This article addresses several different types of corporate sustainability but, while there are overlaps, it is probably best to treat them separately.

Environmental sustainability is mainly about a business’s environmental impacts. Social sustainability is fuzzier and encompasses corporate social responsibility and the social licence to operate. It is mainly driven by the idea that a business has both a moral responsibility and commercial incentive to treat its employees, customers and the community in which it operates decently and fairly.

Commercial sustainability of the type envisaged by Peter Drucker – of businesses capable of long-term survival – may be attractive to investors but is not necessarily good for the broader economy. Such business are likely to exist in markets where there is limited competition or serious innovation. But in a dynamic economy, the process famously described as “creative destruction” by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter probably leads to better outcomes – innovation, competition and the push to improve efficiency lead to rising productivity and living standards.

Murray points to the decline of brands such as Singer and Nokia as evidence of the difficulty of sustaining commercial sustainability, and he is partly right, but the situation in Australia is different. Former economics professor and current government minister Andrew Leigh has done some fascinating work in this area. He points to the longevity of many of Australia’s largest businesses as evidence of a lack of dynamism here compared to other developed economies. In the USA, most of the current largest companies didn’t even exist 40 years ago. In Australia, almost all our largest companies 40 years ago are still our largest companies today – BHP, Wesfarmers etc. And many have been among our largest businesses for over 100 years.

This article is worth a read:

http://www.andrewleigh.com/simple_fact_is_our_future_demands_economic_diversity_op_ed_the_australian

People who produce through effort are now equal in numbers to those who depend on them yet no-one even goes anywhere near sorting that out ! The providers who invested during their working life for the life after productivity are having their investments squandered by irresponsible Public Sector Unions & their vast Army of snout-in-the-trough bureaucrats in meaningless positions !
We even have one on this forum who vehemently defends this callous exploitation at every turn !

From memory Peter Drucker is of Dutch Hebrew heritage and seems to be of the Transactional Management School of thought (rather than Transformational Management). He seems to have a similar view to fellow Hebrew travellers such as Ayn Rand. It's interesting sometimes to compare Business Management Schools of thought with Political Schools of thought. Globalism seems to be more authoritarian than Nationalism or Localism but is the prevailing model. Transactional Management (communication between individuals) is the prevailing business model that seems more analogous to Localism than Globalism (Transformational (structural) Management). All organisational structures contain both global and local elements but the nuanced contextual focus is important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxnb_zBNTv4

An appropriate comparison !

Amazing video Indyvidual. Kudos.