Nestles Bottling Water Company case study

There is a strong connection between the nature of natural capital and the existence of mankind. Both two have a symbiotic relationship, and therefore the aftermath of any environmental destruction is dependent on human exploitation of the aforementioned. This without doubt explains why environmental ethics are implemented in relation to various production sectors that transform energy into marketable goods.
To demonstrate this, we use Nestle's Bottling Water Company as the key example and protagonist in the Michigan environmental problem by piping water from a nearby spring. The step by the company is what brood controversies between it and Michigan citizens undoubtedly proving the grounds of the wrangles between the two parties. Hence, the controversy existing palpably attests the relationship between humans and the natural environment. Thusly, the Citizens in Michigan ought to be concerned about how and who uses the states ground water. Seemingly, assorted justice cases arise in this issue in regards to Nestle Company’s initiative of pumping water from Michigan springs.
With respect to humanity sustainability, access to clean water is a human right similarly to basic needs. As an outcome, this case raises issues of environmental justice that the state advocates for like protection and conservation of water bodies. Moreover, Environmental Justice (EJ) charter deems water sources as publicly owned and prohibits privatization of water bodies by any organization. EJ plainly stipulates in its charter that the public or rather its inhabitants manage any natural water source. This therefore implies that it is the mandate of the Public to utilize the resources potential benefits to the latter and facilitate sustainability of wildlife in the areas (Christian-Smith et al, 2012).
As far as Nestle’s Company initiative is concerned, pumping 262 gallons of water per year from the Sanctuary spring constitutes null reasonable use. Nonetheless, it is visibly dubious that increasing the volume of water pumped per minute would make its use more rational. Furthermore, the company is treating the Public, inclusive of both the local inhabitants and Native American tribes, unfair. This is in regards to decision making concerning the Company’s initiative to pump water from Sanctuary spring. Actually, Federal Water Policy and EJ legislations statement that the community is the fountain of managing these bodies affirms the aforementioned. However, the body like wisely states that water sources can equally be utilized for economical purpose. However, it would be unfair to restrict the Company to pump water from the springs but under an arrived at consensus between the community and the company (Christian-Smith et al, 2012).
To be more precise, groundwater is a public resource and thus the public has all rights reserved to utilize groundwater. In accordance to Glennon (2012), underground water is a natural resource just like the other and hence the Public has the strongest claim of the resource. However, underground water is subjected to the nation’s management in order to avert cases of inequity in water distribution. Even though the source might be in someone’s land, the state manages it to circumvent water shortage to the localities living around that particular region. Talking of these resources, the state holds title to the reserve in trust to its populace heeding to both present and future generations (Glennon, 2012).
The above case can literally be accessed from the perspective of the three theories of justice. Foremost when accessing it from the standpoint of utilitarian theory of justice, the case raises forth concerns of human rights and their welfare. The justice theory focuses on humanity rights, laws and the states intervention that can lead to their greatest happiness and comfort. Thus, utilitarianism advocates for each citizens right to own property notwithstanding any inferiority they may be subjected to. Therefore, utilitarianism theory would evaluate the case between the two parties assessing whether humanity rights are being violated in quest for the company’s initiatives. Consequently, this theory would ensure that Nestle’s company rights do not override the localities rights. Hence, prospects of the inhabitants suffering from deprivation of their resources stand a chance of being exterminate (Gray, 2013).
Nevertheless, assessing the case from the viewpoint of libertarian theory would imply addressing three chief components that is liberty, life and property of the community around Michigan. Therefore, this would mean that the inhabitants of Michigan are deprived not of their right to own property. What is more, they would be at liberty to utilize underground water to their gains and be protected against coerced actions of Nestlle’s Bottle Water Company. However, this theory mode of tackling the case at hand only focuses on some freedom and inefficiently addresses ideal rights of both parties (Gray, 2013).
Needless to say, Rawlsian theory of justice is not an exclusion in assessing the aforementioned controversial case. Rawlsian theory of justice is fountain on fairness in justice. Ostensibly, this theory states that diverse individuals wait for fair distribution of justice in such cases. This implies that a just platform ought to be set in order to reach an insightful equilibrium that will value all parties and eradicate biasness in justice. In the above case, this theory stoutly concurs with libertarian theory of justice where negative rights outweigh humanity positive rights. Subsequently, this theory would ensure that the verdict reached over the issue would be a good turn to both parties hence promoting equality. This connotes that the case would leverage to favor both parties and hence none is left at worst (Gray, 2013).
Regarding the above theories of Justice, Rawlsian theory of justice stands out as the most illuminating approach to use in the above case. Its lucid fairness of justice logic depicts the social order of free society that is realistic and illusion free. Moreover, the theory without a doubt asserts of a social order that the human race looks forward to have.
In summation, it is evident that underground water sources are a vital resource to humanity. Hence, the governments of diverse states have created awareness towards its conservation and held them public free from firms and individuals privatization.











References
Christian-Smith et al. (2012). A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glennon., J., R. (2012). Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America's Fresh Waters. Washington D.C. : Island Press
Gray., B., C. (2013). The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia. London: Routledge.







Quiz 4- utilitarian- 100 words.
Libertarian- 100 words
Rawlsian – 100 words
Conclusion – 50 words