As already described in earlier sections what environment ethics are and how are they relevant in todays scenario,

we state that environment ethics simply tells us the answers to the questions how the humans should relate to the environment, how the various resources of the earth should be utilized, what treatment should be given to other species, plants and animals, how the wastes should be disposed, and to what degree and extent one should take the responsibility of protecting and preserving the environment. The responsibility of individuals towards the environment is essential, as if forms the basic fundamental blocks of how the various human actions are going to shape the future of the earth. But more important than individuals is how the business organizations fulfill their responsibility because the impact of their activities is much more pronounced and effective. The greatest damage done to the environment is inflicted by business and industry, and not the domestic activities. When we talk about the organizations and their business policies that affect the environment, we cannot accuse one of being unfair or callous in their approach, nor can we judge them for their actions because ethics are not absolute and hence cannot be enforced. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation. However, environmental responsibility is a vital component of a business strategy as it not only wins the environment but also it helps to win the trust of communities and gain the respect of the governments of the countries in which the business operates. Earlier, environment protection was rarely seen as an issue. Companies would harm the environment; exploit the resources to whatever extent they found it profitable. And as mentioned by Shaw, the people saw the natural world as a free and unlimited good. People at one point thought that the worlds resources could be taken without end and without any morally significant harm done. Today the various activities carried out by the different organizations worldwide have done far more damage. Businesses extract the greatest tolls in terms of energy consumption, toxic waste, air and water pollution, and deforestation. Increasing amounts of industrial toxic waste contaminates ground water, which in turn becomes harmful for human consumption. Oil spills from petroleum industries destroy shorelines and kill millions of sea animals. The burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal produces excess carbon dioxide, which adds to global warming through a greenhouse effect. Fluorocarbon gasses used in making domestic products such as refrigerators and styrofoam depletes the earth's ozone layer, which shields the earth from the suns life-destroying ultraviolet rays. Some of these problems are expensive nuisances, such as oil spills and toxic waste. Others, though, threaten the survival of life on our planet, such as carbon dioxide production and the release of fluorocarbon gasses. The effects have been devastating enough, causing extinction of endangered species, climate changes, affecting the habitat of so many organisms, loss of flora and fauna. Though businesses today aim at progress and growth of mankind as a whole but is it this is what is happening? Lets us take one simple example. Industries produce goods and materials to improve the quality of human life and make life easier and simpler. In turn they are producing tons of toxic wastes which is dumped into the

rivers and seas killing so many fish and causing the depletion of fish population. This not only causes an impact on the environment but the effect can be also noticed on the human beings for whose betterment these industries are working for. The poor fisherman whose only source of earning a livelihood is fishing is much deeply affected. So by destroying the other organisms, are we actually making a progress? Is it ethical on the part of the industries to make profit at the expense of someone elses livelihood? Although businesses dont consciously set out to harm the environment, several factors create an unfortunate situation, which in many cases is worse than it needs to be. First, large businesses and industries are inherently imposing on nature. They take pieces of nature and reshape them into things that didnt exist before, such as automobiles, skyscrapers, television sets and shopping malls. Not only are the end products artificial, and in that sense unnatural, but the means of producing these things are taxing on natural resources. Second, it is easy to disregard natural resources that are held in common and seem abundant, such as air and water. It doesnt seem wrong to pollute the air if, technically, no one owns the air and the particular damage that I do isnt too noticeable. Environmentalists sometimes refer to this phenomenon as a tragedy of the commons, that is, a disaster that happens to things that are held in common. There are certain businessmen who argue that businesses do not have an obligation to protect the environment above what the law requires and if businesses show special concern for the environment beyond what the law requires, then this would interfere with their ability to compete. Second, if businesses agree that they have an environmental responsibility beyond what the law requires, they often take a good ethics is good business approach and emphasize areas of environmental responsibility that will generate a profit. For example, they might push recycling, which they can indicate on their packaging and thereby attract environmentally conscious consumers. They might also update older energy-hungry heating or production units if the investment has the right payoff. However, as noted above, what is best for the environment is not always financially best for business. When cases of conflict arise between the environment and profit motive, the good ethics is good business approach quickly appears deceptive and shallow. Also, businesses are driven by the motive to make profit. Stockholders demand a return on their investment, and this mandate transfers down through the management hierarchy. Part of making a profit is to reduce costs, and environmental responsibility is highly costly, with few immediate financial rewards. So is it justified to make profits at the expense of using resources on which everyone has an equal share? With better technology coming up, more gadgets and utilities are coming into picture, thereby creating better living standards which people aspire to achieve. And with the increased demand of goods, also increases the pollution caused in various forms, air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, deforestation, e-waste dumping, and toxic wastes accumulation. So are the organizations ethical when they are promoting an easier and more progressive lifestyle, and making profits at the same time, or should they promote a simpler lifestyle which helps in preserving environment?

On analyzing the situation on a global level, the environmental offenders are the third world developing countries. Underdeveloped and the developing countries are trying to catch up with the economic growth and the rapid industrialization and come at par with the developed countries and they certainly have every right to do so. Since these countries do not have the sophisticated technology as compared to the developed countries, their cost of progress on the environment is greater than the developed countries. The developed countries can much easily shift to energy sources that give off less pollution. Also, one of the main reasons for the intensification of problems in the third world countries is the growth of population which doubles about every 70 years. Increased population has led to a greater demand for land, water, food, and other necessities of life, which leads to deforestation, more extraction of natural resources, etc. With the various environment summits and conferences that are being held, more and more emphasis is being given on the reduction of carbon emissions. But the developing countries see it as an intervention of the Western world to check their growth. While they argue that the pollution has been created by the developed nations as an effect of the rampant industrialization they had which made them economically powerful, so it should ideally be their responsibility and they should take care of the environment. The third world countries consider it unethical on the part of the developed nations asking them to check their polices and industrial growth. They also insist that while the developed countries mercilessly exploited the environment to achieve the economic stability, it is their chance to take the road to progress and thus they should not be prevented or inhibited from doing so. Also, instead of taking measures and doing their own bit, the developed nations are putting all the pressure and restrictions on the third world countries thus violating their fundamental right. On the other hand the developed nations believe that what has been done in the past cannot be undone and so it should be a joint responsibility of every nation in the world since the environment is a joint pool of resources and no one can be refused to share it. Hence it is a big question that who is at fault? Who should be blamed? Who is being unethical? Who is shirking from the responsibility? If I were to answer, I would say there is no single answer to these questions. These are open-ended questions and each one is entitled to their own interpretation and opinion. So, the question of environmental ethics in business is one which cannot be answered in plain words because it is always a tradeoff a tradeoff between progress and environment, a tradeoff between growth and nature. While one may be important for some people, others may have different choices. Whatever decision one takes, long term effects should be kept in mind because once the resources are finished, it will take a lifetime for them to regenerate. Thus, balancing business growth and environmental quality is always going to be a challenge for business.