tomato can Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) I'm looking for a few different view points about the social responsibilty of businesses. There is a big debate about petcoke going on. The Whiting,Indiana refinery is proccessing the tar sands oil from Canada. The bi-product is Petcoke. I'm debating with another local resident about this. He is an enviornmentalist and a NIMBY. The communities in Northwest Indiana and Chicago are all around this industrial area. His arguement is profits before responsibilty. I countered with "The social responsibility of business is to increase profits and society would surely lose social benefits that would not exist without the pursuit of profit. His response to that was " No, the social responsibility of business is NOT to increase profits-- That is the very business of conducting business. Yes, society benefits as businesses profit and provide employment...but at what costs? Social Responsibility arises in corporations that can profit without exposing the local residents to contaminants . Considering the average income throughout the neighboring communities, t would appear that there is the impression that it is allowable for KCBX (owned by the Koch Brothers) to expose low-income residents to chronic respiratory illlnesss, (which are likely to require medical attention), driving up health care costs and --considering the income-- placing an increased burden on the taxpayer. All because they wouldn't provide proper containment. So am I missing something here? Is there some social responsibility of a company to a community? This has been an industrial area for 100 plus years. Most of these communities could not even exist if not for all the industry. I keep telling these environmental wacko's they are chasing all of the jobs away. They claim the comminity is being poisined. Edited December 22, 2013 by tomato can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 No, they are just there for profit. The government is there for social responsibility to make sure no more Love Canals happen and to sue the companies if in the pursuit of profit they do too much damage to the environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Cost benefit analysis is the correct answer. Until you quantify the harm it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 No, they are just there for profit. The government is there for social responsibility to make sure no more Love Canals happen and to sue the companies if in the pursuit of profit they do too much damage to the environment I love the revisionist history here (or at least the total and complete lack of understanding of what actually happened). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 I love the revisionist history here (or at least the total and complete lack of understanding of what actually happened). Are you confused? I heard the story of Sydney Leathers (who Anthony Wiener sexted) was planning on going into the porn business but first had a labia trim. I heard that a rude person compared that to having her mud flaps trimmed on her love tunnel. Are these two things connected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 I love the revisionist history here (or at least the total and complete lack of understanding of what actually happened). Oh, Love Canal wasn't an environmental problem? WTF are you taking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) I'm looking for a few different view points about the social responsibilty of businesses. There is a big debate about petcoke going on. The Whiting,Indiana refinery is proccessing the tar sands oil from Canada. The bi-product is Petcoke. I'm debating with another local resident about this. He is an enviornmentalist and a NIMBY. The communities in Northwest Indiana and Chicago are all around this industrial area. His arguement is profits before responsibilty. I countered with "The social responsibility of business is to increase profits and society would surely lose social benefits that would not exist without the pursuit of profit. His response to that was " No, the social responsibility of business is NOT to increase profits-- That is the very business of conducting business. Yes, society benefits as businesses profit and provide employment...but at what costs? Social Responsibility arises in corporations that can profit without exposing the local residents to contaminants . Considering the average income throughout the neighboring communities, t would appear that there is the impression that it is allowable for KCBX (owned by the Koch Brothers) to expose low-income residents to chronic respiratory illlnesss, (which are likely to require medical attention), driving up health care costs and --considering the income-- placing an increased burden on the taxpayer. All because they wouldn't provide proper containment. So am I missing something here? Is there some social responsibility of a company to a community? This has been an industrial area for 100 plus years. Most of these communities could not even exist if not for all the industry. I keep telling these environmental wacko's they are chasing all of the jobs away. They claim the comminity is being poisined. People are funny about environmental risks. For example, we have a newly developed housing neighborhood called Stapleton, after the old Stapleton airport. It has become kind of a posh, uppermiddle class nesting place for white liberals. There is very high demand for homes, they resell immediately, the schools are supposed to be very good, everybody has two white children and a chocolate lab... you get the picture. So my wife looked at houses there when they were first building- she got an Environemtnal Reports that was 4 inches thick and alot of warnings in it.. she decided to not buy there because of what she read... other people, some freinds have bought there and consider themselves very strong pro-enviornmental regulation and protection... quite the irony. I do believe most businesses have the core belief that they should refrain from delveratly and knowingly posison their customers... there are a minority that know risks and hide them delberartly (Everybody here loves the NFL, they withheld very important consussion research.. nobody wants them gone) Oh, Love Canal wasn't an environmental problem? WTF are you taking about? I imagine he means the historical context of how that came to be, who let Oxy bury there... I don't actually know the story... Edited December 23, 2013 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Oh, Love Canal wasn't an environmental problem? WTF are you taking about? Yes, by pointing out that you mischaracterized what happened I'm clearly stating that it was not an environmental problem, even though I said no such thing. I imagine he means the historical context of how that came to be, who let Oxy bury there... I don't actually know the story... Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) People are funny about environmental risks. For example, we have a newly developed housing neighborhood called Stapleton, after the old Stapleton airport. It has become kind of a posh, uppermiddle class nesting place for white liberals. There is very high demand for homes, they resell immediately, the schools are supposed to be very good, everybody has two white children and a chocolate lab... you get the picture. So my wife looked at houses there when they were first building- she got an Environemtnal Reports that was 4 inches thick and alot of warnings in it.. she decided to not buy there because of what she read... other people, some freinds have bought there and consider themselves very strong pro-enviornmental regulation and protection... quite the irony. I do believe most businesses have the core belief that they should refrain from delveratly and knowingly posison their customers... there are a minority that know risks and hide them delberartly (Everybody here loves the NFL, they withheld very important consussion research.. nobody wants them gone) I imagine he means the historical context of how that came to be, who let Oxy bury there... I don't actually know the story... So true on both replies! People are funny about the enviro risks. It such an individual nature/problem. One idiot can literally be the 2x4 in the spokes. YET, it goes the other way too when the group blindly follows whatever is put out there.. If we can find a happy compromise between the two (enviro v. economy), we will have most of our problems licked! I know exactly what/where the OP is talking about. Wonderful things have happened to that area environmentally, yet, the enviros keep pushing. 30 years ago the river wouldn't freeze and nothing would live in it except sludge worms. It now freezes 2 feet thick in spots! It has been since been taken off the endangered rivers list... Go figure, the Grand River (in Ohio) has been put on the list! 40+ different species now live in it! Eagles are roosting once again where SuperFund sites were. Yet, the enviros still complain, even in harmony w/the economy... You see what they are doing w/the Asian carp. Aren't the carp and other invasives the other side of the coin when it comes to cleaning up the air, land, & water? Whatever Chicago is doing, it is doing it right. Laugh all you want, it may because it is one of the last stands between enviro & economy. What I mean is, commercial activity has to take place somewhere! We we arrogant 60 years ago on the economic side of the coin as we are as arrogant now on the enviro side. Balance has to be achieved, will we be wise enough to see it when it happens? Zero-sum games, highly competitive cultures do not end well for both the earth and its inhabitants! Edited December 23, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 I imagine he means the historical context of how that came to be, who let Oxy bury there... I don't actually know the story... The short version is: Hooker Chemical followed all possible contemporary precautions and regulations, then explicitly warned the city (with a disclaimer in the deed) when they forced the sale of the land for development. 25 years later, after building a subdivision on a disclosed toxic landfill, Niagara Falls turned around and blamed Oxy (who purchased Hooker) for improperly disposing of chemicals in a residential neighborhood. It's actually an interesting test case for the idea of "corporate responsibility." Hooker originally refused to sell the land to Niagara Falls specifically because it was a toxic waste site. Then when it was clear the city was going to take the land one way or another, Hooker took $1 for it, and filed a quit-claim deed with specific warnings to not build on the site. Did Hooker have any responsibility after the sale for anything that happened on that site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 (edited) The short version is: Hooker Chemical followed all possible contemporary precautions and regulations, then explicitly warned the city (with a disclaimer in the deed) when they forced the sale of the land for development. 25 years later, after building a subdivision on a disclosed toxic landfill, Niagara Falls turned around and blamed Oxy (who purchased Hooker) for improperly disposing of chemicals in a residential neighborhood. It's actually an interesting test case for the idea of "corporate responsibility." Hooker originally refused to sell the land to Niagara Falls specifically because it was a toxic waste site. Then when it was clear the city was going to take the land one way or another, Hooker took $1 for it, and filed a quit-claim deed with specific warnings to not build on the site. Did Hooker have any responsibility after the sale for anything that happened on that site? Nice explanation. If it really played out like you said. I would say: "No" to your question. YET... Was Hooker screaming from the mountain tops not to build on the land. Heck no. Were they obligated to "scream from the moutain tops?" Heck no, if they weren't being vindictive. I suppose, being vindictive played into their side of the argument. Do the right thing. Anyway... Somebody has to be commended for the subtle brilliance in designing this: http://www.amazon.com/Lionel-Hooker-Tank-Accident-6-37977/dp/B004UU0AF6 Again, a subtle gr8 addition to anyone's train collection! :-O Edited December 23, 2013 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted December 23, 2013 Author Share Posted December 23, 2013 Cost benefit analysis is the correct answer. Until you quantify the harm it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion on the matter. Thanks Rob. That is the answer I was some what looking for. Thanks everyone else for chiming in. I never heard of the Hooker Chemical story(well before my time ). I looked it up and read a few different articles and reports about it. Seems like the blame could be passed around. One fact that stuck with me was 4 years after the sale a lawyer for Hooker Chem showed up at a board of education meeting and continued to impore them to abandon the plans for development. Seems to me that Hooker Chem continued to go the extra mile and raise the red flag even though they had no interests left in the land.