Task: Read the Rio Tinto case titled “Rio Tinto CEO, top executives resign amid cave blast crisis” available as a PDF on your Moodle site in the Assessment 3 folder or via the link below....

THE RIO TINTO CASE INVOLVING BLAST OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL CAVES
Table of Contents
Answer 1    3
Answer 2    4
Answer 5    5
Answer 6    6
References    8
Answer 1
In this blast case of Rio Tinto, many stakeholders have objected regarding the act that had taken place. According to this case the shareholders did not get satisfy by the actions of the management of the company to address this issue are that the management had decided to cut on the bonus of the top executives and the boss. Already these people are high earning people and a simple pay cut does not justify their accountability. Van Dang et al. (2017) have discussed that according to the utilitarian theory, the action taken by any person should be morally good for others and they must not get affected in negative manner in any circumstances. However, the action taken by Rio Tinto had brought a major pain for the aboriginal people because of the destruction of their cultural heritage and that is a huge loss for them. Further the action taken by company to simply to cut off their bonus pay of top executives just did not satisfy the shareholders as the moral action should be that the people involved in this act must be more accountable for their actions and this is not the manner in which the punishment should be given which is not appropriate.
Further, the shareholders feel that the manner in which the situation was handled did not reflect that the company and the people involved are accountable for their actions. The shareholders feel that the company must be more responsible in dealing with the situation as the reputation of the company is involved with the action they had taken. Roff (2020) have added that the utilitarian theory states that the evaluation of the actions should be taken as that will produce the best result and the major purpose is to produce the best result. The actions taken and the results that have been received will determine the reputation of the person or organization who has taken this action. However, in this situation, the management had not taken the serious evaluation process and they are not taking the matter seriously. Hence, the company will have to face backlash and that will tarnish their reputation, which the shareholders will not accept, as their reputation is also associated with the reputation of the company and the social responsibility that the shareholders follows will also be tarnished because of the inaction taken by the company.
Another reason that can be highlighted which states that there is a serious communication gap between the traditional owners of the place and the appropriate authorities, who are in-charge of the preservation and protection of the archaeological sites. However, the management failed to maintain the proper communication and they could be able to avoid this debacle. Everett and Kahane (2020) have discussed that as per the utilitarian theory any action taken must be consulted before with all the stakeholders involved with the consequences of that action. If it is being found that the action will bring harm and pain to any stakeholders, then that action should not be taken. However, in this situation, the proper communication was not maintained and thus the aboriginal community people suffered the loss of this action taken by the Rio Tinto company. Hence, the company must take more initiative to rebuild the trust that has been lost and a simple pay cut or removing top managements will not serve the issue.
Answer 2
The Rio Tinto blast that had occurred during the expansion of iron ore mine at Juukan Gorge in the Pilbara region of Western Australia have destroyed a cave of significant cultural importance. According to news published in The Sydney Morning Herald (October 16, 2020), the cave was blasted by Rio Tinto, which is considered as a sacred site. The site has a significant presence of around 46000-years of continual occupation, and it has provided the 4000-year-old genetic link to the present day traditional owners off that place, who are Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinkura-community-people, staying in those regions. This act has led to severe backlash to the company and the company has to replace their chief executive Jean-Sebastian Jacques and two other senior executives. The company is facing significant backlash from the media house for three reasons.
The first reason can be described by the media is that many shareholders, who are company’s largest shareholders have raised concern regarding the better community engagement that management had failed to do and the respect for the culturally significant sites. Van der Ploeg and Vanclay (2018) have discussed that as per the corporate social responsibility of any company the company has to ensure that they are protecting the culture and integrity of the local place and the communities where they are operating and along with that the basic right to do good for the community. In this situation, the company has not been able to follow the CSR in a proper manner and have failed to protect the community’s harmony. According to Arvanitis (2017), this is also a clear violation off Kantian theory as this theory states that...