What’s wrong with being ‘less bad’?

“The Star nation holds the secrets of many forgotten stories. Even though many of these stories are no longer in our minds, it is said that is enough to be thankful to the Stars and perhaps one day we will learn these stories again.” – Chief Jake Swamp, sub-chief of the Wolf Clan of the Mohawk nation

Many of the cases, tools, and strategies on corporate sustainability which we discuss in the course all talk about things that make companies’ impact on the environment ‘less bad’. Use less energy, lower emissions, take fewer resources, and create fewer wastes – so seems to be the mantra being passed down from CSR advocates and large corporations. But is this the right approach?

In the book Cradle-to-Cradle, McDonough and Braungart (see books listed in the syllabus or visit www.mbdc.com) talk about shifting from the paradigm of ‘less bad’, to the paradigm of ‘doing good’. How can a large company or a middle-class individual have a positive impact instead of a negative impact? Using a cherry tree as a metaphor the authors emphasize that in nature waste equals food. A cherry tree offers “copious blossoms and fruit without depleting the environment”, offering up much more than it needs to prolong its species and therefore enriching its entire ecosystem – microorganisms, insects, birds, animals and soil all benefit from the cherry tree. And hey – they’re pretty nice to look at (In Japan and in Washington DC among other places celebrating the first cheery blossoms of Spring is a time-honored tradition).

It may be hard to imagine how an individual, or especially a corporation, could have a net positive impact over its lifetime. It seems we’re all pretty gifted in articulating the nuanced trade-offs between environmental destruction and progress, and probably for at least a few good reasons. But recall the first day of class when we reviewed our ecological foot print. I think for all of us it would be extremely difficult to live within our estimated carrying capacity and remain anywhere near a typical life style for Europeans (EU members) or North Americans. Applying the same ecological footprint tool to corporations makes it even more mind-boggling to imagine.

Nevertheless if we had time for a fourth debate the one I would choose is ‘whether or not human society could have a positive impact on the planet’. In his book Ecology of Eden (again, see syllabus for details) Evan Eisenberg describes two dominant schools of thought on the subject. One is the ‘Planet Fetishers’ – who think the planet is perfect – until, that is, when humans are involved. Traces of this sentiment are found in many movements throughout history but most completely, in our time, in the movement known as Deep Ecology.

The other school is what Eisenberg calls the ‘Planet Managers’. The managers regard themselves as ‘stewards’ of the environment. This ethos, says Eisenberg, tends to find its roots in Judeo-Christian heritage and is also “the dominant worldview among scientists and policy makers”. It’s a theory that sounds good, but in practice the type of management being employed tends to be a bit too ‘hands on’ - an engineering-intensive type of management with lots of bureaucrats, cubicles and middle- managers, all with a very narrow view on the subject. (For examples of this see my next blog entry about how we ‘manage’ forests. Forest fires are an increasing problem despite sky-rocketing budgets and ‘management systems’).

Eisenberg views neither of these as holding the answer - his recommendation? Something he calls “Earth Jazz” – “learn to improvise. Respond as flexibly to nature as nature responds to you,” suggests Eisenberg. In making such a sweeping proclamation, however, he offers up some good examples from the practices of indigenous societies which may hold some good ideas for improving our current way of doing things.

The first example is that of the Kayapo tribe who live in the Amazon basin and practice a sophisticated type of slash-and burn agriculture, otherwise known as swidden. In the first phase they chop down trees in a radial formation. The women then plant yams, sweet potatoes, taro and manioc before the burn - and beans, squash, melon and other crops just after the burn – each according to their appetite for the ash-laden nutrients. On the outer ring grows papaya, bananas, cotton, urucu and tobacco.

This ‘natural garden’ will be abandoned after a few years – but only in the sense that it won’t be planted. Over time these ‘islands’ revert to forest but with a useful life for the Kayapo that will last up to twenty years as other useful plants will tend to crop up as others fade. Over time the Kayapo will use up to 138 plants in these islands, 80 of which the Kayapo plant themselves. Even more important then the plants, these islands attract mammals and birds that the Kayapo hunt. In the end the Kayapo get a lot of food for a little bit of work and the ecosystem is made better for all players. Contrast this to modern agriculture with fuel powered machines, monoculture crops, excessive water usage and pollution and soil destruction.

Another example from McDonough and Braungart is the Menominee tribe in Wisconsin who are traditional wood harvesters. Their strategy however is to harvest while at the same time strengthening the overall ecosystem. They do this by taking the weaker trees. This allows the strong to grow stronger and preserves the ecosystem which is dependent upon the trees’ canopies. In 1870 the Menominee counted 1.3 billion standing board feet of timber to be harvested. Since then the tribe has harvested 2.25 billion board feet of timber yet today they have 1.7 standing billion feet of timber alive and well. Contrast that to clear cutting techniques which replant monocultures and destroy both individual animal species and old growth ecosystems. Which of these approaches better reflects sound business principles?

At this point I can already hear many of your protests – “but Tom, we can’t just go backward and all become hunter & gathers, that’s living in the past”. And I completely agree. What I am suggesting is that within our hunter gatherer past – which by the way includes the ancestors of every one of us – lies a tremendous amount of knowledge, tradition, culture and ways of doing things. While many of these may not be directly applicable to modern living there exists in this knowledge principles and ideas which may offer up clues about how we can save ourselves (if indeed we need it) or at least make our life on an increasingly crowded earth more bearable for all. The sad part of this however is that about 99% of this knowledge is completely lost to society at large. Perhaps even more distressing is that there is very little evidence that society sees much value in this knowledge. Even if we wanted to regain it how would go about doing it? Please share your thoughts . . .

Ray Andersen at Interface Carpets

Ray Andersen at Interface Carpets is probably the poster boy for everything that corporate sustainability has to offer – both good and bad. On the plus side Interface came up with a novel concept – instead of selling carpets, which is a physical product, it would lease floor covering, which is a service and has no adverse impacts on the environment. In this way it would provide more value to its customers and at the same time reduce its impact on the environment, a win-win situation. But despite all the gains for sustainability, when push comes to shove, poor old Ray has to admit that his company still does more damage to the environment than good (see article in reading pack).

During our first debate we questioned whether an economy could grow while at the same time being environmentally friendly. A comment by one of the teams highlighted the notion that in the new economy we really don’t depend on physical resources we depend on intangibles like knowledge and information.

But is this really true? After all, programmers have to eat, don’t they? And if one billion IT programmers in India start developing a taste for McDonald’s hamburgers doesn’t that mean on aggregate that the world economy will be consuming more beef (and by definition a whole lot more water, land, fossil fuels, chemicals and healthcare)? The same could be said about the taste for driving and airline travel in China.

The first question that needs to be asked and answered is whether there is a link between our current economic growth and physical resource consumption. To help answer this think of extraction industries such as agriculture, chemicals, pulp & paper and mining, then look around your house, in your garbage and in your garage. You will probably find a fair bit of wood, plastic metal and food products.

Another example of the resource link to our economy was an article about Caterpillar Inc. (one of the largest makers of earth moving equipment globally) which I came across some months ago. The company cannot keep up with orders for its mining vehicles because demand for virgin ferrous metal around the globe is rising at an unprecedented pace. What’s even more telling is that there is a huge bottleneck in capacity for the tires that operate these things. This of course means they will certainly start breaking ground on new tire plants – an industry that had stagnant capacity until recently. This is truly ironic if you consider that the tire on a mining vehicle would fill up a classroom and cost about $40,000 – that’s a lot of rubber and petrochemicals.

In conclusion – ‘studies show’ and the anecdotal evidence abounds – rising GDPs tend to have a very direct correlation with physical consumption.

So what’s the solution?

Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, Ray Anderson and Dan Jones all have similar ideas about this (see the articles about Natural Capitalism and Ray Anderson in the reading pack) and companies such as DuPont, Interface and Otis Elevator are beginning to adapt these ideas and concepts at a furious rate. To date, however, the impact of implementing these ideas has been minimal as such innovations are in their infancy.

In the future what concepts will enable us to decouple economic growth from physical consumption? What are the constraints we face in doing so? Are they technological? Cultural? Organizational? Political? Consider some concrete examples like computers and electronics, which tend to be piling up, and the paper industry where paper recycling is very limited. I look forward to your comments . . .