Content uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucio Muñoz on Apr 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 103: How the shift from traditional markets to
green markets would have looked like had the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended
then an environmental sustainability fix?,
Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.3, March,
La Paz, Bolivia.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sustainability thoughts 103: How the shift from traditional markets to green markets
would have looked like had the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended then an
environmental sustainability fix?
By
Lucio Muñoz*
* Independent qualitative comparative researcher/consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Email: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
Abstract
It can be said that the traditional market is a free market that brings together traditional
producers(K) and traditional consumers(L) under the assumption of full social and
environmental externality neutrality. And this create a circular traditional economy illusion, the
idea that production activity can take without generating production and consumption
externalities. The fact that the social and environmental externalities associated with the
traditional market are real leads to a disconnect between social and environmental externalities
and traditional market pricing. In order to correct this disconnect, the 1987 Brundtland
Commission recommended the use of sustainable development thinking, which was the wrong
recommendation since the externality problem affecting the traditional market was and is a
sustainability issue, not a sustainable development issue. There were 3 possible corrections to
this sustainability problem: i) a full social and environmental externality correction or
sustainability fix; ii) a partial correction through green markets or an environmental
sustainability fix; and iii) a partial correction through red markets or a social sustainability fix.
The discussion above raises some interesting questions depending of the type of fix that is
recommended. With respect to the first possibility, the sustainability fix recommendation, the
answer of how it would have looked like was recently shared in detail graphically and
analytically(Muñoz 2020b). With respect to the second possibility, the question is how the shift
from the traditional market model of Adam Smith towards green markets would have looked like
had the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended then an environmental sustainability fix?
The main goal of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.
Key concepts
Environmental externality, social externality, Traditional market, green market, green
economy, cost internalization, cost externalization, externality neutrality assumption, circular
traditional market illusion, circular green market, circular green market illusion, the traditional
market price, the green market price.
Introduction
a) The structure of the traditional market of Adam Smith
It can be said that the traditional market(TM) is a free market that brings together
traditional producers(K) and traditional consumers(L) under the assumption of full social and
environmental externality neutrality, a situation that has been recently summarized(Muñoz 2020a)
as follows:
Figure 1 above tells us the following about the traditional market(TM): i) social and
environmental externalities[E(AC)] are exogenous issues to the model so they are externalized as
indicated by the continuous orange arrow from TM to E(AC); ii) traditional production(K) and
traditional consumption(L) externalities are irrelevant as indicated by the broken black arrows
from K and L to E(AC); iii) traditional producers(K) and traditional consumers(L) interact freely
in the traditional market(TM) as indicated by the continuous and opposing black arrows between
K and L; iv) the traditional market price(TMP = P) is determined then by the free interaction of
traditional supply(K) and traditional demand(L) as indicated by the continuous black arrows
from K and L to TM; and v) the model operates under rationality and fully independent choices.
b) The circular traditional market illusion
Since according to Figure 1 above social and environmental externalities[E(AC)] are
assumed irrelevant in the traditional market model(TM), then they can be left out of the model,
which leads to the circular traditional market illusion depicted in Figure 2 below:
Figure 2 above simply says economic activity and economic growth take place in the
traditional market(TM) without producing social and environmental effects[E(AC) = 0], which is
the thought behind the circular traditional market illusion. In other words, we produce and
consume under zero social and environmental externality impact when operating under the full
externality neutrality assumption. This assumption makes the traditional market(TM) a distorted
market in social and environmental terms(Muñoz 2010).
c) The externality problem affecting the sustainability of the traditional market model
As it is a fact that production and consumption externalities associated with economic
activity[E(AC)] are real, then there is a disconnect between the pricing mechanism of the
traditional market(TMP = P) and social and environmental externalities[E(AC)] that need to be
accounted for, which lead to the externality problem affecting the sustainability of the traditional
market model(TM) as indicated in Figure 3 below:
The broken orange arrow between TM and E(AC) in Figure 2 above represents the
externality problem affecting the sustainability of the traditional market(TM) as the relevant
externalities indicated by the continuous black arrows from K and L to E(AC) are not accounted
for in the traditional market price(TMP = P) of the traditional market(TM). As indicated recently,
correcting now the externality problems in Adam Smith’s traditional market model has led us to
approaching sustainability backwards in terms of economic ideas(Muñoz 2012).
