Introduction
In this paper an ethical dilemma in the working practice of the Economic- and Airport Affairs team of the municipality of Haarlemmermeer will be discussed. The issue discussed here is the – spatial – reservation for a possible extra future runway at Schiphol Airport in the municipality of Haarlemmermeer: the parallel Kaagbaan. The theories of the first two lectures of Business Ethics and from the first five chapters of Crane & Matten will be used to analyze this dilemma. In the first section, the dilemma of the parallel Kaagbaan will be explained and it will be argued why it is an ethical dilemma. In the second section, the different actors involved in the issue (individuals, groups, organizations) will be identified. For each party, the best preferred solution will be examined. Part 3 will provide an evaluation of the alternative solutions using two different relevant ethical theories. In section 4, the preferred solution from a business perspective will be assessed. The last two sections – 5 and 6 – will include a personal opinion on what the organization should decide while integrating both ethical and business considerations.
1. Description of the dilemma
An international airport in an urban environment
Haarlemmermeer is a municipality in the Netherlands, in the province Noord-Holland. It has over 144,000 citizens, 26 villages and is one of the bigger municipalities in the Netherlands – next to the municipality of Amsterdam. Haarlemmermeer is characterized by contrasts: 42% is rural area and at the same time it hosts more than 500 international companies. The main reason for this is that the Netherlands’ main international airport Schiphol is located in Haarlemmermeer. Schiphol Airport serves more than 55 million passengers and 1.6 million tons of cargo per year. It has 317 direct connections and it is the fourth biggest airport of Europe (Schiphol Airport Annual Report 2014). Due to strong connectivity of the hub carrier KLM-Air France, Schiphol is a hub-airport with connections to all over the world.
In 1916, Schiphol Airport started with just one runway. In the following 100 years, the airport expanded to five runways today (actually it has six runway’s, but the sixth runway – the ‘Oostbaan’ – is not always counted as an official runway). These runways were necessary to accommodate the growing number of flight movements and passengers. Significant volumes of passengers are necessary to utilize and maintain the extensive hub network Schiphol has today. Recently, AirFrance-KLM and other European hubcarriers face growing competition of the new ‘gulf-carriers’ such as Etihad, Emirates and Turkish Airlines at Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Istanbul. To have an answer to this strong competition, Schiphol airport needs a growing number of passengers to remain its hub status. As a consequence, space for Schiphol is needed to expand and develop to accommodate future growth. Furthermore, according to the United Nations, the global population will grow to 9.5 billion people in 2050 (United Nations, World Population Prospects: the 2012 Revision). This means that over the next 35 years, the planet will have to accommodate an additional two billion people. These people want to live, work and travel as well. The global aviation industry will grow and as a consequence, airports need to grow as well.
The impacts of Schiphol airport on the environment are significant. Schiphol airport is a driving force for the national, regional and local economy. It gives the region many advantages: economic growth, accessibility and employment. In Haarlemmermeer, more than 72.500 jobs are directly related to Schiphol. 3000 companies are (indirectly) related to the airport and 586 international companies are based in Haarlemmermeer due to the connectivity with the rest of the world (Decisio, Economisch belang van de mainport Schiphol). It is clear that the region shows an enormous potential and economic opportunities. However, it is always about balancing between advantages and disadvantages. An airport in the backyard of the municipality implies disadvantages as well. The most important disadvantages are aircraft noise, health implications, spatial limitations and environmental consequences. From a municipal perspective, these spatial limitations are enormous. Due to the safety- and noise regulations, the areas where municipalities are allowed to build new houses, are restricted. The many flightpaths around the airport determine the limitations and effects on the ground – people cannot live here. The LIB (Airport Classification Decree) provides regulations for development, usage and construction height of the land surrounding Schiphol Airport.
Reservation extra runway: ‘the parallel Kaagbaan’
With regard to future developments and growth, Schiphol Airport and the national government (Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment) imposed an spatial reservation in 2002 already for a sixth (or actual seventh) runway on Schiphol: the parallel Kaagbaan – a runway that lies parallel to the current and most used Kaagbaan – see figure 1. The municipality of Haarlemmermeer has always opposed this reservation. The main arguments for this were that a good living environment in the next village Rijsenhout is most important and that the necessity of this runway has never been proved.
