Since initiating our corporate sustainability efforts at Mazars Denge, I have been reflecting more on the essence and tenets of sustainability as a concept. In fact, I focused my thoughts on how this concept, which describes our responsibility towards future generations and what changes we should make in our everyday lives with respect to this responsibility, may be simplified. My impression from many earlier attempts to explain this topic is that the audience is often predisposed to confusing the term sustainability with continuity. Is it caused by humanity\u2019s inherent sense of being insignificant and powerless over death, as anthropologist and author Ernest Becker argues, and our desire to compensate for this weakness by asserting our superiority over others through the agency of money? Do humans need to embrace capitalism and promote continuous growth to perpetuate their existence and avoid being forgotten? While pondering on these questions, I realized that we are misled at eight critical junctions during academic and professional life, and that our minds\u2019 fixation on continuity is the outcome. In the table below, I have listed the expected, conventional way of doing business on the left column, and what these correspond to from a corporate sustainability perspective on the right. I will try to explain these by going over them one by one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Short vs Long-term Thinking:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If\nour aim is to avoid making a negative impact on the lives of future\ngenerations, as stated in the definition of sustainability, we unfortunately cannot\ndo so with short-term thinking alone. In fact, based on the understanding that\neach sustainability goal represents a significant global challenge, we must\nmeticulously consider the future impact and consequences of the steps we take\ntoday. For instance, I rarely come upon any annual budget plans for businesses\nthat cover a period of more than five years. Strategies and decisions are also\nlimited to such short time frames.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In\ncomparison, Ricoh set its goal of reaching \u201czero emissions by 2050\u201d back in\n2017, and is already directing its investment decisions accordingly. The five\nfocus areas of this goal include Increased Quality of Living, Zero Carbon\nSociety and Cyclical Economy, which directly relate to sustainable development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Profit Pressure vs Pressure of Achieving Social, Environmental \/ Economic Balance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIs making a profit the sole purpose of\nexistence of businesses?\u201d According to our conventional formatting, the answer\nis a resounding \u201cyes\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On\nthe other hand, every business has two other purposes: to serve public benefit,\nwhich may be defined as social impact, and to survive. Considering that we\ndevote more than one thirds of our time\u2013not counting weekends and holidays\u2013to\nthe organization we work with, is it reasonable to claim that the organization\ndoes not have any impact on or responsibility towards our health, family life,\neducation, and cultural background? Or, if we expand the circle a little\nfurther, does it not affect the development of the society by how it does\nbusiness, its ethical conduct, and the opportunities it offers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taking into account specific sustainable development goals\nsuch as clean water and sanitation, climate action, life below water, and life\non earth, it is particularly evident that businesses cannot ignore their\nenvironmental impact in their struggle to survive. As such, contrary to the\nconventional wisdom, corporate sustainability does not merely exert a profit\npressure on the business, but calls on the business to seek economic returns\nthat can be balanced against its social and environmental impact within an\ninstitutional organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Growth vs Development<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Economic growth indicates a rise in revenues obtained through increased\nproduction or service provision, and is quantified in monetary terms. Growth is\ndescribed as the increase in GDP for countries, and in revenues for\nenterprises. Growth is a quantitative term, while development is qualitative.\nOn a national basis, development includes elements such as investments in\nwomen, living standards of the society, quality of education, access to healthcare,\nreduced unemployment, social security, and preservation\u2013or enhancement\u2013of\nenvironmental, cultural, artistic and historical values. From a business\nstandpoint, development or improvement involves institutionalization,\nefficiency, value added, innovation, and quality among others. Therefore,\ndevelopment is not necessarily dependent of growth, and may or may not lead to\nit\u2026 \u201cThe Limits to Growth\u201d, which was originally published in 1977 and updated three\ndecades later, shows in figures the potentially disastrous global scenarios that\nmay come to pass as result of a purely growth-focused approach to economy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Money as a Measurement vs Money + Other Parameters<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As\nI mentioned, businesses have significant social and environmental impacts aside\nfrom their financial outcomes. However, until 10-15 years ago, these impacts\nwere more or less ignored as they were not included in financial statements,\nand measurements such as carbon footprint are not based on money; whereas\ntoday, environmental and social impacts, which are defined as economic\nexternalities, can be scaled via sustainability reports and linked with\nfinancial data through integrated reporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, stakeholders of a business, such as its managers, employees\nand especially investors take note of parameters other than data that can be indicated\nin monetary terms when they want to learn more about a company. Realizing this\nfact, many companies have adopted an integrated reporting format that combines\nfinancial and non-financial data. However, the usage of such format is not\nsufficient by itself to achieve the goals contained in it; as it demands a\nhigher awareness on the readers\u2019 and particularly the consumers\u2019 part. First\nand foremost, we must understand that there are other, scalable factors other\nthan money that can influence our decision-making, and abandon certain habits\nthat have persisted for centuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For instance, financial statements of a business do not include\nindicators for female executives, per capita carbon emissions, employee\nengagement, or customer satisfaction, which all directly relate to the\nsustainability of a business and may affect the decision of an investor or\npotential supplier with regard to the organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cutthroat Competition with Rivals vs Rivals as Stakeholders<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The etymological origins of the word \u201crival\u201d lie in the Latin word for river \u201crivus\u201d, and it means \u201ca person using the same river as another\u201d. But how did we start as individuals sharing the same river and end up as contestants in a cutthroat competition to secure more for ourselves at the expense of others? Would the \u201cGlobal Compact\u201d and its call for action on issues such as the elimination of child labor, fight against bribery and corruption, prevention of human rights violations, and support for efforts that help prevent environmental issues and preserve the environment still be necessary if such competition had not led to violations at the global scale and prove detrimental for all stakeholders involved? Would not we achieve higher levels of development if, instead of a single-minded focus on surpassing and eliminating others, we could see them as stakeholders with whom we can create together, as in the case of \u201copen innovation\u201d projects?