Ethical Dilemma Introduction- Eco-Friendly Business

Ethical Dilemma

Introduction- Eco-friendly business is here to stay. The idea of people and corporations taking a level of responsibility is rampant in the developed world. There are activists in the developing world, people who wish to protect the environment whenever possible, but the rapid growth of globalism sometimes acts at cross purposes. The idea of a green business is not simply changing a few power sources or suppliers -- it is a complete paradigm that asks for an all-encompassing plan and commitment in every aspect of the business, and from every employee, vendor, supplier, and likely even customer. This, of course, is an ideal, and it may take years or even decades to reach that ideal. There are, of course, several reasons for "going green," or making decisions based on sustainability and an eco-friendly model. Among these reasons are the moral and ethical responsibility many individuals feel towards the continuation of our species and the health of our planet.

Case Study -- the Clear Skies Initiative -- the Clear Skies Initiative was a 2002 Bush Administration policy that focused on the idea that the key to environmental progress is economic growth because it is fiscal growth that provides the resources to invest in clean, sustainable, technology. This initiative proposed, essentially to make regulations less complicated for businesses to meet their reduction goals on sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrogen oxide, although only sulfur dioxide has been part of the cap-and-trade program. The Republican Administration touted several benefits of the initiative including a reduction in medical issues resulting from air pollution; protection of wildlife habitats and ecosystem health; protection and reliability of electricity production; reducing EPS litigation against non-compliant companies; and saves about $1 billion annually for big business, ostensibly passed onto consumers (Bluhm and Heineman, 2006; President Announces Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives, 2002).

Critics of the initiative indicate that it is but a lessening of regulation on big-business with the excuse of making the environment safer. Opposed by numerous environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, opponents note that it will allow 42 million more tons of pollution than previous EPA guidelines; it weakens the cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels allowing almost 70% more pollution; delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide levels from the Clean Air Act; and delays enforcement of smog and soot pollution standards until 2015 (Adams, 2003).

Can both sides be right? Hardly, and when the initiative is analyzed with a critical eye, one sees that it looks like the initiative is a tactic for large corporations to appear to be following the letter of the law, but saving money by making Clean Air Act and EPA required equipment to reduce certain emissions by delaying capital expenditures and pushing out previous goals, thus saving millions if not billions of technological investment dollars. Likely these companies lobbied the Bush Administration, citing the need to reinvest in their businesses to become more competitive and thus, unable to divert funds into pollution control.