There have been concerns about the environment and cautions since the 1960s. Some people argue that the business’s social responsibility, other than playing in the market rules, ensures the production of goods and services and making profits. The government and courts are the responsible parties in setting rules such as environmental protection. According to this position, doing more than stated in these rules is not fair to business. Therefore, every business should respond to the market and work with its competitors to perform its exact role. As per Azad, (2018), a restriction in assisting in societal problem solving makes possible demands on a business at the practical level, ignoring the impact such activity has on profit. It is not the business’ role to correct market failure if the users are not ready to respond to cost and use the environmentally responsive yields and activities.
It is also argued that it is not recommendable for a business to lobby against environmental rules set by the government. This recommendation is due to some firms’ argument that the government is responsible for correcting market failure. However, this absence of businesses’ lobbying is only recommended in the case of rules on the environment. Environmental legislation has high instantaneous costs, but both society and firms can enjoy its benefits for a very long period (Kalam, 2018). Those in authority are believed to only mind being in power and disagree on approving the environmental legislation. The authority’s reluctance, in turn, makes the business’ obligations abstain from being reluctant to such legislation.
In the other perspective, it is a business’s moral responsibility to relate to social issues. Companies need to avoid bringing more problems to society and instead participate in situation solving. Companies should avoid separating themselves from solving environmental problems, waiting for others to find answers and being told what to do. They should fight for proper environmental legislation and fight against the wrong one.
Another argument for the position businesses have duties towards the environment is managing the environment is related to managing businesses. When the environment is protected, it, in turn, support the business objectives. It strengthens relations with the stakeholders whose views are valuable at challenging times. Environmental protection also helps reduce business costs and create more efficiency. Therefore, a business should adjust to society’s values since it is a part of society, and the community plays a crucial role in influencing it.
Authors of various articles on animal rights ground the ethnic argument on the principle of equal consideration. This principle states that every individual deserves equal respect and care. To accomplish this equality criterion, he employs utilitarianism to demonstrate that a person’s suffering capacity should bring an equivalent concern to them (Zuolo, 2017). The misery of a creature capable of suffering must be factored into the functional equation of optimizing pleasure while reducing discomfort. However, there might be an argument that a moral difference exists in people and animals pain. Since it is human suffering, human tragedy might be ethically significant. When weighing the categorical imperatives of good and evil, human and nonhuman creatures’ concerns should be valued by corporations equally.
Another case is each person has some uniquely exceptional value referred to as inherent value. This value is shared equally by those possessing it, and it is essential to discuss the reason behind embracing some other views. People have natural responsibilities to animals, and they should treat them right. Others argue that it could be of more benefit concentrating on the correct ethic relationship with animals rather than explaining animal protection laws and debating the legal relationship with them. Businesses have effects such as pollution, which can, in turn, cause damage to the natural environment. Statistics show that the price of pollution caused by the businesses, if held accountable, could wipe out one-third plus of their profits. Pollution has led to environmental damage, which involves a shortage of freshwater, productive soils, fisheries and other creatures. The greenhouse gas emission causes climate change, and these climatic changes affect all animals.
Climate change mitigation is a crucial required response, and this involves global warming limitation measures. The government should work with the states towards this climate change mitigation to attain the needed reduction. The first argument is that firms cannot hold ethical obligations since they are not moral agents. Another idea is that its principal duty is towards its shareholders and owners (Kalam, 2018). It is also argued that since no sole owned business actions would contribute an essential difference to global warming, the firms cannot attend to such duties.
One of the inquiry’s fundamental assumptions is that corporations as organizations are autonomous from the independent agents that make them up. In other terms, a company firm is more than just the people making it. As a result, if an organization can be proven to have inherent rights, it can be held to ethical duties as a whole. As organizational members, the individuals that make up the group have a variety of moral responsibilities. Another fundamental premise is that remedial action is required and morally imperative in limiting climate change and global warming. The ethical norms discussed in this article should be viewed as alternative to duties, which can be overcome and surpassed by several other moral responsibilities. Moreover, since mitigating climatic changes involves various activities and initiatives, this discussion is solely on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
References
Kalam Azad, A. (2018). An innovative algorithmic approach for solving profit maximization problems. Mathematics Letters, 4(1), 1.
Zuolo, F. (2017). Equality, its basis and moral status: Challenging the principle of equal consideration of interests. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 25(2), 170-188.