Jump to content
Urch Forums

Ecoefficiency


Recommended Posts

Ecoefficiency (measures to minimize environmental impact through the reduction or elimination of waste from production processes) has become a goal for companies worldwide, with many realizing significant cost savings from such innovations. Peter Senge and Goran Carstedt see this development as laudable but suggest that simply adopting ecoefficiency innovations could actually worsen environmental stresses in the future. Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the

number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; indeed, most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth. Moreover, there is no guarantee that increased economic growth from ecoefficiency will come in similarly ecoefficient ways, since in today’s global markets, greater profits may be turned into investment capital that could easily be reinvested in old-style eco-inefficient industries. Even a vastly more ecoefficient industrial system could, were it to grow much larger, generate more total waste and destroy more habitat and species than would a smaller, less ecoefficient economy. Senge and Carstedt argue that to preserve the global environment and sustain economic growth, businesses must develop a new systemic approach that reduces total material use and total accumulated waste. Focusing exclusively on ecoefficiency, which offers a compelling business case according to established thinking, may distract companies from pursuing radically different products and business models.

 

The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. explain why a particular business strategy has been less successful than was once anticipated

B. propose an alternative to a particular business strategy that has inadvertently caused ecological damage

C. present a concern about the possible consequences of pursuing a particular business strategy

D. make a case for applying a particular business strategy on a larger scale than is currently practiced

E. suggest several possible outcomes of companies’ failure to understand the economic impact of a particular business

strategy

 

 

Could someone explain me the answer plz? I am confused between A and D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the options are very cloase !

 

Structure of the passage :

Ecoefficiency -cost saving -

PS & GC "worsen in future" - Strategy - reduce pd waste - BUT not no of pd and subsequent waste - profit and growth - NOT constant growth - large investment > large pd > large waste.

PS & GC - systematic approch - other wise distract

 

Option A : we can not say "less successful". In the end of the passage , the conclusion urge for new systemic approach.

Option B: Contender

Option C: Contender

Option D: The point / main purpose is not to make a case.

Option E: Possible outcomes are there ( ? )

 

Between B and C.

C wins Because: All the things are presented through ANOTHER PERSON's VIEW (Senge and Carstedt).

My pick is B.

But I am still NOT totally convinced.

Is there any OA or Explanation available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...