Exploring Moral Universalism vs
. Cultural Relativism in Business
School
University of Ottawa**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
PHI 2397
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 12, 2024
Pages
84
Uploaded by SuperSummerSnake7
Part 2
READINGS CONT’DReading 52 (optional online): D. Arnold and N. Bowie, “Sweatshops and Respect for Persons,” from Business Ethics, Module 5Reading 53 (online):“How Bribery and Other Types of Corruption Threaten the Global Marketplace”, fromKnowledge @ Warton, U. of Pennsylvania, athttps://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-bribery-and-other-types-of-corruption-threaten-the-global-marketplace/
SUB-TOPICSMoral Universalism versus Cultural relativism in international businessBribery and Corruption in International BusinessExporting Pollution/Garbage to Other CountriesThe Ethics of International Sweatshops
Is Morality Relative or Universal?
THE ISSUE OF RELATIVISMGlobalization means doing business with people from different societies and cultures.But if morality differs from one society to another, as some people think, what moral standards would apply in international business? This issue raises some basic questions about the very nature of morality, as well as posing some challenging practical problems for international business.
WHICH VIEW OF MORALITY IS CORRECT?Moral Universalism –Morality remains the same from one place, society, person, and time to another –it is universal. (This view is sometimes called “moral absolutism”, but this term also has a nasty and misleading ring to it.)Moral Relativism –Morality may vary from one time and place to another, or is relative to different societies, or to persons, or to different times.
UNIVERSALISMThe moral theories we discussed at the beginning of the course, including utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Ross’s ethics … are all different forms of universalism about ethics. The utilitarian holds that morally right acts, acts that we shoulddo, are those that would maximize happiness. And this holds no matter who is doing the act or where it is done, what society the act is done in.Similarly, Kant held that we should all treat people as ends and never merely as a means. And, again, this is intended to apply to all people in all societies.
DIFFERENT FORMS OF RELATIVISMMoral subjectivism –Morality is relative to different individuals: what’s morally right (or wrong) for me may not be right (or wrong) for you.Cultural relativism (CR)–Morality is relative to different cultures or societies. In other words: an act is right if and only if it conforms to the moral code or standards of one’s own culture or society. (CR is the most widely held form of relativism, so we will focus on it.)
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CULTURAL RELATIVISMThe idea of human rights (HR) would seem to presuppose moral universalism.HR are regarded as rights we all possess merely in virtue of being human –so all people have them. And moral acts must respect HR, they must not violate HR. So, the very idea of HR seems to presuppose that at least some moral norms are universal. That is why the HR movement and CR have often clashed. Proponents of relativism sometimes reject the whole idea of HR.
CONT’D❖The UDHR, as everyone knows, states that all human beings everywhere possess certain fundamental rights: for example, the right to a fair trial before being punished for a crime, the right to basic freedoms, such as the right to free speech, to freedom of association, and so on. ❖One might think there isn’t much here to object to. But when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was first put forward, it was immediately criticized by the American Anthropological Society.❖Their concern was that the UDHR would provide the pretext for Western countries to interfere with, and reform, traditional societies all around the world.
WHY IT IS NOT OBVIOUS THATCR IS CORRECT Some people think that CR is just obvious. Isn’t it obvious that there are differences between the moral practices of different cultures? For example, the Aztecs accepted human sacrifice, the Inuit killed their parents (or let them die) when they reached old age, etc., whereas we don’t accept these practices. Also, morality seems to have varied across times: in the ancient world slavery was widely accepted but today most people think it is wrong.
AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONWe should distinguish between:❖beliefs aboutmorality –beliefs about right and wrong❖morality itself –what actually isright or wrong From the fact that I believevoluntary euthanasia is wrong it doesn’t follow that it iswrong. My beliefs about the moral status of euthanasia might be mistaken. In the same way, the moral beliefs of an entire society about certain things, slavery, for example, could in principle, be mistaken.
