SUSTAINABLE ENTERPRISE
In the Western
Business Monoculture
By
Timothy Daniel Clayton
Copyright 2012 Timothy Daniel Clayton, Smashwords Edition
Edited by Luke Aiken
Any properly cited quotation of up to 500 sequential words may be used without permission, as long as the total number of words does not exceed 2,000. For longer quotations or for a greater number of total words, please visit www.timothyclayton.com and write the author for permission.
***~~~***
Chapter 2 - Exhaust from Business Vehicles
Chapter 3 - The Prevention Convention
Chapter 4 - Working Relationships, à la Descartes
Chapter 5 - Community Disassembly Line
Chapter 7 - As Within so Without
Chapter 8 - Peace by Piecemeal
Chapter 9 - Business, it’s not Personal
Chapter 10 - Form Follows Dysfunction
Chapter 11 - Holistic Business
Dedicated to cohorts everywhere.
Some years ago I became interested in sustainable home building and renovation. I spent two years as a full-time volunteer with Habitat for Humanity International, building new homes, cabinets, and making basic repairs. After a tornado hit town, I acquired even more knowledge in major home renovation. My experiences during this time indicated that sustainable building was the next profitable wave, and I was excited about putting my on the ground knowledge of home building into a sustainable business framework. As far as I knew, sustainability was mostly about the environmental impact of materials: their production, use, and disposal. Add to that considerations of financial accounting and voila!—sustainable enterprise. This is what I mostly expected to learn about while researching a business plan, but it eventually became very difficult to maintain the position that sustainability is solely a material issue.
I can no longer talk about the physical structures within our society without talking about the invisible ones: the structure of governments and business organizations, the rights of corporations and citizens, the policies and procedures of work environments—these can’t be pointed to physically but they seem to have tremendous influence on how things are made, where they end up, and who owns them. They let some things in and keep other things out. I can see that some communities are more load-bearing than others. They establish relationships and channels of movement: who we see and when we see them, and how we interact when we bump into each other. Also, I see the tell-tale leaks and cracks that are typical of homes with more severe structural problems.
I can’t tell you how often small jobs turned out to be major projects. In one such instance, water damaged trim on an old Victorian home needed replacing. What began as concern over black mold and cracking paint around a window ended up revealing major structural issues. While removing the trim it became apparent the siding was in pretty bad shape too. After removing course after course it was obvious that the paint was the only thing holding the shape of the wood. Five feet off the ground, I found an earthworm crawling in a rotten framing support. When I stepped back to get a better view, I didn’t need a level to tell that the section had been slowly collapsing.
In many ways I think this illustrates our culture’s growth in understanding the sustainable challenges facing us today. While on the surface there doesn’t seem to be much wrong, the deeper we go the more fundamental problems we discover. When we step back and take a look, we realize that underlying structural issues should have been obvious. The homeowner’s predicament is a lot like ours too. How much time and money are we willing to spend to improve the world we live in? How much can we afford, and how much time do we have? We didn’t design and build the house, yet we live in it. Do we cover up the problems with new siding? Do we take steps to stop it from collapsing further? Do we replace the rotten posts? How about designing and building a new paradigm?
Among those who do see the injustices and instabilities of the current paradigm, there is much debate about what to do. A spectrum of views ranges from ‘resistance is futile’ to ‘complete redesign.’ Within these views we find variance of opinion as well. For example, do we work within the system or work outside of it? Is the current system even capable of bringing about meaningful change? There is also the question of whether the system will self-implode or, if it must be actively transformed, by what means and methodology? The fact that people are taking a myriad of approaches is a hopeful sign. Whether they believe that the current systems can be renovated, or they seek to design entirely new ones, there is a healthy diversity of initiatives all working to build a better world.
In addition to increased advocacy and activism, we are witnessing a greater frequency of groups within the movement expressing sustainable values through business endeavors. Instead of lobbying for change, or seeking to ethically convert polluters and politicians, they seem to have a radical pragmatism of simply forming groups, and developing alternative systems which treat community and the environment responsibly. As Ph.D. Evolutionary Biologist Elisabet Sahtouris notes, “that’s the way it works in a living system. The imaginal cells have to just start to create the new world. Be the change you want to see. Develop the media, develop the alternative education, develop the alternative law, the alternative food, all of it. That’s our job here.” I refer to this phenomenon as “actionism.”1 It is a different approach than the campaigning, protesting, and boycotting associated with activism and advocacy. The distinction is that actionism seeks sustainable gains through the medium of business.
There are interests within our society preferring that the conversation and debate around sustainability go on without end, and historically there have been efforts to keep eco-consciousness out of business activity. But exploring the power of business as a vehicle for change makes sense: business is such a nexus of human activity, not just in terms of work and consumption, but its influence on government and politics as well. Short of total collapse, it’s hard to imagine that businesses won’t somehow be part of our world. However, one could make a pretty good case that the biggest contributor to social and environmental injustice has been business activity. Why should we believe it is capable of performing differently?
