**6. Why does sustainability matter?**

This section discusses the views of the different stakeholders on sustainability. In the beginning, the divergent views are discussed independently and subsequently synthesised to demonstrate their congruence and incongruence at the same time. The bigger question is whether these seemingly competitive views can be reconciled or not.

#### **6.1 Policy view**

Governments play a critical role in sustainability through policy, law, and investments. Despite the urgency to cut carbon emissions significantly, the United States of America (which is the second highest emitter after China) withdrew from the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration, only to re-join when President Biden took over. Law on methane taxation and tax credits on electric cars is facing resistance from both the Republican party, petroleum companies and third-party lobbyists. China is still non-committal on its plans to cut emissions. On a positive note, the European continent through its Green Deal has aligned its development agenda to attain 55% emission cuts by 2030. Substantial financial resources have been committed towards the eight actions identified including transportation, energy, industry, research, and innovation [27]. By contrast, the developing world does not have the luxury of resources commanded by their developed counterparts. Inevitably, this will keep sustainability off the developing countries' tables as they have more pressing priorities such as dealing with poverty, hunger and failing healthcare. In 2015, the United Nations COP21 agreed that the developed member countries will jointly raise USD100 billion to fund climate mitigation and adaptation plans for the developing world. Six years later, this is proving to be a challenge. On the other hand, politics, especially in working democracies can bring about change if the electorates are

informed and demand sustainable development policy. The decarbonisation of development has catalysed investments in clean energy, sustainable industry, development of electric cars, intensified research, and development in sustainable solutions. In the Netherlands, every new law passed, and policy made has to reflect their effects on sustainable development goals. At global level, the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs) 2030 have set the tone with the desire to achieve a sustainable future for all.

#### **6.2 Business view**

The need for businesses to be financially sustainable cannot be over emphasised. Again, businesses remain committed to creating wealth for investors, unless they have very clear social goals. Even then, [28] who claims to have coined the term triple bottom line (TBL), observes that 25 years later business thinking has not changed much. He asserts that business executives would "move heaven and earth" to ensure they reach their profit targets but the same cannot be said about the other two dimensions – people and planet. Part of the reason why businesses were reluctant to fully embrace sustainability was the idea that it only added costs and constrained economic performance [29]. Does sustainability pay? Using game theory, findings [30] demonstrated that businesses would invest in sustainability only if the demand-enhancing effect supersedes the cost-increasing effects especially when managerial incentives are subjected to negative rewards. From a business perspective, they may need government policy incentives to nudge them into sustainable practices [31]. Unless integrated global policies that motivate businesses to adopt sustainable practices are developed, the future looks bleak for both the planet and people.

#### **6.3 Customer view**

In the Introduction section of this Chapter, the customer is identified as a critical stakeholder through their choices of products and services. Their purchasing power gives them leverage as agents of change to influence business decisions, especially where sustainability is an important consideration in product choices. Whereas knowledge can be (and remains) critical, in some cases it does not shape action. In the UK, a study by Hornibrook et al. [32] that followed an observation of no discernible effect of carbon labelling on customer product choices, concluded that lack of awareness and understanding of carbon labelling were among the major contributors to low carbon products unfavourable uptake. The evidence points to either an informed customer but little will, or uninformed customers (who are the majority) with no appreciation and requisite tools to make sustainable decisions. Knowledge on sustainable practices is even limited in high institutions of learning in present-day USA [33]. Heeren et al. [34], however, demonstrated that knowledge was insignificant in predicting behaviour when controlling for attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioural control variables of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Even though this study was also carried out on university students in the USA, the message is that there needs to be more than knowledge to realise the desired change in behaviour towards sustainable practices.

#### **6.4 Societal view**

Recent years have seen socio-economic inequalities widen despite the advancement of technology and innovation that promised democratisation of economies.

#### *Enabling Sustainable Supply Chains in the Industrial 4.0 Era DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102040*

According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) [35] it is estimated that modern day slavery reached almost 25 million cases globally as of 2016. On the other hand, poor countries and those with low latitudes are disproportionally affected by climate change [36]. From a societal perspective, despite supply chains offering them choices, if not practised in a responsible manner, they have the potential of impacting lives and the future of the next generations negatively. Families are separated through forced labour while other vulnerable societies are exposed to harsh climate consequences. An existential threat is a reality. In the early 1990s, businesses started the incorporation of more socially responsible practices and the triple bottom line (TBL) reporting was born. According to Slaper and Hall [37], comprehensive investments that considered the people, planet and profit will likely support sustainable goals. The idea is that society through its forms (legal and political) can exert some pressure on business to act both ethically and morally. Society also desires to see governments taking action against polluters and irresponsible supply chains by making them pay for their deeds [11]. Unfortunately, global society hardly has a unified view on a wide variety of issues including sustainability. Societies tend to be heterogenous and have low issue agreement, making them very weak in putting pressure on the market players [38]. It makes sense to argue that societies are part of a political system that continually polarises them. On the world stage we have already seen how polarising politics can be on issues of sustainability in the USA elections. If society is to have any significant influence on sustainability, there is a need to confront an arena where power dominates knowledge [39].

### **6.5 Conglomerate (or summary) view**

Societies, especially those that are vulnerable see sustainability as an urgent matter that should be prioritised by policy. Ironically, when the same society assumes the customer cap, they lose their power of influence driven by either selfish gains (instant gratification) or lack of appropriate tools to exercise this power. The business community is looking for incentives to do what is "right", but in some instances doing the right thing may lead to bankruptcy and collapse. On the other hand, government becomes the hope through policy—this may prove ineffective when political mileage is the ultimate goal of politicians, overpowering scientific evidence. At the end of it all, no matter what the view or interest is, everyone shall pay for the severe consequences of nature when supply chains practices are oblivious of sustainability concerns.
