Poverty and pollution - Case Study Example

?Poverty and pollution Case Study Poverty and pollution Case Study Ethical implications of businesses polluting in a third world country The world is ever concerned about the impact of business on the environment. A firm dealing with manufacturing operations must put into considerations how they operate. All business enterprises are not only responsible for ensuring sufficient ecological safety precautions, but are also liable for faults under their watch (Have & Henk, 2006). Doing business in a third world country requires a consideration that most nations do not have standards for environmental safety. In the current social and political climate, firms associated with polluting the environment in third world countries may face severe consequences especially in the American media. Everyone hates being associated with dumping chemicals into a water source and thus a company should consider integrity and ethics in running its business. Business ventures have an obligation to avoid damaging the surroundings in ways that affect human life in a negative way. In most cases, exocentric and anthropocentric interests overlap. For instance, water, air, and toxic waste pollution, release of fluorocarbons, and excessive carbon dioxide equally affect humans and environmental collections. When businesses are found guilty for polluting a certain environment in a third world nation, a number of corrective measures may be open to them. For example, they may be required to restore a stream, which is a costly procedure, or they may compensate a community for living near a polluted stream. This may be less costly. Businesses polluting in a third word country should be automatically bound to environmental regulations required by the nation’s law. If companies fail to respond appropriately, they may seem uncaring and arrogant, which harms both their reputation and human life (Callan &Thomas, 2007). Reasons why a business may conduct operations in a third world country and disregard any standards of pollution control Operating a business in a third world country may mean that the poor citizens pay the price of pollution caused by the operations of the business. The health-impairing pollution costs depend on the revenues relinquished from more injuries and deaths. The economic rationale behind polluting in a third world and ignoring the pollution control standards may be viewed by such companies as flawless. Another reason is that, pollution increases with disproportionate pollution costs. Everyone values a tidy environment when their incomes increase. If it balances with other needs, costs of pollution in developing countries fall. A business may disregard the pollution control measures to eliminate the restrictions that protect the citizens of that country in order to increase protection for business interests. Standards of commerce for health, environmental, or other social welfare may be strictly challenged or limited. By ignoring the right to condition investment on certain pollution control standards like redlining neighborhoods, a country may damage the control or power that it had to a certain business behavior, and thus allowing it to continue with its operations no matter the consequences. After all, imposing public social and environmental costs like toxic dumping is a way for firms to boost their profits. Consumers, communities, and workers in a third world country lose; short-term gains soar and complex ventures “wins.” Pollution is the price for progress Since environmental policies often involve trade-offs, there should be a balance between cots and profits. The greatest cause of depression in many countries is poverty. It is only by economic development that people can be lifted out of poverty. However, if economic growth signifies progress, then logical environmental policies are necessary for lasting economic growth, or at least environmental protection and progress are compatible. Environmental pollution can limit economic growth and the health impacts of pollution in a nation’s workforce undermine its productivity. Poverty in itself is a significant root to environmental pollution, as people living in poor conditions may not have resources to invest in environmental protection. Moreover, if economic development and progress are majorly considered, then improved environmental protection will play a significant role in improving the welfare brought about by development (Cruz, Fukui, &Warford, 2002). For instance, if millions of people in developing countries cannot access clean water or adequate sanitation, then economic progress to such populations may mean improving their immediate environment. Long-term tightening of environmental policies helps to establish new opportunities for environmental technologies. It is approximated that spending on protecting the environment accounts for millions of jobs or a big percentage of the total employment. Further, pollution controls cause adjustment of economic development structures majorly through changing the property-rights governments for natural possessions. The price of exposing people to health risks and using environmental resources should be looked at in line with the social price, with due impacts that pollution and dangers to public health should turn down. With this, polluting factories will be held in check and on the other hand cleaner factories be boosted. The net effect on economic progress as weighed in national statistics should be positive. Human beings have a moral right to a livable environment regardless of the country they live in Whether people live in a developed or a third world country, they have a moral right to a livable environment. When the immediate surrounding is polluted and contaminated to a level of threatening health, shelter, life, food, and minimal work standard, it also threatens people’s human rights. It is not ethical for