Inhope we must act, both individuals and corporations
1.Introduction
The once stable natural systems in Holocene gave rise to human society, yet, in turn, humanity has been undermining nature’s resilience to the point that it has shown signs of exhaustion. Some people do not seem to share the worry about nature’s victimization until real instances of human suffering are brought up: higher energy costs, desertification, and people fleeing from floods. Controversies proposed and anxiety aroused all lead to one consensus: we need to take our own responsibility. But who should take more? I contend that corporations should be more responsible than individuals for the environmental crisis.
This essay aims to compare different responsibilities of individuals and corporations towards the environment and to provide the rationale for the contention stated. First, I will make clarifications regarding the definitions of “being responsible for” and “environmental crisis”. Then, based on the definitions, I will adopt two approaches to argue why corporations should be more responsible, namely the “cause” approach and the “duty” approach. At last, I will highlight the approach to end the crisis: problem-solving, instead of blaming. This is an appeal for corporations and individuals to take the first step toward the long-term effort of countering the environmental crisis. It is time to change.
2.Definitive information
“Beingresponsible” has two layers of meaning in this context. “If someone is responsible for an accident, mistake, or crime, it is their fault, or they can be blamed.” [1] The first layer of meaning conveys a sense of guiltand refers to being the cause of something. For the second layer of meaning, being responsible means having a duty to be in charge of or to look after something. [2] That implies the morality concerns and the legalissues involved.
Thus, these two questions are placed in the center of the following two analysis approaches: first, which group contributes to the environmental crisis more, and second, which party has more significant duties to control the environmental crisis?
3.The “cause” approach
3.1 Identification of major environmental problems
Theenvironmental crisis is a term used to describe the sum of the environmental
problems that we face today (Park, 2007). [3] This macro conceptencapsulates the status quo where the balance in the relationship between
humanity and the environment is distorted. At this point, to make the macro
concept tangible, the “planetary boundary” framework is adapted to present
several systems that go beyond the “safe operating space for humanity” defined.
Figure1-1: Current status of the control variables for seven of the planetary
boundaries (Steffen et al, 2015) [4]
Source:Steffen et al 2015
3.2 Biochemical flows: Nitrogen as an approach
From1972 to 1988, an upward trend in the nitrate concentration in three English
rivers could be detected (Figure 1-2). Since 1945, agriculture in the U.K. has
been associated with more fertilizer usage, more plowing, more land for arable
crops, and the exploitation of grassland (Burt and Haycock, 1991). [5] Despitecritics claiming it is too simplistic to relate the drainage of excess farming
chemicals with nitrate problems, both disequilibria in the nitrogen cycle and
its implications such as eutrophication, farming, and the overuse of chemicals
are still dominant drivers.
Figure1-2
Inthe twenty-first century, as commercial farming takes the dominant position
while independent farmers are becoming rarer, the pollution from small-scale
independent farms is considered less significant. Within the same drainage
basin, independent farmers living on subsistence farming could hardly affect
the overall nitrate concentration in a specific course of a river since they do
not have the access to nor the demand for such a large amount of fertilizers as
corporate farmers do. Moreover, apart from the scale, corporations give rise to
contract farming as well where machinery and resources are provided to boost
the efficiency and yield in return for the output. This gradual transition to
commercial farming results in a shift of focus from individuals to
agribusinesses which are considered the cause of the increasing instability in
the biochemical flow.
3.3 Biosphere integrity: Genetic diversity in forests
TheEarth is pushed slowly into the sixth mass extinction: since 1970, there has
been a 68% average decline in species population size (WWF, 2020). [6]Numerous activities influence the genetic diversity and the structure of the
diversity: exploitation, pollution, habitat fragmentation, demographic change,
habitat alteration, deforestation, movement of organisms, and domestication
(Ledig, 1992). [7] And individuals and corporations account fordifferent ones.
Thefirst six bind with corporations. Take the Amazon rainforest as an example, a
place where nearly a third of the known species are found and a place where the
world’s largest iron ore mine is located. Fully owned by Brazilian miner Vale,
the Carajas mine used to be an area of undeveloped forest, but the expanding
excavation sites and waste management changed the abiotic and biotic conditions.
