Poverty, Business and Pollution in a Variety of Third-World Nations - Term Paper Example

? Poverty, Business and Pollution BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Poverty, Business and Pollution Introduction In a variety of third world nations, such as Liberia, Ethiopia, and Yemen, there are no established laws that restrict businesses from polluting the environment. Why is this? In these countries where gross domestic product (GDP) is substantially low compared to other developed nations, government simply do not have the economic resources available to even attempt to enforce legislation to prevent businesses from damaging the environment. In many third world countries, large volumes of the population live in poverty conditions due to lack of quality infrastructure, lack of taxation revenues for government improvements, or even warring regimes attempting to seize power as a primary goal that depletes national resources. This is why businesses that conduct their operations in poor nations disregard pollution control standards: Because they can easily get away with these actions with little to no consequence. Thoroughly assessed the connections between economic progress and development, on the one hand, and pollution controls and environmental protection, on the other. Thoroughly suggested the reasons a business may conduct operations in a third world country and disregard any standards of pollution control. Many third world nations, since government is unable to stimulate economic growth internally, rely on foreign direct investment as a means of trying to stimulate the national economy. Many will provide taxation incentives or even removal of tariffs as a means to foster foreign investment, which provides an ample incentive to move operations from developed nations to the third world country. For example, in Yemen, there are viable opportunities for water-based transport industry leaders to invest in the nation. The Yemen currency is substantially below that of major nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, therefore companies attempt to exploit these opportunities for substantial profitability when local investments require very little start-up or asset procurement capital. Between 2009 and 2011, transport and shipping projects were estimated to be valued at $9 billion, with much of this foreign investment being recruited by the country’s Council of Ministers (United Nations, 2009). Using Yemen as the relevant example, companies will establish operations in this country due to the political problems currently plaguing the nation. Powerful militant groups in this country took over the majority of government oversight, forcing the nation to consider a complete rewrite of its constitution. Instability in this country politically defies opportunities for the business to devote resources to attempt to impose sanctions on businesses that pollute, therefore it becomes simplistic business practice to simply dump its unwanted waste in the country and in its waters without concern of local government backlash, fines, or complete dejection from the nation. Yemen is a member of the United Nations, however the UN only maintains jurisdiction in partnership with the legal systems abiding in the country. By the time nations such as Yemen with difficult political environments make legally-supported appeals to the UN to curb pollution by foreign companies, the ensuing process is so elongated that the business is able to exploit foreign nation resources and simply move to another, less developed third world country. Are the aforementioned practices of business polluting in other nations due to lack of authority over government or UN-supported legalities ethical? Any reasonable individual that believes in corporate social responsibility and many global standards of human rights would absolutely indicate that this is highly unethical. However, at the same time, a person considering the ethical responsibility of foreign businesses must consider the theory of ethical relativism before making a determination. Those in global society that are strong supporters of ethical relativism believe that diversity in cultural and social opinion forbids the establishment of an acceptable template by which to measure right versus wrong. Because of this, business leaders and individual members of society should simply be tolerant of others behaviors having no universal measurement of correct versus incorrect actions (Blackford, 2010). Thoroughly determined the ethical implications of businesses polluting in a third world country; thoroughly explained your rationale. The ethical implications of businesses choosing to pollute third world nations are rather obvious. Depending on the composition and scope of pollution, whether chemically-based ground materials or even airborne gas emissions, human health can be impacted quite negatively both short- and long-term. Consider, for instance, a mining organization investing in metals extraction in Liberia that produces tons of hazardous dust that is easily made airborne through natural atmospheric processes. Many people in Liberia live in huts and small villages that have no adequate protection from airborne pollutants, thus these materials easily make their way into water systems, food and agriculture and the human body through respiration. In this case, any health crises or deaths occurring as a result of airborne toxins are a direct impact of business operations which, in developed countries, would make them accountable for damages and reimbursements. Thoroughly supported the argument that human beings have a moral right to a livable environment regardless of the country they live in. Now, many nations with established legal precedents that protect citizens from business pollution domestically would have society and government concurring that human beings have