There is an interesting piece in the Economist from the 22th of July, which explains the difficult choice which arises at the Brazilian government. Indeed this choice will be full of consequences and in my point of view each sides has good arguments.
Then how to choose between a road which will bring growth and reduce social inequities and the deforastation which will relesed the carbon into the atmosphere?
I would personaly not be able to take this kind of decisions, knowing all the consequences that it will generate. But this article really shows well the difficulties that brazilians politicking must face: two points of view being each one in agreement with a sustainable development policy.
Business to be followed!
Of what did consist this forum?
Everywhere, of the posters to the strong slogans, of the booklets and the reports out of glazed paper stressed engagements, the actions and the values of the companies:
- safeguarding of the environment,
- projects of patronage,
- good human stock management...
So when a policy of sustainable development of some companies interested or intrigued the students, they could obtain more information by questioning the representatives present directly.
I really think that this kind of forums can be only beneficial and this from the point of view of the companies just like for that of the students.
I consider that the condition first for a sustainable development is a development of the debate between parts which did not meet front. Here, it acted of a meet-debate between decision makers and future decision makers, with true and new freedom of tone. The durable development is an interesting concept because the companies do not have a certainty on the matter, they are in full evolution from the taking into account of this new paradigm.
They wonder how to make well, how to make apply the charters, how to control, how to certify, how to envisage the risks, the whole while generating profits to continue to exist. The companies are interested by students having strong values, as those which are interested in the durable development.
This is why I think that this kind of forum should be developped and be popularized so that all the students (of each age) can be able to access them and to realize the importance of the sustainable development for our future. We will progress only if we succeed in sensitizing the younger generations as soon as possible and this must be done hand in the hand with the companies.
The first forum Equation, " agora students and companies " on the durable development was organized in Sciences Po by Companieros.com, arranges specialized in the teaching projects of the durable development, the communication and the innovation. A dozen large companies (Areva, IBM, CCF, Danone Group, Deloitte & Touch...) answered present.
Companieros.com was created in 2000 per Antoine de Gabrielli, already founder of the agency Citadelle consulting, specialized in the communication of the visions and the values of the company. Companieros.com, in this continuity, proposes to students large schools and universities to take part in educational projects carried out in collaboration with companies.
According to Maslow's pyramid of needs, we notice that populations suffering poverty and lacking basic needs such as nutrition, health care and education, often neglect their environment and are willing to sacrifice it in exchange of development tools and foreign industries.
The lack of environmental legislation in developing countries is a good indicator of this attitude; the leaders of these Nations prefer to let this matter aside in order to attract multinational firms and develop industries imported from the West. This has led to enormous ecological catastrophes in some regions as we can speak of India and the pollution of its rivers or Brazil and their recent legislations over cutting the Rain Forest.
The Johannesburg Summit emphasizes these matters and one of its recommendations is to provide basic education to all the populations of the world and to focus in its educational programs on developing ecological sensibility, sustainable development and demographical awareness: (http://www.sommetjohannesburg.org/contributions/frame-educ.html).
The summit implements a whole strategy of spreading this knowledge and allows it an 8 to 9 billion $ budget.
The educational chart of the Johannesburg summit is quite satisfying and fair, but unfortunately, it doesn’t focus on one major aspect which is reconciling old cultures with their populations. The Johannesburg chart insists on struggling against analphabetism, offering access to science as well as developing sensibility towards current planetary problems, but is this enough?
We have the impression that the Summit talks of education in a globalized way, without taking into consideration cultural identities and national particularisms. It has actually reminded me of another debate similar to this one over the existence of several kinds of development rather then introducing the occidental scheme, characterized by the translation from industry to services as the unique most efficient way to emphasize this notion or implement a development policy.
My idea is that old cultures such as Hinduism contain a lot of wisdom in dealing with nature, respecting it and looking upon its resources.
As far as I’m concerned, developing ecological sensibility in some parts of the world is synonymous of joining back with one’s identity and cultural heritage. Populations that are sacrificing their environment in exchange of the occidental scheme of development are ones that are getting away from their culture and giving up their identities to become dissolved in a vulgar wrong definition of globalization. I think that sustainable development should take more into consideration Nations’ particularities, and remind those who are influenced by the West of their real identity without which they’ll end up by forgetting about themselves and destroying their environment. Even though capitalism has revealed itself as an inevitable economic model, it is wrong to emphasize one way of implementing it; there would be as many capitalist models as there are Nations in a fair march towards sustainable development.
