Question 1· The triple bottom line approach involves measuring .docx

Question 1
· The triple bottom line approach involves measuring
business success of sustainable businesses and sustainable
economic development in terms of:
·
·
· economic, legal, and environmental sustainability.
·
·
· economic, ethical, and environmental sustainability.
·
·
· economic, legal, and competitive sustainability.
·
·
· legal, competitive, and environmental sustainability.
·
Question 2
· The three goals of sustainable development that include
economic, environmental, and ethical sustainability are referred
to as the:
·
·
· tripartite goals.
·
·
· three pillars of sustainability.
·
·
· three pronged charter.
·
·
· shoulders of sustainability.
·

Question 3
· Which of the following responsibilities entails an incentive
to redesign products so that they can be recycled efficiently and
easily?
·
·
· Cradle-to-grave
·
·
· Backcasting
·
·
· Cradle-to-cradle
·
·
· Eco-efficiency
·
Question 4
· Knowing what the future must be, creative businesses then
look backwards and determine what must be done to arrive at
that future. This process is known as:
·
·
· backward integration.
·
·
· forecasting.
·
·
· forward integration.
·
·
· backcasting.
·
Question 5
· "Closed-loop" production seeks to integrate what is

presently waste back into production. In an ideal situation, the
waste of one firm becomes the resource of another, and such
synergies can create eco-industrial parks. This principle is often
referred to as:
·
·
· biomimicry.
·
·
· eco-efficiency.
·
·
· biosynergy.
·
·
· backcast.
·
Question 6
Explain the concept of eco-efficiency, biomimicry,
and cradle-to-cradle responsibility. Your response should
be at least 200 words in length.
Question 7
· Philosophers distinguish between three different
types of responsibilities, on a scale from more to less
demanding or binding. Explain these responsibilities. Your
response should be at least 200 words in
length. assessment/attempt/take/essay.js
· IE
BBA 4751, Business Ethics 1

UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Business and the Environment
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
1. Explain how environmental challenges can create business
opportunities.
2. Describe a range of values that play a role in environmental
decision
making.
3. Explain the difference between market-based and regulatory-
based
environmental policies.
4. Describe business’ environmental responsibilities that flow
from each
approach.
5. Identify the inadequacies of sole reliance on a market-based
approach.
6. Identify the inadequacies of regulatory-based environmental
policies.
7. Define and describe sustainable development and sustainable
business.
8. Highlight the business opportunities associated with a move
towards
sustainability and describe the sustainable principles of eco-
efficiency,

biomimicry, and service.
9. Explain why ethics is important in the business environment.
Unit Lesson
If it is true that the way business has been conducted over the
last two
centuries has brought us against the biophysical limits of the
earth’s capacity
to support all human life, then we have an ethical obligation to
explore
alternatives. “The major ethical question of this chapter is what
responsibilities
contemporary businesses have regarding the natural
environment” (Hartman,
DesJardins, & MacDonald, 2014, p. 478).
“There is a tendency to believe that environmental challenges
always create a
burden on business and that environmental and business
interests are always
in conflict” (Hartman et al., 2014, p. 477). However, there is a
nascent school
of thought that we have entered a sustainability revolution (i.e.,
an age where
creating environmentally and economically sustainable products
and services
is creating unlimited business opportunities).
The concept of “sustainable business and sustainable economic
development
seek to create new ways of doing business in which business
success is

measured in terms of economic, ethical, and environmental
sustainability,
sometimes called the triple bottom line approach” (Hartman et
al., 2014,
p. 478).
In order to help plan for environmental sustainability, some
firms engage in a
technique called backcasting. The idea is to predict the future
after emerging
from a sustainability revolution and then looking backward in
time to
implement that vision. It is, in essence, the acknowledgement
that a
sustainable business must use resources and produce wastes at
rates that do
not jeopardize long-term human wellbeing by exceeding the
earth’s capacity
to renew the resources and absorb the wastes.
Reading
Assignment
Chapter 9:
Business and
Environmental
Sustainability, pp. 475-497
Suggested Reading
See information below.

However, the concerns about environmental sustainability are
not limited to
the human realm. Another set of values to be considered
involves the moral
status of animals and other living beings. If it is true that many
animals are
conscious entities who feel pain and possess many aspects of
self-
determination, then a cogent argument can be made for moral
standing and
ethical treatment for these creatures. One challenge for this
position is that
such standing has significant economic and viability
implications for many
businesses.
There are three prescribed approaches to evaluating
environmental
sustainability, resource allocation, and the obligations they
place on
businesses. The first is the market approach, which at its core,
maintains
that economic forces of supply and demand are sufficient to
regulate the
consumption and distribution of natural resources.
Unfortunately, as with the
economic model of corporate social responsibility in Unit VII,
there are many
examples of market failures in the recent past that cast doubt on

