Rana Plaza: The place where Occupational Health and Safety and Corporate Social Responsibility grossly failed

Collapse of an eight story commercial building, Rana Plaza was another horrific incident that occurred on 24th April 2013 in Savar; Bangladesh. It was the third major industrial incident in five months. Time and again we observer this kind of terrible incidents, while it's still fresh in mind, there is a desperate need to change the usual game.

Booming garment industry is one of the growing business sectors in Bangladesh and millions of people particularly women are employed to make cloths, which eventually end up in the foreign high street clothing stores like Next, H&M, Matalan, Primark, Bonmarche or even Marks & Spencer. I feel extremely proud when I buy a shirt or trouser from one the above mentioned shops where it says ‘Made in Bangladesh’, on the other hand, I equally get a deep feeling of guilt if the garment that I wore was made from blood, sweat and tears of those poor women and in many cases by children. Every time I tell myself it is reciprocal where both parties need each other as producers and buyers - thinking millions of people have got jobs, finally they will come out of the poverty trap at some point and their generations would likely to follow suit.

However, the progress has been one sided. Corruption, ignorance and greed have chronically failed those people at the bottom who should be rewarded in the first place. I will still proudly buy 'Made in Bangladesh' garments but I strongly demand to give exemplary punishment even though the perpetrators are the supporters of the ruling political party, punish those who violate building construction codes and make occupational safety and health a top priority.

Minimum [variable] wage of $9.50 a week, long working hours, bad working conditions, [complete] disregard to occupational health and safety and environmental issues have crippled the garment industry. Garment workers are frequently dying. It wasn't too long ago in the same suburb a fire broke out in another factory, surprisingly enough; emergency exit was locked down, as a result 112 people died as they were trapped inside. People have observed only lip-service from the successive Bangladeshi governments but the fundamental issues were never resolved.

New garment factories are opening every year but health and safety at work, social responsibilities and environmental issues still remain elusive. Many cases Health and Safety at work are mostly common sense, which goes hand in hand with common safety (common sense, common safety) to protect people at work from serious threats. People need to imply simple common sense whether the fire exit should be locked down, using flammable sprays in the clothing warehouse or finding a crack on the wall. In light of the evidence, garment factory owners have drastically failed to prevent death, injury and illness for their own workers.

Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR] or the Corporate Conscience has also perceived as window dressing. Most of the fore mentioned companies have their corporate self-regulations [self-regulatory mechanism to monitor and measure the CSR performances] integrated within their CSR policies. They have responsibility to carry out [reasonably vigorous] audits if their supplies are coming from ethical and moral sourcing. Repeated ignorance has no place when people's lives at stake. Garments owners, local and foreign buyers have their mutual benefits in this matter if the whole supply chains become more transparent and non-discriminatory to the factory workers.

Finally, garment industry is a treasure in Bangladesh and we should not let a few badly behaved factory owners and bad working conditions giving the whole industry a bad name. Time has come to put the house in order.

Kyoto Protocol: Far better than nothing at all

The most eagerly awaited United Nation's Climate Change Conference was held from November 26 to December 7, 2012 in Doha, but the meeting appeared to be quiet compared to any other meetings in the previous years. In the conference, the fate of the Kyoto Protocol - an international agreement on Climate Change was decided as the protocol commitments were due to expire at the end of 2012. The other key issues discussed included giving assurance to the developing countries for funding due to the ‘loss and damage’ that incurred by the climate change, negotiation on a new legally binding agreement by 2015 to enter into force no later than 2020 and accelerate the greenhouse gas reduction actions before the start of the new agreement. The conference outcome carry far reaching effects, as yet, little efforts have been made to public awareness and understanding. The media didn’t exert much effort to bring the information to the public.

Before the conference, the most worrisome of all was the fate of the Kyoto Protocol remained unclear – the only international agreement that sets the binding targets for rich countries. After much debate and wrangling, the Kyoto Protocol was tentatively extended to its second period but Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand decided to opt out from the Kyoto commitment. They favoured a non-binding target that expected to cut emissions by 10 to 20 per cent up to 2020. USA and China; two of the largest polluters in the world have refused to commit themselves to any legally binding emission targets. It is indeed very frustrating to see that after almost two decades of international negotiations; little progress has been made in order to keep global greenhouse gas emissions under control and to keep temperature rises below the targeted level of 2°C.

Over the years, the entire negotiation process and outcomes had been very slow and with no doubt if all the countries were convinced and they promised to cut desirable level of greenhouse gas emissions starting in Doha, yet targeted level of 2°C would unlikely be achieved. It’s mostly due to fact that carbon dioxide emissions have risen rapidly by even more than previously anticipated.  According to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA) that Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tones. The 2.6 per cent rise projected for 2012 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 58 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol.

Everyone recognises that the awful spectre of climate change looms over all the nations, particularly the world's poorest countries suffer first and most from the climate change. According to Fiona Harvey of the Observer newspaper: 'This is first time developing countries have received financial assurances and the first time the phrase ‘loss and damage' from climate change has been enshrined in an international legal document.' By far recognising the ‘loss and damage’ from climate change is one of the successful outcomes of Doha conference. But the key questions remain unanswered, including whether funds devoted to 'loss and damage' will come from existing humanitarian aid and disaster relief budgets (Fiona Harvey, The Observer, 8 December 2012). Funds devoted to 'loss and damage' will probably be one of the most discussed issues in the coming years as the details have not been worked out yet.

Countries like Bangladesh and the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) have special interests in this outcome as they are facing the toughest consequences of climate change. These funds would allow them to support climate change adaptation programmes in their countries. In the case of Bangladesh, this fund has become rather a contentious issue since the World Bank (WB) wants the control over Climate Resilience Fund. WB also plans to take some percentage of the fund as service charges. The climate change activists in Bangladesh demand that these funds should be controlled by an autonomous board under democratic ownership - meaning, representatives should be involved from all the major political parties, experts, civic society and victims of the climate change. Disagreements will lead more delays hence more suffering for the vulnerable people who are already trapped in a continual round of inequalities, lack of opportunities, social exclusion and lack of access to essential utilities.

It is an on-going debate whether Kyoto Protocol has made the matters worst or it has entirely failed to engage the worst polluters. Despite the extension of Kyoto Protocol, global CO2 emissions will continue to grow. Too little, too late but not doing anything while Global CO2 emissions are on rise is not an option either. European Union should be applauded for their proactive role all the way to the negotiations for a second Kyoto commitment. Now a second commitment period has been ratified by the European Union, Norway, Australia and Switzerland, however it covers only 15% of the global emissions. It’s a tiny portion compared to overall global emissions, but still it’s a step forward to the right direction. Just imagine if no countries want to commit themselves for a second commitment period then the entire protocol process would have been collapsed by now. The consequences would be more unplanned and uncontrolled global emissions hence accelerating the global warming and climate change. We need global collective efforts, patchy and isolated efforts will do very little to combat climate change. 

Paper: Striving towards sustainability

It was unimaginable that just a few decades ago people will be talking about eco-friendly production and responsible use of paper. Today, particularly in an office environment, we often get to see that there is such a willingness to minimise paper usage in order to save money and reduce its environmental impacts.  While this kind of approach has become widely accepted as good practice, yet there are doubts and confusion still exit with regard to origin, usage and disposal of papers.

Recent trends of ‘going paperless’ are largely exit as a concept but in reality it is virtually impossible to eliminate all hard copies of papers from our offices, academic institutions or even from homes. We need to use paper for various purposes - from printing balance sheet items in the offices to hand-written exam papers in the academic institutions or to a simple shopping list. Not to forget about wrapping papers for birthdays or Christmas presents. Papers are essential items that we all need to use occasionally.

