Ethical Implications of Businesses Polluting in a Third World Country - Case Study Example

?Running head: POVERTY AND POLLUTION Poverty and Pollution (school) Poverty and Pollution Determine the ethical implications of businesses polluting in a third world country. Explain your rationale. Businesses polluting in a third world country have various ethical implications. Implications drawn refer to the fact that environmental regulations in the host countries are often inferior to those seen in developed nations (Warren, 1983). For which reason, multinational corporations operating in developing countries may not comply with environmental regulations. It would be convenient for these businesses to ignore environmental regulations because it would be more cost-effective for them and they can easily get away with these violations (Singer, 1972). Moreover, most of them do not see a sense of environmental responsibility for these affected developing countries because these countries are not their home countries. In other words, these MNCs would feel that they would not be affected by the impact of the pollution they would be releasing in their host countries (Singer, 1972). Fewer environmental regulations include limited resources for host countries, especially on the detection of greenhouse gas emissions from these businesses (Shue, 1999). Businesses polluting in the third world countries are violating environmental laws and the inherent right of all human beings to live pollution-free lives. These violations also imply contraventions on developments and strides towards sustainable development, as well as violations in the protection of the environment vulnerable to destructive man-made activities (Norton, 1984). Violations of environmental laws also indicate the application of post-modern policies which often do not ensure the protection of the environment. Under these conditions, businesses polluting in third world countries are discarding environmental laws and ethical values in favor of financial gains. 2. Suggest the reasons a business may conduct operations in a third world country and disregard any standards of pollution control. Businesses may conduct their operations in a third world country and disregard any standards of pollution control because these third world countries have weak regulatory and implementation processes (Fobete, 2008). The primary regulatory authority for any country is always the government. In instances where the legislative and executive functions of this government are weak, it is easy for its citizens and the citizens of other countries to perpetuate wrong and illegal acts in the territory (Fobete, 2008). Most of the time, the executive departments of these countries are extremely weak and corrupt, and officials are often easily vulnerable to bribes. These businesses may also disregard standards of pollution control because the third world countries do not have sufficient technology to detect and monitor any environmentally damaging activities which these businesses may perpetuate in their country (Fobete, 2008). The standard monitoring devices in developed countries which monitor air, water, noise, and land pollution and toxicities are often not present or are too expensive for these developing countries to avail (Taylor, 2010). Most of the monitoring in developing countries is carried out with personnel who occasionally inspect the facilities for apparent signs of pollution. It is easy enough for businesses to conceal their environmental violations during these inspection periods (Taylor, 2010). Actual monitoring of toxic levels of pollution cannot accurately and efficiently be carried out through visual inspection alone. Hence, without firm and effective tools, these businesses can easily disregard any standards of pollution control. As such, these businesses can easily carry out activities which would normally have high levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in these developing countries (Adams, 2001). Normally, in developed countries, GHG levels would be regulated and violations may prompt government regulatory processes, including closures (Adams, 2001). However, in developing countries where regulatory processes are poor, these businesses would be able to easily violate these environmental regulations (Annandale, 2001). It would even be easy for these businesses to dump their toxic wastes anywhere they please in these developing countries because they know that environmental regulations are virtually non-existent or are being ineffectively implemented (Annandale, 2005). Moreover, corruption in developing countries is very rampant and it is often easy for businesses to bribe their way through the legal obstacles they might face (Annandale, 2005). 3. It has been said that pollution is the price of progress. Assess the connections between economic progress and development, on the one hand, and pollution controls and environmental protection, on the other. Economic progress and environmental progress do not seem to go along hand in hand with each other. Economic progress means significant profits for corporations at minimal costs (Constantini and Martini, 2009). For as long as the costs of resources and operational expenditures can be kept to a minimum, businesses can register the most profit. Environmental protection would imply the need to control the use of resources including raw materials from the environment (Constantini and Martini, 2009). It would also mean having to implement or include measures within the business to protect the environment. Compliance with environmental protection measures would imply more cost expenditures for corporations, and consequently, less profit for them. Protecting the environment would have to mean that the corporations have to reduce their impact on the environment. They would have to control their use of raw materials. For example, for oil corporations, they would have to reduce their use of water and other raw materials (Mtsiva, 2003). Other businesses would be prompted to reduce their logging activities; they would be forced to reduce their expansion activities because of environmental zoning requirements (Rendtorff, 2009). They would also be prompted to use less environmentally toxic chemicals which may be less harmful to the environment but would be more expensive to acquire and use. Under the above conditions, economic progress and environmental protection cannot support a mutually beneficial scenario. However, when the long-term impact of the economic development is considered, environmental protection measures would actually lead to greater economic development (Gonzalez, 2001). In the short-term period, ignoring environmental measures would mean greater profits for corporations; however, in the long-term, issues involving inadequate resources, climate change, pollution, and loss of viable and arable lands would be felt and would have a more significant impact (Gonzalez, 2001). Under these conditions, profits and economic development would also be limited. Where long-term goals are considered and environmental measures are implemented in the current time period, it is possible to gain greater economic development in the long-term period. 