Figure 1: spatial reservation of the parallel Kaagbaan
Ethical dilemma
The ethical dilemma here is whether the municipality of Haarlemmermeer should continue to reject the reservation of this sixth runway or – with regard to the future development of Schiphol Airport – approve the reservation and eventually the realization of the sixth runway. On the one hand this will maintain and probably even increase the economic opportunities of the region such as the establishment of international companies, available jobs and value added logistics. Schiphol will probably remain its hub status and KLM will still be one of the biggest employers in the Netherland – which is also an advantage for the citizens of Haarlemmermeer. On the other hand, this will have a devastating impact on the village Rijsenhout. A significant amount of the inhabitants should have to move and houses need to be destroyed. Furthermore, the living environment in the eastern part of Haarlemmermeer will decrease due to extra aircraft movements, which will create extra noise pollution. The question therefore is: should Haarlemmermeer reject or approve (the reservation of) the parallel Kaagbaan?
2. Stakeholders and preferred solutions
According to Crane & Matten, a stakeholder is “an individual or group which either: is harmed by, or benefits from, the corporation; or whose rights can be violated, or have to be respected, by the corporation” (Crane & Matten, 2010). In the case of the reservation policy of Haarlemmermeer for a sixth runway on Schiphol Airport, the number of stakeholders is significant. In this section only the most important parties will be discussed.
Schiphol Airport (and aviation sector including KLM-AF)
One of the most important stakeholders is Schiphol Airport. Schiphol’s ambition is to become Europe’s most preferred airport. For this ambition, network connectivity is very important. Network connectivity depends on the number of destinations and frequency of these destinations. This in turn, depends on the number of flight movements and passengers that the airport yearly accommodates. For this reason, the airport has to grow. To host more than 500.000 flight movements a year, a sixth runway at Schiphol airport will be necessary.
Preferred solution: realization of a sixth runway
Citizens
From a citizen’s point of view, a good living environment is most important. Noise pollution is the biggest annoyance of the citizens with regard to Schiphol Airport. With a sixth runway, the noise pollution will increase and therefore most citizens will reject an expansion of Schiphol Airport with a sixth runway. A very complex element in the discussion however, is that noise pollution is very locally oriented. There is always a ‘not in my backyard’ phenomenon that also divides the citizens. A second Kaagbaan runway, will probably (initially) reduce aircraft movements of the original Kaagbaan and the nearby Aalsmeerbaan, which will be stimulated by the citizens living there. However, when aircraft movements will increase further, the usage of all runways will grow. For the inhabitants of Rijsenhout, a decision to build a sixth runway near the Kaagbaan, will be disastrous. Probably half of the population will have to move and the other half will experience increased noise pollution. Instead of expanding the landside of the airport, there should be selective growth on Schiphol (only those movements that contribute to the overall connectivity of Schiphol – and therefore for a strong competitive positon).
Preferred solution: no sixth runway, but selective growth
Employers’ organization’s (mainly VNO-NCW)
Recently VNO became a bigger player in the discussions with regard to airport affairs. They made influencing the discussions with regard to the future developments of Schiphol Airport and KLM-AF as one of their main priorities. This to ensure the main port position of Schiphol and the hub status of KLM. Their main argument is that Schiphol and KLM are of mayor importance for the employment in the Netherlands and the competitive position of the Netherlands in Europa and around the world. Many studies have shown the effects of Schiphol Airport losing KLM as its hub carrier. According to SEO, more than 55.000 jobs will disappear (SEO, Economisch belang van de hubfunctie van Schiphol). For Haarlemmermeer in particular, this will be disastrous. Haarlemmermeer is highly dependent on the logistics sector, which is dependent on the airport sector. With less traffic movements, many jobs and economic activity will be lost. In other words, Schiphol needs to grow and extend its network even more in the nearby future in order to not lose its hubstatus with all the negative consequences for the economy and employment.
