This is a very contradictory question as it can lead to completely different opinions among people. Some people consider that the fundamentals of an American life are more important whereas others would say that protection of the natural environment is more important. For example, use of pesticides are harmful for the consumers of the vegetables, crops sprayed with these chemicals, however, use of pesticides means wealth for the shareholders of these companies, job for the company workers, income for the farmers. Rachel Carson, had argued in her book that whether the present profits of the industry and the current low prices in the vegetable aisle or the future of the birds more important? In recent years regulations have been adopted in America to curb economic freedom in order to guard the environment. Now everyone is educated and people are becoming more and more knowledgeable about ecology and so have the regulations and thereby objections have also increased against such regulations.
Since America itself was founded on freedom, all this regulations irritates many people.
Many managers face dilemma while determining the ethical standards to apply to environmental issues. The many stakeholders to whom managers must answer tend to view environmental issues quite differently. Multinational corporations often encounter attitudes toward environmental protection in other countries that are quite different from those found in their domestic market. Corporate policy makers must address the national differences in values when determining ethically acceptable behavior.
The government should find ways in which both humans can live harmoniously in nature and can earn profitability as well. In the following analysis the two contradictory factors are whether the environment will improve and the economy will suffer due to the stringent environmental restrictions OR whether there is an environmental crisis and that the "brownlash" opponents of environmentalism are peddling...