d) The 1987 Brundtland commission’s sustainable development solution to a sustainability
problem
The Brundtland commission in 1987(WCED 1987) saw the social and environmental
disconnect indicated in Figure 3 above under which business as usual had been operating; and it
called for solutions to this social and environmental disconnect through sustainable development
means. The Brundtland commission in 1987 apparently failed to see that the externality problem
affecting the traditional market model of Adam Smith detailed in Figure 3 above was and is a
sustainability problem, not a sustainable development problem; and therefore, the Brundtland
Commission recommended the wrong approach to deal with the sustainability problem. There
were 3 possible corrections to this sustainability problem depicted in Figure 3 above: i) a full
social and environmental externality correction or sustainability fix; ii) a partial correction
through green markets or an environmental sustainability fix; and iii) a partial correction through
red markets or a social sustainability fix. It has been pointed out that using sustainable
development tools to address a sustainability problem is a direct violation of the theory-practice
consistency principle(Muñoz 2009), and if we do so we are using tools that are inconsistent with
the nature of the problem we are trying to solve.
e) The need to understand the nature of a partial fix through green markets to the
environmental externality problem affecting Adam Smith’s model
The discussion above raises some interesting questions depending of the type of fix that
is recommended. With respect to the first possibility, the sustainability fix recommendation, the
answer of how it would have looked like was recently shared in detail both graphically and
analytically(Muñoz 2020b). With respect to the second possibility, a correction that was the
focus of attention at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable development Rio +20 in
2012(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b), the question is how the shift from the traditional market
model of Adam Smith towards green markets would have looked like had the 1987 Brundtland
Commission recommended then an environmental sustainability fix? The main goal of this
paper is to provide an answer to this question.
Goals of this paper
i) To indicate the structure of the environmental externality problem affecting the
traditional market model; ii) To highlight the structure the green market fix to the environmental
externality problem affecting Adam Smith’s traditional market model; iii) To stress the structure
of the circular green economy associated with the environmental sustainability fix; and iv) To
point out the environmental externality gap or environmental sustainability gap embedded in the
circular traditional market illusion.
Methodology
First, the terminology used in this paper is shared. Second, the operational concepts and
externalization and internalization rules supporting this paper are discussed. Third, the structure
of the environmental externality problem affecting the traditional market model is indicated.
Fourth, the structure the green market fix to the environmental externality problem affecting
Adam Smith’s traditional market model and its implications are shared. Fifth, the structure of
the circular green economy associated with the environmental sustainability fix; and its
implications are highlighted. Sixth, the structure of the circular traditional market illusion in the
face of real environmental externality cost is shared to highlight the environmental externality
gap or environmental sustainability gap embedded in the traditional market. Seventh, the
structure of the perfect green market or environmentally friendly market is pointed out. Eighth,
the nature of the circular green market illusion is highlighted. Finally, some food for thoughts
and relevant conclusions are provided.
Terminology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = active social system a = passive social system
B = active economic system b = passive economic system
C = active environmental system c = passive environmental system
TM = traditional market GM = green market
K = traditional producers/supply L = traditional consumers/demand
GK = green producers/supply GL = green consumers/demand
EEM = environmental externality management M
i
= market type i
E(T) = externalization of T I(t) = internalization of t
E(AC) = externalization of A and C I(ac) = internalization of a and c
TMP = traditional market price GMP = green market price
ESG = environmental sustainability gap EEG = environmental externality gap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational concepts and externalization and internalization rules
i) Operational concepts
1) Traditional market, the economy only market
2) Green market, the environmentally friendly market
3)Traditional market price, the general market economic only price or the price that covers the
cost of production at profit(TMP = ECM + i = P) or zero profit(TMP = ECM = P).
4) Green market price, the price that reflects both the economic and the environmental cost of
production or the price that covers the cost of environmentally friendly production.
5) Cost externalization, the leaving out of the pricing mechanism of the market relevant costs
associated with production.
6) Social cost externalization, the leaving out of the pricing mechanism of the market the social
costs associated with production.