This article comes from a website about Equitable Trade. The author explains quickly what is sustainable development and at the end explains that Equitable Trade help sustainable development to set up.
I totally desagree with this idea. According to me Equitable Trade represented by Max Havelar actions is not a real economic evolution. Indeed for me to set up coffee exploitations in countries that have never maden this product, to convince LDC's farmers to give up traditional cultures has no future. Furthermore Equitable Trade labels such as Max Havelar do not inovate, it is only marketing.
And it is the worst thing for sustainable development to think that it is only marketing and reserved for big firms.
The main aim of SD is to instaure a new economy (capitalism evolution) - see Mr Williams course - and not copying current economy with only a few changes. In France in particular people do not do the difference between and SD and ET and it is a big risk for SD!
Last SD is not only the opposition between LDC's and western countries contrary to Equitable Trade.
Small firms can play an important part in helping us move in a more sustainable direction
Everyone is talking about the role of big firms around the world in sustainable development, about the programs they are setting. But we can say that the budget they use for it is nothing compared to their profits.
It is more often a question of image than a real involvement with a great part of the company’s budget.
So, the actions of big firms and their impact are actually not so important than we think.
That’s why small firms have to be involved in sustainable development. Because they make up the vast majority of all our businesses. And this article is interesting because it shows how to encourage small firms.
Small firms are, arguably, more heavily influenced by the personal values of the people who manage and work in them than are larger companies. And the need here is only education.
The french minister for environment has showed a good initiative by presenting the 2004 climate plan. This plan comprises more than 60 proposals concerning transport, industry, agriculture.
Among these measurements, one is more discussed than the others: The "Bonus-Malus" system.
This device which plans tax incentives or "punishments", aims encouraging the purchase of the less polluting vehicles and dissuading the purchase of vehicles with strong power consumption. It is a nice intention but the fact is that this measure will probably never be applied!
First of all this measure must be discussed by the Parliament before becoming effective and then there will be a dialogue at the European level.
How the german reprensenters will let the french gouvernment do such a thing when the accused cars are more produced by german companies (Daimler-Chrysler or Bmw) as by french companies which are more specialized in diesel engine cars (PSA or Renault) and clean urban vehicles!
Stop the hypocrisy of politicians and let us start for real ecological discussions because that requires a immediate action.
This article writen by the UN is interesting to me. The UN wants to help sustainable development through the use of business related incentives; given that this is the most powerful sector of the economy.
The aims are to protect both the planet and long-term shareholders by integrating sustainable development principles into business procedures.
The new contract between the UN and institutionel investors will improve the sustainable development because institutional investors yield significant power in our societies.
There are two main points based on this article:
-Investors helped by the UN will answer an important demand for the consumer, that of more sustainable development in our society.
-Investors have many influences in publicly traded firms. If they want sustainable development as part of a corporate philosphy, it is likely that firms will change, given that institutional investors can invest billions of dollars. In summary, firms would change their habits to answer the demands of the investors.
http://www.wbcsd.ch/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&DocId=NjM4OA
“The developed world does not fear for globalisation but marginalization”.
The person interviewed, Mike Moore, is the former director general of the WTO (World Trade Organisation). This organisation wants to improve globalisation without barriers, international taxes, etc. He thinks that the support rules of law made by politicians are more important then the will of the consumers even if old rules are not appropriate or applicable to current society. In his mind, life is better than before for the majority of the population, especially in democratic systems. I think he is right but he fails to mention that disparity is higher today then before it was before. He thinks poverty is bad for environment because LCDs do not have the techniques to solve the issues that face them such as dirty lands and water.
However, he fails to mention the many problems associated with our societies high levels consumption and subsequent waste which are equally if not more important. He also does not speak about the fact that the DCs have more power in negotiation than the LDCs and that leads to the potential for exploitation.
