SP's perspective:
The Shame/Guilt and negative moral leverage tactics have already captured some low hanging fruit in terms of media traction for sustainability issues and citizens amenable to the message. People are terrible at evaluating long term risk therefore they consistently misallocate resources and mis-price for immediate gains versus all others. With some its a moral distinction with others its simply a pragmatic choice of expediency.
However:
1) Most citizen's respond to plug and play solutions (even to exceptionally complex problems) and sustainability advocates have done a mediocre job of developing private/public platforms that are nuanced yet simple to present, elegant and actionable. Shame/Guilt et al only drive polarization - if push/pull synergy is needed to move markets to 3X bottom line adaptation, you'll never get pull based on 1 pole participating exclusively (especially now that we live in a truly multi-polar world.)
2) Businesses respond to demand drivers (please see #1) compliance (they successfully block via lobbying of legislatures) and business practices that improve performance. The keystone is to transform corp, board level and senior management of all flavors from a maximization to an optimization philosophy. Shifting the focus to response-ability, sustainability etc naturally flow thereafter because THE best business practices are sustainable ones. And the point of emphasis, therefore must be the cold, dispassionate, analytical and pragmatic presentation of the true costs (old methodologies versus new ones) and implementing repricing mechanisms accordingly. The bait should be multi-horizon competitive advantage, the hook should be stability of returns and cost mitigation as these relate to future compliance initiatives driven by emerging economic threats.
Governance is sclerotic and inefficient in compelling these behaviors, and NGOs/non-profits generally create more transactional impacts instead of strategic ones.
So my answer is no: dispense with the fear and sloppy altruism and instead focus all energy on global strategic initiatives, platforms, management re-education, systems creation, architecture and metrics.
However:
1) Most citizen's respond to plug and play solutions (even to exceptionally complex problems) and sustainability advocates have done a mediocre job of developing private/public platforms that are nuanced yet simple to present, elegant and actionable. Shame/Guilt et al only drive polarization - if push/pull synergy is needed to move markets to 3X bottom line adaptation, you'll never get pull based on 1 pole participating exclusively (especially now that we live in a truly multi-polar world.)
2) Businesses respond to demand drivers (please see #1) compliance (they successfully block via lobbying of legislatures) and business practices that improve performance. The keystone is to transform corp, board level and senior management of all flavors from a maximization to an optimization philosophy. Shifting the focus to response-ability, sustainability etc naturally flow thereafter because THE best business practices are sustainable ones. And the point of emphasis, therefore must be the cold, dispassionate, analytical and pragmatic presentation of the true costs (old methodologies versus new ones) and implementing repricing mechanisms accordingly. The bait should be multi-horizon competitive advantage, the hook should be stability of returns and cost mitigation as these relate to future compliance initiatives driven by emerging economic threats.
Governance is sclerotic and inefficient in compelling these behaviors, and NGOs/non-profits generally create more transactional impacts instead of strategic ones.
So my answer is no: dispense with the fear and sloppy altruism and instead focus all energy on global strategic initiatives, platforms, management re-education, systems creation, architecture and metrics.
No comments:
Post a Comment