Why Societal Responsability is a condition for Sustainability of the Economy ?

Sustainable Development or Sustainable first generation suffers from several ailments. First, there is no theory of Sustainable Development / Sustainable in the sense that the concept has become a "common place" and is not served by "scientific paradigms" clearly expressed. For example, ecological theory, scientific and epistemological, yet in high turnover in the 2000s (New Ecology of Jorgensen et al.) Fails to define the place of humans in ecosystems, other than by metaphors or of development on what is known about other animals: "superpredator" anthroposphere and Anthropocene, industrial metabolism ... Thus the ecological theory of "soutenablité" human activity does not exist yet. Another example, the economy fails to propose an alternative model consistent with "capitalism dominated by financial corporations, sentenced to increase their profits, their costs and outsource their responsibilities to the detriment of the environment, community assets and consumer- taxpayers-workers ". Or, Sustainable Development / Sustainable proposes three lines of thought simultaneously: the preservation of the environment (the conditions of life), economic (human resources?) And the "social" (purpose), yet the different logic levels on political action.

Other evils, take (1) the lack of consensus on the diagnosis of what is "not sustainable" in today's economy, (2) the complexity of setting local targets, given the lack of vision of the overall objectives (biosphere), (3) the diversity of peoples, lifestyles and inequalities of resources and climate, (4) of the incompatibility of the foundations of classical economics with moderate exploitation of resources, sharing of wealth and preservation of common goods. It seems that the principles of "sustainable development" are not possible if the economy does not change in depth and if politicians do not give in to a market logic that are failing if we want to preserve the conditions of life and particularly that of humans.

States and institutions which aim to regulate the global economy, are reluctant to take control in a fool's game, heavily dependent on information asymmetry and contracts (promises political, trade, labor, services) that hide part of their costs and their risks. The damage of this game, if they are not irreversible and can be monetized, are ultimately borne by the State whose means are structurally declining. The big insurer's economic system is the consumer-taxpayer-worker, as the financial crisis has demonstrated, then economic 2008-09. The consumer-worker-taxpayer becomes liable to increase (responsible drinking) in this game where the "business" takes the advantage, the "financing" is detached from the real economy and the "United Nations' struggle to coordinate their regulatory policies. However, the consumer-taxpayer-worker is not an average person who enjoys the best economic system. To exercise its social responsibility, it must be aware of its weight when buying, vote and that it participates in the political system.

The irresponsibility of the players "business" is glaring by increased industrial accidents (irreversible and non-adjustable), the depletion or degradation of certain resources, increased poverty as a concentration wealth, endangering the global monetary system by massive financial speculation. This irresponsibility is however not always voluntary: it is the structure of law, the foundations of the economic system (markets, finance, trade, value, work, pricing, purchasing behavior) and the fascination of all human for objects (even virtual), ideas, symbols, beliefs, and dangers, to defy the limits or worship.

All economic actors contribute every day to confirm the dominance of large corporations or businesses on the supply, creating objects, lifestyle, environment, relationships with nature and resources. The game is complex. Some CEOs are trying to adopt more responsible policies but they are marginalized and suspected manipulation. In addition, the management principle of "organizational hypocrisy" is an instinctive reaction of business to make reconcile the irreconcilable and maintain the ambiguities of the sincere commitment of leaders. Leaders often act as mercenary cinique would expect leaders a vision, a headland on the horizon, wisdom and social innovation. This is also the business leaders who are not entrepreneurs, that political leaders made compromises in device, which betray the institutions created at the price of blood.

But if everyone takes responsibility with reference to the public interest and the long term, another economy is possible, where large companies would be profitable even without reference to the Company the costs of that performance. To do so would require that leaders are aware of recent developments in complexity science. Their ignorance causes them to stagnate in competition strategies, zero-sum game ("there are winners and losers"), reports of power instead of power, the logic of means rather than ends, the illusion of progress technology (there is a sorting to do and not to take risks) and a worldview standardized by the jargon of "international English"; impoverished language and leveling of cultural diversity.

The illusions of modern liberal thought dominant to forget that corporations (companies, firms, institutions) are products of the Act and states. Claim that the state regulates too trade, entrepreneurship and markets, is to forget that they can not exist without the state, without a purpose and usefulness to the Company. But all things considered, it is doubtful that corporations and markets to be useful in shaping our lifestyles, consumption and work with such irresponsibility.

But what is the relationship between this responsibility and sustainability of the economy and way of life? By dint of encompassing all the reasons humans not to be satisfied with the current economy, sustainable development / sustainability is neither a political nor an objective nor a model nor a method. It seems urgent, in a process of second generation renewal of the principles of sustainability and its implementation, to change the cash economy and speculative, dominated by corporations that are known to not serve the public interest , they do take risks uninsurable to mankind for a purpose that does not make sense: make money by hiding the real cost, reward opportunistic plunder the resources, produce toxic waste and change the conditions of life on Earth.

The economic system has failed not to recognize its dependence on massive energy inputs which we can hope that they become clean. Resource productivity is not recognized as an engine of growth and development in the fundamental theories of the market economy (see the inevitable Ayres & Warr, 2009). Regulations in command / control (chains Laws + + Justice + Police punishment) fail when the benefits of the break up, which is the case for the very poor, traffickers of high demand and interests of most individuals in rich countries. The wealth of states depends on a diminishing resource, work, or which results to exclude the poor, the tax on value added, while the world economy is growing exponentially, is financialised (speculation) and monetized ( social activities become market, such as personal services). The diagnosis of what is not working or is not "sustainable" in the economic system is not yet done. In all cases, the corresponding theory does not exist.

To make the economy sustainable, we must redefine its goals and the political game. This contrasts in a war where everybody loses eventually: the big corporations and their subcontractors smaller (the Business), States and their cooperation institutions (Public Authorities), non-profit, non- -governmental and defense of the commons, and finally "the Individual Taxpayer-Consumer-Elector-worker".

Partnership "win-win" is nevertheless desirable and possible between these stakeholders of the human game, often reduced to a game-Business Company to produce and distribute wealth, according to explicit contracts where each takes his share of responsibility without delay on the other (social responsibility). This partnership aims to create a successful system by reducing the risks taken by the Company, its environment and the biosphere (global ecosystem) have to be irreversibly damaged, non-repairable, non-insurable. Sustainability focuses on the resources, lifestyles, the "ecosystem" (including artificial and human) and the biosphere as a whole. A "Generalized Ecology", Science, should help define the practical terms of "sustainability", ie the intentional organization of the partnership of human societies and the rest of the Biosphere (Nature), without denying that Biosphere evolving, thus changes in nature, with humans, consistent with the process initiated life there are about 5 billion years.

The principle of "social responsibility" is bigger than social responsibility, especially when it comes (CSR) and social standards related to work. Social responsibility commits all individuals and institutions that make the modern societies, not only companies, to preserve the interests and inalienable common property. Power relations or power in the Company have reason to change in the near future under the influence of crises and accidents that reveal the deceptive strategies to make profits at the expense of prosperity and wealth distribution produced. The riots, revolutions against autocratic leaders, industrial risks and non-bank control, etc. ... preparing this mutation. The term "Sustainable Development" becomes too small and too technical (environmental connotations, employee rights and resource management) to translate full extent of ongoing changes in the relationship between humans in the world. Sustainable development / sustainable is not a matter of will to adapt the current system. It will require a redistribution of power, a change of belief system and new leitmotif that dominate (Nature), clearing (destroying ecosystems), kill (animals and wars), to manufacture machines to exist. Corporate Social Responsibility shared must give meaning to the lifestyles of humans to become compatible with the limits of the biosphere and the conditions of life. However, by sorting the useful and useless technology, effective and ineffective, by rethinking the logic of supply and consumption, activity, reporting time and social relations, human societies can continue to meet their needs for s' surrounding objects, to create artificial structures comfortable, entertained, in prosperity. A number of principles linear and rational, too complex economy will fall, contradicted by the crises and failures of conventional organizations. Some "magic" is possible to manage the apparent paradoxes of classical economics that is lacking today.

Learning from suffering shortages, shortages, irreversible damage, humanity will reformulate his philosophy of life. The human is not bad, and he learns he is alone. It seems that it will solve the sharing of knowledge and responsibility, recognition of cultural diversity of peoples and resource inequalities in the Earth's surface, the temptation to speculate, to dominate, to cheat to achieve a "sustainable human development", within the limits of successful evolution of the terrestrial biosphere.

(translated from french by Google)

Well, I would be happy to know which links you do with the development of alternative currencies.