Analyzing Sustainable Development Approaches And Their Suitability For Business Performance In Clean Growth Context

Approaches to Sustainable Development

Sustainable development recently has been identified as a development which attains the needs of the present without negotiating the ability of potential generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development has continued to develop as that of safeguarding the resources of the world. However the fundamental agenda is to regulate the world’s resources. The essence of this type of development is a consistent association between human activities and the natural world which does not reduce the prospects for future generations in order to enjoy the quality of life [1].

The following paper will evaluate the effectiveness of approaches such as The Triple Bottom Line, The Five Capitals, Natural Capitalism, Cradle to Cradle, Circular Economy and Balanced Scorecard to sustainable development. In addition to this, the paper will focus on the way Triple Bottom Line and Natural Capital can be used to evaluate the business domain of food sector in terms of its environmental impact, its purpose and risks. Lastly, the paper will compare two important approaches which will help Nestle to manage the clean growth.

Discussion

 Approaches to sustainable development

Triple Bottom Line (TBL) – Sustainability in broader terms is attaining the needs of today without compromising the competence of future generations in order to meet individualistic needs. The Triple Bottom Line of sustainability tends to seek reduced environmental impact and enhanced social impact. Sustainable organizations in order to balance their triple bottom line need to create a universally proficient carbon market as a major influencer for sustainable innovation, efficiency development and CO2 reduction across the world [2]. As recently, the UK government is aiming to foster ‘clean growth’ for successfully delivering value to stakeholders and consumers, several UK business firms can adopt ‘triple bottom line’ whereby they can equally as well as simultaneously value their three achievements in three major extents namely people, planet and profit.

Natural capitalism- Reports by Biggs et al. (2015), have revealed that Natural Capital is making the vision of a healthier environment which necessitates reliable governance along with robust delivery outline with every citizen playing vital role. In correspondence with the UK’s clean growth strategy, Natural Capital will ascertain equal distribution of environmental advantages, resources and significant avenues. By using natural capital approach, UK business firms have the potential to acquire improved and proficient decisions which can facilitate environmental development.

The Five Capitals- Five Capitals model concerning natural, human, social, manufactured and financial essentially aims to guarantee that all these capitals are well-executed in such a manner that they can enhance over time. Though the five capitals model can be efficiently pursued by business in the UK, there lays a dilemma to the extent the five capitals model can be suitable in the context of clean growth as this model focuses on ‘capitals’ which are elements needed for businesses to be able to deliver products and services.

Cradle to Cradle- This approach supports in using clean and renewable energy whereby living organisms thriving on energy of current solar income must be safeguarded. The Cradle to Cradle approach has immense potential to aid UK’s strategy of clean growth through the utilization of clean and renewable energy through solar, wind along with other energy systems [3]. Thus by capitalizing on such abundant resources sustainable organizations can support human and environmental sustainability.

Triple Bottom Line (TBL)

Circular Economy- Regardless to the environmental advantageous of circular models related to significant decline in the use of virgin materials along with utilization of manufacturing by-products and abundant materials previously recognized as waste streams. However, Kates  (2018) has stated that circular economy can serve a resource-full substitute to the customary linear ‘resource-depleting’ economic model of produce-consume-waste. As circular economy has recently attracted considerable recognition in recent years it is well suitable for companies in the UK who have been supporting the strategy for clean growth.

Balanced Scorecard- This approach according to Garnett et al. (2014), can be increasingly as an efficient way companies can endorse, assess and benefit from sustainable development. However the most significant benefit of implementing the balance scorecard will enable organization to evaluate the contribution of sustainable development goals. As balanced scorecards do not function independently, it is most effective as part of a broader strategic management methodology and can distinctly be incorporated in organizations’ aiming for UK’s clean growth strategy.

Value of Sustainable Development in Food Sector

Sustainability is an emerging megatrend which is immensely significant for businesses to comprehend as well as implement into daily practices. The TBL of sustainability involves not only seeking economic performance, but further taking into consideration environmental and social impacts as well. Business organizations in food sectors especially the ones operating breakfast cereal manufacturing with sustainability in their DNA possess a higher rate of chances of achievements in comparison to companies which have to modify their practices. Yonglong et al. (2015) have found that sustainable consumption has emerged as a fundamental objective and one of the major factors of change for individual consumers aiming to serve their part in protecting the planet.

