The closing case details Microsoft’s pledge to go carbon negative by 2030 and to remove all CO2 it has emitted since it was founded by 2050. The company, which has been carbon neutral since 2012, plans to use only renewable energy to run its facilities by 2025 and to fully convert to an electric vehicle fleet for its campus by 2030. Microsoft is also making significant investments in new technologies for carbon reduction. Yet, despite these ambitious plans, critics say the company is not going far enough, pointing out that as long as it does business with companies in the oil and gas industry, it cannot claim to have fully committed to sustainability.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility?icid=SSM_Search_Promo_Other_Sustainability_CTA1


1. Is Microsoft’s decision to go carbon negative by 2030 in the best interests of Microsoft’s stockholders? What about other stakeholders such as the company’s customers, employees, suppliers, and the communities in which it does business?
2. What would the Friedman doctrine suggest about Microsoft’s decision to go carbon negative by 2030?
3. Apply John Rawls’ concept of the veil of ignorance to Microsoft’s decision. What conclusion do you reach about Microsoft’s decision?