<
Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Full Disclosure

Catch a Wave

The ebb and flow of corporate eco-consciousness

By John Elkington and Mark Lee
15 Nov 2005
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
We remember a certain look businesspeople used to struggle to hide when confronted with their first real-life environmentalist. It was as if they had been presented with an alien life-form -- a creature from some green lagoon. Some felt threatened, no doubt, but others were genuinely perplexed, curious, sympathetic even: "What made you one of those?" they would probe. In reply, they might hear about an experience or revelatory moment that suddenly made the world look very different, spurring action.

Money boat.
Watch out now.
Decades later, we are seeing accounts of similar experiences from the business side -- even from the likes of Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott, who was described in reports of his company's recent eco-announcement as having undergone "something of a conversion."

Not surprisingly, the flood tide of "we're turning green" statements from a variety of CEOs has raised eyebrows in the world of activism. But it should also raise deep questions about what exactly we are trying to do here, and what it will take to get it done. Increasingly, environmental and social issues present real business risks and opportunities. The real test is whether these business leaders move beyond the blasted-off-my-donkey-by-a-beam-of-green-light phase to work for, lobby for, and invest in genuinely sustainable forms of development. And the test for those of us goading and supporting them is whether our engagement is making a difference.

If you're an environmental activist of any kind, part of the answer to where your environmentalism came from is the late Rosa Parks. The link in our minds? Well, Parks taught generations of activists the power of a single person. As a direct result of her initial action and subsequent persistence, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, marking the beginning of the end for legal racial segregation and disenfranchisement. She eventually received the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor -- not just because she stood her ground on a bus in Montgomery, Ala., but because she was a key catalyst for a movement that changed the system. Many of today's most effective environmental activists have the same goal -- even if they're a long way from achieving it -- and the corporate world seems a newly accessible place to make progress. But what can be done to drive and embed the necessary systemic changes, so the lessons learned are not promptly forgotten?

Rosa Parks.
What would Rosa do?
Photo: Wikipedia.
The answers, of course, have to reflect where we've come from, and where we're going. SustainAbility has mapped three great waves of societal pressure impacting government and business since 1960, predominantly in the developed world. With three big waves to date, the real embedding of changes seems to come about after the social movements themselves peak -- in other words, in the downwave periods.

How do the upwaves and downwaves work? Here's our take. The first environmental wave, peaking between 1969 and 1973, drove political and regulatory changes like the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency and U.N. Environment Program. Throughout the first downwave, which ran from 1974 through 1987, business was largely on the defensive, forced to comply with a growing range of rules and regulations.

Wave two, peaking between 1988 and 1991, was spurred by issues like the ozone hole and triggered a very different approach. As environmental performance increasingly became a market issue, companies began to compete. One inevitable result was that many competing approaches and standards surfaced. The ensuing downwave saw a round of convergence and consolidation around such standards as the Global Reporting Initiative, ISO14001, and SA8000.

Then the peak period of wave three kicked off in the streets of Seattle in 1999, with a focus on globalization and corporate and global governance. With this third wave, the sustainability agenda has increasingly become one of systemic change. By our analysis, the third downwave began late in 2002, following the intense drag effects of 9/11 and breakdowns in corporate governance and ethics like those seen at Enron and WorldCom. One symptom of the bedding-in phase this time around has been the way these issues have increasingly become central to the agendas of organizations like the World Economic Forum and the Clinton Global Initiative.

If instinct is anything to go by -- and all projections should come with a warning that the one thing you can be sure of is that the future is full of surprises -- the next upwave will be easily detectable by around 2010. We expect that it will focus on unlocking innovation and creativity, on evolving entrepreneurial solutions to the world's great challenges, and on bringing such solutions to scale, often through the use of new market mechanisms and economic instruments. Perhaps these are key reasons why GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt's Ecomagination announcements have resonated so powerfully -- at least as presented, they fit strongly with these three emerging characteristics of the next wave.

Ultimately, as the green closet begins to shake seismically with the number of CEOs wanting to step out, the real question isn't whether business leaders are waking up to the sustainability challenges the new century will bring. If they aren't, they will lose their jobs. The question is how to react to them when they do wake up to these challenges -- how to react to the Immelts and Scotts of this world.

If they are serious, they too can help change the rules. But it will not be an immediate process. While we suggest you don't take their pronouncements at face value, we also suggest that you give them some wiggle room to steer their complex organizations through the early stages of the transition. While they do that, we should be willing to trust -- but also make sure we verify the rate and direction of change. How are CEO-level promises translating into effective everyday action? How are company-level commitments cascading into meaningful targets and incentives? To what extent is the company lobbying for the sort of market-wide incentives needed to accelerate change? In addition to these questions, anyone helping businesses change, at whatever level, should continuously ask themselves whether what they are doing is worthy of previous generations of activists -- not least the late, great Rosa Parks.

Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Disclosing time: Seen an example of the business and environmental worlds colliding? Noticed a new trend? Well, take a letter, Maria! Address it to .
London-based John Elkington is cofounder and chair of SustainAbility. He blogs at johnelkington.com.
Canadian Mark Lee is a director of SustainAbility and makes his home in San Francisco.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

what does this mean for poor people?

After reading "Catch a Wave" and a number of other articles in Grist about the greening of large, corporate businesses, I want to raise two questions.

Number one, the links that became apparant between workers, environmentalists and international human rights activists are in jeopardy if we jump on the green wal-mart bandwagon.  Wal-mart still refuses to allow workers to unionize and has an awful track record of race and gender discrimination among workers.  I can't imagine people concerned with making it possible for working class people to survive as the gaps between haves and have nots increase will really care that Wal-mart customers can now buy orgaic produce and high-end wine.  Also, the majority of cheap plastic crap that Wal-mart has to offer was made in sweat shops in countries that don't have much in the way of labor and environmental regulations.

Some kinds of enviornmental reforms appeal mostly to elites.  Sure, large markets for organic growers is a good thing, but the economy of scale makes it more likely that this food will come from large corporate than small, family farms.  Also, is it worth turning on the progressive coalitions that are finally beginning to develop so that Wal-mart can make some small, incremental changes.  I would like to think environmentalism is about something more radical than that.

Secondly, Wal-mart's popularity is based on its ability to convince people to buy more stuff.  They offer everything inexpensively, making their profits off an increase in overall consumption (plus their awfully low labor costs).  Is it even possible to have an environmetnalism that involves all of us in developed countries continuing to buy all of this needless stuff?  And is it possible to have a business that is not about, in some way, promoting this consumer mentality.

Even if wal-mart is for real, it represents, at best, a small improvement in the current way of doing business.  This is a good thing, but we need to keep imagining totally new ways.

Companies Like Wal-Mart ...

can never be green.  One of Wal-Mart's greatest sins is that it destroys undeveloped land to build stores with huge parking lots and entices people to drive many miles to shop at those stores instead of shopping locally.  This is not to say that Wal-Mart can't do less environmental harm than it's now doing while still earning the same profit, but we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that any business that destroys open space, encourages extra driving, or encourages needless consumption can be a green business.

Jeff Hoffman
Companies like WalMart

For those of you who are not fans of WalMart, it may interest you to know that they have just been conned in regards to their new "Green" packaging that is using PLA instead of polyethylene. Firstly, in the manufacture of PLA, more greenhouse gases are given off than in the case of regular polyethylene.(See "How Green Are Green Plastics", Scientific America, August 2000.)Secondly,those new "biodegradable" containers that they are starting to use are not biodegradable. They are compostable. The only way that PLA/NatureWorks containers will degrade is if they are put into a municipal compost pile. How many people recycle their containers into a compost pile? I would venture to guess none.Municipal compost piles are generally used for household scraps and yard waste. So all those containers will end up in the landfill and last as long as regular plastic containers- around 400 years. So the idea that these containers are a help to the environment is not true.The kicker is that they will cost WalMart more than the regular plastic containers.Sounds like WalMart did not do its homework.

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular



From the Archives
Have You Riven a Ford Lately?, by John Elkington, Mark Lee. Ford's green guru discusses cars, climate, and time-warp activism.
WEEE Are the World, by John Elkington, Mark Lee. New E.U. environmental standards are changing the global marketplace.
China Syndromes, by John Elkington, Mark Lee. Will hard-won environmental and social gains survive China's economic rise?

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks