The world is increasingly asking businesses to stop being mere instruments for pillaging the planet and humanity.

-

That word is “survival”, of the planet and of the human species, as well as of societies and economic projects.

Survival has been a key concept for me since childhood, in the 1950s, when I began to notice the processes of physical, biological and social degradation of Rio de Janeiro's Guanabara Bay and its surroundings.

I was educated with the support of the modest income of my mother's schoolteacher salary, and I grew up observing how the sea horses disappeared from the bay as industrial waste began to accumulate in the water.

I thus learned that the anomalies and ills of contemporary society are also the consequence of humanity distancing itself from nature.

Later, at the Rio de Janeiro State Foundation of Environmental Engineering, I observed and confronted the arrogance of the politically and economically powerful in their treatment of nature. That experience showed me that the solutions based solely on power, even the power of the law, have their limits.

It was in the early 1990s when I perceived that sustainable development is only possible in a world where power is divided among three poles: government, business and civil society. It would be a tri-polar world, in which economic forces are intrinsically linked to the perenniality of natural resources and to social welfare.

Gone would be the times of economic dominance and indifference toward the environment, but also of exclusive concern about protecting nature, in which humanity and its suffering and needs were just an add-on problem.

Experience proves that investing in projects of ecological efficiency and of corporate social responsibility — two of the pillars of sustainability — is excellent business for companies that fight to survive in a market that is increasingly more demanding and competitive, and also good for society.

Sustainability requires a new world order, one associated with profound attitude changes in each nation, institution and individual. This also means a deep transformation in the business sector because we live in a world in which a handful of corporations are more rich and powerful than are some sovereign states.

Capitalism, which has proved to be the most efficient economic system, will need competent management so that in a few decades we may enter the era of sustainable capitalism.

Increasingly, the world is expecting business leaders to behave as private statists, and not as mere instruments for pillaging the planet and humanity.

There are three possible scenarios for our shared future. The first, known as “Frog” (First Raise our Growth), involves maintaining things as they are, and thus await the inevitable planetary catastrophe. It is also a horrifying metaphor: the frog does not perceive the gradual warming of the water in the pot, so it is cooked alive.

In the second “Geopolitical” scenario, a new global consensus seeks to replace the governmental and business leadership through technocratic solutions, sanctions and mechanisms of direct market control, to ensure social cohesion and sustainable environmental management, even at the cost of the economy.

But the third option is the ideal, the “Jazz” scenario. It is a musical analogy, as a jazz band depends as much on the individual talent of each musician as on the harmonic cooperation of everyone. In this case, it is the talent and cooperation of the three powers: government, business and civil society.