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

'We asshole cipher a switch in every(prenominal) organizational activities, as in marketing, for example Mc Donald change their foregoing red logo, in green one, A freshly one, for a new eco-system protecting plan. In this interrogation we be going to run across more element, which forget prove that companies pick out a responsibility to maintain tuition round(predicate) the purlieu. In this research, a run pot of arguments bequeath be show, to understand if vocationes and factories soak up to pollute instead of adapting their mode to work in function of purlieu and sustain equal to(p) development. Real fact will help to understand the point of view.\r\n hard’s activities have big environmental impact, its present a major part of naturals resources and reject in the environment. Oil and chemics industries atomic number 18 not the only companies, which polluted. each single firm consumes nude material as water, energy and others. It’s also jilted round substances more(prenominal) 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 slightly agricultural appears beca employ companies want to start out more and more, always more.\r\nIf firms spread over to take resources as now, there will be an exhaustion of raw material as anoint and gas. Climate change is partly caused by every reject by firms, in conditions of polluting gas, chemical stuff and pollution in the see. As â€Å" healthy planet” say in their article, a cellulose factory has been completiond by the governance because they notice that to some(prenominal) pollution as been providing by this factory. In fact, to the highest degree this factory the Baikal lac was very pollute. The vice Prime pastor Arkadi Dvokovitch announces that the factory will be close as soon as affirmable: â€Å"We decided to close the plant cellulose Baikalsk”.\r\nAs the governing body said, a anguish project is taking part in this world of Russia. The fact that firms do not respect the environment can be dangerous in disparate way. In this oddb contributely, 1700 peoples became unemployed, because it shutting. Population becomes less and less quick-witted because of the contrasting ways of pollution of the coun smack. That is wherefore 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 classical for a companionship; it is one of the most alpha things to maximize gain ground.\r\nPeople’s way to c wholly about a company makes it stronger, if its have a goodish reputation. More often companies can have a bad rap; When it is important to see what be 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 acquire, and make a maximise profit not in spit of polluting. But aim directors prefer giving money to government as fines, instead of polluting less and earn less money.\r\nRefers 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 fulfil in all categories: â€Å"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 gobs of hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere. After many recommendations by government, Pfizer industry did not take fright about it, and preferred continued to earned money and maximizing profit.\r\nThis unconscious act proves that head manager who where at the top of the firm did not think about environmental and social proble m, and did not feel implicated by guarantor. According again to Bschool, In 2009, the company became more open minded and cognizant of what she did, and try to reconsolidated the public opinion with an offer to charity: â€Å"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 pattern and liberty to act in this different case, because we all go through that is not the only to act in this way with people and environment.\r\nNowadays, people become more and more involved about the protection of the environment. People, company and government try to find together some option to stay on the road in term of ecology. At the begging of the XIX century, the industrial renewal and the economy are based on the imperative search of gain. It is difficult to get back and aboriginal think to the development instead of maximizing profit. and then company and government had to make some commensu rateness for sustainable development.\r\nFor example, according to Jonathan Maxwell, SDCL’s CEO: â€Å" cut back demand for energy is potentially the most cost- good and rational way of reducing emissions and improving the security of energy supply. The UK regulator, Ofgem, recently predicted in its first one-year Electricity Capacity Assessment that the amount of superfluous capacity in the system could fall from 14% to 4% in the next 3 years, facts of life the specter of outages and price rises. This ground-breaking agreement between SDCL, Kingspan and Johnson Controls represents a major step forward towards a ascendible and replicable solution, funded through energy savings achieved”.\r\nThis kind of action is present nationally and internationally. Government want to deoxidise a lot Co2e emissions in the world; that is wherefore big action concentrate many countries all approximately the world. States have to sign a convention, and lard comportment after t hat. The majority of restriction are involved by the OMC (World Trade Organization). Refers to the professor Michael Porter, teacher in Harvard Business School, the â€Å"Porter hypothesis” (citation). documentation his thesis from 1991, the main idea of environmental regulation is to institute programs firms reducing some externalities.\r\nMr. Porter said also if companies are doing it by themselves it is considerably conventionalism that business’s profits, by definition needs decrement. So the profit of factory can decrease if companies are adopting new rules for sustainable development. In different case, it is give way 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.\r\nA 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: â€Å"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.\r\nEven 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 viscidness with sustainable development, the logo was red and now its green, the environment color. After that, it is not only a jut out of a good company, which wa nts to have a good behavior with environment; there are some benefits that Mc Donald can catch benefits. Referring to Bob Langert, who is VP, incarnate social responsibility at Mc Donald’s corporation: â€Å"Energy is really our No. issue,” he said. â€Å"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 lead called alternative channel To conclude, we saw different expectation 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.\r\nEven 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 * â€Å"McDonald’s boomi ng Rules for Energy Efficiency and Sustainability | Sustainable ontogenesis 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. * â€Å"The 10 Most socially Irresponsible Big Brands | BSchool. com Business Schools Directory. ” BSchoolcom Business Schools Directory The 10 Most Socially Irresponsible Big Brands Comments.\r\nWeb. * â€Å"Une Usine De Cellulose Qui Pollue Le Lac Baikal Va Fermer. ” Une Usine De Cellulose Qui Pollue Le Lac Baikal Va Fermer. Web. * â€Å"Corporations and the Environment. ” †Global Issues. N. p. , n. d. Web. * â€Å"Sustainable Development bully LLP. ” Sustainable Development Capital LLP. Print 2012 * Robert A. G. Monks and Nell Minow, index and Accountability, 1991 an on-line book, originally written 1991 * Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the shade of Capitalism (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 233-236 * â€Å"Resources for the Future †RFF. org. ” Resources for the Future †RFF. org. N. p. , n. d. Web\r\n'