Sponsored Ad:
See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Ecoefficiency

  1. #1
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    28
    Rep Power
    9


    Good post? Yes | No

    Ecoefficiency

    Sponsored Ad:
    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.

  2. #2
    Preparing ! 800's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    216
    Rep Power
    10


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No
    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?

  3. #3
    Still trying hard
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, NC, USA
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    12


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No
    I feel the answer is C.

    If B, What alternative is suggested? "businesses must develop a new systemic approach that reduces total material use and total accumulated waste'.
    it is not said what the "new" approach should be.

    am I right?

  4. #4
    Within my grasp! sandeep_chads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    437
    Rep Power
    14


    Good post? Yes | No
    even I went with B and I concur with 800's explanation. There is a reason to believe that the author is proposing some solution at the end and uses a 3rd party view to explain how irrational the current eco-efficiency methods are.
    Hey Harvard, I am right here!!
    rep me if I made some sense

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •