In the current world, there is a lot of dependence on technology to resolve environmental challenges (Mantri, 2015). This is so because the global governments and agencies are reluctant to make the political and social adjustments that are essential to bring down an increase in production and consumption (Monbiot, 2009). Yet the technological aspects that would be essential to counteract or keep up with the increasing environmental damage as a result of growth in production and consumption would have to be a bit dramatic. The past technological fixes will be unfit.
Hence, the pertinent issue is whether such radical redesign and dramatic changes of technological systems can occur without triggering major social shifts or occur without reconsidering political priorities. It should be understood that technology is dependent on the society either in its effects or its shaping (Paul R. Ehrlich, 1971). At the core of the discussions over the probable effectiveness of sustainable development is whether technological change can reduce the effects of economic growth sufficiently, in instances that I s achieved to other aspects of changes will not be indispensable.
Sustainable development policies aim to alter the nature of economic development rather than restraining it. They are founded on a notion that continued development in a finite world is conceivable through the technological powers. This allow people to get alternatives or find new sources if a given resource is depleted. Otherwise, technology can be significant in assisting people to use and reuse what is left in a manner which is most efficient.
Globally, businesses are engulfed in the discussion of sustainability more than ever. To understand sustainability better, organizations defines it under the three bottom-line trajectories. These trajectories comprise of the economic welfare, the quality of the environment, and social justice. The main reason for understanding the sustainability concept, is because different organizations needs to apply the meaning into their process of decision-making (R, 2014). Unfortunately, these discussions have remained in the realm of talks with little being put into the action, especially the social justice concept.
In a 2013 survey conducted by KPMG, it was reported that between the year of 1993-2013, there was an increase of 80% for the number of companies reporting on environmental and social metrics to agencies that rates corporate sustainability. The sharp increase was credited to the expectations of the stakeholders. The stakeholders expect that the concerns of sustainability are one of the core concerns of the reputable businesses.
Close to 250 companies listed in the Fortune’s Global rating in 2013 provided on their corporate social responsibility (CSR) some form of reporting. Those who referred to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) were 82% of the total firms (Arora, Peterson, Bert, & & Podesta, 2016). Over the years the GRI’s protocols and framework have been expanded to accommodate the governance and social activities commonly known as ESGs. In the GRI’s latest revision, the fourth generation standards provide standard disclosures and reporting principles. They also give the measures that a company should apply when preparing its sustainability report, which includes the evidence of environmental, stakeholder, shareholder, employee, and economic impact.
However, the main challenge is that the progress towards being sustainable is often confused by simply disclosing about sustainability. Whereas the sustainability concern is normally associated by all the triple bottom measurements, simply reporting on the outcomes of the ESGs is not a positive evidence of general effects on society and environment. In addition, there is evidence that indicates that companies tend report selected activities of ESGs while omitting connotations and negative impacts of their operations. These in consequence depicts that most organizations do not take seriously the social concerns in their triple bottom line of sustainability.
Arora, P., Peterson, N., Bert, F., & & Podesta, G. (2016). Managing the triple bottom line for sustainability: a case study of Argentine agribusinesses. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 40-51.
Mantri, R. (2015, 1 16). Why technology matters for sustainable development. Retrieved from www.weforum.org: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/why-technology-matters-for-sustainable-development/
Monbiot, G. (2009). Cutting consumption is more important than limiting population. Retrieved 7 20, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/25/population-emissions-monbiot
Paul R. Ehrlich, J. P. (1971). Impact of Population Growth. Science, New Series, 1212-1217.
R, T. (2014). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Sustainability (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.