Good to read and see more and more people recognizing the contradictions in sustainability. I’d add Tim Jackson’s research at CUSP to your reading list too, I think he’s got a deeper understanding of consumption than most ecological economists and the existential problem we face; if we don’t grow the economy we risk breaking the social contract and if we do grow the economy we risk ecological collapse, which will also break the social contract.
Also there’s a good paper by postgrowth researcher Javier Llovhas on the failure of green marketing and sustainability to date, we should all read it to avoid repeating 50 yrs of mistakes.
I’m not sure the binary of permanence vs performance works, nor the ‘they’re just focused on the short term’, accepting there is an element of truth in there, however, this is the problem, the relatively straightforward business model *of every client you work on*:
- borrow a boat load of $ from finance capital, you'll have to convince them your idea will have a much better return than a 30 yr bond, otherwise they won't bother.
- add manufacturing capacity fast
- reduce unit costs by growing sales, hard & asap
- price competitively
- keep your customers with new novelties i.e. brand marketing
- invest in R&D to produce new ideas for l/t growth
Every business has very much got an eye to the long term because that’s how you get to the big pay day.
So there’s the problem, the only solution to that is political control of the money supply, and until then the alternative is for example the kinds of business Kate Raworth is supporting in the Doughnut Economics Enterprise Lab, small ‘fairtrade’ sme’s, none of which have the kind of budgets to support the marketing communications industry.
Another different methodology would be Per Stoknes methodology he teaches at Oslo,Business School, where a businesses rate of resource productivity increases faster than consumption growth, over the same period. But anyone find *one* business anywhere designed to those principles?
Hey Flo, hope you are well. Thank you for posting the written result of a lot of thinking and effort, no doubt. Your protest is spot on, bringing together many strands of unsynchronized thinking. The socially conscious on here will share your frustrations of growth-mania and planet-fear.
My mind moves swiftly to aspects of human behaviour that have caused, and will continue to exacerbate, the problem: apathy, envy, greed. These very (modern/western?) human traits culminate in the cultural dynamic of individualism and corporate competitiveness; resulting in mass inequality. My thinking, then, walks back from societal inequality, through competitiveness and individualism, to basic greed and envy (and there’s a mountain of academic literature in each clause of that sentence!).
When we stitch the small concern of brands into this complex economic and human weave, what can we do? I’m not sure. I do believe the new role for brands has to start very specific – give the brand a job to do that’s going to benefit its commercial performance AND mend a relevant social ailment. When the brand community aligns purpose and profit motives in its thinking, resistance (from the plethora of stakeholders) to doing some good reduces, as there is managed economic consequence. In short, my view is NOT a return to philanthropy, but a focussing of their role to do something good. A few have got is spot on – Patagonia, Unilever’s brands, etc.
That’s where my head is at, and I thought I’d post to share the concern and hopefully stimulate a little more action.
"Permanence, not performance" is hits it perfectly.
I worry much of what we're discussing here is an outcome of a system which incentivizes short-term gains. CEO's are quite literally incentivized by 3 months windows (quarterly earnings). Average CEO turnover is also down. So why care about the 20+ year consequences of your company now?
Without being too pessimistic, I'm afraid if we don't change the incentive models, we're stuck chasing performance, not permanence. To me, that's the crux of all of this.
Good to read and see more and more people recognizing the contradictions in sustainability. I’d add Tim Jackson’s research at CUSP to your reading list too, I think he’s got a deeper understanding of consumption than most ecological economists and the existential problem we face; if we don’t grow the economy we risk breaking the social contract and if we do grow the economy we risk ecological collapse, which will also break the social contract.
Also there’s a good paper by postgrowth researcher Javier Llovhas on the failure of green marketing and sustainability to date, we should all read it to avoid repeating 50 yrs of mistakes.
I’m not sure the binary of permanence vs performance works, nor the ‘they’re just focused on the short term’, accepting there is an element of truth in there, however, this is the problem, the relatively straightforward business model *of every client you work on*:
- borrow a boat load of $ from finance capital, you'll have to convince them your idea will have a much better return than a 30 yr bond, otherwise they won't bother.
- add manufacturing capacity fast
- reduce unit costs by growing sales, hard & asap
- price competitively
- keep your customers with new novelties i.e. brand marketing
- invest in R&D to produce new ideas for l/t growth
Every business has very much got an eye to the long term because that’s how you get to the big pay day.
So there’s the problem, the only solution to that is political control of the money supply, and until then the alternative is for example the kinds of business Kate Raworth is supporting in the Doughnut Economics Enterprise Lab, small ‘fairtrade’ sme’s, none of which have the kind of budgets to support the marketing communications industry.
Another different methodology would be Per Stoknes methodology he teaches at Oslo,Business School, where a businesses rate of resource productivity increases faster than consumption growth, over the same period. But anyone find *one* business anywhere designed to those principles?
Hey Flo, hope you are well. Thank you for posting the written result of a lot of thinking and effort, no doubt. Your protest is spot on, bringing together many strands of unsynchronized thinking. The socially conscious on here will share your frustrations of growth-mania and planet-fear.
My mind moves swiftly to aspects of human behaviour that have caused, and will continue to exacerbate, the problem: apathy, envy, greed. These very (modern/western?) human traits culminate in the cultural dynamic of individualism and corporate competitiveness; resulting in mass inequality. My thinking, then, walks back from societal inequality, through competitiveness and individualism, to basic greed and envy (and there’s a mountain of academic literature in each clause of that sentence!).
When we stitch the small concern of brands into this complex economic and human weave, what can we do? I’m not sure. I do believe the new role for brands has to start very specific – give the brand a job to do that’s going to benefit its commercial performance AND mend a relevant social ailment. When the brand community aligns purpose and profit motives in its thinking, resistance (from the plethora of stakeholders) to doing some good reduces, as there is managed economic consequence. In short, my view is NOT a return to philanthropy, but a focussing of their role to do something good. A few have got is spot on – Patagonia, Unilever’s brands, etc.
That’s where my head is at, and I thought I’d post to share the concern and hopefully stimulate a little more action.
A necessary reflection. Thank you.
"Permanence, not performance" is hits it perfectly.
I worry much of what we're discussing here is an outcome of a system which incentivizes short-term gains. CEO's are quite literally incentivized by 3 months windows (quarterly earnings). Average CEO turnover is also down. So why care about the 20+ year consequences of your company now?
Without being too pessimistic, I'm afraid if we don't change the incentive models, we're stuck chasing performance, not permanence. To me, that's the crux of all of this.