Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility

the two are not the same

Sustainability

Sustainability is a much simpler concept than many complicated political and scientific discussions make us believe. It was defined for the first time in 1713 by Von Carlowitz in the context of forestry. He defined the sustainability principle (at the time using different words) as "Von den Zinsen zu leben und nicht vom Kapital", to live from the rent of the capital and not to consume the capital itself. At the time there was a problem in Germany with cutting more trees than the natural growth of the forest. This definition of sustainability does not refer to any social or environmental factors. It only points at the necessity to maintain the viability of a production system by not destroying its (natural) capital base.

Translating this elementary definition of sustainability to the sustainability of our industrial society, we could define the sustainability principle as the need to protect long term public interests against short term private interests. It is useful to explicitly add the 'private' and 'public' dimensions here, as we are not interested in the survival of a particular company or a particular product, but in the survival of the broader public system in which the company or product is situated. We are not interested in the survival of a particular food producer such as Nestlé. We are interested in the sustainability of the agricultural systems from which Nestlé sources it materials or in the sustainability of the climate system that Nestlé and its suppliers influence.

Sustainable Development

The best known definition of sustainability is actually the definition of 'sustainable development' by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) in 1987: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” It should be noted that this is not a general definition of 'sustainability' but a more specific definition of 'sustainable development'. It was a result of a political compromise needed to resolve the conflicts between proponents of 'Limits to Growth' and representatives from developing countries who could not accept any definition that could lead to limits to economic development. As a result of the compromise, the definition explicitly contained a reference to the 'needs of the present'.

Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility

In the context of private business, sustainability is more than often translated into meeting the 'Triple Bottom Line', a concept invented by sustainability guru John Elkington. Companies, in that approach, should measure their success not only by measuring their success on the basis of their economic and financial bottom line ('Profit'), but equally take into account their ecological responsibility (the 'Planet' bottom line) and their social responsibility (the 'People' botom line). Elkington's triple bottom line (or: PPP) has become the universal sustainability language spoken in business. In that language, we call a company that positively meets the three bottom lines 'sustainable'. It would be more correct, not to call such a company 'sustainable', but rather a 'socially and environmentally' responsible company. Whether the company, as a result, is sustainable, we do not know. Moreover, it is not the right question to ask. The right question to ask is: is this company contributing to creating or maintaining sustainability of the larger systems its activities and products are part of?

Strictly spoken, the use of terms like 'a sustainable company', 'a sustainable production process' or 'a sustainable product' does not make any sense. To talk about 'more sustainable' companies or products is complete nonsense as well. Sustainability can only be defined at a higher level than the company itself, such as the sustainability of palm oil production in Indonesia or the sustainability of Finnish forestry. Companies with good scores on corporate social and environmental responsibility have a greater chance of contributing to sustainability than companies with less good scores. A single bad company will most probably not endanger sustainability of the larger context. A minority of so-called 'sustainable' companies will not create the conditions for sustainability in the larger system.

Elkington's Triple Bottom Line can be useful for defining corporate social and environmental responsibility. Compliance with the triple bottom line does not necessarily create sustainability.

______