|
by: Gifford Pinchot
Part of the pathway to a sustainable society comes from government
actions such as regulations, taxes, subsidies, and partnerships that bias the market
towards serving the common good. Part of the pathway to sustainability comes from
building organizations with the capacity to support employees, to serve customers
and stockholders, and to deliver ecological benefits - all at the same time. But
neither government regulations and incentives, nor breakthroughs in corporate ability
to address multiple bottom lines can ever be enough unless the people in the system
care about more than a selfish vision of success.
According to philosopher Lewis Mumford, fundamental change
in civilizations comes when the culture changes its vision of what it is to be a
human being. After a long period of seeing ourselves as conquerors of nature, we are due for such a change. We will begin facing
challenges caused by expanding technological power and growing population when we
change what we are striving for. We need a new definition of success.
Systems thinker and psychologist Gregory
Bateson calls our view of ourselves as isolated individuals, "the epistemological
error of Occidental civilization." Naess, the Norwegian philosopher of deep
ecology, suggests that we are at last moving beyond this error larger sense of self,
a self which includes the planet. Joanna Macy, another deep ecologist, puts it:
"The obvious choice is to extend
our notions of self interest. for example it would not occur to me to plead with
you. 'Oh, don't saw off your leg. That would be an act of violence.' It wouldn't
occur to me because your leg is part of your body. Well so are the trees in the Amazon
rain basin. They are our external lungs. And we are beginning to realize that the
world is our body."
If Joanna Macy and Arne Naess are right that a larger sense
of self is spreading rapidly, then the growing health of our larger self will constitute
a success more important than the triumph of our little self over our neighbors.
Taking Pride in Contribution
The first step toward a sustainable sense o is taking pride in the value of our contributions
to others rather than taking pride in the value of our possessions. By extension
this means striving for quality in the use of whatever power we have rather than
working to get more power over others as an end in itself. In this view, profit and
wealth may help us to contribute, but they do not themselves constitute business
success.
If we went to the grave with riches gained by gutting the pension
fund, or selling pesticides we know cause more harm than the insects they control,
would we count our business lives successful? On the other hand, what if we stewarded
a small company that repeatedly introduced more ecological ways of doing things?
Maybe other larger players who quickly copied the ecological innovations gained much
of the material reward. f we barely made ends meet, but clearly made the world a
better place, is that a success?
Defining success by what one gives rather than what one has
is neither a new practice nor an overly idealistic view. It is rooted deep in history
and human nature, and is more basic than wealth or money.
The Gift Economy
In the potlatches of the Chinook, Nootka, and other Pacific Northwest peoples, chiefs
vied to give the most blankets and other valuables. More generally, in huntergatherer
societies the hunter's status was not determined by how much of the kill he ate,
but rather by what he brought back for others.
In his brilliant book The Gift: The Erotic Life of Property,
Lewis Hyde points to two types of economies. In a commodity (or exchange) economy,
status is accorded to those who have the most. In a gift economy, status is accorded
to those who give the most to others.
Lest we think that the principles of a gift economy will only
work for simple, primitive or small enterprises, Hyde points out that the community
of scientists follows the rules of a gift economy. The scientists with highest status
are not those who possesses the most knowledge; they arc the ones who have contributed
the most to their fields. A scientist of great knowledge, but only minor contributions
is almost pitied - his or her career is seen as a waste of talent.
At a symposium a scientist gives a paper. Selfish scientists
do not hope others give better papers so they can come away with more knowledge than
they had to offer in exchange. Quite the reverse. Each scientist hopes his or her
paper will provide a large and lasting value. By the rules of an exchange economy,
the scientist hopes to come "loser," because that is precisely how one
wins in science.
Antelope meat called for a gift economy because it was perishable
and there was too much for any one person to eat. Information also loses value over
time and has the capacity to satisfy more than one. In many cases information gains
rather than loses value through sharing. While the exchange economy may have been
appropriate for the industrial age, the gift economy is coming back as we enter the
information age.
Doing Business
as a Gift to Society
The next step in the move toward sustainable business is to make the business itself
a gift to society.
Companies that use sulfuric acid end up with
a hazardous waste. DuPont, instead of distancing itself from the hazardous waste
generated by its customers, saw this problem as an opportunity to differentiate its
offering in one of the most basic of commodities. The company took back the spent
sulfuric acid, purified it, and resold it. This was good business because once DuPont
got good at it, recycling turned out to be cheaper than creating from scratch. It
also gained the company market share and margins in what had become to others a low-profit,
uninteresting commodity. In this case, DuPont does well by doing good, thus winning
both the exchange and gift paradigms.
The sign of excellence in a new world of
the larger self is not vast profit or possessions, but sufficient material success
to allow large and thoughtful contributions to society. For some strategies of societal
service, huge profits may be needed, for example to build up the capital to purchase
forestry land and convert it to sustainable forestry, or to extend a chain of tutoring
schools that serve those who otherwise might not read, including the poor.
Other strategies for making a contribution
might require only a modest income that could be used for marshalling forces for
change by example or through volunteers. In world dominated by a larger sense of
self these two strategies could do equal good and would be considered equally successful.
One feature of our society works directly
against implementing a larger vision of success: institutional ownership of companies.
In an earlier era of owneroperated businesses, an owner who thought solely o profit
without regard for the effect of decisions on employees or the welfare of the community
was thought to be a monster, and rightly so.
In contrast, the law today forbids pension
fund managers from full humanity; they arc precluded by I from allowing concerns
for the environment or the good of employees to interfere with maximizing return.
Institutional investment laws need to be changed.
A Shift from Capital to Talent
The critical factor controlling success in business is shifting from capital to talent.
Employees are no longer interchangeable parts. This is not good for everyone, the
undereducated and those whose talents are not now in demand are losing ground. But
there is a bright side. Employers must curry the favor of their talented employees
who increasingly have an ethical agenda. Employees who can easily find work elsewhere
are refusing to work on projects or for companies that offend their values, even
if they would be well paid to do so. As this trend increases, as people take a stand
for sustainability in choosing their work, even public corporations seeking the favor
of bloodless institutional investors will find that sustainable companies have the
best future because they have the best talent. In fields where creativity counts,
sustainability is a competitive weapon.
This strategy will not work if we are so pure that no realistic
level of improvement would meet our standards. It will not work if we sell out for
greenwashing instead of instituting real environmentally conscious practices.
Biasing the system for sustainability requires some of us to be in the game demanding
change.
Our ability to make our talent count for change will often
require us to take less for our services than if we were selling to the highest bidder.
One consulting firm I know virtually requires new consultants
to use their fine salaries to buy expensive cars and houses. They want them up to
their eyeballs in debt so the company can have complete control over them. They want
their consultants living in fear of losing their jobs so they don't ever put ethics
ahead of their sales and profits.
Frugality and Choice
Voluntary simplicity is not just polluting less, it is having more to "spend"
on integrity at work. If we can live on less, we can turn down unsustainable projects
at work just as we do in our choices at home.
Talented people have been making sustainable career choices
in increasing numbers. This gives businesses that can provide good work towards good
ends a great advantage, and this advantage will grow as the highly environmentally
and socially conscious generation in school now becomes important talent to business.
The real game in the business world of the ecological age is
running a business or a career so as to make a contribution to the community, the
nation, and even to the planet as a whole. True business competence in the ecological
age is demonstrated by producing a better product or service for customers and at
the same time setting new standards for reducing pollution, for creating habitat,
for helping the less fortunate. We cannot play this new game until we move beyond
the fear of insolvency and learn to live frugally regardless of financial success.
The old status system is hard on the heart. Living for the
larger self through a strategy of frugality and service opens up the heart to the
glory of creation all around us. The gift is repaid manyfold.
|
