More Business Writing...

Do you think that business has an obligation to protect the environment beyond what the law requires? Be sure to explain the views of Bowie and Hoffman. With whom would Friedman side? Why?
First allow me to summarize the views of both men and answer the last question first. Then I will briefly delve into my opinion.

Bowie feels that business has two responsibilities when it comes to their environmental interaction: first, obey the law; second, do not interfere with the law-making process. In this way he feels the market and its stakeholders (including government) will determine what the appropriate level of involvement for the business is. He feels that the business will be prevented from improperly influencing the development of such legislation if they are not allowed to meddle in the process.

Hoffman, on the other hand, feels that business has an environmental responsibility that exceeds the limits of the law and should approach that responsibility from a naturalistic, biocentric perspective rather than from a humanistic homocentric one. In other words businesses should be proactively involved not just reactively involved, regardless of how it impacts its profits.

Bowie’s view would be the perspective most closely in alignment with Friedman’s theories. His response is true to the Friedman position of allowing the market to determine its own course and allow those with purchasing power to guide it.

Hoffman did not seem to think that equating environmental responsibility with a business’s self-interest was an adequate ethical foundation. I can see his point, but I tend to disagree a little bit. I agree with Hoffman on the basic idea that businesses should possibly have a responsibility above the law. However, I feel this is nearly always justified by a business’s own self-interest.

In the case he mentioned of the business-owner who bankrupted his business trying to achieve environmental responsibility, I feel there were several real errors in judgment. Thus, I do not feel that is the best case to represent a concept of social responsibility. As Hoffman indicated, it is one extreme. However, I do think responsible businesses must participate in a steady focused long-term campaign of environmental responsibility. They must do this to preserve their resources, their capital, the good will of their stakeholders, and steady long-term profits. Additionally, this concept is not untrue to shareholders because a responsible posture reduces the probability for lawsuits, clean-up costs, and health care coverage costs due to hazards resulting from unsafe and irresponsible behavior.

Hoffman did not seem to have much confidence in the long-term planning abilities of corporations (which I admit has been justified by corporate behavior in the last fifteen years). However, this is not a good excuse to not teach a long-term paradigm shift to corporations beginning with the lowest echelon of management. As has been repeatedly discussed and demonstrated, American culture and business – from the ground up – needs to retrain itself on impulse control, long-term planning, community cognizance, and quality management. This will facilitate the environmental responsibility desired by Hoffman.

At a more fundamental level, this discussion needs to consider the effects of world-view on how an individual approaches this debate. In a nutshell, the evolutionary bias of belief in the survival of the fittest lends itself to irresponsible behavior justified as we elbow and stomp our way over species and environments more fragile than ourselves. Juxtaposed to that idea, the Christian worldview provides a framework for the sacredness of all life, the value of the environment as a magnificent and precious creation, and the command for responsible stewardship of all resources. I understand this is a complex and far-reaching discussion that cannot be adequately treated here, but it is a foundational element of the discussion and should not be forgotten.

Overall this is a complex issue and I don’t think any one approach is sufficient. I think the marketplace is the ideal place for these changes to be made, supplemented by proactive businesses, and guided by active government regulation. Additionally, based on my belief in the Christian worldview, I would have to agree that business sometimes may have a responsibility above the law. However, this responsibility extends to all of us as individuals as well. Businesses are not to pursue this responsibility alone. All of us have the responsibility to do our part even above and beyond the law if necessary.

I'm Back!

Hey Everybody!

I am back! Sorry for the long delay in posting. I know many of you have visited often and have been disappointed to find no new posts. Well I won't go into all the details, but this month has been incredibly hectic. Anyway, it is time to post again and get this rolling again, to keep my brain flexing and your day interesting (I hope!). So to kick things off, here is a neat website. Check it out. As I have stated before, I am a big fan of this kind of technology. Not only do I plan to invest in it with my money, I hope to share these ideas with others and encourage their participation in the stewardship of our planet!

http://www.biopowersystems.com/

I found this article at ICR.org It's worth reading and it falls in line with my interest in green technology and sustainable alternative fuels. While I am not sure that biotech is the best way to go, it is definitely something to be further pursued. Enjoy and visit ICR for more great articles.

The Finest Food, Feed, Fiber, and Fuel for the Future: Plant Biotechnology

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

According to the Dominion Mandate issued to Adam and Eve in the Garden¹ and repeated to Noah² about 1,657 years later, we are to be good stewards of the earth. One aspect of stewardship is the proper management of earth’s organisms. The first recorded instance of genetic modification is in Genesis 30, where Jacob’s sheep husbandry is described. We still use artificial selection in a similar fashion today, but more precise techniques are also now used.

Is biotechnology biblical? Read on.

In artificial selection (and natural selection, for that matter), whole organisms are selected for a particular trait. A deficiency of this procedure is that the selected individual often retains undesirable traits. A subcategory of genetic modification (GM, or GMO for “genetically modified organism”) is genetic engineering, or biotechnology. Typically, however, “GM” is most often used to refer to organisms that are actually genetically engineered. Instead of selecting whole organisms, this method involves the transfer of discrete genes from one organism to another, such that the recipient organism benefits from its new gene product. In this manner, for example, natural pesticides can be manufactured by GM corn, eliminating the need for artificial pesticide spraying.

Reporting in the May issue of BioScience, Lorena Miller and Kan Wang summarize genetic engineering. They report that “the biotech generation of crops has resulted in a 15.3% net reduction in environmental impact on GE [genetically engineered] crop farming land since 1996, owing in great measure to significant reductions in the application of herbicides and insecticides worldwide.”³ It seems that the resistance capabilities already found in different plants are being harnessed and directed for use in agriculture, to the benefit of mankind and our environment. Now, that is good stewardship of the earth.

The report further describes that “genetic engineering has provided the world with successfully commercialized insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant crops, benefiting corn, soybean, and cotton growers around the globe.”³ Though these new technologies are often resisted, there are very few practical detractors to biotech products as they are currently manifested. Many have speculated on the potential ills of widespread use of GMOs, and nobody can be sure that all biotech applications will turn out rosy. So far, though, it has been successful.

However, like nuclear technology could be used either for nuclear power or nuclear war, biotechnology has both good and evil potential. That potential is not inherent in the technology, but in the intent of the people using it. In this, as in our other technological endeavors, we must be good stewards.

References

1. Genesis 1:28.
2. Genesis 9.
3. Moeller, L. and Ken Wang. 2008. Engineering with Precision: Tools for the New Generation of Transgenic Crops. BioScience. 58 (5): 391.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer.