

A case on sustainable development in sensitive ecosystems

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Tata Vs. Turtle: Is Greenpeace Right Or Wrong With Tata‘s Dhamra Project Protest

  1. 1. Business Ethics Case StudyTATA VS. TURTLE: IS GREENPEACE RIGHT OR WRONG WITH TATA’S DHAMRA PROJECT PROTEST[ A CASE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS] Submitted By: Group 4 Ashish Doneria (09BM8013) Mohammad Mudasser (09BM8024) Shweta Jain (09BM8031) Amit Sarangal (09BsM8082) 1
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTSCase Study - Tata Vs. Turtle: Is Greenpeace Right Or Wrong With Tata‘sDhamra Project Protest (Mohammad Mudasser) 3Case SolutionQues1: Similar Projects (Amit Sarangal) 9Ques2: Conflicts between Tata and Greenpeace (Shweta Jain) 14Ques3: Ethical Issues (Shweta Jain) 16Ques4: Ethical Theories & Conclusion (Ashish Doneria) 19Ques5: Recommendations (Ashish Doneria) 22References 24 2
  3. 3. TATA VS. TURTLE: IS GREENPEACE RIGHT OR WRONG WITH TATA’S DHAMRA PROJECT PROTESTA case on sustainable development in sensitive ecosystemsThis case was prepared by Mohammad Mudasser, Ashish Doneria, Amit Sarangal andShweta Jain as a part of the completion of the course in ―Business Ethics‖, completed as partof Master in Business Administration course at Vinod Gupta School of Management, IndianInstitute of Technology, Kharagpur. The views represented here are those of the case authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute in General.___________________________________________________________________________Every winter and spring, lakhs of endangered olive ridley sea turtles venture onto the shoresof Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary, in the Indian state of Odisha, to lay eggs in one of theworlds most spectacular phenomena — the arribada, or mass nesting, which occurs only inIndia, Costa Rica and Mexico. But with the advent of industrialisation in and around the area,many of the ecologists have raised concerns on the future of the breeding grounds to OliveRidley Turtles.Dhamra Port Project and Gahirmatha Marine SanctuaryDhamra is one of the most ancient ports on the eastern coast of India, its history dating backto 15th Century A.D. Earlier it was used for cargo transportation between North Orissa andKolkata. After independence, Dhamra continued to be recognized as a minor port of Orissa.The existing port was identified by the Government of Orissa for development into a moderndeep port based on a pre-feasibility study done by RITES (Rail India Technical andEconomic Services). On April 2, 1998, Government of Orissa signed a ConcessionAgreement with International Seaports Pte. Limited (ISPL), to develop and expand theDhamra port on BOOST (build, own, operate, share and transfer) basis. On May 5th, 1999,ISPL signed a Deed of Assignment, by which it has assigned and subrogated all its rights andobligations to DPCL (Dhamra Port Company Limited).Gahirmatha is the only marine wildlife sanctuary of Orissa. This was notified as such inGovernment of Orissa, Forest & Environment Department Notification No. 18805/ F&Edated 27 September 1997 and published in the Orissa Gazette, extraordinary No. 1268 dated 3
  4. 4. 17 October 1997. The total area of the sanctuary is 1435.0 km² which includes 1408.0 km² ofwater body and 27.0 km² of land mass. Olive Ridley sea turtles migrate in huge numbersfrom the beginning of November, every year, for mating and nesting along the coast ofOrissa. Gahirmatha coast has the annual nesting figure between one hundred to five hundredthousand, each year. There has been decline in the population of these turtles in the recentpast due to mass mortality. Olive Ridley sea turtle has found place in Schedule - I of IndianWildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (amended 1991). All the species of sea turtles in the coastalwater of Orissa are listed as "endangered" as per IUCN Red Data Book. The sea turtles areprotected under ‗Migratory Species Convention and CITES (Convention of InternationalTrade on Wildlife Flora and Fauna). India is a signatory nation to all these conventions.Dhamra Port Company LimitedThe Dhamra Port Company Limited (DPCL) is a 50:50 joint venture of Larsen & Toubro(L&T) and Tata Steel. Incorporated in 2004, the company is in charge of building andoperating the port. The location of Dhamra in close proximity to the mineral belt of Orissa,Jharkhand and West Bengal and its deep draft suitable for large vessels is going to makeDhamra port the most cost-effective and efficient port on the Eastern coast of India. Thelocation of Dhamra in close proximity to the mineral belt of Orissa, Jharkhand and WestBengal and its deep draft suitable for large vessels is going to make Dhamra port the mostcost-effective and efficient port on the Eastern coast of India.Only after discussing with WWF- India and BNHS (Bombay Natural History Society) TataSteel signed the Joint Venture agreement with L&T to build the port at Dhamra. Tata Steelalso agreed upon a proposal to make a further study on the impact of the Port on turtles andmonitoring the impact of the Dhamra Port of the marine and island eco-system. The port willbecome operational from May 2011.The Environment ConcernsIn 2004, a three-member Central Empowered Committee of the Supreme Court, headed byex-Union government secretary PV Jayakrishnan concluded that the proposed port site "willseriously impact Gahirmathas nesting turtles and could lead to the beach being abandoned bythe marine creatures. It is therefore necessary that an alternative site is located for this port."Renowned Indian scientist and IUCN(International Union for Conservation of Nature) 4
  5. 5. member B. C. Choudhury, who started radio-telemetry studies on the turtles, says that theGahirmatha nesting beaches "are eroding at a much faster rate than before and will probablybe not even fit for turtles to nest in the future."Also in 2005, BNHS and WWF-India agreed to study on the above issues. But, since therewere no reasons specified to make this study they expressed their inability to do this withoutassigning a specific reason.Greenpeace Steps inGreenpeace is probably the most widely recognised environmental pressure group in theworld and, consequently, the bete noire of many companies. It states its current mission asfollows: "Greenpeace is an independent, campaigning organisation that uses non-violent,creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for agreen and peaceful future. Greenpeaces goal is to ensure the ability of the Earth to nurturelife in all its diversity. Greenpeace has sought to fulfill this mission through whistle-blowing,awareness raising, public education and political lobbying.In Nov 2004, Greenpeace made its first appeal to the promoters of the project, the OrissaGovernment and Tata Steel to scrap off the project or shift the project to an alternativelocation citing the endangerment to the nesting grounds of Olive Ridley turtles. On April26,2005 Greenpeace India activists dressed up as turtles, confronted TATAs at BombayHouse, Mumbai, demanding that they abandon their plans of setting up a port at Dhamra,Orissa. In March 2006, Chairman of TATA Sons replied to Executive Director, GreenpeaceIndia, stating commitments have to be honored from both ends. Greenpeace didn‘t comeforward to jointly do this research, the study never saw light. October 2008, MD, Tata Steelalong with senior executives of Tata Steel, L&T and DPCL met Greenpeace, BNHS, WPSI,Wild Life Society of Orissa, Sanctuary Asia and other environmental organizations to discussthe concerns related to Turtles and Dhamra Port and discuss how to take this issuefurther. Around the same time, 40 Indian Parliament Members (MPs) had written a letter toMOEF and Orissa Assembly to bring in a resolution to stop Greenpeace from doing anyanti-Government activities and ban Greenpeace in the State of Orissa. The NGOs insistedupon complete cessation of ongoing dredging operation of Dhamra Port even before thecommencement of study. However DPCL, Tata Steel and L&T team showed its preparednessto adjust the schedule of works including dredging to facilitate the study after due 5
  6. 6. recommendation by the Scientific team. In Response, in 2009 Greenpeace launched an onlinegame ―Tata vs. Turtle‖, which depicted demons in form of TATA logo chasing turtles similarto an immensely popular game called ―Pac-man‖. Soon enough, Tata sued Greenpeace forusing the Tata Logo. In a statement, a spokesperson for the company said: "Greenpeace hasunauthorized used the trademark Tata as well as the T within a circle device without thepermission of Tata Sons, thereby infringing the trademark rights of Tata Sons. Greenpeaceherein has not only infringed the trademark rights of Tata Sons, but is also maligning thereputation of Tata Sons. In Jan 2011, Tata lost the trademark infringement suit as the DelhiHC cited that the trademark was used for non-commercial purposes.Conflicting ClaimsTata Group Hired Nicholas Pilcher, a co-chair of the IUCNs marine turtle specialist groupwho is based in Malaysia, as a consultant. "Realistically, the impacts on turtles will be sominimal as to not be noticed," he says. "I just cant see the hoo-ha people are making overthis, particularly as there is not one single scientific piece of literature that suggests the portwill be a catastrophe." Pilcher claims all opposition has "come out of ignorance and beingmisled by Greenpeace and others rather than being against the IUCNs involvement."Also, to vindicate IUCN claims, in 2009 almost 1.7 lakh turtles came to Gahirmatha for theirannual mass nesting. In 2010, all records were broken and almost 3.5 lakh olive ridley turtlescame for the arribada.Controversies involving GreenpeaceGreenpeace was involved in a similar case of overestimating the ecological impact in theBrent Spar case against Shell. The Brent Spar was a North Sea oil storage and tanker. Post1991, it was considered of no value and planned to be disposed off deep sea by Shell. In1995, British Govt. also supported Shell‘s disposal plans. Greenpeace organized worldwideprotest against the disposal plans citing tremendous impact on the marine ecosystem.Greenpeace claimed that 5500 tonnes of waste was being disposed off in the sea, as againstShell‘s claim of 50 tonnes. Shell appointed a consulting firm named DNV to asses thedamages, and its report found that the initial estimates of Shell were indeed correct andGreenpeace‘s calculations were too far fetched. Greenpeace later apologized to Shell for itsmistake. 6
