Moreover, corporations lack the ability to gather right information relevant to their business so that they can base their sustainability decisions accordingly. In addition to this, firms also hinder in defining the business case for their value creation. Sometimes, even if they pass the above two stages of their assessment that is gathering right information and defining business case; still they fail to execute the assessment properly. The consequences of this failure are high costs, despite of the fact that the firms are planning to bring sustainability to their operations but the efforts moving other way round impacts their profits significantly. This further frightens them to try once again, and for this reason firms associate this to the cost of sustainability and stand against it.
The first reason for this execution failure is that, businesses fail to institutionalize the agenda of sustainability throughout their firms. The most important reason for a company to capitalize on its sustainability plan is to involve and engage its employees at every level of the process as well as communicate how their efforts in retaining sustainability will help them to grow further. The second utmost reason for firms’ failure is that they are unable to tackle skepticism. Skepticism is holding a doubtful view on the proposed change in processes. As top managers and some other employees resist in adopting the new ways of doing stuff; hence, firms then give up in their struggle to incorporate sustainability. The third reason is the track and control of the efforts being pursued to retain sustainability. This further burdens the firm with the associated costs and then becomes an obstacle in their pursuit of profits.
Due to these efforts, that rank low on tenacity, businesses remain reserved of sustainability with a feeling that it is their enemy. Austin William’s in his book, “The enemies of progress” commented on why sustainability is not a dangerous process to be carried out (Austin, 2008). According to Williams, humanity has a harmful impact on the planet, while sustainability does not have such a major impact. He said, that efforts must be geared towards government that is largely human centered (Austin, 2008). His book emphasizes on the mere fact that in case the nature is to be preserved then it has to be preserved at the cost of humanity. Further, he adds, if nature is supposed to be scarce then it needs to be utilized in the best possible manner, and due to unavailability of prudent resources, it desperately needs to be conserved for the future at the cost of modernity (Austin, 2008).
Next is the case against incorporating sustainability. Once again there are many writers or environmentalists who support the idea of not looking for sustainable ways in carrying business processes. As Austin William stands in support of sustainability, Chris Turner views are totally opposite on this prospect. In Chris Turner’s book, “The Geography of Hope”, Turner presents his views against sustainability (Chris, 2007). According to him, one is not aware of the future generation, its tastes, its ways of doing things, and what rights they will have (Chris, 2007). Due to high uncertainty of the future needs and rights of the future generation, the rights and needs of the present generation can’t be sacrificed. He further adds in his supporting arguments that, sustainability must replace democracy, and reinstate it with democracy as the inspiration held uphill (Chris, 2007). Turner embraced the idea of rationality over instincts and gut feeling about the future generation.
The case against sustainability suggests that it provokes two malfunctions. First of all, it requires disruption in the current ways of carrying out the processes, and secondly, it requires support of background political dimensions or wants to lessen the impact of external factors on sustainability; which is not at all easy to achieve. Sustainability requires deep considerations that are deep rooted and which most of the population does not possess. As there are high risks along with low risk management related to sustainability, hence, its gross economical impact in case the execution fails will further worsen the situation at present. Therefore, due to high uncertainty about the future, the utilitarian approach says that the present must be preserved at the expense of future and sustainability. Furthermore, businesses lack the ability at present on how to bring in (adapt) sustainability in their operations and the barriers can’t also be easily ripped off. Therefore, the supporters of the case against sustainability conserve themselves to the idea of non-incorporating sustainability in businesses..............................
This is just a sample partial case solution. Please place the order on the website to order your own originally done case solution.
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Linden Lab: Crossing the Chasm
Sermo Inc.
Rosnefts Initial Public Offering (A)
Avoiding Ethical Danger Zones
SYSCO Corporation
Risk Exposure and Risk Management at Korea First Bank
Imagicast
Managing the Total Customer Experience
Learning Co.
Competition and Business Strategy in Historical Perspective
