Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26



module code Professional Ethics for Business

Title : The Group Assignment

Due Date : Week 12

Lecturer : Ms Kamelia Chaichi

Muhammad Aliff bin Rusli 110044721

Ibrahim Adewale Adeola 110040998
Anuar Tussupbekov 110041129

Academic Honesty Policy Statement

I, hereby attest that contents of this attachment are my own work. Referenced works, articles,
art, programs, papers or parts thereof are acknowledged at the end of this paper. This
includes data excerpted from CD-ROMs, the Internet, other private networks, and other
peoples disk of the computer system.

Students Signature : _____________________________

for office use only

DATE : ______________

TIME : ________________


Table of Content

No. Topic Pages

1 Introduction

2 Ethical Issues

3 Interdisciplinary Aspects

4 Desire of Stakeholder

5 Arguments for Support and Against

6 References


Ecological Protection is a routine of ensuring the regular habitat on individual,

hierarchical or administrative levels, for the advantage of both the common habitat

and people. Because of the weights of populace and innovation, the biophysical

environment is being debased, some of the time for all time. This has been perceived,

and governments have started setting restrictions on exercises that bring about

ecological corruption. Since the 1960s, action of ecological developments has made

familiarity with the different natural issues. There is no concurrence on the degree of

the ecological effect of human movement, and security measures are sometimes


Scholastic foundations now offer courses, for example, ecological studies, natural

administration and ecological designing, that instruct the history and strategies for

environment assurance. Assurance of nature is required because of different human

activities. Waste generation, air contamination, and loss of biodiversity (coming about

because of the presentation of intrusive species and species annihilation) are a portion

of the issues identified with ecological security. Ecological security is affected by

three entwined components: natural enactment, morals and training. Each of these

elements has impact in affecting national-level natural choices and individual level

ecological qualities and practices.

For natural insurance to end up a reality, it is imperative for social orders to build up

each of these territories that, together, will educate and drive ecological choices.

Moreover, this report is centered on the Government attempts at environmental

protection through regulatory legislation (e.g., the Clean Air Act or the Wetlands

Protection Act) place excessive and socially counterproductive burdens on legitimate

businesses bringing up the following ethical environmental questions:

1. Why care about nature for itself when only people matter?

2. When species or landscapes or wilderness areas are destroyed, what, of value, is

lost to mankind?

3. Will future generations miss what we have taken from them?

4. Does land ownership make moral sense, or is it a morally absurd and repugnant

concept in Western culture meant to deprive Indigenous peoples of their customary


5. Do human beings have a need for nature that implies an obligation to preserve it?

6. Should we continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption?

7. Why should we continue to propagate our species, and life itself?

8. Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles?

9. What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations?

10. Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the

convenience of humanity? How should we best use and conserve the space

environment to secure and expand life? ( M.Mahamad Ousmane, 2012)

Examination concerning natural assurance frequently concentrates on the part of

government legislation, and law authorization. Nonetheless, in its broadest sense,

ecological protection may be seen to be the obligation of all the general population

and not just that of government Decisions that effect the earth will in a perfect world

include a wide scope of stakeholders including industry, indigenous gatherings,

natural gathering and group representatives.

Gradually, natural basic leadership procedures are developing to mirror this wide base

of partners and are turning out to be more community oriented in numerous countries.

Many constitutions recognize the crucial right to natural insurance and many

international settlements recognize the privilege to live in a solid domain. Likewise,

many countries have associations and organizations dedicated to natural assurance.

There are international natural assurance associations, as the United Nations

Environment Programme. Albeit natural insurance is not just the obligation of

government organizations, the vast majority see these offices as being of prime

significance in establishing and keeping up fundamental models that secure both the

earth and the people interacting with it.

Ethical Issues on Environmental Protection

The issues occur that might be considered as ethical issues when the government

trying to manage regulation at environmental protection such as The Clean Air Act, or

The Wetlands Protection Act; placing an excessive and socially unproductive burdens

on authorized businesses.

As our view, there is no values occur in this situation. The main reason is the

government trying to protect the environment of the place in their country, but they

also trying to give green lights to authorized business, such as an organization that

have a license and pay the tax made from their sales profit to the government, to

throw their waste, chemicals or toxics to the air or through the river, that may affect

the environment around people who stays nearby there, and probably will affect the

whole country.
The Desire of Stakeholder

In this situation, it might affect the desire of a stakeholder or investor. As an investor,

before they investing into a specific organization, they have to research and analyse

the situation around the organization either by the ethical behaviour, the scale of

economics and the politic issues.

As this situation occur, they will found that there is unethical behaviour occur

between the government and to the people in the country when the government trying

to protect the government for the need of the scoiety; but in other hand, they trying to

be greedy of making profit and treated unfairly to the business and environment, that

may causing it to be unethical and no value occur in this situation.

Therefore, they will not investing both in specific organization who behaving

unethical and any companies in this country because they found it is unethical

behaviour occur in the country, the government taking for granted to get more profit

by not protecting the environment, instead lying to the society that they protect the

environment using the specific agency to control the environment professionally.

The Interdisciplinary Aspects related to Ethics, Politics, Economics and


Nowadays, there are countless overlapping concerns and areas of consensus among

environmental ethics, environmental economics, environmental politics,

environmental literature and environmental sciences. The distinctive perspectives and

methodologies of these disciplines provides important inspiration for environmental

ethics, and it offers value for these disciplines. They are reinforcing, influencing and

supporting each other in related issues.

Economics and Envrironmental Aspects

Most of Business analyst knows the climate change are the main effects of not

protecting the environment. Environmental problems continue to worsen air quality

and the ozone layer. Ozone Depletion reduces on protecting people from ultraviolet

rays that cause skin cancer and diseases in the immune. There are some consequences

and causes of not protecting the envrionement seriously.

Based on the consequences, prevalents can be the main impacts of changing climate.

Changing of Climate affecting the basic elements of life for society abroad. For

instance, food for eat, availability of water and the use of natural things. The waste of

chemical came out from the irresponsible factory that may change their nature

(acidity, nutrient content) primarily because of the consequent effects of that waste.

Acid Rain also causes of not protecting the environement. It is caused by burning

pollutants from fossil fuels releasing carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides

carried by the wind and mixed in the atmosphere and poison the rainfall damages
rivers, lakes, ground water, soil, forest, and buildingsBesides that, the countries that

have good economies of scale will be pioneer to experience the worst impacts. Based

on the causes, the emission of greenhouse will affect our activity in our daily life,

either it is directly or indirectly, global warming are also the effects of greenhouse

emission as it increases.

The impacts of climate change creating questions of rights. It is argued that future

generations have the right to enjoy a world whose climate has not been transformed to

compromise basic physical security. Therefore, the present generation should reduce

greenhouse gas emissions to protect the rights of future generations. It is also creating

Global Warming. One of the sign is the temperature changes as the atmosphere

changes, greenhouses gases (CO2) cause the atmosphere to warm up, and increase in

burned fossil fuels increase release of greenhouse gases.

At first, todays challenge to business leadership is ensuring profitability while doing

the right thing using environmentally sustainable methods. It is possible for business

leaders to make money, engage in ethical leadership, and participate in preserving the

environment for future generations. It is possible to fit these ideas together,.

(Freeman,york,stewart, 2008.). However, financial analysts or literally the so called

economists contend that ecological resources, since they are free or underpriced, have

a tendency to be abused or manhandled, in this manner bringing about natural harm.

Monetary motivators try to right this circumstance by setting a cost for ecological

harm or making proprietorship rights to natural merchandise. Moreover, some

ecological resourcessuch as timber, fish and mineralsare purchased and sold in the
business sector. Be that as it may, their cost generally does not mirror the genuine

expense of getting them since it does exclude the expense of the ecological harm that

may result from their extraction and handling. Other natural assets, for example, the

environment and conduits are open or social merchandise that are not exclusively

possessed, or purchased and sold, and don't have a business sector cost. Financial

experts contend that there is a solid propensity for individuals to overexploit and

corrupt these regular property assets.

