First Speaker:

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters, I am the first speaker of the
affirmative side, and today we stand in full support of the motion that demands international
corporations operating in any developing country to uphold the same environmental
standards required in their home country. We believe that this measure is essential for
protecting the environment, ensuring sustainable development, and promoting global
environmental justice. We present the following arguments in support of our position.

First of all, demanding international corporations to uphold the same environmental

standards in developing countries aligns with the principles of corporate social responsibility
(CSR). CSR is a business model that helps a company be socially accountable to itself, its
stakeholders, and the public. Corporations have a moral obligation to operate ethically and
minimize their negative impact on the environment. Here is an example of a company that
did not follow CSR. In the 1990s, tensions arose between the native Ogoni people of the
Niger Delta and the international corporation Shell. According to the United Nations
Economic and Social Council report “Situation of human rights in Nigeria” submitted by the
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, the concerns of the locals were
the severe environmental damages, namely pollution and contamination of rivers caused by
large oil spills due to the exploiting operations by Shell. In 1993 the Movement for the
Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP) organized large protests against Shell and the
government, often occupying the company's production facilities. As a result, Shell withdrew
its operations from the Ogoni areas and the Nigerian government raided their villages and
arrested some of the protest leaders. Some of these arrested protesters, Ken Saro-Wiwa
being the most prominent, were later executed, against widespread international opposition
from the Commonwealth of Nations and human rights organizations. From this devastating
incident, it is clear that we must ensure international corporations have the same
environmental standards across all their operations to fulfill their CSR commitments and
contribute to sustainable development in the developing countries where they operate.

Next, multinational corporations often exploit developing countries with lenient environmental
regulations. They take advantage of weak enforcement mechanisms and operate in ways
that would be considered unacceptable in their home countries. This leads to significant
environmental degradation, including pollution of air, water, and soil, which leads to
deforestation, rising sea levels and the destruction of ecosystems. According to Osai Ojigho,
the director of Amnesty International Nigeria, had this level of contamination and pollution
from the example of the devastating Shell incident stated occurred in Europe or North
America, it is hard to imagine that there would not have been swift and severe
consequences and legal redress. By demanding these corporations to uphold the same
environmental standards as in their home country, we ensure that their operations adhere to
ethical practices and protect the environment.

Thus, I rest my case.

Speaker 2:
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters, I am the 2nd speaker of the
affirmative side and I shall give some rebuttals against the opposing team.
(Oppose their points)

Now I shall present my first point, if we do not enforce consistent environmental standards
that benefit the local communities in developing countries. These communities often bear the
brunt of environmental degradation caused by corporate activities. Reacting to the news that
two Nigerian communities, which have been devastated by oil spills, have filed claims
against Shell at the High Court in London, Amnesty International’s Head of Business and
Human Rights Mark Dummett, said:
“More than 13,500 residents from the Ogale and Bille communities in the Niger Delta have
now filed claims against Shell asking that the company clean up oil spills which have
wrecked their livelihoods, poisoned their wells, and polluted their land and water, which
means they can no longer farm or fish.”
Furthermore, according to Niger Delta activist Saatah Nubari in an interview with CNN, the
Niger Delta has groundwater polluted with benzene 900 times above World Health
Organization (WHO) level, farmlands with poor yields, rivers that are barely fishable,
neonatal deaths numbering thousands yearly as a result of spills and reduced neuroplasticity
of the brain as a result of oil pollution. By demanding international corporations to uphold
high environmental standards, we protect the health and well-being of local residents,
prevent ecological disasters, and preserve the livelihoods of those who depend on the
environment for their sustenance.

Finally, it is essential to recognize that demanding international corporations to meet the

same environmental standards can also bring benefits to these companies themselves.
Upholding high environmental standards enhances their reputation, improves public trust,
and can even lead to increased market share and long-term sustainability. Tesla responded
to concerns over deforestation and promised that clearing trees would be offset by planting
three times as many new ones. It incentivizes corporations to adopt sustainable practices,
invest in clean technologies, and contribute to the transition to a more environmentally
conscious global economy.

Speaker 3:
Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters. I am the 3rd speaker of the
affirmative side and I shall give some counter-points against the opposing team.

(Oppose their points)

 Firstly, it is crucial to recognize that environmental protection is a global concern that
transcends national boundaries. According to a report by Reuters, protests in Berlin,
Germany are opposing the upcoming tesla gigafactory as the water consumption of 372
cubic meters per hour by the plant could cause possible environmental pollution and
shortages. A local water association warned earlier this month of "extensive and serious
problems with the drinking water supply and wastewater disposal," Besides that, protestors
also shouted "We are here, we are loud, because Tesla is stealing our water," at a local
demonstration as quoted by Reuters.

