Sustainable Development and Its Significance - Essay Example

Introduction "Sustainable development" has become a fashionable phrase in modern business. It implies a sense of environmental and social responsibility that can be a public relations boon for a business that appears to embrace the concept. The phrase relates to business practices that are conscious of the potential negative repercussions they may have on the world in which they are carried out, and that seek to mitigate those repercussions. Sustainable development implies a long term view of how to ensure business practices do not ultimately destroy the very market that makes those practices profitable. In other words, sustainable development is often willing to sacrifice short term profit in favor of ensuring long term profit potential. Thus, it may appear to run contrary to the fundamental driver of business activity - generating as much profit in as short a period of time as possible. Nevertheless, the public image advantage that a business with a true sustainable development strategy can enjoy may result in both short term gain and long term potential. Sustainable development is an important issue all over the globe, from the developed to the developing world, as the risk of environmental degradation and social decay resulting from irresponsible business practices is ubiquitous. "Sustainable development is not just an issue for developing countries. A commitment to the promotion of sustainable development is deepening at the international, regional and national levels. It has become a norm of global environmental politics; it is a legal requirement of Member States of the EU; and, within a UK context, is forming an important part of environment and development strategies of devolved governments" (http://books.google.com/booksid=UFZSCqtS3h8C&dq=sustainable+development&pg=PA1&ots=NbcrmR3fnq&sig=tfWA-gZ_xJ0rrHIw9BMopvfHfBs&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dsustainable%2Bdevelopment%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1). Sustainable development has run into criticism despite its basis in ethical business practices and its potential to solidify a long term profit center. Such criticism has been grounded in a skepticism regarding the true motive of a business that pursues sustainable development strategies. A cynical view holds that businesses will not naturally display social and environmental responsibility out of the kindness of their hearts. Rather, businesses are either forced to do so under threat of legal repercussions of they do not; or they choose to do so as a result of a calculation that doing so bears greater profit potential than not doing so. To be sure, a purely capitalistic view of business would regard as anathema the notion that businesses need to care about a greater good beyond generation of profit. According to this view, the raison d'tre of private sector business is exclusively to make money; and to pretend otherwise is an exercise in naivety. Ultimately, the accuracy of these criticisms offers the insight necessary for ensuring businesses see the benefit of adhering to sustainable development strategies. Defining Sustainable Development Sustainable development has been defined in the 1987 Brundtland Commission report as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (http://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/nachhaltig/international_uno/unterseite02330/). It is grounded in the notion that "we are living beyond our means. From the loss of biodiversity with the felling of rainforests or over fishing to the negative effect our consumption patterns are having on the environment and the climate. Our way of life is placing an increasing burden on the planet" (http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/index.htm). More specifically, "sustainability has been described as focusing on the 'triple bottom line,' the need to balance the three E's in the global economy: economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity. In other words, economic growth must be pursued in a manner that ensures the protection of both social and environmental systems" (Anonymous, 2000, para. 1). This definition involves a consideration of the economic impact of how a given generation handles its responsibilities as evidenced by its impact on future generations. In other words, "future generations must be left with an ecologically viable and socially stable planet upon which to live," and "present generations must be accorded an equal opportunity for economic security as well as the fair distribution of environmental costs and benefits" (para. 1). In short, "the links between environmental degradation and economic activity in the developing world must be severed" (para. 1). As such, the concept of sustainable development "strives for a perpetually stable resource base, involving no depletion of resources or ecosystems (and possibly even an expansion of those benefits), and a perpetually stable social system, with no unfair inequities in standards of living, personal security, and income distribution" (para. 1). Essentially, an economic growth formula is achieved that is non-parasitic in that it does not sap the resources of the environment that sustains such growth. The concept of sustainable development arguably presents a challenge to traditional notions of what a market economy calls for. Essentially, "sustainable development means much more than standard conceptions of eco-efficiency or social welfare. It is about changing the values of the system by which such problems are both created and resolved. Clearly, the values and practices of such a new system may be at significant odds with present market signals and objectives, depending on who ultimately defines them" (para. 5). Therefore, truly embracing sustainability may require a wholesale reevaluation of the assumptions that have been the foundation of capitalist economics for hundreds of years. The implications