In order for competition to exist all producers must somehow keep
product costs low while maintaining or increasing product output. If legislation
is passed within a country that holds a corporation responsible for destruction
to the environment by means of their waste, corporations can still outrun any
consequences from their actions. It is difficult to prosecute institutions
because they are essential.5 They provide jobs, goods and services, and
distribute money towards many organisations. The industry allows economy to
prosper as well as many citizens that partake in the production and consumption
of the goods. The destruction of the environment is seen as irrelevant to the
benefits of cash profit that the industry brings. What corporations fail to
observe is the future outlook. The concern is only on maximum exploitation for
maximum gain. No corporation has interest in conservation because of the
mentality of whatever is left by a corporation will simply be used by a
competitor.6 Yet the immediate gains will not always be present because sooner
or later resources will be exhausted and there will then be a failure to
produce, soon followed by a collapse within the industry production and profit.
Sustainability will ensure that resources can be reserved as well as allowing
time for some replenishment. It is for this reason that governments have decided
to be involved, for a fall in industry would lead to a fall in the economy and
the welfare of the state. Canada and Australia share the same vision when it
comes to sustainability. Both understand that environmental policy is essential
to maintain a prosperous nation. There has been a similar vision on the purpose
of developing environmental policy. The development is to allow (i) multiple
times scales in which the present is considered as well as the near and farther
future; (ii) effect on various dimensions of social life where economy,
environment, and social equity are viewed as equal; and (iii) diverse social and
ecological scales where region and locality are a concern as well as the global
nation.7 All three aspects are to produce an ecologically balanced society, with
stable institutions designed to assure equilibrium within tolerances that the
natural environment can support.8 This is much easier said than done. The event
of there being total agreement is never achieved and compromising always leads
to one or all parties involved to be unsatisfied. In order to satisfy government
policy, as well as avoid negative outbreaks by environmental conscience
citizens, corporations need to follow the specified guidelines of environmental
sustainability. Institutions then need to pay much more attention and effort
towards waste elimination and treatment.
This costs a substantial amount of
money. Two options are to either increase product prices or cut spending on
other operations within the process. Increasing prices would allow costs to be
covered and avoid in any profit loss experienced by the corporation but high
prices could cause for decrease in profit for it causes a decrease in profits by
the lower prices This again is a of current competitors. This is the reason why
the second option is more favourable. Cutting costs in the operation allows for
the same amount to be spent on production and in some instances even less. Most
popular method of cutting is within the removal of management layers. By
eliminating certain amounts of staff and replacing them with computers and
automation manufacturing processes companies can then compete in the world
market.9 This occurs mostly in wealthy nations such as Canada, Australia,
England, and the United States. Since poor nations have no strict policies on
labour leading to low wage structures, production by corporations within these
nations can produce product cheaply and sell at an admirably low price.10 Since
wealthy nations have high labour costs, expensive social programs, and a high
degree of foreign investment, in order to compete in the world market they
choose to employ less.11 It seems to be a simple enough tactic but other
corporations have been so used to a certain process of production that instead
of changing their methods they would rather relocate to poorer nations in which
they could keep profits or exceed them tenfold. Globalisation leads to the
reallocation of corporations. In less hostile environments, these corporate
conglomerates can destroy and manipulate the environment to their pleasing and
will not be accused for they supply many jobs in a poor nation that needs income
to fuel its economy. This global mobility allows corporations to escape
environmental policy. The acceleration of jobless growth in poor nations leads
to unemployment, creating pressures that allow economic activity that is
destructive as well as it undermines efforts of mitigation, planning, and
regulatory enforcement.12 Environmental policy with absence of enforcement leads
to the lack of interest in enforcement. The NAFTA agreement, the elimination of
tariffs among trading countries, between the United States, Canada, and the
developing Mexico is a good example of how businesses escape strict policy.
Because of Mexico’s low wage enforcement and anti-union government,
environmental policy falls prey to lower standards and enforcement.13 The nation
really does feel opposed to the destruction but if they fail to allow industries
to do so they will lose business to global mobility. The problem is does not lie
on government passing legislation for policies have been made.
