"The test of a first-rate intelligence," F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
It's time for greens to co-opt corporations.
Photo: iStockphoto
If so, then the growth of the green economy -- embraced by corporations, heralded by politicians -- marks something of an IQ test for the progressive movement. How can we at once celebrate companies that move toward better practices while acknowledging how much farther they need to go?
The signs of change are everywhere. General Electric and BP are ramping up their renewable energy as wind becomes price competitive with coal power. Prominent architects are using recycled and reused materials, and the market for non-residential green building is at $43 billion a year. More than $2 trillion in assets are invested in socially responsible funds. Sales of organically grown food are skyrocketing at 20 percent a year growth. Sustainable living has gone from granola fringe to glossy fashion.
This poses a real dilemma for those of us who have long advocated for a cleaner, more humane way of doing business. Of course, it's a tangible benefit to reduce the amount of toxic substances in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the homes that surround us. But are megacorporations -- the same companies that sold us the toxics in the first place -- really the best vehicles for lasting reform?
As this quandary proves, victories are rarely ever clean-cut. Success almost always comes with compromises and contradictions. Progress is, in a word, messy.
Is it a victory when Wal-Mart is the No. 1 seller of organic milk and organic cotton? Should we applaud when Ford offers a hybrid SUV? In short: What does success look like? How will an ecologically sustainable and socially responsible economy take shape?
After careful consideration, our response is a cagey "Yes, but." Yes, it's progress when big companies take steps to lessen their environmental impact. But it's not quite victory yet.
There are real advantages to the Fortune 500's adoption of more environmentally sound business practices. More organic food and clothing means less poisons in our soil and water. More solar energy means less greenhouse-gas emissions. More hybrid vehicles mean fewer gallons of gas burned.
At its most basic, the green economy movement -- which has been spearheaded by small entrepreneurs and is only now being embraced by giant corporations -- is merely the takeover of the very simple act of buying and selling. We all need some stuff, after all: food, clothing, shelter, and maybe an iPod for kicks. The trick is how to produce that stuff in a way that doesn't destroy the planet or abuse workers.
For too long we've allowed corporations to co-opt our social movements through greenwashing and phony charities. It's about time that we started co-opting the corporations. Let's use what businesses are good at -- marketing, distribution, retail sales -- and make it work for us. This is the idea of the "triple bottom line" economy: balancing financial sustainability, social justice, and environmental restoration. It's an idea that's increasingly popular, as the 3,000 green enterprises that are members of the Co-op America's Business Network prove.
Yet the dangers of a big-business takeover of the local, green economy movement are equally real. Will transnational corporations use green practices to more effectively wipe out their mom-and-pop competitors? Will organic standards be weakened by the power of large corporations? Will Americans retain their bad habits of overconsumption but simply switch to earth-friendly products?
In truth, we are not going to spend our way out of a social and ecological crisis 500 years in the making. The revolution does not take American Express.
The inherent contradictions in the trend toward more green business need not be overwhelming. Instead of succumbing to an either/or thinking that says we can either have Safeway organic broccoli or we can have local farmers' markets, we should adopt a both/and mentality that makes room for each path. Our movement for a local, green economy must mimic the wisdom of nature, which always bends toward unity of diversity. Nature abhors a monocrop, and so should we, recognizing that there isn't just a single way forward. There are many roads to the future, and while some get there by bike, others may choose to carpool or take a biodiesel bus.
In practice we encourage people to take whatever actions they are capable of. Call it smorgasbord politics. For the pioneers and the early adapters, there will continue to be community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, off-the-grid energy, bike lanes, and co-ops. For the newcomers just beginning to think about the impacts of their purchasing decisions, buying organic frozen dinners at Whole Foods is at least a step in the right direction. By all means, buy local. But keep in mind that your neighbor might still need some convincing that the green economy is not a fringe movement anymore.
The idea is to construct a green economy broad enough to accommodate a range of interests, niches for both the deeply committed and the newly curious -- while of course at all times pushing farther and constantly redefining "mainstream" and "normal" and "acceptable."
No, we can't buy the change we wish to see, not when buying too much has gotten us in this pinch in the first place. But we can put a down payment on a future that will have no clear-cut forests, no starving children, no sweatshops, and no endangered species.
Now that's smart business.
Green-biz pioneer Ray Anderson says sustainability literally pays for itself
‘Localwashing’ in pictures—bogus marketing at its finest
Comments
View as Flat
SNV Posted 3:03 am
15 Feb 2007
alas.
