Making the Case for Sustainable Business
Posted by Corey W. deVosOct 4
Hunter Lovins, President and Founder of Natural Capital Solutions and author of Natural Capitalism, spoke with Jim Garrison on Integral Life about some of the real-world solutions to climate change that are already taking effect around the world. While many people condemn big business and big industry as anti-ethical to the environmental movement, Hunter helps makes the case that these sorts of large companies are actually in a better position than most to deal with the bulk of the ecological problems we are all aware of. Sound too idealistic? What if we told you that many of these companies have already begun cutting carbon emissions, reducing waste, and increasing efficiency, without any sort of major incentive from the governments of the world.
Why are they doing it? Simple: to turn a profit! Surprised? Be sure to listen to this interview for more details. If you have ever wondered how we can begin to accelerate our response to climate change in the short term, you will find Hunter’s insights invaluable.
Click here to listen to the full dialogue on Integral Life, completely free!
As you may have already noticed, making the required institutional changes that would help mitigate the effects of climate change is an exceptionally daunting task. It seems that we need to make so many changes in such a narrow amount of time, it’s like turning an aircraft carrier around on a dime—there is simply so much societal momentum at our backs, pushing us down the same soot-covered road we’ve been on for decades. A great many people are beginning to see a cliff at the end of this road, a nearly bottomless plunge that we may never be able to crawl out of again if we step too far over the edge.
Recognizing our seemingly imminent peril has helped galvanize a great many people to begin trying to initiate the sort of change we need to see in the next few years. But it has not been easy. Human nature tends to struggle with long-term change, responding only to the problems that we are facing right now, and putting off our more abstract problems—no matter how urgent—until much later, when we begin to feel the effects. And by then, of course, it is often too late.
But here is the twisted irony—we are in this situation not because capitalism is inherently destructive, but because we are being bad capitalists. That is, there are ways to become environmentally sustainable without adding a massive burden to the budget sheets—we can, in fact, begin to clean up the environment at a profit! Highlighting these aspects of sustainability has allowed people like Hunter Lovins to find much greater success in working with large companies, helping to minimize waste and maximize efficiency, thereby maximizing profits in a very short period of time. We may be resistant to change in the abstract, but if there is a profit to be made, we will jump right on it. Talk about “going green…!!”
Of course, this flies in the face of the sort of bureaucratic resistance we have seen in governments and corporations when confronted with the great preponderance of scientists who say we need to respond to the pressures of climate change right now. In many cases, people are actually spreading lies (or at least half-truths) about the real-world implications of cutting carbon emissions, saying things like a 7% decrease would bankrupt even the largest and most profitable companies. No one seems to have told this to companies like DuPont, who self-initiated a plan to cut their carbon emissions by 65% by 2010—a goal they have already met, and which has saved them an average of 2.2 billon dollars per year. Walmart must have also missed class that day, since they have recently declared their bold ambitions to become 100% powered by renewable resources, to eliminate their carbon footprint, and to only sell environmentally sustainable products.
What is going on with these companies? It’s not like we’ve seen a sudden flurry of eco-friendly mission statements, a new gamut of incentives from the governments, or packs of CEOs-gone-philanthropists roaming the streets and picking up litter. It’s all just good business—common sense, really. Maximize the efficiency, minimize the waste, and pass the savings on to the shareholders. Including the people and the planet in a company’s bottom line does not hinder its profitability; it actually enhances every aspect of its value—to shareholders, to employees, and to the world.
We live in very precarious times, and it is hard not to feel inundated by fear and anxiety when we think of problems so massive and so complex as climate change. It is as though the more we open our minds and our hearts, the more pain, perplexity, and plight we begin to see. But as overwhelming as it can be, there is more than enough cause to be hopeful—as Hunter reminds us, we are faced with a very practical set of problems, with very practical solutions. It’s not like evolution has never steered itself to the brink before—the self-organizing system that it is, evolution triggers its own emergence by creating the right sets of problems at just the right time, forcing a species into an existential ultimatum: evolve or die.
We are already beginning to see hints of evolution occurring all around us, all over the world, as the human race continues to find new ways to thrive and adapt in a rapidly changing world. We see it in the work of pioneers like Hunter Lovins, Jim Garrison, Ken Wilber, and thousands of others around the world. We see it in countries like Brazil who are stepping up to the real challenges of our times, forging a new path for other industrialized nations of the world. And we see it in people like you, who are seeking new ways to relate to the planet, to each other, and to yourselves; ensuring that we all have a future on this precious little rock.