that
approach’s ability to ensure sustainable business practices.
Some industry specific policies have been proposed to augment
the market
approach, and those related to the auto industry include such
elements as
restricting SUV sales, increasing taxes on gasoline, and treating
SUVs as
cars instead of light trucks in calculating Corporate Automotive
Fuel
Efficiency (CAFÉ) standards.
The bottom line in this context is that markets are incomplete in
their
approach to the overall social good. In other words, what is
good and
rational for a collection of individuals is rarely what is good
and rational for a
society as a whole.
The second approach to environmental sustainability, resource
allocation,
and the associated is the regulatory approach.
A broad consensus emerged in the United States in the 1970s
that
considered unregulated markets an inadequate approach to
environmental
challenges. “Much of the most significant environmental
legislation in the
United States was enacted during the 1970’s. The Clean Air Act
of 1970,
Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972 (amended and renewed as
the Clean
Water Act of 1977), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973”

(Hartman et
al., 2014, p. 486).
“Before this legislation was enacted, the primary legal avenue
open for
addressing environmental concerns was tort law. Only
individuals who could
prove that they had been harmed by pollution could raise legal
challenges to
air and water pollution” (Hartman et al., 2014, p. 486). The
laws enacted
during the 1970s shifted the burden from those threatened with
harm to
those who would cause the harm.
However, several problems suggest that the regulatory approach
will prove
inadequate over the long term. “First, it underestimates the
influence that
business can have in establishing the law. Second, this approach
also
underestimates the ability of business to influence consumer
choice. Further,
if we rely on the law to protect the environment, environmental
protection will
extend only as far as the law extends” (Hartman et al., 2014, pp.
487 & 488).
Recall the limits of the law in Unit I.
The third approach to environmental sustainability and resource
allocation is
the sustainability approach. This conception combines financial
opportunities
with environmental and ethical responsibilities. The three goals
of this

initiative (economic, environmental, and ethical sustainability)
are often
referred to as the three pillars of sustainability. Assessing
business activity
along these three lines is often referred to as the triple bottom
line.
Sustainability is a prudent long-term strategy because
1. Firms that do no adapt to the decreasing availability of
resources and
increasing demand risk their own survival.
2. The huge unmet market potential among the world’s
developing
economies can only be met in sustainable ways.
3. Significant cost savings can be achieved through sustainable
practices
including savings on energy use and waste disposal.
4. Businesses that are ahead of the sustainability curve will both
have an
advantage serving environmentally conscious consumers and
enjoy a
competitive advantage attracting workers who will take pride
and
satisfaction in working for progressive firms.

All of the benefits arise from a mindset of eco-efficiency (i.e.,
the efficiency in
using natural resources).
One final concept in the sustainability discussion is the
elimination of waste
rather than the reduction of those byproducts. That concept is
referred to as
biomimicry because it mimics natural processes, such as the
decay of
leaves into nutrients for the soil that plants absorb for food and
whose
existence both cleans the air of CO2 and/or provides a transfer
of energy to
animals that ingest the plants.
It is possible that duplicating this natural cycle for man-made
products could
be the ultimate goal and long-term solution for environmental
sustainability.
Reference
Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2014).
Business ethics:
Decision making for personal integrity & social responsibility
(3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Suggested Reading

Click here to access the PDF of the Chapter 9 Presentation.
Black, J. (2003, Summer). Extending the rights of personhood,
voice, and life to
sensate others: a homology of right to life and animal rights
rhetoric.
Communication Quarterly, 51(3), 312-331.
Garde, A. (2009). Sustainable by design? Insights from U.S.
LEED-ND pilot
projects. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(4),
424-440.
Schofer, E., & Granados, F. J. (2006). Environmentalism,
globalization and
national economies, 1980-2000. Social Forces, 85(2), 965-991.
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/courses/Busi
ness/BBA/BBA4751/14N/UnitVIII_Chapter9_Presentation.pdf
UNIT VII STUDY GUIDE
Corporate Social Responsibility

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VII
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
1. Define corporate social responsibility.
2. Describe and evaluate the economic model of corporate social
responsibility.
3. Distinguish key components of the term responsibility.
4. Describe and evaluate the philanthropic model of corporate
social
responsibility.
5. Describe and evaluate the social web model of corporate
social
responsibility.
6. Describe and evaluate the integrative model of corporate
social
responsibility.
7. Explain the role of reputation management as motivation
behind CSR.
8. Evaluate the claims that CSR is “good” for business.
Unit Lesson
This unit addresses the questions of whether businesses have
any social
responsibilities, and if so, how firms can meet and evidence
their fulfillment of
this responsibility.
From an economic perspective, a business is an institution that

