Post on 05-Apr-2018
8/2/2019 Anubhuti Gupta BE Paper
1/3
As already described in earlier sections what environment ethics are and how are they relevant in
todays scenario, we state that environment ethics simply tells us the answers to the questions
how the humans should relate to the environment, how the various resources of the earth should
be utilized, what treatment should be given to other species, plants and animals, how the wastes
should be disposed, and to what degree and extent one should take the responsibility of
protecting and preserving the environment. The responsibility of individuals towards the
environment is essential, as if forms the basic fundamental blocks of how the various human
actions are going to shape the future of the earth. But more important than individuals is how the
business organizations fulfill their responsibility because the impact of their activities is much
more pronounced and effective. The greatest damage done to the environment is inflicted by
business and industry, and not the domestic activities.
When we talk about the organizations and their business policies that affect the environment, we
cannot accuse one of being unfair or callous in their approach, nor can we judge them for their
actions because ethics are not absolute and hence cannot be enforced. Everyone is entitled to
their own opinion and interpretation. However, environmental responsibility is a vital component
of a business strategy as it not only wins the environment but also it helps to win the trust of
communities and gain the respect of the governments of the countries in which the business
operates.
Earlier, environment protection was rarely seen as an issue. Companies would harm the
environment; exploit the resources to whatever extent they found it profitable. And as mentioned
by Shaw, the people saw the natural world as a free and unlimited good. People at one point
thought that the worlds resources could be taken without end and without any morally
significant harm done.
Today the various activities carried out by the different organizations worldwide have done far
more damage. Businesses extract the greatest tolls in terms of energy consumption, toxic waste,
air and water pollution, and deforestation. Increasing amounts of industrial toxic waste
contaminates ground water, which in turn becomes harmful for human consumption. Oil spills
from petroleum industries destroy shorelines and kill millions of sea animals. The burning of
fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal produces excess carbon dioxide, which adds to global
warming through a greenhouse effect. Fluorocarbon gasses used in making domestic products
such as refrigerators and styrofoam depletes the earth's ozone layer, which shields the earth from
the suns life-destroying ultraviolet rays. Some of these problems are expensive nuisances, such
as oil spills and toxic waste. Others, though, threaten the survival of life on our planet, such as
carbon dioxide production and the release of fluorocarbon gasses. The effects have been
devastating enough, causing extinction of endangered species, climate changes, affecting the
habitat of so many organisms, loss of flora and fauna. Though businesses today aim at progress
and growth of mankind as a whole but is it this is what is happening? Lets us take one simple
example. Industries produce goods and materials to improve the quality of human life and make
life easier and simpler. In turn they are producing tons of toxic wastes which is dumped into the
8/2/2019 Anubhuti Gupta BE Paper
2/3
rivers and seas killing so many fish and causing the depletion of fish population. This not only
causes an impact on the environment but the effect can be also noticed on the human beings for
whose betterment these industries are working for. The poor fisherman whose only source of
earning a livelihood is fishing is much deeply affected. So by destroying the other organisms, are
we actually making a progress? Is it ethical on the part of the industries to make profit at the
expense of someone elses livelihood?
Although businesses dont consciously set out to harm the environment, several factors create an
unfortunate situation, which in many cases is worse than it needs to be. First, large businesses
and industries are inherently imposing on nature. They take pieces of nature and reshape them
into things that didnt exist before, such as automobiles, skyscrapers, television sets and
shopping malls. Not only are the end products artificial, and in that sense unnatural, but the
means of producing these things are taxing on natural resources. Second, it is easy to disregard
natural resources that are held in common and seem abundant, such as air and water. It doesnt
seem wrong to pollute the air if, technically, no one owns the air and the particular damage that I
do isnt too noticeable. Environmentalists sometimes refer to this phenomenon as a tragedy of
the commons, that is, a disaster that happens to things that are held in common.
There are certain businessmen who argue that businesses do not have an obligation to protect the
environment above what the law requires and if businesses show special concern for the
environment beyond what the law requires, then this would interfere with their ability to
compete. Second, if businesses agree that they have an environmental responsibility beyond what
the law requires, they often take a good ethics isgood business approach and emphasize areas
of environmental responsibility that will generate a profit. For example, they might push
recycling, which they can indicate on their packaging and thereby attract environmentally
conscious consumers. They might also update older energy-hungry heating or production units if
the investment has the right payoff. However, as noted above, what is best for the environment is
not always financially best for business. When cases of conflict arise between the environment
and profit motive, the good ethics is good business approach quickly appears deceptive and
shallow.
Also, businesses are driven by the motive to make profit. Stockholders demand a return on their
investment, and this mandate transfers down through the management hierarchy. Part of making
a profit is to reduce costs, and environmental responsibility is highly costly, with few immediate
financial rewards. So is it justified to make profits at the expense of using resources on which
everyone has an equal share? With better technology coming up, more gadgets and utilities are
coming into picture, thereby creating better living standards which people aspire to achieve. And
with the increased demand of goods, also increases the pollution caused in various forms, air
pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, deforestation, e-waste dumping, and toxic wastes
accumulation. So are the organizations ethical when they are promoting an easier and more
progressive lifestyle, and making profits at the same time, or should they promote a simpler
lifestyle which helps in preserving environment?
8/2/2019 Anubhuti Gupta BE Paper
3/3
On analyzing the situation on a global level, the environmental offenders are the third world
developing countries. Underdeveloped and the developing countries are trying to catch up with
the economic growth and the rapid industrialization and come at par with the developed
countries and they certainly have every right to do so. Since these countries do not have the
sophisticated technology as compared to the developed countries, their cost of progress on the
environment is greater than the developed countries. The developed countries can much easily
shift to energy sources that give off less pollution. Also, one of the main reasons for the
intensification of problems in the third world countries is the growth of population which
doubles about every 70 years. Increased population has led to a greater demand for land, water,
food, and other necessities of life, which leads to deforestation, more extraction of natural
resources, etc. With the various environment summits and conferences that are being held, more
and more emphasis is being given on the reduction of carbon emissions. But the developing
countries see it as an intervention of the Western world to check their growth. While they argue
that the pollution has been created by the developed nations as an effect of the rampant
industrialization they had which made them economically powerful, so it should ideally be theirresponsibility and they should take care of the environment. The third world countries consider it
unethical on the part of the developed nations asking them to check their polices and industrial
growth. They also insist that while the developed countries mercilessly exploited the
environment to achieve the economic stability, it is their chance to take the road to progress and
thus they should not be prevented or inhibited from doing so. Also, instead of taking measures
and doing their own bit, the developed nations are putting all the pressure and restrictions on the
third world countries thus violating their fundamental right. On the other hand the developed
nations believe that what has been done in the past cannot be undone and so it should be a joint
responsibility of every nation in the world since the environment is a joint pool of resources and
no one can be refused to share it. Hence it is a big question that who is at fault? Who should beblamed? Who is being unethical? Who is shirking from the responsibility? If I were to answer, I
would say there is no single answer to these questions. These are open-ended questions and each
one is entitled to their own interpretation and opinion.
So, the question of environmental ethics in business is one which cannot be answered in plain
words because it is always a tradeoffa tradeoff between progress and environment, a tradeoff
between growth and nature. While one may be important for some people, others may have
different choices. Whatever decision one takes, long term effects should be kept in mind because
once the resources are finished, it will take a lifetime for them to regenerate. Thus, balancing
business growth and environmental quality is always going to be a challenge for business.