Business leadership is challenged nowadays with the task of targeting profitability while rightfully employing environmentally sustainable methods. The mishap has arisen in the three concepts of business, ethics, and the environment. However, these concepts can be synchronized to create innovation. Although theories, concepts, ideas, techniques, and methods used in business do not consider these concepts, leaders must always pay attention to environmental matters. This silence on matters of environment cannot prevail in the face of the society’s understanding of the potential environmental price of corporate profits. Environmentalists exist in form of citizens, governments, interest groups.
Most businesses are of the view that environmental responsibility is restricted to what the law requires and how the profitability is considered. However, it is paramount for business leaders to look beyond the profit motive and legal regulations to discover more credible reasons for environmental responsibility. Some theories that conclude variously on environmental responsibility of business include anthropocentric, animal rights view and ecocentrism. Anthropocentric or human-centered postulates that the human interest is the only basis for responding to the environment. We therefore have the duty to ensure that the earth remains environmentally habitable for supporting human life, and its resources are preserved to ensure interesting human life on earth. The second theory of animal rights view postulates that we owe to them a position; especially so for domesticated animals. Other lower animals similarly deserve the care as they have the ability to feel pain just as humans. Thirdly, ecocentrism requires that our responsibilities to humans and animals should also be extended to rain forests. The assumption in this case is that the environment has direct rights as a result it attains moral personhood. Human responsibility therefore has no option but to honor it with direct duty.
Strengths and weaknesses of ethical ‘approaches’
The theory of anthropocentric assumes that only human beings are the only morally significant persons with a direct moral standing deserving interesting life on earth both now and in the future. On the contrary, because the future is a time yet to come and not different from the past it means that interesting life for the future is not a feasible arrangement. Concerning the animal rights view, the argument that even lower animals, such as chickens, feel pain like humans deserve equal moral consideration is not justified. Only certain religious might subscribe to this theory but others consider these animals as food. The last addition of rain forests into the equation renders the theory unconvincing.
Current environmental issues
The first cause associated with environmental responsibility is persistent opposition by industrialized participants to laws regulating air pollution. A company called Union Carbide identified a suitable site for its metal and chemical plants sandwiched between West Virginia and Ohio valley. This caused a build-up of ash and soot on both sides of the mountain. The inhabitants residing in the surrounding vicinity started reporting cases of respiratory disorders which were diagnosed to be linked with the factory pollutants. The other manifestation of environmental irresponsibility is associated with accidents from nuclear power plants. Ironically, the adoption of nuclear power was initially intended for electricity generation; but this has been ridiculed by environmental activists due to fear of the adversity of this form of energy. As an environmentally friendly more than oil and coal, the public outcry was not based on the commercial benefits of nuclear power but rather on the fear of its effect on the human life. Eventually oil spills contribute equally to the degradation of the environment. Marine organisms suffer and fish die as a result of suffocation and poisoning.
Ethics of care and utilitarian perspectives
Ethics of care is a theory about what makes actions right or wrong. In other words it means that one must take reasonable steps so that no predisposed harm is caused to another individual. It usually results from negligence and damages are usually paid. An example is whereby a member of the society reports to the security of an industry about factory effluents in his firm. The security officer brushes off the idea because he feels he is less concerned. When finally the case goes to court the security officer is held responsible.
Utilitarianism on the other hand states that an action is right if its results are superior to those of any other action. The benefits that accrue to stakeholders or members of the business community have been diverse and equally justify the actions that some businesses have taken. However, other scholars are skeptical about utilitarianism and the environment. This is because people have difficulty valuing the health and life of wildlife and the environment, making it very hard to make comparisons. It is too difficult to determine utility for non-humans too. An elaborate case involves an increased desire for whale hunting by a group of developed nations including Iceland, Norway and Japan. A small percentage of their citizens’ increased craving for whale meat has tremendously trivialized the whales’ right to life. This ‘inhuman’ overbearing upon the animal kingdom exposes the weak point of the utilitarianism doctrine.