Has the eco-bubble deflated? Has Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth documentary and global warming lost its warming? Personally, I am still drinking the “Green Kool-Aid”, and proud of it! However, in the land of a million brands where its inhabitants can name more products than plants, recognize more animations than animals, and consume resources rather than conserve for generations to come – have we come to the end of the road? Was the “Green Economy” a mirage in the desert, or is there still hope on the horizon? At this point, there are only two scenarios, at least in my mind, which we can arguably dispute: (1) Green’s 15-miutes of fame are up, or (2) there is still hope for a Green future.
Let’s look at the first scenario. 15 minutes of fame is the expression which refers to the condition where an individual in particular, event, series of events, or concept spontaneously commands media attention, then passes to some new object as soon as people's attention spans are exhausted. It is often used in reference to figures in the entertainment industry and other areas of popular culture; in this case, the “let’s Go Green” movement. The actual phrase “15 minutes of fame” was coined by the American artist Andy Warhol, a leading figure in the visual art movement known as “pop art”, and is a paraphrase of Mr. Warhol’s 1968 statement: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes."
Before Inconvenient Truth became an award-winning documentary, environmental justice advocates were primarily identified as “tree-huggers”, “bird watchers”, or “weirdoes” who were more concerned about endangered species than endangered communities. And then in 2006, mainstream media realized that if green became sexy and cool, it would potentially produce more “cha-ching”, I mean green. Essentially, what Barack Obama became to the civic engagement movement, Al Gore was to the modern “green movement” (socially responsible citizens spreading the gospel of green in an attempt to eradicate climate change). So what are the warning signs of the socio-eco courtship between the environment and big business? Easy, two recent articles: “Most business to put ‘going green’ on the back burner” and “Two-thirds of CFOs don't plan sustainability boost in next 12 months”. According to a new survey by Robert Half Management Resources, the articles reflect that most businesses and executives, “despite the popular movement to go green” are not planning to grow their sustainable initiatives in the next year. This brings us to our next point.
Laurence Rockefeller believed in the business of saving nature, and made this evident in a simple sentence: “The greatest opportunities come at the intersection of commerce and conservation”. The life-blood of America is commerce; and if we are to survive as a society, Mr. Rockefeller’s statement must hold true. There is a significant benefit in embracing the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility while contributing to the health and well-being of those whom demand what The Corporation supplies. These companies must remain open to sustainable practices through adopting the theory of a “triple bottom line”.
The triple bottom line (also known as "people, planet, and profit") measures success economically, ecologically and socially. In more practical terms, triple bottom line accounting means expanding the traditional reporting framework to take into account ecological and social performance in addition to financial performance. In hindsight, a company's responsibility is to stakeholders (anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm) rather than solely maximizing shareholder (owner) profits. In layman's terms, forget a cleaner and healthier environment, without our planet there are no people, hence, you get no profit! A clean and healthier environment means happier and more responsive consumers. Let’s hope that 15-minutes translates into an eternity.
Posts
