Most of the big companies realize that they really have to come up with something within sustainability. A popular concept is the CSR, corporate social responsibility. There are however no strict standards for such a programme, except a really diffuse idea of "balancing economy, ecology and social issues".
Politicians and decision makers have often their own interpretations of the CSR-idea. Actually the opposite that was meant from the beginning. Defending damaging subventions of strong stakeholder groups within the EU, politicians are referring to a "balance of two good interests". This is NOT social and ecology, but rather social versus ecology. This happens e.g. when discussing overfishing. Subsidising the fishery industry with more effective ships and fishing tools is of course an aggressive action that makes the situation worse, but still the decision is greenwashed by an CSR-argument; "defending the social rights of the fishermen".
CSR is therefore not a guarantee for sound and sustainable actions. The only way to ensure sustainable directions of the decisions is to recognise the definition of a sustainable society. There are four systems conditions, scientifically defined, that have to be met before the society is sustainable. So the decision makers should be asked how the individual actions or decisions contribute to fullfill the four system conditions. And meeting one of the system conditions on the expense of the others is never a solution.
www.ecoprofits.se