a fundamental moral right to livable environments. These values and beliefs are at the heart of the United Nations philosophies and charters. However, one must be realistic and realize that it is, first and foremost, the responsibility of governance in the nation to secure the liberties and rights of its citizens. Adam Smith, a renowned, historical theorist, believed that businesses could seek to, first, maximize profits, believing this was acceptable so long as society benefits from the business’ economic growth and security. Many Western countries hold these values coupled with contemporary beliefs in the appropriateness of corporate social responsibility. However, again referencing ethical relativism, should foreign businesses (which have their own problems and issues attempting to comply with domestic social demands) be expected to promote the human rights of citizens in foreign countries that should be defended by their own governmental leadership? This is a highly unrealistic set of ideologies which, when considering the long-term economic impact of attempting to improve living conditions for members of society, would significantly strain the operating budgets of many companies that have invested in these countries. Though one might believe that all human beings should have these rights, the practical structure of business, international and domestic law, economics, and lack of responsible governments in third world nations simply cannot support the social value of these rights. Thoroughly took a position on whether wealthy nations have an obligation to provide poorer nations with, or help them develop, greener industries and sources of energy; thoroughly explained your rationale. Wealthy nations do not have any obligation to provide third world countries with greener technologies and better energy sources, though many countries such as the United States continue to attempt to promote these improvements. It is difficult enough, in the United States, for companies and researchers to gain access to the funding necessary to develop these technologies domestically due to strained government budgets or high operating costs for research and development. Would it be considered moral or ethical for a country such as the U.S. to sacrifice its own development projects that are already strapped for funding and investment in order to promote the welfare of others? Again, this is highly impractical. People who believe in utilitarianism would argue that maintaining expectations for this type of self-sacrifice is nonsense. Utilitarianism strongly promotes maximizing the utility (satisfaction) of individuals or society as a primary goal with little expectation for self-sacrifice (Sheng 2004). Being able to satisfy the utility of the broader majority, then, serves as the foundation for determining right versus wrong behaviors (Sheng). As identified, due to the realities of national economics and the differing methods by which society measures ethical behavior, there should be no expectations for wealthier nations to forfeit their own growth and prosperity in order to assist third world countries to develop better energy technologies. This also applies to greener environmental objectives. Though offering this support to poorer nations is certainly commendable, it is not correct to assume that this should be an absolute obligation. Thoroughly proposed a plan for uniform global pollution control standards; thoroughly proposed how you would enforce the standards For anyone that strongly believes that businesses should not be polluting in foreign countries and should also be investing in assistance programs to promote better technologies and promote human rights, there is a plan for establishing uniform global pollution control standards. The first step in this path is to recruit more third world membership to the United Nations and begin adopting their domestic legislation to be aligned with these policies, laws and values. Being a member nation of the United Nations provides much more support internationally for internal improvement programs and can, under the appropriate legal conditions, give the U.N. more authority in regulating and controlling unethical business practices. It would be best enforceable to prevent foreign business pollution and other alleged unethical behaviors if there were a globally-accepted standard of enforcement, prosecution, and oversight that is applicable across the entire world. Through majority votes on a variety of different laws developed by U.N. member nations, jurisdiction can be established without limits that ensure proper enforcement no matter where the infraction occurred. This could only be achievable through the efforts of all member nations and making it a priority to make all countries a part of the United Nations. Conclusion Pollution from foreign companies occurring in other nations than the home country is certainly not an activity worthy of applause. However, there can be no singular framework by which to say that it is unethical. At the same time, failing to promote human rights for a clean environment that is hospitable is not the responsibility of any entity but the governance systems responsible for ensuring the welfare of its domestic citizens. Ethics are all relative and until everyone in global society maintains the same values and beliefs, it will be difficult to find harmony in this issue. References Blackford, Russell. (2010). Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape, Journal of Evolution and Technology, 21(2), pp.53-62. United Nations. (2009). Foreign Direct Investment Report, Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. Retrieved February 27, 2013 from http://www.escwa.un.org/information/publications/edit/upload/edgd-09-TP2.pdf Sheng, C.L. (2004). A Defense of Utilitarianism. United States: University Press of America. Read More