Sustainable Thoughts

Thoughts and answers to questions from LEAD3030 - A02 readings

[lead3030a02]

Response to Readings #7, #8, and #9

Photo by lead3030a02

1. Do you think the primary purpose of business should be maximizing shareholder profit, or creating value for multiple stakeholders? Explain your reasoning.

The primary purpose of business should be creating value for multiple stakeholders rather than solely maximizing shareholder profit.

This is because businesses should not exist only to focus on profits or fame, but rather to help people and contribute positively to society and the environment. While profit is necessary for a business to function and remain sustainable, it should not be the only goal, and there should be a ceiling on how much profit is pursued.

When businesses focus only on maximizing shareholder returns, there is a significant risk that greed can fester and grow within the organization. This greed can become harmful not only to employees and customers, but to all stakeholders involved, including communities and the environment. Over time, this narrow focus can lead to unethical decision-making and long-term damage that outweighs short-term financial gains.

In contrast, a stakeholder-focused approach encourages businesses to consider the needs of employees, communities, customers, and the environment equally. By doing so, businesses can create positive externalities and build systems that are more balanced and resilient within the ecosystem they operate in. This approach supports long-term success rather than short-term profit maximization.

Ultimately, when businesses prioritize all stakeholders instead of focusing solely on shareholders, they reduce the risk of greed-driven decision-making and are more likely to create meaningful, lasting value that benefits society as a whole.

2. Given current trends (e.g., ESG reporting, consumer expectations, and regulation), do you think purpose-led business is becoming a necessity rather than a choice? Why or why not?

Given current trends, purpose-led businesses are becoming a necessary component to remain competitive in the market rather than just a choice.

This is because of the growing number of consumers and investors who are increasingly interested in green initiatives and sustainable practices. More people are actively wanting sustainable options, and they are paying attention to whether companies align with their personal values. At the same time, global crises such as global warming, floods, droughts, wars, poverty, and famine are causing people to be more weary of conventional business practices that prioritize profit over long-term environmental and social impacts.

As a result, being purpose-led gives a greater image and reputation to businesses. Companies that demonstrate clear purpose and responsibility are more likely to gain trust, loyalty, and long-term support from consumers and stakeholders. This shift is not just social, but also structural. In tandem with increasing numbers of necessary ESG reporting standards and legal regulations, businesses are being pushed away from purely conventional business practices and toward more responsible models.

People are also starting to realize that they have power in how they buy things, and now they want their dollar to reflect their personal values. Because of this, businesses that ignore purpose and sustainability risk falling behind in both reputation and competitiveness. Overall, this shift is in everyone’s best interest, and more importantly, in the Earth’s best interest, making purpose-led business increasingly necessary rather than optional.

"The love you give" by benjaflynn is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

1. Which of the three styles—giver, matcher, or taker—do you most identify with in your academic or work life? How has this influenced your relationships and outcomes?

I would say I mostly try to be a giver or matcher in both my academic and work life. This is because, as a student and employee with both individual responsibilities and team responsibilities, as well as individual and team goals, I want the best for myself without putting others down, and instead hopefully helping bring others up. For individual work, I try to do the best for myself; however, if someone needs help with their own work, I would not deny helping them. For teamwork, ideally I would want everyone to work at the same level collaboratively, but if that does not happen, I am willing to help pick up the slack where needed.

In the past, I was almost exclusively a giver. This influenced my relationships and outcomes in that I was seen as someone you could always depend upon, but it also led to burnout. As a result of that burnout, I eventually became someone people could not depend on in the same way, which negatively affected both my performance and relationships. Over time, this has changed because I realized it is in my best interest, as well as the interest of those around me, to avoid burnout. This is why I now try to balance being both a giver and a matcher, so I can support others while still maintaining my own well-being and consistency.

2. As a future leader, how might you apply a “giving” approach while still maintaining boundaries and avoiding burnout? What might this look like in a real workplace setting?

As a future leader, I would want to lead by example using a “giving” approach by ensuring my work goes above and beyond the requirements while still setting clear boundaries and maintaining them. I would do this by showing passion and care in my projects and trying my very best to formulate solutions, while maintaining my composure and managing my frustrations if my solutions did not work. I would want to demonstrate to my coworkers the importance of being proud of your work, but also having humility in accepting failure. Ideally, I would act in a way I would want my peers to act: put in your best work, support others when possible, but don’t let failure hurt or scare you, and don’t overextend yourself to the point of burnout.

