Is Sustainability Dispensable?

Is Sustainability Dispensable?

One would think that COVID-19 would heighten people’s environmental sensibilities and cause businesses to double down on efforts toward environmental sustainability. Not so – the health crisis has instead created the opposite effect. Worried about their survival, businesses are undertaking extensive cost cuts, and sustainability programs are usually among the first to get axed.

This is not new. The 9/11 economic shock slowed the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) movement in its early days. The subsequent financial shock of 2008 again sent the corporations in ‘survival’ mode. “Spending on community and philanthropic programs and internal capacity building dropped,” according to Paul Pellizzari quoted in a WSJ article on May 2.

This highlights a fundamental problem: sustainability is expensive.

Businesses are members of society and their actions should reflect the sentiments of the society. But their survival and profit motives often trump other objectives, especially during lean times. So, they go back to prevalent modes of production and consumption that are cheaper, albeit hurtful to the environment. We can’t entirely blame them. The fact is that environmentally superior alternatives are not always available, and when they are, they are usually financially burdensome.

Wouldn’t it be great if sustainable solutions were also more affordable? Clearly, that which is unaffordable is also unsustainable in the long run.

It is a sad fact that the global impact standards largely ignore the question of ‘affordability’. The United Nations PRI and SDG, B-Corp, GIIRS, or even proprietary measures developed and imposed by organizations such as BlackRock readily give high marks to organizations that allocate greater resources toward impact. They can coerce or shame slow movers, but do very little to encourage corporations to innovate and find affordable pathways to environmental sustainability. Thus, they perpetuate the chronic shortage of viable solutions to move our society toward sustainability.

These standards lay out relatively simple pathways for corporations trying to earn the moniker of “impact” or “sustainability”. A factory can improve its ESG index by hiring under-represented minorities and training them. It can improve its environmental score by installing solar panels, switching to energy efficient LED lights, reducing plastic consumption, or recycling more waste. These actions are positive but clearly not adequate.

It is not enough to build ever more wind and solar farms. In addition, we need fundamental transformation of all economic activities to maximize not only financial profits but also social and environmental profits. To get there, we need a whole lot more entrepreneurs, researchers and investors working to invent superior technologies that would eventually replace today’s outmoded practices in agriculture, manufacturing, energy, transportation, retail, housing, infrastructure, etc.

We want a wider array of superior environmental solutions that are also more affordable. When that happens, businesses will not be forced to choose between profit and purpose. Both would be intertwined.

There must be a clarion call for innovation – a measure largely ignored by today’s impact organizations. We need to identify, empower and reward innovators, entrepreneurs and investors who are dedicated to devising superior paths to a healthier and cleaner future. Clubbing these trailblazers with thousands of so-called ‘impact’ and ‘sustainable’ businesses disrespects them.

It also makes it hard for the trailblazers to attract capital and attention. They are drowning in the clutter and noise created by the surging impact crowds. There is a bigger irony here. These young innovative companies often bear lower ESG scores than traditional heavyweight counterparts because they have less money to spend on social and community upliftment programs that are trumpeted by the impact crowd. They earn no extra points for their perilous and risky efforts to carve a new path of progress.

I’ll make an urgent appeal to the policy arbiters of the world. It does not matter who takes the lead between the United Nations, the Global Economic Forum, or one of the International Development Agencies or asset managers. An influential body needs to define a new category to identify and promote the true ‘impact’ leaders – those lighting the path forward by innovating solutions that are impactful as well as profitable.

Until we eliminate the fundamental dichotomy between the good and the profitable, sustainability will remain a luxury – useful in good times, but highly disposable during rough times.

by Praveen Sahay

The Autonomous Driving Industry is Convulsing

The autonomous driving industry is supposed to a $126.8 billion business in 2027 according to a Research and Markets report. If you believe the media cheerleaders, all is well and good with the industry. However, as you can see from the list of recent accidents at the bottom of…

Continue reading

Pledge Of Stewardship

In recent months, the private equity industry has been convulsed with accusations of discriminatory and exploitative behaviour. I’m really proud that the Kaufman Fellows, who are in a unique position to shape conversations on the industry’s code of conduct, have authored a Pledge that has been embraced by many Fellows and their firms. All partners at…

Continue reading

ESG Policy

The secular rise in global incomes, population and consumption are creating intense pressures on ecosystems around the world. The effect is felt not only in environmental degradation, but also in rising economic hardship and social suffering for some of the poorest and vulnerable communities, especially…

Continue reading

Tesla and the Transformation of Electric Cars

Tesla garners as much media attention as do the Big Five of the digital economy—Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook. Tesla’s valuation now exceeds those of major U.S. automakers, and is now positioned to compete in the highly contested category of mid-to-upper priced vehicles. But the resurgence of electric vehicles (EVs) is not just an American…

Continue reading

Why Dow 20,000 Is So Boring?

The financial media cannot stop tweeting about the possibility of Dow Jones Index breaching the 20,000 mark. Rising stocks boost public confidence and sense of affluence. Yet, for the broad population, the rising market index doesn’t seem to generate widespread excitement. Why is that? A possible reason is: lower direct participation by the public in market…

Continue reading

Ivanpah – A Sad Postscript

Sadly, my worst fears about the Ivanpah’s projects under-performance came true (see the blog “Operational Hiccups at Ivanpah”). The project owners BrightSource, Google, and NRG have requested financial relief from the federal government. After going live in February, the project has accumulated payment deficits of over $400M…

Continue reading

Operational Hiccups at Ivanpah Solar Worry Me

The world’s largest solar thermal facility was brightly unveiled to the American Public in Ivanpah, CA by the U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on February 13. The project, designed and sponsored by BrightSource Energy and owned by BrightSource, NRG Energy, and Google, cost $2.2 billion and received $1.6 billion federal loan guarantees…

Continue reading

Energy Productivity is Key to Profits and Growth

“If energy efficiency improved by 2% a year, the entire global population at the turn of this century could live at the American standard of living with less energy than we use today.” Dr. Richard Muller, speaking at WAVE event “GENIUS: Ideas and People that Move Us,” makes no apologies for being a capitalist, one who believes that “a solution which is not…

Continue reading