This paper examines the ethical dimensions of the proposed Kimberley Gas Hub, a liquefied natural gas refinery project at James Price Point on the Western Australian coast. Using three established ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, the moral rights (Kantian) approach, and the justice approach — the paper evaluates competing stakeholder interests including those of Woodside, local residents, environmental groups, the tourism industry, and government. Each framework is applied to identify the most defensible course of action. The paper concludes that the justice approach is the most pragmatic and applicable framework, as it accounts for power imbalances between stakeholders and distributes costs and benefits fairly and impartially.
The Kimberley Gas Hub is a controversial project to establish an LNG refinery facility at James Price Point near the Kimberley coast of Western Australia. The company Woodside is interested in developing the project and claims it will boost the mining industry in the region and bring economic development to local people. Critics doubt these claims, arguing that the project would have little positive impact on economic development while generating severe negative environmental consequences (Weber, August 9, 2012). The controversy intensified after the project received a conditional go-ahead from Western Australia's Environmental Protection Agency (Lawson, July 16, 2012). The ethical implications of any decision on this issue can be analyzed using three different ethical approaches: utilitarianism, the moral rights approach, and the justice approach.
The utilitarian approach to ethical decision making is based on arriving at the optimum level of satisfaction for all stakeholders (Mandal 2010). It involves identifying all the stakeholders in a situation, defining their interests, and analyzing the positive and negative consequences for them in each decision alternative in terms of utility and disutility. The decision should then be made on the basis of maximum utility for all rather than for a particular group. Utilitarianism assumes that some people will benefit from a decision while others will suffer; however, the most ethical decision is that which ensures maximum satisfaction for the maximum number of people. The concept of utility or satisfaction is traditionally understood in economic terms, but recent work on the subject has allowed the inclusion of social and moral aspects of satisfaction in the interpretation of utility (Hinman 2012).
In the Kimberley Gas Hub project, the stakeholders include the mining companies, the Woodside developing company, the residents of the region, environmental groups, the natural environment, the tourism industry, and the government. These stakeholders have particular interests as follows: the mining industry needs energy resources for developing new fields and extracting valuable minerals; Woodside needs to derive economic profits from a large, successful project; gas companies also need revenue growth; local residents need economic development in the form of jobs, infrastructure, education, and health opportunities, but also want a healthy and clean environment; environmental groups want the coasts, sea, air, and forests to be preserved; and the tourism industry wants to grow in the region.
These interests may be affected by the project in several ways. The mining companies will grow rapidly if they have gas to power their operations, which will drive up jobs and incomes in the community; if the project is not approved, however, the industry will be unable to develop. Woodside will experience growth if the project is approved but will be unable to do so if it is rejected. Residents may or may not benefit from increased employment opportunities and a better standard of living. The tourism industry may suffer as fewer tourists visit due to the destruction of the natural environment. Marine and forest wildlife may suffer from habitat loss and environmental pollution as land is cleared. Finally, the government may face praise or criticism depending on the utility of their decision, which could affect their standing in future elections.
These consequences need to be assessed and weighed against one another. Accordingly, the decision alternative that provides the maximum positive consequences to the maximum number of stakeholders should be adopted.
"Kantian rights framework applied to competing interests"
"Fairness and distributive justice among unequal stakeholders"
"Justice approach chosen as most practical framework"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.