Climate change represents an existential threat to people and the Planet. As the climatic destruction threatens to become catastrophic with the increase of floods, wildfires, and drought, the ethical responsibility and necessity of making endless decisions are becoming clear(Hiller, pp. 349–68 ). The crisis around the corner of the corporations greedily haunting the profits no matter the cost to the environment at any time is at the center of this crisis. Such organizations need to be called to order and forced to undertake severe initiatives that may work towards improving the ruinous effect of climate change. The primary ethical consideration here is that corporations, which are so powerful and wealthy, influence a lot of people in the world, and, as a result, they bear the social responsibility that transcends the goal of just enhancing the shareholders’ assets. They authorize, individually or as communities, the development of industrial activities that will, in turn, affect every life on the Planet, ending in the ecosystem through their world actions. A person with this type of role should not just be very knowledgeable or responsible but also accept the accountability that comes with this role.
The fossil fuel industry deserves to be put on the spot for being the dirtiest sector of all, which has aggressively kept its use whichever may cause and destabilize the Earth’s climate system through the uncontrolled burning of coal, oil, and natural gas. These companies that extract and sell fossil fuel sands financially support climate phenomenon denial campaigns have neglected the interests of the present and future generations, as their deafening short-term profits can be considered more critical. Those who have made this world a moral abomination, where the balance is entirely tipped in favor of personal greed and apathetic thinking, deserve both extermination and remuneration for the death and destruction they have brought about. However, these companies do not stand single-handedly in the line of fire as several other actors join them. According to Li et al., uncounted environmental and social costs embedded in international markets have been the consequences for many industries and corporations. They include the fields of agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and fashion. The modern fast fashion phenomenon represents the essence of it, where the fashion industry relentlessly chases after cheap thrill throwaway trends, with almost its entire manufacturing process being based on appalling labor and environmental abuses (mainly outsourced to the developing world). Fast fashion companies manufacture clothing at the lowest price and lowest quality using textile-generating materials that are resource-invasive and polluting. Seemingly small volumes of that textile waste clutter up landfills and discharge microplastics into the environment. These countries become trapped in a cycle where the meager jobs they offer lead to widening gaps between the rich and poor, resulting in an unjust and exploitative environment for their workers, which, in turn, becomes the inevitable aftermath and end product of the ascent to the top of the corporate ladder by famous brands.
The ecological disasters induced by corporate insatiability and narrow-visionedness are non-sensible when confronted by the communal climate doomsday and the environmental backlash (Ostrom et al.,pp. 278–82 ). Companies do not simply seek to maximize profits with shareholders as their only obligation, and people who claim they do confuse ethics with standard regulations. Each business has to operate within the framework of institutions, imposing rules that favor community prosperity as the ultimate goal. Consequently, when companies undermine the welfare of nature systematically through practices that lead to the devastation of the very ecosystems on which the survival of humankind depends, they go against the same social contract that allows them to exist in the first place: the recalibration of corporate objectives and the function groups of corporations, which had hitherto only been considering environmental costs, now is needed. By using robust third-party auditors, companies shall initially comprehend the crux of their carbon emissions and environmental impacts across their operations and supply chains. First, they should submit detailed roadmaps to shift to low-emission and sustainable business models with binding emission reduction targets against which they should be checked annually. Otherwise, they will face penalties if uncompiled or go out of business.
Partnering with these companies could be another way of hastening the transition to a greener and cleaner economy. We must also assist corporations whose main activities revolve around activities fundamentally incompatible with a green economy and emission reduction targets, such as fossil fuel companies, to be phased out within the next decade. Such organizations must be accused of crimes against humans because they have pursued the conscious perpetuation of environmental crimes for humanity. Next, the government must act quickly to bring their regulatory environment in line with the reality on the ground by placing a correct price on environmental damage or pollution and also levying aggressive pollution taxes that will remain a permanent feature of the environment. In addition, the most destructive unsustainable activities like single-use plastics and industrial pollution of waterways must be banned. Corporations shall expect to face the consequences of civil lawsuits and securities fraud actions due to any activities and practices of deceptively promoting environmental responsibility, referred to as “greenwashing.” The strict introduction of new stringent regulations and certifications for the products that are honestly labeled “biodegradable” or “eco-friendly” using the enforcement of environmental regulators will be put into effect.
Undeniably, the shareholder-obsessed corporate governance framework, which focuses exclusively on profits at the expense of other considerations, may change dramatically. The law regulating businesses should no longer be silent on the issues of sustainability and the environment, as shareholders’ financial profitability will not be the only obligation. Thus, a new legal basis for sustainable and environmental commitment should be introduced as a compulsory law. Corporate incentives and executive remuneration must be restructured—the sustainability responsibility should be clearly defined in terms of tangible sustainability indicators and reduction in emissions targets as their first and foremost goals, only through building environmental and social responsibilities into the basic notion of corporate governance on the same level as fiduciary duties as could be the only answer to resolving the clash of goals among the parties to the system that have allowed for the endless pursuit of profits at the price of environmental destruction. Critics may express their concerns about this type of activity and say that such aggressive measures will slow down economic growth and people’s living standards despite the excellent technology disruption that is taking place and the immense amount of trillions being lost. Although the resistance to tremendous changes is quite natural, the eventual health of humanity cannot be compromised to make way for such small comforts. The insightful comparison of the two challenges indicates the natural contrast in the effect of the two situations (Hiller, pp. 349–68 ). While economic disruptions caused by the energy transition are barely registrable, the varying levels of catastrophic climate change will cause a collapse of agriculture and food systems, massive human migration from inhabitable climate hotbeds, and an increased risk of flooding, disease or conflict that may threaten civilization.
However, scientists are definitive that if every sector of the economy, including private and public reports, could do as well as it was done in the Second World War, the task ahead may be achievable. They know how to pull emotional strings and use every tool for their benefit. And they would not stand imposingly against this war. Taken together, many companies lobbying prowess, investments, and technological advances are the keys to the future of the climate that, in some regions, may even be more critical than that of the ruling governments. The carbon-burning machines they have engineered must be turned into a solution to which we add that we have not created a duplicate universe out there but an extension of ourselves. In the past, capitalism, as a form of economy, has showcased its great talent to allocate resources and reshape societies and even civilizations in a significant manner. The threat of climate change is not comparable to anything with the risk potential as described before, which is a change in the very foundational principles of what constitutes an economic system and what opportunities and threats it faces and in must any further evolution(Ostrom et al., pp. 278–82 ). Organizations that do not seem unbiased about their purpose will face ethical criticism to remain in the business and survive on a planet made inhabitable by such companies. The choice for companies is clear: To make up for those drawbacks, support humanity’s climate-wise transition climate-wise transition, strive to decrease the polluting elements from the environment, and stay in the front-runners when discussing these problems.
Works Cited
Hiller, Avram. “Climate Change and Individual Responsibility.” The Monist, vol. 94, no. 3, 2011, pp. 349–68, www.jstor.org/stable/23039149.
Li, Shouhao, et al. “Corporate Social Responsibility Development and Climate Change: Regional Evidence of China.” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 21, Oct. 2021, p. 11859, https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111859.
Ostrom, Elinor, et al. “Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges.” Science, vol. 284, no. 5412, Apr. 1999, pp. 278–82, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278.
write