Group 3 : Accounting for Sustainability

1510534002 Ramadhani Sardiman International Accounting

1510534013 Retno Ladyta Andalas University
1510534029 Putri Astari Shalsabila

Reaction Paper of Chapter I - Concept of Sustainable Development (Pro)

Nowadays, people are calling for a new kind of globalization. The search is on for a
new approach, sometimes called sustainable development, to ensure that economic growth is
also socially just and environmentally sustainable. Two years ago, Pope Francis spoke to
world leaders at the United Nations calling for such a holistic and moral vision, and the world
leaders responded by adopting a new framework of cooperation for the years 2016-2030,
called Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs. The SDGs were negotiated over several
years based on a simple yet powerful idea: Every one of the 193 UN member countries can
benefit by a globalization that combines economic, social, and environmental objectives. The
aim is not global governance but global decency. The responsibility for change still rests with
national governments and local communities. Economic development still counts, but
alongside social fairness and environmental sustainability. Yet all nations can benefit from a
common global framework and the efforts of every other country to achieve it.

The relationship between economic growth, human well-being, and the achievement
of a sustainable future has a long and complex intellectual history. We support that
sustainable development, cause it will make economic growth necessarily leads to an
enhanced quality of life and improved human flourishing in high-income societies is also
problematic from a social science perspective. Environmentalists at the time argued that the
exponential growth of populations and industrial activity could not be sustained without
seriously depleting the planet's resources and overloading the ability of the planet to deal with
pollution and waste materials. Some argued that new technologies and industrial products,
such as pesticides and plastics, also threatened the environment. First-wave
environmentalists, following the protest mood of the times, did not hesitate to blame industry,
western culture, economic growth and technology for environmental problems. Although
many of the key writers at the time were scientists or industrialists themselves (for example,
the Club of Rome), the environment movement was easily characterised as being anti-
development. Nevertheless their warnings captured the popular attention, resonating with the
experiences of communities facing obvious pollution in their neighbourhoods.

We have argued that climate stabilization could be achieved without large impacts on
the rate of short-run economic growth and that, in the long run, the result would be a world of

1
enhanced life opportunities for members of future generations. But suppose, for the sake of
argument, that we rejected this claim in favor of the proposition that achieving ecological
sustainability would require substantial reductions in future economic growth. What could we
then say about the likely impacts on human well-being? From the perspective of mainstream
economics, the answer seems clear-cut: The consumption of material goods and services
satisfies people’s preferences and contributes to their happiness, and higher levels of
consumption should contribute positively to social welfare.

Today corporations, particularly multinationals, are being told by governments and

environmentalist NGOs that they have to be committed to a new "corporate social
responsibility" (CSR) that fosters sustainable development and seeks to meet today's needs
and aspirations without sacrificing the ability of those in the future to meet their needs and
aspirations. This means that businesses' profit seeking must take place within the context of
environmental development, protecting the environment, and social equity.