Corporate Social Responsibility

Companies in the oil and gas sector have in the recent past increasingly come to be expected to provide assistance in the addressing of the most pressing problems in the world and these problems have included climate change, fighting poverty and the prevalence of HIV. The societies of both the developing and the developed world are some of the biggest stakeholders in the oil and gas industry because in one way or the other, it affects their lives. These are the people who have come to have more expectations from the companies within this industry to assume responsibilities to the public (Ekatah, 249). It is believed that these expectations will continue to increase in the future as the oil and gas companies continue to expand their activities all over the globe.

Companies from the oil and gas industry have come to adopt the theory of corporate social responsibility which is an approach they use when they are addressing the impact which their company activities have on the societies and environment in which they are involved. These companies have done their best to ensure that the communities which are affected by their activities have been well compensated and that their standards of living are even higher than they were before (Idemudia, 91). In the developed countries, in this case the United States, stakeholder meetings are very common especially in oil producing states such as Texas. These stakeholder meetings can be attended by anyone and they often address how the oil industry is affecting people as well as having dialogue and exchanges in matters concerning all stakeholders (Frynas, 163).

The stakeholder management theory states that there are other people who should be consulted when dealing with the affairs of a company other than its shareholders or owners. These people are those whose everyday lives are affected by the activities of the company or are concerned about these activities. These other people or parties include governmental organizations, trade unions, buyers and suppliers of products, the societies involved as well as the employees of the company involved. In the developed countries, the stakeholders in the oil and gas industry have a great say in its activities and this is mainly because of the freedom of speech which is guaranteed to them by their governments. Moreover, the oil and gas industry has to listen to these groups because of the powerful influence which they have in the political arena.

In the developing countries, however, and in this case Africa, there is a tendency by the oil and gas industry not to involve any stakeholders in their major decision making process. These companies are instead only accountable to their shareholders because the other groups are not sufficiently well developed to have any major influence on the oil and gas sector (Okoye, 364). The only major stakeholder in the oil and gas industry in Africa is the government and it rarely opposes any decision made by this industry, however detrimental to its people and the country’s environment, because of the need for investment so that it can have revenue.

A Global Environmental Curriculum

The need to develop a proper global curriculum to ensure that students are from an early age able to learn about sustaining the environment and taking active steps to achieve it has become important in the twenty first century. This is because it allows for the development of environmental consciousness among students from an early stage of their education so that they can be more proactive in their seeking to ensure environmental sustainability. A lot of literature has been written concerning this subject and it has been highly revealing concerning the diverse issues that have come about as a result of the need for the creation of an adequate curriculum which can be used for the purpose of making sure that environmental sustainability is secured.

The concept of child-centered play has not been adequately used for the purpose of making sure that there is an increase in knowledge concerning the environment in children. They suggest that it is essential for environmental education to be put in the early childhood curriculum because it is the best way through which children can learn about the environment from an early age. Furthermore, it is a means of promoting environmental sustainability through the creation of play-based learning experiences which are designed to make sure that children are provided with knowledge through a pedagogical approach. Such an approach would make it possible for children to learn and develop knowledge concerning environmental conservation early enough to ensure that they grow up knowing the different problems affecting their environment and how best to sustain it for future generations. Edwards and Carter-Mackenzie, in line with Ritchie (2013), are extremely incisive concerning the manner through which environmental education should be conducted because it promotes environmental awareness from early on in the lives of individuals. The ideas presented within this article can also be considered to be the best means through which the global environmental education curriculum can be developed in such a way that it becomes possible for children to acquire environmental knowledge in their formative years. It is also a means, through the use of play, that teachers can be able to impart the knowledge that they have concerning the environment on children while at the same time keeping the latter interested in the issues involved. Furthermore, it would lead to the promotion of greater efforts through which children would be more capable of recognizing the different methods of environmental sustainability that can be applied to achieve greater awareness for the environment and the need to protect it. However, despite the numerous advantages that can be brought about through the introduction of environmental conservation in early childhood education, the means through which it can be effectively achieved are not discussed in the article. The effective implementation of this method into the curriculum would entail making sure that the subject is introduced into play in such a way that children become active participants in the process; meaning that they have to be helped through acquiring the knowledge that they need while at play so that their full attention is given to the subject.

