Money for Stakeholder Management and CSR-myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theMoney for Stakeholder Management and CSR. Answer: Kiama Municipal Council possesses a vision to create a municipality that has a vibrant and healthy lifestyle, harmonious, connected, and a beautiful environment. For such purpose, it intends to prepare a range of plans and policies that are needed by government legislation but some policies are outside the purview of such legislation (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). This is the reason why the Councils issues or features associated with its urban environment has affected the sustainability of its non-urban environment. Nevertheless, when it comes to development, it assists in offering various social and economic benefits but also exerts pressure on rural and infrastructure, natural resources, and services (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). Sustainability development is the need of the hour and this feature is keenly considered by the council however there are many instances that relates indirectly to the community at large. Such instances bring a widespread change to the rural population (Wal ker Salt, 2012). The land that is used by the Council is attained after the same has been used previously for commercial, rural, and industrial purposes. However, the intention of Council in relation to such land is primarily for sensitive uses like housing but there is a risk that such land might be contaminated. This can cause major social and economic issues to non-urban environment, thereby paving a path for improper sustainability management within the Councils framework (Wicks Colle, 2010). This strikes the notion that the rural population is under continuous pressure and this factors needs to be taken into consideration for the up gradation and betterment. Besides, it focuses on sustainable development of environment that necessitates urban areas to be redesigned, planned, and sustained to enhance their environmental performance (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). For such purpose, the urban lands are utilized by the Council for enhancing energy effectiveness but non-urban environment is getting ec onomically affected as a whole as they are the ones who have sacrificed their lands for the fulfilment of the Councils objectives. Moreover, if the sacrificed lands of rural environment are contaminated, the purpose of redesigning rural lands for enhancement of urban life is also economically at stake. Secondly, consumption of water and demand by commercial, industrial, residential, and agricultural areas exert pressure on supply of water and water infrastructure. It is a common parlance that when the resources will be required in abundance it will exert immense pressure on it and that leads to severe scarcity or shortage. However, the requirement of portable water can establish pressures on natural segments through requirement for catchments of water supply and issues in disposing effluent water from such aforesaid areas (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). This facilitates incurrence of heavy costs in relation to building of sewerage treatment plants. Since, resources are scarce there needs to be proper establishment that aids in providing proper facility. If the pressure keeps on building, it will lead to immense pr essure on the resource leading to severe issues. Further, the on-site sewerage management systems also necessitate huge inspections within the municipality in order to ascertain whether every system is functioning properly (Milne Grubnic, 2011). Moreover, if these inspections are not facilitated properly, it can pose a major threat to both urban and non-urban environment. For instance, consider this issue from an economic viewpoint, the Council has incurred $150000 for the purpose of mitigating and preventing drainage of water in the year 2016-17 (Kiama, 2016). The next issue associated with the sustainability of the Council is related to noise pollution. Moreover, the biggest complain encountered by the Council is related to noise from animals. There is, however, a pressure on the environment associated with noise centered around the influence of individuals on each other in an urban scenario like noise from industrial, commercial, residential, and transport issues (Bauer Hann, 2 010). Therefore, even though the Council functions from industrial segments for the betterment of the non-urban environment, yet it attracts major economic issues from the installation of equipment like air conditioners. Furthermore, since the sources of noise arising from residential, housing, and industrial areas are transient and heterogeneous, a universal solution for noise abatement is not prevalent (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). Besides, from an economic viewpoint, the Council incurs substantial costs with noise and its abatement that creates major issues for the non-urban environment as a result of the establishment of industries with big equipment and plants (Benabou Tirole, 2010). For example, there are costs that are directly associated with the redesign of an equipment that produces huge noise and impacting the