It is so obvious and direct that whenever people or firms settle on choices about

generation, utilization and venture, they actually don't consider the ecological or

social results since they sometimes need to pay the expense of those outcomes. For

instance, an organization that releases its profluent into a stream influences fishers and

different clients of the water downstream. However the expenses endured by

downstream clients are not charged to the organization nor incorporated with the cost

of the organization's items. The business sector does not make note of these ecological

expenses and they don't show up in the organization's record books. These 'overflow

impacts' of working together have been called "externalities" by business analysts,

showing that they are outer to typical business sector exchanges.

The nearness of these externalities speak to a disappointment of the business sector to

ensure the earth. Financial specialists or the economists look to address this business

sector disappointment by altering costs so that the individual purchasing the products

or administrations bringing on the outside expense is obliged to pay for it. This should

be possible by method for a taxfor case, on coal mining to cover the medicinal costs

of those diggers who are experiencing dark lung infection. The extra expenses may
likewise give a motivating force to the coal business to discover approaches to keep

diggers from getting this infection.

There are different methods for disguising natural expenses without depending on the

valuing system. One illustration is to require an organization to take its water

downstream from its release point. Laws constrain the polluter to pay heed to outside

expenses by endorsing cutoff points to what can be released or discharged. Enactment

can likewise make expenses be disguised on the off chance that it strengths

organizations to pay for tidying up their squanders. Financial analysts contend this

should be possible all the more successfully if individuals and firms were charged

genuine costs for utilizing nature.

Financial instruments mean to make these outer costs part of the polluter's choice, by

including a charge or by somehow giving a money related motivating force to

considering the natural and social expenses. This guarantees ecological

contemplations are joined into business sector choices. While enactment is gone for

specifically changing the conduct of polluters by banning or restricting certain

practices, financial instruments intend to make ecologically harming conduct cost

more. Under these business sector based approaches, polluters are not advised what to

do; rather, they think that its costly to proceed in their old ways and they are given a

decision about how they can change. Generally, monetary instruments are utilized as a

part of conjunction with legitimate measures.

The Commonwealth Government recognizes two fundamental sorts of monetary

instruments for giving a motivating force to utilize assets economically, these

instruments are as follows:

Price-based measures use charges and subsidies to internalise environmental costs

and benefits.

Rights-based measures create rights to use environmental resources, or to pollute

the environment, up to a pre-determined limit, and allowing these rights to be

traded. ( M.Mahamad Ousmane, 2012).

Ethics and Political Aspects

There are potency in conflict with other rights besides focusing only on the rights to a

stable climate, such as basic education and health. This rights are essential and

valuable in terms of law, policy and structures of society. Normally, all these rights

would be fulfilled, but when some of a conflict of rights arises, the one right will be

violated and there will be an unethical behaviour occur. The comparisons of the

consequences may assist in determining which right takes priority.

In the view of Cap-and-Trade and Ethics of carbon emission trading. In

December of 2015 world leaders around the world gathered in Paris to address the

Climate Change what now is known as Paris Agreement. Red signs of Climate

Change were inconceivably apparent to be ignored for no longer. Human made gas

emissions including carbon dioxide causes temperature around the world to rise. It

was first time of Climate Change of been addressed as global challenge which

demand global action.

Governments around the world were experimenting and implementing different

policies to reduce carbon emission for a quite long. And one of such experiments of

low carbon economy engineering is Cap-and-Trade. Masses would be surprised to

find out that Cap-and-Trade is already implemented with various degree of success in

European Union and United States of America.

