Question

Corporations often “vote with their feet” in terms of doing business where expenses are lowest and revenues are highest. Buying low and selling high is a basic economic formula for success that has motivated international trade in many ways over the centuries. This is popularly discussed when governments consider tax policies and is also applicable when they also consider the less obvious factor of environmental protections laws. If Mexico has no ban on DDT (a pesticide used in agriculture) and the USA has banned the use (but not the manufacture) of DDT, should a corporation buy land in Mexico, import DDT from the USA, grow larger crops, and export them to the USA? What ethical duties does the corporation have to the workers in Mexico, the neighboring landowners, and the USA consumers about the potential dangers of using DDT? Is there an ethical duty of DDT manufactures related to their export of DDT to countries that do not ban its use as the USA does?

Answer 1

1. Yes . The US just banned the use of DDT in their territory. Therefore, a seed grown using the same in another country is not bad in fact because the legislation does not contravene it. Cultivation isn't DDT and are therefore allowed to be sold in the US.

2. It is the responsibility of the corporations to ensure that their customers are aware of the goods used by the people on the box for their own protection. The second thing they have to do is to protect public safety by ensuring that the products produced are safe for human consumption and not contravene or injure people who use them.

3. No ethical obligation remains. DDT producers have no moral duty to export the product to countries that have approved the product, as long as the product is safe and the government has not prohibited it.