Sustainability for Different Stakeholders
Nota bene: I don't really know what happened to my comment (and my two trackbacks) at Tom Davenport's article yesterday - they just didn't appear and maybe fell prey to censorship. Too long? Did I say something wrong? Update: Comment is now there.
Today, however, another Harvard Business Publishing article caught my attention. Christopher Meyer thinks that "We need a definition of Sustainability". He writes
An activity is sustainable when all costs are internalized, because if the costs are too high, the activities stop.and
The key principles are:This is what I answered:
(1) Measure the system life-cycle costs in all dimensions we care about
(2) Internalize those costs rather than wave them away or throw them over some regulatory transom.
Christopher, these are indeed some interesting thoughts on sustainability. Connecting it with costs definitely makes sense for businesses and their leaders.
Your proposal to internalize all costs would however mean a lot of new legislation, wouldn't it? And the measurement, as Patrick already mentioned, for many of these externalities is mostly not really realistic.
Just one example: measuring the impact of all additives that shorten human life (and by how much they do so) - a statistical nightmare. And the results would mostly come to late - a lot of people would have lived shorter than they were supposed to.
I believe an approach, that uses different definitions for different stakeholders might work best.
Let's use the cost-based model to talk to business and politics and another definition for the other stakeholders who are not so much concerned with costs but still understand that if they considerably damage the planet, their kids will be worse off.
If and when the measurements and laws for those products for which it is viable are in place
and
if (that's another big if) a majority of consumers are aware of the impact that they have by choosing one product over the other, change might come far quicker and with less externalities (in form of collateral damage to people and environment and a blown up governmental sector) than by relying solely on internalizing costs.
Therefore for me, Sustainability: "The present generation meeting its needs without prejudicing the ability of future generations meeting theirs"
and
"An activity is sustainable when all costs are internalized" might work quite well.
My thinking was also triggered by working on a business directory that will soon be released in México: Las Paginas Verdes (The Green Pages), an initiative by New Ventures México, which will offer an overview of sustainable products and services.
2 Comments:
Christopher wrote on HBP:
Which leads to Benedikt's point: lots of legislation attempting to commensurate, say, a year of the life of a five year old with a year of a fifty year old. Yikes.
Benedikt, are you European? I ask, not because of the spelling of your name, but because in the past four weeks I've moderated conversations about Cleantech for executive groups in New York, Brittany, and Beijing (sponsored by Ernst & Young) and one thing that stood out for me was that the discussion in France was deeply personal; the other two more economically driven. I concur that ultimately, in an educated democracy the personal awareness, concern, behavior, and activism could lead to sustainable behavior. And this is doing some good (to stick with airplanes, some individuals buy carbon offsets when they fly.) But I have no faith that we will have societies free of free-riders, individual, corporate, or national, so that a majority of citizens making aware choices will not be sufficient.
And remember that I believe sustainability goes well beyond environmental concerns. For example, I believe extreme income inequality is not sustainable for a society. To dampen the tendencies of competition-based economies in this direction (see Joshua Epstein's "Growing Artificial Societies" to learn how resistant to change income inequality is) I advocated making the costs of these behaviors visible in financial terms. I think your statement of principle is a good one--but I don't think it has the force of a rule.
I wrote on HBP:
My name and argumentation on a personal basis obviously revealed my European origin - although I'm from Germany and not from France.
Let's suppose that we have indeed reached a state when a majority of citizens make aware choices. We might not be able to prevent (corporate) free riders but it would make good business sense for them to act sustainably and actively communicate it - the market is bigger. Presumably this won't be enough and that's where the approach you proposed can make a real difference.
Trying to translate social and environmental externalities to monetary terms will help a lot to rest the discussion (and finally decisions) upon measurable and thus comparable facts.
In my opinion, the second definition I proposed above does include more than environmental aspects: extremely skewed income distribution or the austerity of a natural resource like water often leads to social unrest or even war - a state where future generations will not be able to meet their needs.
Thanks for pointing me to Joshua Epstein's book and for leading this highly interesting discussion!
Post a Comment