Kennely, Taylor, and Serow (2011) state that the national curriculum that is being developed in Australia is one which puts a lot of stock on the need for teachers to ensure that they teach their students about sustainability. This is especially the case where this curriculum claims to support teachers in every way to ensure that they have the necessary experience to effectively teach sustainability to their students. However, the study conducted by these authors suggests that sustainability is not adequately represented in the curriculum to such an extent that there is a serious possibility that it could eventually be omitted from the teacher education and qualification system at all levels. The lack of proper education concerning sustainability in the educational curriculum in Australia, despite the many comments in support of it, can be considered to be extremely dangerous because students lack the necessary knowledge to ensure that they are sufficiently aware of the environment to take active action to protect it. Furthermore, the lack of emphasis concerning the best way through which sustainability can be included in the curriculum can be considered to be a serious discrepancy because it might lead to a situation where teachers are no longer required to provide environmental education; meaning that students in future will lack the necessary guidance concerning how best to conserve their environment.

This study is extremely relevant because it provides a glimpse of the possible problems that are involved in the Australian curriculum especially when it involves sustainability. Without the active role of the education system, environmental sustainability will not be as important a subject as it should be because it will no longer form an essential part of the curriculum. It is noted that within the Australian education system, teachers are increasingly no longer required to have knowledge concerning sustainability in order to qualify to teach and this is a matter of concern because sustainability is one of the most important issues of concern in the world today. The need to promote sustainability in the education of teachers, especially at a primary level should be considered an essential part of making sure that it remains a significant part of the Australian curriculum. Such knowledge among teachers would go a long way in making sure that students are also taught to have a respect for the environment in such a way that helps in their taking an active part in conservation efforts. Moreover, the addition of sustainability subjects in the development of national curriculum proposals would go a long way in making sure that teachers remain consistent in helping students know more about the environment because it will be an essential part of the education system rather than an afterthought as the current situation is. Sustainability should not only be proposed, but should also be enforced in the Australian curriculum because it will allow for a more focused approach when it comes to the cultivation of a more knowledgeable generation of students concerning the environment.

References

Edwards, S. & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2011). Environmentalising Early Childhood Education Curriculum through Pedagogies of Play. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 51 – 61.

Kennelly, J., Taylor, N., & Serow, P. (2011). Education for sustainability and the Australian curriculum. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27(2), 209–218.

Ritchie, J. (2013). Sustainability and relationality within early childhood care and education settings in aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Early Childhood, 45(3), 307-326.

Replacement of Traditional Agriculture with Biotechnology

One of the reasons why biotechnology should not replace traditional agriculture is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. This is mainly because biotechnology is profit driven and does not have the interests of farmers at heart. As a profit driven industry, biotechnology can be considered to be a means through which major agricultural corporations are attempting to increase the dependence of society on industrial products to the almost total exclusion of products from traditional farmers. The intensification of farmers’ dependence on industrial products through the adoption of biotechnology would ensure that they end up having to endure restrictions based on intellectual property rights owned by major biochemical corporations. The enforcement of these rights would mean that farmers would be denied the right to not only reproduces, but also to share and store the seeds that they have purchased. Such conditions would be highly detrimental to farmers and would force them to have to purchase expensive industrial products in order to continue practicing agriculture. It should be noted that without the much needed capital in order to purchase biotechnological products, most traditional farmers would be forced out of business, with the market being almost completely dominated by large corporations that are profit driven. Therefore, if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, it would create a situation where it would be difficult for a significant number of people employed in the latter industry to survive the new market conditions. There would be an increase in the number of unemployed while at the same time ensure that agriculture is no longer a viable business except for large corporations that have the capital to survive the market.

If biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. This is especially because it would bring about the marginalization of small farmers because they would not have the resources they need to ensure that they are able to adopt biotechnology in their businesses. Furthermore, in the third world, it has become the norm for farmers to retain some of their crops so that they can be used as seeds during planting season. The system that has been developed by the latter has ensured that they do not lack the means of producing new crops on an annual basis; hence reducing their dependency on outside forces for their survival. The introduction of biotechnology would greatly hamper these farmers because not only would they be removed from the agricultural sector as a result of unfair competition, but they would also end up being left paupers in the process. Large corporations such as Monsanto, which are extremely ruthless in business, would make use of biotechnological products to remain dominant in the market through making sure that their products are cheaper than those produced through traditional agriculture. Countries in the third world would end up suffering because their exports would become compromised by biotechnology and this would be to such an extent that thousands, if not millions of people, would end up being unemployed. Such a situation would have a negative effect on these countries since it would allow for the continued dependence of the third world on economic aid from developed countries.