7) Environmental cost externalization, the leaving out of the pricing mechanism of the market
the environmental costs associated with production.
8) Economic cost externalization, the leaving out of the pricing mechanism of the market the
economic costs associated with production.
9) Cost externalization assumption neutrality, the assumption that production has minimal or
no cost impact on external factors to a market model.
10) Full costing, the reflecting in the pricing mechanism of the market all cost associated with
production; there are no market distortions.
11) Partial costing, not reflecting in the pricing mechanism of the market all cost associated
with production; there are partial market distortions.
12) No costing, not reflecting in the pricing mechanism of the market any costs associated with
production; there is full market distortion.
13) Full inclusion, all factors are endogenous to the model, there are no exclusions.
14) Partial inclusion, some factors are exogenous to the model, there are some exclusions.
15) Fully independent development choices, when we have individual development choices
unrelated to each other or pure choices such as society only(A), economy only(B), and
environment only(C). In this world only fully independent development choices exist so the set =
{A, B, C}. This is the world of the Arrow Impossibility theory and theorem.
16) Partially codependent development choices, when we have mixed/paired development
choices such as socio-economy(AB), socio-environment(AC), and eco-economy(BC). In this
universe only codependent development choices exist so the set = {AB, AC, BC}. This is outside
the normal world of the Arrow Impossibility theory and theorem.
17) Fully codependent development choices, when all development choices are mixed together
such as the socio-economy-environment(ABC) model. In this paradigm only fully codependent
development choices exist so the set = {ABC}. This is outside the world of the Arrow
Impossibility theory and theorem.
18) Full cost externalization, all costs associated with production are not reflected in the
pricing mechanism of the market.
19) Partial cost externalization, some costs associated with production are not reflected in the
pricing mechanism of the market.
20) No cost externalization, all costs associated with production are reflected in the pricing
mechanism of the market.
21) Full cost internalization, all costs associated with production are reflected in the pricing
mechanism of the market.
22) Partial cost internalization, some costs associated with production are reflected in the
pricing mechanism of the market.
23) No cost internalization, all costs associated with production are not reflected in the pricing
mechanism of the market.
24) Externalities, factors assumed exogenous to a model
25) Full externality assumption, only one component is the endogenous factor in the model; the
others are exogenous factors.
26) Partial externality assumption, not all factors are endogenous factors at the same time in
the model.
27) No externality assumption, all factors are endogenous factors at the same time in the model.
28) Economic externality, the economic costs associated with production not reflected in the
pricing mechanism of the market.
29) Social externality, the social cost associated with production not reflected in the pricing
mechanism of the market.
30) Environmental externality, the environmental cost associated with production not reflected
in the pricing mechanism of the market.
31) Green or environmental margin, to cover the extra cost of making the business
environmentally friendly.
32) Social margin, to cover the extra cost of making the business socially friendly.
33) Economic margin, to cover only the economic cost of production
34) Profit, the incentive to encourage economic activity
35) Full cost price, a price that reflects all costs associated with production.
36) Some cost price, a price that reflects only some costs associated with production.
37) No cost price, a price that does not reflect any cost associated with production.
38) Circular market illusion, the idea that production activity can take place without producing
relevant externalities.
39) Circular traditional economy illusion, the idea that production activity can take place
without producing relevant social and/or environmental externalities.
40) Circular dwarf green economy, the idea that market prices can be manipulated externally
to generate revenue to cover the cost of dealing with the environmental externality they create to
close the non-free market cycle dwarf green production-dwarf green consumption-environmental
externality.
41) Circular green economy, the idea that market prices reflect the cost of making business
environmentally friendly in order to cover the cost of dealing with the environmental
externalities they create to close the free market cycle green production-green consumption-
environmental externality.
42) Circular environmental externality management based market illusion, the idea that you
can solve an environmental externality problem by dealing with the consequences of that
problem, not the cause.
