Sustainability aims to create a world in which business is conducted in ways that benefit the environment, the community, and the economy. A sustainable economy challenges the notion of economic growth in favor of closed loops and systems: it substitutes the linear, upward trajectory with a cyclical system in which everything is connected to everything else and nothing is wasted. A lofty vision I’m contributing toward on the marketing end. But a question has been nagging me for a while:
Will a sustainable economy be boring?
Founded in the profit motive, the quest for economic growth has led to most, if not all, inventions and innovations since the dawn of capitalism. For better or worse, competition and conflict have been a boon to progress, and progress a desired state of affairs. Linearity and simplicity belie its beauty, and constant change is its main characteristic.
The sustainability-related concepts close the loop on this linear progression. Sustainability considers the impact of economic activity on the planet and all stakeholders, not just the company’s profit. Sustainability mimics nature in eliminating inefficiency and waste. Cyclical processes and systems thinking underpin it, and stability is its main characteristic.
There’s a long way to go to before we achieve true sustainability and create a truly sustainable economy. In the meantime, we’ll continue to see plenty of interesting developments and innovations. But what happens once we reach that ideal, steady state?
- Once you close the loop, you’re where you started. Does returning to the same place over and over sound exciting?
- The verb sustain means to maintain or keep going continuously over a long period – sustainability means a system’s continuation under the conditions of stability. Things remaining the same sounds anything but interesting. Atrophy seems like a likely outcome. In the same vein, Judith Warner railed about the shortcomings of mindfulness a while back. A certain measure of progress is, therefore, needed. Think evolution; while natural processes proceed in cycles, the whole system and its agents evolve. Perhaps we need to think about sustainability not as a goal, but as a process, and one that incorporates evolutionary change. Similarly, resilience has been proposed as an alternative – and potentially stronger – concept.
- If all economic activity benefits business, community, and the environment, everything and everyone will be taken care of and there’ll be nothing left to strive for. From that perspective, imagining all the people living for today, rather than a brighter tomorrow, may create complacent and apathetic communities.
The good part: all of this is just a thought experiment. It’ll be a while before we attain sustainability. Here’s to an exciting journey!
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Comment from Facebook:
Yva Alexandrova said, “A very nice one Peter!”
Returning to the same place over and over again is a poor analogy of the actual outcome of reaching the steady state economy. Don’t be deceived by the name, there is hardly anything steady about it – it just means that the entire economy as a whole does not grow, but remains at a constant level.
A more proper analogy is something like a forest. A forest need not grow larger and larger, but it is surely a dynamic environment within its limits. Such it would be with a steady state economy.
Inside our economy many things happen: business succeed and fail, new industries overcome old, society progresses. There is the ideal of developing our world – making it better – instead of growing it and becoming bigger. We would remove our focus from the desire for more money to a desire for a better life: a happy, fulfilling life.
We are reaching all the ecological limits and constraints that will eventually put us in a steady state if we don’t do it ourselves. I would rather we chose to move to a peaceful steady state economy instead of growing beyond those limits, reaching bust, and being forced into a war-torn steady state.
@Joshua: The problem with analogies is they don’t always work completely. Thanks for expanding on that point; a forest is a superior alternative.
I agree with the need to focus on quality of what happens inside the system, rather than growing the system as a whole. More isn’t better, better is better.
Dirty Harry said, A man’s got to know his limitations. So must we, all human kind. I think the change we’re seeing reflects that understanding, thought the progress is slower than many of us desire.
Peace, boring or not, is indisputably preferable to war.
Living in Italy where fashions come and go, sustainability is definately seen as a something which will come and go, whilst the important things in life, like big watches, big brother, and big banker’s bonuses are here to stay. I think it’s a question of involving people in something that really does benefit them in their lives, more than just dreaming of one day appearing on a chat show, or buying the the latest (made in china) Dolce & Gabbana t-shirt.
Angus
@Angus MacDonald: Yes, it’s all a matter of priorities and perceptions.
Hi Peter Korchnak!
I was intrigued by your post title today (and obviously I wasn’t the only one!) I agree with @Joshua’s point about the dynamic system; it was well put, but I am also assuming that you were trying to push some rhetoric to get your readers thinking about what ‘sustainability’ is.
Something that came to mind – I am re-reading Senge’s Fifth Discipline and he goes in to some detail about our language and culture (Western) being very linear. We say things like “I had to mow the lawn” when in fact the loop is: “The grass grew to a level that in my mind required trimming therefore I hauled out the lawnmower and… etc etc etc cut it to an acceptable level.” We think and speak in lines, not circles – which is what is needed in systems thinking.
So my point is: when we think about the traditional economic growth model, it’s very linear. Words like grow, up, more… are natural pieces of linearity.
Lastly, I don’t think it’s just a thought experiment – at least I hope not! We do have to change the way we think about our culture of ‘limitless’ growth.
Thanks Peter!
@Bernice Paul: Thanks for bringing language into the mix. Inasmuch as it influences the way we think on the basic level, it may well be the greatest barrier to the adoption of sustainability. Expressing cycles and systems in linear language, how’s that for a challenge – we need new language!