• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

The concept of 'sustainability'

by Simon Longstaff

Recent years have seen a growing interest in the concept of 'sustainability' – not least because business leaders and canny advocates for the cause have managed to frame the issue as a question of self-interest.

The idea is a simple one based on three fundamental assumptions. The first of these is that businesses have an interest in generating value in the long term. The second is that business conduct that is destructive of the natural or social environment will ultimately give rise to burdensome direct and indirect costs – either through the imposition of formal penalties imposed by governments or through the loss of value in damaged relationships with key stakeholders including: customers, current and future employees, shareholders and so on. Finally, it is argued that the pursuit of sustainable growth creates new commercial opportunities for businesses able to develop and market new goods and services that help to achieve the goals of sustainability.

It is from these initial premises that the most popular arguments in favour of sustainability proceed.

Put simply, it is argued that sustainability is said to be good for business.

The current approach to selling the idea of sustainability has its critics. For example, there are those who question the underlying assumptions outlined above. They point out that some businesses are operated in order to generate a short-term profit outcome – with little concern for the long-term consequences.

Indeed, history seems to reveal a fairly consistent pattern in which the profits of business have been privatised while the costs have been socialised – with the community ultimately paying the price for environmental degradation, social dislocation and the like. Although the law is slowly changing, it remains possible for businesses to cause significant harm, close their doors and then reopen them the next day under the cover of a new identity – all without the community having a clue about what has transpired.

At one level, there is an easy response to this type of criticism. One need merely observe that while the underlying assumptions do not apply in every case, they do in the vast majority of circumstances – and certainly in enough cases to justify the approach more generally. Furthermore, a proponent of the 'sustainability is good for business' model can also point to support for a prudent set of laws and enforcement mechanisms as a 'protective net' to catch the exceptions.

Yet, although such arguments are ultimately persuasive, I cannot help wonder if something is missing from the equation. In particular, I wonder why it is that business leaders might have such a problem in acknowledging that environmental and social responsibility is good in itself – and that the reasons for business making a contribution in these areas go beyond the limited ground of enlightened self-interest.

I suspect that one of the reasons for business leaders holding back from such debates is that they their attempt to contribute ideas and solutions is often rejected, out of hand, as being fundamentally tainted. That this should be so is linked to a second line of criticism directed at those who promote the 'sustainability is good for business' line of argument. Some critics continue to argue that such approaches are, at best, a ‘necessary evil’ and at worst a ‘sell-out’ to commercial interests.

For example, there are non-government organisations that consider business to be intrinsically unethical and an entrenched enemy of all that is good and right. Opinions such as these are often linked to a conceptual framework that establishes tight definitional boundaries between the ‘market’, the ‘state’ and ‘civil society’ – with all virtue typically residing in ‘civil society’. In a number of cases, the divisions embedded in the framework come to be seen as 'real' – rather than as a useful tool for thinking about the world. It's not surprising that some business leaders feel cautious about crossing boundaries – particularly if they face attack for doing so. For those who hold such views the only way to ensure sustainability is to legislate for it and then enforce the law with the rigour and full power of the state.

However, even a moment's thought should reveal that this conceptual framework is a useful but mere fiction. Virtually every individual in society plays concurrent, multiple roles in the market, the state and civil society. For example, I am at one and the same time a citizen, a parent, a volunteer, an employer, an employee, a consumer, an investor and so on.

This is an important fact about our identities and the way in which we should think about sustainability. For it would seem to be important that a holistic approach, recognising these multiple roles, be employed. No holistic approach can afford to rule out the involvement of, say, the world of business on the grounds that it is an ‘alien’ presence. And no sensible approach to sustainability can afford not to be holistic.

discuss this article

---