The impacts of environmental degradation, such as climate change and pollution, have far-
reaching consequences that affect not only the developing countries where corporations
operate but the entire planet. A lot of multinational companies headquartered in developed
countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom are sending
plastic waste exports to their subsidiary companies in developing countries. On May 28,
2019, Malaysia’s environment minister announced that the country was sending 3,000 metric
tons of contaminated plastic waste back to these multinational companies. Along with the
Philippines, which is sending 2,400 tons of illegally exported trash back to Canada,
Malaysia’s stance highlights how controversial the global trade in plastic scrap has become.
Developing countries that are taking in the rubbish are sending a powerful message that the
well-being of local communities are important and by demanding consistent environmental
standards, we ensure that international corporations do not exploit developing countries as
pollution havens, where they can engage in practices that would be considered
unacceptable in their home countries.

In conclusion, demanding international corporations to uphold the same environmental

standards as in their home country is crucial for global environmental protection, promoting
fair competition, fulfilling international commitments, and fostering sustainable development.
By holding corporations accountable, we ensure that economic progress goes hand in hand
with environmental responsibility. Let us seize this opportunity to protect our planet and
secure a sustainable future for all.

(Extra Points)

While it is true that developing countries face unique challenges and priorities, it is precisely
because of these challenges that upholding environmental standards becomes even more
critical. Environmental degradation exacerbates the social and economic issues faced by
developing nations, including public health problems, loss of biodiversity, and the
degradation of natural resources that local communities depend on for their livelihoods. By
demanding international corporations to adhere to the same standards, we ensure that their
operations do not perpetuate these challenges but contribute to sustainable development.

Additionally, demanding international corporations to uphold the same environmental

standards aligns with international agreements and initiatives aimed at sustainable
development. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) explicitly call for
responsible consumption and production practices, urging all countries to take action to
address environmental challenges. By holding corporations accountable, we fulfill our
commitment to these global goals and foster international cooperation in tackling
environmental issues.

International corporations that uphold high environmental standards gain a positive

reputation and may have better access to global markets. Many consumers and investors
are increasingly conscious of environmental sustainability and prefer to support companies
with strong environmental records. Demanding consistent standards can incentivize
corporations to prioritize sustainability, attracting responsible investment and fostering a
positive business image.

Next, upholding consistent environmental standards promotes a level playing field for local
businesses. When international corporations can bypass environmental regulations, they
gain an unfair advantage over local businesses that must adhere to stricter standards.
Requiring all companies to meet the same standards fosters fair competition and prevents
the exploitation of environmental loopholes that undermine the growth of domestic
industries. This promotes sustainable economic development in developing countries while
protecting the environment.

Opposing point 1:
Economic development concerns: Critics of uniform standards argue that imposing the same
regulations in developing countries could hinder their economic growth. They contend that
developing countries often prioritize economic development to address poverty,
unemployment, and other pressing social issues. Imposing stringent regulations could
burden businesses with additional costs, potentially discouraging foreign investment and
hindering economic progress.
How we refute:
a) Long-term benefits outweigh short-term costs: While adhering to stringent environmental
standards may initially incur additional costs for businesses and developing countries, it can
bring long-term benefits. Investments in sustainable practices can lead to improved resource
efficiency, reduced waste, and enhanced competitiveness in global markets. Additionally, a
healthier environment can attract eco-conscious consumers and environmentally responsible
investors.

b) Innovation and technological advancements: Implementing higher environmental

standards can drive innovation and technological advancements. Companies may be
incentivized to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies, which can ultimately reduce
costs, increase productivity, and foster economic growth. It can create opportunities for local
businesses and industries to specialize in eco-friendly products and services, leading to job
creation and economic diversification.

Opposing Point 2:
Adaptability and context: Opponents of uniform standards highlight the importance of
considering local contexts and allowing for adaptability. They argue that each country faces
unique environmental challenges and has different capacities to address them. Imposing the
same standards might not be suitable or feasible in all cases and could impede countries'
ability to tailor their regulations to local conditions.