The introduction of biotechnology would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. Such a situation has already began taking place where large corporations are making a rush in these countries to ensure that they get the best genes from local crops to use in the development of their own biotechnological products. This situation has led to the loss of massive revenues by third world countries which would have used the billions lost to implement development projects at home. The compromising of the ecological sovereignty of the third world has led to a situation where it has become difficult for local farmers to receive the compensation that they deserve for the development of diverse crop strains over a period of many centuries. Instead, large corporations, using their immense resources, have been able to attain the various genetic strains from these farmers, usually without their knowledge, and make huge profits from them. The lack of reward for farmers in the third world can be considered to be as a result of the development of biotechnology by multinational corporations which are essentially profit-making entities which will do so at any given opportunity. Because biotechnology is almost completely in the hands of the private sector, specifically large corporations, it would be inadvisable to allow it to replace traditional agriculture because such a move would make these corporations richer at the expense of those individuals in the third world who have worked hard for centuries to develop diversity among their crops.

The adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. This is because despite its capacity to help in the development of products that enhance biodiversity, biotechnology at the hands of multinational corporations would most likely not be willing to do so. For the most part, the strategy of large corporations is always to ensure that they create as large a market for single products as possible because such a move would help in lesser expenditure while enhancing their profits. Furthermore, through their owning of patents for their various products, corporations will prevent the development of improved varieties of crops on farms; thus hampering continued biodiversity. The influence that most of these corporations have all over the planet would end up undermining the efforts of individual farmers to practice their trade through creating diverse genetic strains of the same products. Instead, the monopoly of biotechnology would make it extremely difficult for poor farmers to have a say in the manner through which crops are developed. They would be forced to give up their livelihood for the sake of satisfying the desires of large corporations which, using their influence, will most likely end up making sure that patent laws protecting them are put in place in all countries within which they have operations. Thus, the biological complexity that has been the mainstay of traditional farming methods will end up being compromised; hurting both human and animal life in the process of the massive genetic erosion that will likely take place.

It has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture. This argument does not put into consideration the potential hazards that would be involved in the process. Biotechnology is essentially being implemented in a bid to patch-up the problems that were brought about through the use of agrochemical products that were promoted by those corporations that have taken a lead in biotechnology. There should be concern about the possibility of pest-resistant plants being able to transfer their genes to their wild relative; effectively leading to unintended consequences that might be harmful to the environment.

In conclusion, the discussion above attempts to show that biotechnology should not be allowed to replace traditional agriculture because it will result in more harm than good. One of the reasons states is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. Furthermore, it has been argued that if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. Moreover, the introduction of biotechnology as a replacement for traditional agriculture would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. In addition, it has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. Finally, the argument against biotechnology has been countered through the argument that that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture.

The Philosophy of the Environment

Environmentalism is a philosophy which is based on the concept of conserving the natural environment through addressing issues the concern various human activities. Most of the activities which are addressed by environmentalism involve the pollution of the environment through industrial activities. This philosophy works towards the establishment of means through which these issues concerning the conservation of the environment are discussed and viable solutions for the environmental problems caused by human activity can be found. It can further be said that this philosophy deals with the preservation, the development, and the return of the natural environment to the state in which it was previously.

It has been found that while many environmentalist groups profess to fight for the conservation of the environment, many of them tend to defeat their own purpose for doing so. This is due to the fact that they often oppose those projects whose final goal is to ensure that the environment is conserved. An example of this is an experiment that was to be conducted off the islands of Hawaii sponsored by various gas companies and governments. This venture was to establish the rate of carbon monoxide dissolution in water so that steps could be taken to reduce such rates. However, certain environmentalist groups were opposed to this move stating that there was a possibility that the initiative was going to not only change the quality of the seawater, but it would also damage the marine life of the area. It can be seen that while some environmentalist groups claim to fight for the conservation of the natural environment, when initiatives are made to study how the environment can be conserved, it is these very same groups which come to oppose them.

