RUNNING HEAD: POVERTY AND POLLUTION CASE 1

Poverty and Pollution Case
BUS 309 Business Ethics
August 26, 2013

RUNNING HEAD: POVERTY AND POLLUTION CASE 2
Determine the ethical implications on businesses polluting in a third world country. Explain your rationale. The topic regarding our environment has been on the forefront of many heated debates for many years. It has grown in such an alarming rate that it is become a global movement. For the longest time we have trying to figure out the business in our environment. The majority of the attitudes that are important in our society suggest that businesses have increased our environmental situation. Businesses argue that the environment is a free and no limits on goods, this means they have the right to exploit, without any consequences or regard to the future. Throughout the years, businesses have thought the environment was a limitless good. An example, the air, land and water are free to pollute with hazardous vapors and toxins, the regard for trees are expendable and cut down and not replanted. With the trees being cut down so quickly it will lead to even more pollutants going into the air because the trees are the defense to help prevent the pollutants from happening. An area in Brazil just outside of Sao Paulo commonly known as the “valley of death” is considered one of the top polluted places on earth. Now, that is a strong statement but when you look at the fact that there approximately 100,000 people within the population and a multitude of companies there dumping thousands of tons pollutants into the air on a daily basis. Of the 40,000 urban citizens in the valley municipality of Cubatao, nearly 13,000 suffer from respiratory disease (Shaw 2010 Custom Edition).

RUNNING HEAD: POVERTY AND POLLUTION CASE 3
Suggest the reasons a business may conduct operations in a third world country and disregard any standards of pollution control. A primary reason businesses have started dumping toxic waste in third world countries is because of the United States regulations and dumping fines. These companies sought out the third world countries because they had little to no regulations against the dumping of hazardous and toxic materials. Citizens would not complain about the harmful smells and the companies that caused it, the businesses dumping continued because these same businesses also provided a better life for the third world people. Ethically this devalues one human life over another. In my opinion you cannot put a value on anyone’s life. In Case Study 7.2: Poverty and Pollution states that the poor pay the price for pollution. Lawrence Summers the director of the National Economic Council has argued that banks should encourage the migration of dirty, polluting industries to the poorer, less-developed countries (Shaw 2010 Custom Edition). Secondly, these companies depend in these third world countries to avoid strict rules and regulations that are in place in their country. Some transnational companies that produce toxic chemicals that are extremely dangerous can find a market for them in these third world countries. Governments within these countries cannot restrict the usage of the chemicals because it would be too costly to the people trying to live day to day. The unfortunate countries that usually fall victimized of environmental inequality are Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America.

RUNNING HEAD: POVERTY AND POVERTY 4
It has been said that pollution is the price of progress. Assess the connections between economic progress and development, on the one hand, and pollution controls and environmental protection, on the other. It relatively deals with money when you look at it from any view. Major companies can export hazardous materials as well as move their headquarters to countries with less restrictive pollution control laws than industrialized nations like the United States. Both in theory and practice the most difficult part of an economical gain to pollution is the weighing of the costs and benefits of its reduction. Only a small amount of the costs of pollution can be seen and calculated. Businesses like IBM and General Motors, who have established manufacturing plants in Mexico, have created severe environmental problems. Millions of gallons of raw sewage were disposed of into the Tijuana River on daily bases. This led to the pollution being a threat to the San Diego beaches, and the United States as well as California governments paid most of the cleanup costs. Mexico was being ignored, with the United States being looked at as a more stable government and the citizens of Western Mexico ultimately were paying the price. My opinion, I feel like a Pollution Control Association should be held responsible in monitoring all of the chemical manufacturing companies that want to do business in that particular country. That way the association can set the rules on how much of the toxic air and waste can be either dumped or dispensed into the air. These guidelines should for sure point out the penalties that would be enforced if the rules were broken.

