By Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim
A recent forum discussed the options for the world as global temperatures inch upwards. How can business be more planet-friendly? Hosted by the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, ASM, and Friends of Sustainable Malaysia, FoSM, the event attracted a good mix of audience including SMEs, civil society and academia. ASM President, Dato Dr Tengku Mohammad Azman emphasised the forum is part of ASM’s ongoing effort to invigorate the recently launched National Planetary Health Action Plan, NPHAP, which the government has adopted as a policy. FoSM, initiated about two and a half years ago, an idea mooted by a former Economy Minister Dato Seri Mustapa Mohamed, has been hosting regular conversations on the many topics of sustainability. The topics ranged from COP meetings, smart city, carbon market, and more. Chaired by Tan Sri Zakri Abdul Hamid, FoSM has gained a growing following among Malaysians keen to know more about the many issues of sustainability.
Invited panellists shared their stories about their experience with sustainability. A firechat session later saw a heated exchange on how business can truly embrace planet-friendly practices. Panellists traded views on the question of who should actually drive the change. The room quickly pointed its finger at the usual suspect: government. Only regulation, the argument went, can force a reluctant private sector away from the extractive linear economy. Only policies and bans can jolt consumers out of their convenience addiction. Not everyone agreed though. There was consensus that government can be the enabler. Business should be the game changer.
Few disagree that business bears the bigger share of responsibility for the planet’s declining health. Business built the linear “take-make-waste” machine. It perfected planned obsolescence and normalized externalizing pollution as a free cost. And yet, when asked to retool that machine, the corporate response is a whimper: “We’re not convinced we can maintain profitability” if the linear model is compromised. Profit remains a key concern of business. No profit no change. But, can current profit sustain in a warming planet? Many during the conversation admitted that the idea that only government can drive this transition is a comforting lie. The reality is messier, and more complex.
Many may not realise that change is already being driven from the middle. Consumers—especially younger ones—are not waiting for a carbon tax to stop buying single-use plastic or fast fashion. They are voting with their wallets, not perfectly, but powerfully. Meanwhile, a growing minority of businesses have already proven the circular model profitable. Companies include Patagonia, Interface, Philips’ “light as a service” – these are not charities. They are competitive, resilient enterprises that have decoupled revenue from resource extraction. The question is why aren’t more business following suit?
For the game changers among business, they have stopped asking “can we afford to be sustainable?” and started asking “can we afford to be obsolete?” It was made clear that Government has a vital role. Carbon pricing, extended producer responsibility, green procurement standards—these level the playing field and punish free-riders. But policy follows political will, which follows cultural pressure. That pressure is not generated in parliament. It is generated in boardrooms, on shop floors, and across social media. So, the real driver is leadership. Specifically, incumbent CEOs who stop hiding behind shareholder short-termism. Many of them quietly admit that circular models—leasing instead selling, designing for disassembly, turning waste streams into revenue—offer higher margins over a product’s life cycle. The barrier is not math.
It is first-mover fear. The first mover in a burning house is not a fool. They are the only one who might find the exit. Reflecting back, the forum’s question was not quite right. It is not who can drive the change away from the extractive linear economy. It is whether we have the nerve to admit we already know how. Consumers will follow clearer signals. Government will follow a mobilised electorate. But business? Business has the capital, the supply chains, and the engineering talent sitting in its own building. It does not need permission. It needs to stop asking for a guarantee.
The linear economy was a choice. The circular economy is another option. The planet is not waiting for a consensus. And frankly, neither should we. The risks of not moving away from the linear extractive business model are much higher than many envisage. Failure to change may even spell the eventual demise of future business. What is certain is we need more such conversations. This is the prime agenda of FoSM and ASM. Only through wider buy-ins from business, consumers and government can the targets articulated under NPHAP be effectively realised and delivered. Otherwise, we can continue dreaming!
— The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya.