Preferred solution: a sixth runway to ensure a competitive position and employment
Milieudefensie (and other environmental organizations / groups)
Several environmental organizations and NGO’s such as Milieudefensie are fighting growth and expansion of Schiphol Airport. According to these groups, issues as sustainability, air quality etcetera are underestimated and get too little attention. Recently, a study was published on the amount of ultra-fine airborne particles in the air around Schiphol. According to the researchers, the concentration of ultra-fine airborne particles within a 40-kilometre radius of the airport may have increased as a result of aircraft taking off. Health effects a difficult to analyze, but it is clear that these issues get significant attention from environmental groups.
Preferred solution: no sixth runway, decreasing airport
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment
The national government, in this case the ministry of infrastructure and environment, deals with airport affairs. In 2008 they took over the formal – spatial – reservation of the parallel Kaagbaan runway. Characteristic for the ministry is that the department of infrastructure is much more powerful than the department of environment. In practice, Schiphol and KLM have many lobbyists in the Hague and their influence on the ministry of I&M is significant. As a consequence, the development of Schiphol Airport and the hubstatus of KLM is seen as a national interest.
Preferred solution: sixth runway when there is a necessity for national welfare
The municipality of Haarlemmermeer
The municipality has always opposed the reservation for the parallel Kaagbaan. See also section 4 for the organizational perspective.
Preferred solution: reject (the reservation of) the parallel Kaagbaan
3. Alternative solutions from ethical theories
A business (or organization) wants to base its ethical decisions on a systematic, rational, and widely understandable argument so that they can be adequately defended, justified, and explained to relevant stakeholders. This is where normative ethical theories come into play (Crane & Matten, 2010). Ethical theories are the rules and principles that determine right and wrong for a given situation (Crane & Matten, 2010). In this section, several alternative solutions from ethical theories will be evaluated for the case of the reservation policy of the Kaagbaan.
There are two groups of normative ethical theories: consequentialist (teleological) ethics (based on outcomes) and non – consequentialist (deontological) ethics (based on underlying principles).
Consequentialist theory: utilitarianism (Bentham & Mill)
Within the consequentialist ethics there are two different ethical theories that can be distinguished: Egoism and Utilitarianism. Egoism focusses on the maximization of individual desires and interests and is therefore not very relevant to find a solution for the parallel Kaagbaan dilemma. Utilitarianism focusses on collective welfare and would therefore be more appropriate from the point of view of a municipality. According to utilitarianism, an action will be morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the action. Or, in other words: utility maximization. Two types can be distinguished: act utilitarianism looks at single transactions and their results on the pleasure/pain balance. Rule utilitarianism looks at classes off action and asks whether underlying principles of an action produce more pain or pleasure for society in the long run.
With regard to the reservation-policy for the parallel Kaagbaan and utilitarianism, the municipality should make a cost-benefit analysis and base its decision on that. When the benefits of a sixth runway will be bigger than the disadvantages, than the municipality should choose for a reservation policy and in the end realization of the runway.
Non-consequentialist ethical theory: rights and justice (Locke)
Non-consequentialist ethics ground ethical behavior in some eternally valid principles, which are derived from a duty to others, or to a specific deity. Two types of non-consequentialist ethical theories can be distinguished: ethics of duties (eternal unchangeable principles) and ethics of right and justice (natural rights or moral claims). The Ethics of right and justice is conceptualized by Locke. It claims that humans are entitled to certain ‘natural rights’ or moral claims, such as rights to life, freedom and property, freedom of speech, conscience, consent, privacy and entitlement to a fair legal process (Crane & Matten, 2010).
With regard to the reservation-policy for the parallel Kaagbaan, the theory of rights and justice provide an alternative view. From the point of view that people have natural rights that ‘are a certain basic, important and unalienable entitlements that should be respected and protected in every single action’, the municipality has the duty to respect this. A sixth runway would violate some of the basic rights of people (the right to live: we all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety – UN Declaration of Human Rights). Therefore, a sixth runway would not be an option.
