The Meaning of Social-Environmental Sustainability - Economics and Ecology: United for a Sustainable World - page 119

equity in the common definitions of sustainability is an attempt to emotion-
ally shame us into saving the environment by invoking our children and
grandchildren, rather than promoting economic growth. I have even heard it
referred to as, “A communist plot to destroy capitalism.”
Whatever the specific nature of objections, they normally boil down to per-
ceived attacks on the Growth Ethic, and then, by extension, on much that is
accepted in our national story as patriotic and American. The emotional flag of
the Land of Opportunity, with all the accompanying clichés, is readily waved.
On the one hand, questioning of the Growth Ethic is vital, because that
pervasive element of our culture has proven to be leading us down a disas-
trous path. In our view, economic stagnation is virtually guaranteed under
the Growth Ethic. Witness our current plight. On the other hand, social-envi-
ronmental sustainability, comprehensively embraced and applied, can show
the way to a healthier and more stable economy, a safe and vibrant environ-
ment with Earth-friendly technology, and supportive and just communities.
That is to say, a sustainability-based view of the future is much more likely
to preserve what the Growth Ethic purports to value and promote than is the
actual pursuit of the Growth Ethic itself.
Over the last decade, the triple bottom-line has transitioned from a vaguely
defined philosophical concept to one with more general credence. This has
resulted from better articulation and increased understanding of its poten-
tial, as well as some successful, small-scale applications at grassroots levels,
but nonetheless significant as demonstration projects. Increasing ecological
and economic evidence that the current paradigm is leading us to social-
environmental bankruptcy has bolstered all this positive reinforcement.
With this gradual movement into the mainstream current, another risk
has presented itself. As always, corporate leadership is alert to anything that
poses a threat to their procedures and profits. Certainly, a declining resource
base and failing purchasing power would qualify as concrete threats. But
before entertaining real change, informed denial will set in. At first, compa-
nies may fear being seen as unsympathetic to the idea of sustainability more
than they fear not being sustainable.
The response to this risk in perception, and its cosmetic remedy, has been
termed greenwashing , which amounts to active and vigorous public relations
campaigns to convince customers and the general public that businesses
ascribe to the principles of sustainability without actually making a substan-
tive commitment in that direction.
We must admit that the three-pillars concept lends itself to easy philo-
sophical agreement with little need for real commitment. In fact, a strong
environmentalist mindset can articulately and vigorously insist on the imple-
mentation of these principles by calling for others to change their behavior. It
can appear to be a way of saying, with no costs to oneself, “I am enlightened,
and you should be, too.” Businesses are quick to pick up on the fact that the
burden of adjustment to a new paradigm falls largely on them. Risks of tran-
sition are certain to exist and threaten their way of operating, as well as their