Sustainability Theoretical Construct Or Attainable Commerce Essay Example

to be more of a theoretical concept rather than an achievable goal. Achieving sustainability requires a sustained and collaborative effort from various entities such as production houses, human rights advocates, governments, and political parties. This paper aims to examine the issues related to sustainability, particularly those concerning organizational practices. It also critically analyzes the extent to which sustainability has been achieved or is actually feasible, and identifies why sustainability is more of a theoretical concept than a practical goal.

Sustainability Defies Exact Definition and Attainability

From an economic perspective, sustainability can be defined as an economic system that is sustainable due to its dynamic efficiency and maximization of overall welfare functions over a specific time period (Stavins, et Al, 2002).

However, sustainability typically encompasses issues related to society, environment, and the economic system, which are seen as interconnected and interdependent (Omann, 2004, p. 68). The concept of environmental sustainability acknowledges that natural resources are finite and cannot be sustained indefinitely (Dyllick and Hockerts, 1999). Efforts towards environmental sustainability involve managing waste and implementing recycling processes in production facilities. In fact, ensuring global well-being necessitates the regulation of food, water, air, waste disposal, soil fertility, and climate patterns.

According to economists like Pezzey (1989) and Solow (1993), sustainability refers to the preservation of a public-service corporation or public assistance for an average member of society. Economic sustainability is based on efforts to extend fiscal viability or achieve optimal fiscal goals, driven by the concern attitude of businesses seeking to maximize stockholder or stakeholder value (Doig, 1999). However, firms have the potential to achieve both financial goals and broader social objectives (Duncan, 2002), while societal sustainability

involves defining and striving for "societal capital" (Putnam, 2000). Putnam sees societal capital as comprised of various norms, principles, values, relationships, networks, etc. Gladwin et al. (1995, p.

According to experts, organizations can achieve social sustainability by considering "societal costs," promoting democracy, and contributing to community value. Dyllick and Hockerts (1999, p. 134) argue that societal sustainability is effective when stakeholders understand social capital issues and align their aspirations with society's larger interests. Other research (Viederman, 1994) suggests that sustainability involves a participatory process of creating and following a concept of community that effectively utilizes various types of resources: human, natural, man-made, human-scientific, technological, societal, cultural, etc. Achievable sustainability is defined as establishing a social system that satisfies the needs of the community at large while protecting the environment and promoting sustainable economic growth and human development (Church, 2003).

Sustainability includes the economic system, ecological and environmental systems, and societal framework, including the economy itself (Norton and Toman, 1997). In a broader sense, sustainable development or sustainability is not solely a scientific concept that focuses on defining the development of nature or the environment. It also encompasses the ethical ideal of fairness and a balanced approach between benefits and harm (Arnold, et al., 2001). Essentially, this ethical perspective on sustainability can be seen as "the principle of what is good and right" (Thielemann, 2004). Additionally, sustainability involves navigating uncertain events like risks, sudden changes, innovations, etc.

(Bruckmeier, p. 1389) while other research (Holling, 2001, p. 390) views sustainability as an ongoing pursuit of adaptability. Sustainability, therefore, lacks a precise definition and essentially seeks to address issues such as poverty, population growth, human well-being, economic development, industrialization and its

unintended consequences, environmental destruction, climate change, resource depletion, a detached globalized economy, etc.

According to Bruckmeier (2009), achieving sustainability is considered difficult as it has a vague conceptual nature and is often a subject of dispute. The complex issues surrounding sustainability require changes in societal or economic structures as well as individual behavior. Additionally, achieving sustainability in its entirety is also challenging due to its complex nature and differing views on how to define and measure it. Therefore, while some sustainability goals may be easily achieved, others require more control over intangible aspects of society and the environment.

The concept of sustainability is abstract, as humanity is still grappling with the challenges that threaten future generations. Sustainability is multifaceted and cannot be defined or assessed by a single approach, but it includes two distinct dimensions: human and ecological. However, the idea of sustainability is unclear and still evolving as a theoretical concept.

Why Sustainability is Important

Many authors have written about the necessity of sustainability.

Their plants differ in the way they view the challenges facing the world and its life forms. However, broadly speaking, sustainability includes social, environmental, and economic aspects. Sustainability is needed to address the problems caused by unplanned civilization growth and the varied and unbalanced political, economic, and social policies pursued by governments worldwide. It is also a theoretical approach to tackle the issues arising from human interactions with nature through centuries of human civilization growth. Spangenberg (2007, pp. 2-5) skillfully summarizes the main challenges facing human life and global ecology in one of his many background documents for sustainability conferences as consisting of four key issues.

