CreateDebate


Debate Info

15
7
Yes No. It's rather........
Debate Score:22
Arguments:23
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (14)
 
 No. It's rather........ (5)

Debate Creator

koenoosterbr(25) pic



Sustainable businesses are the most effective weapon in solving environmental cr

Governments, education, businesses, NGO’s, and charity organisations are all struggling to make a significant impact on large scale environmental issues. These urgent problems are largely due to exponential increases in industry externalities and global consumption, causing excessive pollution, extinction of species, and depletion of natural resources. 

We have arguably inherited a tendency to obsess over misguided remedies for largely trivial problems, unable to prioritise on sensible remedies for the biggest problems we globally face. 

New sustainable business models seem to be a fresh breeze in the atmosphere of creating a significant impact. These new value propositions bear the power to make outdated and ostensibly more harmful practices by old corporates obsolete, should new ventures achieve a positive market response. (e.g., new renewable energy businesses versus our dependancy on fossil fuels).

Still, sustainable business practices can be regarded as 'supporting a current economic system that promotes greed, overconsumption and a general short term focus.'

Yes

Side Score: 15
VS.

No. It's rather........

Side Score: 7
2 points

Agreed! We are becoming hyper-aware of what goes on behind closed doors of some of the largest corporations (with the help of transparency laws and a few brave souls) and this awareness is leading to a higher demand of sustainable products, brands and an overall lifestyle. People are willing to cut back on other expenses to support the corporations who adopt a more environmentally-friendly approach and it is 100% the way of the future. At the same time, greed and corruption is also reaching new heights. So there will always be counter-offers from companies that promise you the world if you sell your soul to them. Because it's "easier" / "cheaper" / "more durable"- all these words that humans are suckers for and buy into every time.

So as much as I believe sustainable businesses are the answer to the environmental downfall, I fear for how bad the counter-party is going to become to "keep the balance".

Side: Yes
1 point

I don't see why sustainable business practices are regarded as a 'general short term focus'. It is the other way around. The industries have the power and thus they can decide whether to pollute or to protect the environment. They can also influence the society, which would even have a greater effect on the environment. However, businesses tend to think short-termed meaning they want to make money immediately/now and stay competitive. Being sustainable is not relevant at that particular moment. But if all companies go along with each other focusing on sustainable business practices, this could be a new milestone in solving environmental problems.

Side: Yes
1 point

I think the businesses that are avoiding harming the environment as much as possible should represent an example for other businesses that do not care too much about it.

To me this is a start and like you said, a fresh breeze in a world where many industries are not taking into account the pollution their factories are causing.

I truly hope that in the future most of the industries would have switched to a better plan of making use of raw materials without harming the planet. It's also the fact that people are more aware of the environment they live in, thus the demand for a sustainable product is also increasing. Many people are already avoiding buying products that come from companies that do not pay much attention to the environment and soon enough businesses will have to switch to a good sustainable plan in order to keep their customers. Take for example H&M;, that has recently introduced the possibility for customers to return old clothes in order to be recycled and receiving a discount card for H&M;products. I think this is very important because not only H&M;is supporting recycling, but it also encourages people to do it themselves.

Side: Yes
1 point

There are more factors in play here than simply being a sustainable business. In order to solve global environmental crisis, I feel that it is a combined efforts of both businesses and leisure together. However, I do feel that (especially large) businesses have a significant impact on these environmental issues. They are the ones with the most "pollution" and have the highest carbon footprint. Changes made to their businesses towards the sustainable side will mean significant reduction in environmental issues. I feel that it is not the most effective weapon, seeing as it is a combined effort, but it definitely has a large impact.

Side: Yes
koenoosterbr(25) Clarified Banned
1 point

Hi Viet, could you clarify what you mean with "I feel that it is a combined efforts of both businesses and leisure together", what exactly did you mean by "leisure"? And when you say that you are "seeing as it is a combined effort", combined with what?

Side: Yes
1 point

I think it is a very string 'weapon' in this respect. If all major corporation took it upon themselves to lower the environmental impact they have, then the crisis will be at least 'put on hold' and then the efforts to 'fix it' will be much more successful. A company like Nutreco, who produce animal and fish feeds, are an example that I know of who invest a lot in sustainability. Being the one of the worlds largest feed producers, they not only put plans of action in place to producing it in a environmentally friendly way, but develop strategies for amelioration of the regions they work in. This is a good example of what I mean.

