Yet when they spoke I found words I could understand. Most of them had started as farmers and one as a vet. They told of previous destruction of the land by cattle and contrasted that to the natural landscape that the animals now ran on. They told the tale of how poaching had annihilated wild animals from neighbouring Zimbabwe and threatened to do so in national parks all across Africa.
Governments were simply too corrupt or too poor to police them properly. They told how, by allowing 10 per cent of the animals to be killed each year, they are able to create a wildlife farm where the other 90 per cent is safe and wild. How killing breeds life. How the problem of hunting is the answer to wildlife destruction. And here-in lies the dilemma. If I said that sacrificing the 10 per cent would create a sustainable future for the 90 per cent, you may not instantly agree — but the conversation changes.
The idea of profiting from doing good sits awkwardly. Shared value is an answer for the system we live in — profit makes an idea scaleable and replicable and that makes it sustainable. So shared value seeks to find profit in solving social issues. How you feel about this statement goes a long way to explaining how you see the system and your role in it. I believe those who work in NGOs and those who work in sustainability teams are mostly cut from the same cloth.
We care, we want purpose in our work. We seek improvement in the system. Belief that the system is inherently good but can be improved or belief the system is inherently broken and needs to be rethought entirely? Once upon a time I was lucky enough to be part of the team that launched the Toyota Prius into Ireland. The feedback was interesting.
Some people felt it was a great leap forward. Others, a half step that gave the industry an out from delivering on a truly emissions-free vehicle. Cynics will call this marketing greenwash. Yet, to be fair, the first thing they ask you to do when you visit their website is ask you to sign up for 20 per cent GreenPower. So is it good they are championing the renewable cause, or is it too little — or worse, a cover up for bad behaviour elsewhere — and they need to be doing more? Most likely there is an internal debate raging between those who want to go further down that path and encourage more customer take-up of renewables and those who feel it is risky for their brand to go out with such a message while most of their power is still from fossil fuels.
We produce strategies, communications, ideas and reporting for all kinds of companies and organisations. Some are doing awesomely, others just beginning. If we as consumers and employees demand nothing but awesome from business, do we set the bar too high?
I suspect it depends on the urgency — a case of knowing when to fight for perfect and when to accept that better is a necessary stop on the pathway to best. For me the issue of climate change is too urgent for incremental change. Whereas the issue of waste, landfill and recycling — while important — can afford the time for steady improvement on the way to the perfect closed loop. The revolutionaries set the Big Hairy Audacious Goals and demand the impossible, while the evolutionaries work day to day on breaking down the barriers and bringing people along for the journey to make things happen.
In another case, a young woman has to decide whether to spend the day with her lonely mother, or building homes for Habitat for Humanity. Although participants in the study perceived both choices as equally moral, when it came to looking for a spouse or a friend, they preferred those who helped their grandson or spent the day with mom.
In contrast, this preference was reduced when participants were asked about qualities they wanted in a boss and disappeared when asked about desired traits in a political leader — a social role that requires impartiality. Bill Hathaway: william. Social Sciences.
Media Contact Bill Hathaway: william.
0コメント