This article seeks to unpack how the generation of profit impacts social and ecological sustainability. It begins by framing profit as not necessarily sustainable or exploitative. Social and ecological inputs and impacts are necessary for economic processes and when social and ecological stakeholders are not compensated for their contributions to the process, they can be considered unpaid inputs and, thus, sources of profit. This often overlaps with exploitation of stakeholders, which occurs when one party financially benefits at the expense of another party. The paper examines how profit is generated by several common types of profit-seeking strategies. In doing so, a conceptual framework is developed that clarifies how profit-seeking strategies generate profit from four basic sources: efficiency gains; willing and informed contributions from social stakeholders; exploitation of social stakeholders; and exploitation of nature. The fact that there are a bounded number of sources of benign profit (and that there are limits to those sources) indicates that there are limits to profit. It also indicates that much of the profit generated today comes from exploitation, which helps explain the sustainability crisis. This implies that profit should not be pursued as an end by businesses and reveals some inherent perils of a profit-driven economy. Thus, the paper adds clarity to the social and ecological sources and limits of profit, and gives guidance for how profit should be treated in a sustainable economy. 

This paper discusses tradeoffs between sustainability objectives and profit, examining the implications of the argument that sustainable businesses should see profit as a means, not an end. It highlights that there are two main ways in which a business can see profit as a means: first, by maintaining its focus on a different end (namely social and ecological objectives); and secondly, by ensuring that profit is not an end in itself by excluding private financial rights. These two criteria are applied to examine a range of theoretical approaches, incorporation structures, and third-party certifications that have been developed with the aim of making business sustainable. The discussion highlights inconsistencies, ambiguities, and shortfalls of these approaches and outlines ways to advance the theory and practice of sustainable business.

This conceptual article contributes to the post-growth strand of political ecology literature, which seeks to find sustainable ways of organizing the economy that do not require economic growth. It explores the idea that transitioning to post-growth societies requires a transition in the relationship-to-profit of business. I first conceptualize relationship-to-profit as the intersection of purpose, investment, and ownership of firms. Specifically, for-profit business structures entail a financial gain purpose, private ownership, and unlimited returns on investment; whereas not-for-profit business structures have a social benefit purpose, collective ownership, and limited returns on investment. I then outline ideal types of for-profit and not-for-profit economies, based on the differences between these two kinds of relationship-to-profit. The first ideal type shows how the for-profit business structure drives consumerism, economic growth, and ecological harm, as well as inequality and political capture, preventing post-growth transitions. These dynamics might be slowed down by businesses that seek to balance private financial gain with social benefit (known as dual-purpose businesses). The second ideal type describes the dynamics that might be expected in an economy consisting of not-for-profit businesses, which have a legal mandate to pursue only social benefit. This analysis explains how transitioning from for-profit to not-for-profit forms of business might change some of the most problematic dynamics of the economy, allowing for post-growth transformations. A brief discussion of the possible shortcomings of a not-for-profit economy is also offered.

As there has been no evidence of the kind of environmental decoupling necessary to allow for green economic growth, academic and activist discussions alike have turned to exploring post-growth pathways. Such a transformation entails a significant shift in economic institutions, yet post-growth analyses of what is problematic about businesses and how to resolve these issues are piecemeal. This article offers an overview and synthesis of key findings in the emerging post-growth business literature. Using institutional analysis, it develops a framework that conceptually ties together five dimensions of business that have been identified as most important for post-growth transformations: relationship-to-profit, incorporation structure, governance structure, strategy, and size and geographical scope. The intention of developing this five-dimensions framework is to offer a more coherent and concrete theoretical basis for ongoing discussions about which types of business are compatible, or incompatible, with post-growth pathways.