*Disclaimer-This editorial is written from a business perspective, however it has very interesting analogies and a good case study.
Many businesses measure growth by selling more stuff to more people, and consumer markets are expected to expand in the decades ahead.
The world is on pace to exceed 9.5 billion people by 2050, with far fewer living in poverty than today. Thanks to the rapid industrialization of developing countries like China, Brazil and India, 3 billion people are projected to join the global middle class in the next 15 years alone.
These demographic shifts represent both a human development victory and an enormous business opportunity for those companies positioning to meet the needs of added consumers.
But there’s a catch: Current consumption patterns, even assuming efficiency improvements, put the global economy on an impossible trajectory. We would use three times as many natural resources by 2050 compared to what we used in 2000—and what we are using today has already exceeded planetary boundaries.
Yet few, if any, companies are fundamentally rethinking the models by which they meet customer needs. This is the elephant in the boardroom—uncomfortable and unmentioned because the solution requires radical change.
Business Leaders at the Crossroads
Companies will not thrive if their growth strategies assume infinite supplies of finite resources.
Likewise, without progress on global environmental challenges like climate change, economic and social instability will undermine development around the world. Meanwhile, those businesses that remain stagnant will face more direct threats from the innovative business models that will emerge to deliver more value with the resources available.
While some companies are already investing in cleaner and more efficient operations and goods—such as fuel-efficient cars—these steps fall short if core business models remain predicated on selling more things to more people, requiring more and more resources.
Even with a significantly more resource-efficient economy, natural resource extraction would still increase by 40 percent by 2050, undermining global climate change and sustainable development goals and posing other environmental risks.
That means that to meet consumer demand in 2050—and grow earnings—companies must embrace changes to their core business models. Companies will need to rethink how they provide basic necessities, comforts and conveniences to billions more customers—without exceeding planetary boundaries.
A Case Study
The apparel industry is responsible for 10 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and 20 percent of its industrial water pollution.
Meeting the demands of a growing global middle class will mean innovating new products and services that deliver shareholder value and meet consumers’ needs in different ways.
For example, Gwynnie Bee and Rent the Runway are two clothing services that allow customers to rent rather than buy clothing, which can curb the wastefulness of fast fashion.
Discarded clothing represented nearly 8 percent of all municipal solid waste in the United States in 2013. Scaling sharing models would dramatically reduce environmental damages caused by the apparel industry, which is responsible for 10 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and 20 percent of global industrial water pollution.
Address the Elephant in the Boardroom
Moving away from unchecked resource consumption may be the defining sustainability challenge of our time, but even companies with laudable sustainability agendas stop short of addressing today’s unsustainable consumption patterns.
A review of 40,000 corporate sustainability reports between 2000 and 2014 found that only about 5 percent of companies mention some type of ecological limits. Of those, most did not provide detail on current or planned changes to address the issue.
Normalizing the conversation will set the groundwork for pursuing new business models that allow growth within the planet’s limits and generate value in new and exciting ways.
The choices that business leaders make today will define the future for generations to come. What they needs to do is outlined below-
- do the math by looking openly and honestly at their dependency on natural resources and the associated limits on business growth;
- take a leadership role by using their influence to change the conversation with key stakeholders; and
- transform the business to one that will thrive in a resource-constrained environment.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.