DOES MORALITY CHANGE OVER TIME?A similar issue arises for morality across time, that is, whether right and wrong differ across time.It may seem obvious that it does; for example, slavery used to be considered morally okay, but today we think it’s wrong.But, again, we must distinguish beliefs aboutmorality from morality itself. Maybe slavery was always wrong, but many people in the past failed to see this. Or maybe they knew it was wrong but didn’t care.
CONT’DShould we say then, that 1. Slavery used to be okay, but today it is wrong?or2. Slavery has always been wrong, but people used to believe, mistakenly, that it is morally okay? If we say the latter, then the morality of slavery itselfhas not changed – only peoples’ beliefs aboutits moral status have changed.
CONT’DMany people would prefer to say that slavery was always wrong, but in the past people in some/many societies thought it was acceptable.But if this is the best way to describe the situation, then morality itself does not change across time; only beliefs aboutwhat is right or wrong change.In the same way, we could say that morality itself does not actually vary/change across cultures. Only people’s beliefs about morality may differ somewhat.
CONT’DSo, it may be true that different cultures have different beliefs about right and wrong to some extent. The Aztecs, for example, believed human sacrifice is right, we don’t.But it doesn’t follow that morality itself differs from one culture to another. Either human sacrifice is morally acceptable, or it isn’t. So, either ourbeliefs about human sacrifice are mistaken or theirbeliefs about it were mistaken. It is far from obvious, therefore, that morality itselfdoes vary across cultures as opposed to beliefs about it varying.
THE DISTINCTION BELOW IS HELPFULThe idea that relativism is obvious stems from a failure to distinguish descriptive and normative relativism:Descriptive–moral beliefs and practices do differ somewhat from one culture and society to anotherNormative–right and wrong itselfdiffers from one society and culture to another.Descriptive relativism may be obvious, but normative relativism is not, and that’s the issue that counts.
SOCIETY IS NOT THE SOURCEOF MORALITYProponents of relativism appear to assume that morality somehow comesfromyour society.This is true in one sense: a person’s beliefs about right and wrong will be affected by their society.But it doesn’t seem correct to say that society itself determineswhat is right and wrong in the same way that Parliament determines by the laws it passes what is legal versus illegal.
CONT’DFor we routinely invoke morality to evaluate and criticize the moral practices/institutions of our own society. Throughout history this seems to have been one of the main functions of ethics (i.e., the study of morality) –to help people make progress toward a better world by improving our social institutions and practices.If cultural relativism were correct, however, there would be no place for ethics in this sense, for on the relativist doctrine, right and wrong just is, by definition, whatever your society accepts as right and wrong.
CONT’D❖To pursue this issue a little further, what if we ask where mathematical truths or facts come from? How is it determined that 5 + 7 = 12 ?❖Here, we would not say that this math belief comes from your society. Math propositions, we think, are somehow objectively true.❖Moral universalists (those who reject moral relativism) think that moral facts are similar to math facts in this respect –that is, in the sense that moral truths have an objective existence independently of human belief about them.
CONT’DCR, therefore, doesn’t seem to give an accurate account of the nature of morality. Doctrines like utilitarianism and Kantian ethics seem to do a better job here.It seems to be part of morality in all societies that wrong acts are those that are harmful, that cause suffering or pain, orfail to respect people’s rights.Of course, different societies differ to somedegree in their conception of which acts are harmful. But this may be due to differences in their factual, or non-moral beliefs.
Do Different Cultures Actually Have Different Moral Beliefs?
❖At first glance, it might seem obvious that they do.❖We have the classic examples of the Aztecs accepting human sacrifice, the Inuit believed they should kill their parents, or let them die once they reach a certain age, whereas we clearly don’t accept these practices.❖But, if look more carefully, we can see that the differences are not as great as they initially appear.
Why did the Inuit have this apparently strange practice?The answer, according to anthropologists who are familiar with their culture, has to do with their beliefs about the afterlife. They believed that if their parents become blind or deaf, then they would be blind or deaf throughout their entire afterlife. To prevent this, and assure the best afterlife for their parents, they believed they had to die before the usual afflictions of old age set in.