The main problems are the trade barriers facing the poor countries. Perhaps they need more subsidies from developed countries to help with the growth and innovation necessary to further their industry and/or agriculture. In my mind, it should be very difficult for change to occur without social problems if the industries of the world are deregulated too fast.
http://www.time.com/time/2002/greencentury/enyouth.html#
As times have really changed since Woodstock 1970, the way young people act has also really changed. In fact, before “people leapt fisrt and learned second. Now they learn first and leap second”. to become good activists and to make people take action all over the world, we now have to organize ourselves. This reffers to a kind of global strategy (thanks to summits, internet, ...) that would enable people to act in the same way at the same time.
Furthermore, problems have become far more complex : it’s really hard to understand an entire problem without being very well informed. Indeed, the economy is ,now completely linke to natural questions. It would be nonsense to propose the same answers as in the seventies!
The economy has changed and we’ve got to find answers adapted to this way of thinking. I think that it’s really good for young people to debate about those questions thanks to internet. Indeed, the earth is obviously the only common point of everybody evreywhere.
But as we said during a presentation, I’m not sure that a global strategy is needed because every country has his own way of thinking, his own rythm, his own dynamic, ...
Some countries should become models to be followed.
http://www.sustainus.org/news/030227_solar.html
This text is about how and why solar power has entered the white House. Since September 2003 167 solar panels have been put on the roof of White House. This shows how sustainable development has entered political consciousness. Solar energy reduces the energy consumption by keeping the White House warm and also heating its water. That installation may seem to be like an anecdote but it’s a model for other States (California for example). Of course, the world wont change just because the White House uses solar panels, but it may give some people motivation to do he same.
Finally, it seems to me that it is fundamentalthat politicians act in a way to show that sustainable development is for everybody and everywhere. And even they do use it!
You may hear about French people that they are "nuclear addict". That is partly true. We do use mainly nuclear power to provide electricity. 80% of our production comes actually from nuclear.
EDF which is the provider of electricity in France have a lot to do with sustainable development as you can imagine.
This company has a whole policy in terms of environment and sustainibility. First they do a lot concernig transparency. They provide figures about their performance in SD. They have set up a scorecard in 2001 with several indicators that into account new laws on environment.
They also supervise the welfare of its employees by doing research on air quality, ergonomy, radioprotection. But they also set up a foundation which works on benefits from electricity in medical care.
EDF spend money on developing renewable energies like hydroelectricity. They help customers to consume less but better electricity...
And so on. Actually the website is full of examples of what a company should do concerning SD. But how not thinking about the greenwash we spoke today.
EDF spend especially money on information campaign and advertising. Nobody knows exactly, except people from EDF, how many euros are spent each year on sustainable development because figures can tell what you want.
But EDF is a national company, which is quite a good thing because government has to deal with both company's society's interests. Whereas a company only aim at satisfy shareholders. I'm not advicing to nationalize companies from key sectors but maybe should governments (at a State level, even at an international level) take part into companies' investments. At least for a time...
One of the main points that have been made in regards to sustainable developlment is that the population is currently growing at a geometric rate and that the earth's natural capital will soon no longer be able to sustain our kind.
As one of the three prongs of sustainable developlent is society, I thinkt that the role of population control should be examined, especially in the case of China; so that we can see what NOT to do to solve this ever increasing problem.
In the reading that the class was assigned titled "the eco-ecology," the author noted (26) that "China - the world's most populous country - now has lower fertility rates than the United States and is moving towards population stabilization." What concerns me is this tone of approval by the author. I would like to go further in depth as to WHY the fertilization rate is declining.
The societal impact of China's command and control policy of having only one child per household has been devestating to the Chinese society. National Geographic did a report on these effects and the story is quite unsettling.
Because in the Chinese culture men are favored over women (primarily because men will take care of the parents in their old age whereas girls are sent off to live with their husbands and his parents), and as there is only one child allowed per household, often times the girls are abandoned at birth or killed.
The societal result of this attempt to control the population has resulted in too many boys and not enough girls. This means that there will be a generation with not enough wives to go around. Furthermore, obesitty in young chinese males is increasing alarmingly as they are doted on and spoiled only children.
Here are pictures of the National Geographic report.
