The Term Sustainability - Essay Example

?MANAGEMENT The term sustainability is aptly applied by the environmentalists, corporate culture, social and natural scientists and analysts. It simply refers to the administering and allocation of the available sources in such a manner that they could prove supportive in respect of meeting the current business requirements in a refined way according to the plans and schemes developed and designed by the management of the company, firm or organization. Thus, sustainability concentrates upon the problems related to the present day corporate environment without making any compromise on the problems that could appear in future in the wake of the strategic change adopted by the organization on the one hand, and in the aftermath of alterations in the political, environmental, social, technological, legal and economic fields on the other. In simple words, sustainability aims to combat with the latest challenges by allocating the resources and energies for the short term period without putting the future developments into jeopardy. Thus, sustainability is basically seen by neoclassical economists as a problem of managing a nation’s portfolio of capital to maintain it at a constant level, either in toto or per capita. It includes natural capital, in principle, but it also allows for virtually unlimited substitution between man-made and natural capital (Pearce et al., 1990: quoted in Ayers 2000 2). Hence, sustainability looks into the canvas of business environment with a larger and long term perspective. However, it does not mean that it absolutely nullifies the long-term planning. On the contrary, it works out on current corporate scenario in such a dedicated way, by exercising best of skills and proficiencies that it indirectly creates long-term shareholder value by increasing opportunities and minimizing risk factors for the future years to come. Sustainability is essentially the continuity of the satisfaction regarding the fulfillment of basic needs; the same can be witnessed by elaborating the concept within corporate point of view, where it is actually the strategy devised and articulated to keep the ball of commercial activities rolling. The analysts divide sustainability into two different levels, which include weak and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability is the idea that natural capital can be used up as long as it is converted into manufactured capital of equal value. On the other hand, strong sustainability is the idea that there are certain functions that the environment performs that cannot be duplicated by humans.(Hart, Maureen 1998 3) In other words, the theorists argue that different forms of capital can be utilized by converting it from natural form into manufactured capital form. Consequently, weak sustainability measures the value of natural objects, beauties and capital within a monetary perspective without taking into account its worthwhile status as the pure object of nature. For instance, mountains offer countless beauties and finances are generated from the tourists and visitors. Additionally, there are countless natural products that could be obtained from mountains and hills. However, the weak sustainability mere calculates the gains that could be generated by turning the hilly areas into plains. Thus, the narrow-sightedness of the notion appears to be unable to provide an in-depth analysis of the objects of nature and mistakenly regard them as the wastage of resources out of which huge money could be generated. Similarly, a forest full of trees contains the worth quite different from the estimation made by an entrepreneur. A value can be calculated if you assume that all the trees are cut down and turned into furniture or paper. However, the forest provides a home for wildlife that provides food for hunters. It also provides a place for hikers to enjoy the natural environment. (Hart, Maureen 1998 5) On the other hand, strong sustainability refutes the very idea that natural capital are substitute to one another and hence can be estimated in terms of materialistic and manufactured one. Rather, human strength and manufactured objects are unable to replace natural and environmental capital, as human powers are not in a position to produce the same that is attributed to nature. Strong sustainability, according to Ott, Konrad (2000 3), lay stress upon the very reality that the human sphere is embedded in a natural system and assumes that natural limits ought to constrain our ac­tions. Artificial capital can only sometimes substitute for natural capital. Both weak and strong types of sustainability are contradictory to one another in many ways. Weak sustainability looks for the exploitation of all natural resources in order to apply them for commercial and monitory purposes. Much of the confusion in the discussion of strong sustainability arises from a failure to distinguish between the two assumptions dividing weak and strong sustainability. The first is the supposition of substitutability between natural and manufactured capital. The second is that economic well-being “covers” all other concerns. (Ayers et al 2000 12) The supporters of the very notion argue that since nature has bestowed countless treasures upon humans, it is the obligation of