David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 15 (7):773 - 784 (1996)
If an organization cares for nature, this paper contends, it will act so as not to harm the ecosystems it affects, or when it cannot so act at the moment it will commit itself to such action over time. For an organization's commitment to ecologically beneficent performance to be credible, one requires an action plan with specified targets determining the best ecologically beneficent pollution abatement and ecosystem improvement approaches in a situation. To this end the 4 Direct Environmental Performance Measures (EPMs) are generally used: L, pollutant loads; C: pollutant concentrations; I, ecosystem impacts; and R, ecosystem restoration. These direct EPMS are preferred to the indirect social performance indices customary in business ethics discourse, such as O: positioning organizations along the social performance spectrum from reactive to proactive; or E: economic indicators; and T: technology development; for environmental performance improvement is what is at issue. This one ground rule of environmental performance ethic; a second is that reducing harmful impacts or restoring an ecosystem are to be preferred over pollutant load/concentration reduction. The scientific, technical form of Direct EPMs is important, for it reinforces economic and technological development and yields performance-related environmental knowledge, in contrast to subjective perception and social debate. It offers management a model of ecologically beneficent performance that is microscopic in detail and regional in scope. It further suggests good environmental management involves linking ecosystem improvement with economic/technological benefits. An important aspect of this model of good environmental performance is to integrate economic, technical and social concerns with environmental ethics. It shows that economics and ecology should be mutually reinforcing, just as sustainable development suggests.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Khaled Elsayed (2006). Reexamining the Expected Effect of Available Resources and Firm Size on Firm Environmental Orientation: An Empirical Study of UK Firms. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 65 (3):297 - 308.
Irene Goll & Abdul A. Rasheed (2004). The Moderating Effect of Environmental Munificence and Dynamism on the Relationship Between Discretionary Social Responsibility and Firm Performance. Journal of Business Ethics 49 (1):41-54.
William Q. Judge (1994). Correlates of Organizational Effectiveness: A Multilevel Analysis of a Multidimensional Outcome. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 13 (1):1 - 10.
Caroline Gauthier (2005). Measuring Corporate Social and Environmental Performance: The Extended Life-Cycle Assessment. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 59 (1-2):199 - 206.
Yongtae Kim & Meir Statman (2012). Do Corporations Invest Enough in Environmental Responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics 105 (1):115-129.
Cedric E. Dawkins & John W. Fraas (2010). Beyond Acclamations and Excuses: Environmental Performance, Voluntary Environmental Disclosure, and the Role of Visibility. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 92 (4):655.
Yu-Shu Peng & Shing-Shiuan Lin (2009). National Culture, Economic Development, Population Growth and Environmental Performance: The Mediating Role of Education. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 90 (2):203 - 219.
A. Salama, K. Anderson & J. S. Toms (2011). Does Community and Environmental Responsibility Affect Firm Risk? Evidence From UK Panel Data 1994–2006. Business Ethics 20 (2):192-204.
Peter A. Stanwick & Sarah D. Stanwick (1998). The Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance, and Organizational Size, Financial Performance, and Environmental Performance: An Empirical Examination. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (2):195-204.
Morgan P. Miles & Jeffrey G. Covin (2000). Environmental Marketing: A Source of Reputational, Competitive, and Financial Advantage. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 23 (3):299 - 311.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?