“What firms are doing is reducing unsustainability, but this is not the same as creating sustainability.” John R. Ehrenfeld

What is sustainability?

noun. the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level.

Corporate sustainability at a glance

20 years ago, the idea of sustainability was foreign to most companies. But today we are more aware about issues affecting the environment and its people.

First came the publication of the Brundtland report in 1987, then the Rio Environment Summit in 1992, the formation of World Business Council on Sustainable Development, followed by Corporate Social Responsibility departments and then the John Elkington’s triple bottom line model. This led corporates to make efforts and commitments to be sustainable. The measures that were hence taken either caused improvement or tactical gains for corporates as they claimed to drive sustainability.

The world is more unsustainable now than in the 1970s despite commitments to sustainability.

Though sustainability is of key importance in the corporate world, it is still not effective. Why is that?

The measure of sustainability

A company’s eco-efficiency improvements were measured comparing it’s current versus past burdens. This means, if a company produces less waste today than yesterday, it was more sustainable.

The problem with this outlook is that we fail to consider the waste we created yesterday and the ecological impact that it has already generated.

Addressing sustainability means addressing the ecological destruction we witness today, which is the TOTAL of all global burden caused, past and present.

Sustainability and Growth

Most fundamentally today, growth is a measure of quantity. It is about economic growth, that is, an increase in the production of goods and services year on year.

Sustainability is assumed to be economic growth with ecologically efficient strategies and programmes.

Though this leads to reducing unsustainable practices, it does not bring about sustainability!

The ecological destruction we see today is measured by all past and present burdens combined. A year on year measure of increase in eco-efficient practices without accounting for the damage caused as a whole is a short-sighted approach.

For example, we want to start using organic cotton today. It uses less water and chemicals and is less harmful to farmers, insects and the eco-system. But until yesterday we were using unethical cotton. The use of it through the years already caused environmental damage. Now, when we want to measure sustainability, we must take into account the past damage caused and the current damage (although lesser), that we continue to cause. In case your business grew, you used more resources in the whole production cycle that must be accounted for as well. In a way, by using organic cotton we are reducing unsustainability or unsustainable practices, not creating sustainability.

Do we have the ability to sustain growth? The population? Our lifestyle?

Today we are trying to address the damage we’ve caused by replacing it with less damaging practices without addressing the fundamental causes of unsustainability.

We say that growth is necessary to address poverty but Oxfam claims that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50%, or about 3.5 billion people. We live in a world that suggests greater economic inequality.

Our current lifestyles and levels of consumption caused by economic growth might be too much for our planet to support.

John R. Ehrenfeld says that,“Given any reasonable forecast of future eco-efficiency gains, growth will have to stop, leaving us mired along the way, if we are to avoid the depletion of all ecosystems on this planet.”

John R. Ehrenfeld speaks about a measure of quality where human beings successfully care for themselves, and the rest of the human and non-human world which is essential to aid their own maintenance. Flourishing, he suggests, be that new measure of the fullness of life.

Click here to read his full article.

As ideal as that may sound, it is worth considering in the long term. We have successfully marketed consumption and created needs out of unimportant things. Maybe we can market a more conscious approach and make that work too.

Read further about fashion consumption and waste here.