In a real workplace setting, this might look like leading a team project where deadlines are tight and challenges arise. I would contribute fully and offer help to team members who may be struggling, but I would also set boundaries by managing my time and not taking on all responsibilities myself. For example, if a teammate is overwhelmed, I might help guide them or assist temporarily, but I would not consistently take over their tasks. At the same time, I would encourage open communication, acknowledge effort, and normalize setbacks so the team can learn and improve without fear. This approach allows me to give support while still maintaining balance and long-term effectiveness.

"Wikimania 2024 - GLAM Global Meetup 20 - Priority matrix" by Fuzheado is marked with CC0 1.0.

1. The SET model suggests that businesses should prioritize social and ecological well-being over profit maximization. Do you agree with this shift? Why or why not?

Yes, I agree with the shift from prioritizing profit maximization to prioritizing social and ecological well-being. This is because I believe businesses should first and foremost take care of the environment and the community. When businesses are faced with the choice between making more profit at the expense of others (harming the environment or community) versus maintaining a steady profit while working to enhance those systems, they should always choose the latter.

A business that can coexist within its ecological and social environments is ultimately a more stable and strong business. This kind of organization is built on solid values and morals regarding both the environment and the community, and it continually works to improve and better adhere to those values over time. Rather than chasing short-term gains, it focuses on long-term responsibility and impact.

I view this approach similarly to the idea behind green chemistry: set it up right the first time, and then make improvements along the way. By building a strong, ethical foundation from the beginning, businesses can avoid many of the negative consequences associated with profit-driven decision-making. This not only benefits society and the environment, but also supports long-term success and resilience as a business.

2. What outcomes do you think would emerge if there were a large-scale shift toward businesses operating using the SET model? What might this look like for employment, workers, communities, and the ecological systems in which businesses operate?

I believe if there were a large-scale shift toward businesses operating using the SET model, the outcomes would be highly beneficial to society as a whole. The SET model encourages putting social and ecological well-being at the top of businesses’ priority lists, which would strongly influence the general perception that caring for the environment and community is important and affects everyone. This kind of approach to business is a great step in the right direction and should become the standard for business operations. Without our social and ecological systems, businesses are pointless; there is no place for businesses in a world where our environment and communities do not exist. It is right and just for businesses to take responsibility for their actions and to promote systems that support long-term well-being.

For employment, systemic prejudices would ideally not exist. If a person is the right fit for a job, they should have a fair chance of getting that job without unnecessary barriers, leading to more equitable and inclusive workplaces.

For workers, this shift could result in healthier work environments, better support systems, and a stronger sense of purpose, as employees would feel that their work contributes positively to society and the environment.

Communities would begin to value businesses more because they directly benefit them. Businesses would contribute positively to community development. For example, businesses could support communities by hosting or supporting local wedding socials or sponsoring community sporting events.

For ecological systems, businesses could initiate environmental programs or support waste clean-up efforts in natural spaces, helping to protect and restore the environments they operate within.

"HoytCompoundBOW" by StromBer is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. In B&W Warm

1. Reflect on a recent purchase you made. Did it provide lasting satisfaction, or was the benefit short-lived? How does this relate to the idea of the hedonic treadmill?

The last materialistic thing I bought was a bow press. A bow press is a machine that enables its users to work on and tune their archery equipment. I am a member of Team Canada for the sport of archery, and I have 8 years of experience working as an archery technician. This tool gives me control over the setup, takedown, adjusting, tuning, and fitting of my own and other people’s bows. I intend on keeping this bow press for as long as I continue doing archery, which I have no intention of quitting after more than 10 years. Because of this, the purchase provides lasting satisfaction, as it is made to last and be used frequently over many years rather than offering only a short-lived benefit.

This purchase feels more like an investment rather than something that fuels the hedonic treadmill. I actively try not to make purchases just to appease short-lived happiness. If I am considering buying something, I think about the long-term implications and how much I will realistically use the item. I try to be conscious with my money because I see it as a valuable resource and do not enjoy wasting it. If I do make purchases that are more short-term, such as snacks or treats, I try to fully appreciate them while also recognizing that the happiness they bring is temporary. This awareness helps me avoid constantly chasing new purchases for satisfaction.

2. How do you feel about your current consumption habits? Do they align with your values? If not, what changes would you like to make, and how could you start?

I feel moderately content with my current consumption habits. I do not consume a large amount of materialistic goods, and I actively try to reuse, repair, refurbish, repurpose, and recycle whenever possible while avoiding unnecessary purchases. When I do buy something, I consider the longevity and durability of the item, whether it is used or new, and the environmental implications. These aspects form a kind of purchasing checklist for me, and they align well with my values.

For future purchases, I hope to continue following this same mindset, as I believe it is effective in helping me stay consistent with my values. At this point in my life, these habits feel ingrained, although they still require mental effort and awareness, which I am willing to maintain.