CONT’DOnce we have this understanding of why this practice was accepted, we can see that their moral beliefs didn’t really differ much from our own.We both accept the moral principle that people should try to do what is in the best interest of their parents.Where we differ is in our non-moral, factual beliefs –we don’t share their beliefs about the afterlife. If we did, we too might think we must bring about our parent’s death before they become blind or deaf.
CONT’DSo perhaps all of the apparent differences between the moral beliefs and practices of different cultures can be handled in the same way.Perhaps different cultures share the same underlying moral beliefs and attitudes and differ only in some of their factual beliefs. But disagreements over factual beliefs can be resolved through inquiry, observation ...Let’s now look at some evidence to show that people’s underlying moral attitudes are similar.
Cultural Relativism and Tolerance
DOES CULTURAL RELATIVISM JUSTIFY TOLERANCE?Another consideration that makes CR seemplausible to some people is that they think it provides a basis for being tolerant of other cultures, and, of course, they assume that tolerance is a good thing.The motive behind CR was very enlightened. In the era of colonization, Western countries were interfering with traditional cultures around the world. Anthropologists objected to this and wished to promote respect and tolerance toward other cultures, and they saw CR as providing a justification for tolerance.
QUESTIONSIs the desire to promote tolerant attitudes toward other cultures a good argument for cultural relativism? Does CR provide a justification for being tolerant?On reflection, I think we can all see that the answer is that CR does not justify tolerance. Here’s why.
CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND TOLERANCERelativism says the right thing to do is follow the moral code of your own culture. So, whether I should be tolerant toward other cultures will depend on my own culture’s attitude about being tolerant. If my culture says it is right to be intolerant, then I should be intolerant –for example, if my culture is Naziism, then, morally, I should not be tolerant. So, CR does clearly does not provide a justification for tolerant attitudes toward other culture.
CONTRADICTORY FOR CRS TO DEFEND TOLERANCE“Be tolerant toward other cultures” is itself a moral principle. But CRs hold that there are no moral principles that apply universally. For them every moral statement is relative.So, this means that it would be contradictory for the CR to hold/argue that we should be tolerant toward other cultures, as if this principle had a universal status.
UNIVERSALISM AND TOLERANCEMoral Universalism, on the other hand, does a much better job of justifying tolerance.Generally speaking, cultural diversity is a good thing. People identify with their culture. It provides a “home” for them, a sense of belonging. So, in general, we should embrace attitudes of tolerance and good will toward other cultures.There are straightforward moral reasons, then, for promoting cultural diversity and political institutions that respect and provide protections for different cultures.
CONT’D❑The main reason why many people are initially attracted to cultural relativism is that they assume that relativism supports and would justify attitudes of tolerance toward other societies and cultures.❑But, on refection, we can see that this is simply not the case. Once we think through the implications of relativism, we can see that it does nothing at all to justify respect for other cultures, and that it could, in fact (depending on what beliefs are accepted in your own culture) lead to very intolerant attitudes toward other cultures..
BUT THERE ARE LIMITS TO TOLERANCEWe should avoid narrow-mindedness, bigotry, prejudice, and try to rise above the limitations of our own culture and society.At the same time, it must be recognized that culture is not uniformly or alwaysgood. Some cultural practices can be highly discriminatory and repressive.So, there are limits to what we can and should be willing to tolerate: if a culture (whether our own or another one) is engaging in practices that cause harm for no good reason, then we should not be tolerant of these practices.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CULTUREHR recognizes these values.The HR movement now recognizes a universal right to your own cultural traditions, and provides protections for the rights of cultures, especially minority cultures. At the same time, HR provides protections from cultural practices that are discriminatory and harmful, for example, intolerance towards LGBTQ people, which is widespread in many cultures around the world.
HR AS A FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESSThe HR movement is a much better framework for international business than any form of relativism.HRs provide the basis for two general orientations:❖Respect for other cultures and an appreciation of the importance of cultural diversity.❖HRs are minimal moral standards to which all people and cultures are expected to conform.
