Defining Sustainability: A nod to the past, a vision for the future
June 11, 2009 – 2:10 pmSuzanne’s still recovering from her vacation in France. And Karen Barnes, Director of Insight, is still bubbling over with insights from last week’s Sustainable Brands conference. So here’s some more from Karen:
Nearly 400 sustainability professionals gathered in Monterey, CA, last week for the Sustainable Brands Conference and one of the first voices we heard called for a return to an older definition of sustainability.
As I’ve written here before, getting companies and consumers to understand what sustainability is a bit like nailing Jell-o to the wall. It’s messy. It’s squishy. And it comes in a lot of different colors and flavors.
The re-proposed definition – the Brundtland definition, named after a former United Nations Commission formed in 1983 and tasked with addressing growing concerns about natural resource depletion – is this: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Sounds pretty straightforward. Or is it deceptively simple to understand and practically impossible to implement?
Businesses are still under enormous pressure to sell goods to consumers that, sometimes, they don’t really need. So how does a business become sustainable under this recycled Brundtland standard?
Here’s one forward-looking definition. It’s called a B Corporation. According to the web site, a B Corp is one that “uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. B Corporations are unlike traditional responsible businesses because they:
- Meet comprehensive and transparent social and environmental performance standards.
- Institutionalize stakeholder interests.
- Build collective voice through the power of a unifying brand.
And so far there are a few founding B Corps, ranging from investment advisors to housepainters, lawyers to coffee shops, architecture firms to fishing apparel manufacturers.
Each of them has agreed to the “Declaration of Interdependence” proposed by the founders. It says
“We envision a new sector of the economy which harnesses the power of private enterprise to create public benefit. This sector is comprised of a new type of corporation – the B Corporation – which is purpose-driven and creates benefit for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
As members of this emerging sector and as entrepreneurs and investors in B Corporations, we hold these truths to be self-evident:
- That we must be the change we seek in the world
- That all business ought to be conducted as if people and place mattered.
- That, through their products, practices, and profits, businesses should aspire to do no harm and benefit all.
- To do so requires that we act with the understanding that we are each dependent upon another and thus responsible for each other and future generations.”
Consumers are starting to expect this kind of thinking and behavior from companies. In our soon-to-be-released study, Eco Pulse, two-thirds (66%) of consumers are holding companies to the strictest criteria we tested – a company that uses renewable energy, produces zero waste in their manufacturing process and produces green products. The leading criteria (34%) for consumers deciding if a product is green is that it’s produced with very little impact on the environment. Nearly half (47%) of consumers take a company’s environmental record into account somewhat to very much when faced with a purchase decision.
So whether you subscribe to the Brundtland definition or not, whether you’re a B Corporation or not, know that the volume level on these expectations will continue to rise as more consumer voices are added to the sustainability choir. It will fall to you to be prepared with products that meet their needs without compromising the needs of future generations.
Related posts:
- Sustainability: a health care issue? Consumers are still buying green products, even in this economy....
- Protected: Sustainability in Packaging There is no excerpt because this is a protected post....
- Think you’re in charge of your brand conversation? Think again. A new web site - projectlabel.org – takes your brand...
- Does your green product need a little marketing love? 60% of consumers are looking for greener products... but some...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
One Response to “Defining Sustainability: A nod to the past, a vision for the future”
Hello:
Read with interest the ‘dilemma’ posed about trying so hard to define sustainability – in agreeing that the Brundtland Commission has been somewhat ‘watered down’, I will say for now that the earliest known use of the word sustainability in public discourse was actually in 1913, by the Canadian Conservation Commission, thus: “Man has every right to use the interest on what nature provides, but not the principal” – which of course is way more obvious to business types.
I am interested in sharing some views on the above-mentioned dilemma, as we are now entering a period where it will make a lot of difference to qualify it correctly.
To adequately point this out, I would refer to the new book ‘Ecologic Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman, which calls for a “radical transparency” – this in turn would coincide with European standards right now, which require new product introductions to have life cycle assessments (end-of-life issues) in place before introduction is allowed.
This is an important issue, as we can no longer afford further confusion or complication of as to what will restore us to well-being . . . I can help with this.
By marketexture on Jun 11, 2009