The Environmental Debate, Third Edition

238 The Environmental Debate

shareholder value “far more than any other soci-

etal issue during the next five years.”

As a result of shifting mind-sets, com-

panies have rushed to come up with green

marketing campaigns and lavish cash on environ-

mental groups. Lengthy sustainability reports

have become commonplace among the world’s

leading corporations today. These reports chron-

icle good works that include reducing waste and

pollution, developing environmentally friendly

products, combating poverty and other social

ills.

This is undoubtedly a positive development.

However, several social corporate-responsibility

studies note a wide gap between the rhetoric and

the reality. One study published by the Boston

College Center for Corporate Citizenship found

that three-quarters of high-level executives

polled agreed corporate citizenship needs to be

a priority but far fewer had incorporated con-

crete action into their operations. Their concern

hadn’t prompted them to start making environ-

mentally sustainable products or rethinking their

relationships with employees and suppliers.

While the emerging socially responsible

discourse among business leaders is encourag-

ing, it is important to remember executives are

not motivated by purely altruistic goals. Cor-

porate social responsibility holds attraction

with many business leaders for its utility as a

defensive posture in the face of possible new

government regulations on carbon emissions

and increasingly savvy and interconnected

watchdog groups around the globe. Corporate

While it may just be the inevitable conclusion
of age and growth, one important factor pro-
pelling the transformation of the environmental
movement into something like an industry has
been an uncritical acceptance of “sustainable
development.” The concept has been kicking
around for decades, supplying the philosophical
underpinning for today’s corporate-conservation-
ist embrace. It emerged from the confrontational
politics of the 1960s and 1970s environmental
movement that generally left business commu-
nities and environmentalists with no common
ground. The idea that development could be
environmentally sustainable opened the door to
dialogue and innovation aimed at merging two of
society’s biggest concerns.
In recent years, corporate America has
embraced the idea as its own, propelled by con-
sumers who are increasingly informed about the
consequences of environmental degradation and
climate change. According to a global survey by
the business consulting firm McKinsey & Com-
pany, corporate executives are more concerned
than ever about how environmental problems
will affect their companies’ bottom-line per-
formance. The report concluded that corporate
leaders are now more worried about climate
change than the public at large. Nine in ten
executives fret over global warming while only
3 percent said they don’t believe it is happen-
ing. The vast majority said they understand the
public expects them to improve their handling
of sociopolitical issues. They expect the envi-
ronment, including climate change, to influence

DOCUMENT 165: Christine MacDonald on Sustainable Development

and Corporate Policy (2008)

As interest in environmental issues has increased, businesspeople have discovered that selling “natural” and

“green” can be very profitable. From organically grown food to sustainably produced lumber, green products

have become very popular. But buyers need to read labels carefully and know the organizations that stand behind

the labels. Christine MacDonald, a writer who at one time was employed by the Global Communications

Division of Conservation International, an international arm of The Nature Conservancy, takes the position

that close ties between environmental groups and the producers of many environmentally certified products

make some eco-labels suspect, and this leads her to question the whole concept of sustainable development.