Over the past many years, the most controversial issue has been logging of old grown forests to get woods for paper production. In order to avoid status quo, the creation of mono-culture purpose built plantation forests also raised serious concerns about the local ecological imbalances. Not only the deforestation issues in the developed and developing countries, but also air and water pollution, using non-renewable resources (e.g. energy produced from fossil fuels), treatment of waste, wood pulping processes and recycling of papers have been some of the major issues.

In light of this, the very fundamental questions ought to come in our minds - why are we destroying forests to make papers? Are paper manufacturers promoting eco-friendly and sustainable papers? Are we committed to responsible use of papers in our offices and homes? Why should we use recycled papers? Electronic communications may be more environmentally friendly than using virgin papers? And, many more!

There are many myths surrounding environmental issues related to paper. They are often referred to [common] misconceptions and people still believe these false impressions without realising the green improvement that occurred within the pulp and paper industries for the past many years. We cannot conclude (will still remain inconclusive and debatable in my view) whether paper is sustainable or not without discussing a few biggest myths and realities surrounding paper including – ‘paper industries destroy forests’, ‘making paper uses a lot or energy and water’, ‘making paper is bad for environment and climate’, ‘paper industry is out-dated’, ‘paper industry wants to make more paper as it is their bread and butter’, ‘recycled papers should only be used' etc.

Let’s explore briefly just a few of these facts and realities. Tropical deforestation is not happening due to paper industries greed for profits, rather increased demand in use for croplands and pastures from the locals, which is directly or indirectly connected to the effects of economic globalisation. There are many other reasons why tropical forests are declining; however it’s not the scope of this discussion. If we look at particularly in continental Europe, the forests have grown by over 30% since 1950, and are increasing by 1.5 million football pitches every year - an area four times the size of London (Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) forest factsheet, July 2008). As well, 94% of the paper we use is made in Europe (CEPI trade statistics, 2007 in Two Sides 2012). So, it’s a fact that European paper manufacturers are not using trees that are grown in other parts of the world, rather using home-grown raw materials. For other continents particularly in Asia, Africa and South America, it’s difficult to illustrate data comparability as similar statistics do not exist in many cases. Therefore, we can hardly draw any conclusion if the practice is sustainable in those continents/countries.

Pulp and paper industries use lot of waste materials (e.g. biomass materials such as wood chips & pulp waste) to create their own electricity. We may think that industry as a whole is using a lot of energy but on average it takes 500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity to produce 200kg of paper, the average amount of paper that each of us consume each year. 500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity is equal to burn a 60W light bulb continuously for one year or powering one computer for 5 months (International Paper, 2010). Whatever justifications there might be for using minimum energy or the biomass energy compared to other business sectors, I still dispute that unless energy sources are from 100% renewable, we cannot say that the pulp and paper industries have achieved their goals to accomplish complete environmental sustainability.

Similar logic applies in relation to water consumption. Despite water consumption for paper making in Europe has fallen by 1/3 since 1970 as a result of more efficient machineries (advance in paper making technologies hence paper industry is not outdated and inefficient), but still large amount of water is being used. This is one of the areas where pulp and paper industries will have to remain consistent in reducing further water consumption and water will be always needed for the paper manufacturing processes. In reality there is nothing call ‘water-less paper production’ and the difficulty with water is that it cannot be replaced by other alternatives.

Unlike other non-renewables (e.g. coal, petroleum, natural gas or radioactive super fuels such as uranium, plutonium, and thorium), paper is considered as renewable resource. Trees take water and carbon-di-oxides for photosynthesis processes (energy and carbon fixing reactions) and as a result release oxygen as by-products. Carbon is stored even when the trees are chopped down and sent for paper making. Trees can be replanted and re-grown therefore replenished over time – a cycle that can endlessly go on.

Paper acts as a carbon sink, holding carbon until they are naturally degraded. According to Ann Ingerson, a resource economist at the Wilderness Society tells ‘paper is not a good option for storing carbon because it degrades too quickly,’ Ingerson says ‘newsprint tends to last for a while in landfills, but office paper breaks down pretty quickly. In landfills it's broken down as methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas’ (Chen in Mother Jones, April 09, 2012). It seems paradoxical if we chop more trees to make paper and send it to landfills; effectively we are creating more greenhouse gases. In essence, we see again that like most other environmental problems, the effects of paper on environment are complex, somewhat minimal in terms of its proportional environmental impact ranking but not free from any air emissions.

In my view, the notion of ‘paper industry wants to make more paper as it is their bread and butter’ is not correct. Production of more paper over environmental impacts can be quite a conundrum for the pulp and paper industries. In order to protect their own existence, the pulp and paper industries will have to remain consistence in reducing their environmental impacts and concentrate more on sustainable forest management, which ultimately will provide secured supply of raw materials, or else pulp and paper industries will soon find themselves out of business. A parallel example can be drawn with many other goods and services presently exist in our society that depend on natural resources including water, fisheries, oil, natural gas and agriculture sector etc.

It is essential to choose the least bad option. Arguably, electronic communications may be more environmentally friendly than using virgin papers, but again, the same argument can be drawn whether the energy sources are from 100% renewables. With a reading time of 30 minutes per day the environmental impact of a web based newspaper is, in general, in the same range as a printed newspaper’s environmental impact (Moberg A, et al, 2007 in Two Sides 2012). It’s not possible to come with a clean slate with no negative environmental impacts in both cases. We will shift the problems if we choose only one option over the other without making the chosen one complete clean. It’s well and good if we can make that happen, until then we need to carry on closing the sustainability gaps as much as possible within our limits. Looking closely at the evidences, pulp and paper industries have surprisingly done very well in order to minimise sustainability gaps.

     

Corporations are at the heart of sustainability dynamism

Sustainability may still be in its infancy in absolute terms, but the move towards building ethically sound businesses has steadily gained momentum for last many years. Protecting the brand values, producing environmentally responsible products, carbon neutrality and social responsibilities are the new challenges for the board members. Many of these values have now embedded within the DNA of many business organisations. In their recent research carried out by edie.net, Sustainable Business magazine and Temple Group in the UK found that almost seven in 10 businesses (69%) consider sustainability to be a priority business driver for success in 2012, 40% of those see it as a high priority, i.e. at the core of their business strategy.

The rapid increases in sustainability into corporate culture obviously tell something. First of all, corporation’s survival at stake if they do not imbed these above mentioned values within their overall mission and vision. Secondly, it is logical to do so while businesses are facing increased environmental challenges, trying to achieve things that can make a difference to their businesses environmental performances as well as productivity, efficiency and profits. Very simple examples can be given from a world leading manufacturer of copiers and office automations. This company has recently developed a programme called ‘sustainability optimisation programme’ - an immediate and measurable results in five steps e.g. analyse, design, implement, govern & neutralise, in which customers are able to become carbon neutral across their document management services.

The manufacturer in this case has not stopped just to sale the machine hardware (used to be in old days); instead it developed an innovative way to reduce customer’s (In-Use phase) negative environmental impacts. Benefits have been immense for both the manufacturer and customers.  Manufacturer has received more new orders, re-boosted their completive advantage, increased green image, inter alia winning the top prize in “the EFQM Sustainability Good Practice Competition” in 2011. On the customer side, benefits have not been unnoticed. Customers managed to save costs by saving hard copy papers, energy and waste; in particular, they have also raised their green credentials - a win-win situation for all the parties involved.

