4 ms·
> But a year after the contract was signed — during which time 12,000 metric tons of orange peels were unloaded onto the degraded land — TicoFruit, a rival comp
by ctippett 2y ago
> But a year after the contract was signed — during which time 12,000 metric tons of orange peels were unloaded onto the degraded land — TicoFruit, a rival company, sued, arguing the company had “defiled a national park.” The rival company won the case in front of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court, and the orange-peel-covered land was largely overlooked for the next 15 years.
Sounds like corporate jealousy on the part of the competitor. I wonder if the supreme court decision has set a precedent preventing future projects like this from going ahead. I don't think anyone would describe the land after 15 years as being "defiled" – quite the opposite.
- Clamchop 2y agoI wonder under what legal theory it was decided. They'd seem to lack standing for not being party to the arrangement, but I'm not a lawyer and this was in Costa Rica anyway.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoIt really depends on the national park I think; there's one in my country called the Hoge Veluwe, which is a pretty arid and poor area. However, that's the local ecosystem and the objective is to maintain it. They could dump a heap of green waste on it and make it teeming with life, but... that's not the ecosystem being protected.
- voiceblue 2y agoThere were no repercussions at all to their competitor (and, the Supreme Court sided with them), so it was logically the right move for a corporation. If the country or its people don’t bring the repercussions now, why wouldn’t these things continue to happen? It’s not a corporations job to regulate itself. If anything we can only blame the short sightedness and pettiness of humanity, which is causing bigger issues to flourish today.
- jgeada 2y agoThis is the thing that frustrates me so much about this sort of discussion: Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it is ethical. We keep dismissing ethics as any consideration from business conduct. It is legal to ignore any and all environmental costs that have not yet been made illegal, so are corporations duty bound to ignore any obvious deleterious consequences as long as there is money to make today? Something feels very wrong about this approach.
- ctippett 2y agoI'm not sure I follow your train of thought. What sort of repercussions are you alluding to?
- voiceblue 2y agoI’m just saying it’s not “corporate jealousy”, it’s a rational strategic decision. If you want it to stop, you have to affect the rationale.
- brenschluss 2y agoThis either 1) assumes a homeomorphism between rationality and ethics, or 2) is technically true but missing the point. Akin to saying: "Human deaths via a tsunami isn't a 'bad thing', it's a natural phenomenon"