Wednesday, 20 Sep 2000
PARIS, France
The meetings in Paris have been going surprisingly well, though yesterday's gathering, which focused on the future of the Global Reporting Initiative, was hindered somewhat by the participants' widely divergent levels of familiarity of the project. Some people wanted a basic briefing on the idea of reporting and the rationale behind the GRI, while others wanted to pursue discussion of what the GRI should be doing and how it should be structured in the future.
Finding the right balance between retracing old arguments for the benefit of new participants and moving forward is part of the challenge of trying to expand the circle of parties involved in the GRI. In some ways human beings are like animals -- when they encounter something new, they circle around it, sniffing and poking until they are satisfied that it is safe. Even though we were all sitting around in business attire, looking out of the window at the Eiffel Tower, the behavior was fundamentally the same.
In other words, skepticism is inevitable at the beginning. I have learned, fortunately, that with a little patience most of the questions can be answered and most people gradually accept the fundamental logic of what we have been doing. In time some people move beyond acceptance to real enthusiasm -- they see the possibilities for social and systemic change that are embodied in the idea of reporting on environmental and social performance and they decide to commit themselves to supporting the overall vision. When that happens, all kinds of magic are possible.
One of the reasons organizations like CERES and the GRI encounter skepticism is that they are really very new models for how human beings can interact. CERES's success has come from the tremendous learning that takes place when people step outside their conventional circles and move into conversation with people whose premises and language are quite different. We all gravitate in our interactions toward people who are like us. Business people go to conferences with other business people; investors talk to investors; environmentalists congregate with environmentalists. As each group gathers, they tend to confirm each other's assumptions and biases. Environmentalists and business managers have found it easy to point the finger and murmur "if only this other group would change, everything would be all right." But when people are actually drawn together into conversation, across boundaries, such behavior becomes much more difficult. People become aware of complexity; they learn how change can really take place; they sometimes find new and unexpected areas of agreement.
In the case of the Global Reporting Initiative, part of the challenge for people is that the world itself is changing and, in doing so, calling forth new human institutions. Looking at the rapid pace of globalization, I think we are in a watershed historical period in which institutions are fundamentally remaking themselves. Being in Paris reminds me that for much of its history Europe was governed by two competing forces, arrayed essentially in a matrix. Princes and kings exercised secular control, while bishops and popes had spiritual authority -- over the same people and places. It took a long time for nations to emerge, for national leaders to consolidate control over the regional dukes and princes and to cut off the power of Rome.
In the 21st century a new matrix is emerging. On the one hand we still have systems of accountability based on place -- local, regional, national, and international forms of government. On the other, we now have huge transnational institutions and organizations whose members transcend the boundaries of geography. The most powerful form is that of the corporation, although other organizations -- civil society organizations, churches, humanitarian groups -- have found new ways to connect and to coordinate internationally. The place-based systems of accountability are struggling to discover ways to control corporate behavior even as corporations are figuring out ways to expand their freedom across many countries. In some sense the whole debate about trade liberalization is about whether governments can guide the behavior of companies to support human and environmental goals.
One way to do so is for governments to negotiate trade agreements, but the protests against the World Trade Organization's work and role suggests that many groups in civil society do not trust governments to represent these interests adequately. Another way is for stakeholders -- consumers, investors, communities, trade unions -- to ask companies to make direct commitments to environmental and social standards of performance. We also need clear information. It is not enough, in the modern world, to know the greenhouse gas emissions of a country such as Denmark; we also need to know the greenhouse gas emissions of General Motors.
That's where the GRI comes in. By creating a structure through which outsiders can learn directly about a company's commitments and performance, the GRI holds the promise of creating a system of scrutiny and accountability very different from that of governments. To be truly effective, the systems must complement each other, with governments backing up the responsibilities of organizations and vice versa. This is, in fact, what happens in the financial world. People often forget that our mighty financial markets -- and all the complex rules and understandings that underlie them -- were not brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses. They evolved through the specific decisions of particular human beings over time. And now, as we move into the 21st century, we are seeing the same thing happen again, but in the new world of sustainability.
At least that's what we hope.
Comments
View as Flat