Lastly, I would like to point out how wrong it is that a family would have to pay a penatly of 7,200 USD just to keep their second child. That is a lot of money in the US, but can you imagine what a financial burden that would be in China?
Obviously, our planet cannot sustain humans and our consumption at its current rates, much less at our projected rates. There has to be some sort of way to sustain population growth to ensure that we do not completely consume outr natural capital before the next generation comes around. However, it is clear that the command and control policies implemented in China are not a feasible option.
For the sake of not being too verbose I will limit the length of this entry because I would much rather you all read the article than spend your time reading my long-winded comments.
: )
Essentially it is an article that discusses new findings in the magazine Science that offer evidence that greenhouse gasses (such as the main offender, carbon dioxide) are not only affecting air quality but affecting the oceans as well. In terms of ecological economics, those that are causing the most damage are passing on the externalities to us by having a detrimental affect on the sea as a living and magnificent eco-system let alone the millions of our tax dollars that need to be allocated for clean-up and prevention. Polution is affecting the quality of life of many ocean species (is their a term such as inter-species inequity?) as well as laying the foundation for the disruption of many minor species that are at the first levels of many food chains.
Be sure to pay particular attention to the graphic that breaks down the factors that are contributing to global warming. Very informative
The argument advanced by Terry L. Anderson of the Hoover Instituion at Stanford University regarding SD is quite in line with that of other capitalist expansionists. His main contention in the article he publishes here is to suggest that natural resources are expanding due to advances in technology, even as life-expectancies and consumption increase. Albeit the article is short, Anderson offers little in the way of statistical fact to bolster his claims. As in my previous entry's author, he feels that economic expansion in the 3rd world will somehow result in empathy towards the first world's emerging commitment to SD. He fails to realize that as the economy of these nations expand, so to will the desire to consume. The failure to address this issue severly undermines the argument made by Anderson.
This business week article underlines this question :How can the U.N. make the greatest impact on promoting corporate responsibility in the developing world ? Actually, U.N have launched a Global compact program which set up a kind enforcement body, which gather international companies strategy on this field.
The idea : Companies should show examples by applying social and environmental principles, whereas the role of the organisation is to gather ideas to implement and then develop standards.
This is a good way to promote and extend sustainable development. But by creating standards, companies can have the feeling to be judged on their practices, and can be frightened (so that they will not want to enter the model).
Another issue of such a project is not to politicize the debate.
So, how can governments take a more active role without slowing down companies initiatives ?
In the one hand, such an organization gathering both business and politics, is needed, but on the other hand, organization has to manage between encouraging companies in their sustainable development policies, while designing standards, controls, etc.
The issue is to define an appropriate role for each of these authotities which could enable promotion and sustainable develoment practices's extension.
So, instead of implementing standards, they should for example :
facilitate sustainable development's use by providing equipments to companies or countries (for recycling, energy use, resources use...), different facilitating tools, financial rewards, granting subsidies, or communication campaigns.
Dealing with greenwash, you almost cannot miss the company NIKE. Being a stakeholder of the Global Reporting Initiative, one could expect them to respect the guidelines of this initiative. The aim of the GRI is to "establish a common framework for enterprise-level reporting on sustainability..." (Studyguide 5.4.1). It includes three aspects of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic issues. The more astonishing is it to find several articles about the violation of human rights by Nike. Having a look on the web, you could find a list of several initiatives against the practices of Nike. On this website, you also find a fact sheet listing some aspects of Nike's practices.
This makes me think of 2 possible reasons to explain how the stakeholdership in th GRI and the practises of Nike can coexist. The first one is that Nike is "greenwashing", trying to maintain or even regain an image of a responsibile company while in reality doing the complete opposite. The second argument deals with the liability of these guidelines and the trustfulness of the GRI. The main question to this is how can a company like Nike that pays the minimum wage (not even enough to survive), that punishes their workers physically, that forces overtime, just to name a few of the reproaches, be a member of a society that stands for environmental, SOCIAL and economic sustainability?
Reading the chapter of the studyguide dealing with politics made me think of the commitment of the German government to SD. So I had a look on the website of the ministry of environment . Don't be too scared, that the site behind the link is in german, all other links on this site are in English (and French).
