Michael Strebe
Research and Writing
11/29/2010
A Semiotics Approach to the Philosophy of Sustainability: A Discussion of Corporations,
Environmentalists, and Managerialists, and Their Differing Views
Introduction: Views of Carrying Capacity and the Need to Adapt to Achieve
Sustainability
Currently, sustainability is one of the most important areas of academic discourse
because of the current state of the environment. Paul Shrivastava has said that to provide
for the world at its current population we will need to increase the production of goods
and energy by 5 to 35 times their current levels.1 With the current level of technology
providing for the world will lead to “environmental degradation.” Necessarily, changes
will have to be made to meet this growing need. The seminal book, The Limits to Growth
has stated, “the basic behavioral model of the world system is exponential growth of
population and capital followed by collapse.”2 To avoid this inevitable result changes to
production of goods and the western lifestyle will need to be made.
The fundamental premise of this paper is that the world simply can’t sustain itself
without some sort of change from our present “Laissez Faire” ideas toward
sustainability.3 Malthus, in his Essay on the Principle of Population defined the carrying
Paul Shrivastava, “The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability,”
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995).
1
2
Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens
III., “The Limits to Growth,” New York: Universe Books (1972), at 143.
3
Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859
(December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248, at 1244.
1
capacity as the “absolute impossibility to sustain beyond a certain level.”4 Malthus went
even further by saying that even if resources were unlimited, human infrastructure would
not be able to keep up with population growth. Malthus recognizes that the earth is finite,
and going beyond a certain level of population growth and exploitation of the resources
of the earth will ultimately be detrimental to the long term stability of our planet.
In this paper I will begin by analyzing the term sustainability focusing on how
environmentalists, corporations, and Managerialists define sustainability. I will show that
all three schools use similar terminology, but different definitions of sustainability based
on their different world outlooks. I will then explain that the most important values to all
three schools of thought will be environmental efficiency and management of resources.
Much like Hardin, the environmentalists will state that there is not technical solution to
environmental efficiency and the proper solution will be found in changing our
relationship with nature to a more symbiotic relationship. The Environmentalists will
value management of resources in terms of conservation, emphasizing that we must
protect “the diversity and richness of natural resources.”5 Corporations will value
environmental efficiency as a means to reduce production costs and increase growth.6
Corporations will value management of resources to ensure long-term profitability with
the implicit assumption the current exploitation of resources will lead to complete
depletion. Managerialists will value environmental efficiency, emphasizing the need to
regulate developing countries to achieve efficiency. The Managerialists will also value
4
Malthus, An Essay On The Principle Of Population (1798 1st edition) with A Summary
View (1830), and Introduction by Professor Anthony Flew, Penguin Classics at 282.
5
Supra Note 1, at 937.
6
Josee Johnston, “Who Cares about the Commons?” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism; Dec
2003, at 9.
2
management of resources, emphasizing “harm prevention, inclusion, impartiality,”7 but
will create a two-tiered system for regulating western and developing countries.
Alternative Definitions of Sustainability for Corporations, Environmentalists and
Managerialists
Before analyzing how each school of thought analyzes efficiency and
management of resources it will be necessary to show how each group would define
sustainability. Quoting the Bruntland Commission, sustainability is the “development,
which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to their own needs.” Some theorists have noted that this definition of
sustainability does have a degree of “moral thickness.”8
This definition of sustainability would be most consistent with the managerialist
school of thought. Broadly, the managerialists argue for “a formal equality” of all nation
states, foregrounding the fact that they are neutral entity.9 While many managerialists
may adhere to this view of sustainability, this paper will focus on a smaller subsection of
managerialists. This paper will focus on two NGO’s, the World Bank, and the IMF
because of their ability to influence policy. The IMF and World Bank are not acting on
behalf of the whole world, but are attempting to preserve the western model of
consumption at the expense of the developing world. A simple illustration of this
favoritism is the World Bank. The World Bank lends financial capital to emerging
economies with the goal of increasing “environmental stewardship.” In many instances
7
Supra note 7, at 411.
Thomas N. Gladwin, James J. Kennelly, Tara-Shelomith Krause, “Shifting Paradigms
for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research,” The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), at 877.
9
China Mieville, “The Commodity-Form Theory of International Law: An Introduction,”
Leiden Journal of International Law, 17 (2004), at 358.
8
3
the World Bank attempts to create “positive synergies between development and
environmental sustainability.”10 Using facially neutral rhetoric, the World Bank is
controlling the policies of emerging economies, while lacking any real power to influence
richer nations. Lending to poorer countries with significant strings attached allows for a
certain class structure to be created amongst national economies where richer countries
are free to choose beneficial strategies, while poorer countries have the sustainability
strategies imposed by facially neutral NGO’s such as the World Bank.11 Therefore, the
rhetoric of sustainability can be reduced to a tool for creating different classes of
environmental regulation for the western world, and emerging economies.
Environmentalists would have a difficulty with the Bruntland Commission
definition of sustainability because it is too narrow, stating that it rests on the premise that
humans occupy a “privileged” state in nature.12 For the purposes of this paper, I am
defining environmentalists very broadly and including all groups of thought that have the
view that there is no technical solution to the issue of sustainability. The views of these
environmentalists differ on specific issues, but they share the belief that a reduction in
consumption, rather than increasing productive capacity is the solution to sustainability.
They would also argue that the Bruntland Commission’s definition of sustainability is too
limited, focusing only on whether we can produce enough food and neglecting the
sustainability of the earth as a whole.13 While criticizing the Bruntland Commission’s
Robert Goodland, Herman Daly, “Environmental Sustainability: Universal and NonNegotiable,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp. 1014-1017
11
Supra Note 10, at 356.
12
Supra Note 9, at 887.
13
Andres Gigon, “Agricultural Sustainability Does Not Imply Biocenotic Sustainability,”
Applied Vegetation Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, From Basic to Applied Ecology: Vegetation
Science for Nature Conservation (May, 1999).
10
4
definition of sustainability environmentalists would agree that the definition foregrounds
the value of preserving the earth for future generations, but suggest that it is incomplete.
Environmentalists would add that for true sustainability, it is imperative to consider the
sustainability of the biosphere as a whole, extending the rhetoric from “man-man to man
earth.”14 This difference highlights the completely different moral outlook of the
Environmentalists from both the Managerialists and the Corporations. They place a great
amount of value on sustaining all living things on the earth. Also, Environmentalists
would not be concerned with sustaining human kind’s consumption habits, but reducing
them to a level that would take into account the sustainability of the earth as a whole.
Corporations would impose an entirely different definition of sustainability from
the first two presented. John Hicks defined sustainability as “the amount of capital a
person can consume in a period and still be well off at the end of the period.”15 This view
of sustainability would be while in line with the classical model, endorsed most notably
by Milton Friedman. He advanced that the only social role of a corporation was to
increase profits so long as it “stayed within the rules of the game.16 While corporations
are moving away from the market centered approach to sustainability Joe Desjardins still
argues that theories that deviate too far from market economics are unlikely to be adopted
by corporations.17 Although, Desjardins argues that corporations have shifted from
unrestricted growth model of sustainability to a sustainable model of growth.18 While
Aldo Leopold, “Wildlife in American Culture,” The Journal of Wildlife Management,
Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan., 1943), at 1.
15
Supra note 11, at 1005.
16
Joe DesJardins, “Corporate Environmental Responsibility,” Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 17, No. 8 (Jun., 1998), at 826-27.
17
Ibid. at 831
18
Ibid. at 832
14
5
corporations do not emphasize morality, their model of sustainability recognizes that
“resources ought not … be used at rates that exceed the system’s ability to replenish
itself.” Implicit in the argument, is that businesses must adopt sustainability principles, or
risk the possibility of total collapse of the market from overexploitation. Here, it is
evident that businesses tend to foreground the idea of self-interest, and background the
idea of morality. Norman Bowie though has suggested that the corporate logic of
sustainability has included the abstract concept of “avoiding harm” as a minimum
morality that corporations use to avoid the “utilitarian trade-offs that typify markets.”19
While morality is backgrounded in the values of corporations, it is necessary for their
vision of sustainability and grounded in the recognition that overexploitation will hurt the
market.
The stances on sustainability that I have illustrated above diverge in their moral
outlook, but in practicality have some common ground. While Environmentalists focus
on a moral theory, reducing usage and corporations stress productive efficiency, which
frames the argument in very different language, but both suggest that the earth is
overstressed, and that changes need to be made to achieve sustainability. Necessity drives
the corporations to their logic of sustainability, while ideology drives the
environmentalists, but they do not lead to outcomes that are very different. It can be
argued in the short term, that corporations will tend to overuse resources to maximize
profit, but in the long term will be unable to do so because of exhaustion of resources. By
necessity, corporations will be forced to act more like environmentalists. Managerialists
diverge somewhat by creating a two-tiered environment regime that mixes coercion
19
Ibid. at 828
6
toward developing countries with a laissez faire attitude towards world players, but their
ultimate goal is to create norms that will reduce exploitation of resources. In summary, all
three schools of thought want the earth’s limited resources to be used better.
