Let us create a case for the adoption of NRA(Natural Resource Accounting), and to encourage the Corporate Sector to think towards protecting the environment, but by maintaining the profitability too.
It is not possible. Investors want money and environment want money also so the investors prefer to see their money multiply at the expense of the environment.
From an economic perspective, nature performs three main functions: a resource base, a waste sink, and a source of amenity services. However, economics ignores the environment’s primary function as a life-support system; ascribes little or no value to the three economic functions that it does recognize; allows substitution between natural and produced capital even though the former is multifunctional and sometimes irreplaceable; provides no guidelines for approaches to environmental uncertainty; and cannot answer questions regarding the equity of resource use across people and through time, viz., intragenerational and intergenerational equity objectives. If, as generally agreed, sustainable development is economic development that endures over the long run, economics must resolve these issues before it can really help society attain the goal of sustainability.
According to the main question "How to strike a balance between economic concerns and environmental sustainability concerns? " I would add to the developed discussion that "environmental sustainability" is considered as a common sharing asset, no a marketable commodity; whereas "economic concerns" are targeting in private ownership and profitability. The inevitable conflicts arise they could be better approached and resolved through the conceptualization of circular economy (CE) and ecosystem services valuation (ESV). However, the extend and the ways under which such a conceptualization can impact on everyday practice, they are eventually human-induced and social-driven.