Mr. X is the head of an NGO working in the field of environment conservation and protection. He is in dire need of funds for the NGO's operations and payments to his staff. He is approached by an official of a large infrastructure company, who is ready to provide the required funding for the NGO. But, in a quid pro quo, he asks Mr. X to raise objections over the bypassing of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) norms in an ongoing PPP project through his NGO. This project is being implemented by a rival infrastructure company. Mr. X knows that there have been instances of high level corruption in the process of granting EIA to mega projects and the information provided by the official seems to be authentic. Hence, he accepts the money and agrees to raise the objection. (a) Considering the circumstances of the case, is Mr. X correct in accepting the money? Give appropriate reasons for your answer. (b) If you were in place of Mr. X, what would have been your course of action? Give reasons for it.

(i) Circumstances of the case (i) Mr X in dire need of money for operations and payments to his staff of NGO (ii) Money being offered but with a condition which seems to be of business rivalry. (iii) thought it is right that EIA is bypassed in the process but the intention is not right.

Mr X accepting the money Arguments for:

• He is not doing any wrong as he is exposing the irregularities in EIA

of that company.

• Environment and social cost could be protected by exposing it.
• NGO will get the money for payment and other purpose. This will help in using NGO for other developmental purpose.

Argument against Immanuel Kant has talked about deontology and means as an end in themselves.

• Though the purpose is no wrong but the intention is wrong as the money is being provided on conditionality in order to secure vested interest.
• This makes the slippery slope argument of ethics where in in future again the

person may bend the rule. Here looking at the broader interest of society the person was not right in accepting the money.

(b) My course of action. I would not have taken the money as this could have been a collusion or conspiracy to bring the project down.

• Though EIA was bypassed but exposing it in order to fulfill the vested interest of other would be wrong step. I would have brought this thing in public domain that EIA has not been implemented for the project and it should be cancelled.
• Along with that I would have exposed the other company also who came for

funding purpose. So that in future government and other agencies are aware of it.

For getting funds I would have taken these steps:

(a) First I will appeal to my staff to be on my side in this situation. I would have assured them that I am doing every possible thing to get money and funding.

(b) I would have contacted international as well as national agencies who fund NGO's. Along with that I would have put up the situation on social media for fund raising.

(c) Government could also be persuaded for funds.