1.If you were a member of the board of directors during the time of the Ok Tedi operations, would you have been in favor of implementing a social accounting and reporting regime in the company?

If I was a member of the board of directors during the time of Ok Tedi operations, I would have been in favor of implementing a social accounting and reporting regime in the company.
As social accounting is always a beneficial method for a company to maximize their profit and organizational image.
Social accounting allows to see where improvements can be made so that an organization can better achieve their aims and values.
It provides a continuous record of how effectively organization has developed and changed.
Social accounting and reporting would help the Ok Tedi Mining company by giving feedback on how things are going from the range of people involved in the organization.
As the 97% workers at the company are PNG inhabitants, it would be easy to look over them fulfill their basic needs and values.
Social accounting would also identify the areas where things are working well and where not. To improve organization’s policy and perception ,it is a very appreciable way.
Social accounting would help Ok Tedi Mining to work accordance with legal way and social values.
Company’s decision would be more just and equitable to less powerful stakeholders. The company would meet the social responsibility and get a good organizational image from the society. The company was sued by the villagers as they were far away from the touch of people. If social accounting would be applied , the conflicts between company, government or civilians would be reduced. Social accountability is a part of social responsibility so if it is implemented the organizational success would be seen.
And at last it can be said,Ok Tedi is a business firm and their main motive is to make profit though it is their duty to tke some responsibility towards the general people. It will actually give some benefits to the company.

What would have been the advantages to BHP in making full disclosure of the conditions and events at Ok Tedi at the time the mine was in operation?
A business firm is not bound to disclose all the conditions and events but if it is implemented it gives several benefits to the company.
BHP would get several advantages economically if they would make full disclosure of the conditions and events at OK Tedi at the time the mine was in operation.
If BHP would disclose the conditions and events at OK Tedi they would not be lodged by a wrist at a billion by the 30,000 villagers of OK Tedi/Fly river region, as they were accused of running the river system and destroying the traditional way of life of the villagers.
The company produced waste products, including rock powder, silt water-some-metal, chemical residues. They almost dumped 20,000 tones of tailing each day into the river system until 1989 .
So if they would disclose all the conditions made with the government and events occurred within the operation time, the organization image would not be as bad as it happened. They would meet the legal requirements and social accountability and the environment would not be contaminated as it happened.
BHP was already in a position of conflict, they had to conform the legal responsibility.the disclosed information would help BHP to reduce the problem of conflicts.
What BHP has done was a contract and a permission from the Papua New Guinea government but the conditions was not clear what to implement.
Ok Tedi Mining also didn’t disclose the events what happened within their operation time. If this would be publicized the problem arised from the inhabitants of the villagers wouldn’t be happen.
They polluted the environment very badly, and they didn’t identified it and also didn’t rendered the thing to the people which actually hampered the organizational image and then legal uncertainty.
If the events would be declared like what is happening within the company and outside of the company the situation would be different. They wouldn’t be sued for the case of polluting the environment and the traditional way of living of the villagers.

Discuss whether the provision of health and education infrastructure and services is a reasonable requirement of companies operating in remote areas?
The provision of health and education infrastructure and services is a reasonable requirement of companies operating in remote areas. According to Freidman (1970) company’s only ethical responsibility has to increase the wealth of shareholders. So it is debated whether this was being done, company’s funds were used to provide health and welfare services to the villagers. OK mining Ltd’s motivate was to make profit but they also gave services in health and education programs.
As a business company should provide some basic services to the people. As Fly miner is a remote area, the basic needs of the inhabitants were is health and education services. So it is a reasonable requirement.
A company working in a remote area may be the only work providable organization of that area.
As Ok Tedi Mining was the only organization of the Fly River region. So it gets a reasonable requirement for the company to provide help and services in the health sector as well as in the field of education and others.
Every company has some social responsibility as mentioned earlier , Ok Tedi Mining Ltd also should regard some social responsibility of giving the health and education services. as it was a remote area, their main requirements was those. So obviously it can be said that the reasonable requirements of a company operating in a remote area should follow the health and education provision. as a company is getting a poor feedback from the civilian of the area when working in a remote area, they must make a good relationship with the local inhabitants and the workers.
So they have to provide the basic needs of the people as a social organization.somebody can get that thought wrong but it is actually a profitable technique of getting national and global recognition.

