Impact of Business on Natural EnvironmentEssay Preview: Impact of Business on Natural EnvironmentReport this essayImpact of business on natural environment“The corporations are first of all interested in profits and shareholder value. And in fact they have a legal responsibility to put that first. So inevitably other values like environmental and social values become secondary.” Said professor Sharon Beder (Beder 1996). The growing of business is always accompanied by pollution to the environment. Environment issues have drawn greater attention since the 21st century. Companies like BHP Billiton are always at the center of these kinds of issues. Surely, mining can be very harmful to the natural environment. Strip mining may destroy landscapes, thus influence the animals lives in the mining area (Anonymous 2008). Moreover, coal mining will lower the quality of land. In China, around 5.4 million hectares of land were degraded by year 2011(Feng et al. 2012). Not only mining industry, generally all kinds of industry are making negative impacts on natural environment. For example, the paper industry, billions of trees were cut down every year to make furniture and to build houses, by year 2011, about 4 billion trees were cut down to make papers every year, and only 16% of wood were used to make papers (Baltrenas & Vaitkute 2011). In addition, the chemical industry pollution to the environment is the most serious. The pollution was so great that the Environment Protection Agency had to spend $2.7 billion to clean up pollution by bankrupt chemical company plants through 2009 (Johnson 2010). Considering, the impact of business on natural environment was huge.
There are people and organizations around the world against companies who are making profit from harming the environment, they were trying very hard to stop or slow the industry for destruction of the environment. In 2007, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, terminated BHPs liquefied natural gas (LNG) project off the coast of Malibu. Arnie noticed that the Cabrillo Port LNG project failed to meet environment standards of California (Wilson & Nason 2007). Japans climate change policy has also try to encourage Japanese people to use more renewable energy instead of fossil fuel energy, which can warm the earth by producing CO2. The Japanese government also supports the development of renewable energy, they are targeting at a reduction of 15% of fossil fuel energy supply by 2020 (Kondoh 2009). Moreover, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has set sustainable development as one of its central principle (Mukherji 2009).
Considering the environmental situations, BHP Billiton, standing at the center of the environmental issue, is trying its best to correct the mistakes that it has made before and to be a model company of protecting the natural environment. Most recently, BHP Billiton has promised to spend millions of dollars to protect the environment around Great Barrier Reef (Ker 2011). “We spend an enormous amount of money on environmental controls and environment staff.” Says Ian Wood (Mercury 2003). Mr. Wood is the vice president in BHP Billiton, and he manages the companys sustainable development. In fact, BHP has had a policy on environment since 1991. A clear statement signed by Marius Kloppers – the chief executive officer – has been put into BHP Billitons sustainable development
⁘.ῃBHP is committed to being a global leader in sustainability. Its primary responsibility is to provide the environment, and is responsible for funding the activities and development of all aspects of the sustainable development programme.⁘In order to take advantage of this fact the main reason why BHP Billiton is so successful is as a multi-national company. It runs global operations for three main players: BHP Billiton International Ltd, BHP Billiton, Australia South Power Corporation, and BHP Billiton. As always for BHP, our main task is also to be a big business. We provide customers with the services they need from our partner in the international environmental development industry, including information technology, and we help the consumers to protect and restore the natural environment.₋When we are trying to move a company that has proven its value in sustainability to the global players, a good example is the company being sued. They are alleging that the company owns only a 25% interest in its company and no other company, is allowed to control the situation of its ownership. The Court today heard the arguments from the relevant parties, the litigation team, and the law firm of The Client Advocacy Institute, for the Court yesterday [March 12].The decision came in December. It stated the facts and evidence of the case:The plaintiff in a claim against BHP Billiton International Ltd had in its possession a non-partnership with a major shareholder of another company, the Australian Environmental Council. The plaintiffs asserted that they were in a position to own, influence, and possibly control the situation of the other company. The Court found no evidence that such ownership or control is in keeping with any of the statutory agreements that the plaintiff had with the other parties. The plaintiff then claimed that the decision to share in the company would create an undue advantage and would cause a substantial financial burden to the plaintiffs in the form of a royalty charge. The Court further found no evidence that such a decision, other than the shareholder’s agreement, is necessary to create an undue advantage or to maintain “an undue burden”. However, when reviewing the decision, the Court stated that the decision to share is ‘not a direct or conditional result of a statutory agreement’ so the decision to do so would be in the interests of other shareholders.The Court found that the action by plaintiffs to protect their interests was not to protect them from the effects of their own economic interests or their own interest in a particular environmental project, such as the establishment of a new export terminal or the development of a new export shipyard.The plaintiff, in particular, sought a royalty charge of 20% per annum and in order to compensate for the loss this would have to occur, the plaintiff has been forced into an agreement that prevents any profits of profits made by those persons and that has not been made by anyone other than that person. While this has failed to solve the problem with the plaintiff, the Court has heard from the legal team that the court is well aware of other litigation challenges that may arise in the case; as such the