Here’s a picture of the Better-World-Team and IC team at the Brand Sustainability conference in Monterey, California. Talking to many at the conference, I can see how people are very passionate about this subject and wanted to make change happen. The question is always the “how” and the debate is over whether it should be top down or bottom up, whether it should be led by policy makers or corporate should take a leading role or consumers should be leading this “revolution”? There was a heated debate in the discussions groups that I moderated.
The first problem I have with is the narrow definition of sustainability. I don’t it is a just about recycling and green. Definitions of sustainability presumes that there must be justice if we are to survive or even prosper in the long run. It is about future survival of humanity. Thus, as it is said sustainable development requires the alleviation of extreme poverty and a better (honestly I don’t know what I means when I say better) distribution of wealth among the world's population, there is absolutely nothing wrong with more rich people, just not acceptable to see increasing poverty.. And no sustainability would make any sense without addressing “intergenerational and transnational equity” that is not selling our future short at the expenses of our children. And it only means children in the west but also in the developing world.
World-renowned architect William McDonough has translated the sustainability challenge into a provocative question he poses whenever he speaks about the fundamental goals of design. He asks, in our lives and in our work, how do we love all the children of all species for all time? Clearly, McDonough believes that sustainability involves a shift in attitude and values and an expansion of our sphere of moral concern. It is an attitude.
If all of this sounds not confusing enough, there’s more. It is basically a humanity issue more than an environmental issue. We are not seeing the whole if we only see environment. How do we provide a decent life on this planet is a problem facing all humanity? Well I am making the problem too difficult to solve. This is a wicked problem; it is both systemic and maybe the ultimate challenge.
As I see the term sustainability will continue to be misused. There are companies that were doing a great job day one. It is great to hear people from Starbcucks, Ben and Jerry and HP talk about sustainability and how they are doing it. Ben and Jerry is probably one of those very few companies that started thinking business social responsibility and sustainability many decades ago. Rob Michalak, Ben & Jerry's Director of Sustainability was explaining the company’s approach to sustainability. I really like the word they use at Ben and Jerry –“Linked prosperity”.
Ben and Jerry is now an Unilever company, but that doesn’t change their way of doing things. There was an agreement as part the acquisition terms that there would be an independent board to oversea and ensure Ben and Jerry will continue to deliver on its social mission.
There’s no sustainable without social innovation. It means sustainable development. According to Unilever CEO Patrick Cescau , Social innovation by business is a big part of what’s needed to get to sustainable development in general. Cescau's definition of social innovation, at least in Western markets is: "finding new products and services that meet not only the functional needs of consumers for tasty food or clean clothes but also their wider aspirations as citizens."
Social change occurs in waves. We are still many waves away and hope it keeps coming.
Recent Comments