Does business have a responsibility to promote sustainability?

Reiterating what many of you have already blogged, I am a firm believer that sustainability is the responsibility of everyone - individuals, businesses and governing bodies all have a part to play, and they all need the support of one another to be able to make a change. To go into the details of this would be repeating the ideas of my fellow classmates (chris, louise, sean, ben, caroline, dave etc) all of whom make equally valid points (in my opinion!).

For me, it is this mutual responsibility that makes sustainability such a complicated issue - a point that becomes more and more pertinent with every SC class we have, as illustrated by the debates that erupt between the pro and anti-business minded class members! Whilst I fully agree with the environmentalist perspective that business is not doing enough for sustainability and could be construed as the major culprit with regards to our environmental problems, I also concord with the economist viewpoint that, logistically, it is not so simple for business to promote sustainability within our market systems. I, too, come to the conclusion that internalising of the externalities is probably the best way forward, as it marries the 3 players of consumer, business and government - a governmental policy to bring about market change that, in turn, brings about consumer behavioural change - to produce an holistic solution to a global problem. But, again, it's easier said than done!

With regards to last week's practical...

the Annie Leonard video sparked a debate over the simplistic conveyor belt system of production, consumption, growth and environmental degradation. Yes, capitalism has yielded enormous improvements in welfare etc, and yes, there would be a staggering amount of poverty and loss of livelihood if we were to stop/slow our consumption (as the video suggests we should). But my main concern with this second argument is the perpetual nature of our system of production and consumption - as consumption increases, more people become a part of the chain of production, such that the level of consumption needs to be maintained to support those employed in production. Something is wrong here. In saying that the livelihood losses that would result from a decline in consumption are a reason for which to maintain consumption, are we not missing the point?

Also, at the end of the presentations, the point was made that there should be a set of uniform minimum standards by which to assess a business' sustainability. My problem with this idea is that if you set minimum standards you get minimum standards and reactive measures rather than proactive measures...

ummm thats about it. A load of waffle and I haven't really answered the question!