How good is good enough?
Tonight we had a great guest lecture and discussion forum from Joel Makower, a leading sustainability consultant and pundit extraodinaire. His theme was "How good is good enough?", meaning the complex issue of deciding what is reasonable "progress" for companies to be making regards the challenges of sustaining our planet.
What I can say about Joel is that his eloquence far exceeds good enough. His speech is peppered with little puns and dry witticisms that remind us not to get stuck in conventional thinking.
For instance: "The environment is way too important to be left to environmentalists." He heartily discouraged BGI students from taking employment in the "Environment" department of companies-- a sure route to marginalization and containment.
And then there's this one: "Sustainability is like teenage sex. Everyone says they're doing it, but in reality few people really are-- and no one really knows what the real thing looks like!" Kinda speaks for itself.
But anyway, the question about how good is good enough. Here's the challenge: As companies begin to figure out how to be "green," they often start with small, nearly inconsequential changes. By taking that first baby step, they open themselves to criticism of "greenwashing," and angry demands that they do much more.
For instance, Levi Strauss, at one time the largest purchaser of cotton in the United States, decided to begin sourcing 2% of its cotton organically. Even this amount was difficult because at that time the organic supply chain was unreliable in terms of both quantity and quality. Levi Strauss couldn't obtain more organic cotton within its internal quality standards.
Makower heard about the 2% and wanted to interview them about it. They said they didn't want to talk about it. After much wrangling, he got an interview with the right person, and the first thing he asked was why they didn't want to talk about it.
The answer was fear. Levi Strauss imagined people going ballistic: "You are sourcing 2% of cotton organically? Why not 5% Or 10%? In fact, we're going to boycott Levi Strauss until you guys can do 10%! As it stands, 98% of your jeans are still made with cotton that is poisoning the world!!!!!!" (Cotton is one of the most heavily pesticide-laden crops in the world).
As much as they wanted to, they couldn't source 10% or more of their cotton organically. And even if they could, it might be very expensive. Time was needed to develop the organic cotton market -- to bring it up to the quality standards of global corporations and to gain economies of scale such that prices started coming down.
However, that is not to say that all big corporations have their heart in the right place and are simply limited by market challenges or source limits. Some really just want to greenwash, spending far more money on marketing and creating glossy CSR (coroporate social responsibility) reports than on actually doing anything helpful. We need ways to distinguish those with good intentions from those without, and even among those with good intentions, we need some criteria for who is actually following those intentions with tangible actions.
There is room for a wide range of views here. Some of my BGI classmates are quite radical about this issue, wanting to "force" companies to act more responsibly regardless of the bottom line or any considerations that change takes time.
At this time, I find myself less radical. Changing something as large as a global corporation (or even a medium-sized enterprise) is not as simple as flipping a switch. This is obvious from my own personal changes. I am just one human, and yet, it has taken a lot of effort and not insignificant time to alter some of my habits, such as the habit of apologizing too easily. Has anyone reading this blog ever been on a diet, or tried to stop drinking coffee, or attempted to be more patient when talking to their parents? It's not so easy, is it. Now ask Boeing to alter decades of corporate habit in its operational procedures. I am willing to reward and encourage even small changes, so that they don't get discouraged and stop. (The carrot approach).
On the other hand, I understand and appreciate the need for radical goals, and for pushing pretty hard in order to get the momentum going. You have to have the big vision in order to inspire the big changes and maintain the energy to keep improving even when it's hard. This may mean no longer supporting changes that are only incremental. For instance, the feminist movement has been applying pressure to the male-dominated world of business for decades now. How long must women wait for executives to start walking their talk? So I appreciate radical environmentalists for not letting anyone forget the Big Vision or settle for small gains. (The stick approach).
How good is good enough? Probably the answer is different for each company.
What I can say about Joel is that his eloquence far exceeds good enough. His speech is peppered with little puns and dry witticisms that remind us not to get stuck in conventional thinking.
For instance: "The environment is way too important to be left to environmentalists." He heartily discouraged BGI students from taking employment in the "Environment" department of companies-- a sure route to marginalization and containment.
And then there's this one: "Sustainability is like teenage sex. Everyone says they're doing it, but in reality few people really are-- and no one really knows what the real thing looks like!" Kinda speaks for itself.
But anyway, the question about how good is good enough. Here's the challenge: As companies begin to figure out how to be "green," they often start with small, nearly inconsequential changes. By taking that first baby step, they open themselves to criticism of "greenwashing," and angry demands that they do much more.
For instance, Levi Strauss, at one time the largest purchaser of cotton in the United States, decided to begin sourcing 2% of its cotton organically. Even this amount was difficult because at that time the organic supply chain was unreliable in terms of both quantity and quality. Levi Strauss couldn't obtain more organic cotton within its internal quality standards.
Makower heard about the 2% and wanted to interview them about it. They said they didn't want to talk about it. After much wrangling, he got an interview with the right person, and the first thing he asked was why they didn't want to talk about it.
The answer was fear. Levi Strauss imagined people going ballistic: "You are sourcing 2% of cotton organically? Why not 5% Or 10%? In fact, we're going to boycott Levi Strauss until you guys can do 10%! As it stands, 98% of your jeans are still made with cotton that is poisoning the world!!!!!!" (Cotton is one of the most heavily pesticide-laden crops in the world).
As much as they wanted to, they couldn't source 10% or more of their cotton organically. And even if they could, it might be very expensive. Time was needed to develop the organic cotton market -- to bring it up to the quality standards of global corporations and to gain economies of scale such that prices started coming down.
However, that is not to say that all big corporations have their heart in the right place and are simply limited by market challenges or source limits. Some really just want to greenwash, spending far more money on marketing and creating glossy CSR (coroporate social responsibility) reports than on actually doing anything helpful. We need ways to distinguish those with good intentions from those without, and even among those with good intentions, we need some criteria for who is actually following those intentions with tangible actions.
There is room for a wide range of views here. Some of my BGI classmates are quite radical about this issue, wanting to "force" companies to act more responsibly regardless of the bottom line or any considerations that change takes time.
At this time, I find myself less radical. Changing something as large as a global corporation (or even a medium-sized enterprise) is not as simple as flipping a switch. This is obvious from my own personal changes. I am just one human, and yet, it has taken a lot of effort and not insignificant time to alter some of my habits, such as the habit of apologizing too easily. Has anyone reading this blog ever been on a diet, or tried to stop drinking coffee, or attempted to be more patient when talking to their parents? It's not so easy, is it. Now ask Boeing to alter decades of corporate habit in its operational procedures. I am willing to reward and encourage even small changes, so that they don't get discouraged and stop. (The carrot approach).
On the other hand, I understand and appreciate the need for radical goals, and for pushing pretty hard in order to get the momentum going. You have to have the big vision in order to inspire the big changes and maintain the energy to keep improving even when it's hard. This may mean no longer supporting changes that are only incremental. For instance, the feminist movement has been applying pressure to the male-dominated world of business for decades now. How long must women wait for executives to start walking their talk? So I appreciate radical environmentalists for not letting anyone forget the Big Vision or settle for small gains. (The stick approach).
How good is good enough? Probably the answer is different for each company.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home