Discussion Assignment For This Assignment Write At Least 300

Discussion Assignmentfor This Assignment Write At Least 300 Words Answ

Corporations often “vote with their feet” in terms of doing business where expenses are lowest and revenues are highest. Buying low and selling high is a basic economic formula for success that has motivated international trade in many ways over the centuries. This is popularly discussed when governments consider tax policies and is also applicable when they also consider the less obvious factor of environmental protections laws. If Mexico has no ban on DDT (a pesticide used in agriculture) and the USA has banned the use (but not the manufacture) of DDT, should a corporation buy land in Mexico, import DDT from the USA, grow larger crops, and export them to the USA? What ethical duties does the corporation have to the workers in Mexico, the neighboring landowners, and the USA consumers about the potential dangers of using DDT? Is there an ethical duty of DDT manufactures related to their export of DDT to countries that do not ban its use as the USA does? Do you agree that environmental protection laws are “less obvious” as suggested above? Why/why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding corporate actions related to environmental laws, particularly in the context of international differences in regulation, are complex and multifaceted. A notable example involves the disparity between Mexico’s lack of a ban on DDT and the United States’ ban on its use, although not its manufacture. Should a corporation choose to purchase land in Mexico, import DDT from the U.S., expand crop production, and export agricultural products to the U.S., several ethical issues emerge that merit detailed analysis.

Primarily, the corporation has a moral obligation to consider the health and safety of workers in Mexico. DDT, a persistent organic pollutant, is associated with adverse health effects such as cancer, reproductive issues, and environmental damage (ATSDR, 2002). Workers engaged in the production and application of DDT are directly exposed, raising questions about the company’s duty to prevent harm. Ethically, corporations should prioritize non-maleficence—avoiding harm to their employees—and ensure they provide adequate protective measures and fair working conditions (Resnik, 2018). Furthermore, neighboring landowners may face contamination of soil and water sources, infringing upon their rights and resulting in environmental degradation. The company, therefore, bears an ethical responsibility to assess and mitigate such risks, respecting landowners’ property rights and health concerns.

From the perspective of U.S. consumers, importing crops potentially grown with DDT introduces public health considerations. DDT residues can persist on produce and bioaccumulate in the food chain, potentially affecting consumers’ health (EPA, 2016). Ethically, the company must weigh its profits against the rights of consumers to safe food, aligning with principles of rights-based ethics that prioritize consumer safety and informed choice (Taylor, 2011). Importantly, the export of DDT to countries without bans also raises questions about corporate responsibility beyond national boundaries. Given the global impact of environmental contaminants, many argue that manufacturers have an ethical duty to avoid exporting harmful substances to vulnerable populations lacking stringent regulations (Shaw, 2014).

Environmental protection laws are often perceived as “less obvious” because their enforcement and implications can be indirect or less apparent in immediate business operations. Unlike compliance with federal regulations, which enforce clear standards, environmental laws at international or local levels may be ambiguous or inconsistently applied, challenging companies’ ethical judgments (Murray, 2017). Moreover, economic incentives like reducing costs may overshadow environmental considerations, making ecological protection seem less obvious or secondary. However, ethical frameworks such as utilitarianism emphasize the importance of sustainability and the long-term well-being of society, advocating for stricter adherence to environmental standards regardless of law (Singer, 2019). Thus, environmental laws may not be inherently “less obvious,” but the incentives and perceptions around their importance often obscure their ethical significance.

In conclusion, corporations operating across borders bear significant ethical duties toward workers, landowners, consumers, and global communities. These duties include preventing health hazards from toxic substances like DDT, respecting property rights, and avoiding harm to consumers and vulnerable populations. While economic considerations are vital for success, ethical responsibilities should guide decisions, particularly when environmental implications extend beyond national borders. Recognizing the importance of environmental protection laws as integral to corporate responsibility can foster more sustainable and ethical global business practices.

References

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2002). Toxicological profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016). DDT: Pesticide factsheet. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov
• Murray, R. (2017). Environmental law and ethics: Navigating a complex landscape. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2), 215–230.
• Resnik, D.B. (2018). Environmental health ethics. Routledge.
• Shaw, D. (2014). Corporate responsibility and global environmental justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 227–241.
• Singer, P. (2019). Practical ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Taylor, C. (2011). Rights and responsibilities: An ethical perspective on consumer health. Ethics & Medicine, 27(3), 123-130.