A strategic response to sustainable development
...es of “old energy”. Driessen does expose the new penchant for “greenwashing”, what he calls “disinformation intended to present an environmentally responsible public image.” (Driessen, 2003: 1). In its quest to be “perceived” as a good corporate citizen and “socially responsible leader” BP’s spin doctors hyped up the company’s efforts in developing alternative energy solutions. Expecting to be rewarded by the business and academic community, this misrepresentation was pilloried. If this is the way big business operates, then surely the lack of trust from civil society is warranted. The energy sector is infamous for its exploitation of mineral resources, and its lack of respect for the vulnerability and sustainability of the globe’s most sensitive ecological zones, in the all-consuming pursuit of profit. Embarking on “greening” (Hart, 2000) initiatives, and celebrating these endeavours is a means for companies in the natural resources sector to deflect attention away from their core initiatives. If economists, academics, journalists and activists can see through this “green-screen”, how long will it be before the average consumer can do so as well? It is time for this industry, and others involved in the exploitation of the environment and the depletion of resources, to realise that greening efforts are not a cause for celebration, nor are they a competitive advantage. Greening efforts are part of the survival landscape for any company, like breathing is part of the survival respiratory function of any human being. They have a zero impact on the environment. Sustainable development entails the renewal of once depleted resources, of reducing the environmental footprint, and of having a positive impact on the environmental, of increasing the capacity of the planet to support future generations, the maintenance of “environmental space” (Lovins: 4) “The challenge is to develop a sustainable global economy: an economy that the planet is capable of supporting indefinitely.” (Hart, 2000: 67) Driessen introduces the tendency of firms to adopt the jargon of what he calls “ideological environmentalism” in order to gain a PR advantage over their competitors. Even though these ideologies are theoretically thin, they do nonetheless perch precariously on the line between spin-doctoring and dishonesty. Driessen argues that the credibility of the investment in, and search for, alternative energy sources can be challenged, and supplies the examples of the environmental impact of wind turbine zones compared to the average gas-fired plant. Wind-turbines may be greener in terms of reducing pollution emissions, but they consume a greater are of natural habitat, and are responsible for the elimination of large numbers of birds, some of which are endangered species. (Driessen, 2003) Probably the most damning statement of the article actually underscores the underlying nature of the industry as a whole: “BP’s share prices reflected investors’ displeasure with its poor performance and the fact that the company’s profit margins would not improve for a decade or more if the company remained focused on renewable energy and old oil fields.” (Driessen, 2003: 1) It was thus presented that “going green” didn’t really translate into business sense for BP, a major player in the industry driven by the economic bottom-line. The above argument cannot be discounted in any form. The business case for sustainability has always been questioned, and since no acute answer has been forthcoming, big business has been content in carrying on with S.O.P., buying off governments, and appeasing civil society by irresponsibly throwing money at social investment schemes for the sake of a good write-up. In the face of ever-increasing greed, the corporation has lost sight of its humanity, and good values have been superseded by shareholder fundamentalism. The onus of environmental sustainability was thrown onto the shoulders of government. This is all good and well when the CEO’s office is in a megacity in the developed world. The fallibility of this argument is made evident when the operations of the self-same corporation are situated in developing nations struggling to cope with poverty, increased urbanisation, rapid development and a myriad social and health issues. It is upon this premise that the Driessen presents his argument on ideological environmentalism, and the tendency of activists in affluent countries to preach on “responsible” energy, environment and economic development in the third world – at the expense of what Driessen identifies as those people who are struggling to achieve basic survival. The distance between the podium and the African soil is colossal, and the stakes are even greater. This is not just about life and death; it’s about the denial of the right to life to future generations. This may well be a contributory factor to the recent broadside aimed at the UN by President of SA. Thabo Mbeki. Driessen presents mainstream statistics that still manage to paint a dire picture of entire populaces scavenging for sustenance on a daily basis, whilst “radical activists” in the West advocate responsible and “best-practice” energy solutions for those dying of malnutrition and basic diseases. This argument does present the reality of the situation in the developing world. In essence however, this proposed solution is flawed. The idea that sustainable development and responsible corporate social investment have no immediate benefit is shortsighted itself. It is true that the perils faced by the developing nations increase on a daily basis, proportionate to the need for food, fuel, clean water and proper health services. It is also true that some of these problems may be solved by implementing existing technology, developing fossil fuel projects and increasing industrial development in developing countries so as to promote growth. On a short-term basis, these solutions make sense. From a sustainable perspective, all we are doing is repeating the same mistakes, propagating the same old vicious cycle. Radical activism or not, the developing world is the most volatile in terms of renewable resources, and as such a change in approach MUST be adopted if growth and alleviation from their perils is to be sustainable. Driessen does counteract his own argument: Yes, it’s not right for the third world’s future generations to suffer whilst activists argue on the best approach to protect future wealthy generations. However, implementing short-term solutions propose a lose-lose case for everyone, most notably those in the third world themselves. It would be a case of delaying the inevitable. Biotechnology and fossil fuel projects to solve the ills of the third world? Certainly, but at what cost? Therein lies the hypocrisy: If it’s not considered good enough for the developed world, how then can it be good enough for the third world? However, it must be realised that it is the developing world that provides the greatest opportunity for the success of sustainable development initiatives, in that it provides the opportunity to do it right, first time around. In addressing the issue of Corporate Social Investment, Driessen relates the example of an institutional investor that made a few poor choices. It certainly brings forth the idea that even if one is investing in a cause for good, the choice of investment must be made responsibly. More so, the investor should not get caught up in the hype of a fad, and should thus not cede any advantage regarding its fiduciary responsibility to the individuals who compose the institutional fund, Driessen again ties the poor choices of a few investment firms to the agendas of radical CSR fund activists. By describing the associations these activists have with dubious funds and organisations, Driessen tries to draw the conclusion that CSR investments are risky, and that the cause may not be worth the risk. The paradox is heightened by Driessen’s conclusion that less risky, more profitable investments are ones that have a far-reaching negative impact on poor and downtrodden of the world. This perspective may be a little extreme if viewed in this context. However, the recent trend towards Corporate Social Responsibility has seen major international bourses adopt indices catering specifically for investors who believe this course is one worth plotting. The incorporation of corporate governance rules and restrictions, requiring transparency in the financial behaviour and relationships of companies, force companies to cast off their previously maverick approach to CSR, and to adopt a more responsible, and accountable approach towards being good corporate citizens, and to paying true, real homage to the triple bottom line. In South Africa, the JSE Securities Exchange of SA launched a pioneering endeavour by incorporating King II as part of its listing requirements, and has now launched the SRI Index for the top 140 listed companies in SA. Old Mutual, the life assurance behemoth in SA, provides a good example of responsible CSR, by establishing efforts like the Old Mutual Foundation to cater for societal needs. Old Mutual even uses its own staff as part of its community outreach programme. As mentioned before, it is in the developing world where the greatest opportunities await. It is there that mistakes have the privileg...