Much of the talk within social entrepreneurship and sustainable business modeling focuses on how the production and use of a good or service will impact external community and the environment. In my opinion however, considerations should also be made about the impact of business policies and practices on workplace community. If our sustainable definition of success extends beyond the narrow parameters of financial accounting to include the impact of a product or service on the environment and communities, then surely that includes community within a business organization. Nigel Marsh has observed:
If society is going to make any progress on this issue we need an honest debate, but the trouble is so many people talk so much rubbish about work-life balance. All the discussions about flexi-time, or dress down Fridays, or paternity leave only serve to mask the core issue, which is, that certain job and career choices are fundamentally incompatible with being meaningfully engaged on a day to day basis with a young family.2
Business activity shapes so many aspects of our lives and society. After examining the historical developments of the standard work environment, I no longer believe that the positive environmental benefits of a product or service can be discussed separately from policies and procedures that impact the people of a business organization. At its core, sustainable enterprise comes down to changing the systems that affect our relationships with one another. I am not simply referring to how material goods and finances are divvied up, but rather the impact of the working world on the human spirit, and the quality of our connections with each other. Addressing these fundamental issues can lead to sustainable insights and innovations that would otherwise be impossible to see from a solely quantitative perspective.
In this brief book I present some of the limits, challenges, and solutions associated with using business as a vehicle for change. In the text that follows, the term “sustainability” can be interpreted as inclusive of natural resource use, ecosystem health, economic equality, and social and environmental justice. The bite-sized nature of each section adds convenience and accessibility, however, they have been edited and organized along a thread, which may lead some readers astray of context if read out of order. This compilation is by no means considered comprehensive, nor is it intended to be conclusive. The hope here is that actionist groups who seek to develop or alter business practices towards sustainable ends will find that this information sparks creative dialogue and innovation towards more holistic decision making. Regardless of whether you prefer to focus on renovating existing systems, develop entirely new ones, or stand in protest to the forces of injustice and environmental degradation, you will find something useful in this book.
* * * *
1: Actionism
Change, then, did not mean obliterating anything but rather altering the use assigned to those elements.
—Don Juan1
Sustainability is a field where ideas move faster than change. At times proposed alternatives are judged more vigorously against the latest concepts of sustainability than they are to a comparison of present day non-renewable practices—ethanol doesn’t entirely fit a certain definition of sustainability; might as well keep burning fossil fuels. When more creative attention is given to theoretical solutions than to improving our immediate situation, sustainable innovation happens more in the conceptual realm than it does in our shared reality.
There is no shortage of blueprint solutions that appear as if they might work. Articles with titles such as, “How We Can Be Energy Independent by 2020,” or, “How We Can Save the Planet and Create Jobs,” or, “How Such and Such Technology Will Prevent Climate Change” are a weekly if not daily occurrence in print and online. While they keep the issue of our environmental impact on our minds, they also generate complacency. There is often no commitment by any party to attempt to carry out the proposed solutions. Besides, who could? The large scale nature of such solutions—generally involving entire industries and the policies of nations—makes implementation beyond the reach and resources of the everyday person. The subtext reads: “without some new found impetus on the part of governments and large corporations to suddenly take up the responsibility of contributing to a healthy environment, there is nothing that can be done.” The ‘How We Can’ articles are rarely about what we can do.
These solutions are often brilliant and can even be considered elegant at times. Imagining and discussing them can be a lot of fun, as well as a source of bonding and solidarity within the sustainability community. They also help us understand what is possible were industry and government to shift their thinking. However, they often have huge implementation problems. In order for them to work, traditionally unsustainable groups are required to operate in remarkably different ways. We might say that such solutions have a hidden “if only” clause—if only others would do x then sustainability would result. The ultimate power is relegated to “others,” and perhaps that is why discussions about sustainability so often focus on “how do we get other people to do ‘such and such.’” The barrier to sustainability becomes an issue of others making the right decisions, and the burden lies with advocacy and activism to sway them.
While advocates and activists continue working to raise awareness and to influence the activities of industries and governments, the movement has found ways to implement sustainable alternatives—permaculture farms, urbaculture gardening, aquaponics systems, microfinance, solar arrays, community composting, alternative media, etc. The act of developing, implementing, maintaining, and expanding these systems is what I refer to as “actionism.” (The term is not to be associated with the Vienna Actionist School of art, nor Marxist Theodor Adorno’s critical labeling of 1960’s left-wing anti-intellectualism. Quite the contrary, the actionism of sustainability is void of the violence associated with the art school, and rather than being anti-intellectual, actionists groups today are highly innovative and technically adept in their field).
