Monday, November 17, 2014
I found today's discussion rather strange. We talked about whether or not a business should be ethical in terms of the environment, and the economy. In terms of being ethical in the environment, I find it odd that people expect businesses to change but they make no change in their daily routines. Talking about "going green" and keeping the environment clean would appear to be gaining traction, but I am starting to think that it is all for show. We make stipulates on others to be green and then some we won't even do the simplest of activities like recycling. Does this make sense? It would be different if every one was driving an electric car, was super conscious of how much water they were using, and recycled everything they could, but we don't do that. We still consume the products of companies that utilize sweat shops with absolutely deplorable conditions because we are set in our ways on what is an acceptable brand and what is not. To me, it appears that people are pawning off being ethical onto larger entities so that they can feel good about their lack of it. We sit around in groups and talk about what should be done, pat ourselves on the back, and call it day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Colin. Throughout the discussion today I kept thinking that all these companies that we consider to not be “green” and hence are unethical in terms of the environment are this way because of us, the consumers. There are many green products available, but consumers still buy the alternative brands. If demand for all the type of products that hurt the environment completely stopped, then those companies producing all these types of products would be out of business. So it is not the companies that are causing harm to the environment, but us, because the companies are just reacting to societies demand for their product so they can make a profit. I do believe it is true that every company has its own unique “brand” and they market their product towards a specific demographic of people, but this demographic is specifically thought out in terms of what will be most profitable for the business. Companies that are more concerned with selling green products specifically market their products to the type of person they most suspect would be interested in buying it. If every consumer was interested in buying the green product, then there would be no need for other companies to exist. Companies are just reacting to our demands as consumers and until society stops wanting products that cause harm to the environment, business will continue to produce them, and cannot totally be blamed for this issue.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a great point, Colin. I think it has become characteristic of our society that we expect others to do things, rather than doing them ourselves. Gandhi once said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world” and I think that it is very relevant to your point. We spend a lot of time talking about what everyone should do to help the environment but I think we tend to forget that we are included when we refer to everyone. I think most people are under the impression that large companies need to make the changes because they can actually make a difference. People may have the thought “Oh what difference does it make if I recycle this one measly water bottle when large companies like Coca Cola can recycle thousands of water bottles in a day??” I think that if people realize that their small contributions can be worth as much as the large companies’ contributions then we will begin to see a shift in the way we view this issue.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that this is a question that has been stated so far into the course. Colin, you discuss the way that we sit down and talk theoretically about things and are pleased with this instead of being proactive, but I wonder why we haven't discussed this earlier. Why is it that we become so impassioned just now when we discuss the environment, and not when we've discussed love, happiness, or fortune? I think the reason that it's easy to place such blame upon these big companies is not only the publicity they receive for harm, but also the fact that their reach is so widespread. Perhaps it is not a question about whether or not these companies should be responsible, but whether or not each of us is to be held accountable. After all, we've discussed the importance of the actual people running these large companies, so perhaps they should be just as responsible for recycling and doing good for the environment as each consumer is. This would solve the issue of the inequality of responsibility we place upon things, but I think it's an idea that is much easier discussed, than said. (Which is rather ironic, considering Colin's last point.)
ReplyDeleteAmanda, I agree that the people running the company should share its morals and it seems we are in agreement as a class that they have direct say in what the company takes on as its goals and guiding principles in business. However, I think it is hard to uphold any type of standard between the company itself and the CEO or leadership that runs it because the whole purpose of a company is to establish a separate legal identity of the business.
ReplyDeleteA business is traditionally a juridical personality - an individual in law just the same as a person is.
I think the environment is especially controversial in our environment as we are the first generation who is really seeing proof of global changes in climate because of our human impacts. Even though we all share a part on the planet and should be equally concerned, I don't think it's fair to say we can all make the same contribution to a positive change.