4. Support the argument that human beings have a moral right to a livable environment regardless of the country they live in. Human beings have a moral right to a livable environment regardless of the country they live in (Pojman, 2000). One of the basic tenets of human rights proclaims the right of every human being to life. This right implies that all measures to ensure such a life should be provided and protected. The right to life would entail access to resources, to secure one’s living, and to have a livable environment (Shaw, 2010). Such a livable environment would include one where the air is not toxic or harmful to the people. In order to protect such right, the government and all individuals and businesses concerned must not carry out activities which would endanger such livable environment (Shaw, 2010). This right exists as a human right, one which is therefore not based on one’s citizenship or race. It is a right which exists regardless of the country involved (Shaw, 2010). The right to be protected from environmental dangers is one which must be established and protected regardless of one’s race or citizenship (Des Jardins, 2012). For a developing country like Nigeria, the same environmental protection measures implemented in the US must also be observed by American businesses operating in the country (Des Jardins, 2012). As it is a right of every American to have a livable environment, such right must also be made true of every citizen around the world. The right of a Nigerian to breathe fresh and clean air must not be given lesser weight. The livable environment is an inherent moral right of every human being and businesses must therefore apply the same environmental safeguards they are applying in the developed nations to developing countries they are operating in (Des Jardins, 2012). 5. Take a position on whether wealthy nations have an obligation to provide poorer nations with, or help them develop, greener industries and sources of energy. Explain your rationale. Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide poorer nations with and to help them develop greener industries and sources of energy because although environmental degradation may be localized to a particular country, its overall impact is not limited to such country or locality. The impact of environmental degradation is global as can easily be seen through the global warming phenomenon where extreme weather conditions and unusual changes in the weather are apparent anywhere in the world (Anton and Shelton, 2011). Extremely warm and dry weather during the summer months have been known to cause droughts in agricultural countries. Extremely cold and wet weather has been known to cause floods and landslides. The industrialization activities in the US and in other developed countries are also contributing to global warming (Goldstein and Cook, 2010). The problem of global warming has been credited for various effects, including extremely strong typhoons in the Pacific and strong hurricanes in North America. It has also been credited for unusually cold and long winters. Due to the global impact of environmental issues, wealthy nations have an obligation to help poorer nations in developing greener industries and sources of energy. By assisting these countries, the impact of economic activities on the environment would be reduced (Friedman, 2003). By helping these developing nations develop alternative sources of energy, it is possible to reduce the impact of pollution on their environment. In the end, their contributory impact to global warming would be reduced (Friedman, 2003). Wealthy nations also have the obligation to assist poorer nations to develop greener industries because they have the technology which they can share with the poorer countries. Such technology can assist these poorer nations in having a reduced impact on the environment (Friedman, 2003). In the end, protecting the environment of these developing countries would also mean protecting the global environment. 6. Propose a plan for uniform global pollution control standards and how you would enforce them. My plan for a uniform global pollution control standard would start off with the establishment of international legislation on environmental protection, one which must cover all countries and all businesses – local or multinational, public or private. Such plan would impose uniform standards on the threshold for air pollution, especially on the release of greenhouse gases. This plan would also impose waste regulation impositions for all corporations. This plan would have to be imposed on all countries and all businesses. Regular monitoring of compliance would have to be carried out by independent bodies on a regular basis for all businesses. Failure to comply would mean severe fines and possible closures for repeat violators. The implementation of this plan would be difficult considering the sovereignty and independence of all states. However, with the cooperation of all governments, it is possible to implement this plan and to eventually achieve the long term goals of environmental protection. The implementation would also have to be well publicized in order to promote awareness among corporations as well as the general public. The more people are aware of these regulations, the more they would cooperate and even assist in its implementation. As more people assist and cooperate, violations of these standards would be prevented. References Adams, W. (2001). Green development: environment and sustainability in the Third World. New York: Routledge. Annandale, D. (2005). Making profits, protecting our planet: corporate responsibility for environmental performance in Asia and the Pacific: Asian environment outlook. China: Asian Development Bank. Anton, D. & Shelton, D. (2011). Environmental protection and human rights. New York: Cambridge University Press. Constantini, V. & Martini, C. (2009). The causality between energy consumption and economic growth: A multi-sectoral analysis using non-stationary cointegrated panel data. European association of Energy and Resource Economists. Des Jardins, J. (2012). Environmental ethics. California: Cengage Learning. Friedman, F. (2003). Practical guide to environmental management. New York: Environmental Law Institute. Fobete, D. (2008). Multinational corporation and third world development. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Goldstein, N. & Cook, K. (2010). Global warming. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Gonzalez, G. (2001). Corporate power and the environment: the political economy of US environmental policy. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Mtsiva, V. (2003). Oil and natural gas: issues and policies. California: Nova Publishers. Norton, B. (1984). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 6, pp. 133–38. Pojman. L. (2000). Global environmental ethics. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company. Rendtorff, J. (2009). Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations. Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press DK. Shaw, W. (2007). Business ethics. California: Cengage Learning. Shue, H. (1999). Global environment and international inequality. International Affairs, 75(3). Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3). Taylor, D. (2010). Environment and social justice: an international perspective. New York: Emerald Group Publishing. Warren, M. (1983). The rights of the nonhuman world. In R. Elliot and A. Gare (eds), Environmental philosophy: a collection of readings. St Lucia. Australia: University of Queensland Press. Read More