Fernando Almeida
'Corporations Have to Open Their Doors'

By Maria Laura Mazza

There cannot be good businesses in societies that have failed. This is the premise of the book "The Good Business of Sustainability," written by Fernando Almeida. In this work Almeida affirms that the strength of the economy is intrinsically linked to the protection of the environment and to social development.

Almeida, executive director of the Brazilian Corporate Council for Sustainable Development, part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, spoke in an exclusive interview with Tierramérica at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

TIERRAMERICA: What are big corporations doing in favor of sustainable development?

ALMEIDA: Big corporations are taking on their civil responsibilities, investing not only in the environment, which is the norm, but they are also investing in the community. The world is increasingly becoming more privatized, the private sector is playing a much bigger roll. As a result, corporations have to perform those social responsibilities, not replacing national governments, but rather in accordance with them and with their societies.

Does that produce any concrete benefit for the underprivileged of this world? Poverty grows by the day.

That's true. It is a perverse result of the concentration of income. Brazil is one of the countries with the greatest concentration of income in the world. That has to change, and the discussions taking place in Johannesburg lean towards that [goal]. Our countries, especially the Latin American nations, have to break that vicious cycle of the elite. The long-term survival of our societies requires an immediate redistribution of income.

Why do you believe that sustainability can be good business?

Corporations have no other alternative because sustainability means survival. When a corporation invests in sustainability, its competitiveness increases because it becomes more ecologically efficient. More is produced with less: less water, less energy, less raw materials, and by working with the social sector its image also improves. Therefore, there is no other option. The market demands it.

In the case of oil companies in particular, do they invest in environmental sustainability or do they try to obstruct initiatives like the one proposed by Brazil, which tries to promote renewable energy?

On one side we have the Arab [oil exporting] countries, which try to obstruct it. On the other side are the big multinational corporations, like British Petroleum and Shell, which had problems in the past, but now are commended by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

It was noted that the agreement reached at the Summit on potable water and the distilling process had the condition that no objective would be set in reference to renewable energy. What do you think?

The issue of sustainability is one of ethics. I think it is absolutely unethical not to set goals or timetables in a world summit. I respect the position of each country, but if we want this planet to survive, we need goals and timetables established immediately.

Many multinational corporations adopted voluntarily initiatives for socio-environmental sustainability, but they are still dumping toxic waste in poor countries. Why do they not apply those voluntary codes?

I cannot comment as to what is happening all over the world, but in the case of Brazil, large quantities of toxic waste of an unknown source have been found. Nevertheless, there is strong support for the cooperation of the community and the media to help prevent this from continuing.

Developing nations from the Southern Hemisphere and civil societies are asking for a binding international instrument with the purpose of seeking corporate responsibility.

I think it is a matter of time, and when I say time I mean decades. That type of social transparency will be required some day. Every company that wants to survive will have to open its doors to society.

Will the Johannesburg Summit improve the circumstances of the world's poor population?

My biggest concern is the destitute of the world. Brazil has 20 million starving people. The world has two billion starving people, and that is a disgrace. That's why I wrote this book, that's why I am here, to make my own small contribution. I am an optimist. Otherwise I would not be able to work in this field. I think that societies will have to undergo radical changes in regards to the distribution of income, to be able to improve this world. Whether this Summit will progress towards this or not? That is my greatest doubt. (END)