A further example can be provided, this time in Pennsylvania where there was an initiative to construct wind turbines which would not only be able to provide a cheap source of energy, but this form of energy would be clean, ensuring that there was little damage to the environment. Local environmentalist groups again rose in opposition to the idea, citing that the turbines were going to destroy the immaculate forests of the area and endanger the birdlife. It can therefore be said that while many environmentalist groups fight for the conservation of the environment, they have to adapt to the initiatives which are aimed at achieving the same purpose, otherwise, their objectives are likely to be defeated.

Ecological Justice

It has become common for those individuals involved in the protection of human and environmental rights to advocate for the need to preserve the ecological rights to be enjoyed by future generations. This has been done mainly because of the influence of scholars in environmental law whose studies concerning the use of resources in the current age and the need to preserve some of it for future generations have been used in the arguments made by supporters of environmental justice. While this has been the case, physical influences such as changes to the climate that are irreversible, the reduction of vital resources as well the fast growth in the population of many states all over the world, have also come to be considered when dealing with ecological justice. There has developed the realization that if nothing is done by the current generation to conserve the environment, then there is the possibility that future generations will not enjoy the same environment as that which was inherited by preceding generations.

There has to be the realization that despite the failings of previous generations, the current generation is bound to ensure that the planet will be able to provide sustenance for today's children and those of the future. If a claim is made for the future generations, then it will be possible to take away from the current world order, which has certainly been responsible for much of the earth’s environmental damage, the power to continue doing what it is currently doing so that there might be a break from the environmental degradation that has been witnessed for the last two centuries. While it is a fact that not everybody is moved to action because of the ecological plight of others, especially those in future generation, it is still the duty of the current generation to ensure that there is proper consciousness concerning the environment. It is a fact that if the current generation does not meet this obligation to the future ones, then there is the possibility that future generations will look back upon it with resentment because of the failed responsibility. It is in the interest of the current generation to ensure that the sustainability of the planet and as well as the survival of the human race, is highly dependent on the achievement of the ecological justice that has to be attained for future generations. If no account is kept in the current era for the protection of the ecological interests of future generations, there is little assurance that the ecology will be maintained for future generations to enjoy, therefore resulting in crisis.

There are some who have argued that there is no need for attention to be given to future generations because their protection has already been considered in the laws that protect current generations. They would further argue that the creation of laws aimed at protecting the environment are based on the protection of future generations hence there is no need to take an active part in ecological justice. Since most of the rules concerning modernity state that individuals should live in the present and forget about the future, many individuals have come not to take any action to ensure that the environment is protected and maintained. In fact, it can be said that most individuals believe that the best way to live is to live in the present and forget about the future because it will take care of itself. Although it is necessary to protect the rights of the current generation before that of the future, the rights of this generation should not be allowed to overshadow the main priority of environmental protection which is its preservation for the future. It has therefore become necessary to ensure that there is a balance between the ecological interests of the current generations as well as those of the future so that there is no conflict of interest in the long run. If inter-generational justice is to be attained, it will be necessary to convince the current generation to ensure that the ecological aspect of the planet in the current state is protected so that future generations may be able to enjoy an even greater piece of it than the current one. The current generation has to be able to learn that the conservation of the global ecology is essential if there is to be ecological justice for future generations. The rights of future generations have to be preserved in the same way as those of the current ones are protected so that there is no break in the way in which the world functions. This is mainly because of the fact that it is extremely difficult to determine where the ecological rights of the current and future generations begin or end and therefore, it has become essential for them to be treated on an equal basis.

It is a fact that whatever the arguments made for or against ecological justice, nature has its own limitations and these have to be put into consideration whenever this subject is discussed. Therefore, where ethical arguments fail to convince the current generations, then it is a must that pragmatic arguments have to prevail otherwise, all will be lost. If ecological justice is not implemented by the current generations, then it is most likely that the future generations will end up suffering in a disproportionate way from climate change, a fact which will be detrimental for the continued survival of not only the human species, but also of other species as well. The adverse effects of climate change for future generations will possibly take place if there is the continued disregard for the environment, thus resulting in the increase in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is however, the current practice of those institutions tasked with the continued finding of solutions for climate change to account for the interests of the generations that will live in the future than those that live in the present and this is a good indicator that all is not lost in the fight for ecological justice. Because of such considerations, it is possible that future generations will be able to be protected from the worst of climate change through the actions of current policymakers. Thus, there is a high possibility that ecological justice might indeed be achieved if not only the smaller effects of climate change are dealt with but also those that are harsher, therefore saving the world from a catastrophe.