So what is so-called Cap-and-Trade? It is basically the market for trading quantities

of carbon emission between companies which is not subject on carbon tax. Much

simpler words, please imagine family of four which family members are over-

weighted and try to maintain low sugar diet. In such family outside regulator (in our

case government) will set the standard for consumption for chocolate pies. For father

limit is four pies, for mother limit is 3 pies, for little boy is 2 pie and for little girl is

one pie. But imagine that little girl do not eat half of original pie and has right to sell

such to any other member of the family therefore making profit out of reducing sugar

consumption. After a while regulator sets the limits even lower, process repeats with

any other family members cutting consumption of sugary products lower and lower.

Such model is rewarding the most active for carbon free production and punishes the

inertial ones simultaneously reducing total output for carbon emission into

atmosphere. Name Cap-and-Trade is obviously self-explanatory term meaning


Historically emission trading was proposed at another world leaders gathering, but in

Kyoto of December 1997 a. k. a. Kyoto Protocol as part of so called flexibility

mechanisms. Since then model was adapted and such markets are open to any person
which is willing to buy and sell carbon. Some of them are EU ETS, the Regional

Greenhouse Gas Initiative and so on.

But despite its theoretical potential to reduce air pollution, real-world practical

implementations of Cap-and-Trade is not only challenging to authorities, but also

questionable for its ethical concerns. Should individuals be allowed to buy and sell

pollution? Will small companies which already do not emit much carbon in

atmosphere profit most? Why workers in dirty technology sector should be

punished afterall?
Arguments for Support and Against the Environmental Protection

Based on interdisciplinary aspects related to the environmental protection, there is

some arguments in supporting the issues, and also arguments in against the issues.

The issues occur that might be considered as ethical issues when the government

trying to manage regulation at environmental protection such as The Clean Air Act, or

The Wetlands Protection Act; placing an excessive and socially unproductive burdens

on authorized businesses.

There is some of my arguments in supporting the government in controlling the

envoronmental protection. Mainly is to prevent other organizations in taking

opportunity to misuse and throw away the waste to the air and river that might harm

the people around there, and also harm the habitat of the animals around there.

Besides that, there is some of my arguments in against the government in controlling

the environmental protection. Mainly is to prevent the government to monopolize

their power by only giving green lights to the authorized companies that pays higher

duties to them to place excessive and socially counterproductive burdens, and treat

unfairly to other organizations. Moreover, it becomes political issues when the

government to establish a The Clean Air Act, or The Wetlands Protection Act; to

manage regulation at environmental protection, but on the other hand they are doing

inside job in making more profits for self-interest instead of saving the environment.
Taking into consideration the Environmental Protection Law of the People's

Republic of China is a national law formulated for the purpose of protecting and

improving environment, preventing and controlling pollution and other public

hazards, safeguarding public health, promoting ecological civilization improvement

and facilitating sustainable economic and social development(EU, 2014).

Governmental regulations are virtually necessary for a nation in other to protect and

improve the environment, preventing and controlling pollution and other public

hazards, safeguarding public health, promoting ecological civilization improvement

and facilitating sustainable economic and social sustainable development.

Without getting into a long dialog on political and monetary rationality (until further

notice), here are a couple of perceptions on this imperative point:

Advocates of great radicalism: property rights, free markets, the standard of law,

individual flexibility expect that as data enhances, private markets will prompt the

expanded protection of natural assets, and that externalities (e.g., contamination) will

be disguised (e.g., considered by private on-screen characters) given an arrangement

of solid property rights.

This being said, plainly in this profoundly perplexing and between associated

framework, where we as a whole are presented to a huge number of chemicals a year,

a large portion of which connect in ways that aren't yet completely comprehended,

where it is difficult to follow the inception of items, and where the impacts of these

items regularly don't show for quite a long time, the legislature must assume a

dynamic part in direction.

The legislature has two alternatives; either require that all individuals living in

tropical storm zones, surge fields, or close blame lines buy private protection, or make

it completely clear that individuals won't be made up for their loss of property by the

administration if calamity strikes. What he neglected to acknowledge is that in the

event that somebody becomes ill, it is to a great degree hard to follow the wellspring

of the disease, and without government direction numerous organizations that toxic

substance purchasers could truth be told work productively for drawn out stretches of


In any case, Friedman did have a point in that as individuals look increasingly toward

government to direct the economy, they at times do diminish the exertion they put

resources into settling on shrewd decisions for themselves (e.g., does anybody truly

require the administration to let them know that "fast food" is awful for you?).

