The Ethical Dilemma of Corporations and Environmental Protection Laws: A Case Study on DDT Use in Mexico and the USA
Corporations frequently prioritize profit maximization by pursuing business opportunities with the lowest expenditures and largest revenues. This involves taking tax policy and environmental rules into account when making company decisions. This paper will examine the ethical implications of a hypothetical scenario in which a corporation purchases land in Mexico, imports DDT from the United States, grows larger crops, and exports them to the United States, while taking into account the potential dangers of using DDT, ethical duties to workers, neighboring landowners, and consumers, and the role of DDT manufacturers in exporting to countries with different regulations.
Ethical Duties of the Corporation
In this case, the firm has ethical obligations to multiple stakeholders. First, there are the employees in Mexico who will be exposed to DDT during its agricultural use. The company must ensure that staff are aware of the possible hazards of DDT and take the required actions to safeguard their health and safety. This involves training, adequate safety equipment, and monitoring their levels of exposure (Ogunbanjo et al., 2020).
Second, the usage of DDT may harm nearby landowners in Mexico, since it can possibly pollute the soil, air, and water, resulting in negative environmental and health repercussions. The corporation must be open about its use of DDT and take steps to prevent or minimize any harmful impacts on the surrounding environment and community (Preston, 2019.
Third, the firm has ethical obligations to customers in the United States who will consume DDT-treated crops. DDT’s potential hazards, including its persistence in the environment and possible damage to human health, have been widely established (EPA, 2021). The firm must offer accurate information on the use of DDT in its crops as well as any possible dangers associated with consumption so that customers may make educated decisions. This involves correct labeling, testing, and adherence to all applicable legislation and standards.
Ethical Duties of DDT Manufacturers
In this case, DDT producers have ethical responsibilities as well. They should consider the possible implications on human health and the environment in countries where DDT is not prohibited while exporting it. While DDT is lawful to manufacture and sell in the United States, exporting it to a nation where it is prohibited may pose ethical difficulties. Manufacturers should carefully assess the ethical implications of selling DDT to nations with varying restrictions, as well as the possible hazards connected with its usage.
The Less Obvious Nature of Environmental Protection Laws
Environmental rules are not always easy, and their effects are not always obvious. The discrepancies in DDT restrictions between Mexico and the United States highlighted the complexities of environmental protection legislation in the case depicted. While the use of DDT has been outlawed in the United States, its manufacturing is still permitted, and exporting it to Mexico for agricultural purposes creates ethical concerns. Environmental regulations differ from country to country, and firms and manufacturers should examine not just the legality but also the ethical ramifications of their conduct.
Therefore I disagree to the statement “protection laws are “less obvious”. The Environmental protection laws are not “less obvious”. In fact, environmental protection laws play a crucial role in safeguarding the environment and human health from the harmful effects of pollutants and hazardous substances, including pesticides like DDT. These laws are typically enacted by governments to regulate and manage various activities that may impact the environment, such as industrial operations, waste disposal, and the use of chemicals in agriculture.
DDT, for example, was banned in the United States due to its negative effects on the environment and human health, including its persistence in the environment, bioaccumulation in the food chain, and potential links to adverse health effects such as cancer and reproductive issues (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2021). The decision to prohibit DDT was based on rigorous scientific study and risk assessments, and it represents the US government’s commitment to protecting its population and the environment.
Conclusion
Corporations and manufacturers have ethical responsibility to employees, landowners, and consumers when it comes to potentially hazardous substances like DDT. Maintaining ethical standards requires transparency, information exchange, and regulatory compliance. Companies and manufacturers must carefully analyze the ethical aspects of their activities and make responsible decisions since environmental protection standards are less clear.
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021). DDT — A Brief History and Status. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/ddt-brief-history-and-status
Ogunbanjo, G. A., Knibbs, , L. D., & Chimuka, L. (2020). Occupational exposure of farm workers to pesticides: A case study of farm workers in the Limpopo Province, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2542. doi:10.3390/ijerph17072542
Preston, C. J. (2019). The Role of Business Ethics in Environmental Protection. In Environmental Ethics and Business (pp. 65–90). Routledge.
This article is written based on University of The People Business Law, Ethics, and Social Responsibility (BUS 5115) written assignment by Fristy Tania in April 2023
