Effect Of Corporate Actions On Human Health And The Environment

Throughout history, major corporations have taken control over nations. During the late 1800s and early 1900s big business have made a name for themselves in the united states. Even though, major corporations have had a positive impact on society, they in fact hurt our economy greatly.

It shows how the government can bend the will of this amendment in their favor

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

    This court case affects me in a way that allows my “husband” and I to have contraceptives when we aren’t ready to have children. It also affects me because this court case was a platform for women to have those contraceptives in case of emergencies. Without this case the U.S. might not have the right to have abortions and same sex

Firstly, one of the main facts of this case is the fact that the company refused to hire a covered woman due to her religious practices and beliefs. According to the New York Times website, Mrs. Elauf felt, as she states it in Liptak’s article, discriminated and “disrespected because of her religious beliefs” (Liptak, 2015). She explains how the company action results in a religious discrimination which is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Samantha also declares that the denial of her being hired is a result of an unequal treatment against her due to her religious beliefs although she is an American citizen. All Samantha Elauf tried to do was get a job in a company where she is used to be a customer as she enjoys fashion and thought she would receive the same treatment another American uncovered woman would receive as they are both American citizens thus should receive equal treatment no matter what the professional situations are. Yet, she was refused a job she could have obtained in

One of the main viewpoints discussed in the article was that with the past court cases, they have never discovered a for-profit corporation and/or organization to be religious. And that if they let every company who refuses to abide by this law be exempt because they are a religious company, the government would fall apart. Walter Dellinger, who was a part of the Clinton administration, explained that the employees of hobby lobby shouldn’t have to share the same beliefs as the owners of the company because it’s not like the company is a religious corporation it’s only the owners and they cannot make them feel the same way as them because they are only employees. But Paul Clement, who was a part of the Bush Administration, says that, that is not

Corporations can be large or small but they all have some sort of ethical impact on their employees, shareholders, customers, community, and surrounding environments. Richard DeGeorge writes, “We can speak of corporations having moral responsibilities to act in certain ways, and they are morally responsible for the consequences of their actions on people.” (p. 200). Large corporations are comprised of the board of directors, management, and their workers. They also deal with suppliers, customers, and have competitors. This essay will examine the moral responsibilities within a corporation.

The corporate world has an unfavorable view of itself by being selfish, evil, and against the average American. Companies market themselves and their products in certain ways that makes them and their products appealing to everyone and if not everyone then a certain group of people. Every company has a mission to follow and values to go by, but some companies lack ethics and morals. In this paper I am going to talk about one company that engages in ethical behavior and another that doesn’t.

Issue 1: I do believe that corporations have a responsibility to society as a whole, not only to maximize their own profits and benefit the economy but also to respect the community that they reside in. They achieve this by not only providing employment, but also upholding an image. It is up to

This interferes with their normal operation of business because not only will this have an effect on their image,(Russell,

In the book, The Corporation Joel Bakan presents arguments, that corporations are nothing but institutional pathological psychopaths that are “a dangerous possessor of the great power it wields over people and societies.” Their main responsibility is maximizing profit for their stockholders and ignoring the means to achieve this goal, portrays them as “psychopathic.” Bakan argues that, corporations are psychopaths, corporate social responsibility is illegal, and that corporations are able to manipulate anyone, even the government.

Fear of repercussion is reason many people avoid acting in a criminal or inappropriate manner. This allows for public order and prevents chaos in society. The same distress should be applied to corporations to act appropriately. When a corporation acts illegally, I believe Congress should have the power to revoke their charter for it should be treated more as a privilege and less as a right

Sick Planet: Corporate Food and Medicine was published on 20 March 2008 by Pluto Press (London, England). The book has 224 pages and can be bought online via Amazon.com where it has an average customer review of 4.2 out of 5 stars. It is available in both Hardcover (US$81) and Paperback (US$17.56).

Monsanto was being sued for allegedly knowing that dioxins were extremely toxic to humans, but creating Agent Orange anyway (Dillingham, 2009). Before the trial began, an individual working for Monsanto lobbied an individual working for the FDA and ultimately, the company was allowed to present their own research on whether dioxins were safe (Hanzai, 2014). Not surprisingly, Monsanto concluded that, “dioxins posed no direct threat to humans” and just like that, the case was thrown out (Hanzai, 2014). Today, there are more than 25 individuals who are associated with the toxic triangle that is Monsanto, the FDA and the government. For example, did you know the acting commissioner of the FDA, Michael A. Friedman, is also the Senior Vice President of Monsanto? Controversial connections like this have paved the way for laws such as H.R. 933 to be approved. H.R. 933 (the Monsanto Protection Act), signed in 2013 by Obama, prevents federal courts from being able to stop the sale or planting of genetically modified or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future Sheets, 2013). To further exacerbate this injustice, in June of 2015, bill H.R. 1599 (the DARK Act), was introduced. This bill prohibits the labelling of GMOs but also makes it unlawful for state or local governments to

Since corporations are not physical things or people, it is very easy for them to avoid any kind of trouble. Corporations have become great at passing on their externalities to the public. An externality is an expense of any kind, whether it is something such as environmental damage or forcing people in an area to pay money for something, that a corporation forces the public to pay for while they privatize all profits. Corporations being externalizing machines fit in very well with their psychopathic behavior. They externalize any cost to the public because they can and it helps them achieve their goal of making as much money as possible. A quote from Robert Monks puts it very well, he says “The corporation is an externalizing machine