Limiting neoliberalism in the Anthropocene
The environmental and social effects of economic activity must be framed within the public sphere where business models focus on how stakeholder interactions secure or put at risk the viability and sustainability of all citizens and their communities. Over a period, relations with stakeholders (financial, physical, environmental, and regulatory) will change and may either promote the community’s viability or undermine or compromise its value proposition. In a democratic society, new technologies such as corporate social responsibility must explore how business could operate in a steady-state community, exploring the limits of the current system (Latouche, 2009, 2012). Taylor observes that ‘our present pattern of inequality [which] is made provisionally tolerable only by rapid growth’ (Taylor, 1978, p. 168). This leads to the view that sustainability theorists must work towards minimising the incompatibilities between economic growth and ecological sustainability. Some of the more difficult environmental solutions include:
[A] population limit beyond which the supply of basic necessities, especially food, cannot be assured for larger numbers; a resources limit, where the supply of non-renewable resources is so reduced as first to make increasing consumption impossible and later to force us to do without altogether; a pollution limit, whereby the ecologically harmful side effects of production become a danger to life.
(Taylor, 1978, p. 157)
The book proposes that the role of accountability is to engage in the public sphere. This is to be achieved by narrating and reporting corporate impacts on Nature and communities while recognising that language ‘perpetuates the logic of that particular [economic] sphere’. The language ofenvironmental ethics challenges the logic of instrumental and market-based approaches. The importance of the interpretivist framework becomes apparent when thinking about the future of humanity. If climate change and global warming alter the planet, then the role of business and CSR3 must change with it. For accountability purposes, information must be provided about corporations broad stakeholder relations and how these are enhancing or degrading a reporting entities value proposition and sustainability. That is, to what extent are company stakeholder relations contributing to sustainability in terms of reducing carbon emissions generation and dependency. How do we secure financial viability in terms of liquidity, solvency, and sustainability and whether corporate concepts such as a going concern are now achievable? The business case has surrendered the mainstream political debate to neoliberalism and market relations. As a consequence, the system’s ability to help non-elites is diminished and many countries do not have the public resources in times of crisis. At time of writing, the coronavirus began its journey throughout the global commons, creating further challenges for human communities.
While purporting to act in the interests of sustainability, much CSR research illustrates that business, corporate, and sustainability research requires further analysis and interpretation. Interpretivism, the common good and skilful coping rather than primarily profit, should direct business. No longer can we assume that models of sustainability and universal methodologies will solve our dilemmas. Humanity’s last line of defence might be critique and interpretation - especially given the absence of alternative visions and the failure to offer reforms to the corporate colonisation of business ethics, CSR and the sustainability agenda.
