Unit 4

FY BBA-(HM/TTM) & FY B.COM (IA/CB&I) 12-13

Charutar Vidya Mandal’s

C Z Patel College of Business & Management
New Vallabh Vidyanagar
===================================================================

CLASS : FY BBA (HM/TTM) & F.Y.B.COM (IA/ CB & I)
SEMESTER : II
SUBJECT CODE : UM02FBBA02
SUBJECT : CLIMATE CHANGE & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

UNIT-4 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Points Covered:
(A) Sustainable Urban future- Rural Development
(B) Rural Development
(C) Business Responsibility
A. SUSTAINABLE URBAN FUTURE
 PATHWAYS TO SUSTAINABLE URBAN FUTURES
There are many perspectives on urban sustainability. Some see it as an environment and development
issue.
Others emphasize the protection of culture and heritage values. Others see it as a social issue with
aspects of equity, fairness, and responsibility in meeting the needs of
future generations. Still, others focus on resource use and the better leveraging of resources,
closing the waste loop, building better knowledge, leadership, and governance and planning.
The path to sustainability involves all these things.
1. It does not provide for simply protecting and maintaining the status quo for future generations.
2. This is neither desirable nor achievable. Sustainability is concerned with change; managing risks,
tensions, shocks, disruption, and other forces that threaten to undermine life systems
physical, social, and economic.
3. It is also about generating change and building on change to renew systems and improve
people‟s welfare.
The challenge of creating sustainable futures for Asian cities is how to promote a culture of
city building that embraces change and proactively seeks to improve people‟s living standards
and welfare, while minimizing and managing its associated problems. This is difficult because
there is a strong inertia in existing practices and change can involve conflict with respected
value, traditions, culture, beliefs, and institutions.
Achieving greater sustainability of urban development will be difficult. In the longer term, it will
require a significant shift in societal values, behavior, and consumption and production patterns. Suc
h changes will not occur quickly. Powerful forces are at play in Asian cities, as elsewhere,
that are resistant to such changes and that shape consumer behavior and aspirations, and

ISSUED FOR CZPCBM STUDENTS : FOR FY BBA (HM/TTM) & FY B.COM (IA/CB & I) Page 1


drive production and distribution systems and governments. Much of the machinery, technology,
and institutions for maintaining everyday life in Asian cities will inevitably remain much the same
for years to come. Some infrastructure and systems will take several generations to be replaced
by more sustainable systems, practices, and processes. Identifying ways to make existing
systems & practices more sustainable is one of the most significant challenges facing Asia cities.
The challenge of urbanization and sustainability in Asia is enormous. Accommodating the needs
for housing, infrastructure, and employment for the 1.1 billion people expected to be added to
cities by 2030 will require major changes to the development and management of cities. The
scale of urbanization is unprecedented in human history. For many, when considering the
magnitude of the needs and problems facing Asian cities, there is a tendency to despair. But
history shows that cities have a remarkable ability for resilience when faced with problems and
adversity that threaten their existence. Asian cities are slowly developing pathways to achieving
more sustainable development outcomes, but now is the time to accelerate change to achieve
these ends. To do this will require governments, and particularly central governments, to provide
the leadership to radically strengthen city governance and its ability to mobilize resources and
provide infrastructure and services.
There are three main pillars to strengthening city governance and accelerating
the sustainable development of cities in Asia. All are important to success.
1. The first pillar involves improving the enabling environments, the framework of institutions,
policies, incentive structures, and reporting requirements for urban governance. It will also
involve further developing and deepening financial, land, and property markets. This is essential
to allow urban governance to operate effectively and set cities on pathways toward more
sustainable urban futures.
2. The second pillar in building more sustainable urban futures for Asian cities is ensuring that
decentralization and devolution re made to work. Central governments have neither the
resources nor local knowledge to provide local infrastructure and services and this is
recognized in the movement toward decentralization across the region. This is not going to
change. Urban governance and particularly local governments have to have clear,
unencumbered responsibilities and be provided with the ability to finance and provide
citywide infrastructure and services.
3. The third pillar in moving toward more sustainable urban futures is continuing programs of
technical assistance and training for improving urban governance and management. These
need to be fast‐tracked and should be particularly directed toward local government. Their
focus should be on improving the competitiveness of cities and the management of cities
on a performance‐results basis. Major investments are required in leadership development
& human resource development programs for local authority politicians, management,
& staff.
Overall, a shift in priorities for assistance is required. The priority should be on developing the
enabling environment and performance‐based institutions, with less direct attention to
infrastructure and service provision. Dynamic, performance‐based local governments are central
to meeting the development challenge of rapidly increasing urban populations with rising
standards of living.
 CSR, SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE CHANGE
Court order to shut down polluting textile units in South Indian city
Hundreds of textile bleaching and dyeing mills in the South Indian city of Tirupur have been ordered to
shut down by the Madras High Court in response to public petitions. Tirupur is one of the largest textile
manufacturing hubs in Asia where most multinational retailers have suppliers.



Farmers groups have alleged that textile units dumped untreated effluent in the Noyyal river which
farmers rely on for irrigation.
The court order also includes closing down Common Effluent Treatment Plants and Integrated Effluent
Treatment Plants in the area. These plants were set up by the government agencies mostly to treat
wastewater from textile mills. In a previous order in 2006, the court had directed these plants to achieve
"zero liquid discharge" level. In the latest court filing, it is alleged that these units failed to comply with
the court order and continued to operate and pollute the area.
Textile industry associations have banded together to put pressure on the government to allow effluent
discharge until an acceptable solution is found. Farmers lobby is opposed to any leniency toward
polluting textile industry.
Observers say that the industry has not taken its responsibility for wastewater treatment seriously in
spite of repeated campaigns by farmers in the past. The industry is accused of destroying large tracts of
farmland by contaminating water and land by dumping untreated toxic wastewater.
There have been reports in the past alleging that though textile units install wastewater treatment plants
to meet retailers' code of conduct requirement, they seldom operate these plants because running
treatment plants costs money! Government inspectors don't mind looking the other way as long as their
palms are greased.
Tirupur is a key sourcing destination for knitted garments for a number of large and small multinational
retailers. None of them has reacted publicly so far to the developments in Tirupur. The city's textile
industry also provides thousands of jobs. These jobs are now at risk as hundreds of units are now
closed due to the court order. Trade unions have given a call to shut down the entire city tomorrow to put
pressure on the government to find a solution so that units can be opened and jobs can be saved.
Government incentive for CSR, or not
With the government's intervention, CSR debate in India has taken a perverse course.
Indian companies, and foreign companies operating in India, have by and large failed to demonstrate
respect for responsible business practices. Their inaction, and often irresponsible behaviour, is a result
of the fact that India lacks a robust stakeholder community. A good chunk of NGOs in India are only too
happy to receive donations than to press them to adopt responsible business practices. No wonder,
most companies get away with PR-ish charity in the name of CSR.
Multinational companies operating in India have also found it convenient to join the charity-CSR
bandwagon rather than setting leadership examples. Many of them have respectable CR initiatives in
their home country but in India their CR fails to rise above charity.
Industry's apathy prompted the government last year to introduce voluntary CSR guidelines for listed
companies. Though the CSR guidelines are quite impressive in the sense that they include several key
issues such as care for stakeholders, workers rights, human rights, environment and inclusive
development, the industry does not seem to be obliging. The industry actually started lobbying for
incentives such as tax breaks if it were to spend on CSR.
Government officials are divided. India's corporate affairs minister has been quoted saying that
companies may be provided fiscal incentives for participating in CSR activities. But a senior official in his
ministry recently said that companies should adopt CSR as a corporate culture rather than asking for
incentives. He even indicated that if companies fail to adopt CSR, the government may even make CSR-
spend mandatory. Now the perverse piece here is that CSR is being interpreted as philanthropy.
Unfortunately, India Inc needs to include larger issues that have become more pronounced with
breakneck economic development. These issues include climate change/carbon emission,
environmental protection, anti-pollution measures, working conditions, human rights, customer
protection, privacy and bribery. India is even pushing for a bill in parliament that would require
companies to spend at least 2% of their profit on CSR activities.



Most likely, companies will have to deal with local politicians and legislators who would want companies
to spend on their pet projects. The legislation will also give rise to potential accounting fraud where
companies will falsely claim expenditure on CSR.
But this is what happens when the private sector does not take voluntary action. Legislative action then
appears as the only alternative. But legislative CSR is compliance, not CSR. Did we not teach all these
years that CSR is when companies go beyond compliance?
What's shaping CSR in Asia
Further to my comments on what is driving CSR in Asia, types of CSR activities preferred by companies
in Asia, and key challenges for CSR in Asia, here are some of the recent developments in Asia that will
potentially influence the course of CSR in Asia:
Voluntary sustainability reporting guidelines by the Singapore Stock Exchange
Hang Seng Corporate Sustainability Index by the Hong Kong Stock Exchange
Voluntary CSR guidelines by the ministry of corporate affairs in India (comprehensive, core elements
include care for stakeholders, ethical functioning, workers rights, human rights, environment and
social development; includes need for policy, strategy, clear goals, measurement and reporting)
India pushing for legislation to impose CSR Tax on companies
Philanthropy in China: Tycoons pledging their wealth for charitable causes
Asian businesses making headlines for the wrong reasons: Foxconn, the Apple Computers supplier
in China for working conditions and workers suicides, a bunch of palm oil companies for
environmental destruction and human rights issues, Vedanta Resources, a mining company, for
controversial mining projects in the state of Orissa in India.
Key challenges for CSR in Asia
Absence of strong and mature stakeholders means companies are under no pressure or scrutiny to
do the right thing.
In fact, green-washing is going to be one of the biggest problems in the coming months as more and
more companies start writing annual sustainability reports to meet government guidelines.
In the absence of a robust stakeholder community, green-washers will more likely have a free run.
Green-washing is also going to be a big problem for those companies which are genuinely doing
good work. Their work will be undermined by the Green-washers.
Capability is going to be a major challenge. Companies will need to hire competent sustainability
experts if they are to drive a genuine sustainability programme. And such talent is in short supply.
Lack of pressure from activists is actually an opportunity for businesses here. They can formulate a well
thought out sustainability plan. Most western companies did not have the luxury of planning out a well
rounded sustainability programme. For most of them, it was a knee jerk reaction. When they were hit by
a crisis, they reacted by taking one small step necessary to address the crisis. So every new criticism
brought a new action. Only now some of them have started to take a more holistic approach toward
sustainability.
Tomorrow, will be writing about the recent developments in Asia that will potentially influence of
course of CSR in the region.
Types of CSR initiatives in Asia
Further to my blog post "CSR drivers in Asia" yesterday, here are what I find three broad categories of
CSR activities in being pursued by companies in Asia:
Compliance driven initiatives, mostly in the global supply chain



PR-led initiatives, glossy reports and tall claims but no real work on the ground, mostly philanthropy
PR-led initiatives, some initiatives on non-threatening issues such as environment but total silence
on the core issues that are really material to their business
Companies genuinely trying to embrace sustainability or corporate responsibility; this group is in
minority
CSR drivers in Asia
Compliance was the first key driver in Asia when multinational retailers introduced social responsibility
code of conduct for their suppliers. And compliance still remains a major driver.
Much of CSR in Asia is still limited to philanthropy. Last month, India‟s leading industry federation
Assocham published a report on CSR by Indian companies. The report said the companies‟ primary
focus is on community welfare.
PR is becoming an important driver. So you can expect to see more and more companies releasing
glossy annual CSR reports, largely assembled by their spin doctors, low on substance and high on
rhetoric and tall claims. Reputational risk is becoming a driver in some of the sectors such as the palm
oil industry.
More recently, governments have started driving sustainability. Sustainability reporting guidelines by the
Singapore Stock exchange, CSR guidelines by the ministry of corporate affairs in India, and CSR
reporting guidelines by Bursa Malaysia are some of the examples.
In Singapore, the Green Mark Scheme is another example where it is mandatory for property developers
to achieve at least the Green Mark for all new developments.
The Conceptual Framework
Contribution versus responsibility
Climate impacts – be they anthropogenic, due to natural variability or anything else – will inevitably have
a large multitude of causes, each causally contributing to the impacts in question. The (moral)
responsibility for climate impacts will also typically be shared by a number of actors. The key difference
between being morally (partly) responsible for, and (causally) contributing to is that the former is a
blameable matter which only makes sense if the impacts are anthropogenic, while the latter is not. The
1628BC eruption on the Aegean island of Thera (Santorini), it has been argued, led to an average global
cooling of 1.5°C over the following one hundred years, which, in turn, has been put forward as one of the
key contributing factors in the downfall of the Minoan civilization during the first half of the 16th Century
BC, but it would be considered odd to hold the mountain morally responsible, let alone wishing to punish
it accordingly.
Strict Responsibilities
They are in part determined by causal contributions as reflected in historic emissions since 1890, and in
part by population size and the level of global greenhouse gas emissions that are seen to be harmless –
here taken to be the current level of global ocean sinks (estimated at 7GtCO2eq/annum) – and allocated
on a per capita basis. In other words, in order to determine a country‟s share in the strict responsibility
for the climate change problem, it is allocated a part of the harmless global emissions on a per capita
basis. This „basic allowance‟ is then subtracted from the country‟s historic emissions, with the remainder
(if any) determining its share in strict responsibility for the problem.
Limited Responsibilities.
According to Aristotle, moral responsibility („blame‟) can be limited because of ignorance or
circumstances beyond ones control. For the purposes of the moral responsibility of climate change and
this report, these conditions were applied as follows. First it was assumed that there was a time before
which governments could not be blamed for not knowing about the problem, and second that very poor
people have a morally justified need to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases, over and above the