SD issues in general are not discussed in public. The politicians only deal with several aspects. So I try to list a few of the things that the government had done recently.
1) In the beginning of 2002, the cabinet has approved a draft bill amending the Environmental Audit Act with a view to ensuring high standards for EU environmental audits.
2) The government changed the tax system to a more ecologic way. So the tax rate on gasoline and electricity rose. The reform takes place in several steps each with a time lag of several years.
3) The government (which is a coalition of "greens" and socialists) decided to abandon the production of electricity from nuclear power and made up a plan for the shutting down of the concerned power plants. This step was largely and controversely discussed in public!
4) Prior to the World Summit on SD in Johannesburg, the government approved the national sustainability strategy as Germany's contribution to the summit. Again unfortunately I did not hear of this before I did read it today....
The four mentioned points above all come from the website of the ministry for environment, but you are invited to have a look at the websites of the ministry of Economics and Labour, the ministry of consumer protection, the ministry of health and social security, and particularly the ministry of economic cooporation and development.
As mentioned earlier, from my point of view, the issues dealt with by the government are not discussed enough in the public. If you'd ask people on the street about efforts their government is taking concerning SD, I bet they won't have big things to answer. They'd probably complain about the tax reform mentioned, because they are concerned by that (increasing gasoline prices). So according to this article in the studyguide which says, that "Europeans appear to be leading the way at this point in time", I'd say that might be right in comparison to the United States or Australia (the two single "industrialized" nations, that did not sign the Kyoto protocol). To be critically, as mentioned in the textbook, too, politicians tend to do greenwash, even more than companies. I have to admit, that I can't tell you something about the progress and effects of the actions taken by the government. But maybe if you find out something, you can tell me.
These article is about the rise in the number of SD or Green buildings, espiacially skyscrapers. We find a lot of new buildings respecting the SD process and to speed up the trend politicians are starting to act also (tax breaks and government buildinds). The LEED certification rewards the SD action. Obviously the building's price is higher than classical building's but later you spend much less money in energy and it is a communication opportunity also.
But the main point is to show us that SD actions have a real economical advantage! I mean, thinking about how to build SD buildings force engineers to develop news SD technologies. That is the best way to make perennial the SD economy.
According to me that is the point businessmen and politicians used to forgetting. Because for those people SD is a communication action, or a way of reducing energy use... whereas it is a real economy with inovations, economical advantages (in many case SD products cost much less money "in fine" because you have to count all the spends in the price).
So everyone has to understand that SD is not a luxery or a choice but maybe the new evolution of capitalism.
This recent article from a french financial paper deals with the difficulty for companies to go further sustainable development ideas recognition. How can they do to manage environmental risk ?
It gives few ideas that tend to be developed in order to implement and sustain companies strategy and actions in this field :
The necessity to mix it with policies, to develop performance’s reference related to sustainable development (such as ratings), or including this into the company’s, brand’s image or marketing strategy, the increasing roles of stakeholders.
Actually, it presents sustainable development as new a way of managing firms, part of their policies, and as a marketing tool.
However :
- It underlines the importance of this new managing priority and the huge amounts of investments done in this kind of ‘ethics funds’, which is in fact very little in comparison to pension funds.
- The argument of linking sustainable development to performance is also quite interesting but on which level (elements to take into account from a firm to another)
- The risk to adhere to sustainable development for performance’ or investments’ reasons (because it really do attract stakeholders)
- Do not be able to manage it in a efficient way.
- Maintaining the emergence’s trends (even if increasing, still low)
- Problems of huge companies wealthier than some countries :How can they manage to set up a policy and implementation without hurting these countries’ goals for example.
-Do not use it exclusively as a 'marketing tool' as suggest the article but as a kind of model in management.
http://www.lesechos.fr/formations/risques/articles/article_8_5.htm
Every "Financial Management" textbook reads of the contratdicting interests of stockholders and that of the managment of the particular firm that stockholders invest in. The so called "agency dillema" is apparent in many big public firms where stockholders do not believe that management is acting as agents of the stockholders. In other words, stockholders do not believe that management act with the best interests of the firm in mind and is not maximizing shareholder value.