  7. 7. Greenpeace was also involved with Damaging Kingsnorth Power Station. Five of theprotesters had scaled a 200-metre chimney at Kingsnorth power station, Hoo, Kent, inOctober 2008. Greenpeace activists, protesting the contribution of coal-electric power plantsto climate change, scaled a chimney and painted the word ―Gordon‖ on the chimney beforethey were forced down (―Gordon‖ is a reference to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown).The protest shut down the power plant temporarily and the graffiti cost about $62,000 toremove.Similar controversies had aroused before involving organizations like GM crops, Tridentnuclear submarine computer equipment, and British aerospace factory.Additional Concerns around Dhamra portIn addition to Gahirmatha being nesting ground for Ridley Turtles, it is also a nesting groundfor Horse Shoe crabs. Also, a very rare species of frog (F.cancrivora) and unknown species ofsnakes have been discovered in the area.Moreover, the port location is within 5 kms of the Gahirmatha Sanctuary. It violates a 2002directive by Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).Also, the coast was protected by a5km belt of Mangroves but has shrunk considerably over the years due to the developmentalactivities. This has resulted in the area becoming cyclone susceptible. The entire coastalecosystem in general and the eastern coast in particular are highly vulnerable due to flat andlow terrain, high population density, over exploitation of natural resources, high rate ofenvironmental degradation on account of pollution and non-sustainable development.The Road AheadNGOs are no longer seen only as disseminators of information, but as shapers of policy andindispensable bridge between the general public and the intergovernmental processes (KofiAnnan to the UN general assembly, 1998). Until recently, corporations were rarely heldaccountable for the impact of their corporate activities upon the environment. With the adventof global Environmental NGOs, activities of corporations that may have injuriousenvironmental impacts have come under greater scrutiny from the national/internationalpublic. These NGOs are mandated by their supporters to protect the environment. They act asthe watchdogs for the global commons – the oceans, lands and the atmosphere. They aim to 7
  8. 8. hold governments and corporations accountable. But with power comes a greater sense ofresponsibility; Responsibility to use the power judiciously, without biases and prejudices andstay within the sensibilities that appeal to the human mind.Its a question often debated, but seldom answered authoritatively: Do companies have asocial responsibility to protect the environment beyond legal requirements? Can they do soon a sustainable basis? Should firms sacrifice profits for positive environmental impacts?Especially when there are visible climatic changes observed. Or where there is a genuinethreat to the wildlife and chances of extinction realistic. The questions are many, butparamount among them – ―Is there a will to look beyond economic considerations?‖.Questions 1. Find out similar business cases/ projects in proposals in eco sensitive areas in India and their final outcome. Also look for few instances where Greenpeace has raised similar protest again corporations? 2. Highlight the major conflict issues between Tata Steel and Greenpeace related to Dhamra Port case? 3. Identify the main ethical issues at stake in this case? 4. Discuss which ethical theories enable us to resolve the dispute in the above mentioned case in an ethically satisfactory way and why? 5. How would you proceed in this situation? 8
  9. 9. CASE SOLUTIONQues1: Similar Project Proposals in India1) VEDANTA MINING PROJECTStakeholders involved 1. Vedanta Group: - wanted to set up a mining plant in Orissa 2. Tribal populations: - wanted the govt to reject the proposal as it would lead to their displacement from their origin 3. Environmentalist: - wanted the govt to take a step in favour of tribal peopleA subsidiary of British firm Vedanta Resources Plc had put forward a joint plan with theOrissa Mining Corporation to mine bauxite, or aluminium ore, in the Niyamgiri Hills ofOrissa state, in the east of the country. Vedanta is among several top corporations, includingSouth Korea‘s POSCO, whose Indian projects face delay as a proactive environment ministrytightens rules that often brings it in conflict with other government ministries pushing forrapid industrialisation.Federal Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has denied the clearance required for theproject citing ‗There has been serious violation of the Environment Protection Act (EPA),Forest conservation