Furthermore, companies have been responded by bringing out new brand and product introduction in line with vital sustainable interests [4]. It has been witnessed by Kates (2018), that several companies in the food sector tend to use most efficient practices of sustainability. The section of consumers who are conscious purchasers of ethical and sustainable products like organic and other marketable products, consumer acceptance is immensely vital for the attainment of sustainable products. However Biggs et al. (2015) have noted that while shifting consumer values might have the propensity to drive some of the important corporate domain’s focus on all greens [5]. The world’s food supply primarily relies on goods which develop from natural resources whereby natural resources are identified to be finite.

Meanwhile, Kates (2018) has found that cereal manufacturing companies like Kellogg’s has started to consider sustainability as an operational risk in the long run if organizations fail to pay attention towards sustainability. Sustainability is identified as systems based which implies that cereal manufacturers need to pay significant attention towards protecting the world. According to Longoni, Annachiara and Cagliano (2018), this type of business engaged in food sector needs to think from the initial design stages regarding the entire cycle of a product [6]. Kellogg’s in recent times have started to track its greenhouse gas emissions in real time by implementing special software. Furthermore, milk production tends to account for more than half of the emissions whereby packaging, manufacturing as well as transporting are accountable for around 35%. In addition to this, refrigeration in stores as well as consumers’ homes tends to constitute around 10%.

Natural Capitalism

Reports revealed by Lindberg  et al (2017), that the development in Kellogg’s business practices can be considered as a reflection of the increasing rate of awareness consumers have attained regarding processes through which food is made and where it is sourced. Thus, the company has been balancing the needs of the market with concerns of its stakeholders. Sustainable farming is thus considered as a high priority on Kellogg’s sustainable agenda [7].

Kellogg’s further seek to understand the way its current work in Asian region with corn which leverage its triple bottom line. Corn signifies a specific sourcing advantage for regions such as Africa region as it is required by every plant in the region and is significant for the production of Kellogg’s most renowned product that is Special K which is a highly celebrated breakfast cereal for weight loss. Furthermore cereal manufacturer of Corn Flakes has recently revealed its sustainability report featuring new objectives for 2020 in order to expand the utilization of carbon energy and reduction of water usage with elimination of waste [8]. However, the company has identified that upstream agriculture emissions are considered to be single major source of emissions in the company’s value chain and will further emphasize on its endeavours of attaining agricultural reductions.

However as per the evaluation of Lindberg et al. (2017), the commitment could have a crucial impact on agricultural suppliers and compelling many suppliers to assess their emissions in an accurate manner for the first time. Kellogg’s commitment will further position newly emerged demands on agricultures. However, furthermore, the company is of the perspective that its primary purpose to work with suppliers to enable them to increase their level of resilience towards climate change will improve efficiency level and crop production and also improve soil condition.

In relation to its own operations, Kellogg’s has established some challenging goals given that its water consumption, energy usage along with overall emissions emerged over 2014 following a general downward development. According to Garnett (2014), Kellogg’s is committed in reducing energy, greenhouse gas emissions and water usage by an additional 15% per metric tonne of food produced from the year 2016 while increasing its usage of low carbon energy such as wind and hydro in its plants by almost 50% [9].

At this juncture, Jacobs (2018) has focused on the way various cereal manufacturing companies like Kellogg shows immense reliance on natural capital that involves energy for product manufacturing as well as distribution. In these procedures, water is used as an ingredient for facility cleaning and steam power along with food crops and commodities as a key ingredient. This natural capital reliance tend to be at risk of deficiency, quality impacts, price volatility and policy regulation because of climate change that is evaluated as a significant part of Kellogg’s overall enterprise risk management approach [10].

Furthermore, in 2016, the breakfast cereal manufacturer result to sustainability endeavours which have been consequential to the reduction in usage of water by around 2.9%, energy use by around 0.2% along with an increase in GHG emissions by around 2% per metric tonne of food produce in comparison to a baseline of 2015 [11]. However, Sierra (2017) recognized as an international food company, Kellogg shows immense commitment in seeking critical issues of climate as well as food safety and towards addressing critical food loss and waste [12]. In addition to this Pao et al. (2014) stated that the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) is greatly endorsed by Kellogg to share equally per capita global food waste at the retail as well as consumer levels and further reduce food losses with production and supply chains that include post-harvest losses by 2030 [13]. These major goals are efficiently being aligned with Kellogg’s commitment to proficiently reduce waste with a significant focus on food waste across the company’s end-to-end supply chain.

