Morality, Money, and Motor Cars by Norman Bowie

The article contends that occasionally companies just follow the request of
customers. Those customers are people who do not accept environmentally friendly
products and value low on protecting the environment. Therefore, customers do not
want to be charged on a payment, which companies use to safeguard the
environment. As a result, companies cannot gain a competitive advantage on being
eco-friendly and choose to avoid taking the obligation of protecting the
environment. Bowies perception is on point due to the reality of the situation. In
addition, the government should take actions when market failure occurs. Should
the government, however, put more effort on educating people about the
sustainability? Should the customers pay for the environment or the companies?
The analysis given by Bowie implies that customer should pay for the environment.
If customers do not want to pay a premium on companies that are protecting the
environment, companies will lose cost advantage because companies will transfer
the cost on protecting the environment to their customers. What if companies pay
for the environment and charge customers the same amount comparing as the non
eco-friendly products? The world today is consciences of their environment and I
feel they will choose products that support such a cause. However, under the
circumstances, the government should subsidize companies that take extra
obligations on the sustainability.
. In the same article, Bowie also mentions the "ought-implies-can principle". He thinks
that car manufacturers are only responsible for deaths and injuries that are due to their
known safety defects. People who drive over speed on the highway and get injured
should not blame automakers. Same to companies, they only have a certain level of
obligations to protect the environment. Companies do not have the obligations to protect
the environment as possible as they can. However, the statement by Bowie reminds me a
concept in economics, the externality theory. In the externality theory, an externality is
the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.
Sometimes, activities of companies do not intend to pollute the environment and just
follow their normal obligations, like automakers follow their safety principles and rules
in manufacturing. However, the result of their activities turns out to harm the
environment, and it costs others to eliminate the effect. Under the circumstance, do these

companies that cause an externality have obligations to eliminate their harm on others?
According to Bowie's statement, they should not take the responsibility because they just
do everything within the law. However, if the property rights on air, water and the
environment can be clearly defined, companies that create an externality should also
eliminate the effect on violating other's rights to clean air and water.
Many critics of International sweatshops urge a living wage standard of worker
treatment, but Maitland defends the classical liberal standard. Critics argue that the
classical liberal, free market, standard is not acceptable on the grounds that some
sort of market of the background conditions are lacking for markets to work
effectively. Unemployed workers rights have the options necessary to effectively
bargain for decent working conditions. The inequality of bargaining power between
workers and multinational corporations enables multinational corporations to
manipulate negotiations in their favor and exploit workers.
One objective is that workers are paid unconscionable wages. However, in general,
MNCs pay competitive wages, often better than the local norm. While their working
conditions may be poor and dangerous by American standards, they are better than
normal by third world standards. Workers remain eager for jobs in sweatshops.
Another objective of MNCs impoverished or disadvantaged workers, whereas global
economic trade is acceptable only if it makes the poor better off. There is empirical
evidence that global trade does make the poor better off. Another objective is global
trade widens the gap between rich and poor. Maitlands reply is that the empirical
evidence suggests that this has been false in the past and will continue to false in the
near future. Another objective is that MNCs collude with oppressive regimes that
violate individuals rights, for instance to labor unions. Maitland replies that in many
countries global trade correlates with diminished repression. There are instances
though, of repressive regimes, fighting unionization. But these regimes seem to
have unemployment which would mean worse conditions overall, and especially for
the poorest citizens.