Case 30 Teaching Note Rhino Poaching in South Africa
2
Rhino poaching was controlled by crime syndicates which went into villages surrounding the park to hire teams
to find and kill the rhino. The syndicates paid the person who shot the rhino US $25,000 and the person who
carried the horn US $8,000. Because of their low standard of living, a villager’s choice was already made when
it came to deciding whether to take advantage of the syndicates’ offer and their money to poach rhino.
As head of Veterinary Wildlife Services for SANParks, Dr. Markus Hofmeyr’s primary responsibility was to
support SANParks management through the delivery of a professional service related to capture, translocation
and veterinary care in support of conservation of all the species that live in the 19 parks in South Africa. Rhino
poaching, while a huge concern due to the loss of the rhino, would not be stopped inside the parks without
government assistance to combat the economic and criminal syndicate crime outside of the parks.
As Dr. Hofmeyr prepared his next year’s budget, the looming question was how much more of his budget could
be diverted from conversation to anti-poaching activities. The issue was how to combat rhino poaching when he
was spending a large percentage of his time and budget on rhino management related activities, knowing that the
percentage of his budget dedicated to the rhino would continue to increase, which meant less attention to other
key wildlife management requirements.
The case examines the ethics of rhino poaching from several perspectives and presents a number of potential
options for combating the poaching problem.
Suggestions for Using the Case
This case can be taught successfully after your lecture on Chapter 9: Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility,
Environmental Sustainability, and Strategy. Ethical standards such as ethical universalism and ethical relativism
and drivers of unethical business strategies and behavior are illustrated in the case. In additona, dilemmas com-
plicating an integrative social contract can lead to a lively classroom discussion of the case. Viewpoints to con–
sider include: (1) SANParks and existing animals in park, (2) Poachers (3) Crime syndicates (4) Critics against
the slaughtering of defenseless rhino, (5) South African and other governments, and (6) society.
■ SANParks exists as animal sanctuaries and wildlife habitats. In our opinion, the parks’ responsibility is to the
African government and to society to protect and preserve the animals in their natural habitat. That mission
excludes dehorning the rhino. Explicit in the park’s responsibility to the animals is an aggressive program to
protect the animals from harm, which includes aggressive measures against poaching.
■ Poachers are local criminals who prey on the animals for personal financial gain. Their crimes are compounded
by the pain, suffering, and death caused to the animals already on the endangered species list, which elevates
their actions to crimes against society.
■ Crime syndicates are the organized criminals who control the illegal trade in rhino horn. These criminals
source the horn (via poachers), and market and distribute it around the world. These criminals commit
crimes against society by reducing the dwindling herds of endangered rhino.
■ Critics against the slaughter of rhinos include non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and concerned
people around the world. These groups and individuals are the global voice of the rhino and may have a
chance to mobilize public opinion and even governmental action to protect the rhinos.
■ South African and other governments are stakeholders in the rhino poaching problem. South Africa has
the largest population of rhino in the world and has a duty to the world community to protect them. World
governments also have a duty to assist in protecting the rhino.
■ Just as society has an interest in the rain forest and the bald eagle, so does society have an interest in the
rhino.