The CEO of a company can recycle all the plastic he or she wants, but if their industrial practice pumps out tons of pollutants and emissions on a daily basis - what is the point? The company has a much bigger impact, and whether the person behind it decides to reflect those morals or not it won't have as much importance to the public as a whole. Ideally, the company and the CEO are both ecologically concerned - of course - but I think people are right to hold corporations to the higher standard simply because of the magnitude of their impacts.
Why go around fixing the small mistakes when there are monstrous ones that still need addressed?Devil's Advocate here, just for fun.
On a side note - I enjoyed Interstellar recently and it deals with the vulnerability of our food crops / environmental doomsday. I'd recommend seeing it.
This seems like a textbook utilitarian dilemma. While one may work for a company that is recycling hundreds of thousands of bottles a day, what is the big deal of the man himself throwing out on bottle in his own home? To me, there is more than just sheer number and statistics, but rather just a principle to live by. When others are around us, we will surely act in a more ethical matter to be perceived as part of the solution and not the problem. But when no one is looking, do we take the easier route and maybe slack on our environmental duties like not littering? We create shortcuts and double standards, and until everyone can act in the environment's interest when no one is watching, we will continue to pollute.
ReplyDeleteWhile individuals should practice more environmentally friendly methods of transportation, consumption, etc, the general pubic as a whole has a minuscule impact on the environment compared to industry and agriculture. Unfortunately, industry represents and affects every single one of us whether we like it or not. Industry is rightfully held responsible for making efforts to better the planet because industry was most responsible for the current environmental issues we are just starting to become aware of. This is not to say that individuals are not responsible, the key point here is that industry is MOST responsible. Individually, we do have an impact on how industry acts, however, most of us cannot really make a difference if we are not educated. For example, we think that recycling paper is great and everything, but most of us do not buy paper made from recycled materials because we either assume the paper we buy has been recycled or we don't want to spend the extra 10 cents to buy paper that has been recycled. If we don't "rebuy" our recycled paper, industry won't produced recycled paper because there is no demand for it. Most environmental issues are the result of what we are willing to do: whether or not were willing to go vegan for one day a week, spend a little extra to buy sustainably harvested furniture, food, paper, etc, or turn down the A/C. We cannot make these positive choices if we do not have the opportunities and/or options to do so. Industry is responsible for offering these opportunities and options, and I think this is why industry is rightfully held accountable for taking the initiative to change.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that some people do not act ethically in terms of the environment, I believe that companies as well as people should be held to environmentally ethical standards. There are many people in this world that are committed to recycling and their efforts are a great help to our deteriorating environment. Large businesses that create huge portions of pollution should think about what they are doing to the planet and the other people that have to live in their mess. Just because some people are not "green" that does not excuse the actions of businesses, or other individuals. Everyone, including businesses should be held to the same standards of protecting the environment.
ReplyDeleteAs Drake mentioned, companies have a wider spread and impact than most individuals. That is because companies not only have customers, they have employees, stockholders, communities, and other stakeholders that are impacted by them. I think companies do need to think about incorporating green practices into their business practices. Especially given the culture we live into today were there is more of a green focus. I think companies should do this because not only is it more often than not a smart business move (it can attract more potential customers), but companies consume the most when compared to individuals. Drake also mentioned the idea that companies can create more opportunities for people to practice green practices. That idea follows right along with the practice of economies of scale. If enough companies go green and more companies catch on, more people will catch on. Pretty soon it can become contagious and spread. Think of Europe. Yes, individuals made the impact and started the movement, but it was also companies and the government. Also, it is important to remember that there a lot of companies that are global. If a US company with operations in Thailand practiced green practices, if they were required, then that could positively impact the Thai economy and community who might not be thinking as green as the US. I think individuals should hold themselves responsible, but companies I think should as well. I mean all a companies are made up of individuals. Yes, it is a separate fictional legal entity, but it really cannot grow and thrive and live without individuals. Thus if you require individuals to act ethically then you are saying you require the company to act ethically and if you require the company to act ethically there is a pretty good chance the individuals of that company will act ethically since they are interrelated in some fashion.
ReplyDelete