Globalization and Sustainable Development
Globalization and Sustainable Development
Over the past few decades there have been discourses both in favor and against Globalization’s capacity to guarantee a sustainable future. Authors attest societies and businesses’ inability to account for ecological and environmental limits when dealing with economic growth, examples of this are some of the traditional business metrics used by most global companies, and nations’ measure of wealth (GDP); both sides heavily resting on economic factors, fail to account for societal and environmental concerns (Byrnea & Gloverb, 2002). Other researchers point at the intensive use of resources, especially by global corporations; such as the increasing and careless consumption of fossil fuels, water, precious metals, etc. leading to a rise in GHG (Starke, 2002) (United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2000). Most fervent opponents go as far as to call ‘sustainable development’ an oxymoron (Ayres, 1995).
On the other side, many analysts and economists suggest that Globalization has proven to improve society’s overall wealth (Bryan & Farrell, 1996) and that it will continue to do so in the future. Others also affirm that Globalization will improve people’s well being, encourage cultural exchange and promote democratization (Wildavsky, 1995) (Friedman, 2000) (Byrnea & Gloverb, 2002).
Ayres (2008) advances the concept of ‘sustainability economics’, which deals with the issue of maintaining economic growth while paying special attention to environmental concerns of energy utilization and resource exhaustion, especially carbon fuel consumption and its relation to climate change.
Because of the afore mentioned, apparent social and economic benefits of Globalization there are forces which simultaneously ask for both the protection of the environment and for continued economic growth and/or expansion resulting in a complex set of interrelationships. These interrelationships are especially volatile in business
Over the past few decades there have been discourses both in favor and against Globalization’s capacity to guarantee a sustainable future. Authors attest societies and businesses’ inability to account for ecological and environmental limits when dealing with economic growth, examples of this are some of the traditional business metrics used by most global companies, and nations’ measure of wealth (GDP); both sides heavily resting on economic factors, fail to account for societal and environmental concerns (Byrnea & Gloverb, 2002). Other researchers point at the intensive use of resources, especially by global corporations; such as the increasing and careless consumption of fossil fuels, water, precious metals, etc. leading to a rise in GHG (Starke, 2002) (United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2000). Most fervent opponents go as far as to call ‘sustainable development’ an oxymoron (Ayres, 1995).
On the other side, many analysts and economists suggest that Globalization has proven to improve society’s overall wealth (Bryan & Farrell, 1996) and that it will continue to do so in the future. Others also affirm that Globalization will improve people’s well being, encourage cultural exchange and promote democratization (Wildavsky, 1995) (Friedman, 2000) (Byrnea & Gloverb, 2002).
Ayres (2008) advances the concept of ‘sustainability economics’, which deals with the issue of maintaining economic growth while paying special attention to environmental concerns of energy utilization and resource exhaustion, especially carbon fuel consumption and its relation to climate change.
Because of the afore mentioned, apparent social and economic benefits of Globalization there are forces which simultaneously ask for both the protection of the environment and for continued economic growth and/or expansion resulting in a complex set of interrelationships. These interrelationships are especially volatile in business
Cited: • Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 14 (2), 75-86. • Ayres, R • Ayres, R. (2008). Sustainability economics Where do we stand? Ecological Economics , 67, 281-310. • BMW Group • Brown, L. (2001). Eco-economy: Building an economy for the earth. New York: W. W. Norton. • Brown, L • Bryan, L., & Farrell, D. (1996). Market unbound: Unleashing global capitalism. New York: John Wiley. • Byrnea, J., & Gloverb, L • Christopher, M., Mena, C., Khan, O., & Yurt, O. (2011). Approaches to managing global sourcing risk. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , 16 (2), 67-81. • Cousins, P., Lamming, R., & Bowen, F • Ferrin, B., & Plank, R. (2006). Total cost of ownership models: an exploratory study. Journal of Supply Chain Management , 38 (3), 18-29. • French, H • Friedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree: Understanding globalization. New York: Anchor Books. • Hardin, G • Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins., L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. • Manuj, I., & Mentzer, J • Martinelli, A., & Midttun, A. (2010). Globalization and governance for sustainability. Corporate Governance , 10 (1), 6-17. • Rees, W • Shields, M., & Young, S. (1992). Effective long-term cost reduction: a strategic perspective. Journal of Cost Management , 6 (2), 16-30. • Starke, L • Toscano, J. (2003). Globalization and sustainable development. In B. H, & R. W, Achieving Sustainable Development: The Challenge of Governance Across Social Scales. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. • United Nations Development Program (UNDP) • Wildavsky, A. (1995). But is it true? A citizen’s guide to environmental health and safety issues. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. • Zachariassen, F., & Arlbjørn, J