Running head: POVERTY AND POLLUTION CASE 5
Support the argument that human beings have the moral right to a livable environment regardless of the country they live in. It was William T. Blackstone a moral theorist who said “Every person has a right to a livable environment”. He argued that a livable environment was a right that we all deserve. (Shaw, 2010 Custom Edition pg. 268). This is true because no human being should be made to live in a substandard environment in any country. I feel that, big major corporations should not be allowed to dump toxic chemicals and hazardous materials anywhere human or animal life could be compromised especially in third world countries where they already fighting the hinders of their already crippling environment. The tax break incentives that unethical companies are receiving and slim to no punishment they get from the government policies are making it harder to stop anytime or stop at all. The cost of many sick children and lakes filled with dead fish, and barren land a continued price to pay before we implement firm laws in these countries to stop the contamination. Will the world ever count the cost or know? People everywhere do have the right to live in a livable environment. Unfortunately the greed that drives these businesses seems to take precedence over what is ethically right when it comes to human rights. The idea that women and children are forced to live in condition that are unfit for even an animal existence is senseless and curial. To know that the most needed necessities are being denied to people because of their greed and immoral acts of big business should be an injustice. It is a bullying technique being used on the people in these third world countries who are defenseless and they are being abused out of financial dependencies. Running head: POVERTY AND POLLUTION CASE 6
Take a position on whether wealthy nations have an obligation to provide poorer nations with, or help them develop, greener industries and sources of energy. Explain your rationale. In my opinion, yes I do believe the wealthier countries have an obligation to contribute in a huge way in regards to either making the changes and/or helping the poorer countries develop greener industries. The reason I say this is because the majority of the problems with pollution is those countries are the results of the rich, wealthy corporations setting up business there and releasing toxic waste material whether into the air or dumping it on the ground. Also, it should be the moral and ethical obligation for the wealthier countries to do so. If the foreign companies put in place in a greener setting it would make a huge difference to the people who live in these countries. They could not only still have an opportunity to make a better living but they can do it in an unpolluted healthier environment. Children harmed less from debilitating diseases that would come from continuous polluting in areas where they may go to school or play. The animals that are most likely being raised there for food would not be exposed to toxins that could have contaminated the fields where the graze grass and ultimately pass on those toxins to the community. The fruits and vegetables would not be contaminated with chemicals. With this being a resolution and agreement from both the domestic and wealthier countries, there could be a median where these changes can take place to make that third world countries environment more suitable to live in. Running head: POVERTY AND POLLUTION CASE 7
Propose a plan for uniform global pollution control standards and how you would enforce them. In regards to the greed of the major businesses and the poverty of the third world countries, it would not be an easy task to formulate. Simply because of the cost involved and it may take several years to actually have a direct guideline for these chemical manufacturers to follow. I would start by putting in place stricter statutes and regulations that would hold the manufacturers responsible for breaking the agreement(s) with strong penalties or fines to have a sturdy handle on pollution control. The FDA could oversea to assure the United States and similar associations in both wealthy and third world countries. It would eliminate the possibilities of some companies getting by as well as preventing the sole responsibility to be monitored by one association.
Taking away the tax breaks and incentives that were originally offered to the manufacturers could be another alternative to cutting down pollution. I realize the question of holding these companies in compliance would be brought to attention but if it is not enforced it would be a debated point about pollution control.
Finally, not allowing the manufacturer to bring their headquarters into the country if they are not willing to comply with the rules and regulations. This may pose a negative reaction in regards to the economy but if nothing is done then these third world countries and their governments will continue to be bullied and with the resolution to their well being of life as we have in the United States because of our countries strict guidelines.
Running head: POVRTY AND POLLUTION CASE 8

References:
Barber, B. (1992) “Lessons from a Third Word” Omni
Barry, Brian. (1980) “Do Countries Have a Moral Obligation. The Case of World Poverty”
Shaw, William H. (2010 Custom Edition) “Business Ethics”