Creativity and innovation are enhanced when there is a strong motivation to promote them and sufficient resources. In this sense, the capitalist model enhances the economic development and the attention to the needs of society, relying on the motivation for wealth. The award Nobel of Economics, the prestigious Professor Milton Friedman, promoted the free market or capitalism as the most efficient means by which to satisfy the needs of others. He also added that it was the basis of freedom staff and political freedom, avoiding any discrimination based on race, language, gender, religion or political ideas. Of course, the capitalist market is based on a strong skill among the many companies that offer the same product or service to society.
The accumulation of money among the few sounds morbid, selfish and devoid of any social logic. This permission, which society gives to companies to accumulate wealth for their shareholders, is based on the existence of a strong skill in the markets, where those who launch the best products succeed and get rich, but it is necessary that there are really many companies competing. Unfortunately, for several decades, the skill has been shrinking because economies of scale, price control and investments in technology predispose to concentrations and absorption of competitors.
Let us be aware that the origin of the problem of the lack of sustainability of our planet lies in the behavior of companies and individuals. They are the ones who generate enormous amounts of pollution that damage the environment. There are, on the one hand, the people who are conditioned by the characteristics and requirements of the products and services they use and, on the other hand, the companies that design the products and services, as well as their characteristics and requirements. We can conclude, therefore, that it is the companies that are truly responsible for the enormous amount of pollution and damage to our habitat and environment. This is where the problem and the solution lie.
However, capitalism as a partial solution to the problem of creativity and innovation, forgot that its dynamics is a differential equation where power and money, in one of its functional solutions, end up destroying initiative (reducing the skill), impoverishing people (increasing chronic diseases and prices) and polluting the planet (eliminating waste at zero cost). This status we live in, of a few very rich and many poor and sick people, is unsustainable in time.
I recall two experiences that can help us understand the difference between polluting while being small or large. The first is that of a mayor, the second that of a powerful business sector. The mayor set himself up as the defender of the environment and, at the same time, promoted cutting down the forests, in exchange for money, and dumped the polluting waste in the bush to save the cost of treating it agreement according to the law. In the case of the tobacco sector, without enough power to totally manipulate the political class , but enough power to delay the transition to a sustainable and healthy leisure model . One, has power to slow the transition, the other, must operate as a poacher, both wanting to save the costs of sustainability.
Europe has shown a strong interest in defending social coexistence, sustainability and the role of countries in redistributing wealth and ensuring decent quality of life for people. However, this is totally insufficient to change the sustainability of life on the planet. The existence of a power greater than that of states, operating globally in hundreds of countries, the groups of investors coordinated to control the boards of directors of large companies and the strong lobbies that pressure politicians, have managed to impose their rules and lead us to a status where the planet and health end up breaking down, due to the excessive ambition for wealth.
The goal is to get companies to design and develop products and services that are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable thanks to laws that are more powerful than they are.
Changing the criteria with which companies design and develop their products and services now seems to be an absolute priority. Any product offered on the market must comply with sustainable criteria in its characteristics. Firstly, there is the design of the product, which must consider how it will be used by the customer and manage the generation of waste, energy consumption, durability and the possibility of repair or recycling. Secondly, there is the sale and use of the products, which must consider how they will be sold and used to improve sustainability. Finally, there is the management of the product when it has outlived its usefulness, which should address how it will be disposed of or recycled. Regulated by law, they must reduce the amount of natural resources they require, as well as the pollution they generate, and do so on the product's design .
Establishing the satisfaction of the real needs of customers and our planet as the main criteria of design is what best guarantees the environmental, social and economic sustainability of our systems(ISO 14040). Before the predominant criterion of creating shareholder value, we must promote the criterion of improving designs to enhance the customer experience, while eliminating pollution.
In conclusion, we can state that it is necessary to reduce the size of large companies to prevent them from conditioning the deliberations and decisions of the states. Furthermore, if the business is small and there is a lot of skill, it will refocus attention on the customer. Finally, companies should be obliged by law to design and develop new products and services that are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.
................................
Ricardo Mateo. department of business, University of Navarra
