The Precautionary Principle Case Solution

2. Supporting Facts

The case points out that in the last two decades there has been strong support for The Precautionary Principle; more so after the United Nations’ Rio Declaration in 1992. The Precautionary Principle puts the onus of giving evidence on those who may allegedly hinder environmental development due to their business practices. The onus in this regard has shifted away from those who attack or initiate an objection against business practices. Therefore, it is business organizations and industries who have to defend their practices today.

3. SWOT Analysis

4. Alternative Solutions

Two main solutions exist with regards to applying The Precautionary Principle:

• Relax the ideals and do not treat each industry with ambiguity. In other words, do not actively track the performance of business organizations and penalize them until it is proven against them that they are involved in environmental degradation.

• The second solution encourages vehemently pursuing regulation and stricter checks and balances in the case of business organizations. Such an approach may be referred to as foresightedness and is the core of The Precautionary Principle, whose proponents believe in a proactive approach.

5. Conclusion of the case

The case concludes with the applicability and implementation of The Precautionary Principle today. Primarily, The Precautionary Principle is more applicable and discussed in the case with regards to cattle farming and the use of growth hormones, the chemicals industry, and the pharmaceutical industry.