Side: Yes
koenoosterbr(25) Clarified Banned
1 point

Just to clarify; the debate focuses on renewed value propositions (entirely new products and services) that make old businesses obsolete. Would you say that this is the most effective weapon to solve environmental global crises? Or would you say that making current companies sustainable is a more important option?

Side: Yes
1 point

Even though I feel I am not in the best position to comment on this statement, because I do not know enough about the advantages and pitfalls of sustainable businesses, I do think they are a very good place to start. However, without any other changes on smaller and higher level, they may not have enough impact to solve the real environmental crisis. To be able to do this, 'everyone' needs to work together, meaning that for instance, there shouldn't be any environmentally unfriendly businesses that somehow level out the sustainability of other businesses. Moreover, it is important that the financial rewards and costs for starting a sustainable business are comparable to those of starting a 'normal' business.

Sustainable businesses defenitely aren't the only way.

Side: Yes
1 point

The corporate world have the biggest influence on society, so if they would collectively (SMEs and MNOs) work on sustainable goals in society they would influence the consumers as well. Sustainable businesses could be the solution for all environmental crises. Though they have the power to make these changes, I do not believe they would actually make it happen as they always keep commercial purposes, profits and market share in mind.

Side: Yes

I agree that the big companies polluting our earth should be the ones fixing it. But we all know being sustainable is not high on the list of a lot of those companies. Next to that it will mean that the consumers of these companies will in the end pay more. A big part of these consumers will find cheaper alternatives. Alternatives that are probably made by smaller non-sustainable companies. Completely solving the environmental crisis is a long way ahead. In my opinion every business (from small and local to big and international, governments and consumers need to work together to fight the environmental crisis.

Side: Yes
koenoosterbr(25) Clarified Banned
1 point

But in this statement, are new businesses the most effective weapon? Or are sustainable actions by corporate giants more important? Or governmental intervention? What's the best and most effective weapon against our most urgent crises?

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, I agree with this statement. If more companies become more sustainable than we will make a great step in the right direction. However, I also think that every individual should contribute in solving environmental crisis, because when one does something against it and one other keeps on polluting it wont make a change. So the sustainable businesses are the first main step.. but many other will have to follow..

Side: Yes
1 point

Yeah, companies produce so much pollution, it's insane. Sure we civilians can help, too, by seperating plastic from paper etc. But I think a lot of companies should really focus on being environmentally responsible.

Side: Yes
1 point

I do think that these sustainable business are the most effective weapon in solving environmental crises however nowadays they still don't have enough impact to remarkably change our environmental situation. This is due to the fact of not strictly enough governmental regulations and the refusal of a lot of companies, SMEs as well as large enterprises to implement a sustainable business strategy. Only if they are willing to /forced to change their actions these sustainable business are an effective weapon in solving environmental issues. There are barely any other effectives weapons that could lead to change

Side: Yes
0 points

It are the big companies of our time who are most responsible for even causing the environmental crises. In order to solve these issues, it are these exact same companies who should alter their approaches and instead go for a more sustainable business model. However, the main problem here is that these companies often don't look at their pollution or the amount of animals extinct by their doing, they often only see profits.

Side: Yes
2 points

I don't think sustainable businesses are THE best weapon in solving environmental crisis, I think a lot more is necessary to even begin to fight back the pollution and damage that humans are creating. However, it seems logical to think that because the big businesses are creating this overproduction, waste, and pollution, that they are also the ones to make it stop. I think it would be significant step into the right direction, however I don't believe this is going to happen. Businesses want to make profit and they often cross lines (think of the many proven cases of bribery, fraud, tax evasion, privacy breaches, and violating human rights of employees) in order to keep increasing their profit. Therefore I think it would take a global change of mindset to get companies like this to change their practice for the benefit of the environment.

All with all, I think it would take a LOT to change the ways of big businesses. To state an alternative to solve the environmental crisis is to use the media to spread information about what's happening to the planet (partially being caused by mega corporations), and to inform people about ways to improve.

Side: No. It's rather........
koenoosterbr(25) Disputed Banned
1 point

If I understand correctly you're saying that it's better to inform consumers about ways to improve the planet's wellbeing. As an effect, do you believe that the behaviour caused by this (e.g buy more sustainably & live less wasteful) outway the effects of entire shifts in markets (e.g new ways of energy production & waste free production)?

