BWZ  Editorial by Christopher B. Bedford
		Sustainability and the Corporation A sustainable corporation in the context of Wall Street is defined as an institution that increases shareholder value and income chiefly through increased profits. In Wall Street's view, how a corporation achieves that "sustainability" really doesn't matter. A corporation that increases its profits through the development of a technological innovation is treated pretty much the same as a corporation that increases profits through downsizing, the exploitation of third world labor and even, as the Michael Milken saga demonstrates, through shady even illegal dealings--as long as it doesn't get caught this quarter. When I talk to corporate executives about environmental and worker justice, the response--when it is free of greenwashing misdirection--is inevitably, "I am paid and--more importantly--promoted when I increase shareholder value and profits." This is an honest answer, one I respect. Executives who work for large transnational corporations struggle to survive in an often ruthlessly competitive corporate structure. The question for the rest of us--who do not have the power to create or destroy the economies of whole communities, to influence politicians with large scale political contributions, to invalidate or dominate whole areas of public debate through public relations and media campaigns--is "can we afford to have corporate sustainability defined solely and principally by the context of Wall Street?" The answer is clearly, "No!". The limited resources of our planet, the increasing environmental and health costs associated with industrial production, and the leviathan of overpopulation all have increased the importance of collective, worldwide action to ensure the resources for humankind's continued health and existence. A sustainable corporation in this large context is one that serves this collective goal of survival. Corporations have, themselves, begun to acknowledge this truth, particularly corporations in the most toxic and environmentally destructive industries. At the Rio summit, CEOs like Robert Kennedy of Union Carbide, stood up and made an impassioned plea for sustainability. Kennedy talked the talk while at the same time working to limit his corporation's liability and responsibility for the Bhopal tragedy, where corporate decisions led directly to the death of several thousand people. Kennedy's words were motivated the planetary context; his actions by the Wall Street context. Corporate sustainability a la Wall Street functions like a kind of economic terrarium. Conservative economists and corporate executives living inside their glass homes look around and point to its fauna and growth as evidence of success, of sustainability. But, as Senator Gaylord Nelson--organizer of the first Earth Day--likes to say, "The economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment." The Wall Street definition is an illusion--a dangerous illusion. Worse, Wall Street-defined sustainability is dishonest even in its own terms. How economically sustainable is an enterprise that does not account for the environmental destruction and damage to human health it causes, the non-renewable resources it uses, or the subsidies it receives from the community on its financial balance sheet? There is a move, led by Ralph Estes of the Stakeholder Alliance, to develop a new kind of corporate annual report that would account for all the costs incurred by a corporation. Without this kind of accounting, without a fundamental change in the value system within the corporation on who gets rewarded for what actions, the move to sustainability will be just a slogan. I believe in private property, free markets and indeed, profits. But the context for these activities, whether by individuals or corporations, must be the collective good of humankind and the environment that sustains us. Anything less is corporate-assisted suicide. Discuss it! What do you think about this article? This is important, I want more I found it interesting Ehh, it was OK It's not that significant I don't care Subscribe Now!
		Disclaimer .  © Copyright 1995, Better World Publishing All rights reserved. Better WorldSM and BWZ are Service Marks of Better World Publishing ....   Questions and comments?"