Environmentalists will likely be the only group that calls for a reduction of resources, and
focuses on distribution of resources, but managerialists and corporations will both agree
that resources need to be used more efficiently. I will focus on how each group values
efficiency, and management of resources.
Divergent Views on the Values of Efficiency and the Management of Resources
Efficiency is the most important value of all three schools of thought and is heavily
entangled with theories on management of resources. Natural capital is no longer a free
good and must be used efficiently to achieve all three schools of thoughts vision for
sustainability.20 All three groups define and emphasize efficiency in different ways;
environmental pessimists background the value of efficiency, due to its economic
elements, and focus on reducing growth while managerialists and corporations focus
heavily on efficiency to provide for future generations.
Environmentalists will attempt to reframe the value of efficiency away from
economics. It is hard to distinguish the value of efficiency from economics, and
environmental pessimists must walk a difficult moral line, emphasizing the efficient use
of resources, and deemphasizing over exploitation of resources. There is not a clear
definition of efficiency in environmental literature. Environmental pessimists argue that
the world is “vulnerable to human interference, and limited in its regenerative and
20
Supra note 11, at 1006.
7
assimilative capacities.”21 Therefore, their view of efficiency would be to use the least
amount of natural resources to successfully sustain the world in the most environmentally
sensitive way. What this approach emphasizes is the natural limitations of the earth and
rests on the assumption that the earth will not regenerate itself. This theory privileges an
idealized morality, which emphasizes the intrinsic value of the natural environment.
The main criticism of this definition of this definition of efficiency is that it is
simply not practical and is so highly ideological as to lack any practical significance. The
environmentalists, including Hardin have noted that it is easy to legislate prohibition, but
extremely difficult to legislate temperance.22 The environmentalists believe that reducing
environmental damage by technological processes is insufficient to achieve a long-term
efficiency. Instead, they believe that change that must occur is a change in the outlook of
the people using the resources. By increasing technology and production, we will simply
allow consumers to keep on consuming, which will lead to environmental degradation,
and will not solve the core issue of a declining ecosystem. It is only through a moral
solution, which recognizes implicit limits to personal consumption based on the well
being of the world that we can truly be efficient.
What environmentalists really try and privilege with this definition is that “limits
to the substitutability of human-made capital and knowledge for environmental resources
are fairly imminent.”23 The crux of environmental efficiency is that we are near are
carrying capacity, and even with steps forward with efficiency; consumers will have to
reduce their use of resources. While seemingly ideological, this logic is very practical if
21
Supra note 9, at 891.
Supra note 3, at 1246.
23
John C. V. Pezzey, “Sustainability Policy and Environmental Policy,” The
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 106, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), at 341.
22
8
we assume that the depletion of environmental resources cannot be offset by increases in
technology. Corporations and Managerialists would argue for the uncertainty of this
premise, especially that technology couldn’t outpace worldwide consumption. Critics
would also note that the environmental theory is based on scientific uncertainty.24
Corporations would use a different definition of efficiency, and have a different
scheme for management of resources based on a technical solution to the issue of
sustainability. For corporations, efficiency must necessarily include growth.25
Corporations have learned that a sustainable economy is actually more efficient for
profits and will allow higher levels of production with less capital input.26 For
Corporations efficiency is “the conservation of inputs and the maximization of output.”27
Judge Posner explains corporate efficiency as “a system of wealth maximization
when there is no reallocation that would increase the wealth of society.”28 In this system,
corporations will pursue sustainability so long as it is the most profitable option for them.
To contrast the environmentalist system of efficiency, corporate efficiency lacks
morality, and highlights the reduction of costs as a means for achieving efficiency, noting
the “opportunity to drive down operating costs by exploiting ecological efficiencies.”29
Johnston notes that corporations merely pay “lip service” to the environment, while
24
Supra note 7, at 416.
Supra note 6, at 9.
26
Ibid. at 10.
27
John R. Ferguson, “The Expanses of Sustainability and the Limits of Privatarianism,”
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 30,
No. 2 (Jun., 1997), at 286.
28
Edward Stringham, “Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency and the Problem of Central Planning,”
The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer 2001), at 42.
29
Supra note 1, at 952.
25
9
focusing on business as usual. The problem here is that infinite growth is not possible,
and at some point businesses will have to reduce growth to avoid ecological breakdown.
In theory, there is a disconnect between the self-interested goals of corporate
efficiency and the recognition that resources are finite. For the purposes of sustainability,
this disconnect is more of a chimera than a reality. Implicit in the theory of wealth
maximization is the idea that to increase wealth, the system must be able to continue.
Regardless of what corporations say about sustainability increasing numbers of
corporations are translating a self-interested theory of efficiency into environmentally
friendly mode of sustainability. Below are examples of the harmonization of efficiency
between corporations and environmentalists:
TQEM encourages energy and natural resource conservation and renewal by (a)
reducing use of energy and virgin materials through product redesign … (b)
making greater use of renewable materials … (c) off-setting energy/resource
consumption with replenishment … and (d) developing ecologically sensitive
purchasing policies and inventory-management systems30
The purpose of these environmentally sustainable changes may not be consistent with the
moral message of the environmental pessimists, but the end result is consistent with
efficiencies that environmentalists would approve of. Here, corporations are using
existing resources more efficiently, rather than exploiting new resources. Also, by
exploiting resources that are less environmentally sensitive, they are making a conscious
choice to value environmental harm on a reasonably equal ground with their profits.
While corporations are not motivated by the same ideological principles as
environmentalists, they are conscious of the fact that many consumers are. Thus they are
30
Ibid. at 946.
10
adopting environmentalist principles as a way of showing the global community that they
are sensitive to issues such as carrying capacity and limited resources.
While some harmonization can be found in between economic and environmental
efficiency, corporations will not affect their bottom line, unless they receive an equivalent
trade-off. Sometimes avoiding the stigma of being seen as a polluter or wasteful
corporation by being labeled as green is sufficient. An example where economic
efficiency would not equate to the environmentalist view is the lack of fair distribution of
resources between industrializing and developing countries.31 Corporations rarely, if ever
focus on redistributing resources to developing countries. This could take the form of
reinvesting profits in the infrastructure of developing countries (where the corporation is
exploiting natural resources), or investing in green technology in developing countries
where the environmental regulations are more lax than the western world.
An efficient corporate solution can lead to very lopsided distributions of resources
in favor of industrialized countries. This highlights a problem illustrated above, that
corporations are simply interested in their bottom line. Giving clean technologies to
developing countries, or redistributing resources more fairly is completely inconsistent
with wealth maximization. The costs of failing to do this are that developing countries do
not have the “financial capital to acquire new ecologically friendly technologies.”32
Here, corporations highlight the fact that they are doing environmentally efficient things,
and tend to downplay the fact that the corporate model will lead to environmentally
negative outcomes in developing countries. Environmentalists would advocate a much
31
32
Ibid. at 951
Ibid.
11
more community-centered model where the overall well being of the world would trump
profit.
I will now turn to the managerialist model of efficiency, and management of
resources. Up to this point, I have been largely silent about the managerialists. Unlike
corporations or environmental pessimists, it is difficult to form such a heterogeneous
group into a single school of thought. As a result I have greatly simplified the
managerialists, and have decided to focus on a small portion of the group, which wields
the greatest influence on the sustainability movement because of their size and financial
resources. Therefore, my analysis will deal primarily with the World Bank and IMF.
Secondly, the view that will be presented is that managerialists are not necessarily
independent, but organs of wealthy states and in many ways reflect the wealth
maximization model of corporations even though this view diverges greatly from their
rhetoric. This view is not universally held, but finds substantial support in the critics of
the IMF and World Bank.
John Dewey defined the public as “all those affected by the indirect consequences
of material transactions.”33 This definition is important because sustainability is
necessarily a global movement and all actions towards or against sustainability affects the
world as a whole. Managerialists in theory at least represent the interests of the world and
define efficiency in terms of positive movement towards sustainability on a global level.
Like corporations, managerialists view efficiency in largely material terms. For example,
an increase in global wealth, without a small increase in the exploitation of resources
would be considered efficient. Managerialists do not take into account the equal
33
Supra note 7, at 409.
12
distribution of resources like environmentalists do. Instead, they focus on regulating
developing countries, and maintaining the status quo in western nations. Unlike
corporations, Managerialists are not nearly as transparent about their goals and often try
to background their agenda. A main goal of Managerialists that is not achieved in
practice is impartiality, including the claims of poor countries and allowing for
procedural fairness in decision-making.34 In reality, Managerialists are agents for rich
countries. While, formally all countries are equal, power for affecting the policy of
NGO’s is limited to richer nations.35 Returning to the example of the World Bank, the
goal of efficiency degenerates down to improving the environmental policies of
developing countries by giving loans with strings attached. The bias of Managerialists
often undermines their credibility, and shifts their relevance to the developing world.