non-urban environment. In simple words, the development controls implemented by the Council allows it to minimize or prevent noise pollution from industrial, resid ential, and commercial affairs but such approaches require huge expenditures on the part of Council (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). Another major sustainability issue that poses a major threat to the non-urban environment is the issue of biodiversity. In relation to this, the Councils affairs allow it to clear the vegetation in the municipality, urban expansion, predation by local animals, invasion and pollution of weed species, etc that has altogether resulted in fragmentation and loss of habitats. Furthermore, for the purpose of undertaking an active noxious weed control strategy, the Illawarra District Noxious Weed Authority intends to undertake domestic weed control programs for government agencies and private landholders. Besides, such noxious weeds pose an economic threat to the environment and agriculture of both urban and non-urban population, thereby necessitating costs for the purpose of mitigation of the same (Kiama, 2016). Furthermore, removal of a portion of trees, or trees as a whole can also pose both social and economic impacts for the entire biodiversity (Scott, 2009). Such weeds usually grow in domestic lands that can have a major influence on the non-urban environment. Therefore, the requirement of the Councils guidelines allows it to manage and preserve trees located in such urban areas. This is the reason why the funding of $132726 of the Kiama Council was assisted by the NSW funding on the part of the government of $103553 for the purpose of controlling the noxious weeds (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). The next issue because of the operations of the Council is related to management of waste. In the past, the Council operated two landfill sites within the domestic area of government at Gerroa and Minnamurra (Kiama Sustainability, 2016). In the present, these sites are closed and are in the process of rehabilitation. However, the major issue arising and posing a threat to the non-urban environment is that due to consumer behavior and growth in population, a huge volume of waste has been generated in the landfill of the Council. Moreover, even though the growth in populatio n in the Kiama LGA is stagnant in nature, yet surrounding areas are increasing at a faster rate and as a result, exerts pressure on the processing facilities and non-urban or regional landfill sites (Thomas, 2016). Emerging issues in waste that includes e-waste and proliferation of such waste through the removal of organics from commercial and domestic waste streams, disposal of batteries, disposal of fluorescent lamps, and diversion of landfill mattresses. From an economic perspective, the Council incurs huge costs for the purpose of construction of CRC (Community Recycling Centre) at Minnamurra Waste and Recycling Facility for the purpose of disposal of hazardous wastes incurred by households. However, it has also been observed that there has been illegal disposal of various wastes by urban environment that poses a threat to the non-urban environment. These wastes have a significant influence on both the natural environment and visual amenity that further necessitates huge costs f or the prevention of the same (Pearce, 2012). In addition, costs are also incurred for the purpose of creating development applications like management and waste minimization plan. This shows that even though the Council believes in the prevention of waste, yet its municipality is affected by illegal littering and dumping of wastes, which pose a significant influence on the environment (Kruger, 2015). For instance, the NSW EPA Waste Less Recycle Program offered massive funds to the Council for the purpose of organics collection system under Organics Kiama Implementation Program. This program incurred a heavy expenditure of $211230. In addition, the Kiama Community Recycling Centre also incurred a heavy expense of $198460 for the purpose of construction of shed that was established in 2016. A heavy sum of $26977 was also incurred by the Council for the purpose of home composting workshops (Kiama, 2016). This clearly shed light on the fact that the affairs of the Council even though a re directed towards an effective purpose yet encounters major issues and poses a threat to the non-urban environment as a whole (Sustainability reporting, 2012). Another significant issue within the Kiama Municipality is the absence of monitoring stations for the purpose of controlling air pollution. In relation to this, it is notable that sources of air pollution have a significant influence on both regional and local quality of air. Besides, other regions like the Illawarra have such monitoring stations for controlling and managing air pollution (Douma Hein, 2013). Therefore, since the council is lagging behind in the development of a monitoring station for managing air pollution, the air quality within the municipality is under extreme pressure from several numbers of sources that include both regional and local (Kiama, 2016). Such pressures comprise of solid fuel heaters, motor vehicles, clearing of