Philosophy 223

Business and the Environment

Climate Change and Sustainability

Environmental Responsibilities?
The attempt to specify the nature and force
of business responsibilities to the
environment faces a significant conceptual
stumbling block: the lack of a consensus
about the nature of environmental
responsibilities in general.
If we cant agree what the nature of an
individuals responsibilities to the
environment are, how can we say anything
about businesss?

Important Questions
If we are going to achieve consensus on the
nature of environmental responsibilities we
need to agree on answers to some basic
questions.
What counts as the environment?
What are the possible sources of responsibility to
the environment?
What is the force of such responsibility?

What Counts?
The OED defines environment as That which
environs; the objects or the region surrounding
anything.
Though this definition lacks the specificity
necessary to help us, it does highlight an important
fact: the environment is not something separate
from human life and activity. We are part of the
environment.
We make a mistake when we treat the environment as if it
were something external to human concerns and activities.

What Counts?
Humans are part of the environment, but there are
important differences between us and other
environmental agents.
The differences are both quantitative and
qualitative.
Quantitatively, we need to acknowledge the scope and
consequences of our unique capacity to shape the world
around us to satisfy our desires and interests.
Qualitatively, we need to recognize that we dont just act,
we have the capacity to reflectively assess our acts, and
choose from amongst possibilities.

What Counts?
When we consider the choices weve made and
those that confront us now, a range of issues
that count as environmental become
evident.
Conservation of resources
Preservation
Pollution
Use of agricultural adjuncts (pesticides, fertilizers,
genetically modified crops and livestock)
Moral status of non-human life; biodiversity
Systemic impact of human life (global warning,
sprawl, population growth)

Sources of Responsibility
Given the force of these questions, it
is important to consider resources
from which we may be able to secure
responses.
There is a broad range of possible
values from which a responsibility to
the environment may emerge.

Sources of Responsibility
The values in question include:
Prudence: its our environment; if we mess it up, we dont
have another.
Justice: Its not just ours, its everyone's. If we make
choices that limit others access to we act unjustly. This
can be true of present others or future others.
Aesthetics: natural beauty is a great source of pleasure to
humans and thus deserves to be preserved.
Religion: humans as stewards.
Economics: growth requires an extensive range of
environmental goods; degradation limits growth.

A Conflict of Values?
Clearly, not all of these values call us
to responsibility in the same way.
Indeed, in many instances values may
conflict.
Ex. Economic values conflicting with
Aesthetic values.

How do we resolve these conflicts?

Another Complication
The situation is rendered even more complex
when we note that these values dont exhaust
the possibilities.
After all, the list we considered all seem
animated by human capacities and concerns,
ignoring the question of the moral status of
non-human nature.
A non-anthropocentric ethics is going to
produce a much different list of values that
would have to be considered.

Business and the Environment

Where does business fit into this complicated
picture?
Choices and activities engaged in by businesses
clearly impact the environment just like those of
individuals.
If there are individual responsibilities to the
environment, it seems reasonable to conclude that
there are responsibilities that businesses have as
well.

The Intersection of Theories

A fruitful way to flesh out the account of business
responsibility to the environment is to consider how the
various theories of Corporate Social Responsibility weve
examined would assess these areas of significance.
This consideration provides us with another context for
assessing these theories.

The Classical Model and the

Environment
According the the classical model, a business
responsibility is to maximize profit within the law.
Optimal Pollution: level of pollution tolerable to relevant
parties, as specified by market mechanisms.
Resource Use: Cornucopism (a combination of market
forces and human ingenuity means that in practice there is
no limit to any particular type of resource).
Preservation: natural areas have no intrinsic value; relative
value best determined by market.
Biological Diversity: non-human life has no intrinsic value;
relative value best determined by market.