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted December 24, 2013 Author Share Posted December 24, 2013 Nice explanation. If it really played out like you said. I would say: "No" to your question. YET... Was Hooker screaming from the mountain tops not to build on the land. Heck no. Were they obligated to "scream from the moutain tops?" Heck no, if they weren't being vindictive. I suppose, being vindictive played into their side of the argument. Do the right thing. Anyway... Somebody has to be commended for the subtle brilliance in designing this: http://www.amazon.co...7/dp/B004UU0AF6 Again, a subtle gr8 addition to anyone's train collection! :-O Some other interesting notes from a report I read..... It was a dump site by the local government, and then appropriated by the federal government as a dump site for the army. In other words, by the time Hooker Chemical Company began using it as a dump site in 1942, Love Canal had a long history of being used as a waste dump. Hooker Chem also took what it thought were reasonable measures to bury and seal its waste. Hooker Chem even took precautions before dumping in it. They drained the canal and lined it with thick clay and then after filling the cavity with stacked barrels they covered it up. They took care to bury the most potentially dangerous chemicals at twenty-two feet and bought the 70-foot-wide banks on either side of the canal. Hooker Chem could hardly be cited as a heedless corporate villain playing fast and loose with the public welfare, it was not even a residential area at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Nice explanation. If it really played out like you said. I would say: "No" to your question. YET... Was Hooker screaming from the mountain tops not to build on the land. Heck no. Were they obligated to "scream from the moutain tops?" Heck no, if they weren't being vindictive. I suppose, being vindictive played into their side of the argument. Do the right thing. Anyway... Somebody has to be commended for the subtle brilliance in designing this: http://www.amazon.co...7/dp/B004UU0AF6 Again, a subtle gr8 addition to anyone's train collection! :-O They wrote the warning into the deed. That is "shouting from the rooftops." http://reason.com/archives/1981/02/01/love-canal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Nice explanation. If it really played out like you said. I would say: "No" to your question. YET... Was Hooker screaming from the mountain tops not to build on the land. Heck no. Were they obligated to "scream from the moutain tops?" Heck no, if they weren't being vindictive. I suppose, being vindictive played into their side of the argument. Do the right thing. Anyway... Somebody has to be commended for the subtle brilliance in designing this: http://www.amazon.co...7/dp/B004UU0AF6 Again, a subtle gr8 addition to anyone's train collection! :-O Then you would say 'no' as that's the way it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Effective mass media was non-existant in 1953! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Effective mass media was non-existant in 1953 2013! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) People are funny about environmental risks. For example, we have a newly developed housing neighborhood called Stapleton, after the old Stapleton airport. It has become kind of a posh, uppermiddle class nesting place for white liberals. There is very high demand for homes, they resell immediately, the schools are supposed to be very good, everybody has two white children and a chocolate lab... you get the picture. So my wife looked at houses there when they were first building- she got an Environemtnal Reports that was 4 inches thick and alot of warnings in it.. she decided to not buy there because of what she read... other people, some freinds have bought there and consider themselves very strong pro-enviornmental regulation and protection... quite the irony. I do believe most businesses have the core belief that they should refrain from delveratly and knowingly posison their customers... there are a minority that know risks and hide them delberartly (Everybody here loves the NFL, they withheld very important consussion research.. nobody wants them gone) I imagine he means the historical context of how that came to be, who let Oxy bury there... I don't actually know the story... People are funny about environmental risks. For example, we have a newly developed housing neighborhood called Stapleton, after the old Stapleton airport. It has become kind of a posh, uppermiddle class nesting place for white liberals. There is very high demand for homes, they resell immediately, the schools are supposed to be very good, everybody has two white children and a chocolate lab... you get the picture. So my wife looked at houses there when they were first building- she got an Environemtnal Reports that was 4 inches thick and alot of warnings in it.. she decided to not buy there because of what she read... other people, some freinds have bought there and consider themselves very strong pro-enviornmental regulation and protection... quite the irony. I do believe most businesses have the core belief that they should refrain from delveratly and knowingly posison their customers... there are a minority that know risks and hide them delberartly (Everybody here loves the NFL, they withheld very important consussion research.. nobody wants them gone) I imagine he means the historical context of how that came to be, who let Oxy bury there... I don't actually know the story... Hey! I'm just a lurker here! Leave me out of it! Edited December 24, 2013 by Oxrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 They wrote the warning into the deed. That is "shouting from the rooftops." http://reason.com/ar...2/01/love-canal EII never fails to come up with gibberish. Honest to God I wonder how the man can brush his teeth without poking a eye out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 24, 2013 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Effective mass media was non-existant in 1953! Oh, bull ****. After the stock market crash in 1929, Roosevelt went on TV and calmed the country down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts