It can be recognized that an economy is the hub of an effective country. To determine if an element is effective one would need to replace that word with successful. With that being said, an established economy is the reason behind a successful country. Of course the levels of success will vary depending upon the history and resources of a region. If a method of production has been proven successful for a country, is it necessary to change it? What if you factor in that it is a third world country, which as a result is being polluted? There are many reasons, which explain the ethical implications of why businesses continue to pursue these methods.
According to Lawrence Summers, in Case 7.2, “vastly under-polluted” and under-populated countries in Africa should experience more pollution versus an already polluted city like Los Angeles (Shaw, 2010 p. ?). With the reasoning that less people living in an area equals less people affected by pollution. The majority of businesses that pollute directly or as a third-party are essential to the world. For example, oil refining is a major source of pollution. But yet it’s needed for airlines, automobiles, power plants, etc. And in New Zealand, “Home heating is the main cause of air pollution in populated areas, in the winter.” (“Ministry,” 2012). In essence, affluent countries struggle with pollution, very similarly to third world countries. If businesses were able to disperse pollution to sparsely populated third world countries instead of over polluting one place— that world prove to be the most ethical way. If we officially instituted this method, it would demonstrate how businesses can choose a fair and non-bias relationship with third world countries.
Another strong point is that third world countries can continue to dig their selves out of economical downfall and apprehension— or at the minimal level, remain stagnant economically. In the world it is established that there are richer countries and poorer countries. This will always remain true. Naturally, certain places are more attractive because of population and because of resources. But this does not mean that the less fortunate countries will not be able to branch out. By businesses establishing their companies, in third world countries it is providing a means of hope, for their economic development. Though there will be pollution, as would anywhere with businesses, the companies will stimulate income, for the third world countries. Providing consistent revenue for countries, which would otherwise have minimal money outweighs or equal the pollution they will receive, in turn. In this way businesses are not only gaining production, but the third world countries are able to buy food and provide for their families. This is the epitome of an ethical “win-win” situation.
Pollution will always exist because businesses will always be essential to the world’s standard of living. This is how a business may approach conducting operations, in a third world country. Simply with the mindset that pollution is inevitable. Another reason for a business’ operation in a third world country would be prior damage. A third world country is more than likely in disarray with problems that a business wouldn’t contaminate another place. The ultimate reason to disregard pollution control, for operations in a third world country would be capital. If a business is already spending money to build somewhere else they will have to cut corners somewhere, for profit. And the clearest sacrifice will be environmental. People aren’t being directly affected by a business’ pollution. The affects are all indirect. Every issue involving pollution happens eventually that is why it is highly debated amongst critics. “…The greatest cause of misery in the third world is poverty,” (Shaw, 2010 p.?). With statistics like those, businesses build rapport doing an economic service to third world countries. Third world countries sacrifice not enforcing environmental regulations because it would be disastrous economically for them. If a country doesn’t seem to care about its environmental state, a business will not have any regards either. If people say that pollution is the price of progress in the twenty-first century, then we have not made as much advancement as we think. The connection between economic progress and development and pollution control and environmental protection is void. This is a negative connection. In the midst of economic progress and development its motto could be “work smarter not harder” but with pollution control and environmental protection it would be the reciprocal. On one hand, one only cares about making a profit and gaining income. And on the other hand, one only cares about instituting a routine that can keep its patrons healthy and illness free. But is pollution really the price of progress? Dr. Campos says, “Look who pays the price—the poor.” (Shaw, 2010.)Can we really connect two dots that are miles apart? Logically, we can. Logically, we can conclude that it is okay for the poor to pay the price of pollution. Because the poor are already used to faulty living conditions, they have been already exposed to toxins and unhealthy situations. We can conclude logically that dumping pollution on them will not evoke much difference, in what they are accustomed to. And on top of adding on to their toxins, we are adding to their economic progress. Since poverty ranks above issues of pollution in third world countries, we can especially connect these issues with logic.
In a category of its own business ethics stands firm. It is like the epitome of the relationship between a business and its associate. “Business ethics is the accepted set of moral values and corporate standards… in a business organization,” (Merchant, 2012) There are two key words in his definition, which are moral and values. A human being is entitled to be valued morally by having a livable environment, regardless if the country is third world. First and foremost this right should go without being directly stated. Though the seed of this situation centers business ethics, but the root should be common, “ethos”, which is the common character of a culture’s truth. Livable environments and health should be granted for all. According to Case 7.2 “... An American’s life is worth that of a hundred Kenyans,” (Shaw, 2010). Summers assumption that value of life and its expectancy being measured in per capita income, shows that there has been unethical business practices. One cannot value one life over another on the basis on income. Having livable conditions should be a universal goal. Disregarding a country’s need for a clean environment decreases the value in a business. It damages its credibility and functionality. A leap toward morality should be a business’ common goal. And its main goal should be how it affects their surroundings.
The prominent English Economist, Josiah Charles Stamp said, “It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.” In countries where you are forced to be frugal, any plot for advancement will be the route to choose. When a country is facing poverty it has no choice, but to accept any way to make money—even if those ways sacrifice their health and well-being. Is a wealthy nation obligated to help poorer nations, with greener industries when they are a primary factor in their pollutants? Yes, they are. Though a third world country is getting economic benefits from wealthier countries, it is not the only concern. A phrase coined in American poverty is, “The rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer.” It’s an unethical cycle of selfishness. Wealthy nations bring in more than just “ends meet”. Meaning they can cover the costs of their necessities and still remain in the black. “Wealthy nations can materially shape development in the poor world,” (Birdsall, Rodrik, & Subramanian, 2005). The only reason wealthy nations accumulate monetarily is because they acquire logical skill as well. Third world countries have next to nothing. And becoming greener with the little they do have would be their silver-lining. Instead of resting solely on sacrifice to gain a method, they will be able to attain a more modern way of living. This way instead of being level and stagnant they will begin to increase. With help, third world countries will be able to produce a stimulated economy as well as an effective health system.
“Of the 40,000 urban residents…nearly 13,000 suffer from respiratory disease,” (Shaw, 2010 p.?) this statistic refers to the city Cubatao, in Brazil. This is just one consequence out of several for the city that is labeled “the most polluted place on earth”. The fact that a wealthy nation may enjoy the fruits of a third world countries labor makes them somewhat responsible. A wealthy country automatically has the money, manpower, and established routine, to easily nurture its less fortunate counterpart. They should help salvage what little a poor nation already has. If the whole globe is “going green” wealthy nations should at least initiate or implement a program that will help poorer countries. It’s all a part of their duty.
The world wants uniformed global pollution control standards. And slowly, but surely we can reach that goal. Businesses can partner with nature. Businesses need to begin to form ethical alliances—based mostly on ethics not income. One might doubt how it will work. It will work by using one of the most basic concepts of economics. It is called supply and demand. In a nutshell, a thriving business will always have a product in demand. And when something is in demand, it is creating revenue and with revenue it creates more opportunity. It is a never ending cycle. Since the income issue is resolved, we will work on the most strategic part of the plan, for uniform global pollution standards, ethics. Wealthier countries and more prominent business have a duty to inform poverty stricken countries about pollution control. Wealthier countries and businesses can no longer be manipulative or play the role of a bully. For an unflawed routine of business, everyone must start on a leveled playing field.
The United States of America developed a de facto motto of the Latin phrase, E pluribus unum, meaning “Out of many, one,” which is transcribed on our official seal and coins. Out of many, one is the key and primary concept to developing these standards. In order for every country to have the same standards they must meet on a common ground. The government should be involved and it must take the issue seriously. The wealthier countries must care less about money and the poorer must care more about health and environment—only until the countries can get on one accord. After establishing that rapport between the countries, a call of action is required. A thoroughly researched pollution control contract will be implemented. The consequences of breaking an aspect of it, will be carried out as monetary fines. One may consider who will monitor these terms, a committee underneath or a part from the United Nations. Representatives should be assigned from each region to facilitate and develop uniformed pollution control standards every year. There will be an umbrella with subsidiaries of pollution control facilitators. Some programs can mesh or tie in to already established ones. Each program should not be required to be brand new. The standards of pollution on countries and its businesses should be checked every month. Every fine will go toward the committee. They will be reinvested into the efforts of the countries pollution controls.
With this plan we will accomplish three goals: Having proper alliances, being moral about well-being, and advancing universally with attainable pollution control standards. The nation can be universally greener by establishing fairness and unbiased reasoning among each culture—along with applying strict consequences, to uphold business and environmental ethics.

References

Birdsall, N., Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A. (2005). How to help poor countries. Foreign Affairs.

Merchant, P. (2012). The meaning of business ethics. Love to Know Business.

Ministry for the Environment. (2009). Air Quality. New Zealand

Shaw, W.H. (2010). Business ethics (7th Ed.). (Case 7.2). Mason, Oh: Cengage