Economics.... Ugh!

Hoho! Just joshing, I've got no problem with economics (...)

So, in "Making Capitalism Sustainable," Mr. Elkington lays out (in a very economic fashion) several of the factors that make sustainable developments within capitalism so very hairy. Once I got my brain into technical-reading-mode, I found that he's actually got some good points here. The most useful tool he puts forth is what he calls the "Triple Bottom Line."
Elkington defines a company's bottom line in economics as "the profit figure used as the earnings figure in the earnings-per-share statement", so I suppose a net profit. His point is that one bottom line just isn't enough, but that we need three criteria on which to judge a company's sustainability: economic, environmental, and social.

Elkington makes the valid and significant point that overall sustainability is not achieved merely when any single bottom line proves sustainable, but only when all three interact in an overall sustainable way. In other words, it should never be considered "profitable" to pour pollutants into rivers and rely on child sweat-shop labor in foreign countries, no matter how much money is being made. Any economic system in which such practices ARE considered profitable must be flawed. He compares the bottom line fluctuations to continental drift, all able to operate independently of one another, but all still part of the Earth's overall ~'sustainability geography'~.
I think it's very interesting to view sustainability through this lens. Environmental sustainability's meaning is fairly straightforward, but what about economic and social?
It seems that economically sustainable practices would be not only profitable, but continually and adaptively profitable. For instance, it's all well and good to design the iPhone, but once better technology is introduced it is only profitable to create new models so that the one people already have becomes obsolete. Cha-ching! Otherwise, your profit from the iPhone is just a flash in the pan. (Of course this isn't environmentally sustainable at all...)

The idea of social sustainability is also very interesting. This would require a level of comfort and engagement in the workingplace that kept employee minds sharp and able to contribute most bountifully to an institution's productivity, as well as business practices that did not participate in social injustice. Elkington cites instances of social uprising that have brought companies to their knees. If business-as-usual causes upset in the minds of and tension with workers and/or the public, it will eventually snowball and cause a collapse of some sort or another. Such practices are ultimately self-defeating for any company, and thus not sustainable.

Elkington's point is that accountants, when preparing account reports for a company, should include a much broader range of gains and losses. Even economic capital, which is usually the only capital considered, needs to be broadened, and to reflect actual cost of a resource or profit rather than the merely economic cost.
Social and environmental capital should also be included. If a business is regularly causing harm to people or the environment, those costs need to be included in "the bottom line" profit margin. Thus, costs/profits would be an accurate and holistic reflection of the ultimate economic viability (and sustainability) of a business.

Elkington seems, to me, to have his finger on some important holes in our capitalist system, and does a good job of entangling economic durability with social and ecological justice. When coupled with Hawken's "Declaration of Sustainability," we seem to have some very solid and practical arguments for the sustainability movement. Both of these essays do a great job of arguing in a way that will make sense even to someone who doesn't give a rat's backside about the environment or other people.

As depressing as it is, many people simply will not listen to an argument for eco-friendliness if it requires that they make any sacrifices, or take any initiatives, or turn of lightbulbs when they leave a room. That's why we need economic arguments like these that won't, aherm..... take away anyone's godamm rights as an American!

I honestly haven't any critique to offer "Making Capitalism Sustainable." Elkington understands the system he is writing abut much more than I do. Any economists in the house?
~~~