How we refute:
a) Global environmental challenges require unified action: Many environmental issues, such
as climate change and biodiversity loss, are global in nature and require concerted efforts
from all countries. By upholding consistent environmental standards, international
corporations can contribute to a unified response to these challenges. Shared standards can
help prevent a race to the bottom, where countries compete by lowering regulations, leading
to a collective degradation of the environment.

b) Learning from best practices: Adopting environmental standards from more developed
countries can provide a valuable learning opportunity for developing nations. It allows them
to benefit from the knowledge and experiences of others and avoid repeating mistakes. By
implementing proven standards, developing countries can leapfrog certain stages of
environmental degradation and move towards more sustainable development pathways.

Opposing Point 3:
Capacity building and collaboration: Rather than imposing standards, some argue for a
collaborative approach. International corporations could work with local governments and
communities to develop and strengthen environmental regulations, focusing on capacity
building and technology transfer. This approach can help foster knowledge exchange,
empower local stakeholders, and ensure the standards are realistic and effective in the local
context.
How we refute:
a) Limited regulatory capacity and expertise: Developing countries may lack the necessary
resources, regulatory frameworks, and technical expertise to effectively address
environmental challenges on their own. Collaboration with international corporations can
help bridge these gaps by sharing knowledge, providing training, and assisting in capacity
building. This collaborative approach ensures that environmental regulations are
implemented effectively and with the support of relevant stakeholders.

b) Ensuring corporate accountability: Collaborating with international corporations to develop

and enforce environmental standards can help ensure their accountability. By involving
these companies in the process, there is greater transparency, monitoring, and compliance
with the standards. It also fosters a sense of shared responsibility and encourages
corporations to invest in sustainable practices, knowing that they are actively contributing to
environmental protection.

Opposing point 4 : Imposing the same environmental standards across different countries
fails to consider the unique circumstances and development stages of each nation.
Developing countries often face different economic and social challenges compared to their
developed counterparts. Forcing them to comply with the same standards can hinder their
economic growth, impede foreign investment, and hamper their ability to address other
pressing issues such as poverty eradication and healthcare. A one-size-fits-all approach
disregards the specific contexts and needs of developing countries.

Rebuttal:
Thank you to the Opposition for raising these concerns. However, we would like to address
them and reaffirm our position.

While it is true that developing countries face unique circumstances and development
challenges, it is essential to recognize that environmental protection is a global concern that
transcends national boundaries. By demanding international corporations to uphold the
same environmental standards, we are not advocating for a rigid one-size-fits-all approach.
Instead, we are advocating for a baseline of environmental responsibility that all corporations
should adhere to, while allowing flexibility for developing countries to tailor their specific
implementation strategies.

Furthermore, the argument that enforcing equal environmental standards hinders economic
growth and foreign investment is not supported by evidence. In fact, there are numerous
examples where implementing stricter environmental regulations has not only led to
environmental benefits but also attracted sustainable investments and improved the overall
business environment. Companies increasingly value sustainable practices and are more
likely to invest in countries that demonstrate a commitment to environmental responsibility.
By upholding the same standards, developing countries can position themselves as
attractive destinations for responsible and sustainable investment.

Additionally, environmental protection is not an isolated issue from poverty eradication and
healthcare. On the contrary, it is closely interconnected. Environmental degradation
disproportionately affects marginalized communities and exacerbates social inequalities. By
demanding equal environmental standards, we ensure that international corporations do not
exploit weaker regulations in developing countries, which often leads to environmental
injustices and health hazards for local communities. This, in turn, aligns with the broader
goal of poverty eradication and healthcare improvement, as a healthy and sustainable
environment is crucial for overall human well-being.

In conclusion, imposing the same environmental standards across different countries does
not disregard the unique circumstances and needs of developing nations. It establishes a
baseline for environmental responsibility and encourages sustainable investment, which can
contribute to long-term economic growth and address social issues. Let us strive for a world
where international corporations operate responsibly, regardless of the countries they are in,
to create a more equitable and sustainable future for all.

Thank you.

Oppose Point 5: Furthermore, rather than demanding uniform standards, it is more effective
to support capacity building and technology transfer in developing countries. By providing
assistance and knowledge transfer, developed nations can help developing countries
improve their environmental practices and gradually move towards higher standards. This
approach promotes sustainable development while acknowledging the specific challenges
faced by these nations.

Rebuttal (OG):
Thank you for your response. We understand your perspective, but we would like to offer a
rebuttal to the points raised.

While capacity building and technology transfer are important aspects of sustainable
development, they should not be viewed as alternatives to demanding international
corporations to uphold the same environmental standards. Both approaches can work in
tandem to achieve the desired outcomes.

