This is a GMAT official passage. Explained to a nine years old kid
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. EEF aims to reduce as much as possible up to zero waste from the production process. In an extreme way is what is called zero carbon waste. Very important definition
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. Two scholars say that the entire process could make the situation worse than better IF something else is not implemented
Such innovations reduce production waste but do not alter the number of products manufactured nor the waste generated from their use and discard; Two things to keep in mind, the process itself can reduce the waste during the process BUT
1) the product produced are the same. For example we produce 1 million of plastic bottle using 10 petrol barrels. we produce 1 millions of plastic bottles with 5 petrol barrels. Or even produce 2 million of products
2) The consequence is that we do have MORE bottle to discard or recycling
indeed, most companies invest in ecoefficiency improvements in order to increase profits and growth. The process above is made by companies to up their profits.
Less barrels used
More bottle produced
Ideallly, more bottles sold
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. The capital or money gained could be easily reinvested to produce more bottles in the old way fashion: construction a factory which produce the same number of bottles with still 10 petrol barrels
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.Even if we have a very super efficient EEF system IF it is too big the waste are inevitable bigger >>>>> so more waste in comparison or a LESS EEF system but is WAY much smaller in scale
Example: a EEF factory that produces 10 millions of bottles pollutes the environment WAY MORE than a factory , even though is NOT EEF, that produces 10 plastic bottles
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.EEF is NLt the solution and the definitive way to go. We must have a 360 approach to the production and waste reducing the
total material use and total accumulated waste2. The passage mentions which of the following as a possible consequence of companies’ realization of greater profits through ecoefficiency?
(A) The companies may be able
to sell a greater number of products by lowering prices.
Sell are not mentioned above
(B) The companies may be better able
to attract investment capital in the global market.
The passage talks about reinvestments not to ATTRACT new capital
(C) The profits may be reinvested to increase economic growth through ecoefficiency.
No The capital can be reinvested in old fashion factory
(D) The profits may be used as investment capital for industries that are not coefficient.
yes true. it is the exact contrary of what C (wrongly said.) CORRECT
(E) The profits may encourage companies to make further innovations in reducing production waste.
No. They point to make more profits NOT to reinvest them
Hope this helps
_________________