The King’s Green Pad

I recall a Greenpeace volunteer once coming to my front door soliciting funds. I thanked her and told her that I already supported an environmental organization so won’t be donating. She looked at my long hair, beard, Birkenstocks and replied that “we” were all in this together and it was great I was supporting the environment. She asked which organization I supported. When I told her “Alberta Fish and Game Association” (i.e., hunting/fishing advocates) she went pale, her jaw dropped and she slowly backed away from the doorstep. Halfway down the sidewalk she turned and fled. I sometimes get a similar reaction from environmentalists when I tell them I’m a business prof.

So, why does a prof who teaches enterprise management strike such fear and loathing into some environmentalists’ hearts? I think for two reasons. First, many business leaders and educators in the latter half of the twentieth century have been strongly influenced by a reductionist view of commerce. The premise of this reductionist thinking is that commerce exists to maximize shareholder wealth and other societal institutions are responsible to erect the boundaries within which commerce will happily conduct its morally neutral affairs. The best known modern proponent of this view, the late Milton Friedman, provided rationalization for this thinking and his 1970 New York Times article objecting to the emerging field of corporate social responsibility became the school of thought’s credo. In the article Friedman admonishes some business people’s presumption to have non-economic decision making expertise, calls for commerce’s retreat from making social responsibility-based decisions and to more properly constrain themselves to profit generation. Exhaling a sigh of relief, many business leaders have done so. After all, it is difficult enough to anticipate the consequences of single-factor decision-making, well enough worrying about the complexities of the gestalt. Perhaps, Scott Peck (The Road Less Travelled) is right that laziness is humanity’s original sin.

The second reason for the business vs environmentalist polemic is a lack of credibility on the part of environmentalists. I always find it amusing when I see Nike clad protestors checking their Blackberries at an anti-something-or-other rally to which they have flown across an ocean. Many business folk don’t find it amusing, but rather a sign of naiveté  and self-contradiction leading to a wholesale discounting of the save-the-whatever crowd; and perhaps in some cases rightly so. Hearing such rants as NDP leader Jack Layton’s plan to reduce Canadian emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, when no one knows what 1990 levels were, causes many to quit listening. Again, Scott Peck’s observation looms large both in terms of environmentalists needing to present quality arguements and business needing to patiently discern between sound bite seeking politicians and serious thinkers in the area who are presenting a real and potentially grave issue.

Where does that leave us in the business and environmental dialogue? Currently, it leaves the tailored, wool flannel suit crowd saying, “Who? Me?”  and the micro-financed, organic, fair trade hemp T-shirt crowd saying “Yes. You!” and ne’er the two shall meet. And this is where King’s modestly enters the discussion as it attempts to embrace the complexity of business’ calling to serve human needs AND to steward creation. In seeking to achieve this dual calling we look to humanity’s original business enterprise in Genesis 2:15, 16. Humanity was placed in creation to “work it and take care of it” and could consume broadly from creation’s fruits. Within the creation account, working, caring and consuming are all closely tied together. The modern compartmentalization of these three human activities is not how we are hardwired. The business vs. environmentalist polemic is itself unnatural.

If we are to regain an integration of these three human activities of working, caring, consuming we need to be willing to accept the decision making complexities that go with it, and to realistically accept responsibility as businesses and consumers for our individual and societal choices. If we all gain an appreciation for, and a commitment to dealing with, the complexities of working, caring and consuming maybe then we really will be in this together, and I won’t be quite so scary to some of the folks coming to my front door.

This post was authored by Gordon Preston, Associate Professor of Commerce and Management at The King’s University College.