ESSENTIAL/IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY HR▪HR protect individual freedoms▪They protect citizens from the power of their gov’ts▪They are meant to provide protections for stateless and vulnerable peoples▪They protect small states from large states▪They protect marginalized groups within a society from more powerful groups▪They require states, as far as possible, to provide for the basic needs of their people in many different respects
HR AND THE PREVENTION OF HARMHR thus perform crucially important functions in protecting people from many of different types of threat to their well-being. These threats are present everywhere, for all people, in all societies. The violation of HR can cause great harm regardless of the culture. So, all people, whatever their culture, would seem to have a vital interest in protecting and promoting HR.
COSMOPOLITANISMThere is reason to think that, when some people defend relativism, what they reallywish to defend is something more like cosmopolitanism, as described and defended by the philosopher K. A. Appiah.
WHAT IS COSMOPOLITANISM?❖Literal meaning –to be worldly, sophisticated. The word has a snobbish ring to it, and there is a shallow form of cosmopolitanism, but hopefully, also a deeper, more authentic form.❖The word comes from a Greek phrase meaning “citizen of the world”. Cosmopolitanism emerged as a movement in the 3rdand 2ndCenturies B.C.E (the Hellenistic era) following the conquests of Alexander the Great.
“CITIZEN OF THE WORLD”“… the first philosopher in the West to give perfectly explicit expression to cosmopolitanism was the Socratically inspired cynic Diogenes in the fourth century BCE. It is said that “when he was asked where he came from, he replied, ‘I am a citizen of the world [kosmopolitês]’”…. By identifying himself not as a citizen of Sinope [a Greek city state] but as a citizen of the world, Diogenes apparently refused to agree that he owed special service to Sinope and the Sinopeans.”(Pauline Kleingeld, Stanford Encycl. of Phil., 2006)
CONT’DTo describe a place, for example, a city, as cosmopolitan is usually taken to imply at least some of the following: ❑The people there, by and large, are worldly, they know a lot about other parts of the world.❑The people have an openness toward, and tolerance of, different cultures and behaviours.❑The place includes many people of different cultures, outlooks, attitudes, religions ...❑It is a place that fosters/places value upon learning, culture, diversity, the arts…
THE VALUES OF COSMOPOLITANISM (APPIAH)1)Important to know, appreciate, and understand other cultures and peoples.2)Avoid narrow-mindedness, bigotry, prejudice, and try to rise above limitations of your own culture and society.3)Try to learn from other cultures and societies.4)Acknowledge cultural diversity as a good, foster it5)Embrace a general attitude of tolerance and good will toward other cultures.
COSMOPOLITANISM –CONT’D6)Try to bridge cultural conflicts, promote inter-cultural conversation, interaction and understanding.7)Recognize that there are many different, equally good ways of living and viewing the world.8)Embrace and promote the values of “humanism” such as peace, human rights, individuality, solidarity …9)Promote the idea of a single humanity with many common values and needs.10)Try to support international institutions and at least somedegree of world government.
LIMITS TO TOLERANCEOf course, there are limits to what can be tolerated.Sometimes there can be cultural practices that cause great harm, e.g., female circumcision. So, when there are practices that cause serious harm for no greater benefit, then we should not be tolerant of them, and we should try to discourage and reform them.But this type of situation is the exception.
CONCLUSION TO THE DISCUSSION OF RELATIVISM❑Because cosmopolitanism, in general, involves a favourable, positive, view of cultures, it is easy to confuse it with relativism.❑But cosmopolitanism is not relativist –it is a form of universalism –certainly, it embraces HR. ❑Cosmopolitanism promotes certain moral principles as having a universal status, namely, that cultural diversity and tolerance toward other cultures is a good thing. This is not consistent with relativism.