For the same manufacturer, similar situation exist in the other aspects of development of new copiers and printers for example, technological innovation in energy savings (i.e. quick start-up technology that shorten warm-up time, ultra-thin shell-fusing roller that achieves quick warm up of fusing roller, two separately controlled heaters that achieve equal warm up of fusing roller, tin-free low temperature fixing eco toner etc.), bio-mass toner, bio-mass plastic parts, automatic green reporting (i.e. an analysis of customer’s ‘as-is’ energy usage and carbon emissions from the products and paper used). This kind of smart and small changes always help to create value. All these cutting edge technological innovations reflect company’s willingness to grow, staying ahead of the competition, while doing so, the company has also considered environmental impacts from their products, de facto help them moving towards a more sustainable (in economic terms) and environmentally benign future.

One of the biggest changes that has happened over the past two decades within the larger manufactures that is a holistic approach in thinking and planning all the way from digging the raw-materials from the earth to manufacture the products, distribution, selling and disposing the waste. Every step of the process touches the very core of three pillars of sustainability - economic, social and environmental aspects. Similar changes have happened also within the service sector organisations. They are very keenly following their economic, social and environmental performances of doing their business. They are also part of overall sustainability package.

The strategies to achieve sustainable business outcome is to secure first the brand integrity, transparency and authenticity. It would be easier and cost-effective for those businesses that have already received considerable attention for many years as an ethical business that has environmental good practices and social obligations within their overall corporate strategy. I am not suggesting that the new sustainability practitioners will have hard time – not quiet, they will immediately be picked up by the customers, then the business organisation can further strengthen their brand reputation by engaging more on social and environmental obligations and the effect could be even stronger.

I touched upon technological innovations in the above discussion. Businesses need to drive the green technological innovations (i.e. sustainability through green innovation), which would touch the fundamentals of sustainable business practices with the aim of reduced waste, innovative manufacturing processes that would require less water and energy, minimising greenhouse gas emissions, using more recycled and alternative materials to manufacture the same products. Also, it is important to encourage the entire supply chain as well as their customers to drive the green technological innovation to achieve similar benefits. By doing this, it is possible to bring everyone on-board within the sustainability obligations.

Sustainability does not mean that it is all about minimising CO2 emissions. It is in fact a tiny part of the whole sustainability dynamism. As our society is facing increasingly negative impacts of global warming from the green house effects, therefore minimising the CO2 has now become a usual norm. Sustainability dynamism is obviously much bigger than this. It’s not only saving water, energy, wise and careful use of resources or eating organic foods, but also, social policies related to the employees and the communities (particularly where the business organisations operate) are equally important as driving the green technological innovation or any other aspects of business growth.

Social policies such as equal opportunity and diversity, appropriate laws against discrimination, action against forced labour, health and safety, work-life balance, right pension scheme, freedom of association and collective bargaining, possibilities of internal promotion for the employees are also very important. Likewise, policies related to the communities such as human rights, job opportunity, children and adult education, infrastructure development, health safety and environmental protection and biodiversity conservation etc. are immensely important in achieving sustainability goals. They are two sides of the same coin and part and parcel of the value creating corporate social responsibility where business contributes to the social concerns and at the same time contribute to their business growth.

Larger business organisations are perhaps one of the biggest sectors in our society, employing millions of people and many cases operating almost every country in the world. It is possible to achieve near sustainability point if every business organisation and their employees do their part. A collective approach within the business sector could bring our society closer to a sustainable future that we all wish for.      

Building resilience to the climate change in Bangladesh

Bangladesh as a nation stands at ground zero in the face of climate change crunch. It is well supported with evidence that the unique geographical location with complex physical environment has put Bangladesh at the epicentre of one of the greatest threats that mankind has ever faced. Sited in the Bengal delta, it’s one of the most fertile regions on earth, but not prone to the natural calamities. Population in the area have been living under the natural calamities for generations; hence they have naturally developed strong individual and community resilience in a dynamic way. While the impacts of climate change are intensifying – increasingly people will have to build extra resilient communities to prepare for the worst.