of disregarding the need for sustainable development are potentially grave. According the Earth Institute at Columbia University, "Ignoring the issues of sustainable development has many possible consequences, such as rising sea levels, extreme droughts, erosion and loss of forests, increases in slum populations, species extinctions and collapsing fisheries. There is also increasing evidence that issues such as water scarcity play a role in internal violence and regional conflict" (http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sus_dev/). Clearly, a focus on sustainability is not merely a token bow to being a good corporate citizen. Rather, it is a critical factor in maintaining a setting in which businesses can continue to prosper well into the foreseeable future without severely damaging those on whom they depend for patronage and profit. Criticisms and Response The main criticisms of sustainable development relate to its departure from traditional free market economics. Much of the 21st Century developed world owes its standard of living to the capitalistic ideals of market economics premised on the belief that wealth trickles down and that a rising tide raises all ships. Development and globalization have embraced the notion that standard of living is exclusively defined by income levels and access to income earning opportunities. The importance of a clean environment and a caring society that seeks to leave nobody behind has been given short shrift. Thus, the basis of criticism of sustainability overlooks many of the key considerations of what really makes for a high standard of living. Certainly income is one component, but who wants to be wealthy while living in a wasteland in which people do not care about one another Of course, it would be nave to assume that businesses will act as good corporate citizens out of the kindness of their hearts. After all, business regulations relating to labor, environmental protection, consumer protection and the like have come about largely as a response to a very real and demonstrated track record of corporate irresponsibility with regard to these issues. Although businesses play the most critical role in the success of sustainable development, they must be forced to assume that role. This is where the political will of global society is essential. When the citizens of the world demand accountability and responsibility from global business, it will happen. That requires not only pressing for governmental action to legally compel ethical and sustainable business practices; but it also requires a refusal to patronize businesses that operate irresponsibly. In effect, the refusal of a business to implement sustainable development practices must be made to be an unprofitable course of action as it fails to respond to market demand for socially responsible products and services. When a choice exists between competing companies with sustainable development strategies and those without, the right decision of consumers and investors should be crystal clear. In the Adam Smithian state of nature, business certainly exists to increase profits. However, the world has evolved and the long history of business regulation around the developed world has demonstrated the importance of controlling the worst inclinations of business in order to prevent abuse in the name of profit. Without such regulatory control, capitalism would arguably have failed a long time ago. Thus, compelling businesses to adopt sustainable development policies within their long term strategies is consistent with a long tradition of governmental actions that have contributed to the success of free market economics. Further, even in that state of nature described by Adam Smith, the demand side of the market can wield tremendous clout in forcing the hand of business. Conclusion Sustainable development is more important today than ever before, as various threats such as global warming, depletion of rain forests, over fishing, and excessive consumption of fossil fuels threaten the modern way of life and the very market on which businesses rely. It calls for a long term view of the impact of businesses practices on the environment and on social conditions, with an accompanying effort to make sure business activities do not deplete crucial resources or cause undue harm to society. In the ideal scenario, sustainable development efforts would actually leave the world in a better position than it would have been in the absence of those activities. But at the very least, they would not leave the world worse off. Those who criticize sustainable development take a cynical view of the motives behind it as being either compelled under force of law, or designed to increase profit. This line of thinking maintains that businesses do nothing out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather naturally seek to expand profit. Although this is generally an accurate assessment, it does not preclude the importance of compelling businesses to act responsibly based on profit considerations or legal repercussions. In fact, such compulsion of business behavior has been a tradition of modern free market economies, and a significant reason why capitalism has survived. Ultimately, the threat to the long term profit-making potential of business from unsustainable practices far outweighs any short term obstacles to profit that may be posed by sustainable development. References Anonymous. (2000, June). The elusive definition of sustainable development. Environment, 42(5), 24. http://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/nachhaltig/international_uno/unterseite02330/ http://books.google.com/booksid=UFZSCqtS3h8C&dq=sustainable+development&pg=PA1&ots=NbcrmR3fnq&sig=tfWA-gZ_xJ0rrHIw9BMopvfHfBs&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dsustainable%2Bdevelopment%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1 http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/sus_dev/ Read More