Can social reporting be justified in cases where it results in a decline in market efficiency? Why or why not?
Social reporting can be justified through it may results in a decline in market efficiency. Social credentialed and a good organizational image. It may otherwise be economically viable are discouraged that way, the Market will be less efficient and cost of finance could be high.
Social reporting is the way of providing relevant information about the organization and their activities towards society, large communities, relevant institutions, government.
Social reporting helps a organization to get a national and global recognition as all relevant information is available to the communities.
Social reporting may sometime increase the cost of finance and the cost of production, so the potential market may crash. The efficiency of the market may decrease and the consumers may suffer from these activities.
It also may make a dilemma for the company what information should be provided and what should be not. Some confidential information may be disclosed in this way.
Social reporting also gives extra power to the potential customers and the whole community which is a threatful atmosphere for the bu siness firm. It will discourage organization to take many profitable initiatives.
Sometime social reporting requires information about the company’s production policy, that means how a product is manufactured, what amount of waste it produces etc,which is very embarrassing for a organization to disclose.
A company does not want to share their procedure and confidential and contractual information.
Although there is several problem of social reporting a company should follow the social reporting method.
Social reporting is the easiest way of getting recognition from the society. Social reporting gives a great feedback to the organization. People know this organization and know about their activities and events. It makes a positive view for the company.
It also increases the loyalty of the consumers,and a good relationship as they have utmost good faith through the social reporting.
Sometimes it reduces the cost of advertising and campaigning as it already bears a good position in the market.
Social reporting also makes the decision just and equitable as it considers the society and community of the country and the requirements of the people.
By using social reporting a organization gets a good organizational value, and using it organization gets success.
Though organization count their success in money value. It is a avoidable thing to report socially. But organization should also count the value of “organizational value”.
This has a great value in this age of globalization. So it is just and equitable to follow the rule of social reporting though it may results in decline in market efficiency.

Should the social standards of one country (such as Australia) be imposed on another country (such as Papua New Guinea?) Give reasons for your answer

The social standards of on country should not be imposed on another country. The social values and norms, cultures and economic position is not the same.
There are almost 190 countries in the world, each of them is different in physical geography and natural resources. More important than theoretical inconsistencies,however,is the fact that it would be impossible for economically poor countries and communities to adapt and to meet the cost of any internationally acceptable social standards.
For social standards it is dependent on the wealth at a company. A country with a short in their wealth or economical power can not cope with the economically powerful countries.
In the mining case, for example, every customers of Australia are paying more for the copper products and utensils. So this country can spend more money or take expensive tailings treatments to save the industry people or the affected, or at least protect the livelihood of the villagers downstream. And the whole process may be made on a informed basis.
A country like Papua New Guinea can not afford the same amount for this task.their social standards are not same as Australia ,they can’t take expensive initials to save the downstream villagers,that moment they had to allow the company to continue their work without tailing dam.
In Papua New Guinea , the basic needs of people are food,health services,and education ,as it is not a economically developed country. Most of the people live under poverty line, and live a suffering life.
So the social standards of this country would not be the same as the others. Like , Australia is highly developed country and their cultures are different from Papua New Guniea.
So it is not advisable to impose a social standards of a country on other country.
A country like Australia can make a big investment for mining in their country, they can also develop a healthy tailings dam or necessary steps to protect the environment and the inhabitants.
When the tailing dam was destroyed by the landslips which resulted Ok Tedi Mining Ltd a financial loss of $64 million and it was estimated that it will cost more than $640 million to replace it.
As it seemed that the programme will end, the government permitted the company to continue their work without the tailing dam.
But it would not be happened if it were in Australia. Because they have sufficient amount of wealth to replace the dam. So the environment would not be so contaminated as it happened.
So it is clear that social standards of one country should not be imposed on other countries as the situation of the different countries and the economic pattern are not the same. 1. Centre for Urban and Regional studies (UoN)

2. Social responsibility,(Friedman,MI,1970)

3. Barbara sharp, Director.Offersharp Australian Symposium, 6th September, 2007

4. Gray, r, Owen, d&Adam c 1996, Accounting &accountability, prentice hall, London 5. Frith,d 1995,’BHP digs deep for Ok Tedi solution’. The Australian, 27th September

6. BHP 1995, BHP and Ok Tedi litigation, press release 7. Friedman M 1970,’The Social Responsibility of business is to increase its profits, the New York time magazine, 13th September, pp.122-126

8. BHP 1997,’guiding business conduct, Proceedings of forum on Corruption in international procurement, institution of engineers Australia, canbera, march 9. Gary, r, Owen,d&maunders,K1987,corporate social reporting, prentice hall, New Jersey 10. Matthews, MR 1993, socially responsible accounting, Chapman & hall, London

11. Perks, RW 1993, Accounting and society, Chapman &hall, London 12. Herbohn, KF &Herbohn,JL 1999,’Accounting for forests in social, economic and political context, accounting Forum, vol.23,no.4,p.408 13. Matthews, MR 1993, sociall responsible accounting, Chapman&hall, London 14. National Conference on Social Welfare. Committee on Standards of Living and Labor, Cleveland-1912 15. Code of conducts social standards,coc-runder-tisch 16. Kirsch,S 1996’return to Ok Tedi,meanjin,vol.55,no.4pp.657-66 17. BHP 1995,BHP and Ok Tedi litigation, press release