How Moving to Mexico can help an organization?

- Voting with the feet is an expression that demonstrates an individual's preference through his or her actions by voluntarily choosing to participate in or withdrawing from an activity, group, or process; especially, moving to a situation one sees as more helpful. With regards to doing business where costs are minimal and revenues highest, business companies will take an interest since that is surely going to be gainful. Under this circumstance they will choose to vote with their feet since that will optimize their business operations.Business organizations, however, will love to buy at a lower price and sell at a higher price to maximize their profits. The ban on DDT makes farming very costly because of the expansion in the effects of insects on crops Business Ethics (2012). This therefore, makes the food we eat more expensive. A corporation that is hoping to maximize its profits will choose to grow their crops in a country were DDT is allowed for use in agriculture in order to control pest and boost crop production. But DDT is an insecticide that can pass up the food chain from insects to small birds, and then eagles, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, and ospreys etc Business Ethics (2012). Concentrations of DDT in birds causes weakness in their eggs, and decreases their population. Research Studies have demonstrated a range of human health effects linked to DDT and its breakdown product, DDE such as: breast & other cancers and male infertility too. Some recent studies have also shown reduced lactation Salleh, A. (1999). As a result of this, the use of DDT in agriculture is now banned in the United States of America. But allowed for use in agriculture by Mexico. Therefore, if unlike the United States, Mexico has no ban on the use of DDT in agriculture, a corporation can vote "with their feet" and choose to purchase land in Mexico, import DDT from the United States, where its manufacture is allowed by law and use it to grow crops cheaply in Mexico for export to the USA. This will enable the company to produce crops at a cheaper price in Mexico, so that they can sell it at a higher price in the USA for more profit despite the health and environmental consequences of DDT. - To their employees in Mexico, their neighboring land owners, and consumers in the USA, this company must show corporate social responsibility due to the potential dangers of DDT. It must pursue a clearly defined sense of social responsibility and a social conscience in managing their responsibilities to their local community, neighboring land owners, USA consumers and society as a whole. Business Ethics (2012) This relates well to the company since it looks like they are just trying to make profits rather than help the environment and still using the chemical DDT after it was banned. The company can be held responsible for any adverse effects and should work out the dangers and predict the risk to all their workers. - As of now, the health and the environmental effects of DDT are already known and various research studies have shown it. Therefore, DDT manufacturers have an ethical duty to pursue a clearly defined sense of social conscience in managing their legal responsibilities to their local community and society as a whole, and their ethical responsibilities to do the right thing for all their customers in relation to their export of DDT to nations that do not ban its use as the USA does Business Ethics (2012). REFERENCES Business Ethics (2012). This book is licensed under aCreative Commonsby-nc-sa 3.0 license. Retrieved from: http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/business ethics/index.html Chapter 14 - The Green Office: Economics and the Environment (PDF) Salleh, A. (1999) The ethics of phasing out DDT Retrieved from: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/1999/09/0349220.htm