I start to wonder if I am being too pessimistic and sounding more like the doomsday is approaching. May be it is too harsh but surely Bangladesh has got an impending crisis in its hand and bearing the biggest burnt of the impacts of climate change. From inundating low-lying coastal areas to stronger cyclones, increased coastal erosion and flooding, intrusion of saline water, changing patterns in crops and vegetation, risk of spread of infectious diseases and environmental refugee are among few noticeable problems. No doubt, it is a matter of great concern and The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) has taken it very seriously. In 2005, the Government of Bangladesh developed the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) after extensive consultations with the public and private sectors, with different communities and other members of civil society. Subsequently Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) were also adopted in September 2008 with the aim to tackle climate change impacts for next 10 (2009 – 2018) years, also capacity building for next 20 - 25 years.

It says - ‘it’s better late than never’. Even if it is late but at best the mitigation and adaptation process and the overall national efforts to build resilience has started. Long before the unforeseen consequences of climate change, Bangladeshi people had to adapt themselves with the heavy rainfalls, floods, droughts, cyclones for generations. People built their houses on the mounds and raised the rural roads and paths where there have been risks of flooding. Farmers watched very carefully seasonal patterns before planting their crops, planting more water tolerant and high-yield crops (e.g. different varieties of rice, alternative cereals) as the knowledge and availability of seeds grew over the years, moving to temporary storm shelters, and also moving their domestic animals to safer places. Most of the cases no one had to teach them – life experiences have been their best teacher.

Among others, one of the biggest challenges that GoB has to tackle is the climate refugee issues. Comprehensive surveys carried out in 2010 by over 200 community-based organisations and coordinated by the remarkable efforts of the Association of Climate Refugees found that a staggering 6.5 million citizens (1.3 million households) of Bangladesh have already been displaced by the effects of climate change (Leckie et al, 2011). The need for solution for climate displacement people and improvement of data collection of migration from the affected areas are absolutely paramount.

However, there are no clear indications how population displacement problems will be addressed in the policies (Akter, 2009). In addition, there are no detailed action plans with a timeframe to tackle this problem. By and large, GoB has provided support and rehabilitation programmes when it is needed on the ground after the event of any natural disaster but this support has been somewhat peace-meal and sporadic basis. Negligence, corruption and favour people who support the same political party in power over others by the local disaster management authority should be avoided primarily for the greater benefit of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people.

Affected local communities should be recognised as the most important party to get involved in the community based adaptation process. First question needed to be asked – what the community wants and then choosing the right issues & methods to combat the impacts. Local community should be motivated to be involved and the authority (e.g. local government) should value their involvement, besides the authority need to be clear about how the community will be benefitted from participating in such initiatives. Using their local understandings and making sure that the right priority to the right community in adaptation measures is being deployed. Furthermore, non-biased participation is very much needed and not only government experts or the bureaucrats but also experts from wider public sector should be involved in the public participation process.

Last but not least, everything is meaningless if actions are not behind the words. Repeatedly, it’s been pointed out that having plethora of national policies to tackle climate change wouldn't help if they are not respected and implemented appropriately. Making people aware of climate change impacts by balance and accurate reporting on the newspapers, local and national radios and TVs, also communicating the causes of global warming and climate change, what government is doing about it and sharing community best practices in adaptation processes are absolutely crucial.

  

Sustainability is a utopian dream and magnanimous entity

In everyday life we hear about the words 'sustainable' and 'sustainability' almost in everything. These words are commonly used as sustainable livelihoods, sustainable transport, sustainable energy, sustainable agriculture, sustainable economy, sustainable society, biological sustainability and various types of sustainability indexes and the list can go on. We have seen this growing trend since late 80’s when the United Nation’s Bruntland Report; also known as ‘Our Common Future’ was published with a key statement on ‘Sustainable Development’ as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ Since then, the society has been in the midst of continual transformation towards a sustainable future that is expected to preserve wellbeing of the present and future generations to thrive on a habitable planet.

