Debate: We will not solve environmental problems by relying solely on the goodwill and voluntary initiatives of business and industry.

The sheer idea of relying solely on an environmentalist or humanitarian effort from businesses—particularly massive corporations—is irrational. Frankly, environmentally sound business practices, as rational, moral, and respectable as they are, frequently are high in cost—or, to put it in better terms, a loss of profit.
While an argument like this may seem excessively cynical, it is quite logical. Rationally speaking, all for-profit businesses exist to make a profit. Profit comes, of course, from receiving a revenue that is higher than the costs of operating such a business. Following this train of thought, if the costs of operating a business are significantly—or even insignificantly—raised, profits are reduced. Because of this, and because a ceaseless desire to increase profits is what makes so many businesses become multi-billion dollar industries, most businesses are not likely to take environmental precautions.
Take, for example, the idea of factory farms, in which most American meat comes from. Animals, particularly cattle, raised in these "farms" produce over 100 times more pollutant-waste annually than the entire human population does. This, and an innumerable number of other air, water, and pesticide/antibiotic-based problems, comes entirely from the idea of profit-based business practices trumping moral business practices. Because it's cheaper to create such a facility than it is to, say, raise animals on actual farms, businesses choose to create massive facilities, pay their workers as minimally as possible, and even hire illegal immigrants and offer quite absurd and immoral "wages". A cyclical effect is created, in which those hungry for profits cut corners in order to offer lower prices and consequently make higher profits, gain more money, and thus more influence. Even the American government supports this by purchasing meat for public school lunches from Case Farms, one of the most egregious offenders; apart from the shameful environmental impact these factories have, Case Farms has become notorious for finding legal loopholes for hiring illegal immigrants at illegal wages and exposing them to dangerous, if not deadly, working conditions.
But back to the idea of environmentalism; businesses will not likely make these decisions on their own. They will do what makes money, and at the current time, cutting corners and treating the planet like a waste bin is what keeps profits high. This can only change with the consumers, who truly hold all the power. There is an illusion of powerlessness that these mega-corporations create. Consumers, assuming their own choices to be minimal, support the irresponsible and immoral companies out of what they consider to be an only resort. Once consumers demand more from whom they support economically, however, a change is forced. If a massive body of consumers were to demand an energy company to invest in green energy, for example, the company would likely do so in order to keep making a profit. The unfortunate truth is that one single person cannot make a change like this alone; people must make corporations and businesses (who, of course, are merely run by people, just like you and I) accountable for their actions. They must be held to a higher standard or business should not be given to them. Only when the consumers take the moral stance to avoid supporting behavior that threatens the planet and all life on it will businesses actually make a change. Wheter for a selfish reason or not, a change will be made, and that's a compromise at the very least!
https://foodispower.org/pollution-water-air-chemicals/

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/26/capitalism-environment-green-greed-slow-life-symposium-tony-juniper