Know Your Problem, Before Providing a Solution

"If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions." - Albert Einstein

Einstein’s approach to problem solving is simple, to the point, and yet applicable to nearly any situation. Now, I do not necessarily believe one could solve social inequality in an hour; however, it is the idea that taking 55 minutes of that hour to analyze the problem at hand is worth exploring.  So often today we are taught to use lengthy problem-solving and decision-making strategies, but many of which neglect to focus on the most crucial aspect: the root cause.  Einstein was a genius, and this is once again solidified through the mentioned quote on the basis that I believe the solution to a problem can only truly be realized after fully understanding what is the problem, how the problem came to exist, and who the problem affects. In today’s world, I believe that the most influential problem that sustainable business has emerged to address is the systematic social inequality seed that large corporations and developers planted as early as the 1920s, and have allowed this tree of ignorance to thrive. Whether it was the wrongful murder of George Flloyd and countless others, the acknowledgement of the various economic gaps between whites and blacks, or the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, the realization that there is something terribly wrong happening in our country has come to light.  Some influential industries and businesses have responded to the acknowledgement of the social inequality in the United States today by donating money, raising awareness, and putting out statements of support.  However, the true leaders are the sustainable businesses that are taking the ‘55 minutes’ to think about the root cause of the problem, rather than an hour to think about the solution.

Although the United States is entwined with a history of racism, I believe the most solid origin of the social inequality we see today was the installation of redlining within major cities, such as Minneapolis for example.  Redlining occurred to appease white families who refused to live next to a black family, and thus home deeds soon strictly monitored the inhabitants based on the color of their skin. This modern segregation not only was an attack towards the blacks character, but also hindered their ability to succeed to their fullest capability both economically and socially. In the 60s, The isolated black communities managed to make the best of the less desirable neighborhoods and homes to which they were confined; the schooling was still admirable, the sense of culture and arts scene thrived, and black-owned businesses were managing to prosper.  It was the construction of major highways, arrival of polluting factories, and sheer disregard for these districts by city developers and influential industries that led to the current day ‘Minnesota Paradox.’  Aside from the name, this paradox can be witnessed all over the country to varying degrees; it's the concept that decades of negligence towards black people has created an unequal social climate in all aspects of the community. Essentially, industries and developers have made the redlined districts so unattractive due to the pollution and industrial eye-sores that the neighborhoods have been reduced to unsafe and unequal places to live in comparison to white-dominated areas. In result, faults have arisen in unemployment rates, wages, incarceration rates, arrest rates, mortgage lending rates, test scores, maltreatment, and even drowning rates.  For reference, the black poverty rate in the Twin Cities area was 25.4%, while the white poverty rate was 5.9%.  By altering the ability to succeed in one’s daily life, the practices that are carried out by large corporations that led to the social inequalities seen today are unsustainable. I believe some sustainable businesses such as Target and Cisco have recognized this origin of the problem created, however it is a long road to recovery in approach and delivery of their social equality agendas before they can truly be considered sustainable.

A sustainable business can mean many things, whether it be environmentally or socially;  however, I find that the two rather overlap when it comes to real, quantitative change. It is the improvement of environmental sustainability and preservation of the resources within our country that catalyzes the social change that is grasped for so desperately. The difference between performative and substantive impact is whether or not the company recognizes the entanglement of both environmental and social agendas, and thus includes both towards their journey of sustainability. As a case point, Xcel Energy markets themselves as a diverse company who strives to provide equal opportunities and unite various people through their product, energy. However, they are one of the largest polluters of contaminates and carcinogens into the Mississippi River, which runs through the Twin Cities.  Unlucky enough, the redlined districts sit on the banks of the river, thus being the most exposed community to Xcel Energy’s dangerous run-off. According to the EPA,’results as national, state, and country scales all indicate that non-Whites tend to be burdened disproportionately to Whites.’ The health disparities of black individuals versus white individuals are much greater, yet the disregard for their health is precedent.  The decision to pollute ‘less attractive’ areas instead of white-dominated areas is neither environmentally or socially sustainable, and not by chance is an example of environmental racism.  Real social and environmental impact can only come from companies that spend their time analyzing the systemic issues their industry has created, and striving to make a difference by action in both departments.