Apathy towards sustainable development
One inspiring industrial ecology-inspired puzzle out there is the perception that a large part of the population in the developed countries are apathetic towards sustainability topics. This gets mostly reflected in consumer trends. For example, C&A has a wide range of organic cotton textiles in its stores. This apparel costs a bit more, but makes a world of change, according to C&A, in third world countries. This, not only on the environmental side but also in relation to abhorrent working conditions and local health. However, organic cotton is not widely popular. Sales have risen in the past years, but not to such an extent that shows that people are consciously buying it. Other sustainability trends are also only picked up by minor parts of the population.The first explanation is one put forward by Lertzman (The myth of apathy, 2008) included that it is not apathy but a psychoanalytical defense mechanism. With this mechanism, the anxiety caused by continuous climate-change campaigns is actually too large to manage. While trying to defend ourselves to the insurmountable challenge that we are facing, we rather shut down completely and subconsciously pretend the problem is not there. This theory is very valuable. Although, some might argue that the news about eutrophication does not create the same immeasurable anxiety that would push memories about abuse to the subconscious level.
Second, a variation of the trickle-down effect could be at play. In this variation, I propose that the middle class of developed countries actually see the merit in sustainable products. However, marketing is especially focused at these people and is very successful. In the traditional trickle-down effect it is the pricing that distinguishes the upper class from being able to buy certain products that lower classes can’t. Once this is no longer the case and everybody is able to buy the product, the upper class is no longer interested in this. In very much the same way the middle class nowadays buys sustainable products. The somewhat higher prices distinguish them from perceived lower classes and the higher moral value of the product places them above higher classes. This variation of the effect could only be true if my perceived sense of the wealthy not being as much interested in sustainability as middle class individuals.
A final explanation consists of the priority argument. This is the most down-to-earth explanation as it talks about a conscious choice people make in everyday life. The reason people would not buy sustainable products or live more sustainable, would be because of other priorities. A common example is the priority of poverty over sustainable development. This would entice people to say: ”why not first solve poverty and hunger in developing countries, or even our own country, while you are trying to change the planet.” Theoretically, intergenerational equity is a part of sustainable development but in the general public, and also most academic courters, it is only about environmental protection.
The business of business
A task is at hand. This task is quite harsh for a concrete thinker as myself. The task is to describe an ex ante position on following proposition:
"the
business of business is to increase its profits."
Speaking from a sustainability point of view, the business of business can refer to governmental interference. By which we mean the creation of legislation, bounding the current economy into a more environmental mind set. It can also refer to ngo's, which out of filantrophical reasons mendle with ongoing afairs. Then there are a multitude of other options, the most obvious one being consultancy. In an industrial ecology point of view, every one of these is a viable option. Governmental activities are firmly entwined with the economic system. It's prime motive is indeed the help the economy into establishing a balance that procures the needs of its subjects. Our current economic system only knows two states; growth or recession, but not balance. As growth is the optimum option, the government indeed needs to increase the profits of its nations economy. And by all means not stop these profits by ruthless restrictive legislations.
Ngo's are a different story. They interfere in different ways. This alone is a whole discussion worth, in which ngo's can be quite harmful to companies with ill-practices. This type of ngo tries to stop current practices. However, it is my firm belief that this type of ngo does not achieve anything. And quite likely cannot stop a business from making its profit. Other ngo's take it concrete path in which they themselves try to put into practice what they preach. These do not medle with business, as they themselves become a business side-tracted conception.
The best example of the third option is consultancy. In which, a service of knowledge is provided to the inquiring company. This service, however, is sold for money and thus creates a profit. No distinction can thus be made between a sustainable oriented consultancy firm and more traditional oriented firm. Profit is the key factor at hand.
To conclude with a valuable position on the proposition. In the current economic setting, the only way of medling, or maybe rather communicating, with current businesses is by talking the same language. And the language of business entails profit. This is one of the most straightforward paths to changing this business. Other efforts in which institutions make it their business to decrease profit will end up in profit oriented discussions. Unable to communicate, unable to entice any effects. However, in the future, as social involvment grows, this might be able to change. But in order for this to change, our social system itself shall fundamentally entice our current economic system to alter.
