The 1972 Limits to Growth Report opened a Pandora’s box among economists that has yet to be contained—should economic growth be eternal? As the climate and environmental catastrophe worsens, it’s clear that humanity’s level of consumption and production of waste cannot continue sustainably on Earth. As we’re experiencing more frequent and intense natural hazards than ever before, this has recentered the question of whether or not we can make our economic system “green” or if we should shift to a new economic paradigm entirely.

Environmental economists Alex Bowen and Cameron Hepburn argue that green growth is “required for global welfare to rise in the long run.” But how does growth work? In industrialized economies, growth (as demonstrated in GDP) has supported the alleviation of poverty, the trajectory of innovation, and the sovereign power of nation-states. However, as ecologist Edward Abbey reminded us in The Journey Home (1977), the only example of unlimited growth in nature is cancer. Understanding how growth drives the global financial system can support environmentalists in rethinking what economic futures our world can withstand.

The concept of growth is closely linked to profit maximization, which is central to the functioning of market-based economies: investors demand optimal return on their capital. Quite simply, the money will flow to companies that can deliver the highest profits, and more investment can drive further profits. Investment drives profit, and profit drives investment; this circular relationship is central to capitalist models and leads to companies growing as they expand into new geographies and sectors and markets. Shareholder primacy theory, the corporate governance theory that has become ingrained into societal norms, asserts that profit maximization on behalf of shareholders is the sole purpose of company management. The concept was founded on the works of Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means in the 1930s and built upon by economist Milton Friedman in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. It’s the most common approach taken by company management globally.

The theory of shareholder wealth maximization has, in recent years, been met with significant scrutiny. Thomas M. Jones and Will Felps show that shareholder wealth maximization doesn’t equate to shareholder welfare maximization, let alone societal welfare maximization. Indeed, evidence suggests shareholder primacy theory doesn’t even serve the shareholders, the very agents the system aims to prioritize, very well. Shareholder primacy also means, by definition, that the financial interests of those who hold the most shares in companies, “a small, privileged elite,” are prioritized, writes Paddy Ireland. The rich must get richer. Alternative models, such as considering the welfare of all stakeholders (including customers, employees, and the wider public) in management decision-making have been increasingly discussed, yet in many economies, most notably the United States, shareholder wealth maximization remains the norm.

The damaging effects of profit maximization and unconstrained growth go beyond inefficiency. As companies grow, they lay down an ever-larger footprint on the planet. If the sole aim of a company is to profit, extraction and exploitation become the norm as businesses seek new resources to commodify. New oil fields will be sought to extract from, new mines dug, forests torn down to sell timber. Never-ending, never enough. The barriers to this ecological decimation are few and flimsy, depending as they do on regulation—ever struggling to catch up and difficult to employ and enforce internationally—and the reputational costs associated with such practices. Beyond physical environmental damage, the growth imperative and the necessity to maximize profits also incentivize rising wealth inequality and social instability. Racialized labor remains critical to the global supply chains of multinational corporations where low wages, unsafe working conditions, and limited labor rights minimize the cost of labor.

The incongruity of profit maximization was brought to public attention in the UK recently, as the scale of river pollution from water utility companies becomes ever more apparent. Sewage pollution caused by these companies has increased dramatically in recent years, to the extent that only 14 percent of rivers in England are deemed to have “good ecological status.” As aquatic ecologist Dania Albini explains, swimming in most rivers is increasingly dangerous due to sewage fungus and algal blooms. The companies responsible argue that the infrastructure investments necessary to cease pollution would be too expensive for their investors. Yet, some of the largest investors in these water companies are pension funds whose beneficiaries live in proximity to the polluted rivers. These investors are bound by fiduciary duty to their pension-holder beneficiaries; they must invest to make high returns, even if that means investing in companies polluting their local environments. But for the individuals who hold the pension, is it worth a local river being contaminated with sewage, increased flooding in their towns and villages, and increased water bills?

Growth doesn’t occur in a vacuum. As economists Myron Gorden and Jeffrey Rosenthal posit, the imperative for growth is a mandate of capitalism, which will always incentivize the exploitation of natural resources and labor to enact efficiency gains and greater profit. The fundamental tension between growth and the well-being of people and planet may be reason to rethink our current economic systems.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.