If we back up a bit to the behavior of investors it seems overwhelmingly apparent that stockholders invest in firms who they believe will grow, with greater future cash flows. More and more investors are in favor of moderate growth and look more into the future of firms than ever before, but the emphasis on growth is still hard.
But as we learn today from the lecture and class material, sustainable development preaches that there exists the posibility for companies to do well without growing. This is contradictory to the fundamentals by which investors base the investing decisions upon. If we, as future ecologically minded managers, after taking this class begin to make decisions that seemingly cap growth, we should be ready to participate in heated agency issues.
I am hoping that the following few days in this class can offer information on what it really means to cap growth, and how to do it while still being able to attract investors capital. As it stands, from the limited knowledge that I have, a strategy involving SD will exaggerate the risk of investing in the ecologically friendly firm, especially in the mind of the common investor.
CAUSE: Lack of Regulation for Waste Management
EFFECT: Here
Obvious we see here a scenario where over population leading to abject poverty coupled with a lack of regard for the environment over scores of years has dire consequences. The ultimate effect of these consequences are lower life expectancy and death by preventable ailments for children. I know this is an extreme example and it may be hard for those that have never travelled to third world areas or seen them on the television to fully grasp the weight of such circumstances. Although pollution does not run as rampant in G8 countries such as the ones many of us live in it is important to search for examples of where things have gotten out of hand to provide perspective on how important preemptive measure are in mastering the delicate balance between business and the environment...............
Jerry Taylor of the Cato Research Institute published an interesting article refuting the viability of Sustainable Development policy in relation to both enterprise and environmental requisition. His fundamental argument rests on the supposition that technological efficiency and slowing population growth have trended towards a surplus in natural resources, thus making Sustainable Development a costly and useless exercise in governmental regulation.
The crux of Taylor's argument is predicated on the assumption that both strong sustainability and weak sustainability preserve resources for future generations who will likely have little use for them due to technological advancement. Further, he makes a similar contention to that of Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg, stating that sustainability is best addressed through improved markets in third world countries. Although Taylor provides reasonable evidence to back his assertions, he likewise falls into a serious assumption gap that greatly diminishes his point. To assume that technology will make a fluid transition from natural to man-made resources, based purely on conjecture, seems like a potentially calamitous weight to thrust upon the scientific community of tomorrow. Statistics are easily manipulatable to favor a specific viewpoint, clearly Taylor has taken to this approach in the hopes that pressing environmental issues today, will somehow solve themselves at a later day and time.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200407150675.html
I thought that this was an interesting article about efforts to raise awareness about sustainable development in LCDs, particularly those where issues such as poverty, hunger, and pollution run rampant. A source in the article states that there can be no sustainable development without efforts to create sustainable urbanization and, without intervention, as many as one in three people could live in slum like conditions in many of these areas by 2033. Cleary there is much more that needs to be done to give these individuals any chance to live in areas with clean air, water, etc. This must be acheived before anyone can even begin to suggest that the ultimate end, in which economic development in these countries would lead to any semblence of parity in the world, is in sight. But the paradigm shift will not happen over night and articles such as these serve as encouragment that the first babysteps of awareness are being taken even today in some LCDs.
A warm welcome to all Reims Management School Summer Programme students!
In the course outline, you will note that 30% of the assessment is allocated to "Analysis of a journal article or company performance" and that this is an individual assignment.
This is where this blog comes in ...
Between now and midnight (GMT + 1hr) on Sunday 25 July, this is your space to make a contribution to group learning. Your task, simply, is to analyse, critically, articles and news reports. Other than this, I will not be too prescriptive -- as this would be counter to the essence of a weblog -- suffice to say that your posts must have something to do with sustainable development and competitive advantage!
In terms of grades, I will be looking for quality rather than quantity. That is, huge slabs of text cut-and-pasted from web sites are unlikely to earn you high marks, nor will "Me too" or "I agree" responses. The main thing I am looking for is good, critical analysis. This might be:
1. Challenging a point of view
2. Forwarding a new perspective
3. Relating theory to one’s experience; or
4. Offering support for a position based on the literature.
One final point: it is quite acceptable for your contributions to be 'comments'. It is not imperative that you initiate a blog topic.