Ethics And The Environment

Ethics And The Environment. Cody Cooper University Of Central Oklahoma

Ethics and the Environment

Cooper 2

In recent years, our awareness of our impact on the environment has grown. Differing views have arisen as a result and offer drastically different moral approaches to ethics and the environment. From these views, the inherent costs in ethical production have caused debate over the feasibility of producing products in an environmentally friendly manner. Our culture in the United States has a special set of challenges in regards to ethical production. Yet, some businesses are adapting sustainable practices and can show that they are viable business models. The first view that has arisen over ethics and the environment is one that has been around for centuries. Anthropocentricism is the thought that the environment is solely there to support humans and should be used in such a way. This view does not take into account any acts of conservation nor does it account for ways to deal with serious pollution levels we are facing. According to Seligman, the use and abuse of the environment and animals is relevant in that it effects peoples general well-being. And so, environmental preservation is done solely for the benefit of humans. The second view is that of ecological ethics. Ecological ethics is the idea of attributing inherent values to plants, animals, and the environment in their own right, irregardless of the benefit if any they present to humans. The issue that arises is that we depend on the environment for survival and must use it. Our problem is our ability to us it properly, and, with constraint as well as consideration for the environment in regards to preservation and sustainability. According to the World Commission on Environment and Development, sustainability is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the ability of future generations to meet their own needs SOURCE moral challenge of green technology.

Ethics and the Environment

Cooper 3

Profitability is the main drive behind business. However the drive for profits can be the direct reason companies choose to not produce goods with respect to the environment. A clear example of this practice, according to Trames 2006, is The CEO of Dupont, Chad Holliday and the continued production of Teflon. Teflon utilizes what are known as ammonium perfluorooctanoate or PFOAs. These chemicals have known health risks and Dupont was aware of them for many years. Yet, Dupont continued to invest in these, even building facilities solely for the production of them. The underlying current here was that PFOAs were found to be the most economical chemical in the production of Teflon. To counteract the known public knowledge about PFOAs, Dupont began a public relations campaign. They created a website called www.C8inform.com. This was designed to show research on the effects of PFOAs, which according to Vesiland et al (2005), showed only studies that questioned the validity of health effects causes by PFOAs, and stated that no adverse health effects had ever been proven which is true. Research of PFOAs was limited. It didnt account for long term effects nor did it show what safe levels in the body were. At the time, Dupont set the levels acceptable to 1 ppb (parts per billion). During this time Dupont conducted research on its own workers and found high levels of PFOAs in their blood stream. Thus they adjusted the acceptable levels to 14 ppb. Upon further research it was found that people had far greater amounts in their blood and went on to say that as much as 150 ppb was an acceptable level. These actions were designed to lessen the dangers

Ethics and the Environment

Cooper 4

seen by the public. They were true, but only because Dupont was controlling and manipulating the information available. Dupont is still producing PFOAs. By choosing to continue, they are making a moral decision to pursue profits over the health of its consumers. They have weighed the costs and benefits and chosen the later. This practice is highly unethical. This brings up the argument of precautionary principal. This principle relates to the idea that if something poses serious risk, then action should be taken before the risk can occur. Dupont knows the effects PFOAs have yet still produces them. Our own culture presents its own challenges environmental ethics. According to Fairbanks, one major obstacle for us is our own materialistic culture, and it is highly unlikely that we will change unless we can believe it is in our own self-interest to do so. Our capitalist society promotes individuality. This thinking and a serious drive for wealth and material goods makes it difficult for some to see the benefits of environmental ethics. Aside from these challenges, many have begun to see the viability of change. According to Vesiland et al. (2005), the concept is called Pollution Prevention Pays or PPP. Through changing the way a company produces a product, they can actually save money and make a product more desirable because it is produced in an ethical way. Many CEOs are championing this idea. Holliday et al (2002) gives these examples: STMicroelectronics, the third largest electronics firm in the world, began in 1995 to devote an average of 2% of its annual capital investment to reducing

Ethics and the Environment

Cooper 5

pollution. The results? CEO of STMicroelctronics Pasquale Pistorio stated, Thanks to these measures, the planet has been spared the burden of another 100-megawatt power plant; the water we have saved could quench the thirst of 50 million people a year. We are using 28% less electricity and 45% less water than in 1994 (and this) translates in a savings of $50 million in 2000 alone. DuPont agricultural products team from LaPorte, Texas, reduced its toxic emissions by 99% through closed-loop recycling, off-site reclamation, selling former wastes as products and substituting raw materials. Overall savings included $2.5 million of capital and more than $3 million in annual operating costs. A DuPont global team developed a new technique for the manufacture of Terathane, used in the manufacture of Lycra. The innovation increased yields, resulting in additional revenues of $4 million while eliminating 2 million kilograms of waste per year. These companies are practicing what is known as corporate responsibility. In a book by Schmidherny and Zorraquin (1996), they have listed reasons as to why it is beneficial for companies to operate responsibly:

Ethics and the Environment regulations are getting tougher banks are more willing to lend to cleaner companies insurers are more willing to insure cleaner companies investors are more likely to invest in cleaner companies the best and brightest people want to work for clean companies green sells

Cooper 6

employees are motivated if they believe the company is trying to be socially and environmentally responsible media coverage is getting more sophisticated (i.e. it is more difficult to hide things) (p. 25) In conclusion, there is great importance in regards to applying ethical norms to the environment. For our society to continue, consideration must be shown to the way we are producing and consuming. Arguments have arisen that producing with consideration to the environment in mind are costly and the consumer wouldnt accept the rise in cost. However, arguments from large corporations can illustrate otherwise. The publics awareness of pollution and environmental sustainability has markedly increased in recent years. This is creating a greater push for companies to look at the way they produce products and if they are doing so in an ethical manner in regards to not only humans but also the environment.

Ethics and the Environment References

Cooper 7

Fairbanks, S. J. Environmental goodness and the american culture. Ethics and The Environment 15(2), 80-102. Holliday, C. O., Schmidheiny, S., Watts, P. (2002) Walking The Talk. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kohler Publishing Inc. Reichart, J. E. (1995) A new environmental ethic. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(4), 796-804. Schmidherny, S., Zorraquin, F. (1996) Financial change: the financial community, eco-effeciency, and sustainable development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Seligman, C. (1989) Environmental ethics. Journal of Social Issues, 45(1), 169-184.

Vesilind, A. P., Heine. L, & Hendry, J. (2006) The moral challenge of green technology Trames, 10(60/55), 22-31. .