•Nestlé holds a 99-year lease for the land that the Sanctuary Spring sits on. While lease-holders are generally understood to be able to make full use of their land, when public resources are involved, they are limited to "reasonable uses." Review the case study and formulate an argument either supporting or challenging this distinction. Support your reasoning by addressing key ways in which benefits and burdens are being distributed between Nestlé and the community in this case.
•Corporations must use resources in order to create profit for themselves and spur the economy. However, the Nestlé case presented in the case study demonstrates how the use of resources by an organization may conflict with the interests of a community—whether local, national, or global. Imagine your company has put you in charge of developing a sustainability plan, a common framework your organization will use to achieve its sustainability goals. Devise two strategies you would have your company adopt, and explain why you believe each of these strategies to be important. Provide specifics about what uses of resources the strategies would allow or disallow.
In a situation of this nature I think that the limitation of the lease holder to reasonable uses is an adequate limitation, based upon the circumstances. This is due to the fact that public resources are involved in the situation, especially the important public resource of a spring that in all probability supplies drinking water to the surrounding community. Due to these factors it is very important to place limitations upon the lease holders in order to ensure that the public resources are not contaminated or damaged in any ...