vegetation, disposal of wastes, burning of household wastes, dust occurring from construction sites, direct emissions of odors and pollutions from rural affairs, industrial activities, and bushfires as a whole. Hence, the activities of the Co uncils urban environment are clearly influencing the sustainability of the non-urban environment. Besides, this is the reason why the Council has implemented a no-burn policy and cycleways strategy within its municipality in order to provide a strong response for mitigating and preventing air pollution, thereby enhancing sustainability as a whole (Kiama, 2016). However, from an economic point of view, it has incurred massive expenses for the purpose of offering alternative transport options for the visitors and residents. Another major activity of the Council that can cause a major influence on the non-urban environment can be attributed to its affairs like the development of houses, clearing of lands, etc. Due to such strategies, the aboriginal heritage sites can come under major threat, thereby affecting the Councils process of sustainability (Caradonna, 2014). Besides, it is observable that the Council lacks management strategies for the purpose of evaluating the significant impa cts of such affairs and the lack of recognition of sites. Furthermore, the non-aboriginal heritage items can also come under the purview of a major threat because of drastic weather situations, vandalism, redevelopment processes, lack of proper maintenance, and improper understanding on the part of the Council (Kiama, 2016). This is the reason why the Council incurs heavy expenditures for the purpose of using the services of a heritage adviser who can assist in the process of conservation of heritage, advice, and educate the community in relation to the planning of heritage and development of control affairs (Albuquerque et. al, 2013). Hence, these are some of the key issues that are created as a result of affairs of the Council and that pose a major impact on the non-urban environment. Besides, from an economic perspective, in order to mitigate the impact of such issues, the Council has incurred major expenses through government grants and other initiatives. Sustainability as its core is intended towards minimizing consumption of non-renewable resources and use of water or energy as effectively as possible so that the cultural and natural assets of the environment are preserved for future generations. Even though Kiama Council has undertaken various initiatives to recognize strategies and potential future affairs, yet its affairs have posed a major issue to both the urban and rural environment, thereby creating a hindrance in the path of sustainability program of the Council. This is the reason why it has to incur enormous costs for mitigating and preventing the impacts of its lack of management strategies. Overall, sustainability must be taken into account but not by creating an issue for the environment. References Albuquerque, R., Durnev, A., Koskinen, Y. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence. Boston University. Bauer, R., Hann, D. (2010). Corporate environmental management and credit risk. Maastricht University. Benabou, R., Tirole, R. (2010) Individual and Corporate Social responsibility. Ecnomica, 11, 1-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2009.00843.x Caradonna, J. L. (2014). Sustainability: A History. Oxford University Press Douma, S., Hein, S. (2013). Economic Approaches to Organizations. London Freeman, E., Alexander, M. (2013). Stakeholder management and CSR: questions and answers. Oxford Press Kiama Sustainability. (2016) State of the Environment Report 2016. Retrieved from https://www.kiama.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/11140/State%20of%20the%20Environment%20Report%202012-16.pdf.aspx Kiama. (2016) Kiama 2016 Annual report and accounts. Retrieved from: https://www.kiama.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/11140/Kiama%20Municipal%20Council%20-%20Annual%20Report%202016-17.pdf.aspx Kruger, P. (2015). Corporate goodness and shareholder wealth. Journal of Financial economics, 304-329. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X14001925 Milne, M.J., Grubnic, S (2011). Climate Change Accounting Research: Keeping it interesting and different. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(8), .948-977. Retrieved from: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/14657/3/Milne%20_Grubnic_AAAJ_%202011.pdf Pearce, J.M. (2012). The Case for Open Source Appropriate Technology. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14(3), 425431.Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-012-9337-9 Scott, C.M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan Sustainability reporting. (2012). Using sustainability to drive business innovation and growth 2012. Retrieved from https://www.deloitte.com/view/en_IN/in/index.htm Thomas, S.A. (2016). The Nature of Sustainability. Chapbook Press, Michigan Walker, B., Salt,S. (2012). Resilience Practice: Building Capacity to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain Function.Island Press. Wicks, H., Colle, D. (2010). Stakeholder Theory, State of the Art. Cambridge University Press