It is suggested that it is because of the disregard for the ecological justice of future generations that there have developed those activities that have contributed an immense deal in the development of such ecological hazards as global warming. Such acts, which include the accumulation of nuclear waste, the loss of biodiversity in certain parts of the world as well as the reduction of the ozone layer, are perhaps the worst episodes in human history because they are ignorant of the need to protect future generation from the effects of global warming as a result of ecological damage. It is a fact that over the past fifty years, the alteration of the natural ecosystems of the world has been accelerated at such a rate that most of these ecological systems are no longer recognizable from only a few decades ago. The degradation of the natural environment has created a situation where it has become difficult for some ecosystems to renew themselves, and this has become detrimental for the achievement of ecological justice. It is estimated that more than half of the ecosystems that have been put under research have shown signs of being either degraded or being used in an unsustainable way, and this is not good news for those who are fighting for ecological justice because it means that they have an uphill task in order to achieve their goals of ecological sustainability. The fact that a significant part of the world’s ecosystems have been degraded has been sighted as a manifestation of the absolute disregard for future generations through the failure to recognize the limits to growth.

Alongside the current ecological crisis, there has also developed the dilemma of distributive justice, where it has been argued that there is the need for the world’s resources to be shared equally between its populations. It has been stated that without access to the resources that nature provides, it would be extremely difficult for the human race to survive and this is because of the fact that it is these resources which are the source of the sustenance of human development. It is a fact that human beings have to have access to the basic needs such as food shelter and clothing to ensure their survival but this is currently not the case because most of the human population lives in abject poverty, earning less than a dollar a day. This finding is truly appalling considering that it shows that the majority of the world’s population has no access to the natural resources which are essential for their development, as well as to sustain the future generations. The irresponsible use of the available natural resources by the rich has created a situation where there is the increase in the degradation of the natural environment, making life harder for the poor who often rely on these resources for their own survival. It has been found that many poor people, who have been pushed into poverty by the prevailing environmental circumstances, end up further degrading the environment to such an extent that it is difficult to achieve ecological justice for future generations. The fact that the poor end up degrading their local environments makes it difficult for there to be any alleviation to their hardships, which deprives them of the potential for developing themselves economically. Such a situation has come to be aptly named the pollution of poverty, since it involves the destruction of the environment by the poor, further worsening their economic situation. 

It can be said that those groups that quest for ecological justice have failed to achieve their objectives because of the internal disagreements between them. These disagreements stem from the fact that the various groups within the movement have differing views of how to approach the various ecological problems that they have to deal with. It can further be stated that these disagreements are based on the mutual suspicion between the rival groups within the movement concerning each other’s methods in dealing with the ecological issue. This has led to the complete failure of the environmentalist movement to stop the increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the environment, and this has in turn led to the increase in global warming. The main reason for this failure is that the members of the environmentalist movement join it not because of being convinced that they are joining it to save the environment, but because it is the current trend in the global scene. Another reason why the quest for ecological justice is failing in its endeavor to clean up the environment is that many environmentalist groups focus more on the technical policy solutions involved in the process than on actually taking the action needed. Many environmentalist organizations have come to separate the environment from environmentalism, creating a situation where more attention is given to the latter than to the former. 

In conclusion, it can be said that there has come to be a realization that the environmental cause cannot succeed without the direct involvement of the governments of countries which are responsible for most of the greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere. Governments have come to see the need to be actively involved in the creation of international agreements for the sole reason of dealing with environmental problems that affect the global environment, in effect helping the achievement of ecological justice. These governments have come to the realization of the need of having rules and regulations that are able to promote cooperation and prevent conflicts so that there can be sustainability in the environment. The achievement of ecological justice should be considered the priority in all matters concerning the environment because this is the only way through which the ecology of the planet can be sustained for the sake of future generations.