Side: Yes
koenoosterbr(25) Clarified Banned
1 point

> Response: I agree with what you are saying, it does make sense that businesses have more power than governments in that sense. However I think these two should work in collaboration, so if one exists without the other (if a company uses renewable energy for example) it won't make much of a difference, since there are still other businesses that will need to be restricted. I think the innovative companies are mostly young and small (I don't know of a huge corporation that is being green like that) so they will make a change but won't completely end crises.

Side: Yes
2 points

I don't think that businesses being sustainable and having a good CSR is the most effective way to solve environmental crises- obviously it's very important for businesses to be mindful of the environment and social issues around them, and by having this mindset they are able to have an impact on their clients, but I don't think just this is enough to solve a crisis. I think that governments and their regulations have a lot more to do with preventing and creating environmental crises than companies themselves. For example, if it's illegal to use pollutant substances, businesses will have to abide by this law or be heavily fined.

I chose the 'no' option not because I think that CSR and sustainability in businesses is worth nothing, but because I think it should come for top-down rather than bottom-up. Businesses might have an influence on their clients and other stakeholders, but the government have an influence on businesses and therefore can and should take the responsibility to enforce sustainability and environmental-friendly laws and regulations.

Side: No. It's rather........
1 point

Political regulations tend to be implemented extremely slow. Consumers are only able to vote once a year, which usually leads to non-effective measures being taken by elected (often centered- or right wing elected officials). Businesses heavily lobby against government regulation and tend to have too strong ties with these parties, outcompeting consumer voting power. If we were to say that we would be focusing on stopping deforestation, wouldn't you say that a new businesses which stops our entire dependance on wood (renewable cheaper and more durable sustainable wood replacement) would be far more effective than a governmental law having to be implemented, which will only be on a national scale and take lots of time? Isn't government far less effective, and far less impactful on a global scale then business?

Side: No. It's rather........
koenoosterbr(25) Disputed Banned
1 point

Response > > Response: I agree with what you are saying, it does make sense that businesses have more power than governments in that sense. However I think these two should work in collaboration, so if one exists without the other (if a company uses renewable energy for example) it won't make much of a difference, since there are still other businesses that will need to be restricted. I think the innovative companies are mostly young and small (I don't know of a huge corporation that is being green like that) so they will make a change but won't completely end crises.

Side: Yes
1 point

I don't think it is a realistic plan. Businesses are geared towards profit and not towards helping the people and the environment. Sure, if we would all contribute to the greater good, the situation could improve, but are businesses willing to make the 'sacrifice'?

Just like in the case of Chevron and oil drilling: people everywhere are protesting and so are the environmental organisations, but in the end an exception to the law was made. and politicians are behind the corporation 100% in both the US and Romania (and Poland and Argentina). It's just one example. In Ecuador, Chevron 'deliberately dumped 18.5 billion gallons of highly toxic waste sludge into the streams and rivers on which local people depend for drinking, bathing, and fishing. The company dug over 900 open-air, unlined waste pits that continue to seep toxins into the ground to this day'. After its trial with Ecuador, Chevron was found not guilty: "The Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron is a fraud and is the result of criminal acts by a handful of corrupt lawyers looking to enrich themselves."

I'm giving this example because it is one of the largest oil corporations in the US and the world, and according to them "Our values distinguish us and guide our actions: integrity, trust, diversity, ingenuity, partnership, protecting people and the environment, and high performance."

Many other international companies with a good reputation have been accused of criminal acts and they are still in business. According to most corporations their business is 'sustainable' so on paper everything is great but in reality the workers might earn less than the minimal wage and they might be dumping their waste into the ecosystem.

I'm not saying the cause is not worth fighting for, on the contrary, but I think we need more than just sustainable businesses in order to see some long term progress.

Side: No. It's rather........
1 point

This is a very difficult issue, since everything from our food systems, water sources, oceans and deserts is negatively influenced by our obsession with mining, transporting and burning carbon-based fossil fuels. To state that sustainable businesses are the most effective weapon to actually solve the environmental crisis is a bold statement. It's a great start, but i'm not sure if it's the most effective weapon.

It's all about the world wanting to make a change. Under developed countries don't have the resourches to become/produce environmentally friendly. It would take loads of money of the western civilization (which they don't have). I would start trying to make global laws, which illegalize certain mining methods or other polluting activities. The down side to this is, that under developed countries have to find more expensive ways to keep the production at the same level. Nevertheless, change has to start on a global scale. Meaning the governments of all the countries need to be on the same page.

Side: No. It's rather........