However, one area I could improve on is being more mindful of the social implications of my purchases. While I pay close attention to environmental impacts, I do not actively research supply chains or working conditions as much as I could. Moving forward, I would like to start incorporating this into my decision-making process by doing more research into the ethical practices behind the products and services I buy. This would help me more fully align my consumption habits with all of my values.

"Ranger Removing Litter" by YellowstoneNPS is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.

1. Can you think of an example where people working individually or together created positive change? What does this tell you about the potential for impact?

An example where people working individually and collectively created positive change is community cleanups. In a community cleanup, people work as individuals collectively to collect garbage around their community. If only one person performs this task, there is still a fair amount of good derived from it. However, when the community as a whole pitches in, the effects are more drastic and noticeable, and the overall impact becomes much greater.

The potential for impact starts with the individual. Individuals hold power in how they act and how they think, which can create strong influence within communities. This influence can be so significant that others may adopt the same mindset and also positively contribute and influence the community.

A specific example of this is an elderly man in the west end of Winnipeg who would consistently walk through the community with a bucket and garbage picker, always sporting a Tilley hat and hi-vis clothing. He would spend a great deal of time picking up litter around the community and disposing of it appropriately. He did this year after year and became well-known within the community. Over time, children in school learned the importance of keeping the community clean, which encouraged them to avoid littering and to pick up litter when they saw it. This one individual helped influence the mindset of maintaining a litter-free environment across the community. Because of this, many people individually began acting in the interest of the collective community and environment. This shows that the impact of one person can shift the potential for impact of everyone into actual collective impact.

2. When your actions align with your values, how does that feel? What is one action you could take to move toward that alignment in your own life?

Aligning my actions with my values feels fulfilling and just. Having the opportunity to live with the feeling of being free to choose actions that align with my values is something I greatly appreciate. I recognize that some people are not able to do this due to either internal or external factors, so I am thankful that I am able to align my actions with my values.

One action I can take to further push the needle toward full alignment is to be able to encourage and enable others to do the same. By either offering moral support, or actively working against barriers for others in aligning their values with their actions, I can more accurately align my values with my actions. This could include teaching others about the importance of developing and listening to their moral compass, and helping them reduce barriers such as the societal perception that sustainability must involve high monetary costs. I maintain that people can take low-cost actions to support their values of sustainability, such as repurposing and refurbishing items. By doing these things, I can better achieve action-value alignment in my own life while also helping others do the same.

[lead3030a02]

Response to Readings #5 and #6

"Map of Part of the North West Territory Including the Province of Manitoba, Exhibiting the Several Tracts of Country Ceded by the Indian Treaties 1,2,3, and 4 (1875)" by Manitoba Historical Maps is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

1. Think about where you currently live, study, or grew up. After learning that these places are located on treaty land, how does this change—or not change—your understanding of your relationship to that place?

I currently live, study and grew up in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Growing up here, I learned about treaty lands and indigenous lifestyles through school and through childhood friends. My understanding of my relationship to the land does not change with learning these things in university. 

My perception of my relationship with being on treaty land is rooted in respect, responsibility, and humility. I believe in respecting the land itself, the people on the land, and their rights to it, and in treating both the land and its people with dignity. I recognize that I am part of the environment: “I am dust, and to dust I shall return”. Because of that, it only makes sense that I do not harm or destroy my environment. I want to leave things in a better state than how I found them, as everything exists within an interconnected ecosystem that I do not want to damage or strain. I have no native land of my own; I come from a mix of different cultures and races and cannot claim native belonging to any place. Even so, I deeply respect the land where I was born and raised. Being on treaty land means acknowledging that without this land, I would not exist, and that understanding reinforces my responsibility to care for it and honor those connected to it.

"Painting by Sebastian Bieniek. Titel „Face 80x60 No. 6“, 2015. Oil on canvas. From the oeuvre of Bieniek-Face. Abstract portrait. Berlin based artist. Painter" by Sebastian Bieniek is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Cropped and adapted to B&W Warm

1. Before reading this section, how did you understand the difference between individual prejudice and systemic racism? Has your understanding changed?

Before reading this section, I believe I already had a good understanding of the difference between individual prejudice and systemic racism. Individual prejudice comes largely from personal biases, whereas systemic racism is embedded within larger systems such as education or the workplace. I do not believe that my understanding has significantly changed after reading this section.

I have experienced individual prejudice in my life. For example, in grade school, I was bullied because I was not white, which is an example of individual prejudice. Being mixed race is also an interesting social phenomenon, as I experienced prejudice from different groups: Caucasians for not being “white enough,” and people of colour for not being “coloured enough.” These experiences all stem from individual prejudice.