the humans to explore, refine and utilize them for the corporate growth. Somehow, the strong sustainability is of the opinion that since the humans have already exploited the natural beauty for their materialistic benefits, destruction and conversion of the same would not be in the best interest of the physical and social environment at large. Thus, in order to protect the natural capital from further scarcity, the methods should be devised for its complete and unconditional preservation. Weak sustainability appears to be broad-minded and optimistic in respect of entering into productivity with the help of natural resources. They are of the view that natural objects are sure to meet with their ultimate end whether they are utilized or not. For instance, the roses swaying on branches also wither if they are not plucked and gathered for various purposes. So, the humans should strive to explore best methods in order to take maximum output of these objects have been created by nature for man. Development is a multidimensional undertaking to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development. (Kuhlman and Farrington 2010 5) Somehow, strong sustainability submits to state that preservation of the significant proportion of natural resources is in the benefit of man. Though natural objects may wither or get rusted, it is nature to decide the fate of the withering material. Moreover, there exist thousands of products that have never experienced any decline for centuries. On the contrary, the thousand years long preservation has not only increased their worth and values, but also these objects of nature have proved vehemently precious and productive for humans. Hence, biodiversity is also the form of preserved natural phenomena that brings positive and creative changes for humans by changing shape, traits, characteristics and formulae in general. By critically evaluating both the two forms of sustainability above-mentioned, it becomes evident that both weak and strong forms maintain imperative significance in their nature and scope. It is weak sustainability that urges the scientists, entrepreneurship and corporate stratum to step forward and extract maximum benefits out of the blessings Nature has bestowed upon humans. Additionally, weak sustainability does not let natural resources go waste ultimately. Rather, these are taken into account by the corporate firms by manufacturing various products for the best interest of humanity. The corporate class argues in favor of the development of best possible technology, equipments and skills for extracting useful and productive part of the objects of nature without diminishing or hurting its very roots of foundations. Thus, weak sustainability is not determined to destroy the environment; rather, it looks for preserving it by converting it into manufactured form in order to have pecuniary gains out of these natural phenomena. The principle of sustainable development, according to the Business Council of Australia, does not require that the physical configuration of the environment or the economy's capital stock remains constant. The current generation does not owe future generations a share of particular resources. Rather, it requires that the capacity to generate resources from the total stock of environmental, physical and human capital resources not be diminished. (1991 4) The business class also lays stress upon converting these natural objects into manufactured items, because all human needs, comforts and luxuries directly require natural products for preparing clothes, furniture, equipments and several other articles of everyday use. Hence, the entire development made by humans that has paved the way towards the present day technological advancements is absolutely dependent of the natural products, without utilizing the same no progress could be made altogether. Consequently, we would be leading a life similar to the people of Paleolithic and Neolithic eras even while entering twenty-first century. On the contrary, environmentalists vehemently censure all the projects that involve the elimination of natural beauty for pecuniary and mercenary gains. They are of the view that since positive and constructive utilization of environmental objects is possible, and even productive within profit point of view, then why should these objects be consumed by putting their survival in grave jeopardy. The supporters of the survival of environment seek the creativity in order to fulfill various human needs instead of constantly sticking to the policy of annihilating the objects that are the symbol of healthy and pleasant environment for humans. While discussing the business profits, the supporters of strong sustainability emphasize upon devising and implementing long terms business plans carrying on long term basis, as these plans could remain effective for many years to come without putting the survival of environment at stake. While discussing strong sustainability within business point of view to those following him, Ayres (1996 2) states that the supporters of environmental beauty bequeathing a more and more potent technology and significant investment in productive machinery, equipment and infrastructure as well. But these benefits may not compensate for a depleted natural resource