43) Circular green economy illusion, the idea that green production and green consumption
can take place without having social impacts(E(A) = 0).
ii) Externalization rules
Let’s assume we have a market with two relevant components, society(A) and
environment(C), where A = active component, a = passive component, C = active component,
and c = passive component, then the externalization rules(E) work as follows:
1) E(A) = a ---
relevant social costs(A) are assumed irrelevant
2) E(C) = c ---
relevant environmental costs(C) are assumed irrelevant
3) E(AC) = ac ---
relevant social costs and economic costs(AC) are assumed irrelevant
iii) Internalization rules
Let’s assume we have a market with two relevant components, society(A) and
environment(C), where A = active component, a = passive component, C = active component,
and c = passive component, then the internalization rules(I) work as follows:
4) I(a) = A ----
irrelevant social costs(a) are now relevant
5) I(c) = C ----
irrelevant environmental costs(c) are now relevant
6) I(ac) = AC ----
irrelevant social costs and economic costs(ac) are now relevant
iv) Model structure and externalization rules
Let’s assume we have the following three market structures M1 = ac, M2 = Ac and M3 =
AC, then the following holds true:
7) M1 = ac = E(AC) = a fully irresponsible market as all costs are externalized
8) M2 = Ac = [I(a)][E(C)] = a partially responsible market as social cost is internalized
9) M3 = AC = [I(a)][I(c)] = a fully responsible market as all costs are internalized.
v) Reversing externalization rules
Let’s assume we have a market with two relevant components, society(A) and
environment(C), where A = active component, a = passive component, C = active component,
and c = passive component, then the process of reversing externalization-internalization rules
works as follows:
The case of internalizing the externality: if E(AC) = ac, the following holds true:
10) I[E(AC)] = I(ac) = AC, internalization-externalization forces cancel each other out
The case of externalizing the internality: if I(ac) = AC, the following holds true:
11) E[I(ac)] = E(AC) = ac, externalization-internalization forces cancel each other out
The structure of the environmental externality problem affecting the traditional
market(TM)
If we assume that social costs do not matter[E(A) = 0], but take the view now that the
environmental externality matters[E(C) > 0], then the simplified version of the externality
problem affecting the traditional market(TM) in environmental terms can be indicated as in
Figure 4 Below:
The broken orange arrow between TM and E(C) in Figure 4 above represents the
environmental externality problem affecting the sustainability of the traditional market(TM) as
the relevant environmental externalities indicated by the continuous black arrows from K and L
to E(C) are not accounted for in the traditional market price(TMP = P) of the traditional
market(TM).
The structure of the green market(GM) fix
To fix the environmental externality problem affecting the traditional market model(TM)
summarized in Figure 4 above and to be able to fulfill the Brundtland Commission’s wish of
making business as usual model an environmental externality friendly model we have to
recognize two things: i) Environmental externalities[E(C)] are real; and ii) hence they must be
internalized in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market(TMP = P). The internalization of
environmental costs{I[E(C)]} in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market(TM) leads to a
shift to green markets(GM) or environmentally friendly market, a situation summarized in Figure
5 below:
Figure 5 above tells us the following about the green market(GM) or environmentally
friendly market: i) if you internalize the environmental externalities[E(C)] in the pricing
mechanism of the traditional market(TMP = P) you shift the traditional market model(TM)
towards green markets(GM) as indicated by the continuous orange arrow from E(C) to GM; ii)
the green market(GM) is driven by green supply/producers(GK) and green demand/consumers
(GL) as indicated by the opposing continuous black arrows between GK and GL; iii) in the green
market(GM) the free interaction of green or environmentally friendly producers(GK) and green
or environmentally friendly consumers(GL) determines the eco-economic price or green market
price(GMP = GP), a price that also reflects the environmental cost of production, as indicated by
the continuous arrows from GK and GL to GM; iv) this is a market where environmental
externalities are relevant as indicated by the continuous black arrows from GK and GL to E(C);
and v) the green market(GM) operates under rationality and partial codependent choices or eco-
economic choices.
In other words, based on Figure 5 above it can be said that the green market(GM) is a
free market that brings together green producers(GK) and green consumers(GL) under
conditions of no environmental externality neutrality or under eco-economic costing.
The structure of the circular green market based economy
Since under the green markets(GM) the green market price(GMP = GP) reflects the
environmental costs of production[I(c)], then the green market generates the resources needed to
deal with the environmental cost associated with economic activity, closing the cycle green
production-green consumption-environmental externalities as indicated by the connecting green
arrows in Figure 6 below:
We can see in figure 6 above that environmental costs[E(C)] in the green market(GM) are
now endogenous issues[I(c)] to the model as indicated by the blue line. Hence, green
markets(GM) take responsibility for the environmental externalities they produce so they
generate the resources needed to create and support the programs and/ businesses necessary to
close or deal with the environmental externality gap. The circular green market structure in
Figure 6 above indicated by the continuous green arrows GS, GL, I(c) represents an end to the
circular traditional market’s environmental externality neutrality illusion that environmental
costs did not matter as here all environmental costs related to economic activity are accounting
for.
In other words, environmental externality costing transforms the green market(GM) and
its circular structure green production(GK), green consumption(GL), and environmental
externalities internalization[(I(c)] into responsible structures in environmental terms as indicated
by the continuous green arrow circling GK-GL-I(c) in Figure 6 above. Hence, there are no
environmental externality gaps(EEG) or environmental sustainability gaps(ESG) in green
markets(GM) as they are environmentally friendly markets.
The environmental externality gap affecting the circular traditional market illusion
Since under the traditional markets(TM) the traditional market price(TMP = P) does not
reflect the environmental costs of production[E(C)], then the traditional market(TM) does not
generate the resources needed to deal with the environmental cost associated with economic
activity, passing them to society as a whole, leaving open the cycle traditional production-
traditional consumption-environmental externalities as indicated in Figure 7 below:
We can appreciate in figure 7 above that now in the traditional market(TM)
environmental costs[E(C)] are exogenous issues to the model so they are externalized as
indicated by the broken blue line. Therefore, traditional markets now do not take responsibility
for the environmental externalities they produce and therefore, they do not generate the resources
needed to create and support the programs and/ businesses needed to close the environmental
externality gap(EEG) or environmental sustainability gap(ESG) they create, leaving it open as
indicated by the broken green arrow from E(C) to K; and hence passing this way the
responsibility to deal with those externalities to society as a whole.
In other words, there is an environmental externality gap(EEG) or environmental
sustainability gap(ESG) embedded in the circular traditional market illusion as in this market
relevant environmental costs related to economic activity are not accounting for. Partial
costing(economic only costing) transforms the traditional market(TM) and its circular structure
traditional production(K), traditional consumption(L), and environmental externality
externalization [(E(C)] into distorted or irresponsible structures in environmental terms as
indicated by the broken green arrow in the circle K-L-E(C) in Figure 7 above.
Notice that the existence of this embedded environmental externality gap(EEG) or
environmental sustainability gap(ESG) indicated in Figure 7 above provides a rational for the
existence of environmental externality management markets or programs(EEM) designed to
produce the funds needed to manage environmental externalities without attempting to correct
the root cause of the environmental externality generation and accumulation problem associated
with the traditional market, a distorted traditional market price in environmental terms. Finally,
when comparing Figures, we can see that the closing of the environmental sustainability
gap(ESG) or environmental externality gap(EEG) represented by the broken green arrow in
Figure 7 leads to the structure of the circular green market based economy presented in Figure 6
above, where there are no environmental externality(EEG) or environmental sustainability(ESG)
gaps as indicated by the continuous green arrow going from I(c) to GK.
The structure of the green market(GM)
Based on the discussion above, it can be said that the green market(GM) or
environmentally friendly market is a free market that brings together green producers(GK) and
green consumers(GL) under the assumption of no environmental externality neutrality and the
assumption of full social externality neutrality, a situation that is summarized as in Figure 8
below:
Figure 8 above tells us the following about the structure of a green market(GM) or
environmentally friendly market: i) social externalities[E(A)] are exogenous issues to the model
so they are externalized as indicated by the continuous orange arrow from GM to E(A); ii) green
production(GK) and green consumption(GL)’s social externalities are irrelevant as indicated by
the broken black arrows from GK and GL to E(A); iii) green producers(GK) and green
consumers(GL) interact freely in the green market(GM) as indicated by the continuous and
opposing black arrows between GK and GL; iv) the green market price(GMP = GP) is
determined then by the free interaction of green supply(GK) and green demand(GL) as indicated
by the continuous black arrows from GK and GL to GM; and v) the model operates under
rationality and partial codependent choices or eco-economic choices.