Demanding equal environmental standards serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure that

international corporations are held accountable for their environmental impact. It establishes
a clear benchmark for responsible behavior and prevents companies from exploiting weaker
regulations in developing countries. This is essential for preventing environmental
degradation and safeguarding the interests of local communities.

Supporting capacity building and technology transfer is indeed important, and it can be
complementary to demanding equal environmental standards. By requiring corporations to
meet higher standards, they are incentivized to invest in cleaner technologies and practices.
This, in turn, promotes technology transfer from developed countries to developing ones,
enabling the sharing of expertise and knowledge that can contribute to local capacity
building. Both approaches work together to promote sustainable development and address
the specific challenges faced by developing nations.

It is important to recognize that capacity building and technology transfer alone may not be
sufficient to ensure environmental responsibility from international corporations. Without
clear standards and regulations, there is a risk of inconsistent practices and exploitation of
weaker regulations. Demanding equal environmental standards provides a necessary
framework for accountability and prevents the race to the bottom in terms of environmental
practices.

In conclusion, while capacity building and technology transfer are valuable components of
sustainable development, they should not be seen as alternatives to demanding equal
environmental standards. Both approaches can work together to promote responsible
behavior, foster technology transfer, and address the specific challenges faced by
developing nations. By setting clear standards, we can ensure that international corporations
operate in an environmentally responsible manner, leading to a more sustainable future for
all.

Thank you.

Opposing Point 6:
Cultural and Regulatory Differences: Developing countries often have different cultural and
regulatory frameworks compared to developed countries. Imposing the same environmental
standards from the home country may not align with the local values, traditions, and legal
systems. It is important to respect the sovereignty of each nation and allow them to
determine their own environmental policies that best suit their unique circumstances.

While it is true that developing countries may have different cultural and regulatory
frameworks, it is important to recognize that environmental issues transcend cultural
boundaries and have global implications. Environmental challenges such as climate change,
deforestation, and pollution have far-reaching consequences that affect the entire planet,
regardless of cultural diversity.

Global Environmental Responsibility: Environmental protection is a shared responsibility that

extends beyond national borders. International corporations, as global entities, have a duty
to uphold environmental standards that align with the global consensus on sustainability and
responsible business practices. By maintaining consistent environmental standards across
their operations, regardless of the cultural context, corporations can contribute to global
efforts to mitigate environmental degradation and promote sustainable development.

Opposing Point 7:
Demanding international corporations to uphold the same environmental standards places
an unfair burden on developing countries. These nations often lack the necessary resources,
technology, and expertise to meet the stringent standards set by developed countries. It is
unrealistic to expect them to achieve these standards immediately, as it would require
substantial investments and significant time. Imposing such requirements can discourage
foreign investment, hamper economic growth, and perpetuate dependency on developed
countries.
Rebuttal (OG):
Thank you for presenting your concerns. We would like to address them and provide a
rebuttal.

While it is true that developing countries may face challenges in meeting the same
environmental standards as developed countries, it is important to understand that
demanding equal standards does not necessarily mean an immediate and unrealistic
transition. We advocate for a gradual shift towards higher environmental standards, allowing
developing countries to balance economic growth with environmental responsibility.

Imposing the same environmental standards on international corporations does not place an
unfair burden on developing countries. Instead, it holds corporations accountable for their
environmental impact and encourages them to adopt sustainable practices. By doing so, it
promotes long-term economic growth that is built on environmentally responsible
foundations.

Moreover, the argument that demanding equal environmental standards discourages foreign
investment is not supported by evidence. In fact, many investors consider environmental
sustainability as a key factor in their decision-making process. By upholding the same
standards, developing countries can position themselves as attractive destinations for
responsible and sustainable investment. The demand for sustainable practices is growing
globally, and aligning with these standards can open new avenues for foreign investment
and economic growth.

Furthermore, by demanding equal environmental standards, developing countries can

reduce their dependence on developed nations. They can foster their own domestic
industries and expertise in environmentally friendly technologies, creating opportunities for
innovation, job creation, and economic diversification. Rather than perpetuating dependency,
equal standards can empower developing countries to build their own sustainable futures.

In conclusion, demanding international corporations to uphold the same environmental

standards as developed countries is not an unfair burden on developing nations. It is a
necessary step towards promoting sustainable development, attracting responsible
investment, and reducing dependency. By setting clear expectations, we create a level
playing field and ensure that all countries contribute to the global efforts of environmental
protection and sustainability.

