Out of the knowledge, society grew the energy-guzzling and environmentally unfriendly consumer society. what is mean by that?
Answers
Answer:
Responding to environmental problems has always been a no-win proposition for managers, report Noah Walley and Bradley Whitehead in “It’s Not Easy Being Green” (May–June 1994). Help the environment and hurt your business, or irreparably harm your business while protecting the earth. Recently, however, a new common wisdom has emerged that promises the ultimate reconciliation of environmental and economic concerns. In this new world, both business and the environment can win. Being green is no longer a cost of doing business; it is a catalyst for innovation, new market opportunity, and wealth creation.
The idea that a renewed interest in environmental management will result in increased profitability for business has widespread appeal. In a new green world, managers might redesign a product so that it uses fewer environmentally harmful or resource-depleting raw materials—an effort that if successful could result in cuts in direct manufacturing costs and inventory savings.
This new vision sounds great, yet it is highly unrealistic, Walley and Whitehead argue. Environmental costs are skyrocketing at most companies, with little chance of economic payback in sight. Given this reality, they question whether “win-win” solutions should be the foundation of a company’s environmental strategy.
Twelve experts assess both viewpoints and offer their comments.
Should “win-win” solutions should be the foundation of a company’s environmental strategy?
Richard A. Clarke is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California.
Much of what is written or spoken about the reconciliation of economic and environmental concerns is oversimplified, and I agree with Noah Walley and Bradley Whitehead that this kind of discourse can create unrealistic expectations. But reconciliation is not a choice. A strong global economy is sustainable only if it integrates economic, social, and environmental well-being.
I disagree with the authors’ viewpoint that win-win opportunities are insignificant, and with their skepticism about the value of a corporate environmental commitment. They point to the “enormous” and rising costs of environmental compliance, with no positive financial returns, as a reason to argue against any real benefits arising from going beyond compliance. But that argument ignores a key point: complying with environmental or any other law is usually not expected to yield a positive financial return.
Having said that, I do believe that the costs of environmental compliance are unnecessarily high. They are the result of a regulatory system that has become inefficient and ineffective. The solution is creative regulatory reform like that initiated by the Aspen Institute Series on the Environment in the Twenty-First Century and the eco-efficiency work of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Many of the proposed reforms are aimed at significantly increasing the cost-effectiveness of compliance measures by reducing command-and-control approaches, increasing the flexibility for meeting standards, and relying on market-based incentives.
The authors look at win-win opportunities from the rather narrow viewpoint of going beyond compliance in reducing pollution from industrial processes. But a broader approach is necessary, one that focuses on basic changes in products, services, and business strategies that offer opportunity financially as well as ecologically. The shift from building more power plants to increasing energy efficiency can benefit utility customers and shareholders as well as the environment.
Explanation: