 I spent today with four different groups of business executives.
Much of the discussion of these meetings was on the subject of
'sustainability' -- both in the environmental sense
(companies' environmental impact, and the impact of possible
environmental catastrophes on companies) and in the business
continuity and resilience sense.
David Suzuki's (" Sustainability Within a Generation")
presentation to one of the four groups went surprisingly badly. He took
a somewhat adversarial position towards self-proclaimed "green" events (such as
today's) -- saying that by now they should be just the way companies do
business and need no longer be labeled "green". He was also unimpressed
by the lack of gender, age and ethnic diversity among the executives in
attendance.
I detected six consistent messages from these executives:
- Business believes that adaptation, innovation and technology are
absolutely essential (and some would even say, sufficient) to address
current and emerging social and environmental problems. They want
incentives for investment in R&D and in innovative technologies,
and believe these are 'win-win' propositions for business and the
public alike. Generally they are very optimistic that these problems
will be solved, and that we will emerge healthier and better as a
society once they are.
- Business is not interested in hearing criticism about what they are
or are not doing with respect to social and environmental issues. They
are open to constructive suggestions and creative ideas. But they know
that their primary responsibility is to their shareholders and they
will not shirk that. What's more, they don't believe (as Suzuki does,
and as I do) that sustainable growth is an oxymoron. "Smart growth", by
which clean, socially responsible activities are encouraged in lieu of
those that are harmful, can allow businesses to grow, profitably, more
or less forever, they believe -- keeping both shareholders and the
public happy.
- Business sees enormous opportunity in sustainability initiatives,
rather than risk. Programs that enhance corporate sustainability, they
say, also enhance productivity and efficiency, and investment in
renewable energy, renewable resources, innovation and recycling/waste
reduction/reuse programs is good for profits, at least in the mid-to-long term.
A surprising number of the corporations at these meetings volunteered
information on sustainability programs they have developed, and some of
these are very imaginative, well-thought-out programs that could have
applicability in many companies in many industries. If only business knew what business knows.
- Business appreciates the necessity for government regulation --
provided it is equitably applied and enforced, and provided it doesn't
put them at competitive disadvantage relative to companies in less
regulated jurisdictions (a big 'if'). They appreciate that business
will not voluntarily self-regulate or voluntarily institute programs
that increase costs, and that government has a responsibility to step
in and mandate such regulations and programs. While many have voluntary
social responsibility and environmental sustainability programs, these
are generally modest-impact programs they acknowledge to
be insufficient to meet major social and environmental challenges like
global warming.
- Business believes that government regulations will be insufficient,
once the impacts of some emerging social and environmental crises
become more pronounced, to satisfy the public, and especially public activists.
They expect that NGOs will play an increasingly important role,
therefore, in embarrassing polluters and socially irresponsible
companies (through attack ads and negative websites), to the point
these attacks on business' reputation will start to have impact on
sales. Smart companies, they say, should be working in partnership with
NGOs now (NGOs like ZeroFootprint) to pre-empt such criticism and
mitigate reputation risk, instead of relying on greenwashing ads and
PR.
- Experts in climate change who hosted one of these meetings were
very pessimistic (even more than I am!) that calamitous climate change
can be averted. They also believe the impacts of climate change in the
next 10-20 years will be severe, where only a year ago they thought
they could be as much as 50-75 years off. In particular, the rate of
glacial and ice melting is occurring so rapidly that some of them are
alarmed to the point of panic.
There is a clear disconnect between those who are highly informed
about, and up to date on, social and environmental issues (who are
astonishingly pessimistic) versus the astonishingly optimistic (or hopeful) political and business leaders
whose actions and behaviours, more than individuals', will have to
change rapidly and radically if we are to mitigate or avert these pessimistic
prognostications. This does not bode well for our future.
That is, of course, to be expected. We do what we must, then we do
what's easy, and then we do what's fun. Until they absolutely must act
(by which time it will be too late) or unless we make it really easy
for them to act, they will continue to do what they are doing now.
And so will we all.
Students of history know what happens then.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