Permalink
danfavre Posted 3:38 am
15 Feb 2007
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 4:03 am
15 Feb 2007
Permalink
tbelford Posted 5:45 am
15 Feb 2007
There are corporations that deserve to be villified ... like TXU in Texas. There are corporations whose behavior should be applauded ... like the ten majors that just coalesced with WRI and Environmental Defense in USCAP on global warming. And there are corporations we should be busting our chops to steer in more socially responsible directions ... like Wal-Mart.
Corporate power is real; it ain't going away. Some of us can choose lifestyles that minimize contact with it. But others need to engage and harness it. Room for many strategies!
Permalink
Rob Smith Posted 6:29 am
15 Feb 2007
Permalink
dthopwood Posted 6:35 am
15 Feb 2007
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 11:57 am
15 Feb 2007
Better that from now, big energy business be a tidal power or windpower company cleanly supplying electricity to a world that actually survives.
So I welcome the CEOs who see the light. And as a CEO, don't actually find it that surprising that some do.
I see the battle as between those energy companies that made a living by digging stuff out of the ground, and all the other companies that use brains to make a living.
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 1:05 pm
15 Feb 2007
Total carbon emissions traceable to policies, operations products and business of any given company is now the only relevant standard for evaluating corporate behavior. How corporations choose to meet this single standard, in choosing between emissions-neutral alternatives, will still engage questions of equity, public health, and environmental issues other than climate.
The tricky question is how to apply a global standard to any given sector or corporation and BP and Walmart are useful case studies on the question. Both companies have offered us a climate deal.
BP's deal was to join environmentalists in spirit, put its weight behind mandatory emissions limits, and define corporate climate policy in terms of achieving emissions reductions in operations and substantial, by past standards, investments in renewables. In exchange, BP is able to pursue an aggressive drive to expand oil and gas operations, absorbing 96% of its capital investment. It is a terrible deal and we took it. BP just received top score in the first CERES ranking of corporate climate policies, applying BP's own criteria.
WalMart's is a much more interesting deal. The company promises to set and take seriously a goal of 100% reliance on renewable energy in its internal operations and to use its monstrous market power to force carbon emissions reductions from its suppliers. In exchange, Walmart will continue its aggressive drive to expand and dominate a global, mass consumer culture. This is clearly more complicated, but at least offers something of substance.
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 1:16 pm
15 Feb 2007
They are pushing CFL bulbs -- which will save their customers electricity payments, which means more money they can spend in Walmart. (see: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/5/3593/39370)
And, so on ..
Permalink
Diane65 Posted 8:59 am
16 Feb 2007
That corporations are spending money calling for legislation instead of fighting it is definitely progress. That many of them are making changes in their construction and energy sources is even better.
That said, reducing consumption, and not just the impact of consumption is, and will almost certainly remain, counter-cultural. There is no incentive to any corporate entity for leading such a movement, so, if we want it to happen, we'll need to build up social structures that encourage it. Churches would be natural partners in this, but non-church-goers may be able to formulate novel community structures to encourage and inform.
But it is such a relief to begin to see movement, and, as with our community structures, a variety of pathways will probably be necessary to fit the vast variety of humankind. Restricting participation to the pure in heart is not a recipe for success.
Permalink
reguru Posted 2:32 am
17 Feb 2007
Permalink
colinbro Posted 2:23 pm
18 Feb 2007
We are seeing here the power of many individuals. People are not doing nothing if they are making concious decisions about what they buy. They are actively changing their world. People are active when they are talking with their friends, when they are reading newspapers, teaching their children, voting for the best politicians, asking questions at stockholders meetings, choosing their forms of transports, housing, clothes and food.
Don't fret about whether we should support corporations in their 'greening'. Corporations will change or shrink. We will look at and judge their individual actions, and we will decide directly on their fate when we decide whether to support them financially by buying their products or services.
We, the people of this planet, make the decisions every day. We choose. So keep in perspective the whole issue of the greening of business and government. We are deciding the issue.
Permalink
earthpope Posted 2:38 am
26 Feb 2007
Just because something says "organic" doesn't mean it is sustainable. Pesticides are still pesticides even though some may be made from natural occuring chemicals while others are man-made. They still kill insects and other organisms. Poor farm practices, both conventional or organic, are still poor farm practices.
What we need is transparancy of information with all products. Remember Adam Smith's conditions for a free market include total information disclosure on all transactions between the producer and the purchaser. Our economy has very little environmental information on any transaction except when companies want to showcase their minor accomplishments.
If companies really wanted to be "green" and sustainable they would work on take-back packaging and products that could be repaired cheaply instead of having to be replaced. For example, why are all printers defaulted to single-sided printing instead of double-sided? Because most companies that manufacture printers also make huge profits selling paper. Again, profits before people and planet.
We won't begin to get to sustainable until it is people and planet before profits!!!
Permalink