‘Wilting agenda: Britain loses its appetite for green initiatives‘ made the front page of the Financial Times yesterday. We have a lot to learn, however, from the Brits as they struggle through hard economic times and demonstrate to us what can happen then. Some facts, first:
- With the economy rising to the top of Brits’ concerns, environmental concerns are no longer top of mind. In January 2007, 19% cited the environment as their top concern. A year later, it is down to 8%.
- Echoing its citizens’ change of heart, Gordon Brown and its government are backpedaling on green policies, from landfill, to transport, to renewable targets.
Most interesting, is the public narrative from some of the powers in charge, dismissing the green agenda as if it was either some despicable idea, as in, “People hate this green stuff” – senior member of shadow cabinet -, or some de facto dicy proposition, “Politicians will need nerves of steel to continue with this (the green stuff, he means). If the economy is doing well and we are prosperous, we can afford the luxury of dealing with climate change – or that is how it is seen. But when times are difficult for the economy and we are caught in the vice of inflation, from a politician’s point of view it becomes much more difficult to press ahead with policies that will increase prices.” – John Roberts, from Bank of Canada and United Utilities –
That’s one camp.
Then there is Together.com, a group of British businesses that are choosing a much different approach: “People can save hundreds of pounds a year by making greener everyday choices. The green penny is definitely dropping for British shoppers feeling the pinch from rising living costs.” Joined by no less than Phil Woolas, the environment minister, with some surprisingly good news: “The green pound really can go further – people can cut their carbon footprint and save money into the bargain. The signs are encouraging. We know that people want to cut their impact on the planet – recycling rates are at a record high, emissions from people’s homes are dropping, and since last June we’ve had nearly a million visitors to our online carbon calculator.”
Two paths. The latter one, the smart one, is led by the business sector. Last weekend, I caught a talk from Amory Lovins, from the Rocky Mountain Institute, and was struck by his insistence that business be the path to our salvation. Not the citizenry, not our government. One of the advantages of businesses, and even more so American businesses, is their emphasis on getting things done and on the bottom line. If business can smell money with green, as more and more do, we will have won a big part of the battle.
La Marguerite 
The problem is that business is fickle. They’ll just go wherever they think the money is – whether it’s planting trees or spilling oil, if there’s money in it they’ll do it.
So we can’t rely on them.
If business were a reliable way to achieve the public good, there’d be no Enrons, no subprime mortgages, and so on.
The best protectors of the public good are the public. That does not mean the public is not often mistaken about things, of course they are. But they’re better than anyone else at deciding what’s good for themselves.
My view is that citizens (and lots of them) will have to get active, vote wisely, begin to hold leaders accountable, and so forth.
I have a lot of business experience (Harvard Business School, Chevron, McKinsey & Company, Disney, etc.). Although there are many good people in business, of course, businesses as organizations usually (much more often than not) place profit growth at the top of the ladder of priorities. Often WAY at the top. That’s just the way the “system” works, at least currently.
Although some (or even many) businesses may want, or like, to do what it takes to make the necessary changes to address global warming, most won’t do so (especially not with much gravity, verve, or sustainability) unless the appropriate public policies are put in place. For example, without a well-designed and robust cap-and-auction system, the marketplace will not be suitably “engaged”, with much force, to make the necessary changes. If emitting carbon dioxide remains free, many big businesses will continue doing so, and continue providing products that do so, in very large quantities until . . . . whenever.
So, we do need to vote for leaders who will courageously put in place wise public policies, and fast. And, we do need to take action on other fronts, and hold people accountable. For example, if anyone deeply concerned about global warming is still buying gasoline from ExxonMobil, he/she is sending very mixed signals, working against her/himself, and not doing what would be wise (and easy) at this point. I won’t go into the details here, but trust me.
Some very smart people have written and spoken about what businesses do and don’t do when it comes to matters like this. Indeed, many people who want to make the necessary changes who are inside some businesses want the appropriate public policies to be established. For example, some leaders inside some utilities may want to move faster to make the necessary changes, but their performance is (still) often measured in ways that motivate counterproductive decisions. In order to free these people up to make better decisions, and motivate them to do so, we have to change the way utilities are measured and rewarded, at least in many cases.
Also consider ExxonMobil: They’ve made clear through their recent actions, once again, that they aren’t going to change substantially unless and until public policy requires or motivates them to do so and/or consumers demand that they do so. And, they’re the largest, or one of the largest, companies in the world, depending on how you measure.
Life is action. And life requires action.
Great thread Marguerite. Thanks!
Cheers.
I’m writing a piece for my new blog where I will argue why the future of business is green. The rough outline is currently:
1. Green means profitable.
2. Lots of businesses are not run for profit.
3. New ventures will tend to be green.
You can find my blog at http://meryn.nl/blog/ .
Amory is a good guy, but he puts way too much faith in (as one commenter said) fickle business. He believes that corporations are rational players and that green comes over as rational to them. While it is true that some (perhaps many) are dealing with energy efficiency, the push is not that huge and they are still looking for the cheapest power sources they can get (coal is just fine to many).
Change needs to occur at all levels – businesses are part of it, so are consumers and governments.
My main point here was that businesses can move a lot faster than government and groups of citizens. I am especially encouraged by the flurry of new green businesses, and all the green technology work being sponsored by companies, big and small, new and established. It just seems to me that there is an enormous amount of creativity, and financial resources, and manpower, available in the business sector. This does not diminish the need for citizens’ action, and wise policies. I agree that all three arms need to work together. I am just more hopeful about the business end, at this point. That can change.
Jeff, although I agree with your observation that currently, thinking in business circles in average isn’t nearly what it could be, competitive pressures will change this over time. Let me address your points one by one.
“businesses as organizations usually (much more often than not) place profit growth at the top of the ladder of priorities.”
This is changing. Leading companies use a multiple stakeholder model. This paradoxically often leads to higher profits in turn. Instead of trying to make money, they’re trying to be of value. The money follows.
I certainly believe that government regulations will be necessary to move all companies in a right direction, but in the long run, companies will also do without, because of pressure from ethical customers, investors, and employees.
“[ExxonMobile] made clear through their recent actions, once again, that they aren’t going to change substantially ”
As I’ve said earlier, I still have to see the rationale for diversification in case of ExxonMobil. It could be that their company is best suited for oil and oil only. And that means they’ll be gone in the future. Their environmentally irresponsible behavior, including bribing of scientists is a whole other story. Customers, investors and employees will pressure them to change this certainly. The question mainly is When.
“some leaders inside some utilities may want to move faster to make the necessary changes, but their performance is (still) often measured in ways that motivate counterproductive decisions.”
True, but again, ineffective performance measurement will be replaced in the long run. Blatant errors don’t survive.
I don’t want to bagatalize the amount of work to be done here. I just want to point out that there are not insurmountable barriers somewhere in our system. There’s just really a lot to be done. This again comes down to a matter of leadership. People need to work on the right things.
“My view is that citizens (and lots of them) will have to get active, vote wisely, begin to hold leaders accountable”
Yes, but they can talk to business leaders as well as political representatives. Business is in fact leading the way in listening to people in the form of crowdsourcing (MyStarBucksIdea, Dell Ideastorm). Although I think political parties will move to crowdsourcing soon also.
“Life is action. And life requires action.”
So true.
Let’s not forget that in the end, everything in the world is run by us, by humans, and we need to act, to inspire each other, and to support each other when they’re trying to do the right thing.
lest we soon tire of the color green, our sights must be set on a course of human action; there have been signs of stimulus/response fatigue in the eye of readers.
communicate en mass with business leaders; that’s a lobbying trick.
practice and pay for what we preach; that’s an educational method.
write about each and every positive advancement; that is a relational advantage.
yes business is about profit; people are about values, when values bring benefits, we are all healthier.
indeed business run by –people–will save us.
Nadine, thanks for this fresh breeze of poetic green prose. I love it!
Marguerite,
I totally “get” your point and agree with it. There is so much venture capital money being devoted to clean tech, focus on “green collar” jobs, and sustainable MBA programs sprouting up all over the place… There are even communities like Bethesda which are trying to create green economic zones.
I also agree with Jeff’s point…that it will take public policy and the citizenry as well, but I do think that there’s so much to be done, we can’t do it without business.
“Going green” concerns all of us and is truly a global social movement.
Great article… and don’t forget the benefits that planting a tree will have on the environment. Each one will soak up 20kgs of CO2 every year and put enough Oxygen back in the atmosphere to support 2 people.