The development of technology has improved peoples’ lives. However, many people assume that this development has caused severe environmental problems which may lead to collapse of the entire humanity. For instance, Jared Diamond stresses that ecological collapse is one of the most powerful factors which can lead to economic and social difficulties and can even cause the collapse of great countries or civilizations (Diamond 2006, 3-17). Some people (e.g. Icelanders) manage to see the importance of maintaining the necessary balance in ecological system and eventually enjoy social and economic stability (Diamond 2006, 8). However, some countries still pay no attention to the possible ecological collapse. For instance, China which now witnesses the period of industrial revolution fails to see the forthcoming problems which are already apparent. For instance, pollution (of air, water), water shortage, deforestation, overpopulation leads to numerous problems to people’s health. The government of the country already tries to influence the situation, but local officials trying to benefit from the development of industries do not consider environmental problems. Unfortunately, all Chinese government’s incentives die which can soon cause severe economic and social problems to the country.
Adam Smith believed that free market means the collaboration of reasonable participants who follow the basic principles of ethics (Duska and Duska 2003, 56). He pointed out that the participant should be rational, prudent, hardworking, thrifty and honest (Duska and Duska 2003, 56). Smith insisted on the necessity of following the basic ethical rules not to do harm but to do Good. However, in reality market participants did not share those values. Industrial Revolution has brought the possibility of increasing profits at the extent of working people, thus, creating a small number of very rich people and a class of very poor workers. In fact, this situation proves that market equilibrium can be achieved only due to the moral disequilibrium when owners get all possible profits and workers get limited amount of money which keeps them close to starvation. For instance, Iron Law of Wages which decreed the definite amounts of wages could only contribute to the increasing poverty among workers.
Of course, many issues human activities do arise. When it can seem that people have learnt to do business with respect to basic human values another problem has emerged. The development of technology, the increase in demand of various products has brought severe environmental problems. Unfortunately, people took up an anthropocentric position, i.e. they believe that all natural resources belong to people and it is possible and even necessary to use them for human’s goo without any or little consideration (Duska and Duska 2003, 84). Thus, people use natural resources (water, soil, forest, wildlife) but pay little attention to the future problems which their children can face. In fact, at present people witness the extinction of numerous species, the shortage of resources which people used to waste unreasonably. Fortunately, nowadays many people understood that it is necessary to change the stand point and take up ecocentric position. Many people have developed various ecocentric measures and theoretical approaches. For instance, many people insist on the wise use of natural resources. They stress that people should be very reasonable and stop wasting essential resources. Another approach to solving the problem some people see in conservation and preservation. They point out that people should try to preserve the beauty of the nature for descendants. Of course, in this situation business practices have to cope not only with some business essential issues but try to pay attention to the environment. Business enterprises should not think about their profits but they should be preoccupied with sustaining the natural resources.
The Brent Spar incident has become a classic example of confrontation between business and environmental organizations and proved that there are many controversies in such situations (Entine 2002, 60-81). According to Entine this conflict revealed the biased nature of environmental issues (Entine 2002, 60-81). In this case the business enterprise was trying to find the most appropriate solution. Of course, Shell was preoccupied with the economical perspective of the solution, but it worked out quite logic scientific way out. On the contrary, the most famous environmental organization was quite too simplistic. This organization was more preoccupied with the ethical facet of the problem. Moreover, Entine assumes that Greenpeace wanted to improve their decreasing popularity at the expanse of this conflict more than they really wanted to save the environment (Entine 2002, 60-81). Of course, some of their approaches can prove such claim (too much ballyhoo, not very scientific approach, unwillingness to reach a compromise). Of course, the dialogue between big business and environmental organizations and public should be held in more constructive manner (Entine 2002, 60-81). To my mind, the conclusions Entine makes in his work are correct. The modern business enterprises are quite committed to use the natural resources wisely. Thus, it is possible to start reasonable dialogues about any environmental issues with them. However, it is essential to be reasonable, scientific, moral and consistent. It is necessary not only ban to use some natural resources, it is important to find the ways how to do it wisely.
Reference List
Diamond, J.M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin, 2006.
Duska, Ronald F. and Duska, Brenda Shay. Accounting Ethics, Also in the Foundations of Business Ethics Series. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
Entine, John. “Shell, Greenpeace and Brent Spar.” In Case Histories in Business Ethics, ed. Chris Megone and Simon J. Robinson, 59-90. New York: Routledge, 2002.