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interests of the Organization Alone vs Interests of the System at Large<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I\nhave serious doubts about our prospects of accomplishing the goals of\nsustainable development by only looking after the interests of a particular\norganization in all of our actions in parallel with the concept of ethical\negoism. On the contrary, sustainable development strives to transform the\n\u201csingle-beneficiary\u201d, consumption-based economic model into a\n\u201cmulti-beneficiary\u201d model that stands to benefit all stakeholders including the\nnature and the society. In my opinion, this latter model offers an outcome that\nis a combination of the utilitarian ethics, which aims to provide multiple\nbenefits as a result of a particular course of action in contrast to the\none-sided nature of ethical egoism, and care ethics, which underpins the\nimportance of interpersonal relationships based on care and benevolence in the\ndecision. The key difference between these two theories is that, while utilitarianism\nadheres to generalized ethical principles, care ethics focuses on personal,\nrather than universal, definition of morality instead. As a result,\nutilitarianism does not place any emphasis on sentiments, as it bases itself on\nlogic and reason. On the other hand, care ethics take into account\ninterpersonal relationships and the emotions that form part of these\nrelationships. I believe that, by embracing these two ethical approaches, we can\nget much closer to the core of the 17th<\/sup> Sustainable Development\nGoal, \u201cPartnership for the Goals\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consumption vs Frugality + Derivation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n How\nsustainable is a model that encourages continuous consumption and growth,\nincreasing the material wealth of the enterprise at the expense of stakeholders\nsuch as nature and society while destroying the very own resources it relies\nupon in the process?<\/p>\n\n\n\n As\na result of the explosive growth of production in the last 20-30 years, and the\nsubsequent ability to obtain everything in a faster, less \u201ccostly\u201d manner, we\nhave begun to see it our right to always seek more. We encourage ourselves on\nthis path, claiming \u201cthere is so much more where it came from\u201d and \u201cif I don\u2019t\nget it, someone else will anyway\u201d, trying to shun the responsibilities placed\non our shoulders by reality. Could we remain so obsessively consumptive when we\nfinally realize how sustainability ties us with what we consume?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nelectricity we so extravagantly use, the water we carelessly waste, the food we\nleave on our plates, the paper towels we use by the handful, carbon emissions\nof the personal vehicles we prefer over public transport; these are all issues\nwe generally ignore and\/or externalize during our regular lives. Yet, these are\nall part of our domain of interaction. The problem is that we always focus on obtaining\nmore while glossing over the core of the problem. Why is there an energy\ndeficit? Why is there a water shortage? Why does the climate change? Why is\nbiodiversity on the decline? Why is poverty and hunger on the rise? The answers\nto these questions lead us to two actions: The first is \u201cfrugality\u201d, which we\nhave so conveniently sidelined in the face of the scale and speed of our need\nto consume, and the second is \u201cderivation\u201d, a fundamental strategy in nature\nthat we have just recently begun to realize. Personally, I believe that\nfrugality is the first step towards sustainability, and the essence of\nfrugality is the awareness that a great many things we see as abundant are only\nso due to an increasingly rapid exploitation of resources, which,\nunfortunately, include the Earth, the air, and ourselves. The derivation\napproach, on the other hand, calls for a harmonious existence with nature,\nwhere the end of every cycle generates value for all stakeholders, as in the\nexample of compost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Global vs Local<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The term global corresponds to the definition \u201chaving achieved\nwidespread acceptance at the worldwide level\u201d. [1] The term global company\nrefers to an enterprise that implements the same standards of management across\nall locations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most global\ncompanies drive down their costs by taking advantage of economies of scale\nbrought about by their size and global presence, while on the other hand\npassing along some of their costs, termed external economic factors, to the\nsociety and the environment. In doing so, they harm the local, which is already\nat a substantial disadvantage against the global, by falsely presenting\nstandardization as an indispensable benefit. Standardization at the global\nscale may be beneficial for enterprises in terms of reducing the effort and\ncost they need to shape and manage demand for a particular product or service\nby creating target audiences. Yet, are we aware of how we endanger our future\nif we harm the local in the course of going global?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe that an\nevaluation of these eight issues, which I interpret as errors of formatting\nthat urge us towards continuity rather than sustainability, along with their\nopposites may serve as a valid guideline that shows the mindset we need for\nchanging our habits. Enterprises have an important responsibility in the\nefforts to achieve the objectives set out in the Sustainable Development Goals.\nWe are at a junction, and the path we take from here will determine if we will\nbe able to proudly pass down the one world we share to future generations, as\nNoam Chomsky often remarks. It is our joint responsibility to build our own\nawareness and abandon our past mistakes, instead of waiting on others to act on\nour behalf\u2026 At this point, I would like to once again point out to a particular\nsustainable development goal, the 17th<\/sup>, which may be the most\nimportant: \u201cPartnership for the Goals\u201d, as there is but one way to achieve\nthese objectives\u2014by acting together.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Since initiating our corporate sustainability efforts at Mazars Denge, I have been reflecting more on the essence and tenets of sustainability as a concept. In fact, I focused my thoughts on how this concept, which describes our responsibility towards future generations and what changes we should make in our everyday lives with respect to this…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[148],"class_list":["post-4054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-sustainability"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4054\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/izellevicoskun.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}