پیاده سازی توسعه پایدار زیست محیطی در کسب و کار : انتقادات و پیشنهادات برای بهبود
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|181||2011||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5390 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Volume 19, Issue 1, February 2011, Pages 52–57
This paper discusses the options for implementing ‘sustainable’ environmental business strategies that are acceptable to a multiplicity of stakeholders. To evaluate the current situation in Australia a content analysis of the web pages for leading companies indicates that there is little tangible evidence that sustainable business practices are being implemented. The authors propose several directions for research into substantive issues between ethical behaviour, corporate social responsibility and environmentally sustainable behaviour for business. Each of these areas is developing research in relative isolation. However, we argue that this paradigmatic divide is limiting the opportunities for research to provide real insight into seemingly intractable problems.
Sustainability is an abstract term with multiple dimensions. For example, the Oxford Dictionary (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2002) states that it is something which is (1) supportable or bearable, (2) able to be upheld or defended, (3) able to be maintained at a certain level. The meaning of ‘maintain’ suggests supported or upheld over time. Thus, it is clear that to be sustainable, an action has to be capable of being maintained over the longer term (Herremans and Reid, 2002). The term ‘environmental sustainability’ has come to contain these ideas in relation to the nature of the biosphere. That is, in order for business, products and actions to be sustainable, the biosphere must support and bear them. The biosphere must also be protected (defended) and upheld in the longer term. Sustainability concepts have also been applied to social situations (Carew and Mitchell, 2008) and program (Jancey et al., 2008 and Rosenberg et al., 2008) as well as, organisational sustainability (which may or may not be financial) (Carraher et al., 2008). In addition the concept has been applied extensively to health programs which need to be (self) sustainable beyond the initial investment of externally applied effort (Jancey et al., 2008 and Sexton, 2006). However, sustainability can also mean financial sustainability whereby the business entity has a responsibility to remain financially viable over the longer term. This is of particular concern in areas where shareholders play a part in the corporate governance structure (Horrigan, 2007).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
While we accept that this is a necessarily surface treatment of what are deeply controversial issues, it is evident from this exploration that there is much work to be done with regard to business’ adoption of environmentally sustainable practice. It is interesting, that given the opportunity of presenting to the world via their websites, that business does not even claim to be environmentally responsible except as rhetoric. Importantly, the lack of specificity in environmental action is of concern. It is possible that it is simply too complicated, as suggested by O’Brien (2009), and that we are doomed to inaction because of an inability to engage with the major competing priorities with which we are presented. The lack of specificity might also be indicative of a fear of being held accountable for the success or failure of particular activities. CSR activities are, of necessity, ‘hopeful’ of making a positive impact. In business is it is not usual to undertake an activity in the hope that it will work – most boards would expect an accountable and measurable outcome associated with an investment. We argue that a bit of hope might be a good thing when it comes to making a difference. It is apparent that there is profound confusion about what constitutes environmental or social responsibility. Legislative frameworks are restrictive and are not suggested as a solution to this problem but they are at least clear and easy to understand (usually). The moral frameworks (as evidenced by the codes of conduct) in the main do not contain environmental statements. However, the fact that they exist when not actually required by law is positive. Such confusion cannot be helpful for business when deciding amongst the myriad of opportunities that present themselves. In this case, self-interest is most likely to prevail. If the public face of the Top 30, as expressed in their websites, is not providing evidence of sustainability by implication this is not occurring in practice. This suggests that research into what might be an acceptable common framework for business decision making is urgently needed. Environmental sustainability will not come about through serendipity. If legislation is required to effect change, some upstream marketing may be required. If a code of conduct will provide the framework, this needs to be developed in conjunction with the stakeholders based on some clear theoretically sound principles. However, each of these will require an inter-disciplinary approach. Specifically, we propose that the eight dimensions (Table 1) and their underlying assumptions are tested through further research. These firms may be practising a form of green-washing, either deliberately or otherwise; if so, this practice should be exposed, enlightenment provided and guidelines provided for the various stakeholders.