exists to
produce goods and services in a supply and demand
arrangement. By
engaging in this activity, the business creates jobs and wealth
that benefits
those beyond itself (i.e., society as a whole).
The term corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the
responsibilities
that a business has to the surrounding society. Before exploring
various
approaches to CSR, it is valuable to understand the concept and
relation
between ethics and social responsibility.
The concept of responsibility can pertain to a person that is
reliable or
trustworthy, or it can be attributed to something that is a cause
for an event or
action. Alternatively, the concept can be an effort to attribute
liability or
accountability for some event or action, which creates an
obligation to restore
the status quo.
The relevance of these concepts to CSR is that they entail
accountability for
businesses. Specifically, they identify actions for which a
business can be
held accountable, as well as consideration of society’s interests
(i.e., those
that should restrict a business’ activities).
Our textbook identifies three types of responsibilities and
places them on a
scale (ranked by importance of the expectation) in terms of

society’s
expectations for a firm’s activities.
Reading
Assignment
Chapter 5:
Corporate Social
Responsibility,
pp. 211-236
Suggested Reading
See information below.
1. the responsibility not to cause harm to others,
2. to prevent harm even in those cases where one is not the
cause, and
3. to do good (i.e., volunteer and charitable work).
Assuming that it is true that businesses have responsibilities
beyond making
profits for shareholders, there are four primary theories of CSR:
economic,

philanthropic, social web, and integrative.
According to the economic model of CSR, a business’ sole duty
is to fulfill
the economic functions businesses were designed to serve.
Hence, the
social responsibility of business managers is simply to pursue
profit within
the law.
The philanthropic model of CSR holds that a business is free to
contribute to
social causes as a matter of philanthropy, but it has no strict
obligation to
contribute to those causes. However, it is maintained that
businesses should
be encouraged to contribute to society in ways that go beyond
the narrow
obligations of law and economics.
The motivation for a business to adopt the philanthropic CSR
model can be
attributed to the prospective positive public relations it entails,
for tax
benefits, and/or for the goodwill it can build within the
community.
From the perspective of the philanthropic model, philanthropy
done for
financial reasons is not fully ethical and not truly an act of
social
responsibility.
The social web model of CSR views a business as a citizen of
the society in
which it operates; therefore, the business is expected to conform

to the
normal ethical duties and obligations of all members of that
group.
Such ethical duties include respecting basic human rights and
the obligation
to cause no harm, even if it is at the cost of profits. Additional
basic rights
include an employee’s right to a safe and healthy workplace, the
right to
privacy, and the right to due process. Consumers’ basic rights
include the
right to safe products and truthful advertising.
The integrative model of CSR states that organizations pursue
social ends
as the core of their mission, such as non-governmental
organizations,
professional organizations, schools, colleges, and many
government
agencies. However, this approach is not limited to non-profits.
Some for-
profit organizations have social goals as a central part of their
strategic
mission too.
Sustainability in the context of CSR states that ethical goals
should be at the
heart of every corporate mission. However, sustainability is
sometimes
viewed as an extreme position in that it can be interpreted to
mean that a
firm’s financial goals must be balanced against, and perhaps
even over-
ridden by, environmental considerations.

Each of the above-described CSR models includes the idea of a
stakeholder. Stakeholder theory is the idea that every business
decision
affects a wide variety of people, benefiting some and imposing
costs on
others.
The economic model argues that the firm should be managed for
the sole
benefit of stockholders. However, stakeholder theory argues
that this is an
inadequate understanding of business. Instead, stakeholder
theory
maintains that the narrow economic model fails both as an
accurate
descriptive and as a reasonable normative account of business
management.
In terms of CSR and its value to business, there is some
evidence that good
ethics is good business. However, the impact is difficult to
measure and
some advise that business should be cautious about investing in
CSR when
consumers are not willing to pay higher prices to support that
investment.
Reference

Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J., & MacDonald, C. (2014).
Business ethics:
Decision making for personal integrity & social responsibility
(3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Suggested Reading
Click here to access the PDF of the Chapter 5 Presentation.
Kleine, A., & von Hauff, M. (2009, April). Sustainability-driven
implementation of
corporate social responsibility: application of the integrative
sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, Supplement,
(85),
517-533.
Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1997, February). Criteria for
evaluating the
legitimacy of corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics,
16(3), 337-347.
Verbeke, A., & Tung, V. (2013, February). The future of
stakeholder theory: a
temporal perspective. Journal of Business Ethics , 112(3), 529-
543.

https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/CSU_Content/courses/Busi
ness/BBA/BBA4751/14N/UnitVII_Chapter5_Presentation.pdf

Question 1· The triple bottom line approach involves measuring .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Question 1· The triple bottom line approach involves measuring .docx

Similar to Question 1· The triple bottom line approach involves measuring .docx (20)

More from makdul

More from makdul (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Question 1· The triple bottom line approach involves measuring .docx