Thailand Golf Course and Triple Bottom Line

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

John Elkington introduced the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) notion to the corporate sector with a purpose of encouraging investors to establish businesses that have commercial, communal, and environmental benefit. TBL is a concept of sustainability whereby the success of an organization is measured using three dimensions, namely income, individuals, and the earth. Governments and non-governmental institutions recognize TBL globally as a measure of sustainability. Sustainability refers to the progress that satisfies the desires of the present society while protecting the needs of coming generations. As a measure of sustainability, TBL offers an opportunity for companies to enjoy the value of their investments while protecting the priorities of the society. This paper uses the golf course that is owned by the Thailand government as a case study. The goal is to determine the success of the course using the TBL concept.

Success of the Golf Course

Traditionally, sustainability only had an environmental dimension. However, since the inception of TBL, academicians have been emphatic that it entails the interrelationship among businesses, ecology, and human welfare. Consequently, determining whether the Thailand government has succeeded in offering economic prosperity and improving the standard of living in the country by establishing the golf courses can be best explained using the agendas set by TBL (Dhiman 54).

Traisawasdichai reveals that the golf course earns investors (Thailand government) good income because of the wealthy clients (16). However, Traisawasdichai also asserts that the investment has led to pollution of the environment and dilapidation of human life (16). The pesticides that are sprayed on the golf course grounds harm the health of the neighboring residents and employees of golf companies. Cases of various types of cancers have been increased following the emergence of more golf courses.

Furthermore, inconsiderate investors have seized resources such as the land and water that can be used for farming. The Thailand government is said to have intended to promote economic affluence and the quality of life of its citizens. Perhaps, a nonprofessional would infer that the government has failed to improve its ambition. One may also claim that indeed the state has achieved its goal as the project improves the Thailand economy and the lives of various Thailand inhabitants. Nonetheless, measuring the achievement of the project through the lens of TBL would best determine its degree of success or failure as noted by Savitz and Weber (35).

Defining TBL raises no issue. The problem lies with measuring whether a project meets the actual tenets of TBL. The three major elements of TBL do not have a similar unit of comparison. Thus, weighing the economic, social, and ecological impact of the golf courses is not an easy process as one may presume. Profits are measured in the form of currency. For instance, the local currency or dollars may be used to determine the growth or failure. However, the challenge arises when income has to be compared with social capital and the ecological effect (Savitz and Weber 45).

The three dimensions should be weighed using monetized units. Conversely, such an approach may be misleading when valuing environmental elements such as wetlands and imperiled species. Other commentators such as Dhiman have suggested that the measurement should be done based on index (57). Indexing enables one to measure the different elements of sustainability based on unanimously recognized accounting measurements without necessarily considering the dissenting units. However, the main setback for this measurement technique is the criteria that should be used to value one component more than the other since the components may not have equivalent weighting.

TBL lacks a universal mode of gauging the incompatible units. Consequently, this situation implies that one is allowed to gauge the meaning of TBL from a subjective view without losing the meaning of sustainability. The site, nature, and entity will influence how success is measured with respect to TBL. Therefore, the stakeholders, the state, and specialists of the subject will play a significant role in determining whether the project has met the goal it was meant to attain. Moreover, scholars accept some universal traditional sustainability variables that determine whether an institution is committed to promoting sustainability.

The economic variables include evaluating the flow of money such as per capita income, employment progression and allocation, and the contribution of the investment to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). With respect to social measures, one should consider how the project benefits the community in terms of education, availability of social amenities, and social capital. Likewise, ecological variables to be considered when measuring success of an investment comprise the project’s effect on natural resources such as water, energy, and forests. Measuring the t environmental elements on a long-term basis is effective since it reveals the implications of a business to the surroundings. The variables may then be analyzed using a Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) to determine the success of an organization in implementing the sustainability tenets. GPI often uses monetary units to weigh the progress of an investment (Dhiman 57).

The Project was a Failure

After discussing how TBL calculations are conducted, it is possible to determine the success of a government in achieving its vision when investing in the golf courses. First, the government of Thailand’s investment failed to uphold environmental protection standards. Traisawasdichai narrates that the golf courses have depleted the water that farmers used to irrigate rice farms (17). A firm that focuses on not only income but also the ecosystem and people will use water resourcefully. Water is a crucial resource for golf courses, the society, and ecosystem in general. Therefore, there is the need to conserve and manage it ingeniously to ensure that it benefits the extant and forthcoming generations.

However, the golf courses are involved in water-theft with the aim of getting more water to keep the water golf grounds green. Such unscrupulous practices can only lead to depletion of water resources, contrary to the purpose of TBL. Moreover, there is evidence to show that dead birds are retrieved from the golf grounds the morning after green keepers spray pesticides. Evidently, the pesticides are injurious to the ecosystem. However, the government has tolerated the practice. Accordingly, this case violates the doctrines of sustainability.

Savitz and Weber assert that the social implications of the golf courses are also substandard (45). While the project meant to enhance the standard of life of the Thailand citizens, only the rich people benefit. It seems like the state is promoting a system through which the wealthy people prosper while the poor ones agonize. A firm that does not respect social equity and/or discriminates the poor class to satisfy the desires of the wealthy is substandard when viewed through the lenses of TBL. Contritely, there are suspicions that the chemicals used in the golf courses expose workers and residents to deadly ailments such as cancer. Introducing terminal ailments to citizens does not improve their standard of life. It fails on even the traditional variables for gauging sustainability.

Thirdly, Traisawasdichai is uncertain whether golf courses have resulted in economic affluence in Thailand (16). Foremost, the golf is a sport for the rich. Most of the clients are wealthy tourists. Apart from using the golf courses owned by the government, they often use resources that are owned by their home countries. For instance, Traisawasdichai reveals the hotels and devices that are owned by companies from their (wealthy people) home states (17). Definitely, the government earns revenue from the sport. However, whether the revenue is realistic and acceptable is tentative. The sport requires vast and green lands. Most of this land is left vacant. The land that was being used for agriculture is now part of the golf courses. Indeed, agriculture has a high economic benefit unlike golf. Clearly, even though the government may assume that the golf earns the country revenue, agriculture would have more economic benefits.

It follows that the government of Thailand has failed to accomplish its objective of improving the livelihood of the electorate and the economy. It does not meet the standard of the Triple Bottom Line sustainability. Indeed, going by the observation made by Traisawasdichai, if the authorities continue to run the business, it will soon destroy the economy and ecosystem and create discriminatory tendencies among the citizens (17). Considering the failure of the golf course project, the state needs to reevaluate its policies. It should adopt initiatives that will not only lead to increased revenue but also benefit the community while at the same time conserving the environment.

A Utilitarian/Rule-Utilitarian view on the Thailand Golf Courses

According to Carroll and Buchholtz, utilitarianism is a moral theory that was defended by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The theory gauges how right or wrong an action is by measuring the amount of happiness or reverse happiness it promotes (23). The concept of utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it is founded on the idea that the results of an action determine whether it is right or not. Utilitarian supporters declare that the purpose of morality is to increase happiness when decreasing sorrow. They assert that an action should only be chosen if it produces the maximum result. They differ from their counterparts who argue that the morality of an act depends on the motive behind it. According to Jeremy Bentham, an action taken among a group of people should yield the furthermost contentment for the greatest number of individuals. A choice made without consideration of the greater number of people is not moral according to the concept of utilitarianism.

Socioeconomic school proponents have a similar view to the founders of the utilitarian doctrine. They assert that investors should encourage an economic system that satisfies the desires of the society (Carroll and Buchholtz 67). They believe that manufacturing and supply should improve the socioeconomic welfare. Socioeconomic thinkers believe in the need to focus more on the needs of the community, as opposed to the shareholders. However, the utilitarian principle does not expound on the individuals whose needs should be maximized. Therefore, it creates the need to establish as deontic constraint to circumvent the possibility of stakeholders’ welfare endangering the longstanding aspirations of a corporate (Carroll and Buchholtz 67).

The establishment of a golf course is not a wrong act. The project is a positive addition to a country as a recreational facility. However, when the result of its creation interferes with the smooth operations of a greater number of people, then the action is not right. Rice farmers provide food for the general population, including the poor and the rich. Additionally, besides rice production boosting the economy of the country, it gives farmers livelihood. Thousands of rural populations in Thailand depend on it. On the other hand, golf is a prestigious game that is played mostly by the elite class in Thailand. The depletion of water supply that is crucial for rice farming by golf courses does not attain the greater good of the community. Rather, it benefits only the few wealthy citizens and tourists.

When a crisis affects the whole country, the government is supposed to allocate resources in a fair way that serves the greatest good of its citizens. During the drought that affected Thailand in 1994, grave water shortage was witnessed. Rice farmers looked to the government to issue policies that would protect them. However, the government chose to prohibit rice farmers from planting a second crop. The water supplies were also offered to the golf courses. The golf courses consumed water that was enough to sustain 60,000 people. The number of people who were negatively affected by the diversion of water supplies to golf courses greatly surpassed the people who benefited. Around 60,000 people were denied water, which was already short in supply due to drought, to the benefit of a few golf courses. Food production, which is crucial, especially during drought, was halted, thus putting poor citizens at the risk of starvation. Therefore, the choice made was wrong.

Environmental conservation should be a primary consideration in the construction of any project. The construction of golf courses and their maintenance using dangerous pesticides has been hazardous to people who provide labor and even the animals. Additionally, the establishment of golf courses near watercourses and natural habitats has grave ecological implications. It is more beneficial to the community if the environment is conserved than the construction of a golf course that only serves the rich people. Therefore, the construction sites for such projects should be done in areas that reduce the risk of contaminating water, air, and soil for the general population. Regulation should also be done on the total acreage that should be used on such facilities to avoid eating into land, which can be used in a way that edifies the general population.

The construction of golf courses in Cambodia should be highly regulated by government policies, which are protective of its citizens’ interests. There should be regulation of the area that is allowed for the development of the golf course. Instead of using massive tracts of land for development of golf courses, the government should invest in projects that benefit the majority, thus maximizing utility. Additionally, the sites allocated for such development should be away from general population to avoid contamination of air and water among the population.

Organic products are less harmful as compared to synthetic chemical products. Therefore, they should be used in replacement of the pesticides that are used in golf courses to reduce pollution and poisoning. This strategy will be more beneficial to the people because it will prevent a rise in cancer cases and the death of birds. Water supply is very vital in the life of every individual. Golf courses in Thailand have been known to curtail water supply for scores of villagers to irrigate their grass. Therefore, water rationing should be done by the government of Cambodia in case of development of golf courses to ensure that they do not suppress the needs of the majority.

Factors to Consider when determining if the Golf Course Manager is Morally Responsible for the Damages

Ethical responsibility is often expounded to mean obligation or liability. The idea of moral responsibility is unambiguous. People are considered ethically responsible if they trigger the act or omission, are aware of their action/omission, and have the potential to stop the act from occurring. Every rational individual unanimously accepts these provisions. The same factors are applicable to business. When the three provisions are established, then a company must be answerable for any injurious aftermath. Therefore, during such instances, a manager may be found ethically accountable for damages.

Traditionally, managers’ ethical responsibility was linked to the role of ensuring that a company remains profitable. Milton Friedman believed that the only social duty of businesses was to utilize the resources, as well as participate in acts that boosted their revenue so long as they did not violate any marketplace regulations. This notion was based on the economic doctrine that the task of everyone in the market was to maximize utilities or increase revenue as propagated by capitalistic academicians. Moreover, managers made this commitment to their employers. Thus, it would be fair and just if they were held liable to what they promised. Friedman further argued that companies should invest in activities that are ethically accepted while at the same time participating in ventures that have economic benefits (Ferrero, Hoffman, and McNulty 37).

However, after seasons of studies by scholars, the literature has drastically changed remarkably. Corporate managers have been given the role of handling the company such that it benefits stakeholders. Therefore, their moral duty involves maximizing utilities to secure the interests of every entity with a stake in company. The concept has been coined as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Modern commentators have deciphered the concept to mean that the moral responsibility of a manager starts with the society before considering benefitting the investors.