harmless level (they have a right to overcome their poverty and, presently, can‟t do so without these
emissions).
Concluding Remarks on the Moral Responsibility of Climate Change
The Muller et al paper put forward and discussed a methodology for the numerical differentiations of the
moral responsibility of climate change as opposed to calculating causal contributions to climate change.
For expository purposes, this was done on the basis of aggregate GWP [Global Warming Potential]
weighted historic emissions as a proxy. Moving to fully fledged climate modelling techniques as used in
MATCH [Modelling and Assessment of Contributions of Climate change ] could be done in the future,
but would change the relative contributions and resulting responsibilities by at most 10% for most
countries.
B. RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Rural development in general is used to denote the actions and initiatives taken to improve the
standard of living in non‐Urban neighborhoods, countryside, and remote villages. These
communities can be exemplified with a low ratio of inhabitants to open space. Agricultural
activities may be prominent in this case whereas economic activities would relate to the
primary sector, production of foodstuffs and raw materials.
Literally and from the social, economic and political perspectives the statement is valid even
today. Around 65% of the Stateʹs population is living in rural areas.
People in rural areas should have the same quality of life as is enjoyed by people living in
sub urban and urban areas.
Further there are cascading effects of poverty, unemployment, poor and inadequate
infrastructure in rural areas on urban centers causing slums and consequential social and
economic tension manifesting in economic deprivation and urban poverty.
Hence Rural Development which is concerned with economic growth and social justice,
improvement in the living standard of the rural people by providing adequate and quality
social services and minimum basic needs becomes essential.
The present strategy of rural development mainly
focuses on poverty alleviation, better livelihood opportunities, provision of basic amenities and
infrastructure facilities through innovative programmes of wage and self‐employment.
The above goals will be achieved by various programme support being implemented creating
partnership with communities, non‐governmental organizations, community based organizations,
institutions, PRIs and industrial establishments, while the Department of Rural Development will
provide logistic support both on technical and administrative side for programm implementation.
The prime goal of rural development is to improve the quality of life of the rural people by
alleviating poverty through the instrument of self‐employment and wage employment
programmes by providing community infrastructure facilities such as drinking water, electricity,
road connectivity, health facilities, rural housing and education and promoting decentralization of
powers to strengthen the Panchayat raj institutions.
Governments all over the world have focused upon sustainable rural development in an
organized way. Rural locations in particular, need more economic development in order to
match urban centric development.
All the spheres of development including economic, social, cultural have primarily benefited
urban locations. Even in case of industrial growth, urban places got best of growth and
prosperity. Many actions have been taken to fill this chasm between rural and urban growth.
Several awareness programs have been initiated to create awareness about ecological