Act and the Forest Right Act‘. The government-appointed panel foundthat mining in the area would deprive two tribal groups - the Kutia and Diongria Gondh - oftheir rights over forest land and affect their livelihood.Vedanta says the mining site is located in an uninhabited area so no one will be displaced,and that the project will help lift the poor district out of poverty .Transporter companies,small businessmen and traders in the area may have been happy with the proposed mine, butthe tribes people, who formed over 55 per cent of those to be displaced and were among thecountrys poorest people, were distressed. The environment ministry that giving permission toVedanta would violate green guidelines and may have serious impact on security, referring toa worsening Maoist insurgency that feeds partly off the resentment of people displaced bylarge industrial projects.Final Outcome: - Environment Ministry rejects the proposed project due to violation ofgreen guidelines and displacement of tribal people from their land 9
  10. 10. 2) PROJECT SETHU SAMUDRAM CANAL GULF OF MANNAR NATIONALPARKStakeholders involved 1. Sethusamudram Corp. Ltd: - wanted to set up shipping channel linking the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka 2. Hindu Political Groups: - The project would destroy Ramas Bridge, which is a religious monument of significance to the Hindus 3. Local fishermen: - wanted the govt to use alternate route as it would lead to destroying marine life and corals. This will in turn kill the trade in shankhas (conch shells) that has a turnover in excess of Rs 150 croreSethusamudram Ship Channel Project proposes linking the Palk Bay and the Gulf ofMannar between India and Sri Lanka by creating a shipping channel through the shallow seasometimes called Setu Samudram, and through the island chain of Adams Bridge, alsoknown as ram sethu.The Union Government of India appointed the Sethu Samudram Project Committee in 1955,headed by Dr. A. Ramasamy Mudaliar .The project was stalled for number of years andbecame the election manifesto for a lot of political parties.This project if completed would provide a range of benefits such as • Strategic advantage :- The strategic advantages to India derive from obtaining a navigable sea route close to the coast, with a reduction in travel distance of more than 650 km • Economic benefit: - Savings in voyage time & hence Savings in fuel cost. Project will be a profit-earner and that it will have a cumulative surplus of Rs.3,138 crores, 25 years after it is opened to traffic. Employment opportunities and revenue generation for the government. The project is expected to provide a boost to the economic and industrial development of coastal Tamil Nadu.Issues involved with this project • Religious: - This Bridge is the site of Ramas Bridge, making it a religious monument of significance to the Hindus. While the age of the Ram Setu may be a matter of 10
  11. 11. discussion, it commands high importance as a religious symbol in the minds of majority of Hindus • Environmental: • The Project would disturb the ecological balance and would be the reason for the death of corals • The present channel would destroy marine life and corals. This will kill the trade in shankhas (conch shells) that has a turnover in excess of Rs 150 crore • Deepening the Sethu Canal might provide a more direct route for the tsunami and Setu Samudram route may result in tsunami waves hitting Kerala more fiercelyFinal Outcome: The Govt started the project by adopting an alternate route thus keepingthe sentiments of Hindu people as well as concern of local fishermen into account3) PROJECT GULF OF KUTCH MARINE NATIONAL PARKStakeholders Involved 1. Gujarat Positra infrastructure limited :- wanted to set up a port in the Gujarat 2. Local fishermen :- wanted the govt to reject the plan as it would disturb their source of livelihood as well as marine ecosystemThe proposed Port was to be developed by the Gujarat Positra Infrastructure Ltd. The Positraport proposal was shot down as it would devastate the fragile marine eco-system in theregion. The Environment Ministry rejected a proposal to set up a port at Positra, nearJamnagar in Gujarat pointing out that it would impact the marine ecosystem in the Gulf ofKutch.The proposal was rejected as the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 clearly states that waterfrom the protected area cannot be used for commercial purposes.Final Outcome:- The Environment ministry rejected the proposed project on account ofdisturbing the marine ecosystem in the region. 11
