edf40wrjww2CF_PaperMaster:Desc
Introduction
Recently, some authors have argued that there is a
need for a paradigm shift or a fundamental
change in the practice of business, in organizational
behaviour and performance if the ideals of
corporate social responsibility and sustainable
development are to be achieved (Gladwin et al.
1995, Ehrenfeld 2000, Hueseman 2001, Senge &
Carstedt 2001, Welford 1998, 2002). However,
these calls are in a sense a re-statement of radical
calls for sustainable development already presented
in the 1960s and 1970s (M’Gonigle 1999).
This article shows what are the consequences of
the fact that these radical calls have failed and
become overshadowed by the technocentric paradigm,
by the conventional modernity paradigm
that already prevailed before the birth of modern
environmentalism. I concentrate on corporate
environmental management, a major issue within
the existing corporate social responsibility debate.
The article defines sustainable development as
development that does not systematically increase
the underlying causes of negative environmental,
social and economic effects (Robe` rt et al. 2002,
2004). In this way, it is relatively easy to determine
whether a certain activity is sustainable or
unsustainable. We know that, in the long term,
it is not sustainable to use non-renewable natural
resources, such as fossil coal, oil or natural gas.
Ehrenfeld (2000) views sustainable development
as development that sustains itself forever into the
indefinite future. By definition, the world energy
system is not sustainable. Eighty per cent of the
world energy production relies on non-renewable
fossil fuels (Will ...