Home » How We Think » Three Ps
Look back at the December 6 New York Times Sunday Opinion section and you’ll find this headline, “Will Big Business Save the Earth?”
The author, Jared Diamond, op-ed contributor to The New York Times and UCLA Professor of Geography, answers with a resounding “yes” and to make his point, he profiles three companies, Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron, which he admits “many critics of business love to hate.” Today, he says, companies such as these are “among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.”
Among his specific comments:
- Wal-Mart is changing procedures, working to double the fuel efficiency of its truck fleet, pursuing a goal of zero packaging waste, and buying from sustainability-managed sources.
- Coca-Cola is committed to fresh water conservation and protection, recycling plastic bottles, and reducing energy consumption.
- Regarding Chevron, he says, “Not even in any national park have I seen such rigorous environmental protection as I encountered in five visits to new Chevron-managed oil fields in Papua, New Guinea.
Whether you’re pro-business or anti-business, it’s an interesting read. It confirms sentiment I heard at the “Business as an Agent of World Benefit” Global Forum at Case Western Reserve University earlier this year.
Business is saying and doing the right things, and it’s making a difference. Even in tough economic times, doing well by doing good is working. Sustainability = Attainability.
Ask people to put their signature on something, and they know you’re serious, and if they do it, you know they’re serious too.
So goes the philosophy underpinning the proposed “Cleveland Compact” – a regional sustainability document whose purpose is to outline a vision, define core values, and secure personal commitments from all individuals – from public officials and CEOs to community activists and the general public. The compact’s goal is “building an economic engine to empower a green city on a blue lake.”
The compact (currently in draft form) asks people to be aware of social and environmental impacts before choosing to do or buy something, contribute to a sustainable economy, and minimize their carbon footprint. Of course, it’s not binding and getting people to “promise” to do everything in the public compact will be impossible.
But if people look at a compact as a menu of options and they take on what they can handle, they will be well on their way to doing their part. Whatever your audience, a menu of options is a great way to begin to secure buy-in for sustainability – you’re asking people how they would like to help, not telling them what to do.
Cleveland sports teams are not known for finishing in first place. But, when it comes to being a sustainable city, Mayor Frank Jackson insists that “Cleveland can and will be the first and we will do it best.”
The mayor, who is just starting his second term, envisions a 10-year effort to create “Sustainable Cleveland 2019: Building an Economic Engine to Empower a Green City on a Blue Lake.” It’s catchy and the ThreePs are well represented: People (city), Planet (green city on a blue lake), and Profit (economic engine).
The playbook has been written and it’s now available online in the form of the final report from this year’s first Cleveland sustainability summit. Here, you’ll find 28 key initiatives (think of them as offensive plays), covering everything from advanced energy, green building and communications, to local foods, transportation and “waste to profit.”
By putting out such a complete report, it’s open for all to see, evaluate and use. This, of course, means that even competing cities have the benefit of the same playbook – call it leveling the playing the field or sharing the wealth.
Quality of ideas is important, but it only gets you so far. At some point – in Cleveland’s case, that’s the next nine and a half years – the winner is decided by the determination of the players and the excellence in execution. In a city where “wait ‘til next year” is a familiar refrain, the building and rebuilding begin immediately, and we have until 2019 to get it right.
I have a lot of respect for paper companies that have embraced sustainability – and their customers who factor sustainability into their printing decisions.
I was reminded of their challenges recently when I got my copy of the 2010 National Green Pages, a 232-page “directory of products and services for people and the planet” published by Green America, an environmental group that measures and challenges organizations on a wide variety of sustainability issues.
The directory got my attention on two levels. First, I was struck by the obvious value that this environmental organization places on having a printed directory. The organization proudly uses recycled content and chlorine-free processing to produce the printed copies, but the directory is a printed piece nonetheless and also requires mailing and delivery.
Second, the back cover ad is interesting – a listing of 14 different sustainability certifications for printed materials, available from Recycled Paper Printing, Inc. Three types of forestry certifications. Two for wind energy and two for chlorine-free.
Do I need all of these certifications? Is it even possible or desirable to have all 14 in my paper? How much will a 16-page brochure cost if the printed materials meet all of these standards?
A lot to think about, courtesy of Green America’s 232-page directory.