  12. 12. Similar issues of protest against Corporations1 Greenpeace vs. NestleGreenpeace started online protest against Nestle for using palm oil in products which isimported from the forests in Indonesia leading to deforestation. Indonesian farmers cut downthe orang-utans‘ rainforest habitat to make way for the palm plantsNestle products like Dove and KitKats contain palm oil from suppliers who are trashingrainforests and driving orangutans to extinction. The green group staged a protest at theLondon headquarters of the company, with campaigners scaling the building and othersdressed as orang-utans calling for Nestle to stop using palm oil which is drivingdeforestation.Greenpeace claims Nestle is buying palm oil, a vegetable oil widely used in processed foods,that is produced by the Sinar Mas group in Indonesia – which it says is involved in illegallogging.Cutting down the rainforest and allowing peat soils below them to dry out is releasing largeamounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.It is also threatening the life of orang-utan which lives in the forests. Nestle said it did notbuy palm oil from Sinar Mas, but it did purchase the product from supplier Cargill which inturn buys it from the Indonesian company.In a statement, Nestle said: "Cargill has informed us that Sinar Mas needs to answer Greenpeace‘s allegations by the end of April.The company also said it had undertaken a detailed review of its supply chain to establish thesource of its palm oil supplies, and had made a commitment to using only "CertifiedSustainable Palm Oil" by 2015.Social media campaign against Nestle: - Greenpeace UK released a provocative YouTubevideo calling into question Nestlé‘s methods for acquiring palm oil. Greenpeace claims thatthe company‘s practices contribute to rainforest deforestation and used YouTube as aplatform to shock viewers with a video that likens eating a Kit Kat to eating an orang-utan.The video caught the attention of Nestle, who had it removed from YouTube andconsequently incited Greenpeace to rally the troops to call, send e-mails and leave chastising 12
  13. 13. comments on Nestlé‘s Facebook Page. With nearly 1.5 million views of our Kit Kat advert,over 200,000 e-mails sent, hundreds of phone calls and countless Facebook comments.Greenpeace ‗s social media campaign became a instant hit and highlighted the power of anemerging medium called social media.Final Outcome :- The largest food maker in the world decided to stop buying the palmoil and also to avoid using it for any of their products in future2 Greenpeace vs. Shell, 1995Multinational Oil Company Shell announced on June 20, 1995, that intend to sink the BrentSpar oil platform (loaded with toxic and radioactive sludge) in the North Sea. Greenpeacewent into action with plans to take over and occupy the rig to prevent the dumping. Videoand photo staff was called upon to document the Brent Spar platform and the occupation.Following eviction by Shell, Greenpeace activists re-occupied the Brent Spar and continuedto protest Shells plans. Greenpeace started educating the consumers about the malpracticesbeing followed by the shell. Consumers also joined greenpeace in the protest by discardingthe shell products. Shell later realised the mistake and decided not to sink the Brent Spar oilplatform in the North Sea.This campaign highlighted the role of consumers in having a say & making an impact: Powerof the Consumer. This was one of the most successful campaigns ever conducted byGreenpeaceFinal Outcome:- Shell finally decided not to sink the Brent Spar oil platform into thenorth sea .In light of above mentioned business cases, we have observed that in all eco sensitive areas,govt. has taken extra care and majority of the cases were not given clearance.Greenpeace NGO has been actively involved in protecting marine life, though thereprotesting tactics may be termed as bit harsh but have also been proved effective. 13
  14. 14. Ques2: Highlight the major conflict issues between Tata Steel and Greenpeace relatedto Dhamra Port case?Since the Dharma project, (DPCL) 50:50 joint venture of L&T and Tata Steel is based on aneco sensitive area, the major conflict between Tata Steel and Greenpeace is that weatherDhamra project will cause threat to Olive Ridley Sea Turtles, endangered species and othermarine life.Greenpeace NGO, has taken up the cause of protecting endangered species of Olive Ridleyturtles, as they believe the port will cause irreversible damage to the nesting grounds ofturtles and nearby national parks. Whereas Tata Steel stands by their initial environmentalassessment that project will not cause damage to environment and ecological system sincethere is no scientific proof that project is affecting the nesting of the sea turtles.Below are the detailed description of various conflicts between Tata Steel and GreenpeaceIssues Tata Steel GreenPeaceLocation of Port Port is located to the north of Proposed port is located at the the River Dhamra and north of mouth of river Dhamra where Gahirmatha nesting beach at a turtles congregate and nest. distance of 15 kmTurtle Presence As per NEAA: clay soil and 2 scientific studies conducted till very sticky, it could never date in the region, involving become a breeding center for satellite transmitters confirms turtles presence of turtles.Impacts on It is in south of river Dhamra No impact analysis has been doneBitharkanika and is not likely to be affected to take into account possibleNational Park (BNP) by the port. impacts on BNP.Environmental Clearance was upheld by Only one EIA report was preparedImpact Assessment National Environmental in 1997. The flaws and loopholes in 14
