Those who might choose filling stations on the basis of which companies 
demonstrate more (or less) social and environmental responsibility might be 
interested in this Sierra Club link.  (I'll let others talk about the 
potential bias of the Sierra Club; the factual bases for their rankings - 
from more to less responsible -  are of interest to those who want to 
include consumers as part of the ethics equation.)

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/pickyourpoison/index.asp


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hotchkiss, Carolyn" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Law and Ethics in a Business School Context


Please delete this if you're done reading about climate change!  I apologize 
in advance for the length of this post.  After this, I'll take my attempt to 
change David's mind into e-mail somewhere.


I am terribly concerned about David Schein's contention that "My issue is 
that this whole package of global warming is a political maelstrom with 
insufficient credible proof,"   such that the subject does not belong in our 
classroom discussions.  The subject of climate change is certainly a 
political maelstrom, but that probably makes it an ideal candidate for 
classroom discussions, both in terms of business ethics and business law. 
As we enter a century where scientific advances will drive business 
opportunity and public policy, our students (and we) need to understand the 
relationships among scientific theory, scientific and legal evidence, and 
the creation of business and public policy.   Assessment of scientific 
theory and evidence is as they relate to ethics and policy is an important 
twenty-first century application of critical thinking skills.  If science is 
becoming politicized, it is because it matters more now than ever to people, 
businesses, and governments.



Although I am not a scientist, my understanding of the concept of scientific 
theory is that it is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the 
natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested 
hypotheses."  (from the National Academy of Sciences, discussion the theory 
of evolution, cited at 
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html).  "[T]heories are the 
end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive 
observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a 
large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical 
inferences."  (Ibid.)  Thus, Evolution, Plate Tectonics, The Big Bang, and 
Climate Change are all theories.  Scientific theories are more than 
hypotheses, guesses or ideas; rather, they are explanations that have been 
repeatedly tested and supported by data, observations, and experiments.



In the case of all of the scientific theories I cite above, scientists 
continue to test the boundaries of the explanation, and even to accumulate 
evidence to disprove the theory.  As most climate change scientists would 
freely agree, the mechanisms of climate change are complex, and not yet 
entirely understood.  However, there is substantial credible proof that 
climate change is real and that it is caused, at least in substantial part, 
by human action, rather than natural global meteorological cycles.



 To claim baldly that the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm 
<http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm> ), the National Academy of Sciences, 
(http://dels.nas.edu/basc/ <http://dels.nas.edu/basc/> ), NASA, the EPA, and 
almost all professional scientific organizations are not credible on the 
issue of climate change does not pass any evidentiary test I know.   It 
flies in the face of an enormous body of data and tested hypotheses (see 
EPA, State of Knowledge, at 
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html 
<http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html> ).    There 
are a few social scientists and a few climate scientists who deny the 
existence or importance of climate change.  Prominent among them are the 
Danish Political Scientist, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote The Skeptical 
Environmentalist in 2001, and Dr. Richard Lindzen, the MIT scientist who 
wrote the op-ed piece cited earlier.  Each of these critiques has been in 
turn critiqued, but the widespread, gleeful claims that these documents 
disprove the theory of climate change are not true.  For point-by-point 
rebuttals follow the links from here (scroll down to April 2006): 
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/reporting-on-climate/.



As law and as ethics professors, many of the subjects we handle in class are 
controversial.  Whether it's Sarbanes-Oxley, child labor, bribery, or 
fiduciary duties, legal and ethical issues require the evaluation of 
interests, policies and data.  Climate change is no different, and deserves 
careful examination with our students.


Carolyn Hotchkiss
Professor of Law
Babson College


________________________________

From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of Hartman, 
Laura
Sent: Mon 1/8/2007 6:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Law and Ethics in a Business School Context



Last I heard, philosophy did play some remote role in business ethics 
(though I suppose you could argue its extent or role in the classroom is 
open to debate, I guess . . .); and I would humbly submit that business 
ethics remains within the mission of alsb, please?



Smiles, everyone.





Prof. Laura P. Hartman
Assoc. Vice President, Academic Affairs
Professor of Business Ethics, Dept. of Management
DePaul University
1 E. Jackson Blvd., ste. 7000
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph: 312/362-6569, Fax: 312/362-6973
Mobile: 312/493-9929

________________________________

========
At 12:27 PM 1/8/2007, you wrote:



Well, first of all, we do not debate the existence of God in my business 
ethics classes. If you are teaching philosophy, which I do not think is a 
subject covered by ALSB's mission, then certainly you can debate it. My 
issue is that this whole package of global warming is a political malestrom 
with insufficient credible proof. And for inclusion in business ethics 
courses, it does not meet a meaningful standard. If you want to debate it in 
a philosophy course, then be my guest.

One thing most faculty seem to agree on these days is that students do not 
seem to know how to write research papers. They Google a few articles, use 
poor citation form, and think they are done. As faculty, if we do not 
address issues from a meaningful standard, how can we expect the same of our 
students?

David