TedTalk x PSU: The Modern Big Business Revolution

If you told me in December of last year that even given the recent surge of ‘Sustainable Business Practices’, that humans are still producing 35 million tons of Carbon each year and counting, I would not have believed you. If you told me that I’d be Clorox wiping my groceries before bringing them in my house, I would not have believed you.  If you told me I would watch an innocent black man be murdered by a police officer via scrolling through social media, I would not have believed you. As for many, the shocking events that have occurred in 2020 are nearly unfathomable.  From a collapsing environment that we call home, to a global pandemic that seems to have originated in an apocalyptic horror film, all the way to a mass recognition of the racial injustices that have persisted and evolved to our modern culture; these events are the catalyst to the much needed changes our society begs to address.  But what has changed in recent decades that has slowed the progression of society and caused such drastic events to occur? The answer lies in the concept of ‘The Interlocking Crisis.’ Within “Our Common Future”, an excerpt noted for kickstarting the sustainability movement, it describes the ‘Interlocking Crisis’ as a global shift from individual consequences based on individual actions to global consequences. Until a few decades ago, “the planet was a large world in which human activities and their effects were neatly compartmentalized within nations, within sectors (energy, agriculture, trade), and within broad areas of concern (environment, economics, social). These compartments have begun to dissolve.” With the barriers dissolving due to wear and tear from governments, businesses, and individuals, the planet as we know it today has gone into shock. As terrifying as it sounds, there is a strategic and impactful resource that could reverse the damage that the world has been battling for the past century: big businesses and organizational action.  

What possibly could big businesses do to help the ecological changes we are witnessing, are they not the ones causing all of these problems? In hindsight, possibly.  However, at this point in time, big businesses have more raw power and reach than any other organization.  Gerald Butts, the former president of the WWF Canada, said Coca-Cola is ‘literally more important, when it comes to sustainability, than the UN.’ This is the result of their raw purchasing power.  Coke is the number one purchaser of aluminium on the face of the earth in addition to sugar cane. This raw purchasing power translates into raw influence.  For example, Gerald Butts or another activist group could spend 50 years lobbying governments to change the regulatory framework for the way these commodities are grown. Or on the other hand, he could ask Coke to make a decision that they are not going to purchase any products if it's not grown in a certain way.  The ability of a large business such as Coca-Cola to change the very way producers process and generate their products to be more sustainable is a more effective and speedy way around the government’s involvement in sustainable regulation. The sustainability movement originated within the 1980’s and thus Corporate Sustainability Reports, or CSRs,  have rapidly become an industry standard to measure and track their sustainability efforts. The sustainability movement within the business sector has now evolved to ‘Strategic CSR,’ meaning that big corporations’ sustainability initiatives are profit and image-motivated. In the first chapter of ECO Business: The Big Brand Takeover of Sustainability, it states “the focus [of strategic sustainability] is on gaining business advantages through decreasing their production costs by decreasing emissions and materials needed to produce the product.”  Although it may benefit the self-interest of the company, strategic CSR too can aid in decreasing their individual business operations’ impact.  On the other hand, this concept can have negative effects on the economic and social climates on the populations from where they are sourcing the materials. By putting pressure on the way producers of raw materials source and process to meet their self-created sustainability regulations, the producers fall victim to engaging in poor social changes such as firing workers to meet the monetary needs for technological upgrades. When looking at the big picture, big business can make changes: both positive and negative.  But in terms of ecological sustainability, their raw power can be, and must be, shifted from only looking at their environmental impact, to integrating both social and economic impacts into their strategic CSR plan.

Corporate social responsibility plans as I said before can be strategic not only for the business’ self-interests in terms of industry advantages, but can also be strategic for local communities as well as international populations. As explained within The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, “CSR can be much more than just a cost, constraint, or charitable deed. Approached strategically, it generates opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage for corporations—while solving pressing social problems.” In today’s market, what we need is a shift from companies developing generic CSR reports to appeal to environmental activist groups and the general public, to “crafting social initiatives appropriate to their individual market segment.” By doing so, it will allow for more impactful and realistic change within the communities that ultimately support big businesses.  The true integration of social initiatives into big businesses' strategic plan is the next step in social equality within the United States, of which can then be integrated into other countries as their overlap is existent as described in the previously mentioned ‘interlocking crisis.’ The famed ice cream brand, Ben & Jerry’s, is a front leader in a properly integrated social initiative that supports social equality while also benefiting economically from the positive publicity generated by their initiatives. The company released a flavor called ‘Justice Remix’d,’ in support of raising awareness within the social inequality that stains the United States’ justice system. The United States has the most incarcerated humans than any other country, with 2,000,000 imprisoned to this day.  These racial disparities are particularly stark for Black Americans, who make up 40% of the incarcerated population despite representing only 13% of U.S. residents.  Not only are they donating a percentage of the proceeds to social reform activist groups to enact change, they are engaging their community by sponsoring awareness events and providing ways to get involved in the initiative. This single example is an exemplary way of making a social change while conducting business; essentially it's an example of mutual benefit. Nonetheless, most big businesses do not have this sense of awareness or dedication to their actual impact as Ben & Jerry’s, but that is why we must drive businesses to make this change.  At this point in time, individuals like you and me are not enough to make the difference we want, and not enough to make the difference this planet needs: big businesses are the guiding power we need to harness. 