  15. 15. Appellate Authority the EIA conducted.Environment Done by the scientists of IUCN. The IUCN‘s scope of involvementManagement for Construction of a public is restricted to mitigation and wouldDhamra Port infrastructure cannot be stopped be inadequate, in the absence of a on the basis of non-scientific credible, comprehensive and speculations and demands. independent EIAThere is grey area in identifying which one its claiming right thing. The threat to marine lifeespecially sea turtle cannot be ignored in the absence of scientific reports. Even though Tatahas got clearance and approval from government authorities, we cannot blindly assume thateverything Tata is claiming is true.Being a corporate they also have conflict of interest between profitability and protectingenvironment. 15
  16. 16. Ques3: Identify the main ethical issues at stake in this case?This case highlights larger issues like what are the corporate responsibilities while decidingto do project in eco sensitive area. Should corporate set up project in eco sensitive area orstop the project or is there a middle way out.Also the protests launched by Greenpeace organization called as a ―Defamation Exercise‖,lead us to an important issue on ethical ways of protesting. Though, NGO is protectinganimal rights, Do they have right to uses demeaning ways.Can‘t corporate and NGOs work in collaboration instead of head on war for overall benefit.Specific to the Dhamra port project below are the ethical issues:1) DEVELOPMENT AT COST OF ENVIRONMENT AND ECOSYSTEM DAMAGEThe project is based on eco sensitive area of Dhamra river thus threatening the sea turtles andother flora and fauna. Thus impact on the environment, biodiversity and wildlife in thesurrounding areas, particularly given the site‘s location in an ecologically sensitive zone onthe border of the Bhitarkanika and Gahirmatha Sanctuaries is questionable.Even though there is not scientific proof and clearance has been given by the government.Should Tata continue with the project as there can be possibility of potential damage tonesting zone of sea turtles and other marine life or stop the project?Whether Dhamra project is a sustainable development as claimed by Tata Group needs to belooked into greater detail.2) ETHICAL ISSUES CONCERNING GREENPEACE 1. Protesting Tactics used by GreenpeaceThe protest tactics used by Greenpeace can be challenged. The use of online game ―Tata Vs.Turtle‖ to defame the Tata Sons by using Tata Logo in defamatory manner is ethicallyquestionable.The tactics used by Greenpeace can be classified into direct and indirect actions.  Direct actions like protesting, defamatory statements used by NGO are not appropriate. They are targeting Tata Group as such by protesting in front of other Tata 16
  17. 17. companies like TCS instead of focusing on Tata Steel. Various ads campaigns that Greenpeace NGO is launching against is wrongly connecting ―Tata Nano Car‖ with DPCL project. Indirect form of actions used by Greenpeace like research report, reporting facts are also not showing true picture. There are instances in case that suggests NGO is using misleading information and evading facts in its published report. Cause of increase in turtle mortality by approximately 14% in 2008 is not investigated. This increase could be due to fishing activities. Another important observation that turtle populations has increased since 2010, Greenpeace is silent about this fact.2) Accountability of NGONGO is accountable to various stakeholder i.e. – Beneficiaries, Donors, Members,Employees, Government, Other CSOs, General Public. In this case the accountability ofGreenpeace is debatable due to below reasons:  Why only Tata Group target thought project was 50:50 joint venture with L&T Prior to Tata Group, 2 foreign companies and L&T were handling the Dhamra project, at that time Greenpeace was nowhere in scene. In 1997, Tata Steel entered into JV with L&T after foreign companies backed out. Only after Tata became the part of project, Greenpeace started protesting and only targeted Tata Group even though L&T was equal stakeholder.  Being a global NGO and privately funded organization there is ethical dilemma of tradeoff between NGOs focus on Donors priorities instead of their intended beneficiaries.  Involvement of various stakeholders in strategic decision making. The questions like which companies should be targeted and the reasons are critical ethical choices for NGOs to make. In this case we are not sure about how Greenpeace selected this issue of persuasion. Where all stakeholders involved in this decision and views of local people were taken into consideration. 17
  18. 18. 3) Representation of society by GreenpeaceSince Greenpeace is ―self- declared‖ stakeholder in this whole issue, should Tatarecognize it as legitimate stakeholder? Initially when Tata group invited NGOs forconducting Environment Impact Assessment, Greenpeace didn‘t came forward to help.Thus Greenpeace being legitimate stakeholder is also a concern. 18
  19. 19. Ques4: Discuss which ethical theories enable us to resolve the dispute in the abovementioned case in an ethically satisfactory way and why?Let us start with the theories which can be most relevant and can offer the solutions to theabove presented ethical dilemmas: (1) Theory of Rights: According to Ecological ethics Non Human part of environment has rights to be protected in natural way not for the sake of well being of Human environment but for the sake of them. So human beings as business leaders should recognize their moral duty to protect the welfare for the non human part of the system. In the current case of Dhamra port, nesting of Olive Ridley Turtle is posed to be harmed due to the proximity of nesting activities and the port site. According to the theory of rights, the project should not evaluate the benefits produced to humans due to the industrial activities vis-a-vis the damages posed to the non human elements of the eco system. But they should be fully protected and a tradeoff is not desired. Taking this argument further, if at all there is even a slight harm to the nesting of turtles due to this project, then some alternative action should be taken to protect the turtle nesting. Till this part this theory solves second question that ― No development should be proceed further at the cost of environment‖ Now if consider the second ethical dilemma with this theory. Greenpeace as a Civil Society Group can be considered as the stakeholder in the project as the representative of the non human ecosystem i.e. Olive Ridley turtle and also for the individual who are against the harm to Olive Ridley Turtles nesting. Now being a stakeholder, Greenpeace has the Rights to voice it‘s protests against the project in the light of harms it can pose to the nesting of turtles. Further it has the basic right of ―Freedom of Speech‖ to raise the issue. However in this case, there should be a boundary as in when it should not have crossed the thin line of its right to encroaching the limits. As some medium of protests like Online Game ―Tata Vs. Turtle‖ and Video in which Tata is presented as villain, can defame the Tata‘s brand name, which will no way serve the purpose to save the Olive Ridley turtles and will deviate the attention. (2) Stakeholder’s Theory: ―Business firms depend on the natural environment for their energy, material resources and waste disposal and the environment in turn is affected by the commercial activities of business firms‖- Manuel G. Velasquez. So by the 19
  20. 20. definition of a Stakeholder, Ecology is the stakeholder in the ongoing Dhamra project work. Now according to stakeholders theory business should act in the best interests of their stakeholders. In this case if the project, pose the harm to the ecology, then it will turn out to be in the best interests of the stakeholders. Further, to decide the best interests, the business should involve all stakeholders before deciding upon the action to build the port at Dhamra site. So by this theory Dhamra project alone cannot decide upon the actions but should take into considerations of the views of other members like, civil society groups like Green Peace, and local public of the project site. For second ethical dilemma, this theory can only qualify Green Peace as a stakeholder to the project as the representative of civil society and non human stakeholders like ecology, but cannot evaluate the extent and mechanism of protests are right or wrong?(3) Ethics of CARE: If we view the controversy over this project in the light of CARE theory, then we should reach the conclusion that Dhamra project should immediately stopped because of caring and loving towards the ecology and in general Olive Ridley Turtle. Since this is also a case concerning the Non Human ecosystem, it become more relevant as the concerned affected element cannot say for itself. Second dilemma can also be analyzed with this theory, as in the sense that to care for Non Human ecosystem e.g. Olive Turtles, Green Peace should go to any extent possible to halt the project work and then to start working the research and investigation whether or not this may pose a harm to the nesting of turtles.(4) Theory of Justice: Going by the distributive Justice theory, every stakeholder in the project should be treated fairly. Here one argument can be to trade off the harm posed at Olive Ridley Turtles nesting with the jobs, employment and development created by the project can be nullified by the argument that it is very unclear how much benefit in economic terms this project will produce and how much harm it will inflict on the turtles. But this theory does support the argument that Turtles case cannot be neglected and before going ahead with the project, issue to be solved. This theory does not provide much help to the second dilemma of ethical protesting by Greenpeace. 20