Thank you.

Closing Opposition (CO): (4 minutes)

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters, today we stand in opposition
to the motion that demands international corporations operating in any developing country to
uphold the same environmental standards required in their home country. While we
acknowledge the importance of environmental protection, we believe that this measure is
impractical, unjust, and undermines the principles of economic development and national
sovereignty. We present the following arguments to support our position.
Firstly, imposing the same environmental standards across different countries disregards the
unique challenges and priorities faced by developing nations. Developing countries often
have pressing needs related to poverty eradication, healthcare, and basic infrastructure. By
forcing them to prioritize environmental standards that may not align with their current stage
of development, we hinder their ability to address these fundamental issues. A more
pragmatic approach is to recognize the progress developing countries have made and
support them in their own sustainable development journey, taking into account their specific
context and needs.

Secondly, demanding international corporations to uphold the same environmental

standards places an unfair burden on developing countries. These nations often lack the
necessary resources, technology, and expertise to meet the stringent standards set by
developed countries. It is unrealistic to expect them to achieve these standards immediately,
as it would require substantial investments and significant time. Imposing such requirements
can discourage foreign investment, hamper economic growth, and perpetuate dependency
on developed countries.

Furthermore, imposing uniform environmental standards undermines the principles of

national sovereignty and self-determination. Developing countries should have the autonomy
to set their own environmental regulations based on their unique circumstances and
development goals. By demanding adherence to foreign standards, we risk perpetuating a
neocolonial mindset, where developing countries are treated as subordinate and must
conform to the demands of developed nations.

Moreover, it is more effective to promote voluntary environmental initiatives and

collaborations rather than enforce strict regulations. Many international corporations have
already demonstrated their commitment to sustainable practices voluntarily. Encouraging
partnerships, knowledge sharing, and technology transfer between developed and
developing countries can yield better outcomes. This approach allows for tailored solutions
that align with the specific needs and capacities of each country, fostering genuine
cooperation and sustainable development.

In conclusion, while environmental protection is essential, demanding international

corporations to uphold the same environmental standards as in their home country is
impractical, unjust, and undermines national sovereignty. We must recognize the unique
challenges faced by developing nations and support their own sustainable development
pathways. By fostering voluntary initiatives, collaboration, and tailored approaches, we can
achieve a more equitable and effective global environmental agenda.

Thank you

Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed judges, and fellow debaters, today we stand in opposition
to the motion that demands international corporations operating in any developing country to
uphold the same environmental standards required in their home country. While we
recognize the importance of environmental protection, we believe that this measure is
impractical, unfair, and counterproductive to the goals of sustainable development. We
present the following arguments to support our position.
Firstly, imposing the same environmental standards across different countries fails to
consider the unique circumstances and development stages of each nation. Developing
countries often face different economic and social challenges compared to their developed
counterparts. Forcing them to comply with the same standards can hinder their economic
growth, impede foreign investment, and hamper their ability to address other pressing issues
such as poverty eradication and healthcare. A one-size-fits-all approach disregards the
specific contexts and needs of developing countries.

Secondly, demanding international corporations to meet the same environmental standards

as in their home country places an unfair burden on these companies. The standards set in
developed countries may have been established over many years of economic progress,
technological advancements, and social development. Developing countries may lack the
necessary infrastructure, resources, and capacity to achieve these standards immediately.
Imposing stringent regulations without considering the development gap between nations
can stifle foreign investment, hinder job creation, and ultimately harm the economies of
developing countries.

Furthermore, rather than demanding uniform standards, it is more effective to support

capacity building and technology transfer in developing countries. By providing assistance
and knowledge transfer, developed nations can help developing countries improve their
environmental practices and gradually move towards higher standards. This approach
promotes sustainable development while acknowledging the specific challenges faced by
these nations.

Moreover, international corporations already face various regulations and standards in the
countries they operate in. Imposing additional regulations may discourage their presence or
push them to relocate their operations to countries with more lenient regulations. This can
result in a loss of job opportunities and economic benefits for developing countries, further
exacerbating poverty and inequality.

In conclusion, while environmental protection is crucial, demanding international

corporations to uphold the same environmental standards as in their home country is
impractical, unfair, and counterproductive to the goals of sustainable development. Instead,
we should focus on supporting capacity building, technology transfer, and tailored
approaches that consider the unique circumstances of developing countries. By doing so, we
can promote sustainable development while respecting the economic realities and
aspirations of these nations.

Thank you.