The distinctions between the narrow view of business’ environmental obligations and the sustainability model are numerous. While the narrow view has definite roots in the classical model of Corporate Social Responsibility, the sustainability model has recently been accepted more by consumers and businesses. I believe this trend will continue and the sustainability model will become more prevalent due to consumer demand for more economic, environmental and socially accepted business practices. In order to properly examine these viewpoints, we need to illustrate the distinctions between each.
The narrow view reflects many of the ideas of Corporate Social Responsibility. First, maximizing profit while remaining lawful is the only responsibility of the business. The business can then maximize its role in the market system and serve the overall greater good by satisfying the preferences of the consumer. However, this viewpoint can lead to environmental consequences causing future generations the inability to enjoy the same benefits of today’s society. Also, this viewpoint does not give natural objects a value; but, recognizes the value people place on them. However, that value is often slanted.
Consider a public forest area. The narrow view will weigh whether to develop the area into something that makes money unless people place a value on the natural area which outweighs the value of the proposed development. To put it another way, people are showing a willingness to pay more for the area than for the development. When people are willing to pay for this area, the narrow view recognizes this as a business goal.
The sustainability model looks at this area in a different light. First, this model ensures that development is economically, environmentally, and socially satisfactory. Every practice in this model must adhere to the requirements of the present population and maintain the ability of future populations to meet their requirements. While doing this, the biosphere must not lose its ability to sustain life. Waste must be eliminated and used to replenish the biosphere or recycled into the production process. This closed-loop idea forces businesses to rethink their processes and begin thinking of themselves as providers of service rather than providers of products.
Reexamining the earlier example of the public forest area can illustrate how the sustainability model might address the issue. I believe people would be more willing to develop this area because the sustainability model would force the developer to build with the landscape and not just “clear” the land. Trees would be preserved wherever possible and new trees would be planted. Solar power would be incorporated to reduce the impact on the environment while plants would be used to properly address runoff and help insulate buildings from weather conditions. Also, the people’s ability to enjoy a nice walk in the environment would be strictly enforced.
The narrow viewpoint is impacted by several market failures which make it environmentally unsound. First, due to externalities, the optimal results of the free market cannot be guaranteed. Externalities can be people who are downstream who actually end up with the problems from the development like water runoff issues or poor down-wind air quality. These problems are outside of the economic exchange and cannot be measured accurately. Another failure relates to the inability of the market to provide and/or create a price for wildlife or public goods. This lack of prices causes the market to fail to preserve important public goods like animals, trails and endangered species. The last major failure is due to the narrow view not realizing the effects of individual decisions on groups of people. Desjardins asserts “what is good and rational for a collection of individuals is not necessarily what is good and rational for a society” (218).
Each of these failures can be corrected by an aspect of the sustainability model. The externalities failure can be corrected by closing the loop in manufacturing and developing an “ecoefficiency” with the environment. If this is done, externalities will not be harmed or hampered by issues related to development. The sustainability model corrects the inability of the market to provide a price for public goods by believing that all areas and living things are important and future generations should be able to enjoy them. The third failure is corrected by almost all of the aspects of the sustainability model. Future generations must be able to meet their needs while addressing the needs of the people in the present especially those who are impoverished. Also, development must not harm the biosphere’s ability to sustain itself and life.
In my opinion, the sustainability model’s acceptance in the minds of people is increasing. I believe many businesses will see the benefits and others will be forced into sustainable practices. Consumers are becoming more and more globally minded while looking for sustainable ways to live. Many are realizing the potential to provide future generations the ability to enjoy today’s benefits while living full and exciting lives. When we work together, this idea can be realized.
+++++
Works Cited
Desjardins, Joseph. An Introduction to Business Ethics. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.