Any corporation that gets a reputation for putting profit ahead of People and/or Planet, will soon run out of customers.Yes - I am fully aware that Corporate Boards are terrified of the enviro-rent seekers in government and our celebrity culture who are willing to shame them with junk science. Environmentalism has become a religion and very profitable for some - at the expense of others.
If the Internet can bring down governments - it can and it has - bringing down a corporation is no challenge at all.
I thought you were broadly supportive of Capitalism Foota?
Don’t you know how it works?
At its most basic level, Capitalism is about connecting “Supply” with “Demand”, and trying to spend less on making the “Supply”, than is charged to those who “Demand” (whatever it is you are offering).
The difference between what it costs you to “Supply” something, and how much the individual or organisation that purchases (or “Demands”) what you are supplying is willing to pay, is called “Profit”.
Most Capitalists will tend to pursue and develop supply lines that maximise the amount of money that can be obtained as “Profit”. I don’t want to get too technical, but this is what is called, in the Trade, “Running a *PROFITABLE* enterprise”.
(“Profitable” = able to make profit [with])
Now, if there were more customers like you (who are not terrified of “enviro-rent seekers” in government and elsewhere) demanding goods and services that do not factor sustainability and externalities into their costs of production, than there are customers demanding the opposite…
…Then that would be the way that businesses (that want to be “profitable”) would be marketing their product and service offerings.
However, it seems that more people are concerned with “People & Planet”, than there are those who are not concerned with same. So just about any business or corporation that wants to have any kind of a future (and ideally, a “profitable” one), is aggressively and marketably pursuing “sustainability” in their Production and Supply Chains.
Do you see?
But I think the Big Green Elephant in the Room that you are studiously avoiding looking at, is this:
The recent U.S. Government Scientific Report (on “Climate Change” and other ills), like the U.K. Government’s 2006 “Stern Report” (into same), made it clear that the bulk of the pollution that many Enterprises create (and which are *PROBABLY*, but not definitively causing the Earth’s Climate problems…), is caused by inefficient, wasteful, and therefore unnecessarily expensive production and service-delivery processes.
…And that if these corporations were to reduce or fully eradicate wastefulness in their processes, not only would the World be a less shitty place, but the corporations would become more profitable.
So you know anyone called Tim Woods?
I hope not… Because if you do, you can tell him he’s become synonymous with wastefulness. Who is TIM WOODS and why is he killing your business?
Basically… “TIMWOODS” is the acronym that Lean Practitioners use to categorise the 8 most common forms of waste in business processes:T
ransport: unnecessarily moving stuff aroundI
nventory: making more than customers demand; building up unnecessary stocksM
otion: unnecessary movement; people walking to get things with should be located closerW
aiting: Delays between operations, e.g. because parts are missingO
ver-Production: making too much or too many; or completing a task before it is neededO
ver-Processing: duplicate or redundant operations, performing unnecessary stepsD
efects – Producing stuff that has to be thrown awayS
kills – Failing to use skills and capabilities of the workforce.
TIMWOODS is pretty much my “bread and butter” these days Foota. And I can’t say I’m feeling the pinch.
So my question to you:
If eliminating (/substantially reducing) waste in business processes makes those businesses more profitable… And *MAY* help slow-down the rate at which the Planet’s Environment is becoming hostile to Human Life…
…Why don’t you support such an approach?
What your Government's recent report said was this:If you believe the same people who were wildly off the mark climate models and predictions - and believe everything they say that earthquakes, hurricanes and fires are the result of climate change, you can paint quite a picture.
It is already costing the U.S. Government a lot of money dealing with the effects of changes to the Earth's Climate.
No, no. You have misread.
The U.S. Government’s scientific review board produced a report that evidenced how the effects of Climate Change are *ALREADY* costing the U.S. Government a lot money to have to deal with.
Not dealing with predictions of what *MAY* come to pass here, and choosing whether to believe it or not… We’re talking about scientific evidence about what *IS* happening already, and how much money it is *ALREAD* costing the U.S. Government.
It’s not a “picture” being painted by a child based on their own imagination and beliefs. It is a scientific, peer-reviewed report, that uses factual data to support its conclusions.
If the U.S. Government pursues so-called "Green" initiatives, as many other developed and developing nations are now doing, there is the opportunity to create whole new economic sectors and the jobs that go with them.How is that working out for France? Those riots look pretty bad IMO. Or are we to believe these are just standard run of the mill Islamist inspired riots in Paris? What are they so pissed off about HM?
Ah! I know this one!
The French (or some people who are French) *WERE* pissed off about a proposed increase in taxation on fuel.
They protested about it, and now the French Government has suspended the implementation of that tax increase
That’s how democracy is supposed to work you know.
You are a business consultant - right? Surely you know you have to find a win/win solution to get people to buy in? Right now, you are offering nothing by pain and higher cost which will stunt human development throughout the world with your religious belief that it might pay dividends 50 years from now.
To some extent.
But when assessing the “Win:Win” nature of any proposition, there isn’t any requirement to hold back progress on the initiative, just because not every “stakeholder” fully understands the proposition.
See, despite me writing at length about how the recent scientific reports, current “Best Practice” in business, and basic common sense, indicate clearly that reducing waste and pollution directly and immediately benefits a corporation’s financial “Bottom Line”…
…You keep banging away with lines like:“Right now, you are offering nothing [but] pain and higher cost, which will stunt human development throughout the world… &c.”
Do you see?
I say: “Cut waste and pollution, and your organisation will be more profitable (and more popular).”
And you hear:
“Make the cost of doing business much more expensive, reduce profitability, and probably go out of business!”
Whilst “Win:Win” is certainly what consultants like me always aim for; I’m required (/paid) to put only *SO MUCH* effort into persuading habitually obtuse people to try and see the obvious benefits that are clear to everyone else…
…If they don’t “Get It” ahead of time, then they either learn to adjust to what is very much going to happen, or they reconsider their career options.
Which they remain free to do at any time.