The environment is being exploited excessively, posing a challenge to

life-supporting systems. In addition, there is an unequal distribution of incomes globally, resulting in a widening economic gap between the rich and poor. Furthermore, businesses depend on outdated cost-cutting measures instead of embracing innovative approaches such as mergers and restructuring. Moreover, untrustworthy decision-makers disregard the common good of society, leading to a crisis of legitimacy. Spangenberg also underscores multiple threats that endanger life on Earth.

According to him, there is a widespread corruption of marine resources that affects fisheries, deforestation and soil fertility loss threatening agricultural productivity, contamination of land and water supplies for agriculture, depletion of biodiversity due to massive deforestation, decline in forest value and lake acidification, health risks and reduced agricultural and marine goods due to ozone depletion, economic costs from rising temperatures, unpredictable natural disasters, and climate patterns caused by greenhouse gas accumulation (2007, p.2). The INES (INES, 1996) proposes a comprehensive approach to achieving sustainability by protecting the biosphere through sustainable agriculture, forestry, and marine life preservation, safeguarding nature through networks. It also advocates for efficient resource use through social innovation, improved resource allocation, and efficient new technologies.INEES highlights autonomy, participatory democracy, fair trade, peace, and non-violence as crucial elements of sustainability. Efforts towards sustainability aim to limit resource usage to preserve renewable and non-renewable resources and reduce pollution of water, soil, and air. These efforts also include efficient recycling to manage waste, population control, protection of biodiversity, establishment of democratic and socially just principles, provision of basic human needs, and implementation of proper decision-making systems, among other aspects.

Sustainability is an ongoing effort to achieve ecological, economical, and societal objectives. It addresses concerns like environmental pollution and the economic viability of

individuals, organizations, and states. Moreover, it strives for social equity. Sustainability impacts diverse areas such as transportation, the environment, business operations, biodiversity, technology, industrial waste management, and organizational planning. These sustainability matters hold significance at local, regional, national, and global scales.

The goals of governments and the global human community can be represented by local demands, which also reflect larger issues at the planetary or national level. Achieving sustainability often relies on considering regional concerns as crucial decision-making factors. However, sustainability efforts at all levels - local, regional, and national - are ultimately based on global concerns regarding the environment, economy, and society. The existing literature covers various sustainable topics including land use, water usage, natural resources, communities, flora and fauna, and oil resources. However, these topics are more closely related to an idealized concept of sustainability rather than a practical one.

Sustainability in Organisations

According to earlier research (Friedman, 1970), there is a tradeoff between a company's economic performance and its societal engagement. It is commonly understood that voluntarily engaging in societal action may not provide enough incentives for a business to prioritize such engagement over economic satisfaction. However, current ethical and social responsibility initiatives of modern companies contradict this perception, as adopting social objectives can lead to long-term economic benefits. When a business transitions towards sustainability, it typically goes through six phases (Dunphy, 2003). The first phase involves either rejecting negative impacts or disregarding laws.

The second phase is characterized by the house's lack of response to sustainability demands and instead focuses on short-term profitability. However, in this state, the house starts to lose its direction in the evolving market landscape and

often delays making necessary changes. The next phase is one of conformity, where the house relies on its social reputation or brand and complies with regulations and relevant laws to mitigate risks. In the fourth phase, the house prioritizes operating and cost efficiency while considering its larger societal goals.

The house follows a cardinal policy of sustainability and emphasizes advanced procedures and patterns in the penultimate phase of transmutation. In the last phase, the house aims to prolong itself and transcends narrow economic considerations. The house also adopts suitable schemes for achieving sustainability, as outlined by various scholars. Three traditional schemes for achieving sustainability are ecologically based, including efficiency, sufficiency, and consistency.

The efficiency scheme aims to reduce staff and energy consumption during production. A consistency scheme strives to maintain the quality of the final products or items during the process. This scheme achieves quality by substituting existing harmful materials with naturally formed substances. Under the sufficiency scheme, the utilization of products by end-users or customers is maximized.

The text identifies four distinct types of sustainability plans: a defensive plan focused on minimizing risks and benefiting society, an aggressive transformative plan aimed at creating new markets for society, a defensive efficiency plan aimed at improving productivity in the market, and an aggressive innovative plan aimed at achieving value additions for customers in a sustainable market (Bieker and Dyllick, 2006). Additionally, other research (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2005) outlines four more competitive strategies with broader social inclinations. One of these strategies is the sustainability market buffering plan, which aims to define defensive business goals. This strategy considers environmental and social concerns as threats to business and primarily seeks

to reduce existing legal regulations and prevent the formulation of further ones.

