TOPIC 3: Should companies be required to offer alternative, sustainable solutions to clients

who require the use of hazardous or environmentally harmful chemicals? (Table 3

Researchers)
Insert notes here…

Table 3.1. Oppositions Arguments

Possible Counter-Argument
Resolution to Counter-
Opposition Main Arguments (Could be used by Affirmative
Arguments
Side)
It is the job of companies to
protect their brand and maintain
a good image to attract more
investors or clients. On the other
hand, Clients have the right to
Competitive Dis-advantage: choose the products or services
Costumer is vulnerable to that best meet their needs and
possible disadvantage in the preferences. As a company that
Possible Environmental
market which results to profit accepts the process the clients
Impacts: Using hazardous
loss. One of advantages to have proposes/uses means there are
chemicals could lead to
unique way of using hazardous standard safety precautions that
hazardous effects in the
chemicals that would lead to must be met and met by the
environment making people
novel and innovative products company to mitigate
more vulnerable to health issues
that gives the opportunity to environmental risks when using
attract consumers and these hazardous chemicals. RA
investors. 6969 is one of the Laws proposed
in the country that allows the
company to run hazardous
chemical usage while minimizing
or preventing environmental
risks.
Client Rights:
Requiring companies to offer
only alternative, sustainable
solutions could limit client
choice and infringe upon their
autonomy to make decisions
based on their own priorities,
including cost, performance, or
availability.
Economic burden: RequiringThe financial advantagesThe upfront costs of transitioning
companies to provide alternativeoutweigh costs: Whileto sustainable alternatives may
solutions may result indeveloping and implementingstill pose significant financial
significant financial expenses forsustainable alternatives mightburdens for SMEs, particularly
businesses, especially smallinvolve substantial initial costs,those with limited resources or
and medium-sized enterprisesthe long-term economic benefitsaccess to capital. Without
(SMEs). Developing andmight outweigh these prices.adequate support mechanisms
implementing sustainableInvesting in sustainableor incentives, these costs may
alternatives could requirepractices can end up in costoutweigh the potential benefits,
substantial investments insavings through higherleading to financial strain and
research, development, andproductivity, fewer wastehindering business growth.
infrastructure, which couldproducts, and enhanced brandThese Transitions are only
strain limited resources andreputation, ultimatelyapplicable to businesses or
hinder economic growth. contributing to companies'clients that have an efficient
growth and competitiveness. amount of funds that could
support the cost of the
transitioning process.
While international
competitiveness is important,
it's essential to balance
Competitive disadvantage:While there may be concernseconomic concerns with
Mandating the use of alternativeabout global competition,environmental protection.
solutions for certain chemicalsimplementing sustainablePhilippine laws such as the
could put domesticpractices could enhance thePhilippine Green Building Code,
companies/clients at areputation and marketability ofthe Ecological Solid Waste
competitive disadvantagePhilippine products and servicesManagement Act (RA 9003), and
compared to foreign competitorsthroughout the world. Domesticthe oxic Substances and
operating in countries with lessbusinesses that comply withHazardous and Nuclear Wastes
stringent regulations. This couldinternational sustainabilityControl (RA 6969) emphasize the
lead to market distortions andstandards may access newimportance of sustainable
potentially drive businesses tomarkets, attract environmentallydevelopment and environmental
relocate or outsourceconcerned consumers, andprotection, providing a legal
production to regions with lowerdifferentiate themselves fromframework to support domestic
regulatory burdens. competitors. companies in meeting
international standards while
ensuring environmental
sustainability.

Table 3.2 Affirmative Side’s Arguments

Possible Counter-
Affirmative Side Possible Resolution to Rebuttals for their
Argument (Could be used
Main Arguments Counter-Argument Resolutions
by Opposition Side)
Businesses exist primarilyIt should be noted that
to generate profit for theirbusinesses have aExecutives have a
Environmental stakeholders, includingbroader responsibilityfiduciary duty to act in
Responsibility: shareholders andbeyond maximizingthe best interests of
Companies have ainvestors. From thisshareholder wealth andshareholders and that
moral and ethicalperspective, the ethicalshould consider theprioritizing other
obligation toobligation of a company isinterests of allstakeholders may divert
minimize their impactto prioritize financialstakeholders, includingattention and resources
on the environment. success above all else,employees, customers,away from maximizing
including environmentalcommunities, and theshareholder returns.
responsibility. environment.
 While risk-benefit
assessments are
essential, waiting for
In some cases, the risks
conclusive evidence of
associated with alternative
harm may lead to
Public Health and chemicals may outweigh
irreversible damage.
Safety: Hazardous the benefits. For example,
Implementing
chemicals pose substitutes may have
regulations based on the
significant risks to unknown long-term health
precautionary principle
human health, both effects or could be less
allows us to take
in terms of effective at performing
preventive action to
immediate exposure essential functions,
safeguard human health
and long-term potentially leading to
and the environment.
effects. Requiring unintended consequences.
While regulatory
companies to offer In certain industries, viable
compliance may impose
safer alternatives can alternatives to hazardous
costs on businesses, the
help safeguard the chemicals may not yet
potential savings in
health and well-being exist or may be
healthcare expenditures
of workers, prohibitively expensive.
and productivity losses
consumers, and Mandating alternatives
resulting from reduced
communities. By without considering their
exposure to hazardous
reducing exposure to availability and economic
chemicals can outweigh
harmful substances, feasibility could disrupt
these costs in the long
we can prevent supply chains and hinder
run. Investing in
illnesses, injuries, the functioning of essential
prevention can lead to
and even fatalities. sectors such as
significant cost savings
manufacturing, agriculture,
by avoiding the human
and healthcare.
and environmental toll of
chemical-related
illnesses and accidents.