To me ‘Sustainability’ is an enormous word encapsulates almost everything that is practically happening around us. It’s the human capacity to endure in economic, environmental and social aspects – a widely accepted vision, which is probably here to stay with us for very long time. While tightly-knotted with the three pillars (e.g. economic, environmental & social aspects), sustainability can be difficult to be understood, even more difficult to foresee whether absolute, complete or even near sustainability is somehow achievable.

Undoubtedly, sustainability is good and it’s the very best thing on our plate at this moment in time. It took long time for our society to understand that human development and progress goes hand in hand with the health and wellbeing of our planet. If you turn the clock back for only 50 years then you will find that no one actually talked about carrying capacity of natural systems, green development, ecological modernisation or even responsible planning and management of resources. Now the world must consider these underpinning ideas for its own survival.

However, Putting sustainability perspective into practice is increasingly harder when the ‘sustainability divide’ between rich and poor countries are so large; given the fact that it’s almost dream comes true for those poorest countries to reach at least a near sustainability point. One person’s sustainability measure in richer countries can be other person’s (extreme) luxury in the poorer countries. In many fronts, ‘sustainability divide’ between rich and poor countries are very uneven and once we start talking about the divide, it would definitely touch the very core of many burning issues in recent time namely population growth, poverty, food & fresh water scarcity, global inequality of consumption, economic insecurity, environmental pollution and climate change etc.

Some claim with justification that pursuing a social-economic-environmental (triple bottom line) relationship is easy to be implemented. But I think it’s not as easy as it seems. A few very simple examples can be mentioned here (there are of course many more) to illustrate the complex relationship in bridging the great divide between rich and poor countries, such as using energy efficiency devices in homes, waste recycling, deterioration of public health due to increased level of pollution, discrimination in respect of employment and occupation and economic insecurity of low income families etc. These are multidisciplinary areas yet interconnected challenges within sustainability aspirations. All these challenges can be pinned down one big umbrella of ‘poverty elimination’ issues, which fits within the sustainable livelihoods approach.

In the poorer countries, in general, using energy efficiency devices in homes is a luxury. In fact millions of families in those countries do not have any devices at all because they cannot afford it. And, those people who have the devices don’t know how they are going to dispose it at the end of the product life-cycle as there are no organised waste management and recycling centres. As a result, these used products will end up in wrong hands; thus increases the risk of air, water and soil contamination. This is a very simple example illustrates that lack of appropriate and well-maintained waste management and recycling centres, the aspirations (of a very tiny portion) of sustainability issues cannot be fulfilled.

Another classic example is environmental degradation in urban areas. The root causes of environmental degradation in urban areas are the unplanned and hardly coordinated inter-play of socio-economic, institutional and technical activities. The rapid and unplanned expansion of the cities has resulted in the degradation of urban environment and the city dwellers are the victims who are taking its toll on their health. Coping with these impacts depend on a society's technical, institutional, economic, and social ability. Near sustainability may be possible when a country has got these abilities to cope with the impacts, however reaching to that point for many countries around the world is still a very long way to go.

Numerous examples can be drawn to show the disparities but fact of the matter is near sustainability cannot be achieved if we do not tackle poverty, and those interrelated elements that inflict and increase the poverty rates. We must appreciate that society have found sustainability silver bullet - at least having a perspective and focusing to preserve the wellbeing for the present and future generations but let’s not be lulled into utopian dream that sustainability will be achieved very soon. It’s a process that I think will take very long time – it’s not time yet to think about beyond sustainability issues as society is still in a premature stage in responding the present global sustainability promises.  

