Skip navigation and title
Friends of the Earth

Home > Resource > Briefing > Sustainability in Business: principles for profit


Grass
Briefing

Making life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems


Sustainability in Business: principles for profit

This paper outlines the problems of unsustainable development and the scale of the challenge, and then turns to the role of business in meeting that challenge.

Despite increasing average incomes and life-spans currently development is failing us in three critical ways:

  1. It is reliant on excessive use of environmental resources - thus breaching global environmental limits and causing impacts such as climate change (this is 'cheating on our children' because they will inherit a world less able to support human life)
  2. The benefits are inequitably distributed. Inequality is growing, both globally and within most developed countries (this is 'cheating on our neighbours' because most of us in developed countries are relative beneficiaries).
  3. This development and excessive resource use is not increasing quality of life for those that receive its material benefits (this is 'cheating on ourselves' because we all play along with the game of consuming more).

To achieve sustainability we therefore need to reduce the total burden we place upon the environment to a sustainable level by cutting back on the amount of environmental resources, distribute access to those environmental resources fairly, and use them to increase quality of life.

Friends of the Earth uses the idea of 'Environmental Space' to set measurable targets for use of environmental resources such as energy, land, water and wood. First we establish what level of resource use is sustainable - for example, how much fossil fuel we can burn within the acceptable constraints of climate change. For most non-renewable resources we find that globally we need to cut our consumption at least in half. Then we estimate what a fair share of that global resource use is for any country - calculated according to its share of a stable world population in 2050. For most developed countries, this is generally around one-fifth of our current share because we are part of the 20% of the world's people that consumes 80% of the world's resources. 

Combining these two produces environmental space targets - for reducing resource inputs used to support consumption - for the UK, of up to 88% reductions in total resource use. Put another way, if in 2050 everyone consumed in the way the British do now, we would need eight planets to sustain the human race - and the British are by no means the most profligate consumers on Earth. These targets seem challenging. But they can be reached. The main reason is that quality of life is not directly dependent upon material consumption. Nor do our economies rely only on material resources to be productive and profitable.

We have the technology to make incredible efficiency gains - to cut energy use in average homes by 95%, to recycle 80% or more of our waste, to increase vehicle fuel efficiency by 10 times, to produce the food we need with a tiny fraction of the chemicals and fossil energy used now, and generally to cut waste and pollution from industry in ways that will save millions of pounds and create jobs. We also have the intelligence and research capacity to deliver even more.

We also have 'technologies' that allow us to enjoy a greater quality of life by consuming less - so called sufficiency strategies. For example, cities designed for walking and cycling, demand-management techniques for energy and water that meet our needs but do less damage to the environment, and libraries and other leasing and sharing techniques to cut resource use.

We even have the money to deliver many of these changes. Currently in Britain we waste several billion pounds a year subsidising things we don't want - like factory farming, fossil fuel exploration and nuclear power. We give perverse tax incentives to companies and individuals to drive more, locate on out-of-town greenfield sites and throw things away rather than recycling. We spend billions more on dealing with the symptoms of environmental and social problems - such as poor health from cold and damp homes - rather than the causes. Our savings and investments are largely managed simply to maximise financial returns rather than with environmental and ethical objectives in mind. Redirecting all this wasted money could help fund what we need. 

But to deliver such changes requires a dramatic fundamental shift in how private companies operate at all levels. Despite contributing to economic wealth, providing livelihoods, helping many people meet their needs and providing goods and services that add to the quality of life of many, companies today, both individually and collectively, also:

Above and beyond these direct contributions to unsustainability, many companies use various types of green-wash to maintain and indeed increase their autonomy from regulation or collective action and associate in business and trade groupings which seek to maintain the status quo and protect short term profits.

It might be fair to argue that individually, very few companies have a real opportunity to act differently - at least in their business activities. There are a limited number of niche markets where premium prices can be easily extracted from consumers - and these are almost exclusively in the 'developed' northern world. The short-term financial benefits of the current situation are very real, and in a business world dominated by increasingly short-term investment horizons (driven by very real public and institutional demands for such returns), difficult to see beyond. 

However most companies also act collectively politically to reinforce the existing patterns of behaviour and this makes them actively complicit in the unsustainable development path we are on. In the longer term such political cartels will be broken - either by regulatory power, or by nature's backlash - of which more frequent hurricanes and the northward migration of deadly tropical diseases are merely a harbinger. In the long-term corporate survival will depend on sustainability. But even in the shorter-term there are sound arguments for embracing the transition. Sound environmental and social management systems are just one component of quality management. Consumers are increasingly aware and responsive to environmental and ethical concerns, and - as fund-managers have to publish their ethical policies - will look to use their influence as shareholders in the same way.

Firms in a sustainable economy will have to behave very differently in their political activities, business activities, governance and research and development. The Appendix sets these out at length, but I want to focus briefly on just three of them: 

These messages will become more and more palatable, as Governments seek to implement sustainability constraints. Companies that move now to embrace this agenda will be the market leaders of the 21st century. But without eco-innovation, stakeholder accountability and political responsibility, the claims of any company to be sustainable will not survive for long, and once the good public reputation of a company is lost, it cannot be regained easily ... just ask Shell or Monsanto!

top

Appendix: Behaviour of a Sustainable Company

1. In their political activities, firms should (inter alia): 
2. In their business activities, firms should (inter alia):

Core business

Marketing and advertising 

"Housekeeping"

Management and employment

3. In governance
4. In research and development
top

Contact details:

Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1  7JQ

Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk

 

 

September 1999
Duncan McLaren

Last modified: 23 July 2001