Criticisms of the Classical Models

Analysis
Criticisms of this account frequently point to the
sort of market failures weve analyzed this
semester: externalities, absence of markets, and
conflicts between individual and social interests.
A more fundamental criticism questions the
appropriateness of employing economic categories
to assess environmental responsibilities.
Such responsibilities ultimately rest on beliefs and values;
economics can only address desires and preferences.

The Moral Minimum Model and the

Environment
According to the MM Model, some
goods/values are so fundamental they should
be exempt from economic determination.
Such goods are appropriate objects of
government regulation: Clean Air Act.
Beyond concern for the values thus
protected, businesses have no specifiable
environmental responsibilities.

Criticisms of the MM Models

Analysis
Are the laws really a reflection of the beliefs
and interests of the citizenry? Who has a
greater capacity to shape legislation: industry
or citizens?
Are consumer beliefs immune to influence by
business? Why do businesses (and politicians)
spend ~$200 billion a year on advertising?
Is the law sufficient to guide managerial
discretion?

Environmental Pragmatism
Many have argued that businesses should not be put off
by the complexity of the issues raised by talk of
environmental responsibility.
The principle of environmental pragmatism suggests
that while there is continuing disagreement about the
source and force of such responsibility, there is general
consensus amongst business people concerning the
content of their responsibilities.
Theorists typically highlight four areas of particular
significance: Pollution, Resource Use, Preservation, and
Biological Diversity.

Bowie, Morality, Money and Motor

Cars
Bowie plays devils advocate and defends a
Friedman like view of corporate obligations
to protect the environment whereby
companies have no special obligations to
protect the environment above what is
required by law.
He notes two important qualifications:
businesses should not lobby against the
wishes of the people and should help
educate consumers about the environment.

Does business have an obligation to

protect the environment?
Bowie starts his discussion by
considering what sort of
responsibilities someone like Friedman
would say businesses do have.
Business has an obligation to obey the
law.
Business has an obligation to avoid
negligent behavior.

An Argument
Bowie then considers the implications of the following claim:
No one has a right to harm another person unless there is a
compelling, overriding moral reason to do so.
Consider the example of automobiles:
~50,000 persons will die in wrecks this year in the U.S..
~250,000 persons will be injured.
Automobiles can be made much safer so as to significantly reduce
the possibility of harm.
Doing so would be very costly.
Consumers are unwilling to pay for ultra safe cars.

Given the harm that would come from increasing safety and
the unwillingness of the consumers to pay the price,
businesses have no obligation to make cars safer.
The corollary argument is that businesses have no obligation
to protect the environment above the requirements of law.

Whose Job is it Anyway?

Citizens determine environmental laws.
Consumers typically reject green
products as too expensive or too much
trouble to use.
Businesses cannot be expected to
oppose such consumer preferences.
Therefore, businesses have no special
obligations to protect the natural
environment above the law.

First Qualification
Businesses should not oppose environmental
legislation.
Business escapes special obligations because it is willing
to respond to consumer preferences.
Consumers often cannot express their preferences in the
market.
The political arena is the only other viable forum in
which consumers express their preferences.
Business lobbying interferes with the expression of these
preferences.
Since point 4 is inconsistent with point 1, business
should not intervene in the political process.

Second Qualification
Business has a special obligation to
educate consumers about
environmentally responsible choices.
Business has no problem leading consumer
preferences.
Business has expertise about
environmental matters.
Business would benefit from doing so if
appropriate legislation were the result.

Arnold and Bustos, Business, Ethics, and

Global Climate Change
This essay provides factual background regarding
global climate change. It then uses the case of
global climate change as a basis for arguing against
Bowies position.
Five main lines of argument are developed and the
authors argue for specific obligations in the
transportation and electricity center regarding
carbon emissions abatement. Public policy
recommendations are also made.

No To Bowie
Arnold and Bustos consider and reject Bowies
position.
They argue for the view that businesses have moral
obligations above and beyond the law regarding
global climate change.
They develop five main arguments. The first three
are based on concerns about consumers, the other
two are grounded in fundamental moral concepts.