Bribery andCorruption in International Business
A Second Issue to Discuss:Bribery and Corruption in International Business
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTIONThe following sources are relevant to this section:“How Bribery and Other Types of Corruption Threaten the Global Marketplace”, at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-bribery-and-other-types-of-corruption-threaten-the-global-marketplace/“Nine Reasons Why Corruption is a Destroyer of Human Prosperity”, at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/nine-reasons-why-corruption-destroyer-human-prosperity
THE FACT OF CORRUPTIONAll countries have somecorruption. But in many countries around the world bribery and corruption are a way of life. They permeate business and governments.Everybody in these countries knows that bribery is widespread, and they don’t like it –in fact, they hate it. But all too often there is little they can do to stop it.The main question that faces us is how companies based in the West who do business in these countries should deal with such corruption?
Option A –just accept it, live with it, as it is a fact of life that you have to deal with in many countries.Option B –embrace relativism and accept that what we call corruption is okay in these countries (relativism). In other words, follow the old saying, “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”Option C –reject corruption, do not participate in it, b/c it is harmful and therefore a bad thing and try to overcome it. (moral universalism)
BRIBERY IS COMMON“International businessmen and women say the number of countries in which they expect big bribe demands has risen staggeringly. A recent study by Berlin-based Transparency International pegged 70 of 102 countries surveyed as likely places for executives to be hit up for bribes.”“The fact that a great number of government officials in a great number of countries, including some potentially large markets, seem to demand bribes is critical to any business that has a cross-border presence …”
CONT’D“A score of 10 means people perceive that bribe requests are never made in a particular nation, while a zero indicates the perception that bribes are always requested.”“In the 2002 index, Finland scored a 9.7, the United Kingdom came in at 8.7 and the U.S. earned a 7.7. With 70 of 102 countries scoring 5.0 or lower …. These countries include some of the world’s biggest: China, which scored 3.5; India, 2.7; Indonesia, 1.9; and Pakistan, 2.6. Bangladesh had the lowest score of 1.2.”
SOME BACKGROUND ON BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION “In Turkey, the apartment buildings that collapse during earthquakes are known as “bribe buildings.” In Africa, bridges dot the landscape with no roads to connect them.”“There’s no doubt that corruption, endemic in emerging economies around the world, throws economic development into chaos. It affects decisions made by bureaucrats, degrades the quality of those in power, and discourages foreign investment.”(From Reading 45)
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION1)Undermines gov’t revenue –people and companies don’t want to pay taxes when they know much of what they pay will be syphoned off.2)Greater corruption will tend to discourage investment and so will interfere with the goal of economic development.3)Investment that does occur will be b/c of its potential to generate bribes, and so won’t be effective –the result, for example, will be bridges with no roads leading to them, or roads that lead nowhere ...
CONT’D4)The presence of widespread corruption in a country will discourage investment from potential entrepreneurs b/c it tends to function as a tax.5)Corruption is bad for business b/c it creates uncertainty as companies will not know how much the bribes will cost, what time period they cover, and so on. 6)Corruption undermines public confidence in the state and its institutions and so makes gov’ts in general less effective.
7)Corruption in international business is also morally unacceptable to the extent that it involves powerful western corporations exploiting the people of developing countries around the world. By giving bribes to corrupt officials, the corporations acquire control over natural resources in the country or other segments of its economy.
CONT’D“Corruption also drastically affects economic development by causing a misallocation of resources. Yes, Africa is littered with bridges instead of hospitals. But more damaging is the fact that in endemically corrupt systems, regular people are not getting served by the government; they don’t trust the government, so they don’t interact with the government …”(From Reading 53)
RECENT EARTHQUAKE IN TURKEY ILLUSTRATES THE EVIL OF CORRUPTION“The death toll from the devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria has now surpassed 37,000. Tens of thousands of people are still missing, and social media feeds are awash with examples of newly built residential complexes that have collapsed like sandcastles, burying occupants under the rubble. Many of these buildings were sold as luxury housing “compliant with the latest earthquake safety standards”.
EARTHQUAKE-PROOF BUILDINGSIN TURKEY
CONT’D“Some of the contractors responsible have tried to flee Turkey. Warrants have been issued formore than 130 peopleover alleged breaches of safety codes, and several construction company owners have been arrested. Turkey’s justice minister, Bekir Bozdağ, vowed that “all those who are at fault will be held accountable”.
