I try not to consume much, but when I do, I like to buy products that make me feel morally superior. Chances are, you do too. Right? My point is not that we're better than everyone else and therefore have the right to be smug (even if we do); my point is that there is an obvious niche market for consumers who pay close attention to where their goods come from and where they can go when they're done with them. But do these companies have--either an externally imposed or internally genuine--moral obligation to the greater good?
Mark Dwight, Founder and CEO of Rickshaw Bagworks says yes. He left his last company when he told the Board that they had a moral imperative to stop using PVC. They disagreed. So he started a competing company that doesn't compromise on that value and leads by example in many other ways such as manufacturing quality products in the USA. They meet their bottom line through innovation and embrace their-self imposed limitations as part of their business culture. I recently met Dwight and other environmental leaders at the Opportunity Green Conference and Dwight's comments were a springboard for others in the field.
If there is a moral obligation to innovate, is there also a moral obligation to be philanthropic? Rick Ridgeway of Patagonia used similar language as Dwight: "We have a moral obligation to do our penance as a company...business is harmful to the environment; we are morally obligated to mitigate that harm." As a member of 1% for the Planet, Patagonia has donated over $40M to environmental nonprofits and has become an icon among sustainable companies.
The next question: is it more important to be sustainably innovative or philanthropic? In 1993, New Belgium Brewing Company was giving away$1 for every barrel of beer sold. They asked themselves, as Jennifer Orgolini recalls, "Should we give that much? Should we keep more for greening our own operations?" The company decided that their dollars could be effectively used in both ways. Some environmental progress is better done by nonprofits and the world needs both innovative companies and funding for grassroots environmental efforts.
It's an important distinction that companies do need to be both leading by example and giving to organizations that can do other things better than they can. A coal mine giving away money to a land trust is different than a sustainably-minded company supporting causes that extend their values. Of course, it is in these company's best interests to support environmental nonprofits: Patagonia's customers won't have anywhere to use their gear if their favorite mountain trail becomes a housing subdivision and New Belgium acknowledges that "no fresh water means no great beer." There's nothing wrong with a symbiotic relationship.
The fact that environmentalists are using words like "penance" and "moral" is fascinating. I emerged from an evangelical Christian background. In that culture, the prevailing view--not held by everyone of course--is basically that God created the Earth and then created humans to dominate it; we're going to die and go to heaven so why should we care what happens on this planet after that? That's God's problem to save us from. I don't like that the Religious Right has commandeered certain words and concepts. I like being reminded that morals are not just about personal choices like not having sex before marriage; they are about choices to do the right thing for the greater good. (And on a sarcastic note, it gives me a broader platform from which my smugness can emanate.)
Photo Credit: Kerri Feazell
No comments:
Post a Comment