We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Do Companies Have a Responsibility Not to Destroy the Environment or Should Profits Be Allowed at Any Environmental Cost

Categories Company, Environment, Responsibility

Essay, Pages 7 (1562 words)



Essay, Pages 7 (1562 words)

We can see a change in every organizational activities, as in marketing, for example Mc Donald change their previous red logo, in green one, A new one, for a new eco-system protecting plan. In this research we are going to see many element, which will prove that companies have a responsibility to take care about the environment. In this research, a melting pot of arguments will be show, to understand if businesses and factories have to pollute instead of adapting their way to work in function of environment and sustainable development.

Don't waste time.

Get a verified writer to help you with Do Companies Have a Responsibility Not to Destroy the Environment or Should Profits Be Allowed at Any Environmental Cost

HIRE verified writer

$35.80 for a 2-page paper

Real fact will help to understand the point of view.

Firm’s activities have big environmental impact, its take a major part of naturals resources and reject in the environment. Oil and chemicals industries are not the only companies, which polluted. Every single firm consumes raw material as water, energy and others. It’s also rejected some substances more or less harmful in the environment. More over the intensive consumption of raw material have big impact on the extinction many species, or animal can become endangered.

Deforestation in some country appears because companies want to produce more and more, always more.

If firms continue to take resources as now, there will be an exhaustion of raw material as oil and gas. Climate change is partly caused by every reject by firms, in terms of polluting gas, chemical stuff and pollution in the see. As “good planet” said in their article, a cellulose factory has been closed by the government because they notice that to much pollution as been providing by this factory.

Top writers


shield Verified writer

starstarstarstarstar 5 (298)

Chris Al

shield Verified writer

starstarstarstarstar 4.9 (478)

Marrie pro writer

shield Verified writer

starstarstarstarstar 5 (204)

HIRE verified writer

In fact, around this factory the Baikal lac was very pollute. The vice Prime Minister Arkadi Dvokovitch announces that the factory will be close as soon as possible: “We decided to close the plant cellulose Baikalsk”.

As the government said, a care project is taking part in this area of Russia. The fact that firms do not respect the environment can be dangerous in different way. In this case, 1700 peoples became unemployed, because it shutting. Population becomes less and less happy because of the different ways of pollution of the country. That is why everyone losing something: government loses reputation, to let factories pollute in the country. Firms have to be shutdown because its disrespect the environment. The reputation is very important for a company; it is one of the most important things to maximize profit.

People’s way to speak about a company makes it stronger, if its have a good reputation. More often companies can have a bad rap; When it is important to see what are peoples problems and what are the environmental problems, company are less fascinate. Furthermore, it is usually the bigger business, which pollute the most. It is possible to make profit, and make a maximizing profit not in spit of polluting. But head directors prefer giving money to government as fines, instead of polluting less and earn less money.

Refers to the case of Pfizer industry, which is one of the biggest pharmaceutical firms from France. As Bschool wrote in an article, Pfizer has the most important record of polluting action in all categories: “Pfizer has a bad record on numerous fronts”. This big company has been fined many times by authorities, for environmental violations, in terms of air contamination, because rejected lots of hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere. After many recommendations by government, Pfizer industry did not take care about it, and preferred continued to earned money and maximizing profit.

This unconscious act proves that head manager who where at the top of the firm did not think about environmental and social problem, and did not feel concerned by security. According again to Bschool, In 2009, the company became more open minded and aware of what she did, and try to reconsolidated the public opinion with an offer to charity: “In 2009, Pfizer gave more than $60 million to charity, amounting to an astounding 24,2% of its total net profits for the year. ” Thanks to regulation and authority to act in this different case, because we all know that is not the only to act in this way with people and environment.

Nowadays, people become more and more involved about the protection of the environment. People, company and government try to find together some alternative to stay on the road in term of ecology. At the begging of the XIX century, the industrial revolution and the economy are based on the absolute search of gain. It is difficult to get back and primary think to the development instead of maximizing profit. Therefore company and government had to make some agreement for sustainable development.

