Background The concept of corporate environmental responsibility has been widely debated. There has been a contention over what should be the responsibility of corporate entities to ensure the environment is sustainably utilized. While some actors have argued that the sole responsibility of corporate entities remains to make profit for the shareholders, others are of the view that there are scenarios where corporate entities should have their contributions in ensuring that there are sound environmental practices so that all organizational ventures are sustainable. The relevance of having corporate taking responsibility for their environmental actions has been exacerbated by the repercussions that have been seen as far as environmental factors are concerned where it is believed that the years of irresponsible business practices and the motive for profit has led to acute degradation of the environment leading to notable problems such as drying water sources, pollution of the oceans and worse still, presence of harmful products in what is consumed. Ethical Grid In an attempt to demystify the role that should be played by the corporate sector in environmental conservation, Hoffman’s case identifies several ethical standpoints that have been pointed out in the ethical greed. Going by the philosophy of Norman Bowie, who is of the view that ethical responsibility for environmental conservation is a responsibility of the government as opposed to corporate entities, one can argue that the relationship between business and environment should be viewed form the Prima-facie ethics point of view. This means that even though it may be an individual’s obligation to take good care of the surrounding, the most fundamental obligation of business entities is to make profits and thus they can override all other obligations to ensure that the profit pursuit is achieved. One can also address the issue form a Supererogatory point of view by arguing that although it is good to take care of the environment, corporate entities that may feel that they are not willing to pump their money towards conservation efforts will not have violated any law. From the utilitarian point of view, the main idea being presented by Hoffman views that corporate entities should be the driving forces towards the environmental conservation. From the utilitarian point of view, it can be said that companies should ensure that they structure their production in such a way that they reduce the strain to the environment while ensuring that they do not overcharge the customers for this. From the libertarian point of view, firms are at liberty to follow only the laws that have been set by the government as opposed to engaging in activities meant to go beyond what the government specifies in their conservation efforts. Solutions From the assigned case, it is evident that the principles of utilitarian ethics were grossly violated. Corporate entities should ensure that their pursuit for profit does not endanger the lives of others, either in the future generation or in the present generation. Thus, organizations should ensure that they engage only in ethical principles that are geared towards producing the best benefit to the populace as opposed to harming the populations in