Question

Corporations often “vote with their feet” in terms of doing business where expenses are lowest and revenues are highest. Buying low and selling high is a basic economic formula for success that has motivated international trade in many ways over the centuries. This is popularly discussed when governments consider tax policies and are also applicable when they also consider the less obvious factor of environmental protection laws. If Mexico has no ban on DDT (a pesticide used in agriculture) and the USA has banned the use (but not the manufacturer) of DDT, should a corporation buy land in Mexico, import DDT from the USA, grow larger crops, and export them to the USA?

What ethical duties does the corporation have to the workers in Mexico, the neighbouring landowners, and the USA consumers about the potential dangers of using DDT?

Is there an ethical duty of DDT manufactures related to their export of DDT to countries that do not ban its use as the USA does?

Answer 1

Answer :-

• DDT pesticides have been banned in USA but it still continues to export these pesticides to poor and developing countries.
• Many studies carried out in Africa and other developing countries, have found that these pesticides have adversely affected people and lactating mothers. Environmentally, these pesticides are highly dangerous and cause huge damage to young and children.
• It is ethical responsibility of DDT to stop production of such pesticides that are banned in USA. DDT must introspect and understand its accountabilities and responsibilities towards all its stakeholders. Further, supplying hazardous pesticides would tarnish its image in long run.
• Instead, DDT must invest in other research and development that could create environmentally friendly pesticides.