In this post I again have taken several comments out of my Environmental Communications Text, Chapter 20. As we think about re-conditioning ourselves away from the consumer and profit only worldviews conditioning, a reminder that being aware that you have been conditioned to begin with, is not only necessary, but crucial. The principles we may insist that businesses exhibit also applies to us all as well. We might be convinced with we cannot live without widget X or thingmie Y, but we need to be aware of what we individually purchase and how that combined with millions of others impacts the world. Even if we didn’t originally know we wanted a product, the fact we buy it only encourages a business to make it. Add to that the fact that a business is looking for a return on investment – remember, being ‘green’ may cost more to make a product – and to survive in a competitive business environment means we all really do make a difference in supporting a ‘green’ company. And that is for everything we use, build, or need for daily living. Let me be very clear here. When we talk about governments and corporations, we are not talking about people but giant mechanisms in which people work. If the leaders and controllers are psychopathic then what comes out will be psychopathic (Behavior that lacks any regard for the feelings or interests of others and where there is no remorse or guilt for negative consequences to others). And, driving the mechanism in a highly flawed economic paradigm, which we are all conditioned to accept, is part of that consumer psychotic behavior. What is happening, however, is a new breed of business leader that is using a different paradigm that is more responsible, and the good news is that it resonates with people more, as fairer.
Many of these frameworks have their modern roots in Aldo Leopold’s 1948 Land Ethic (At its core, the idea of a land ethic is simply caring: about people and the natural world, and about strengthening the relationships between them). These take place at both the business level and the way we live. This idea is about the rights of humanity and nature to co-exist – while it may seem a revolutionary idea that nature should have rights, the notion has its roots in law (consider things like the 1964 Wilderness Act in the USA). While that seems logical to us that see the world being despoiled to provide for hyper-consumerism, how do we help business systems in thinking differently and thinking ‘systemically (acknowledging the different parts of a system and how they work together) while running a business where profit is still important. Something major has to change if business (and the consumers it serves) is to help rather than hinder a future with sustainability at its core. As Albert Einstein said, “No problem can be solved with the same mindset that created it.”
Introduced in 1992, the Hannover Principles are a set of business principles with sustainable design (designing buildings and objects with forethought about their full environmental impact) as a basis for future manufacturing and building. Business guru Peter Senge uses three guiding systemic principles in consulting with businesses wanting to use more ‘green’ practices: there can be no viable path that does not incorporate intergenerational thinking; social-cultural institutions matter, and; any real change must be grounded in new ways of recognition of system wide thinking about sustainability. “A major question for many enlightened consumers is how to know when a company is really walking the talk. A company may not be resorting to greenwash tactics, but still be as brown as they come. What about companies, which are serious about their commitment to sustainable principles?” Let your fingers do the walking and checkout a business website and then review its practices. Business consultant Amy Townsend recommends some basic questions for recognizing an environmentally responsible company: Does it have a green mission statement; does it work to green its employees and business practices; is it willing to green its manufacturing and/or services to reflect sustainable practices over final bottom line profit; is it a leader in trying to change industry; is it really walking the talk? “Businesses already moving in these directions show cultural changes, both in their strategies for corporate social responsibility and the practices they use as they approach sustainability.” Look at the Patagonia’s outdoor clothing company’s mission statement, ‘Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.’ In a related corporate social responsibility commitment, they are ‘Dedicated to promoting fair labor and environmental protection where Patagonia products are made.’ Likewise, flooring company Interface Inc’svision statement: ‘To be the first company that, by its deeds, shows the entire industrial world what sustainability is in all its dimensions: People, process, product, place and profits.’ Their lengthy mission statement is in the same vein: it promises accountability that can be evaluated. The good news is that they are not alone, but as I warned earlier, be sure that they are walking the talk and not just greenwashing if you decide to support them.
In 2004 a diverse group of specialists from legal, labor, business, civil society, government, journalism, governance and investor communities participated in a debate to explore many key aspects of corporate redesign and begin to build a core set of principles in the Corporation 20/20 process. “Debates surrounding the future of the corporation are typically defined as stark choices between government regulation and free markets. Corporation 20/20 posits a third path: system redesign.” The primary goal was to answer the question about what a new systemic corporate design with social and environmental purpose would look like. In the mid-1700s economic philosopher Adam Smith espoused that private interests must also serve public interests as an expression of ‘enlightened self-interest’. Despite how his philosophy has been corrupted to selfishness by modern corporatism, 20/20 emphasizes that while corporations can accrue fair returns for shareholders, they cannot do so at the expense of the legitimate interests of other stakeholders. Following such principles of sustainability, natural resources shall not be exploited, because industrial ecology follows rules of natural ecological systems. All accounting includes externalities such as impacts on ecological systems. All goods should be fully priced to include all externalities. CSR is apparent with expressed corporate governance that is participatory, transparent, ethical and accountable and doesn’t infringe on the right of people to govern themselves, nor infringe on other universal human rights. Corporation 20/20 tries to ‘chart a path that embeds social purpose in the organizational genetics of corporate structure while helping to build high-performing organizations.’
Of course, there first needs to be corporate and investment leadership that signs onto such frameworks, but it is a great start, yet, the Hannover Principles and Corporation 20/20 are just the start of this story. More exciting trends that are changing the business world in the next post………….
C
0 Comments