While much change in the ecological stadium has happened for this very reason, and a

lot of this is because of property rights and better experimental learning, numerous

popular financial specialists unfathomably under-evaluated the level of coordination

required to handle a portion of the world's most genuine natural issues.

The Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the

U.S. Division of Agriculture if all be all around financed, be decoupled from

irreconcilable situations with industry, and their command to ensure people in general

welfare through balanced danger evaluation ought to be fortified.

Milton Friedman broadly noticed that there is no utilization for the Food and Drug

Administration since organizations whose items lead to sickness will be constrained

out of the business sector (i.e., items that make individuals debilitated won't be

purchased). With respect to wellbeing and hazard, the administration must play an a

great deal more dynamic part than regularly upheld by a portion of the most grounded

advocates of free markets.

For the Arguments in supporting Cap-and-Trade:

1. Fighting with carbon dioxide emission through market based approach.

Opposite to conventional ways of taxing carbon Cap-and-Trade approaches the

solution on bases of market participation. By creating market for such trading both

sides can now meet each other and provide incentives to cut air pollution or sponsor

those who are active in archiving such goal.

2. Preserving liberty and freedom for choice.

Such model provides freedom of choice for individuals to take burden of

responsibility on themselves. Government not always know how to waste, but those

who do and chosen not to react on various purposes will bare full responsibility on

their own.

3. Reduction of dirty technology might create jobs.

Scientists suggest that green energy development involves innovation. And need for

such can create jobs. And green energy in itself is an investment in sustainable future,

same way building infrastructure, bridges and roads are.

For the Arguments against Cap-and-Trade

1. Commoditization of pollution.

Another words, owning something that should not be owned. The ethical issue lies in

assigning monetary value to pollution of air. Which also threatens the notion of

collective responsibility for environment, by replacing it with right of buying

pollution with money. People might think that it just comes with the business.

Also nature of markets tend to expand and grow. Growth of Cap-and-trade is through

expansion of market on different industries and different geological area. Which in

itself is contradiction to the idea of reducing pollution, market is just building some

tradable commodity.

2. Money role.

Money play the role in trade, in fact so significant role that money becomes factor.

Carbon emission trading has been criticized for providing opportunity to rig

competition in favor of those who can pay bigger sums. Smaller businesses might

meet a dilemma when either continuing producing or cuttings in production lead to

losses and subsequently loss of market share, ensuring expansion of those who can

afford the most.

3. Developing nations argument.

Although developed nations were first to reduce carbon emission by increasing

efficiency of fuels, they were first to emit them. Developing nations argue that

Developed nations should assess their historical responsibility for carbon emission,

but at the same time increase their emissions in rather historical rates as well. But

even though Developed countries are developed and Developing are developing.
Service based economy of Developed countries can sustain well in low carbon

environment while Developing nations rely heavily on manufacturing.

Competing Arguments Evaluation

In my opinion, I found that there is unethical issues occur between the government,

the industries, and the societies in the country. This problem arise as referring to the

previous arguments related to issues, I found the arguments in against the government

is much stronger compared to arguments in supporting the governments, in terms of

the points I have described before in the arguments for this issues.

There are several reasons on why Im arguing against the government. The main

reason is the government take advantage in making more money by forcing the

organizations to pay more duties if they want to continue to manufacture their product

in the their plant. As a government they should responsible for keeping the

environment greenly and take care of their society well.

In order to solve this problem, the government should restrict the companies who

throws out their waste unethically. If they not following the regulations, the

government can take actions by giving penalties them. To be a clean government, they

have to avoid any corruption activities in order to get trust by societies, and to keep

the image of the countries clean and fair.

