Are being sustainable and profit-driven mutually exclusive?

by Katharine Pang

It is common to forgo sustainability for profit, but it is changing with the shift of shareholders’ interest towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) and growing shareholder value due to implementing CSR. Therefore, it is possible and in companies’ interest to be sustainable.

Coles Group Limited is a typical case where achieving SDGs can lower long-term cost as evident in its rising profit to more than $1,000 billion. Economically, it creates a circular economy to attain the SDG of responsible consumption and production. For example, its partnership with REDcycle encourages customers to return plastic packaging and convert them into hand sanitation stations. Coles continues to sell plastic-packaged products, but recycling waste reduces greenhouse gas emissions and possibly cut cost. Socially, being recognised as the excellence award finalist in the best health and wellbeing program in Australian Human Resources Award, its engineering controls in waste management equipment and mental health programs investment promotes safety and well-being. A 15.7% improvement in Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate further proves the worth of social investments in reaching the SDG of health and wellbeing, increase productivity and minimise medical claims. Environmentally, its purchase of renewable energy and distribution of grants to support suppliers and small organisations using solar energy significantly reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2% to achieve the SDG of Climate action and combat climate change. Buying renewable energy is expensive but cost-effective by saving electricity bills. 

As evident in Coles Group Limited, being sustainable and profitable are not mutually exclusive. It also mitigates existing and future risks such as expectations to be responsible citizens and tightening environmental laws. Aligning purpose, that is SDGs and profit brings lasting benefits for corporations and society.