3. Identify two main courses of action and analyze them by using the Navigation Wheel Reaction: LAW: Is it legal?

The tearing down of housing for several thousands of the poorest citizens in that city due to the modernization of the harbor and the lack of alternative housing afterwards are not our fault or consequences from our operating activities in this harbor. Even though we have recently signed the Global Compact in order to engage deeply in corporate social responsibility, the importance of Global Compact has even considered itself, through the overview, as a complement rather than substitute for regulatory regimes. And the ten principles of Global Compact are not legally binding; these principles are purely voluntary initiative which would not prohibit or enforce the behavior or actions of corporations. With all the reasons above, we can conclude that we are not doing something illegal if we do not involve in this situation. IDENTITY: Is it in accordance with our values? We are the shipping company from a Nordic country. Hence, one of our core values is equality among people. In this case, however, as can be seen from pictures, there exists already the inequality for those who lives near the harbor. Moreover, at first, the poor have done something illegal since they built house without the permission of the local authority. This issue is going beyond our control right from the start. It is somehow not in accordance with our values, but we can do nothing about that. MORALITY: Is it right? At first, it is wrong when the poor built house without the authority of local government, however, it is also wrong when the harbor managers decide to modernize without providing alternative housing for them. Regarding to our actions, the behavior that we deny our responsibility of preventing the modernization of the harbor is neither right nor wrong, because even if we take some actions to prevent this development it is highly likely that it will still happen. REPUTATION: Does it affect our goodwill? Since one has its own point of view, the Global Compact Board probably considers our action as failure to commit to transparency and disclosure, or taking advantage of the forcible displacement of the poor citizens in that city. This may

lead to a change in our participant status and possible expulsion. If happening, the social media will write some negative comments about our behavior, which is obviously not the ideal situation for our reputation. ECONOMY: Is it in accordance with business objectives? As stated in the dilemma, any initiative from the company will worsen the good but fragile relationship between the company and the harbor management. It will cause delays for the ships sailing under the companys flag, leading to considerable loss of revenue. Consequently, reaction response deny of responsibility is in accordance with business objectives, since our main mission is to maximize our profit which will satisfy our shareholders, and still keep good relationship with harbor managers. ETHICS: Can it be justified? Equal cases should be treated equally. A difference in treatment requires that there is a morally relevant difference between the two cases. Since we just entered the Global Compact, this event will differentiate our position with other companies that are operating in this harbor, then, we are expected to act differently. Because of choosing reaction, we will probably be considered as not having enough commitment in corporate social responsibility, degrading our reputation. In that case, whether we stand up to public scrutiny or not will not prevent malicious comments from the social media and even from our competitors.