Pollution and habitat fragmentation occur over great distances: mining waste
discharges such as dust and aerosols, acids released from oxidized minerals,
and chemical emissions in the metal extraction processes (Sonter et al, 2018). [8]Deforestation for commercial purposes also influences demographic changes. The
forests have become younger because the older trees are exploited, leaving the
seedlings standing. This could influence the mating system, selection, and the
generation of novelty through mutation (Ledig, 1992). [9]
Thelast three go with individuals. Sometimes individuals bridge barriers to
species migration referred to as the movement of organisms. We may have
introduced new species and diseases that threaten the existence of the native
ones, and new selection pressure has been induced (Ledig, 1992). [10]Further, as certain species may be of high economic value, the human may expand
the range of species, resulting in genetic divergence and hybridization. Yet,
domestication is still considered beneficial for the preservation of genetic
diversity.
3.4 Land-system change
Infigure 1-1, the control variable for land system change has been changed to the forest cover remaining, as the three major forest biomes-tropical, temperate, and boreal-play a stronger role in land surface (Steffen et al, 2015). [11]It provides a spectrum through which land degradation is considered withdeforestation in a corresponding manner.
Thehistorical stereotype of land degradation is a deleterious consequence of the
ignorant peasant plowing with poor farming practices. Yet it was the case. In 1990, a popular practice gained its influence over the western prairie region: Summer fallowing allowed farmers to keep the soil moisturized and nutrient-rich, but soil salinization and wind erosion quickly followed. Moreover, Lu and colleagues estimated that over 130Gt of soil was eroded from 1950 to 2010 in the Yellow River Basin in China (Armstrong, 2014) [12], and theexploitation of this basin could be traced back to the Han Dynasty (approximately 2000 years ago) where overgrazing and deforestation initially took place using poor farming practices. Corporations are indeed one of the causes of land-system change as mining and logging take place. However, impacts brought by individuals are deemed to be far greater than those brought by corporations given the time span.
3.5 Climate change
Inthe context of global warming, climate change is automatically bound to the enhanced greenhouse effect which is caused by an unprecedented amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere affecting the energy budget of the
Earth System. According to the EPA, the most significant GHGsare water vapor (H2O),carbon dioxide (CO2),methane (CH4),and nitrous oxide (N2O).
Intuitively, one may argue that global warming is a result of the risingconcentration of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion in corporate production activities.
Yet anthropogenic activities are proven to beonly 4%-5% of the total. Thereby, large-scale fossil fuel combustion is not a significant source. The argumentis also substantiated by Segalstad’s examination of the isotopic ratio of 13C/12C in the current and pre-industrial atmosphere (Hertzbergand Schreuder, 2016). [13] On the other hand, the CH4 andN2O sources in table 2-1 do prove that anthropogenic sources such asfossil fuel combustion and commercial farming are significant sources of GHGs. Here, individuals could hardly be accounted for given the macro spectrum. In addition, for CH4 and N2O specifically, the differencebetween individuals and corporations is even more significant. Therefore, corporations are considered to cause global warming to a greater extent compared to individuals.
4.The “duty” approach
4.1 Relationships and duties
To engage duty, our relationship with nature must be sorted. Our highest duty is the social duty towards humankind. However, this is not natural or is not “predetermined by our natural essence” (Schreider, 1994; Schreider, 1996). [14,15]If such a natural connection does exist, why should we have a duty toward nature? Wouldn’t everything we do be natural? So, it is our social duty that implies our relationship with the environment. We must position ourselves as entities separated from nature. A squirrel need not have a duty toward nature because it is a part of it. But as human beings, instead of strict natural beings, we should consider our duty to the environment only if we acknowledge
that social duty comes ahead of duty towards nature (Schreider, 1997). [16]
In this case, some radical environmentalists’ stand, in which their presentation of nature is in its pristine form and has us being a part of it, could not be adapted. Nor could the utilitarian’s position be adapted; the emphasis on utility and property possession makes them overlook the intrinsic value of nature. I maintain that the relationship between humans and nature should be kept as that of tenants and the landlord. “This entails in consequence a duty which, if acted upon, requires that the premise be kept up, even improved, certainly not polluted, and surely also made more useful for tenants to live in.” (Schreider, 1997) [17] For individuals, the duty manifests itself once ourrelationship with the nature is defined. Our stewardship of the environment should be a reminder of a baseline and the consequences followed.
4.2 What lies beyond: Corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Beyond the duty of all individuals towards the environment, corporations, a type of
social institution for economic activities with lower transaction costs, ought
to take their corresponding collective responsibilities.
According to Carrol’s Pyramid of CSR (2016) [18], four layers of obligationsare set forth to form the social responsibility of a corporate, namely economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility, and philanthropic responsibility. For the case regarding the environment, corporate environmental responsibility could be adapted to this pyramid. The first layer remains as a corporate is obliged to survive. The second layer should be the environmental legal baselines that a corporate should be bound by during any stage of production. After those required by society, the third and fourth layers become terms that are expected not required. For ethical responsibility, corporates need to cover environmental implications during their operations, in their
products, and among their facilities to achieve maximum efficiency and productivity. The philanthropic one would expect corporations to donate and try to reverse the environmental problems. Thereby, the duty of corporations towards environmental crisis not only lies in the tenant-landlord relationship but manifests in its nature as a social institution. Thus, corporations are considered more responsible for the environmental crisis.
5.Conclusion and Implication
To conclude, first in the “cause” approach, corporations are considered to be the
major cause of two problems while individuals are one (one problem is considered equally causing); in the “duty” approach, corporations manage to manifest an additional layer of duty given its collective nature. In all, corporations are more responsible for the environmental crisis. Yet this essay should not be used on blaming, it provides a thought to encourage new initiatives towards saving the environment. As Zizek noted, we are in paralysis in which what renders us unable to act is not the fact that “we don’t yet know enough” but the fact that we know too much while not knowing what to do with this mass of inconsistent knowledge. [19] Hence, actions from corporations are expected. Every minute is the right time to act!
Literature cited
1. Responsible. (2015).In Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (6th ed.).Person Education Limited. https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/responsible
2. ibid
3.Park, C. (2007). Environmental crisis. In A Dictionary of Environmentand Conservation (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198609957.001.0001/acref-9780198609957
4.Steffen, W. et al (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a
changing planet. Science, 347(6223).https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
5.Burt, T., & Haycock, N. (1991). Farming and nitrate pollution. Geography, 76(1),60–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40572022
6.Hancock, L., & Hirsheimer, B. (2020, September9). 68% Average Decline in SpeciesPopulation Sizes Since 1970, Says New WWF Report. World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved August 31, 2022, from https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/68-average-decline-in-species-population-sizes-since-1970-says-new wwf-report
7.Ledig, F. T. (1992). Human Impacts on Genetic Diversity in Forest
Ecosystems. Oikos, 63(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545518
8.Sonter Laura J., Ali Saleem H. and Watson James E. M. 2018Miningand biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation science Proc. R.Soc. B.2852018192620181926http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1926
9.Ledig (n 8) 93
10.Ledig (n 8) 99
11.Steffen (n 4)
12. Armstrong, A. Yellow River erosion. Nature Geosci 7, 249 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2135
13.Hertzberg, M., & Schreuder, H. (2016). Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide
in climate change. Energy & Environment, 27(6–7),785–797. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90006767
14.Schreider, J. (1994) Lektsii po Etike. Moscow, Russia:Miros: 136 pp.
15.Schreider, J. (1996) Zagadochnaia pritiagatel “nost” philosophii. Voprosy Philosophii 7: 40-9
16.Schreider, J. (1997). The duty of humanity beforethe environment: a Russian Catholic viewpoint. Environmental Conservation, 24(3), 210–212. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44519368
17. Schreider (n 17)
18. Carroll,A.B. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: taking another look. Int J Corporate Soc Responsibility 1, 3 (2016).https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-016-0004-6
19.Slavoj Zizek, Living in e end times, p. 360.