The circular green market illusion
Since according to Figure 8 above social externalities[E(A)] are assumed irrelevant in the
green market model(GM), then they can be left out of the model, which leads to the circular
green market illusion depicted in Figure 9 below:
Figure 9 above simply says green economic activity and green economic growth take
place in the green market(GM) without producing social effects[E(A) = 0], which is the thought
behind the circular green market illusion. In other words, we produce and consume under zero
social externality impact when operating under the full social externality neutrality assumption.
This assumption makes the green market(GM) or environmentally friendly market a distorted
market in social terms.
Food for thoughts
Is there a sustainable development solution to an environmental sustainability problem? I
think no, what do you think?; Can we solve an environmental sustainability problem by attacking
the consequences? I think no, what do you think?; and Are environmental externality
management markets free markets? I think no, what do you think?
Conclusions
First, it was shown that when environmental externalities are real and accounted for, then
there is a disconnect between the pricing mechanism of the traditional market and the
environmental externality. Second, it was indicated that the shift from traditional market to
green markets requires the internalization of the environmental cost associated with economic
activity. Third, it was highlighted that when environmental cost internalization takes place the
circular traditional economy illusion with respect to environmental externalities ends as now all
environmental costs are reflected in the pricing mechanism of the green market. Fourth, it was
pointed out that as the green market takes responsibility for the environmental externalities it
produces it generates the resources needed to close the green market cycle green production-
green consumption-environmental externalities.
Fifth, it was stressed that as the traditional market does not take responsibilities for the
environmental externalities it produces, there is an environmental externality gap or
environmental sustainability gap preventing the closing of the traditional production-traditional
consumption-environmental externality cycle when environmental externality accounting
becomes binding. Sixth, it was mentioned that the existence of this embedded environmental
externality gap or environmental sustainability gap in the traditional market and its circular
market illusion provides the opportunity to deploy environmental externality management
approaches to keep environmental externalities within a bearable level. Seventh, it was exalted
that green markets are driven by actions of green producers and green consumers under the
assumption of full social externality neutrality. Finally, it was pointed out that at the heart of the
green market illusion is the idea that green economic activity can take place without producing
social externalities.
References
Muñoz, Lucio, 2009. Beyond Traditional Sustainable Development: Sustainability Theory
and Sustainability Indices Under Ideal Present-Absent Qualitative Comparative
Conditions, In: Mineria Sustentable, REDESMA, Vol.3(1), March, La Paz, Bolivia.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2010. What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a
Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?,
Journal of Sustainability, Issue 2, Number 4(Spring), Rio Rancho, New Mexico USA.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2012. Complex and Man-Made Markets: Are We Currently Approaching
Sustainability in a Backward and More Chaotic Way in Terms of Economic Thinking?, In:
The Mother Pelican Journal, Vol. 8, No. 8, August, Ed. Luis Gutierrez, PhD, USA.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020a. Sustainability thoughts 101: What was wrong with the structure of
Adam Smith’s traditional market model? What are the main implications of this?. Boletin
CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.2, February, La Paz, Bolivia.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020b. Sustainability thoughts 102: How the shift from traditional markets
to sustainability markets would have looked like had the 1987 Brundtland Commission
recommended then a sustainability fix?, In: International Journal of Business Management
and Economic Review, Pp. 110-120, Vol. 3, No. 02, ISSN: 2581-4664.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD), 2012a. Rio+20 Concludes
with Big Package of Commitments for Action and Agreement by World Leaders on Path for a
Sustainable Future, Press Release, June 20-22, New York, NY, USA.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development(UNCSD), 2012b. The Future We
Want, June 20-22, New York, NY, USA.
World Commission on Environment and Development(WCED), 1987. Our Common Future,
Oxford University Press, London, UK.
---------------------------------------------------------
Citation:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 103: How the shift from traditional markets to
green markets would have looked like had the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended
then an environmental sustainability fix?,
Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.3, March,
La Paz, Bolivia.