Grammen bank, micro-entrepreneurs & green economy: Bangladesh perspective

Professor Muhammad Yunus’s Grammen Bank has come a long way since its origin in 1976. Admittedly, it wasn’t an easy journey; not least his recent brawl with the Government of Bangladesh when he was ordered to step down as head of the micro-finance bank. However, in 2006, the World has recognised his contribution in poverty reduction and subsequently he was awarded Nobel peace prize. It made him world famous - all gratitude on behalf of people of Bangladesh go to him as he made all Bangladeshis very proud indeed.

His concept on micro-finance is very simple. Rural poor people (with a particularly emphasis on women) can take small loans to start any business, which they are usually good at doing. Once revenue start to come in, they can start returning the money that was borrowed and with the help of revolving loan funds their businesses can further grow, thus leaving behind poverty and destitution. A fantastic idea that was revolutionised entire banking system in mid 1970s.

On the other hand, economic impact assessment of micro financing has been debated in the literature for many years. Particularly in Bangladesh many researchers do not agree with the conclusion that micro-credit definitely increase poor people’s income and consumption hence reducing the poverty level. Critiques have been arguing that micro financing is slow, high interest rates, over-indebtedness, commercialisation, lack of women’s authority in a male dominated society, religious tradition (e.g. sharia tradition), cultural stigma (e.g. women dependency is repulsive) and natural calamity (that wipes of loan holder’s assets) have put added obstacles in economic empowering of women.

The debate goes on - if micro-financing is helping poor people to reduce their poverty level then why after so many years millions of people are still poor in the rural Bangladesh. If the same concept is working appropriately in other countries around the world then where has it gone wrong in Bangladesh? It isn’t a logical fallacy but a valid question. Counter argument is that there are too many people to lift them out of poverty and many variables and factors associated within the context of Bangladesh; moreover, in a slow process like micro-financing, it would take decades to see the real impact. Indeed, it has been very debateable, yet over the last three decades millions of poor people were benefited with the help of micro-financing in Bangladesh.

Critics, more specifically the proponents of communist ideas have gone further - saying that the entire flagship Grammen Bank micro-credit movement is another way to counter the spread of communism. Providing small and hand-to-mouth loans to the poorest would thaw the undercurrent in building any future revolution, which could potentially jeopardise the capitalist system. And counter the spread of communism would be highly desirable by the capitalist masters. That, in my opinion, may or may not be verifiable as there is no hard evidence to prove that the expansion of global empire had reached to the poorest in rural Bangladesh by introducing micro-financing system in mid 1970s.

Say, if the communist revolution were to happen, then perhaps there would be an arms struggle and the conflict might drag for many years. We don’t have to go too far – our neighbouring country India is a perfect example, the Maoist revolutionaries have been fighting for decades against poverty and extreme inequality in parts of Central and Eastern India, including Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand. The Indian government repeatedly launched full-scale war against these rebels and the consequences have been more deaths and destruction.

After the recent economic turmoil around the World, the communism-capitalism cat-and-mouse arguments have metaphorically become ailing lame-duck. Banking crisis around the World is costing taxpayers’ vast amount of money; whilst banks are still reluctant to provide loans to the small businesses, which in turn would reactivate the economy. Irresponsible free market capitalism that led us into this situation and the world need to get out of this recession unless bank will provide more micro finances to the small and medium sized businesses. Therefore, there is a need for this mechanism to be applied to the wider scale around the world.

On the other hand communist system driven by a centralised economic planning has not worked either and that is why economic reforms (e.g. de-collectivisation of agriculture sector, promote private entrepreneurs and foreign direct investments etc.) were taking place since 1980s in most of the major communist countries. But that does not mean that the revolution should not be happening, also its capability should not be underestimated. Given that it can happen in different ways. Revolution needs to happen to build a new green economy that would result in poverty reduction, increased equality and human wellbeing while reducing environmental negative impacts and at the same time increasing natural capital.

We ought to build a low carbon and resource efficiency society. Keep that in mind, Grameen Bank can make a real difference largely to rural Bangladeshis by introducing more and more micro-credits for renewable energy, pollution prevention, and water purification and desalination technologies.