Role of Triple Bottom Line and Natural Capitalism on Kellogg’s clean growth management

Kelloggs.co.uk (2018) reveals that UK clean growth strategy entails the fourth and fifth carbon budgets which will span for almost 4 years and from 2028 to 2033 until then the UK is anticipated to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to around 58% below the level estimated during the 1990’s [14]. The Clean growth strategy further focuses on significant uncertainties which are inherent in the projections of policy impacts, economic development, societal transformations along with technological expansion and emissions [15].

Blignaut et al (2014) claimed as climate change has been fundamental to the core business concern of Kellogg thus to guarantee enduring health and viability of the ingredients the company uses in their products. As the Clean growth strategy will publish yearly balanced scorecards on the basis of strategy as a major part of its responses it will aid the Kellogg Company to efficiently establish a new-self reported metric which will help the company to identify its requirements and demands in order to evaluate its development [16]. Furthermore, Triple Bottom Line as well as Natural Capitalism will facilitate the company to proficiently measure clean growth performance.

Conclusion

Therefore, from the above discussion it can be stated that wide-ranging cereal manufacturers have been pioneering the implementation of cutting edge clean energy technologies. Furthermore, the cereal manufacturing giant has been relentlessly seeking for advanced processes and technology in order to delight its wide consumer base with breakfast items produced through innovative ways which curtail the environmental impact on consumers due to their operations. The paper has provided comprehensive insights to the way global breakfast manufacturing companies of food sector have been approaching its broader environmental footprint to correspond with the UK’s clean growth strategy.

References

1. Biggs, Eloise M., Eleanor Bruce, Bryan Boruff, John MA Duncan, Julia Horsley, Natasha Pauli, Kellie McNeill et al. “Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods.” Environmental Science & Policy54 (2015): 389-397.
2. Kates, Robert W. “What is sustainable development?.” (2018).
3. Garnett, Tara. “Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for life cycle assessment?.” Journal of Cleaner Production73 (2014): 10-18.
4. Lu, Yonglong, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Martin Visbeck, and Anne-Sophie Stevance. “Five priorities for the UN sustainable development goals.” Nature520, no. 7548 (2015): 432-433.
5. Shnayder, Larissa, Frank J. Van Rijnsoever, and Marko P. Hekkert. “Putting your money where your mouth is: Why sustainability reporting based on the triple bottom line can be misleading.” PloS one10, no. 3 (2015): e0119036.
6. Longoni, Annachiara, and Raffaella Cagliano. “Sustainable innovativeness and the triple bottom line: The role of organizational time perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics151, no. 4 (2018): 1097-1120.
7. Lindberg, Rebecca, Tyler Nichols, and Chrystal Yam. “The Healthy Eating Agenda in Australia. Is Salt a Priority for Manufacturers?.” Nutrients9, no. 8 (2017): 881.
8. Dania, Wike Agustin Prima, Ke Xing, and Yousef Amer. “Collaboration and sustainable agri-food suply chain: a literature review.” In MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 58, p. 02004. EDP Sciences, 2016.
9. Jacobs, Becky L. “Milton Friedman Has a Lot to Answer For: A Response to Joshua Fershee’s “Long Live Director Primacy: Social Benefit Entities and the Downfall of Social Responsibility”.” Transactions: The Tennessee Journal of Business Law19, no. 1 (2018): 21.
10. Høgevold, Nils M., Göran Svensson, H. B. Klopper, Beverly Wagner, Juan Carlos Sosa Valera, Carmen Padin, Carlos Ferro, and Daniel Petzer. “A triple bottom line construct and reasons for implementing sustainable business practices in companies and their business networks.” Corporate Governance15, no. 4 (2015): 427-443.
11. Sierra, Jordan Paige. “The Behavioral Effects of Sustainability Reporting.” PhD diss., Appalachian State University, 2017.
12. co.uk, Kelloggs.co.uk, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.kelloggs.co.uk/en_GB/home.html. [Accessed: 10- Nov- 2018].
13. Blignaut, James, James Aronson, and Rudolf de Groot. “Restoration of natural capital: A key strategy on the path to sustainability.” Ecological Engineering65 (2014): 54-61.
14. Doppelt, Bob. From me to we: The five transformational commitments required to rescue the planet, your organization, and your life. Routledge, 2017.
15. Pao, Hsiao-Tien, Yi-Ying Li, and Hsin-Chia Fu. “Clean energy, non-clean energy, and economic growth in the MIST countries.” Energy Policy67 (2014): 932-942.
16. UK, “Clean Growth Strategy”, GOV.UK, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-growth-strategy. [Accessed: 10- Nov- 2018].