.

BUSINESS AND ECOLOGY

a. The dimensions of ecological problem

b. Traditional attitudes of business towards the environment

c. Environmental ethics

d. The moral and social obligations of business to the environment

e. The Valdez principles

The dimensions of ecological problem

Ecological problems – Definition ( source: http://ecological-problems.blogspot.com/2008/05/ecological-

Ecological problems - True crisis of humanity

If we consider Earth as our only home then we must acknowledge the great irony of the modern world,
irony that reveals itself in vast number of ecological problems. Every way you look, starting from your
own town you live in, and all the way to the ice sheets of Antarctica and vast deserts in Africa you can
see one pattern that is repeating itself-ecological problems.

Ecology is something that always ends up second best, always behind economy and our need for money
and power. We don't appreciate not even our planet, and Earth doesn't really revolve around the sun, it
revolves around money. Ecology is always secondary, and can only survive once and when economy says
so, and this happens very rarely.

So far we only followed industrialization and other similar ways on how to strengthen our economies
and ecology has simply vanished out of our sight. But now ecology is keep coming back, only this time
showing much scarier face, face with so many scars from so many different ecological problems.

We live in the time of the worst crisis in the history of humanity. So many people in this world live in
hunger and poverty, but we try not to look at them and their problems. As long as we have enough for
ourselves, we are not worried with other people problems, and though we have enough, we are always
hungry for more. This uncontrolled hunger for more is the main reason why the word ecology is today
used only in negative context. Our greedy nature of always wanting more has put aside ecology and
environment in the name of progress and almighty dollar.

Situation is so out of the control that major ecological problems like global warming are still not taken
seriously, and on the other hand there is complete chaos because of skyrocketing oil price. It is the sad
ecological reality we are living in. We know that we are doing so much harm to our planet, and yet that
doesn't seem to be bothering us too much. List of ecological problems gets bigger by the day, and the
impact of leading ecological problems (climate change and global warming, pollution, endangered
animals) is only getting stronger and stronger.
To really make difference you need to have politics on your side, and politicians are only mentioning the
word ecology before their election when they are in need of votes, while after all gets forgotten. Our
countries need more fuel, more energy, more resources, but apparently no environment protection. In
1990 for World peace day, Pope John Paul II said in his message: "The gravity of the ecological situation
reveals how deep is the human moral crisis". And this was almost 20 years ago.

Ecological problems are today far more serious than ever before, and we simply have to do more than
hope that these problems will simply go away after some time. Hope won't be sufficient this time
around, mainly because these problems now occur on global level. Global ecological problems require
global action, action of the whole world. Can this happen?

Term "ecological problems" is today mostly used to describe different environmental problems.

After all, ecology is top environmental science, and many people identify ecology as some sort of science
that is primarily oriented on protection of our environment. This is only a partial meaning of what
ecology really stands for, and this is the interconnection between all living organisms and their
environment.

This full meaning of ecology is not often used in today's vocabulary. Given the current environmental
mess and the fact that our planet has more environmental problems than ever before it is really no
surprise that much more emphasis is put at this negative context of ecology. This is really the reason
why there is really no difference between environmental and ecological problems in everyday talk.

Problems of environment are also problems of ecology because environment is really a center of all
ecological research. Climate change, all sorts of pollution, deforestation, endangered animals, these are
all ecological problems since ecology uses scientific approach to find potential solutions to these
problems. Though ecology has evolved tremendously since its beginnings and became one of the most
comprehensive scientific disciplines it doesn't have all the right solutions to these problems.

This is because these problems have not only become global but also because they are interconnected.
Interconnection between ecological problems have made them multidimensional. Multidimensionality is
what makes it hard for ecology to find the right answers to these problems because they all have to be
included in potential solution. Solving so many ecological problems in the same time is really one of the
biggest challenges in history of ecology.

In its attempt to find adequate solutions ecology is in many cases limited by politics. Political decisions
create space in which ecology can operate, and in many cases this space is too limited for ecology to
make the difference. Given the magnitude of current ecological problems politics should really give
ecology free hands to work on possible solutions.

Politics is messing everywhere and ecology is not an exception. Ecological problems are maybe called
ecological but ecology cannot solve them without political support. Ecology can as science only offer
solutions but politics is the one that makes final decision. Unlike ecology that is guided by scientific
approach, politics is more a game of interests, and this is what prevents quick solutions in politics. This is
really the main reason why today's ecological problems have become such a big challenge. It is really of
very little use for science to come up with different solutions when politics is the one that delays
immediate action. Unless we see a change in relation between science and politics ecological problems
will soon cross the point of no return, leaving both science as well as politics, without adequate
solutions.

Source: https://www.ecologycenter.us/ecological-problems/what-are-ecological-problems.html

What are ecological problems?

the term 'ecology' is properly used to refer to a branch of biology - that which deals with the relations
between organisms and their environments - and that it is somehow debased when it is used in
connection with environmental campaigns, green parties, and so on. This thought leads some writers to
avoid the term 'ecological problem' in relation to the objects of such campaigns, and to write instead of
'environmental problems'. Others - John Passmore, for example - do refer to 'ecological problems', but
qualify this as a loose or extended usage of the term.2 Others again use the term 'ecology' to signify an
outlook that is 'deeper' or more radical or fundamentalist in its view of the relation between humans
and their environment than mere 'environmentalism'.3

It is true that the application of the term 'ecology' to humans takes it beyond the exclusive realm of
biology, since (as we shall see) the relation between humans and their environment is importantly
mediated by social and technological factors whose study is beyond the scope of that science, and it is
true also that the terms 'ecological' and 'environmental' carry dif ferent associations, the former tending
to place more emphasis than the latter on the holistic or systemic aspect of the organism-environment
relation. However, these facts do not force us to conclude either that the human-environment relation
falls outside the proper realm of ecology, or that there is any difference in the core meanings of the
terms 'ecological' and 'environmental' as applied to human problems. I will therefore use the terms
'ecological problem' and 'environmental problem' interchangeably in recognition of the fact that, since
humans are organisms, their relation to their environment falls properly within the subject-matter of
ecology as stated above. This usage is increasingly reflected in the practice of academic ecology which,
according to one of its practitioners, 'has grown from a division of biological science to a major
interdisciplinary science that links together the biological, physical, and social sciences'.4 It follows that
any debasement that the term 'ecology' does undergo in connection with its use in relation to
'ecological problems' arises not from its extension to humans and beyond pure biology, but from the
particular content that is ascribed to the human-environment relation in its name.

The fact that ecological or environmental problems are not wholly a matter for natural science highlights
a difficulty apparent in attempts to define these problems as distinct from others faced by society. As
might be expected from the account of the subject-matter of ecology given above, such definitions
typically depend upon a distinction between man or society on the one hand, and the environment or
nature on the other. Passmore, for example, states that 'a problem is "ecological" if it arises as a
practical consequence of man's dealings with nature'.5 This distinction, however, lacks a clear and
unambiguous sense. Reliance on an unexam-ined notion of nature is likely to prove particularly
problematic in considering how Marx and Engels did or could respond to ecological problems, given
their insistence that humanity is a part of nature and that nature is transformed or 'humanised' by
human activity.6 More generally, the vagueness of 'nature' is problematic in defining ecological
problems, since these problems occur typically (though not necessarily) in situations where the
environment has been transformed by human activity.
B. Traditional attitudes of business towards the environment
The moral obligations of business
 Historically, the relationship between business interests and the community has been
awkward. Connecting with community has often been viewed as a charitable thing to do and not
necessarily core to ‘real’ business.

There is a natural tension between the profit motive and social impact. However, when
we consider that companies sit within the broader community and that the relationship is one
of inter-dependence rather than independence, then there is a strong case for putting social
strategies high on the corporate agenda.

The real question is: how can it be done in a way that aligns the objectives of
shareholders with the needs of community?

Milton Friedman, the 1976 Nobel Prize-winning economist, took a stance against the
idea that companies had social responsibility, arguing that they should focus on maximising
profit within the ‘rules of the game’. Two decades later, Peter F Drucker, affirmed that profit
was the primary motive for business, but not the only motive. He asserted that business has
responsibilities to the communities it touches in the same way that a school has responsibilities
that go beyond the primary goal of educational performance.

While most companies are equipped to deal with a changing business environment,
there is a stark difference between organic change and that stemming from heavy-handed
regulation. To act blatantly against community interests increases the risk that the ‘rules of the
game’ are reformed for business, rather than reformed by business.

Where we tend to struggle is when we have to balance issues of economic growth, jobs
and political interests with activities that impose significant, longer-term costs on community.
The tobacco industry was a case in point, where the ‘rubber band’ between the two interests
was stretched far enough to invoke a harsh regulatory response.
 The stoush between the vested interests of the gaming industry and legislators is a flash
point that highlights the tension between gaming profits and the social cost of gambling
addiction. It is a complex issue and one the gaming industry would prefer to have avoided; it
may be asking itself if it could have pro-actively managed a better outcome.

For business, it is a commercial issue that has moral dimensions. Likewise, emitting
carbon is not so much the "greatest moral issue of our time”; it is the business issue of our time.

However, let’s not fall into the trap of associating social strategies solely with risk – they
come into their own when considered in terms of opportunity. They provide an avenue for
creating competitive advantage.

Customers increasingly care about how and where their goods are made. Institutional
investors are becoming more interested, active and influential in how companies manage social
issues. Employees, especially those we classify as ‘knowledge workers’, are increasingly looking
for social purpose when assessing prospective employers.

Michael Porter, the guru of competitive strategy, has written about Nestle, Marriott,
Microsoft and others who address real business issues with social strategies. In the case of
Microsoft, its business growth was being constrained by a shortage of skilled IT workers in the
US, which it sought to address through partnering with the peak body representing community
colleges. It funded a five-year program that saw its own employee volunteers work with colleges
to improve education consistency, quality and standards. Microsoft addressed a real business
issue with social support.

As management thinking continues to evolve, we are entering what many call a ‘third
wave’ in the way that companies and communities interact. Corporate philanthropy was the
first wave. A range of measures including strategic philanthropy and community investment
formed the second wave – which is often grouped under the banner of corporate social
responsibility.

The third wave is one that sees an integrated approach - where business partners with
community for mutual benefit; where financial benefit cohabits with positive social impact. The
strategic importance and commercial nature of integrated partnerships provides a strong
foundation and one that is better suited to survive management change and internal spending
reviews. When properly aligned, the relationship becomes self-reinforcing.

With this in mind, some businesses have begun the process of reviewing the breadth
and depth of their social activities. We are likely to see a trend towards fewer, but more
intensely-focused, partnerships with the non-profit sector as a result.

The moral obligation of business is not separate from the profit-maximisation objective -
they go hand in hand and, if harnessed, can produce powerful outcomes. The reward for those
who get it right lies in the competitive advantage and enduring business value that is created. It
is, primarily, a business proposition.

Phil Preston is a former investment professional who practices thought leadership in the
field of social innovation.