The individuals who bolster the development advocate reasonable administration of

assets and additionally assuming liability for the welfare of the earth through open

strategy and individual investment in endeavors to save the earth and its assets. The

ecological development is a development that pushes for the preservation of

characteristic assets and the death of enactment that advances earth well disposed

conduct. Moreover, the counter atomic development is a generally new development

in environmentalism that includes the restriction of atomic innovation in light of the

fact that it causes harm to plants and creatures on the earth.

Popular Opinion on the Environmental Protection Debate In spite of the fact that the

ecological development has become drastically throughout the years, there are still

numerous individuals contradicted to this development. This development depends on

activism and pushes for an adjustment in government approach with an end goal to

change the way individuals live and devour assets in their everyday lives. Lastly, the

Ecology development is a more current development and includes examination and

change of the communications of people with the earth and its assets.

Last but not least, the evaluation on the Cap-and-Trade. Even if Greenhouse

Gases Emission Trading proved itself to be successful at lowering rates of air

pollution, in recent time it was accused with criticism on how this model will fit our

current world. Hopefully implementation of such strategy will prove itself viable and

ethically responsible at the same time. It opens opportunities for green

entrepreneurship, but also bring challenges on its own way.


Natural assurance is unmistakably distinguished as an obligation of the

administration. Governments at all levels are in charge of natural assurance inside

their range of locale. Each term of government ought to find a way to make

environment quality meet certain pre principles or standards.

In conclusion, In the space of a couple short decades fundamental assets, for

example, clean air and clean water that had up to this point been viewed as bounteous,

protected and limitless are currently under risk, not simply in nations that have

verifiably experienced destitution, malady and substandard living conditions, yet in

the very heartland of countries that possess the extremely best rungs of our

civilisation with regards to financial advancement.

The References:

1. Dietz, S., Hepburn, C., Stern, N. Economics, ethics and climate change,


change.pdf, view in 27th April 2016.

2. Business Ethics and the Legal Environment of Business,


f, view in 28th April 2016.

3. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ethical considerations in protecting

the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation, http://www-

pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1270_prn.pdf, view in 2nd May 2016.

4. The Marketing Environment, Ethics and Social Responsibility.


view in 3rd May 2016.

5. Schilizzi, S. The economics of ethical behaviour and environmental management,

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/123729/2/Schilizzi.pdf, view in 5th May 2016.

6. Yang, T. Towards an Egalitarian Global Environmental Ethics

http://publishing.unesco.org/chapters/978-92-3-104039-9.pdf, view in 9th May 2016.

7. Rivera,J & Delmas,M, 2004, Business and Environmental Protection: An


http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her113/riveradelmas.pdf, viewed in

April, 2016.

8. Mahamad, M, 2012, Environmental protection,


NVIRONMENTAL_PROTECTION , viewed in April, 2016.

9. EU, 2014, Environmental Protection Law of the peoples Republic of China


viewed in April, 2016.

10. Freeman, R,York, J and Stewart, L, 2008, Environment, Ethics and Business,

http://www.corporate-ethics.org/pdf/environment_ethics.pdf, viewed in April, 2016.

11. Stavins, R, 2003, Environmental Protection and Economic Well-Being: How

Does (and How Should)Government Balance These Two Important Values?


viewed in May, 2016.

12. Lohmann, L. 2009, Cap and Trade,


cap_and_trade.pdf, viewed in April 2016.

13. Paulsson, F. 2003, Emissions for Sale: The Ethics of Emissions Trading,

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:19281/FULLTEXT01.pdf, viewed in

April 2016.

14. Willis, R. Paris 2015: getting a global agreement on climate change,


%20agreement%20on%20climate%20change.pdf, viewed on May 2016.

15. Caney, S., Hepburn, C. 2011, Carbon trading: unethical, unjust and ineffective?,


and-ineffective-working-paper-49/, viewed on May 2016.

16. Hermann E., Sachs, W. 2000, Ethical Aspects of Emissions Trading,

https://epub.wupperinst.org/files/1075/WP110.pdf, viewed on May 2016.