Post a response to both classmate’s case study with which you do not necessarily agree. Ensure that your response contributes to the online discussion in a meaningful way and not just summarize it or state “I really liked your post” or “I agree/disagree.” Please reply to each other courteously and respectfully.
Be sure to document evidence from the assigned readings properly with inline citations in the format (author–name, page–number), for example (Byars, 37), to prevent plagiarism. Cite and include a bibliography for any additional references
https://assets.openstax.org/oscms-prodcms/media/documents/BusinessEthics-OP.pdf
Mary
There are multiple countries like the United States and Europe dumping toxic waste into developing countries. These countries don’t care much because they feel as if it benefits them the most since the cost is cheaper. Nigeria is one country that ended up agreeing taking the toxic chemical waste and did not notify their local residents about it. As the case study mentions, “Nigeria has often been near the top of the United Nations’ list of most corrupt nations, with government leaders cutting deals to line their own pockets while exposing their citizens to environmental hazards”(Byars 113). Due to Nigeria being a less wealthy country, they are more likely to accept things even if they are harmful for their citizens in order to gain money. Along with that, there’s a recent example that occurred in the Ivory Coast when residents noticed there were hundreds of chemicals from a foreign-owned ship that had been dumped near Abidjan. Apparently, this ship was owned by a giant company named Trafigura and ended up sickening over 100,000 residents that led to 15 deaths as well.
A company in the United States and Europe should definitely not take advantage of a country’s weak approach to business and political ethics. This is viewed as completely unethical and selfish. The reason that I think this is because first off, the countries they are sending their waste to are not developed and aren’t wealthy at all. These countries also suffer from health issues due to the lack of medicine. The only reason that these countries are willing to accept these larger companies from different countries dumping their waste there is because they are trying to survive. These undeveloped countries need the money and will do anything they can to get it. Even though the larger companies see it as a special advantage for their own company to save money, it’s still a terrible thing to do because it’s causing the other citizens to gain more health issues. Also, because these countries are so poor and accept the offer, larger companies don’t think about how many people would be effected from it. For instance in the case study it mentioned, “In this mid-1990s case, then thousand barrels of toxic waste had been dumped where children live, eat, and drink”(Byars 123). If anything, companies should research more into things before deciding where to put their own toxic waste because of a cheaper price. These companies should come up with certain ways to first off reduce the amount of waste they have and take into considerations of the factors they deal with by putting it in less developed countries.
If it came down to my company ending up saving $1 million dollars from this, I would still disagree on it. This is completely unethical and against all my values. I wouldn’t want to effect anyone’s lives and create citizens to be in more danger than they already are. I would instead do some research on ways to reduce toxic waste and look for safer ways to store them that wouldn’t create any severe issues that are life threatning. As said in the Zealot CST Principles article, “The ultimate goal of a business is meeting human needs, not the accumulation of profit. Business exists to serve people, not the other way around” (Zalot & Gavin 1). This is very important for companies to understand because companies have to remember, the only way they even survive is by having customers. It’s important that businesses remember that tier goal is to meet human needs, it’s not always about the profit they make or even save. This is why my answer wouldn’t change if I saved $1 million dollars by doing something unethical, because I find it more important to protect human lives than save money for a business. It would also show a strong image for my company to show the importance of valuing humans and showing the importance of how to lower the outcome of having toxic waste.
Danielle Week 6 Case Study
The act of dumping toxic waste in countries that allow it is unethical. I think that the act itself is bad because it deeply affects the well-being of others and goes against the corporate social responsibility of large corporations. I would not change my decision to save my company $1 million dollars because I would rather lose money that be to blame for the health issues of a group of individuals.
According to Zalot’s text about the “Principles of Catholic Social Teaching for Business Ethics”, there is a very profound sense of community that one must understand for business ethics. Community does not necessarily mean those around you physically, but the community of humanity. Community means that “we humans are one family and that we need one another” (Zalot 4). Regardless of our differences, we are under unity through this sense of community. By defining us as one big family, we must take care of each other in a loving way.
Another idea that relates strongly to this is the common good. This idea stems from the goal of fulfilling human potential. According to Zalot, it is a “a social order where all individuals have the opportunity to meet their basic needs, interact with others, and ultimately fulfill themselves as human persons (Zalot 5). The common good is not an individualistic goal. We cannot achieve this alone. It takes the effort of everyone to achieve overall success. One of the things that I believe is most important for this scenario is the “basic needs” aspect.
The public of Nigeria is being put at risk and suffering extreme health problems because of the ignorance of the Nigerian government and large corporations. With that, these people are not meeting their basic needs of a safe environment. If the government wanted to line their pockets with this deal anyway, the least they can do is notify the public of where these steel drums will be placed. If they were transparent about the situation, they could make the attempt to protect the Nigerian citizens and help them “fulfill themselves as individuals”.
Corporate Social Responsibility has been around for years, but recently has become something influential to people’s buying choices. People care about how a company affects the globe, especially people. More people avoid companies that use sweatshops for labor because of how deeply it affects the people in those positions. This situation in Nigeria would outrage people in this generation.
CSR is something that has three effects: social, environmental, and economic. According to the textbook, Byars states that these three elements are the “externalities of their operations that companies must take into account” (Byars 85). In this scenario, the social element is how this is affecting the well-being of the Nigerians. The economic is how this case will affect the success of the company after being exposed for their actions. The environmental is the toxic waste they are releasing to public spaces. There truly is no positive to their actions except saving money, which may be short lived based on the reaction of the consumers.
Personally, I would not change my decision if it meant losing $1 million dollars but saving individual’s health. However, it would take a lot of effort for the company to show that they care about CSR and avoid losing money. To avoid “greenwashing” as explained by Byars, they must be undoubtedly transparent about their actions within the company. The overall circumstance is extremely disappointing on behalf of the company and the Nigerian government. No matter the amount of money, people’s lives should always be priority.