Again, it is important to emphasize the distributional bias towards industrialized nations.
Structurally, Managerialists also have a difficult time achieving efficiency. They
act in the area of soft law36, and gain legitimacy only through presenting approaches that
are accepted by the world. While Managerialists like the World Bank have a coercive
element, this is not present outside the groups that they directly loan money to. Outside of
developing countries, their role is completely discretionary, and requires positive
relationships with governments and corporations. Therefore, their most significant way of
influencing the world is through ideology. Researching sustainability and proposing
34
Ibid. at 417.
Supra note 6, at 14.
36
Soft law is an area of law that is not binding on any parties. In the case of
Managerialists, they simply propose possible norms, which are possibly accepted. The
IMF and World Bank have the additional ability to make loans to countries, and attach
environmental mandates for giving loans. For instance, they could require a 20%
reduction in Carbon Solution. While this is not technically soft law, it represents the
quasi-legal structure in which managerialists operate.
35
13
solutions that are acceptable to nation states. Their abilities to achieving efficiency are
limited to suggesting normative values that are either accepted or rejected by national
governments and corporations.
Conclusion
This paper has shown that Managerialists, Corporations, and Environmentalists
have very different views on sustainability and efficiency, although they use similar
terminology. All three groups have a very different moral outlook on sustainability which
can be summarized very easily. Environmentalists focus on moral changes, reducing
exploitation of resources and distributional fairness while corporations look more to
profit maximization. Managerialists on the other hand propose a two-tiered view, where
the western world is given a greater degree of freedom to use resources, while developing
countries that managerialists make loans to are restricted. Regardless of their differences,
they have points of agreement that I believe while overshadow their differences moving
forward and this change will come about as a result of the earth reaching its carrying
capacity. Corporations are already using resources in more efficient ways and will be
forced to increase their efficient use of resources to respond to the natural limits of the
earth. As a prediction, the restrictive policies placed on developing countries by
managerialists will be adopted by wealthier countries as recognition that the earth is
unable to continue to be exploited at the same level. While environmentalists moral
outlooks are largely normative, their views will continue to be assimilated into corporate
and managerialist logic. While these groups currently have very different positions, and
modes of achieving their goals the future will require a greater amount of cooperation
amongst these divergent groups.
14
Works Cited
Joe DesJardins, “Corporate Environmental Responsibility,” Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 17, No. 8 (Jun., 1998), pp. 825-838.
John R. Ferguson, “The Expanses of Sustainability and the Limits of Privatarianism,”
Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol. 30,
No. 2 (Jun., 1997), pp. 285-306.
Thomas N. Gladwin, James J. Kennelly, Tara-Shelomith Krause, “Shifting Paradigms for
Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research,” The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 874-907.
Andres Gigon, “Agricultural Sustainability Does Not Imply Biocenotic Sustainability,”
Applied Vegetation Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, From Basic to Applied Ecology: Vegetation
Science for Nature Conservation (May, 1999), pp. 89-94.
Robert Goodland, Herman Daly, “Environmental Sustainability: Universal and NonNegotiable,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp. 1002-1017.
Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December
13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248.
Josee Johnston, “Who Cares about the Commons?” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism; Dec
2003, pp. 1-41.
Aldo Leopold, “Wildlife in American Culture,” The Journal of Wildlife Management,
Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan., 1943), pp. 1-6.
Malthus, An Essay On The Principle Of Population (1798 1st edition) with A Summary
View (1830), and Introduction by Professor Antony Flew. Penguin Classics.
Michael Mason, “Transnational Environmental Obligations: Locating New Spaces of
Accountability in a Post-Westphalian Global Order,” Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 4 (2001), pp. 407-429.
Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III.,
“The Limits to Growth,” New York: Universe Books (1972)
China Mieville, “The Commodity-Form Theory of International Law: An Introduction,”
Leiden Journal of International Law, 17 (2004).
Paul Shrivastava, “The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability,”
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 936-960
15
John C. V. Pezzey, “Sustainability Policy and Environmental Policy,” The Scandinavian
Journal of Economics, Vol. 106, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 339-359.
Edward Stringham, “Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency and the Problem of Central Planning,” The
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer 2001), pp. 41-50.
16