This behavior of the national court is known to be a result of Barrick Limited request.
The expected impact on the company as a result of such unethical behavior will have severe impact on the company’s reputation, sales and stock prices as it has violated human rights of the citizens of Papua New Guinea and also demonstrated lack of environmental responsibility. However, this extent of this impact depends on the extent of public awareness and international community/communities about this issue.
Barrick Gold Corporation cannot be considered as an ethical corporation as it has violated the human rights of the villagers of Papua New Guinea and also has failed to do business in environmentally friendly and sustainable manner. Barrick Gold operates its but Porgera subsidy as a joint venture with the local government. It is possible to suggest that actions undertaken against the local citizens of Porgera village were initiated solely by the government of Papua New Guinea, however, it doesn’t relieve the company from ethical responsibility.
One of the competitors of Barrick Gold is Sumatra Copper & Gold plc. This company has established a detailed Code of Business Conduct, which covers “a wide range of business practices and procedures” and sets up guiding ethical principles for all employees and managers of the company (Sumatracoppergold.com, 2014). Also, the company seeks to minimize the environmental risks at the company’s sites and comply (Sumatracoppergold.com, 2014), while Barrick Porgera Gold mine obviously fails to do so, despite its claims (Barrick.com, 2014).
In order to address the problem there should be undertaken some serious measures and initiatives. First of all the company has to adjust its financial plans to the sustainability principles, which pursue not only economic benefits, but also social and environmental benefits. Thus, the company has to adjust the whole strategy to become socially and