The officials elected are there because of their relationship with the citizens; if they refuse to barter on behalf of those within their districts, then they are not upholding their moral responsibility to the people. It can even be argued that, as humans, we have a relationship with our environment and, therefore, a duty to uphold and protect it from harm. As the government tries to safeguard the environment it must also put to consideration the economic and financial gain they receive from Nestle Company through taxes and also providing employment to the citizens at much higher salary rates than any other company in the state. The bottled water market is worth “$6 billion in annual sales” (Barry & Shaw, 2014, p. 131), with monetary gain assured for Nestlé if they triple their output. The company is also supplying water to the majority of the citizens in Michigan State with clean drinking water, the product they never used to have before it was launched.
The company, however, has several negative impacts on the environment and entire ecosystem of Michigan State by increasing its pumping rate from 130 gallons per minute to 400 gallons per minute. Over a continuous period, the number of fish in the water body will decrease drastically due to water shortage and hence fishing will also be edged out of the economy of the state.
Ideas relevant in this debate would be environmental justice and equity for the people in Michigan communities. If water rapidly disappears, it also becomes an issue of efficiency with the renewability of supplies becoming in question. Nestlé has to deal with customer satisfaction, but also the satisfaction of their state business partners. It should work on modalities of moderating their production in manner that they will serve the customers to satisfaction and generate enough profit while at the same time conserving the environment not to infringe on other people’s right to use the water