CIMA Exam CIMAPRA19-P03-1 Topic 3 Question 58 Discussion

Actual exam question for CIMA's CIMAPRA19-P03-1 exam

Question #: 58
Topic #: 3

YY is a company which generates electricity from alternative energy sources It has just begun constructing a wind farm near a well-known beauty spot The protect has been controversial as campaigners say it will be noisy and unsightly.

The campaigners took legal action but lost the case Some of them have started a campaign of direct action against YY and are physically blocking roads leading to the site and attempting to intimidate YY's staff

YY has hired a security company to help it to protect its staff

Which of the following statements are view in relation to the ethics of this scenario''

Select ALL that apply.

AYY is within its rights to hire the security firm because it has duty of care to its employees

BThe security firm must take care not to use more force against the protestors than is absolutely necessary.

CYY no longer has any duty of care to the protestors since their actions are illegal because they lost their court case

DThe generation of electricity from clean renewable and sustainable sources is too important for the protestors' concerns to be considered

ESince the protestors have already lost their court case they would no longer be ethically justified in engaging in political lobbying to try to get the government to change the law in this area

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A, B, D

by Lacey at Sep 14, 2024, 02:47 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIMAPRA19-P03-1 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

2 months ago

I think YY has a duty to protect its employees, but the security firm needs to use the minimum force necessary. The protestors have a right to voice their concerns, even if they lost in court.

upvoted 0 times