Page 32 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

2.3 Business sustainability 27
Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market
distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out
those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account
the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on
their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities.

and #8 Economic Growth and Decent Work, target 8.4:

Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and
endeavor to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-year
framework of programs on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking
the lead.

In recent decades, companies themselves have started to acknowledge their responsibility in
global sustainability issues due to their negative impacts on society and the environment
together with the need for the business sector to be part of the solution in order to actually
shift from business-as-usual to a sustainable world where every citizen live well within
planetary boundaries (WBCSD, 2010). The needed change does not encompass only the busi-
ness model but also broader economic system and consumption patterns (WBCSD, 2010;
Dyllick and Muff, 2015). As a matter of fact, Gray (2010) and Gray and Bebbington (2000)
accuse capitalism of contributing to unsustainability, since it is based on short term financial
return on investment, consumerism, and greed. As a consequence, Townsend (2015) envis-
ages a shift from capitalism to “capitalism 2.0,” or sustainable economy. This is an economic
system no longer based on resources exploitation and financial revenues but rather on
prosperity for both people and firms within planetary limits.
The need for business sustainability derives from the acknowledgement of a gap existing
between corporate activities and global environmental and social performances. From an
environmental point of view, Rockstrom et al. (2009) states that industrialization has brought
the world into a new era where human activities are responsible for major changes in the
environment, which could have dangerous impacts in the future. The Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MEA, 2005 as cited in Dyllick and Muff, 2015) demonstrated that 15 out of 24 eco-
system services have been deteriorated in the past 50years because of human actions, while
only four are in better condition. According to the United Nations Financial Initiative (UNEP-
FI, 2011), in 2008, the human race cost nature $6.6 trillion, corresponding to 11% of the world
gross domestic product for that year. Similarly, the 3000 world’s biggest publicly traded com-
panies were responsible for $2.15 trillion of environmental cost. The German footwear com-
pany, Puma, in partnership with Trucost, has been the first firm to account and monetize its
hidden debt to nature for all the services the environment provides for its business activities.
In 2010, the company should have paid nature for 8 million Euros, 145 million if external part-
ners in the supply chain were also included, though the latter normally serve more than one
company at a time (Puma, 2011).
Although environmental issues and impacts receive a great part of the global attention, the
business world has also a relationship with the social dimension of sustainability. Azapagic
and Perdan (2000) state that industry is recognized both to degrade the environment
and deplete natural resources and to contribute to societal development and prosperity.
For instance, business provides income, training, and social security to a large number of