The Interests of Consumers

Many nations in which MNCs conduct business lack
democratic institutions, so those citizens have little
recourse. (The preferences of U.S. citizens impact nonU.S. citizens, yet the preferences regarding harm to
non-U.S. citizens remain unaccounted for.)
It is unreasonable to think consumers have an accurate
understanding of the causes of global warming.
Consumer preferences are not always satisfied by
businesses (e.g., hybrid mini-vans, use of renewable
energy).

Harm to Others
Preferences typically entail a claim on
resources.
Preference satisfaction of U.S. consumers
makes use of a per-capita disproportionate
level of atmospheric resources, so the harm
caused to non-U.S. citizens will be
disproportionate to their use of atmospheric
resources.
Harm to future generations is not considered.

Fairness
It is unfair to require others to pay
for the costs of benefits one has
secured for oneself without their uncoerced consent.
The transportation and electricity
generation sectors should be held
accountable for their GHG emissions
to date.

Conclusions
Target goals for reduced emissions in
the transportation and energy sectors
corresponding to past emissions.
Appropriate tax incentives for CO2
emissions reductions.
Significant penalties for failing to
meet CO2 emissions targets.

What is sustainability?
Sustainability is a hot topic in a number of
different areas right now, including business
management.
As is the case with many new concepts,
sustainability is still a bit fuzzy.
Intuitively, the term refers to practices that
dont work at a loss, that can be perpetuated
indefinitely.
Obviously, perpetuation is only one goal,
market viability is another.

DesJardins, Sustainability: Businesss

New Environmental Obligation
This essay defends the position that
businesses have an ethical obligation
to engage in sustainable development.
It also provides an economic defense
of sustainable development.

A Choice of Possibilities
We confront a choice.
Either we assume that there are no biophysical
limits to economic growth.
Deny the worlds poor a prosperous lifestyle.
Pursue sustainable economic activity.

Bowie argues that business can act in an

environmentally responsible way only if
directed by consumers or the law.
DesJardins argues that managers can do much
more.

Growth or Nature?
Sustainable Development: Economic
activity that aims to meet the needs of
the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
Distinguished from mere economic
growth, which seeks simply to increase
the gross amounts of goods and services.

Types of Sustainable Development

Biomimicry: Waste from production
cycle is recycled in a closed loop.
Services rather than production (e.g.,
Interface Corporation).
Natural Capital: Harvest the
ecological interest not the
capital.

Economic Rationales for SD

Though DesJardins believes that
businesses have compelling moral
reasons to develop sustainable
processes, there are also strong
economic reasons:
Eliminating waste.
Reducing operating expenses.
Avoiding legal liability.

Cooley, Genetically Modified Organisms

and Business Duties
This essay focuses on the agricultural
production of Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs).
Acknowledging that there are potential
risks, Cooley discusses several versions of
the precautionary principle (precaution
must be appropriate to the risk) and
defends most uses of GMOs based on
reasonable person utilitarianism.

What Precautions?
Absolute skepticism (Greenpeace version) is
too broad.
No new products would enter the market.

European Union refers to a reasonable

person standard.
Still too broad, as reasonable persons may not
know the science.

Cooley offers a modified reasonable person

standard.

Reasonable Person Utilitarianism

Critics and defenders of GMOs use
consequentialist reasoning.
Cooley recommends a reasonable
person utilitarianism whereby what
ought to be done is what reasonable
persons agree would promote overall
welfare for persons.

Cooleys Calculation
Adding it up: GMOs.

Capacity to provide health benefits to prevent

blindness, infections, and death.
Increased crop yields.
Prevents certain crops from going extinct and
enhances genetic diversity.
Enhances corporate profits.
Reduces the need for pesticides.

Alleged harms of GMOs are mainly hypothetical

and do not justify bans on their production or
use.
The risk doesnt justify much precaution.