Moh Kilani

Module 2
Final Paper
Who should lead? Those who have the power, the willingness and the
efficacynamely, governments like Norway, because they combine
proximate and ultimate responses to serious issues. The culture they
engender is resilient, egalitarian and non-wasteful, while the government is
serious about business being curtailed to the greater needs of the
environment, i.e., not poisoning or enslaving everyone for a buck.
All social phenomena can work synergistically. Ecology and capitalism
are no exception to this notion. If there are defined parameters and
extremes, then a median synergy can be found to the long term benefit of
all. Operationally for the proximate effect, this would have to be undertaken
by a third party that is unaffected by the biases of the two sides initially
involved. In the case of ecology and capitalism, this third party has to be
governance armed with regulatory frameworks at all levelsnational,
transnational, and subnational that have teeth that cannot be ignored. For
the ultimate effect, government is once again involved but in this case, the
challenge is changing the cultural and educational landscape of the coming
generations and their attitudes to consumption, recycling, capitalism and
business. In a phrase, changing the ontology and worldview of the coming
generations.

As noted by Dauvergne, the Japanese shadow ecology transferred the

environmental cost to the globally southern Malaysian ecology. This occurred
despite the many proclamations of the Japanese corporations, and
governmentfor the primary reason of the toothlessness of the regulations
involved. Regulations that are not punitive or not applied may as well not
exist. Furthermore, solutions must be commensurate with the problem. In
this case, we have transnational problems (deforestation by a shadow
ecology) that effect international problems (global climate change)and so
the commensurate solution is an efficacious transnational regulation, with an
international objective.
We have seen that large multi-national corporations in the last two
decades have co-opted the idea of sustainability, resulting in eco-business,
as noted in Dauvergnes more recent work. This resulted in a greater
business discipline focused on efficiency and sustainability, lowering the cost
of production per unit, but with no slowing down in the rate of capitalism and
consumerismyielding a greater negative impact on the environment that
previously. Here, then, is the proof that a more efficient system without a
change in its root motives or controls will only become faster and have a
greater impact than its initial state. In this case without a slowing down of
conspicuous consumption and the institution of regulatory frameworks with
sufficient gravity, business ended up having a more destructive impact on
global ecology.

In Epsteins Making Sustainability Work, we can see the extent and

depth of the integration of corporate sustainability models. The list includes
giants like Honda, British Petroleum, Toyota, CEMEX, Canon, Hewlett-Packard,
Puma, DeBeers, and involves many different metrics and schema for
measuring impact. The metrics and ideas are wide and variedcommonly
we see carbon emissions, risk matrices, environmental audit systems,
accountability cycles, and so on.
The fact that eco-business did co-opt sustainability measures into their
systems is proof of another facet in the larger strategythat tactical change
can and does occur within the system. Therefore, the proximate causes can
be altered, in relatively short timeframes. This has been demonstrated
across the spectrum of business ventures from big box retailers, shipping
companies, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers. They have used
the latest in communication technologies to effectively collapse the supply
chain distance, used more green friendly enzymatic reactions in industrial
chemistry, more energy and resource efficient utilities, less wasteful
processes and more recycling, all in a greater bid to appease consumers,
governments and other organizations. In addition to this, the slowly dawning
realization that many resources are finite has begun to take root in many
corporations, and that if not managed correctly, will affect their bottom line,
if not their very existence in the future.
The current trend in eco-sustainability is largely led by business, with
some push from various governments, mostly those of the Nordic countries,

like Norway, Sweden and the like. But this green technology, energy saving,
efficiency trend has come from businesses, in response to rising concern
from consumers and governments. But, as demonstrated, they have used
the trend to make themselves bigger, faster and more destructive and in the
face of unenforced laws and agreements, they will generally do what is in
their interest. Though some have said this is just the nature of capitalism, I
posit that it is not. Rather, it is a reflection of the ontology and worldview of
the people running the corporations, and of the consumers. It is just as
feasible to run the same businesses, at a slower rate that is more conducive
to products that arent built with planned obsolescence, to cleaner environs,
safer workplaces and so on.
To change the worldview, governments must lead the charge in two
ways that address the proximate and ultimate causes. The immediacy of the
environmental crises requires that governments pen punitive regulations for
environmental offenders, and bring the business world to heel by not
allowing shortcuts, outsourcing, and transaction and process opacity. To add
to this, the creation of a minimum world wage standard would need to be
institutedWalmart, Apple, Target, etc., would be unable to outsource to the
3rd to avoid living wages or taxation, and as such would be cornered by policy
makers. Such an agreement would have to occur between governments, and
so a transnational solution for a transnational problem is born.
The second aspect that governments must concern themselves with is
addressing the ultimate cause, that of culture and worldview of those they

govern. Education, media, propaganda must all share a common vision in

creating a new set of consumptive and environmental norms. A prime
example of this is the institution of green teams, as mentioned in this
module, where the children are given more and more exposure to green
materials and methods. Education, especially, will have more of a
transformative effect on the coming environmental impact than any other
framework, laws or agreement. This is not to negate the role of law and
regulationmerely to distinguish immediate, proximate actions from longterm, strategic and ultimate actions.
To conclude, it is necessary for governments to reign in businesses,
while transforming the culture to one of sustainability and thriftiness, values
that are not often innate in many cultures, but are becoming more essential
as populations rise and resources dwindle.