Concern for Environmental Sustainability - Case Study Example

Introduction It is apparent that the Rocky Mountain Green Bank had one mission: to focus on environmental sustainability. The mission of the bank was to be guided by the facets of business ethics that articulated on tenet of values especially in regard to offering loans to its customers. The bone of contention was on the grounds at which the bank would grant loans. However, although the mission of the bank was to focus on environmental sustainability, the issue of profit making came in as the regulators insisted that the bank should first focus on profit-making and then focus on green issues second. The dilemmas were on the two main loan applications, one from a gun making company and the second one from a fracking company, whose activities were considered a risk to the environment especially in contaminating groundwater. The main ethical dilemmas The first main ethical dilemma was with the bank founder, Jay McGuane, who was approached by Field Force, a gun manufacturing company. Since the bank was guided by values that endorsed environmental sustainability, Jay was in a fix on deciding whether it was right to give the loan to a company that dealt with what was seen as risky business. This was worsened by the fact that there had been instances of gun killings at Columbine and Arapahoe High School killings. Pastor Clyde Dahlberg was the first to oppose the move to give loan to such a company because the company did not stand for what would be termed as ethical in the first place. The other argument on the same is related to the fact that the bank can lender the loan on conditions that the company should not practice any evil or immoral activities that would lead to the guns being used for evil deeds. In fact, the argument is supported by the idea that it does not mean that the guns manufactured by the company are meant for evil deeds. The perfect example given was that the military would not operate without guns. Nevertheless, the focal point was related to deciding whether giving such a loan was a good or bad thing. That is why Jay advocated for creation of decision making framework so that there would be a solution for conflicting issues revolving around loans approval whenever there is a loan application. Such a framework would help in solving ethical dilemmas attached to various loan applications.1 In regard to the loan application by Field Force, the bank was in dilemma because of the two conflicting roles: the environmental sustainability and the profit-making one. If the bank failed to offer the loan on the ground that the gun production business was risky as cited in the previous instances where innocent people had been killed by the use of the similar guns that the company manufactured. According to the pastor, giving loan to the company means increasing the volume of gun manufacturing and this could translate to more innocent people being killed by the same guns. However, the decision to deny the company with the loan could require provision of evidence that the guns manufactured by the company were used for killings. Therefore, if the bank denied the company with the loan, the regulators could attack the bank for not fulfilling the mandate of profit-making, in which is derived from giving out loans to its investors. On the other hand, if the bank decided to give the loan to the company, it means that the bank has already failed in its mission of environmental sustainability, which according to Jay should be guided by values that the borrower stands for. In this case, Field Force was not qualified as far as this mission is concerned. Conversely, the only companies that the green bank opted to give loans to could not be considered very significant since their deposits with the bank were actually less than 7%. Additionally, the bank feared that the popularity it had gained for its advocacy for environmental sustainability through media would be lost if the bank decided to give the loan to the Field Force. The argument is that if the loan is processed, the same media that made the bank popular would be the same to tarnish the bank by spreading the news that the bank had started doing business with dangerous companies like the Field Force. When the guns are sold to kill innocent people, then the sustainability that the bank has been advocating for would be seen as ironical. The other dilemma involves approving loan to the engineering company, whose business was considered risky in terms of groundwater contamination. Although the engineering company had argued that its operations were environmental sustainable by a way of expanding its business in making polymers and other materials that would be less toxic, there were other factors to consider. First, the dilemma was that if the company is given the loan to expand its business, the risk factors that were not clear could be encountered. This means the bank had to first carryout some research on the same before deciding on whether to give the loan or not. Utilitarian, libertarian, deontological and virtue ethics on the dilemmas In the case of Field Force loan approval, several considerations could have been employed in finding the solution. In regard to utilitarian, the decision on whether or not to give the loan should go in line with the maximization of the utility.2 In this case, if giving the loan to the gun manufacturer would benefit many stakeholders, that is the bank, the company itself and the public, then giving out the loan would be the best solution. However, if the bank had to arrive at a decision on the basis of virtue ethics, the means of arriving at the decision matters more than the decision made. For instance, if the bank decides to give the loan to the company, the deliberations on the decision are the most important. If the bank decides to give the loan because it considered profit-making more important than the lives that might be lost as a result of giving the loan to the bank, then the morality of the decision is what matters. In the current situation, the facts about the connection between the company and the killings that had been witnessed before had not been proved. This translates to lack of prove to the allegations laid against the connection between gun manufacturing and the killings reportedly noted to have been as a result of the same guns. On the other hand, the indispensable factor to consider when making decision using virtue ethics is that the decision making on the focus of the end results even when it is widely known that the decision is wrong is the focal point.3 Additionally, the virtue ethics advocates for making wrong decision when the end results is anticipated to have dire consequences. This means that if the end results anticipated due to the right decision is more consequential than the ignored facts when making the decision, then the wrong decision is given the priority. While utilitarian focuses on the end results that has greater benefit to the majority, virtue ethics focuses on end result that has greater negative consequences and makes a decision that minimizes the negative consequence.4 Libertarian could be applicable in the case of Field Force especially if the Green Bank does not have virtues that guide its operations, which in this situation is not applicable for the reason that the bank has already set a mission of environmental sustainability and virtue of business operations that foster the same. Libertarian stipulates that autonomy and freedom of choice guides the decisions made as long as it is within the individual supremacy.5 In general, libertarian would only apply to the case of Field Force if the bank is there only to make profit. Deontological approach to decision making in the case of Field Force can only be based on the morality of approving the loan to the company.6 The ethical positioning stipulated by deontological is in regard to adherence to the rule of rules.7 Therefore, this means that the consequence of the decision made by the bank to give the loan to the company does not matter as long as the bank adhered to the laid down rules by the bank regulators. For instance, it means that since the bank had no evidence about the ill doings of the company, then the bank did not have any legal base to deny the company the loan. However, this is not the case in regard to the banks mission, which is to observe on the virtue of the individual or company’s conduct in relation to environmental sustainability. In regard to the case of the engineering company that is applying for a loan to advance its drilling operation to reduce the level of toxic substance, utilitarian can be applicable. This is because the end results of the loan granted by the bank would yield good results.8 Nevertheless, a comprehensive research has to be carried out to verify the anticipated improvements by the engineering company. Virtue ethics might be applied in that the evaluation on whether to give the loan or not becomes the focal point.9 Besides, the discussion on the case of the company cannot elicit any discussion about the legitimacy of the loan because the organisation has not submitted formal loan application to the bank. The same case that applies to the Field Force is the same that would apply to the engineering company if deontological was to be applied in the decision making process. However, as long as the bank has the virtue of environmental sustainability to fulfill, libertarian cannot be applicable given that there is no proof that the company would actually improve its operations to reduce toxic materials produced as a result of its drilling operations. Therefore, since libertarian advocates on following the rules stipulated, it would be against the spirit of the bank to sustain the environment especially now that there is no enough evidence that the engineering company would boost its environmental sustainability if given the loan.10 Libertarian approach can only be applicable in this case if the bank does not have the virtue attached to its mission.11 In fact, libertarian can only be applicable in this case if the bank only considered its operations entirely on the basis of capitalism point of view.12 This way, the bank would have the right to chose on whether to grant the loan or not even when no proof about the intentions of what the engineering company would do with the loan is available. The best ethical perspective in the dilemmas Virtue ethics could be argued to be the best perspective in guiding the bank in making the decision whether to give or not to give the loans. Virtue ethics focuses on moral character and apply it in making decisions.13 This perspective suits the Green Bank because its primary mission was to be guided by the virtue of wanting to protect the environment. In his remarks, Jay argued that he did not found the Green Bank for profit making, but rather for environmental sustainability because that is it was his inner calling to do what he thought was best for Colorado, his home state. Therefore, since virtue ethics focuses on personal inward behavior rather than relying on external laws and customs,14 virtue ethics should be the most appropriate to guide the bank in making the decision. However, on the other hand, since Jay ventured to a business that requires some regulations in its operations even though his mission was to have a business that supports an environmental sustainability, he somehow has to abide by the regulations given. This means that the deontological perspective could as well help the bank in making the decision.15 In this regard, the bank has to balance on adhering to the rules given by regulators while still holding its mission of sustainability. Denying these companies loan with no good reason would be termed as going against the spirit of the business. The fears that the bank has on the two companies are not substantial enough to deny them loans. However, if the loan given by the bank promotes environmental destruction, then the loans are against the spirit of inward behavior that calls for environmental sustainability. Bibliography: Adams, Carol. A commentary on: corporate social responsibility reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability. 2007, 21 (3), 365-370. Adams, Carol. and Zutshi, Ambika. (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility: Why Business Should Act Responsibly and Be Accountable. Australian Accounting Review.14 (3), 31- 40. Browne, Katherine & Milgram, Lynne. Economics and Morality: Anthropological Approaches. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. 2009. Burns, John. The dynamics of accounting change; inter-play between new practices, routines, institutions, power and politics. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2009, 13 (5), 566-596. Gray, Rob., Koury, Reza. & Lavers, Simon. Corporate social and environmental reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, 2009, 8 (2), 47-77. Lundblad, Heidemarie, Bell, Jan. A comparison of ExxonMobil’s sustainability reporting to outcomes. Journal of applied business and economics. 2011, 12 (1), 17-26. Mock, Theodore. Strohm, Christiane & Swartz, Kelvin. An Examination of Worldwide Assured Sustainability Reporting. Australian Accounting Review. 2007. 17 (1), 67-77. Sankar, Sen and Bhattacharya, C.B. Doing better at doing good: when, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California management review, 2004, 47 (1), 9-22. Seo, M. G. & Creed, W.E.D. Institutional contradictions, praxis and instructional change: a dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 2012, 27 (2), 232-247. Jonathan, M.G. "Understanding the Global Nuclear Power Grid." Journal of Ethical Management 34 (2009): PP. 29-35. Xiang, Hui and and Zhu, Yi. "The Ethics Issues of Nuclear Energy: Hard Lessons Learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima." Online Journal of Health Ethics 7.2 (2011): 2-11. Darwall, Stephen. Virtue ethics. Malden. Blackwell. 2003. Hursthouse, Rosalind. On Virtue ethics. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 2002. Sethi, Prakash, Veral, Emre, “Mattel Inc: Global manufacturing principles (GMP) - A life cycle analysis of a company based code of conduct in the toy industry”, journal of business ethics. 99 (4): 483-517. Staveren, Irene. “Beyond utilitarianism and deontology: ethics in economics”, review of political economy. 19, 1: (2007) 21-35 Tannsjo, Torbjorn. Understanding ethics: an introduction to moral theory. 2008. Read More