The sustainability cost scheme is primarily a conformity scheme that focuses on the environmental and social aspects. It aims to fulfill the house's responsibilities. The sustainability distinction scheme acknowledges that to remain competitive and sustainable, a house must adopt appropriate product or price differentiation. The firm's innovative construction schemes contribute to its economic gains and enhance its brand value. Additionally, the sustainability market development strategy aims to create and expand markets for the house's sustainable products.

A house that follows this scheme aims to promote sustainable products, advocate for stronger regulations, and change its approach to focus on customer satisfaction (Schaltegger and Burritt, 2005). Organizational strategists often refer to a concept called corporate sustainability. Some research suggests that this corporate sustainability is related to the sustainability efforts of a corporation (Dentchev, 2004). Experts recognize two types of corporate sustainability: weak corporate sustainability emphasizes that sustainable efforts should contribute to overall wealth without decreasing over time (Atkinson, 2000).

The term "entire wealth" refers to the overall societal, economic, and environmental value created by corporations. Some experts argue that weak corporate sustainability leads to a loss in environmental value, which is compensated for by societal or economic values (Reinhardt, 2000). According to this view, a sustainable company is one that generates value while considering costs and benefits to society (p. 30). Social costs can include both private costs, such as capital and labor expenses, as well as costs that are not directly reflected in market prices (p. 27). On the other hand, strong corporate sustainability involves protecting natural assets at their absolute levels, recognizing their essential role in

maintaining complex ecological functions that cannot be replaced by other assets (Atkinson, 2000). The concept of weak sustainability is primarily focused on economic aspects of sustainability (Aguirre, 2002), while strong sustainability emphasizes environmental concerns. Another perspective sees strong corporate sustainability as being centered around ecological issues (Gladwin et al., 1995).

Challenges in Achieving Sustainability

According to several writers, sustainability is seen as a theoretical concept without taking population control measures into account. These writers believe that population control is necessary for any sustainability plan to succeed. They argue that sustainability becomes a fragile and simplistic concept when it focuses on managing land-use patterns and ideologies but ignores population growth (Wilson, 1995, p. 65). Similarly, Appleton succinctly states that sustainability can be pursued through various means and might be partially or to a certain extent achieved, but it can never be fully accomplished (2006, p.3-18).

This paper aims to provide a further explanation as to why sustainability is more of a theoretical concept than a practical one. One theory suggests that the Earth's material resources are rapidly depleting, and in order to achieve sustainability or sustainable development, there needs to be maximum recycling of materials or a limitation on the amount of materials being processed within a specific time frame. Therefore, while economic growth is driven by increased utilization of resources, sustainability can only be achieved if resource consumption is minimized. Bartlett (2005, p.) argues that increased economic growth leads to increased consumption of scarce non-renewable resources, which contradicts the fundamental principle of sustainability.

According to the author, sustaining population growth in society becomes increasingly difficult as the population grows larger (p. 35, 27). Spangenberg

(2007, p.) additionally supports this notion.

15) The text emphasizes the importance of stakeholder integration, sharing of responsibilities, and a consensus-driven approach to decision-making in order to achieve sustainability. However, achieving consensus is often difficult due to differences in approaches to tackling the tasks involved. Additionally, consensus often fails to address the issue of fair distribution of available resources, as they are primarily influenced by nature and inherently unfair. Therefore, achieving sustainability requires not only increased distributional justice but also social care (Zeigler, 2003).

Spangenberg (2007, p.11) argues that acceptance of advanced new procedures and political willingness to confront vested interests are crucial for successful sustainability efforts. However, multiple studies indicate that various factors in modern organizations hinder the achievement of global sustainability goals. These efforts rely on better resource usage, recycling, pollution reduction, and income equality. Therefore, the role of business enterprises in sustainability is highly significant. Nevertheless, there are several problems and drawbacks in businesses, including marketing and financial issues, that hinder successful sustainability outcomes.

There is a disparity in the awareness of sustainability and environmental concerns across the B2B, B2C, and B2G sectors. Additionally, markets still predominantly prioritize price, meaning there are limited incentives to promote sustainable development. Therefore, environmental policies should be adaptable and forward-thinking. However, the presence of embedded systems and traditional methods further hinder efforts towards sustainability.

In order to facilitate sustainable development, a significant amount of capital is necessary. However, this financial requirement acts as a major barrier to adopting new products or procedures that can align business practices with global sustainability goals. The lack of vision and commitment among senior management in organizations also hinders the adoption of sustainable practices.

In situations where organizational systems or practices require both commitment and capital, the absence of dedication and a sustained effort from stakeholders cannot lead to sustainability. Moreover, many enterprises prioritize short-term business objectives instead of recognizing and implementing policies or procedures to achieve broader societal goals. Another challenge is the difficulty in achieving a feasible and consistent definition of sustainability, which underscores fundamental differences and effectively prevents the adoption of a successful and consensus-driven approach to resolving complex sustainability issues.

Sustainability is made more difficult to achieve due to opportunistic and profit-driven concerns, confused government approaches, and the potential negative impact of individual decisions on larger issues. Governments worldwide lack technical, scientific, economic, and social expertise to address sustainability issues effectively (Blackmore, 2001). Additionally, government regulators and law enforcers are often corrupt and unwilling to enforce sustainability policies. Consequently, laws and regulations formulated to address sustainability issues are frequently ignored at the local, regional, or national levels. These laws also lack sufficient support for establishing sanctions, monitoring, or enforcement (Sunstein, 1997). Some argue for greater accountability rather than pursuing an impossible dream of sustainability (Barnhizer, 2006, p. 19).

According to Barnhizer (2006, p. 17), sustainability, related to the environment, human rights, and ecology, is not connected to existing human systems that ensure economic growth and political stability. Additionally, Waldrop (1992) suggests that the narrow and short-term goals of those in power make it difficult for them to anticipate future disasters and take preventative measures. By the time they realize the consequences, it is nearly impossible to prevent or mitigate the negative outcomes through collective political efforts. Furthermore, other researchers (e.g., Yates, 1999) argue that theoretical approaches to

addressing sustainability problems are often divorced from the realities of human systems. These attempts mainly focus on changing institutional systems and adopting behavioral approaches, which are extremely challenging to achieve practically.

In addition, even when changes can be made to institutions or behavior, there is a possibility of existing crises or system failures that can cause decision makers to act according to sustainability principles. However, most attempts to address crises are ineffective and require support from governments and a regulated approach to successfully achieve sustainability goals. This often results in a "too little too late" situation that undermines all attempts to effectively address the negative effects of human-induced natural disasters or crises (Yates, 1999). Barnhizer (2006, p. 18-22) also acknowledges that achieving sustainability is challenging due to problems within both natural and societal systems. He suggests the need to manage conflicting demands for social benefits, education, healthcare, pensions for the elderly, and poverty alleviation.

Meeting this demand requires providing significant funding to address existing problems in social, economic, and environmental systems. Globalization and its associated challenges, such as population growth, increased migration, multicultural acceptance, and a focus on materialism, have shifted our perspective on life and its quality. Urban areas are becoming increasingly crowded as rural populations move to seek better income opportunities, while coastal development requires extensive investment in infrastructure. Additionally, factors such as population growth, uneven geographical distribution, and age demographics affect the uniform adoption of sustainable practices worldwide. Our current economic systems are more open, allowing for information exchange that enables the less fortunate to understand and desire the lifestyles of the wealthy. Barnhizer argues that these conditions are irreversible and make achieving practical

sustainability nearly impossible, relegating it to the "garbage pile of history" (2006, p.

The author acknowledges that certain sustainability efforts can be successful for a small population, but argues that local sustainability initiatives cannot contribute to larger national or global efforts. Additionally, the author dismisses the idea of organizations aiming for sustainability beyond profit goals, as businesses exist solely to generate more profits for owners and shareholders.

According to sustainability advocates, relying on profit-driven efforts to achieve significant societal goals is not very effective and indicates a lack of success in larger sustainability outcomes (p. 41). Furthermore, the author attributes the disappointing state of sustainability achievements to the decisions and systems within businesses, rather than the individuals making those decisions (p. 42).

Elsewhere, he also states that business ventures rely on investments, and those who invest large amounts of money are primarily concerned with obtaining significant returns on their investments rather than using their funds for societal or long-term goals. This perspective renders sustainable decision-making irrelevant (p. 43).

A more optimistic perspective on sustainability

Many experts have viewed the achievement of sustainability with pessimism. These experts support the notion that sustainability is an illusion rather than something that can actually be accomplished.

The Brundtland Commission's lack of attention to the population issue hindered its ability to address sustainability effectively. However, it remains influential in promoting global sustainability management. Many respected researchers and authors have noted the insufficient efforts made to tackle unsustainability. Nonetheless, governments, countries, rights groups, and reputable business organizations actively advocate for sustainability. This has led to various sustainability initiatives such as green technology, green supply chains, green architecture, and green taxes. Consequently, the adoption

of sustainability as an organizational vision by senior management in renowned organizations and businesses is becoming increasingly prevalent.

The existing sustainability flexible joints are able to achieve the narrow or wide approach to sustainability as envisioned by decision-makers and the interactions of various organizational resources.