The following appeared in an editorial from a magazine produced by an organization dedicated to environmental protection: “In order to effectively reduce the amount of environmental damage that industrial manufacturing plants cause, those who manage the plants must be aware of the specific amount and types of damage caused by each of their various manufacturing processes. However, few corporations have enough financial incentive to monitor this information. In order to guarantee that corporations reduce the damage caused by their plants, the federal government should require every corporation to produce detailed annual reports on the environmental impact of their manufacturing process, and the government should impose stiff financial penalties for failure to produce these reports.”

The following appeared in an editorial from a magazine produced by an organization dedicated to environmental protection:

“In order to effectively reduce the amount of environmental damage that industrial manufacturing plants cause, those who manage the plants must be aware of the specific amount and types of damage caused by each of their various manufacturing processes. However, few corporations have enough financial incentive to monitor this information. In order to guarantee that corporations reduce the damage caused by their plants, the federal government should require every corporation to produce detailed annual reports on the environmental impact of their manufacturing process, and the government should impose stiff financial penalties for failure to produce these reports.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

This editorial is misguided in its basic premise that corporations are motivated primarily by profit and tend to ignore the environmental impact of their manufacturing processes. If that were the case, then there would be no incentive for corporations to monitor their pollution. Corporations are extremely concerned with their public image and their profitability. They desire to maintain a good reputation among the general public and to maintain high stock prices. Any environmental catastrophe at any of their plants therefore, would tarnish their reputation and damage their stock price. As an added incentive, many corporations have Corporate Social Responsibility programs and are signatories to several environmental treaties. They often receive funding from these international entities and from these initiatives. Organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Resources Institute provide companies with the assistance they need to reduce their carbon footprints. These companies must therefore be motivated to do so by more than just the prospect of losing funding

Another reason a corporation would go to great lengths to monitor its environmental impact is that its stockholders have a vested interest in the success of the company. Shareholders want their stocks to appreciate, and mitigating environmental damage helps to ensure that the stock price will not decrease. The environmental movement also has a strong lobby, and rising public concern over environmental issues can sour a company’s reputation. The movement’s impact on public opinion has been significant, and many companies have been forced to reformulate their products in order to cut back on their production. For example, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused great damage to the environment and the reputation of BP. Although the spill was the result of a human error, BP had to take the blame for it, thus causing the share price to drop. The dropping stock price forced BP to use the resulting revenue to overhaul its offshore operations, and BP’s stock price started to rise again

Another reason why corporations monitor their environmental impact is to ensure that their plants remain competitive. They must stay in business and continue to produce profits in order to remain competitive. If their plants are out of compliance with the environmental regulations, their revenues will suffer, and their market share will decline. This trend has been observed with a number of corporations, such as Fiat, which faced a backlash from consumers because of its poor environmental record. Fiat eventually had to scrap its strategy of producing inexpensive cars for developing countries, in order to return to profitability. Furthermore, a number of companies have placed greater emphasis on environmental protection in recent years in order to boost their profitability. For example, in response to mounting public concern over the emissions produced by vehicle engines, General Motors invested $1 billion in research and development for cleaner, more fuel-efficient engines. General Motors also invested an additional $1 billion in renewable energy projects in an effort to offset the emissions from its new engines

The argument that corporations are motivated mostly by profit and ignore environmental consequences is flawed. The fact is that corporations have a vested interest in protecting the environment. Any reduction in their pollution levels will result in increases in their revenues, their stock prices, and their market shares, and these improvements help to keep their companies competitive. The movement for environmental protection is also strong enough to force corporations to clean up their act and to force them to change their overall business strategies.