Simply said, big business is about making money. Or at least, it was.  With the markets coming to a standstill in terms of progression, and criticism on the long-term viability of the economic growth plans developed in the Industrial Revolution at the forefront of this global crisis, big businesses need to realign the way they measure success. Oxford economist, Kate Raworth, compares economic growth to that of human evolution; in the 1930’s economists economic growth was measured in terms of GDP, or gross domestic product.  In latent terms, countries were measuring their production and output of goods and using that as a measure of ‘success’ or market domination essentially. In comparison to human evolution, they saw GDP as a concept that could continue to grow in a linear upwards trend, similarly to humans’ technological and physical advancement.  The obsession with growth still holds true in today’s markets, thus allowing businesses to follow suit and ‘grow’ their profits and economic stability. This mindset of economic growth has become degenerative, and “it's time to choose a higher ambition because humanity’s 21st challenge is to meet the needs of all people within the means of this planet.”  We need to create economies that are regenerative and distributive by design, which means that we need big businesses to function on a cycle design rather than a linear design. A cycle design refers to creating products that are constructed from waste, and creating a meaningful product that can be recycled through the chain numerous times, thus becoming impactful to social and environmental injustices that plague our planet.  By doing so, the consumer-hungry economy can begin to function on a cycle, and redistribute the resources and wealth that is unequally distributed. Aside from the consumer-hungry humans of our world, big businesses will profit from these sustainability endeavors by gaining access to the untapped ‘Invisible Opportunity’: the fourth tier of consumers who are the least economically stable.  Big businesses have ignored those who typically cannot afford their products, however now is the time to market and provide products that fit their segment.  Not only will a cycle design allow for economic sustainability to all four of the economic tiers, it will also provide for social and environmental sustainability by situating big businesses within a threshold, or ‘safety lane’, rather than a linear design that exceeds planetary boundaries. 

Big businesses, the very ones who have played a significant role in so many of our world’s environmental and social injustices, are the solution to an overall sustainable world. Sounds rather contradictory, right? It is not wrong to criticize or question that very statement, however, we have reached a point to where we as humans have to start thinking of the bigger picture. Big businesses hold the raw power to make the societal changes that are necessary to the world’s long-term vitality.  With redirection and restructuring of their international business models to function on the basis of environmental stability and to set the mission to make positive, societal improvements, it could be the catalyst to a new economic platform that allows for equal opportunities across the globe. As said by Jonathan Rothstein, “There’s a stereotype that you have to choose in life between doing good and making money.”  Be that as it may, when it comes to big business making a profit or supporting social and environmental initiatives, the two no longer are separate entities.  The world cannot and will not function on the economic theories of our ancestors with no regard to their social and environmental impact. Thus, the change to a new, inclusive, and sustainable business model is what will save us from our own failures.

---

Sources Cited:

Dauvergne, Peter, and Jane Lister. “The Politics of 'Big Brand Sustainability'.” A Big-Brand

Takeover of Sustainability, MIT Press, 2015, pp. 1–26.

Hart, Stuart, and C.K. Prahalad. “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid.” Strategy+Business,

no. 26, Mar. 2002, pp. 2–12., doi:10.9774/gleaf.978-1-907643-44-6_42.

Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. Harvard Business Review, 2006, pp. 1–14, Strategy &

Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.

Raworth, Kate. “The Big Picture: Economics.” TEDxAthens . 16 Dec. 2014.

United Nations. Our Common Future. Brundtland Report, 1987.

“Win-Win.” Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, by Anand

Giridharadas, Alfred Knopf, 2018, pp. 35–59.