236 Environmental Biotechnology
commercial success nor environmental stewardship is particularly important for
the long-term future of the economy. Over the years, a certain brand of extremist
environmentalist thought has sought to demonise industry and commerce, decrying
them and casting them in the role of enemy. This is scarcely helpful, for two reasons.
Firstly, if any particular industry is actively damaging the environment, it is hardly
likely to react constructively to criticism from its avowed detractors. Secondly, and
perhaps much more importantly, industry in its widest sense is what has defined
humanity from the outset. It accounts for what our Neolithic ancestors did, trading
skins and flint axes across Europe; it is absurd to suggest that our collective future
will be different. The way ahead, then, is to accept this and chart a course which, if
it cannot do the most good in absolute terms, must settle for doing the least harm.
In much the same way as some have vilified industry, there are those who have
held the idea of a self-sustaining civilisation up to ridicule, arguing that ultimately
this would have us living in mud huts, devoid of all the benefits of science and
technology. The one view is as facile as the other.
The issue of sustainability has gained ever greater significance over recent
years, and this seems set to continue in the future. In 1987, under the aegis
of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Bruntland
Commission coined a definition of sustainable development. Their concept of
an approach which ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ has received widespread
international acceptance. The main aims have been further developed into social
progress to address the requirements of all, effective environmental stewardship,
the maintenance of high and stable economic growth and levels of employment,
and the utilisation of natural resources in a prudent fashion (DETR 1999). These
goals also tend to offer strong commercial benefits and as a result, businesses
have not been slow to see their potential. In a survey undertaken by the manage-
ment consultancy, Arthur D. Little, of some 500 environmental, health and safety
and other business executives in North America and Europe, 95% believed sus-
tainable development was ‘important’. Around 80% said it had significant real
business value, while 70% of the Europeans and more than 55% in the USA
reported an active sustainable development approach to strategy and operations
within their organisations, for reasons of perceived business advantage. In this
context, increased efficiency, competitive streamlining, better public relations,
work-force awareness and rising customer expectations were all cited, while the
impact of technological innovation was universally recognised.
In many respects, the move towards integration is inevitable. We cannot un-
screw one leg of our tripod without unbalancing the whole structure. Sustainable
development inherently demands a cogent view of resource management, and this
implicitly covers materials, waste and energy. It becomes impossible to consider
them in isolation. If waste becomes viewed as raw-material-in-waiting, one bridge
is clear. Between waste and energy, however, the current link is incineration and,
although this route will always be relevant for some unwanted materials, the