Ecological Problems: The disease is not the cure

The entire human population, the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the governed, and the governors, stand at a very dangerous precipice. That precipice is the degradation of the natural environment: the cutting down of the rainforests, the pollution of the air and water, climate change the overconsumption of resources and energy that are not renewable, the list goes on. Some have surmised that corporations and the invisible forces of the market will create an economic atmosphere conducive to solving these problems through traditional market forces and corporate objectives. It is true that much progress has been made by corporations to be more “green,” but the unfortunate fact is that the progress is not enough to undue over one-hundred years of industrial waste and consumption, waste and consumption that is only growing. Indeed, how can the problem be the solution? The world’s population is on the rise: “More than six billion people currently inhabit the planet, and by the year 2050 this number is likely to grow to more than nine billion.” A growing population will only put a greater strain on the Earth’s all ready life support systems. Greater environmental degradation is beginning to make a palpable mark on the earths climate, with rising average temperatures and seas levels, and these effects will only magnify if business continues as usual. Of course, a technologically sophisticated society, such as ours, might be able to reinvent itself in a way that extends the carrying capacity of the earth and can support the growing population of the human species. The possibility of living within the limits of the Earth’s support systems is available to humanity; the only question is just how does humanity go about reinventing itself to live within those limits. Some have suggested that that corporations can be part of the solution to the ecological problems humanity faces. Certainly, they have a place in the solution but they cannot operate according to the rules of conventional corporate environment. The reason for this is because the conventional corporate environment only addresses the need to turn out greater and great profits. As Donald S. Siegel asserted, corporations should only “adopt green management practices only [when] such actions complement the organization’s business and corporate level strategies.” This notion is bizarre because the existence of the market, of humanity in general, is dependent on our ability to live within its limits Regardless of whether we like it or not, humanity cannot exist without the goodwill of Mother Nature. The Earth is the ultimate authority in this regard. Even environmental activists are mistaken with their appeals of “saving the earth.” The earth is saved. We must label this appeal more appropriately as, “save ourselves.” The reason being, as James Lovelock pointed out, “If there were a nuclear war, and humanity were wiped out, the Earth would breathe a sigh of relief. It doesn’t mind radiation.” Earth will inevitably recover form whatever injury humanity inflicts upon it. It has survived for millions of years and has millions more to live, humanity on the other hand does not have the luxury of time. Humanity will not be able to cope with nuclear fallout, or massive flooding, or climate change, and the resulting mass migration of people. We simply will not have the time to adapt to such stark, sudden, and irreversible changes. Corporations have been and continue to be a moving force of the industrial revolution’ and industrial prosperity. They championed the methods that have led to a consumerist culture and the degradation of the natural environment. They view the resources of the planet as a commodity and not part of a natural order that must be delicately maintained and respected. Nonetheless, because corporations are such a big part of the modern world they to must be part of the solution. They just need to invent a new set of rules to abide by. Alfred A. Marcus and Adam R. Fremeth stress that “green management” of corporations is of utmost importance regardless of whether it is profitable or not (a factor that governs traditional corporate strategies). Nonetheless, in an appeal to those who think differently they outline the benefits of “green management” and claim that “green management,” just like and other corporate strategy can be profitable and involves necessary risks as well. “Green management” requires corporations to “use resources wisely and responsibly, protect the environment, minimize the amounts of air, water, energy, minerals, and other materials used in the final goods people consume, recycle and reuse, respect nature’s calm, eliminate toxins that harm people in the workplace and communities, [and] reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid activities that do irrevocable damage to the climate.” The underlying concern any corporation should have is not necessary to increase profits but to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” Corporations can be “green” by balancing social, environmental, and economic needs. Corporations can find this balance in many ways. For example, research into substance replacement of toxic chemicals can lead to less negative societal impact. Also, committing to reducing emissions will increase an organization’s positive environmental impact. Experts not only agree that green management can be profitable, but that now it is a “driving force for corporate entrepreneurship and innovation” and can lead to a “happier, healthier, and more productive workforce and the recruitment of more talented and creative employees.” Nevertheless, as skeptics point out, pursuing a green management initiative involves risks. In fact, many initiatives have taken a nosedive and gone out of business when pursuing green energy initiatives. After all, they are often more expensive and less competitive in well-established fields. Such was the case with Consider Ringer a company that produced natural garden and lawn care products. Unfortunately, it’s efforts were beat out by the competition of well-established companies that sold toxic lawn and garden care products. Yet, one might consider if this company would have survived if the traditional market forces that values instant results, profitability, and cheap production weren’t in play. The current corporate culture cannot possibly solve the problems we face when it continues to push out and out compete the solutions we need. Still, successful green management initiatives abound. Several factors ensure their success. One notable factor is that presence of CEO who “[possess] values stressing the concerns of a wide range of stakeholders.” These leaders are often viewed as visionaries. Their personal character, it is noted, is “likely to elicit extra effort on the part of followers as well as stronger financial performance.” The key difference of a CEO of an effective green management scheme is that he possesses a sound moral judgment. This of course, is not an aspect of conventional corporate culture. Herein lies the key to many of the problems that corporate culture perpetuates: negative impact can be reduced when individuals making decisions care for more than just profitability. In the final analysis, green management is no greater a risk than any other corporate strategy. The difference is that it cannot be an optional strategy. The world’s resources are limited and society demands a green revolution. Without effective action by individuals and corporations our ecological problems will persist. By virtue of the fact that corporations hold such tremendous power and influence they must be obligated to make such essential changes within themselves. Humanity must either reinvent how it does business and begin to live within the limits of the Earth’s support systems, or face extinction. All life forms on earth obey one simple rule: they never take more than they need. And if they do they either find a way to live within the limits of nature or they die off. Humanity breaks this law everyday and it will lead to ruin. In the body, we call something that takes more than it needs, cancer. Humankinds corporate culture of unfettered consumption of the world’s recourses is a cancer that is only eating away at itself.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Marcus, A & A. Fremeth (2009), “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 18
[ 2 ]. Marcus, A & A. Fremeth (2009), “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 18
[ 3 ]. Siegel, D. (2009), “Green management matters only if it yields more green: an economic / strategic perspective”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 5
[ 4 ]. Brown, A. (2005), “Paramedic to the planet”, Guardian 31.12.05
[ 5 ]. Marcus, A & A. Fremeth (2009), “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 19
[ 6 ]. Marcus, A & A. Fremeth (2009), “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 18
[ 7 ]. Marcus, A & A. Fremeth (2009), “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 19
[ 8 ]. Marcus, A & A. Fremeth (2009), “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 17
[ 9 ]. Marcus, A & A. Fremeth (2009), “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 20
[ 10 ]. Siegel, D. (2009), “Green management matters only if it yields more green: an economic / strategic perspective”, Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (3): 13