Behind the Greenwash
Recently, I have been feeling really good about the progress in the level of understanding and incorporation of the ideals of sustainability into the workings of American businesses. With, seemingly, every major company publishing yearly sustainability reports and committing to high profile projects claiming everything from life-cycle accounting to carbon neutrality, it would seem business is putting its money where its mouth is.
Then I read KPMG's REPORTING THE BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN SUSTAINABILITY REPORTS which surveyed 50 such reports and gleaned the take home message from each in terms of perceived risks and benefits resulting from global warming. First, let me say, I guess its good that there is some acknowledgement of the issue. Global warming has been recognized in executive offices in the business community, which is more than can be said for the executive offices in the federal government. However, when the section on perceived risks opened with:
Very few of the companies surveyed reported quantitatively or qualitatively on risks arising from climate change. Of the examples that were found, by far most were related to current or future increased costs of energy (9 out of 50). A small number of companies reported on risk related to legal action and long term climatic changes. Very few other examples were found of reporting on risk related to climate change.<
Fantastic. And to top it off, the report concludes that in reporting (in the sustainability report mind you) on global warming, far more companies reported on how the company was going to capitalize on expected opportunities derived from global warming. What opportunities? Well there are carbon credits, emissions trading, carbon funds and emissions brokering, investment and asset management services and " other business opportunities related to consumer products, services or technologies arising from climate change."
Whether or not we can buy and sell our way out of a climate crisis remains to be seen, but until then I'm going to have trouble resting assured knowing that many people will try. Unfortunately, the production and consumption of more consumer goods in an effort to fight global climate change just doesn't seem like the answer to me.
So what could the answer be? From a business perspective, I believe the emphasis should be less on what new trinket or scheme can be sold en masse, and more on how can we rethink our production process in such a way that the trinket uses less inputs to make, is better for the consumer during consumption and, when exhausted becomes the inputs for another process. Close the loop.
And hey, planners can play a huge role in this restructuring. Industrial clustering, land use decisions that make sense, creation of walkable communities, these are the buzzwords of our time. Can they find traction in a climate that ignores risks because its blinded by a dangerous conception of opportunity? There is an opportunity that is ignored by companies like those surveyed in this report, and it doesn't come from the creation of stuff or the selling of schemes, it comes from the fostering of real interactions and the design of quality, safe and healthy communities.
posted by ILLIST at 7:55 AM
0 comments