ATTITUDES TO BRIBERYTo invoke relativism in support of bribery would be totally misguided and inaccurate.The fact that bribery is widespread around the world does not mean people approve of it. They do not –bribery is almost universally hated.But bribery is a fact. If you want essential services in many countries, you have to be willing to pay people off, and so, to that extent, people have little choice but to participate in practices they see as corrupt.
But Western gov’ts and Western companies do have a choice. It would be unacceptable for them to say that this is how business is done in these countries so they must go along with it.B/c bribery and corruption are so harmful, Western gov’ts and businesses have an obligation to do their best to combat it.
FIGHTING CORRUPTIONB/c bribery and corruption have such harmful effects, many Western countries have made it illegal for their companies to pay bribes in their international business operations:“Countries like Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea and the UK are bound by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development convention to criminalize transnational bribery. Three years ago, the U.S. alone criminalized paying bribes abroad. Today at least 20 countries have such laws and 14 more will soon enact them.” (Reading 53)
FIGHTING CORRUPTION IS A MATTER OF HRSSuch policies are grounded in human rights.Bribes have to be paid for by someone, and it is ordinary people in the countries in question who ultimately bear the cost through taxation, poor services, and in other ways.For Western gov’ts and companies to accept bribery would therefore amount to exploitation of these people.We will see later whether the same conclusion can be drawn about the topic –international sweatshops.
STEPS TO TAKE TO CONTROL/REDUCE CORRUPTIONTo combat corruption around the world it is crucial that companies that do business around the world follow strict rules against corruption. This requires, for one thing, that employees in these companies must refrain from bribing officials, largely gov’t officials, in countries where they do business in order to get contracts. If all companies refuse to pay bribes, For companies to have an incentive to reject bribes as part of their business model, all companies competing for contracts must refrain from this practice.
OBLIGATIONS OF DEVELOPED COUNTRIES❑The war against bribery, therefore, really must start with the home countries of those companies that do business in places where bribery is common.❑The home countries must pass strict laws that prohibit their own companies from giving bribes to get business.❑But, of course, this can sometimes be challenging because these countries do want their companies to be successful in winning business contracts in foreign counties. There is a lot of money to be made and so there are temptations to overlook bribery on the part of their own companies.
THE CASE OF SNC-LAVALIN❖There is a well-known case that occurred a few years ago that illustrates the problems that can arise in enforcing laws against bribery and corruption. ❖The case involved a Canadian engineering and construction company named SNC-Lavilin (now renamed AtkinsRéalis)based in Montreal.❖Officials of this company had been accused of (or, actually, had been caught) bribing officials of the Libyan Gov’t including children of the Libyan dictator at the time, Omar Khadafi. Such bribes, of course, violate Canadian law, as mentioned above.
THE SNC LAVILLON SCANDAL“The scandal[ involving SNC Lavillon ] all centres on one key question: did the prime minister, someone in his office or other government officials try to pressure Jody Wilson-Raybould when she was attorney general to step in and resolve the corruption and fraud case against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. in an effort to spare the Montreal-based engineering giant from criminal prosecution?”“Trudeau has repeatedly denied any inappropriate actions on his part or senior figures in his administration. But Dion found that the prime minister had "directly and through his senior officials used various means to exert influence" over Wilson-Raybould. Those actions, said Dion, violated Section 9 of the Conflictof Interest Act.”
P.M. TRUDEAUANDMINISTER OF JUSTICE JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD
Despite the fact that the evidence against the company was pretty conclusive, Prime Minister Trudeau appears to have put pressure on his own justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to have the charges dropped, or at least reduced to a much less serious charge.Had the original charges been upheld in court, SNC-Lavalin probably would have lost its ability to get foreign business contracts, or at least its ability to get contracts would have been weakened, which would have resulted in the loss of many Canadian jobs. This illustrates the challenges in trying to control bribery and corruption !