RELATED POSTS
Climate, Culture, and Consciousness: Growing Green

3 comments
Comment by CoreyWdeVos on November 4, 2009 at 5:29 pm
There is a good critique of this piece here:
http://integralpsychosis.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/more-poop-from-the-integral-community/
Here was my response:
I just wanted to say that i think this is a really wonderful critique, and i agree with many of the points that you raise (particularly your short term vs. long term arguments)–though i also take issue with certain assumptions, such as the fact that “greed is not the natural human inclination… cooperation is.” I think we have to be careful with generalizations like this.
If anything, there is a constant give-and-take dynamic between autonomy and communion, which can easily devolve into a pathological struggle between greed and communal conformity. Furthermore, the tension between “greed” and “cooperation” also change throughout our psychological maturity, as our definitions of “me” and “we” are expanded with each new stage of consciousness.
And while there seems to be an overall trend from self-centered greed to selfless cooperation as we grow, the need for healthy autonomy does not go anywhere. We are all born as sociopaths, and have the opportunity to become Buddhas if we want–but very few do, most of us ending up somewhere in between–and an economic system that would work perfectly for Buddhas and will not work for the rest of the world.
So to me, capitalism is by no means the omega point of human interaction. It’s a way to get from, let’s say, Point C to Point D in human history–but i don’t think we’ve reached point D yet, and until we do, it will remain a “necessary evil” (or perhaps the “lesser evil” when compared to the historic options) by virtue of being the only economic system we’ve yet discovered that can accommodate so many different worldviews, simply by using the lowest common denominator between them (money, sex, power) as a sort of fuel for the genuine long-term progress of civilization, as we’ve seen in the 200 years since Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
We likely agree that capitalism in the 21st century is certainly broken, but from my perspective it is not yet obsolete. But i do think we need to make a more concerted effort to discover Capitalism 2.0, instead of always trying to retroactively patch our currently flawed system like it was made by Microsoft.
That said, these are just some of the theoretical underpinnings for the Sustainable Business piece on my site, which i find to be entirely consistent in the abstract. But as we all know, applying such nice and pat philosophy to the real world is a whole other messy affair, and is where i rub up against a lot of my own naivete. Which is why i really appreciate the critiques you served up here (and the respectful tone with which you presented them)–they really help me tweak and refine my own thinking.
In many cases, such as the examples of DuPont and Walmart, i am drawing upon other people’s work (Hunter Lovins in this instance, as it was written as a summary of her recent talk with Jim Garrison) and it can be easy to leave some pretty essential pieces of the puzzle by the wayside. So thank you for that!
Comment by wdh3 on November 9, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Thanks for responding. I always appreciate when people who don’t even know me will look past my tendency to be (sound?) a bit bombastic and iconoclastic and combative.
I’d say I’m completely with you up until the notion of a “necessary evil”. I see it more so that those who find themselves matured (developed, educated, conscious, etc) to a higher degree, where the pit-falls or limitations of, in this instance, shallow or greedy or manipulative or destructive social constructs are visible and something other is imaginable, it’s those people’s job precisely to push back against concentrated power-wielders. Just as peasants under Feudal Lords didn’t look to their known history and see a system that could be more just and equitable until they just revolted and demanded certain rights, certain dignities. And from that huge numbers of people the world over have experienced what I’d maybe call startling degrees of evolution. “Necessary evil” or not, it’s still evil- and I don’t see the good in defending or promoting evil.
As I say though, much of the integral community (not speaking about you or anyone personally, just in general terms) comes from or lives in relative comfort within capitalism, and also have a lot to say to defend this system that in its very definition is based on dominator hierarchies, i.e. the random to arbitrary concentration of power amongst a minority (the upper classes) over what has become (in a post-modern, globalized world) a multi-billion person minority. It’s nice and all that the green capitalists want to take the step to relax a bit of its hemorrhaging in order to try and save the entire system (by which I mean the planet, the eco-system), but freedom without equality is “I” over “we”. The relative equality of, say, representative democracy (liberalism, capitalism, etc) makes, I believe by definition, the individual, (freedom, the Beautiful, Upper Left Quadrant) compromised by it’s acceptance. If there is a rightful place for human greed, I’m certain it is not in the arena of deciding who gets to eat, who gets medical care, who is warm, or who dead.
Trackback by uberVU - social comments on November 11, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CoreyWdeVos: New blog post – Making the Case for Sustainable Business http://bit.ly/fQkt0...