people to struggle in order to acquire life necessities. Pollution, destructing life-sustaining ecosystems, inability to control a country’s wastes, and such environmental issues prevent people from accessing survival and healthy requisites. Every human being has a right to habitable environment because they depend on it physically, and therefore are ethically obliged to it. Nonetheless, this right is only applicable if it is directly linked to the human responsibility to nature (Have & Henk, 2006). Because people depend on the environment, a clean surrounding is part of nature and life is determined by an uninterrupted function of livable systems, which ensure the supply of nutrients and energy. Ethically, the environment should be respected rather than being impaired. People thus, have a moral imperative to be responsible for the life-giving attributes from clean surroundings. Non-favorable dreadful conditions threaten more than future generations who also will need a livable environment. Wealthy nations have an obligation to provide poorer nations with, or help them develop, greener industries and sources of energy The wealthier nations indeed are obliged to this step. Developing countries lack greener industries and sources of energy to help them grow economically. It is irrational to suggest that such countries can just develop and worry about the issue later once they have a better economy. If developed nations really care about the fate of citizens in third world countries, they have to ask of what they can do about it. Unless they take action to limit emissions and other pollutants by helping them obtain greener industries, they should not expect them to follow suit. Developing countries need both material and practical assistance. It is morally acceptable that those who are better off should help the less fortune and wait to deal with the consequences of their own actions (Jackson, 2009). The rich are obliged, but only on grounds that they fulfill this duty in the best manner possible, in terms of development aid, cash grants, or other relevant mechanisms. Even those who oppose this argument are likely to agree that rich countries or people ought to be charitable. The U.S should not be selfish and ought to provide poor countries develop; only if that assistance is essential to provide noticeable economic growth. Poorer countries will benefit from such help, in the sense that, the discounted profits exceed the costs of their impartial abatement costs. A plan for uniform global pollution control standards and how to enforce them According to Russell and Baumann, standards are obligations based on risk limits, often established to impose levels of controlling pollution by using uniform criteria. They include emission standards, environmental quality standards, and product standards. Such standards are usually established by national authorities based on levels of pollution control (Russell & Baumann, 2009). My plan will involve the following things: A considerable view of the maximum concentration of the permissible substance in the release A look at the average concentration of the pollutant during one or more time frame A focus on the amount of substance allowable in the release of a pollutant within a certain period An outline of internal control measures per country Considerations to enforce the standards The numerical value allocated to the standards must be established basing on water standard criterion, in order to achieve a scientific foundation and guarantee suitable levels of safety for the selected uses.Global pollution control standards should be established in decentralized and supple form, clearly to serve global specificity (Reitze, 2001). Focusing solely on environmental advancements may make standards to be viewed as too ambitious. Consequently, huge expenditures may be experienced to improve environmental quality, less than their prices. Global guidelines should be checked to see if they facilitate an overall understanding of the idea of valuable standards, and the way to apply them. Enforcing the standards My plan for the standards will be adopted by authorities. The standardization procedure or the procedure of establishing allowances and limits may be enforced by laws of various countries or entail the formal consensus of technical experts. I can enforce my standards properly if I find an agreement between the pollutants and the users, such as water users, with a socially recognized anticipation of the degradation risk. References Callan, S., & Thomas, J (2007). Environmental Economics & Management: Theory, Policy And Applications. New York, NY: Cengage Learning. Cruz, W., Fukui, K., & Warford, J. (2002). Protecting the Global Environment: Initiatives by Japanese Business. London: World Bank Publications. Great Britain Parliament (House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs). (2008). The Economics of Renewable Energy: Recent Developments, 4th Report of Session 2007-08, Vol. 2: Evidence. London: The Stationery Office. Have, T., & Henk, A. (2006). Environmental Ethics and International Policy. New York: UNESCO. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. New York, NY: Earthscan. Malachowski, A. (2001). Business Ethics: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management. Cambridge: Taylor & Francis Group. Mullerat, R. (2010). International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Corporations in the Economic Order of the 21st Century. Oxford: Kluwer Law International. Reitze, A. (2001). Air Pollution Control Law: Compliance and Enforcement. New York, NY: Environmental Law Institute. Russell, C., & Baumann, D. (2009). The Evolution of Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Oxford: Edward Elgar Publishing. UN Economic and Social Council (2003). Sustainable Development: Linkages and Partnerships for the Developing World. New York, NY: DIANE Publishing. Read More