CONT’D❖Everyone can see that this is the kind of situation that is likely to recur around the world in countries where businesses are based.❖If corruption and bribery are to be brought under control, Western countries and their governments will be required to exercise a great deal of discipline and restraint in order to resist the kind of temptations illustrated by the SNC-Lavalin case.
A SECOND ISSUE Exporting Pollution/ /Garbage to Other Countries
CONT’DDeveloping countries in poorer parts of the world generally tend to have lower environmental standards and controls than Western countries.This has given rise to the practice on the part of wealthier countries of exporting garbage and waste, including hazardous waste material, to other countries.Although there is money to be made by same in this practice, it is a source of great harm for poorer countries.
CONT’D“In recent years, international trade in toxic waste and hazardous technologies by firms in rich industrialized countries has emerged as a routine practice. Many poor countries have accepted these deadly imports but are ill equipped to manage the materials safely. For more than a decade, environmentalists and the governments of developing countries have lobbied intensively and generated public outcry in an attempt to halt hazardous transfers from Northern industrialized nations to the Third World, but the practice continues.”
Source of quotation on previous slide is from:Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous Wastes from Rich to Poor Countries, by Jennifer Clapp (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000)Passages in the slides that follow below are from: “Here’s Why America Is Dumping Its Trash in Poorer Countries: The filthy secrets of the multibillion-dollar global recycling industry”, by Dominique MosbergenMother Jones website, March 9, 2019
FOREIGN GARBAGE DUMP IN MALAYSIA
“Bales of plastic garbage, stacked 15 feet high, shimmered in the 100-degree heat. They gave off a faint chemical smell as they warped and softened under the equatorial sun. A canary-yellow Walmart clearance tag poked out from one of the dirty heaps. Wrappers and packages from American products were visible nearby. These items had likely traveled 10,000 miles to this unmarked and apparently unauthorized dumpsite in a quiet industrial neighborhood in northwestern Malaysia.”
CONT’D“Ad hoc dumps like this one, teeming with foreign waste, have popped up across Southeast Asia in recent months —each an ugly symbol of a global recycling system that regional activists and politicians have described as unjust, inequitable and broken.In January and February,HuffPostvisited several of these sites in Malaysia to see what really happens to much of the plastic trash that originates in the US and other wealthy nations.”
CONT’D“What’s happening in Southeast Asia, what’s happening in Malaysia, shows just how bankrupt the recycling system really is,” said Von Hernandez, the global coordinator for the Break Free From Plastic initiative, speaking from the Philippines in February. “Consumers, especially those in the West, are conditioned to believe that when they separate their recyclables and throw them out, that it’ll be properly taken care of. But that’s been exposed as a myth.”
CONT’DWalmart, which has vowed to reduce wasteand to invest in recycling infrastructure, did not respond to questions about the bale found in Malaysia, but Jerry Powell, the executive editor of the industry publication Resource Recycling, said the company was likely clueless as to how plastic waste apparently generated at one of its US stores traveled thousands of miles across the ocean only to pollute a Malaysian neighborhood. A Walmart store might send its plastic rubbish to a local recycler … “but what their local recycler does with it, they have no idea.”
CONT’D“Recycling is such a moral gray area,” saidAdam Minter, a recycling expert and the author ofJunkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade.“When you put your recyclables in the bin, you want it to feel green, but it’s really very complicated. If you think you’re not wasting resources and not making an environmental or social impact, then you clearly don’t understand what’s happening.”
Quotation on the following slide is from:“This is what the world’s waste does to people in poorer countries”, by Charlotte Edmund, May 6, 2019, From the website of the World Economic Forum, online at:https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/this-is-what-the-world-s-waste-does-to-people-in-poorer-countries/
THE PLASTIC BAG PROBLEM“Single-use plastic is a particular issue. Much of it ends up littering the land and oceans, harming wildlife and damaging the financial welfare of farmers and fishers. Up to one-third of cattle and half of the goat population in developing countries have consumed significant amounts of plastic, which can lead to bloating and death by starvation. Plastic is also finding its way into coral reefs and other natural beauty spots, harming the ecosystem and becoming an eyesore that deters the tourists many poorer nations rely on.”