significance among the rural population. Significant demonstrations have been provided to make
the best use of natural resources.
Poverty in rural areas has remained by and large, the main focal point of governments and
development agencies. Sustainable rural development is the most effective way to eliminate this
curse. To improve the standard of living, governments have allocated more financial muscle for
the rural areas. Constant efforts are being taken to ensure development of infrastructure in such
areas. Also, environment friendly growth stimulators have been provided to rural populations.
To maintain sustainable rural development, several regional development agencies, national
governments, international development organizations and NGOs are putting in their best efforts.
The things which have been focused upon include, advisory services to farmers and forest hold
ers, creating awareness about economic values of forests, modernization of agricultural tools
and equipments, introduction of new process, products and technologies, emphasis upon
infrastructure development etc.
New methods have also been encouraged for farming in barren lands. Most of the farming land
remains unused during no‐crop season in underdeveloped countries. To improve that, cyclical
production of different crops is encouraged so that land does not remain unused.
Farmersare also being supported by launching numerous agro‐environment schemes. Income
generationandequal growth are likely resultants of such initiatives. These initiatives are being taken
in not only developing countries but in developed countries as well.
C. BUSINESS RESPONSIBILITY
Business Responsibility for Sustainable Development
The Business Responsibility for Sustainable Development project promoted research and policy
dialogue on corporate social and environmental responsibility. It examined whether or not transnational
corporations (TNCs) and other companies are taking meaningful steps to improve their social and
environmental record, particularly in developing countries.
Considerable attention was focused on the effectiveness of "voluntary initiatives" such as codes of
conduct, social and environmental reporting, certification, labelling, corporate social investment and
improvements in environmental management systems. The following types of questions were
addressed:
Is the TNC discourse on "corporate responsibility" being applied in practice?
Where progress is apparent, what types of pressures, incentives and institutional arrangements are
promoting change?
Do voluntary initiatives and corporate self-regulation constitute an effective alternative to government
and international regulation?
What are the implications for development in the South of efforts by TNCs and others to raise social and
environmental standards?
The project involved fieldwork in Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines,
Singapore and South Africa. Additional research on issues of international regulation of TNCs, company
codes of conduct, multistakeholder standard-setting and certification schemes, UN-business
partnerships and the corporate accountability movement, was also carried out.
The project produced numerous publications which are available online by clicking on 'Publications' on
the right. This section includes links to book descriptions and ordering information, as well as to online
versions of all programme papers and discussion papers produced throughout the course of the project.
Conference reports and policy briefs are also included in this section.
This project was been partially funded by the MacArthur Foundation.



Corporate sustainability
Corporate sustainability is a business approach that creates long-term consumer and employee value
by not only creating a “green” strategy aimed towards the natural environment, but taking into
consideration every dimension of how a business operates in the social, cultural, and economic
environment. Also formulating strategies to build a company that fosters longevity through transparency
and proper employee development.
Corporate sustainability is an evolution on more traditional phrases describing ethical corporate practice.
Phrases such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate citizenship continue to be used but
are increasingly superseded by the broader term, corporate sustainability. Unlike the other phrases that
focus on “added-on” policies, corporate sustainability describes business practices built around social
and environmental considerations.
The phrase is derived from two keys sources. The Brundtland Commission‟s Report – Our Common
Future which described sustainable development as, “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This desire to grow
without damaging future generations‟ prospects is becoming more and more central to business
philosophies.
Within more academic management circles Elkington (1999) developed the concept of the Triple Bottom
Line which proposed that business goals were inseparable from the societies and environments within
which they operate. Whilst short-term economic gain could be chased, a failure to account for social and
environmental impacts would make those business practices unsustainable.
Strategic Principles For Corporate Sustainable Development
Transparency Deals with the idea that by having an engaging and open environment within the
company as well as the community will improve performance and increase profits. It is an open culture
that promotes employee involvement in regards to the innovation and creative processes. Reaching out
to the community creates a much bigger team, is extremely cheap, and provides evaluation from all
angles. Companies are looking inward and realizing changes must be made to fulfill environment needs
such as energy efficiency, limiting product waste and toxicity, and designing innovative products.
Employee Development People are the most important renewable resource and therefore, are the
strongest asset to any organization. A strong development program could be the underlying factor for a
company's success or failure. Employees are the concrete foundation for the company and must be
thoroughly analyzed and evaluated to tap into their true motivations and desires. For a company that
wants to reach its greatest potential, employees must work towards improvement rather than perfection.
Programs should be implemented that rewards star performers, fosters the creative learning process,
and provides comprehensive training and evaluating.
Resource Efficiency Companies must adapt to this rapidly changing environment by being prepared to
change and implement new creative ideas related to sustainability. Companies should not throw away
old products and materials, but rather be prepared with upgraded technology that can transform the
product. New solutions that improve recycling and waste redirecting can ultimately reduce costs and
increase profits. For example, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has redirected more than 64 percent of the
waste generated by stores and Sam‟s Club facilities. In 2009 alone, they recycled more than 1.3 million
pounds of aluminum, 120 million pounds of plastics, 11.6 million pounds of mixed paper and 4.6 billion
pounds of cardboard. On an annual basis, they expect to save around $20 million and prevent 38 million
pounds of waste being sent to landfills.
DISCLAIMER
This study material is for CZPCBM students. The basic objective of this material is to supplement
teaching and discussion in the classroom in the subject. Students are required to go for extra
reading in the subject through Library work.


Unit 4

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (7)

Unit 4