There is an underlying assumption that “improving” business to reduce environmental impact is a cost option, and for one company, no matter how well environmentally motivated, to stick it’s neck out and do “something” when their competitors do little or nothing exposes them to commercial risk.

If the government mandates that something is done then everyone jumps together, and the relative costs of the companies remain balanced.

Of course, some companies will have worked out that environmental impact reduction can bring benefits, and thus this can be a competitive weapon.

Contrary to your suggestion, most business survey questions are related specifically to the respondent’s business (the general business confidence question being the main exception), and very quantifiable: specific questions about whether they’re going to raise their prices, or employment levels, and what they expect their sales to be.

There are also surveys of consumers (i.e. the general public) about their confidence, and of households about employment, and these are given plenty of credence in the media.

Does it not make sense to value the opinion of business survey respondents about things that they have either direct control over or intimate knowledge of e.g. pricing intentions, sales, and hiring plans, even if those respondents are potentially “wealthy”?

Furthermore, research suggests that business surveys have predictive power (over the short-term at least) for other economic variables, suggesting that they do indeed provide a “credible insight into our economy”.

Like any survey, the results can be slanted to fit a preconceived narrative, but the surveys themselves are undeserving of your criticism.