For example, according to Jonathan Maxwell, SDCL’s CEO: “Reducing demand for energy is potentially the most cost- effective and rational way of reducing emissions and improving the security of energy supply. The UK regulator, Ofgem, recently predicted in its first annual Electricity Capacity Assessment that the amount of spare capacity in the system could fall from 14% to 4% in the next 3 years, raising the specter of outages and price rises. This ground-breaking agreement between SDCL, Kingspan and Johnson Controls represents a major step forward towards a scalable and replicable solution, funded through energy savings achieved”.

This kind of action is present nationally and internationally. Government want to reduce a lot Co2e emissions in the world; that is why big action concentrate many countries all around the world. States have to sign a convention, and adopt comportment after that. The majority of restriction are involved by the OMC (World Trade Organization). Refers to the professor Michael Porter, teacher in Harvard Business School, the “Porter hypothesis” (citation). Supporting his thesis from 1991, the main idea of environmental regulation is to institute programs firms reducing some externalities.

Mr. Porter said also if companies are doing it by themselves it is considerably normal that business’s profits, by definition necessarily decrease. So the profit of factory can decrease if companies are adopting new rules for sustainable development. In different case, it is better making profit than take care about the environment and sustainable development. The first of a company is to make profit, and more precisely a maximization of profit. A lot of Head business managers prefer pollute and make profit, rather than adopts rules for ecology, and change the global way of the firm.

A survey on the green economy post show that around 34% of executives polled preferred to stay on a good move with their company and prefer see the whole economy of the business on prosperity: “According to this Survey, 34% of executives polled said that their firm’s immediate financial goals were of more importance than practicing sustainability ». There are lots of problems in changing methods to produce for a company, the management of the polluting rubbish, change machine that will be less dangerous for the environment. So that is why manager do not care about nature and public opinion.

Even if there are many inconvenient, it is possible to see company which was able to accept this change in term of environment protection. As we see in the introduction, Mc Donald changes many things in the company. For example the logo, to be in coherence with sustainable development, the logo was red and now its green, the environment color. After that, it is not only a picture of a good company, which wants to have a good behavior with environment; there are some benefits that Mc Donald can catch benefits. Referring to Bob Langert, who is VP, Corporate social responsibility at Mc Donald’s corporation: “Energy is really our No. issue,” he said. “When you look at the dollars we spend, and the impact we have on the environment, and the progress we can make to do better, and use our size and influence to make a difference, it’s energy. ” Bob Langert tell us this information in an interview, in a US TV channel called alternative channel To conclude, we saw different aspect from making profit instead of taking care about the environment. Along this research it is prove that it is better to contribute to sustainable development and be aware of consequences of pollution.

Even if it is hard to renounce to earn lots of money and make a maximize profit for business. Help nature and it will reward you. Bibliography * “McDonald’s Golden Rules for Energy Efficiency and Sustainability | Sustainable Development and Humanitarian Causes: The Alternative Channel Blog. ” McDonald’s Golden Rules for Energy Efficiency and Sustainability | Sustainable Development and Humanitarian Causes: The Alternative Channel Blog. Web. * “The 10 Most Socially Irresponsible Big Brands | BSchool. com Business Schools Directory. ” BSchoolcom Business Schools Directory The 10 Most Socially Irresponsible Big Brands Comments.

Web. * “Une Usine De Cellulose Qui Pollue Le Lac Baikal Va Fermer. ” Une Usine De Cellulose Qui Pollue Le Lac Baikal Va Fermer. Web. * “Corporations and the Environment. ” – Global Issues. N. p. , n. d. Web. * “Sustainable Development Capital LLP. ” Sustainable Development Capital LLP. Print 2012 * Robert A. G. Monks and Nell Minow, Power and Accountability, 1991 an on-line book, originally written 1991 * Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 233-236 * “Resources for the Future – RFF. org. ” Resources for the Future – RFF. org. N. p. , n. d. Web

Cite this essay

Do Companies Have a Responsibility Not to Destroy the Environment or Should Profits Be Allowed at Any Environmental Cost. (2018, Sep 22). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/do-companies-have-a-responsibility-not-to-destroy-the-environment-or-should-profits-be-allowed-at-any-environmental-cost-essay

Stay safe, stay original

It’s fast
It’s safe
check your essay for plagiarism

Not Finding What You Need?

Search for essay samples now


Your Answer is very helpful for Us
Thank you a lot!