  21. 21. Conclusion: Salient points of the solution provided by the theories of the EthicalDilemmas discussed can be presented in the following table: Ethical Dilemma 1 Ethical Dilemma 2Theory of Rights Steps should be taken to protect the Green Peace has the Right of Olive Ridley Turtles nesting. Project Speech, but it should not violate the cannot encroach upon the rights of limits by not respecting it‘s duties Non Human Ecosystem to avoid defamation and deviating from the issueStakeholder’s theory Non Human Ecosystem, as a Qualify Green Peace as a stakeholder of the project deserves to stakeholder, though not as directly gain the best interests among other affected but as the representative of stakeholders. All stakeholders should Non Human Ecosystem and the be involved to take the course of individuals supporting it. actionEthics of CARE Project should immediately be Green Peace should go to any stopped even if there are very are extent to save the Olive Ridley chances of harm to Olive Ridley Turtles‘ interests. TurtlesTheory of Justice Benefits because of project cannot be NA traded off with the harm to other stakeholders i.e. ecosystem 21
  22. 22. Ques5: How would you proceed in this situation?Based on the above situation, below are the few are the salient points observed and concludedin the form of recommendations: (1) Dispute Medication: First of all instead of expecting the two parties, i.e. Dhamra Port and Greenpeace to come over to a platform, there is a need of a neutral agency to serve as the mediation and invite both the group to come on a common platform to discuss and decide a further course of action. This mediation group can comprise of Government representative, some renowned social activist and a member of Environment Investigation agency. (2) Thorough research by an independent agency: First task beforehand is to have clear facts regarding the Nesting areas of Olive Ridley Turtles near the port, effect of the Dredging on the nesting should be presented. Previous reports cited by Tatas like IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) fell into controversies as its local agency MTSG( Marine Turtle Specialist Group) members refused that they had any consultation during the investigation. Similarly the report of Orissa University cited by Greenpeace resulted in worse way, when university declared that it did not own the report. (3) Constitution of a committee by the Government to suggest a policy for Projects not impacting marine life and environment: Dhamra is not the biggest problem in Orissa for marine turtles. The state government is believed to be planning 4-6 ports, and other major constructions (POSCO at Jatadhar) and expansions (Paradip port) are already in the pipeline. So there is a need to be work to counter the large scale uncontrolled economic growth model – that places little or no importance on negative environmental and social impacts – that the government is proposing, not addressing each issue piecemeal. So instead of going over issue by isse or case by case, government with the help of a multi displinary committee, constituting environmentalists. Businessmen and other groups representatives should form a policy to develop and allow only the project which do not have the negative impacts on the environment and ecosystem above than the limits suggested by the committed. 22
  23. 23. (4) Business- CSO collaboration instead of conflict: In present case to go ahead, NGO like Greenpeace instead of having a stubborn stance to immediately stop the project should come on a common platform with the Dhamra port managers to discuss about the further research by the neutral agency and how they save the turtles nesting if at all there is a harm posed by the project and should barnstorm the alternate solution. Not only these two agencies but also all stakeholders should be involved in the process. So instead of wasting the time and energy on personal attacks on a particular business groups both parties will join hands to move forwards towards a possible solution. 23
  24. 24. References 1. Tripathy, B. 2004. A study of the offshore distribution of olive ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) in the coastal waters of Rushikulya rookery along the Orissa coast, India. Wildlife Conservation Society – India Program Small Grant, Centre For Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India 2. Dutta, S.K. 2007. Biodiversity Assessment of Dhamra Port Site and Surrounding Areas, Orissa. Greenpeace India, Bangalore. 38pp 3. Dhamra Port Company Limited. 2006. (Available from http://www.dhamraport.com/) 4. Johnston, P. & D. Santillo. 2007. The DhamraChandbali Port: Critique of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Greenpeace India, Bangalore. 15pp 5. Das, I. 1986. Action alert: Rockets to dislodge ridleys at Gahirmatha. Marine Turtle Newsletter 36 6. Sahgal, B. 2005. Record notes of discussion held on 14/12/04 to discuss various issues related to Dhamra port and Study related to spatial distribution of sea turtles. Message to: Kartik Shanker 7. Sekhsaria, P. 2005. The Dhamra Port in Orissa. Indian Ocean Turtle Newsletter. 1:14-16 8. International Seaports Pvt. Ltd. 1998. DhamraChandbali Port : Detailed Project Report. 9. International Seaports Pvt. Ltd 24