The following matrix shows the different considerations of the ethics theories:
Reservation and realization of a sixth runway
Yes NO
Ethical egoism X
Utilitarianism X
Ethics of duties X
Rights and Justice X
Virtue Ethics X
4. Preferred situation from the organizational perspective
In this section, the preferred situation form the organizational perspective – the municipality of Haarlemmermeer – will be given.
The municipality has always opposed the reservation for the parallel Kaagbaan. In the local coalition agreement (“collegeakkoord”) the college of B&W states that: “The airport is an important economic engine, which must have space. At the same time a dynamic municipality like Haarlemmermeer must have space. Mutual growth with the airport is important. The College will observe the Alders Agreements as a guidance and continues to work towards a solution of the problems of that agreement. The college exerts permanent pressure to undo the spatial reservation for the second parallel Kaagbaan in Rijsenhout. A good living environment in Rijsenhout is taking the leading thought”. A good living environment for the citizens is more important than the interests of one company (Schiphol). Moreover, the necessity of a sixth runway has never been proven. Comparing Schiphol Airport to other west-European hub-airports (Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle, London Heathrow), Schiphol is relatively big given the small country (and therefore small hinterland of potential customers). One can also question whether the Netherlands need such a big airport which so many aircraft movements a year. The preferred solution from the organizational perspective therefore would be to end the reservation-policy and not to realize a sixth runway. However, this statement from the municipality is mainly politics. When it comes down to negotiations after the elections, the economic factor and employment of the airport are also very important for the municipality. The municipality represents not only the citizens of Rijsenhout, but also the other citizens from other villages (who probably will encounter less noise pollution when a new runway in the eastern part of the municipality will be used – and probably more often), firms (that do well by Schiphol) and Schiphol itself.
5. Integrating both ethical and business considerations
In this section, a recommendation will be given on what the municipality of Haarlemmermeer should decide while integrating both ethical and business considerations.
Integrating the (political) statement of Haarlemmermeer on the preferred situation and the ethical theories and considerations of utilitarianism and rights and justice, will generate a solution which will probably be the most realistic. From the utilitarianism point of view, the municipality should make a cost-benefit analysis. Taking all the benefits and al the disadvantages of a sixth runway into account this will probably lead – on the long run – into a win for the (economic) advantages. Not expanding the airport will eventually mean a big loss in the economic and employment advantages. However, taking also the considerations from the municipality (no reservation and no sixth runway) and the ethical theory of rights and justice (the right to live) into account, the citizen have to be treated very well. A solution would be to compensate the citizens that will have to move and/or encounter obstacles. The municipality should highlight this responsibility at the parties that want to realize the sixth runway: mainly the aviation sector and the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. By ensuring people compensation and new homes, the right to life will be ensured and people will have a fair process of moving and compensation.
6. Recommendations for managing structurally
A way to manage this issue in a structural way should be based on managing the vicinity of the airport in an urban environment. Policymakers should look for solutions for combining flying and living; away from the beaten track. This can be done by multidisciplinary and smart alliances. For example, you can think of (airplane) spotter accommodations near the runway, or design patterns for noise abating spatial environment. A strong successful airport requires a strong region and vice versa. An improved reciprocity between an airport and its surrounding metropolitan region can offer a transformation path to a more sustainable, better airport region. Further actions should be concentrated on combining these elements of living and flying. As a consequence, dilemma’s like the reservation for the parallel Kaagbaan would be easier to solve.
References:
• Crane and Matten (2010), Business Ethics, Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization (3rd Ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Collegeprogramma Haarlemmermeer 2014-2018: Krachtig Samenwerken
• Schiphol Airport Annuel Report 2014
• United Nations, World Population Prospects: the 2012 Revision.
• Decisio, Economisch belang van de mainport Schiphol.
• SEO, Economisch belang van de hubfunctie van Schiphol
• Staat van Haarlemmermeer 3, Haarlemmermeer.