Keeping your agreements

The Danish state recently started debating and talking about a 'service check' of a 2003 agreement with Mærsk, Chevron and Shell to pump oil from the north sea. If the term sounds confusing, that's the point, I think. 'Service check' is a fancy way of saying you want to change the terms of the contract and the Danish state wants to do exactly that to extract more taxes from companies that entered a binding agreement with the state.
The only problem the state sees is in the way is a 'stability clause' Mærsk negotiated for, which compensates the company in the event of the government changing the terms of the contract. Smart move Mærsk. Keeping your agreements is a central pillar of good business. If you break your agreements, then you will create for yourself a bad reputation. Mærsk knew something about Denmark's reputation and negotiated insurance for itself. However, no one should underestimate the Danish government's balls; the sitting party has called the clause unusual and has all but promised to ignore it completely.

An expert in Politiken [Nov. 16] has called the clause something one only sees in Africa and not the stable west. It is thought that the west is too consistent to ever fetter with its contracts. At least this person also admits there is a very high bar to clear in order to change the terms. Someone should tell Minister Martin Lidegaard.

Climate and Energy minister Lidegaard has denied the idea Denmark would owe anything to Mærsk in any change of the North Sea agreement, which means he feels Denmark can renegotiate a binding contractual agreement when ever it feels like it. To the critics who are going to slap me around for saying that, consider the precedent these events set for future business. The state may make and break agreements when ever it sees money can be made. Why shouldn't the state be allowed to do this to a company? It isn't a person after all.
A company may not be a person, but there are real people behind the company that are affected. Stock holders and employees are affected by economic activities of the associated companies and when the state decides to ignore agreements it has made in the past for what ever reason, people loose money. If the Danish state did this to a much smaller company, for example a plumber who owned his own little company, breaching a service contract with his company to tax the company for more is the same as breaching a contract with him in order to tax him for more. Yes, they are two very different sizes. Yes, the burden is spread across far more people. Yes, Mærsk gives the same huge bonus to the executives who run the company.

At what point do you differentiate between a company that it is morally okay to break a contact with out due compensation and when is it not okay?
Right now, I have every reason to be jaded; Denmark sucks.