The Green Economy Paradox: A Critical Inquiry into Sustainability Indexes(הפרדוקס של 'כלכלה ירוקה': ניתוח ביקורתי של מדדים של אחריות חברתית-סביבתית)

Oren Perez
{"title":"The Green Economy Paradox: A Critical Inquiry into Sustainability Indexes(הפרדוקס של 'כלכלה ירוקה': ניתוח ביקורתי של מדדים של אחריות חברתית-סביבתית)","authors":"Oren Perez","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2653687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The idea of “green economy,” which was placed on the global agenda by the Rio 20 conference, claims to serve as a bridge between the demands of global capitalism and the vision of sustainability. In the corporate social responsibility literature, writers such as Michael Porter and Mark Kramer have made a similar claim, arguing that there is a positive correlation between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. I argue that the claim underlying the green economy thesis, whereby the goals of (classical) economic growth and sustainable development can be achieved concurrently, is highly problematic. First, the claim disregards the extent to which the web of ideas and institutional structures that underpin the global capitalist system constrains the capacity of agents to commit themselves to sustainable policies. Second, it understates the difficult tradeoffs involved in implementing green growth policies. This critique ties in with the debate over the capacity of corporate social responsibility instruments to promote sustainable development. I examine this general critique in the context the two leading global sustainability indexes: the FTSE4Good Index Series and the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). Sustainability indexes epitomize the green economy thesis because they claim to positively affect the sustainability profile of firms despite the fact that (or precisely because) they are situated at the heart of modern capitalism: the stock exchange. I demonstrate how the paradox at the heart of the green economy thesis manifests in sustainable indexes. In particular, I highlight the tension between the indexes’ dual role as financial products (tracking the firms’ share values) and as CSR instruments. I also show that both indexes suffer from a deep democratic deficit, which is inconsistent with their public function. I conclude with policy recommendations that could bring the indexes closer to a more meaningful understanding of the concept of green economy.","PeriodicalId":366225,"journal":{"name":"HRN ESP - English Papers (Topic)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HRN ESP - English Papers (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2653687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

The idea of “green economy,” which was placed on the global agenda by the Rio 20 conference, claims to serve as a bridge between the demands of global capitalism and the vision of sustainability. In the corporate social responsibility literature, writers such as Michael Porter and Mark Kramer have made a similar claim, arguing that there is a positive correlation between corporate social performance and corporate financial performance. I argue that the claim underlying the green economy thesis, whereby the goals of (classical) economic growth and sustainable development can be achieved concurrently, is highly problematic. First, the claim disregards the extent to which the web of ideas and institutional structures that underpin the global capitalist system constrains the capacity of agents to commit themselves to sustainable policies. Second, it understates the difficult tradeoffs involved in implementing green growth policies. This critique ties in with the debate over the capacity of corporate social responsibility instruments to promote sustainable development. I examine this general critique in the context the two leading global sustainability indexes: the FTSE4Good Index Series and the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). Sustainability indexes epitomize the green economy thesis because they claim to positively affect the sustainability profile of firms despite the fact that (or precisely because) they are situated at the heart of modern capitalism: the stock exchange. I demonstrate how the paradox at the heart of the green economy thesis manifests in sustainable indexes. In particular, I highlight the tension between the indexes’ dual role as financial products (tracking the firms’ share values) and as CSR instruments. I also show that both indexes suffer from a deep democratic deficit, which is inconsistent with their public function. I conclude with policy recommendations that could bring the indexes closer to a more meaningful understanding of the concept of green economy.
“绿色经济”这一概念在里约20年会议上被提上了全球议程,据称它是连接全球资本主义需求和可持续发展愿景的桥梁。在企业社会责任文献中,Michael Porter和Mark Kramer等作家也提出了类似的主张,认为企业社会绩效与企业财务绩效之间存在正相关关系。我认为,绿色经济理论背后的主张,即(经典)经济增长和可持续发展的目标可以同时实现,是非常有问题的。首先,这种说法忽视了支撑全球资本主义体系的思想网络和制度结构在多大程度上限制了行动者致力于可持续政策的能力。其次,它低估了实施绿色增长政策所涉及的艰难权衡。这一批评与有关企业社会责任工具促进可持续发展能力的辩论有关。我在两个领先的全球可持续发展指数:FTSE4Good指数系列和道琼斯可持续发展指数(DJSI)的背景下检验了这一一般性批评。可持续性指数是绿色经济理论的缩影,因为它们声称对公司的可持续性有积极影响,尽管事实上(或者正是因为)它们位于现代资本主义的中心:证券交易所。我展示了绿色经济理论的核心悖论如何在可持续指数中体现出来。我特别强调了指数作为金融产品(追踪公司的股票价值)和作为企业社会责任工具的双重角色之间的紧张关系。我还指出,这两个指数都存在严重的民主赤字,这与它们的公共功能不一致。最后,我提出了一些政策建议,这些建议可以使这些指数更接近于对绿色经济概念的更有意义的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信