base, a gravely damaged environment and a broken social contract. Hence, all the developments made by the manufacturers, experimentalists and naturalist scientists would go to dashes provided the business ventures fail to provide a healthy and hygienic atmosphere to the living organisms. Thus, if all the trees are cut to nothing for the preparation of furniture, fuel and other items of daily use, the humans will be unable to breathe in a proper manner. Consequently, the sick and retarded generations will be created in future, which fail to survive even under an unhealthy and uncomfortable atmosphere eventually. It is therefore strong sustainability limits the extent that environmental capital may be substituted by man-made capital and defines certain environmental assets which are critical to our wellbeing and survival as critical natural capital. (Ross, Andrea 2008) To conclude, it is fact beyond suspicion that both weak and strong notions of sustainability provide comprehensive plans regarding business ventures and corporate activities; somehow, the former sticks to generating profits and providing facilities to the consumers and customers, while the latter lays stress upon the survival and protection of the physical environment for the safety and security of the living beings, including humans, fauna and flora at large. Harris, Professor Stuart (1991 5) takes a controversial plea by stating that although the loss of natural capital can be compensated for by human made capital but in practice it is most advisable to avoid depletion of natural resources unless there was a good reason. For example there might be good reason to build a space port at Cape York. The decision could be made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. We could require benefit/cost ratio of 1.2 or even 1.5 which gives extra weight to natural resources. Hence, ruination of the environment that offers countless benefits to the health, fitness, well-being and survival of the living beings, is just like committing suicide by eliminating the sources necessary for the existence of the most important sources of energy and breathing at large. In other words, the future of the coming generations could not be put at stake in order to earn money, reputation, business ventures and financial gains just for the time being. On the contrary, the bright, vivid and brilliant future prospects vehemently demand for the flourishing of physical and biological environments, so that the people can enjoy themselves with a strong and tranquil atmosphere all around them. Thus, the paradigm of ‘strong sustainability’ contains rational and prudent thoughtfulness in its nature and scope, imitating of which assures a healthy, rigorous and hygienic life to human generations; while the ‘weak sustainability appears to be determined for sacrificing the future prospects just for the sake of present day needs, comforts, accomplishments and achievements. References Ayers, Robert U. Limits to the Growth Paradigm, Ecological Economics (1996) 19: 117-134 Ayers, Robert U, Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. van den & Gowdy, John M. Viewpoint: Weak Versus Strong Sustainability (2002) http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/9295/1/98103.pdf Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den. Materials, Capital, Direct/Indirect Substitution and Mass Balance Production Functions Land Economics, forthcoming. (1998) Bromley, D. Searching for Sustainability: The Poverty of Spontaneous Order. Ecological Economics (1998) 24: 231-240 Harris, Stuart G. A Native American Perspective On Sustainable Infrastructures (2000) http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Environmental%20Protection/SD-Cornell-2.PDF Hart, Maureen Sustainability continued 1998 Retrieved from http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Training/Indicators/WeakStrg.html Kuhlman, Tom & Farrington, John Sustainability ISSN 2071-1050 (2010) Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3436/pdf Ott, Konrad. The Case For Strong Sustainability (2004) Retrieved from http://umwethik.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/booklet/8_strong_sustainability.pdf Pearce, D. W., E. Barbier, et al. Sustainable development: economics and environment in the Third World. Brookfield, VT, Gower Pub. Co. (1990). Ross, Andrea. Modern Interpretations of Sustainable Development University of Dundee October 20, 2008, Glasgow Retrieved from http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/civilengineering/dlcs/seaconference/a_ross.pdf Sharon Beder, The Nature of Sustainable Development, 2nd edition, Scribe, Newham, Vic. (1996) http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/STS300/valuing/casefor/needsweak.html Steve Williams and Yao Tseng Draft Statement on Principles for Sustainable Development Australian Conservation Foundation (February 2001) http://www.anmea.com/uploads/documents/BCA_submission.pdf Wilson, Eric The Difference Between ‘Weak’ and ‘Strong’ Sustainability 2010 September 26th Retrieved from http://2ndgreenrevolution.com/2010/09/26/the-difference-between-weak-and-strong-sustainability/ Environmental Stewardship Initiative Sustainability Definition (July 2002) Accessed through http://www.p2pays.org/ref/38/37967.pdf Read More