Actionists groups are focused on immediate implementation of alternative systems, but actionism is also a very potent form of advocacy. Actionism draws a portion of the population to sustainable activity by providing accessible alternatives. Instead of the sustainability message being received as a directive that “you should do this,” actionism adds a quality of “look what we can do!” If advocacy is presenting a case for others to make different decisions, then actionism, because it embodies that change, drives the point home by showing that it can and is being made.
Another frequent characteristic of actionists groups is that they avoid the expensive and exhausting ideological battles often associated with sustainability. Instead of expending resources to sell partners a vision, what is needed for their initiatives is obtained by engaging those who already hold a similar sustainable ethic. By collaborating with those of a shared mindset, time and energy is saved gathering support and resources. Forming around this shared ethos also engenders solidarity, confidence, and purpose—qualities needed for the challenges that lie ahead.
Actionism creates opportunity for actionist lifestyles. An actionist lifestyle is when one’s professional, social, and consumption activities all contribute to furthering the health of immediate and extended communities and ecosystems. In our times, furthering sustainable activity is becoming easier in the social and consumptive spheres, but the professional world is a different story. The more professional opportunities there are within sustainably intentioned organizations, the more potential there is for improving the sustainability of communities. When sustainable activity is culturally integrated to a greater degree, proponents of sustainability will enjoy a circumstance where there is less of a need for advocacy and activism. One piece of this puzzle is empowering those who are ready to make the change. Because of advocacy and activism, there are now large groups with hearts and minds ready to actively contribute, and actionism creates professional opportunities for them to do so. The sustainability movement has an ongoing responsibility to deliver resources and professional opportunities to those it is educating. Whether proponents and supporters of sustainability find professional opportunity within the field makes a bigger difference to the movement than might be obvious.
When employment is not available within change-based groups, there is little choice but to work for the very institutions and organizations perpetuating the conditions that sustainability seeks to alleviate. In this circumstance, the movement loses on two counts in one stroke. First, sustainably minded organizations lose professionally active supporters, and second, the organizations that operate without sustainable consideration acquire those efforts. In addition, when individuals can neither find a professional community in sustainability or in conventional organizations, they add to the growing number of those who are affected by socioeconomic inequality. It is possible to imagine a circumstance where the majority of people acknowledge the benefits of a sustainable society, but lack the opportunity to support alternatives. This may already be the case. Despite an increasing collective understanding that things need to change, nothing does. Actionist groups close this gap between knowledge and empowerment. In addition, by confronting and overcoming the challenges of implementation, actionist organizations discover first-hand what works and what doesn’t, thereby exposing new opportunities unforeseen in the development of blueprint solutions. Not only are these groups providing solutions, but they are catalysts for solutions as well.
By repurposing their human, material, and financial energy into accessible alternative systems, actionist groups deplete the old paradigm of its resources, causing it to break down. Actionist efforts are supported and empowered by advocacy and activism, and as actionism brings alternative systems into our shared reality, the task of advocacy and activism becomes easier. The three “A’s” are in a positive feedback loop working on overlapping fronts of the industrial growth society, transmuting its momentum and energy into systems that are more harmonious and resilient. Advocacy, activism, and actionism are all part of a larger transformational force. Combined they have the effect of composting the old paradigm.
* * * *
2: Exhaust from Business Vehicles
We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.
—John Culkin1
The arena of business presents itself as an attractive medium for change because it is considered highly effective at getting things done. Sustainably speaking however, the issue isn’t whether or not business gets things done. The issue is what business gets done, and what it leaves in its wake while doing it. The net effect of traditional business practices on the environment and communities around the world is increasing injustice. In Environmental Injustice: Discourses in International Political Economy the authors write:
Accordingly, pollution became a ‘social cost,’ implying that the burden was collective, as were the benefits. Nothing could be more misleading; the costs and benefits of pollution were sharply and equivocally divided within society and between societies from the onset of industrialization to the present day. Arguably, the tendencies of early capitalism…have become the habits of mature capitalism under the strategies of globalization.2
For actionists groups this presents somewhat of a paradox. They have a need to sustain themselves amidst an environment that rewards traditional business practices, while their mission success is measured by alleviating the very conditions those practices have historically created.
Despite the contemporary drumbeat that the unregulated powers of business are right in line with the original vision of America, the truth is that anti-corporate sentiment was the norm. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the few corporate charters that were issued came with strict regulations. To name a few: in most states corporate members were held personally liable for the company’s debts, shareholder voting regulations protected small investors, corporations could only operate for a certain number of years, banks were not allowed to trade, and Indiana and Illinois banned private banks altogether.3 The American Revolution was in part a revolt against the use of corporate power. Early citizens “knew that English kings chartered the East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company and many American colonies in order to control property and commerce.”4 Corporations were viewed as a threat to liberty, and colonists fought “chiefly to create a nation where citizens were the government and ruled corporations.”5