CSR seeks to ensure that companies have extensive duties that incorporate shareholders, suppliers, workers, consumers, neighboring communities, and any other relevant constituency. When designing their objectives and strategies, administrators must consider the interest of the beneficiaries. The companies have legal duty to ensure that their initiatives correspond with the state legislations that control the marketplace. Morally, a corporate is required to run their programs in a way that honors social justice and equity. Moreover, the society demands that companies have to align their affairs with the social morals, although such practices may be absent in the law. Businesses as entities are expected to behave as good citizens by engaging in charitable activities such as supporting education, assisting the underprivileged people, and encouraging employees to participate in commendable projects. Companies must remain emphatic in revealing and disapproving unethical practices orchestrated by their employees. Managers have the task of ensuring that the companies comply with the tenets of CSR by updating employees about social responsibilities and monitoring their implementation (Ferrero, Hoffman, and McNulty 38)

Investing to earn profit is avaricious. Indeed, it is an irrefutable presumption in business ethics that businesses should have the interest of the society. It is from this service that they earn profit. Thereafter, they have the liberty to spend the fortune they earn based on their desire. Hence, managers have the responsibility of ensuring that the primary purpose of the company is to benefit the society as profit-making remains a secondary goal. Likewise, the manager of Thailand golf course has the responsibility of ensuring that his or her actions do not harm employees, community, and the ecosystem. As such, ignoring such a responsibility makes him or her liable for damages in line with the factors of moral liability.

The challenge that businesses face is the subjective nature of what the society considers moral. What one quota may passionately support, another wing will fervently condemn. For example, the golfers and fans of the sport are likely to support the idea of increasing more golf courses. However, they will ignore the fact that the sport affects the source of income of other inhabitants. They would be enraged by attempts of some groups of activities who prevent them from diverting water to keep the golf courses green. In a stark contrast, farmers who can no longer irrigate their farms, employees who are struggling with cancer and languish in poverty because of golf investors have seized the residential lands would find the company to be purely unethical. From this perspective, one would conclude that to determining whether a manager is morally responsible would depend on which side of the divide one supports (Kotler and Lee 76).

Conversely, in determining whether an act or omission could amount to being morally wrong, managers should refer to the ten doctrines laid down by the UN Global Compact. The principles address various issues concerning human rights, labor laws, conservation of the ecosystem, and the anti-bribery provisions. Companies are encouraged to integrate them into a company’s policies to encourage proper relationship with the human resource, society, and the state. Some of the core values include promoting corruption-free zone in the firm, equity, respecting the globally recognized human rights, utilizing preventive approach to resolving environmental issues, and encouraging eco-friendly technologies. The ethical responsibilities of a company can be summarized in three fundamentals. First, employees should not violate criminal activities while performing company-related responsibility. Secondly, workers should not engage in activities that may cause them to be sued for violating the civil law. Employees and the administration should avoid contaminating the company’s public image.

Just like any other company, the golf course is obligated to doctrines and norms of CSR. Evidently, several unscrupulous happenings have occurred following the escalation of golfers and golf courses in Thailand. For example, Traisawasdichai says that the golf courses were suspected of water-theft with an observer stating they dumped rocks in the river to divert or increase the volume water that needed to be pumped in the golf clubs (16). Such acts have caused the depletion of water resources. Moreover, the golf project continued to use pesticides that affected the health of the neighboring inhabitants, workers, and the ecosystem. It has contributed directly or indirectly to the insidious events of which it could have easily stopped by avoiding dangerous chemicals. Besides, the company cannot claim to be oblivious of the acts as the community and employees have expressed their discomfort with its habits.

Works Cited

Carroll, Archie, and Ann Buchholtz. Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management, Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.

Dhiman, Satinde. “Products, People, and Planet: The Triple Bottom-Line Sustainability Imperative.” Journal of Global Business Issues 2.2(2008): 51-57. Print.

Ferrero, Ignacio, Michael Hoffman, and Robert McNulty. “Must Milton Friedman Embrace Stakeholder Theory?” Business & Society Review 119.1(2014): 37-59. Print.

Kotler, Philip, and Nancy Lee. Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause, California, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print.

Savitz, Andrew, and Karl Weber. The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success — and How You Can Too, California: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.

Traisawasdichai, Malee. “Chasing the little white ball.” New Internationalist 263(1995):16–17. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!