I have not personally experienced systemic racism, but I believe it can stem from collective individual prejudice. When people in positions of power share similar biases against a certain race, they may create rules and regulations that reflect those prejudices, embedding them into systems.

Regardless, neither individual prejudice nor systemic racism is acceptable.

"computer laptop keyboard HP Pavilion Entertainment PC" by GoodNCrazy is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

2. Think about an organization you have worked for, volunteered with, or observed. Can you identify any policies or practices that might unintentionally advantage some groups while disadvantaging others?

In post-secondary institutions, some classes require the use of laptops, tablets, or phones to fully participate in the classroom. In my experience, certain professors do not use a projector or whiteboard to write notes, and instead rely on a shared online document. During class, the professor types into the document, and afterward, the information is deleted. This makes it necessary for students to have access to a laptop or computer during class time in order to view the notes.

In another example, a professor used QR codes in their slides, meaning that students needed a current smartphone capable of scanning the code to access the class content. Additionally, many professors require students to use a laptop, tablet, or phone to access in-class materials for discussions, projects, or assignments.

All of these examples demonstrate how, in some classes, having access to a laptop, tablet, or phone is necessary to fully participate. This creates a systemic barrier, as not all students (particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds) have access to these devices. As a result, students who are able to bring these technologies to class are given an advantage, while those who cannot are unintentionally disadvantaged.

"Sustainability Binghamton" by 100isNow is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

1. Which of the two models—conventional or sustainable—best reflects the type of organization you would want to work for? Explain why.

The sustainable model of business best reflects the type of organization I would want to work for. Compared to a conventional model, which often prioritizes profit and growth even at the expense of resource consumption and environmental impact, a sustainable model aligns more closely with my personal values and long-term thinking.

I already live a relatively sustainable lifestyle, so it makes sense for me to want my work life to reflect that as well. I prefer an approach that is less materialistic and more mindful of resource use, where organizations actively respect their surroundings rather than depleting them. A sustainable organization gives back to the environment and aims to create positive externalities instead of harm. Ideally, I would want to work for a company that is integrated with natural systems and operates in a way that supports environmental balance, because that feels both logical and personally meaningful to me.

"1966 Chevrolet Impala SS Sport Coupe Advertisement Readers Digest May 1966" by SenseiAlan is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

2. Choose one business function (finance, marketing, operations, or human resources). How might that function operate differently in a sustainable business compared to a conventional one?

One business function that operates very differently in a sustainable versus a conventional business is marketing.

In a sustainable business, marketing is built on transparency, honesty, and accountability. The goal is not simply to increase sales at any cost, but to communicate value in a way that respects both consumers and the environment. This means avoiding misleading tactics such as fake certifications or exaggerated environmental claims. Instead, sustainable marketing relies on true and traceable data to support its messages. For example, if a product is advertised as eco-friendly, a sustainable company would be able to clearly explain and verify how and why it is environmentally responsible. This approach builds trust with consumers and ensures that marketing practices align with ethical standards and environmental responsibility.

In contrast, marketing in a conventional business model is often focused primarily on increasing consumption and maximizing profit, sometimes regardless of ethical concerns. This can lead to practices such as greenwashing, where companies falsely present themselves as environmentally friendly without making meaningful changes. Conventional marketing may also rely on persuasive or manipulative tactics, including hiding unethical labour practices or presenting “white lies” to make products seem more appealing than they truly are. The main objective becomes encouraging people to buy a product by almost any means necessary.

Overall, sustainable marketing respects both the consumer and the planet, while conventional marketing is more likely to prioritize sales over truth and responsibility.

"Eye Makeup Palette and Brush Kit" by geehairimages is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

1. Think about a product you regularly purchase (food, clothing, cosmetics, etc.). Have you noticed any environmental or sustainability labels on it? After reading this section, how confident are you that those claims reflect meaningful standards?

I am frugal. I buy almost all my clothes (with the exception of socks and undergarments) second hand or make them using secondhand materials. I also shop infrequently and opt more for repairing or repurposing. These products do not have sustainability labels on them, and so I cannot say that I am confident in their sustainability labels because they do not really have them in the first place.

I do barely wear cosmetics, but most of the cosmetics I have bought have been from local and environmentally conscious brands such as Pure Anada, Sweet Leilaney, and Elate cosmetics. I make my own soaps, and don’t use hair products aside from conditioner and rarely shampoo. For cleaning agents, I opt for natural products and home made cleaners. Elate cosmetics has certifications and affiliations of B Corps, Beauty without Bunnies, and Think Dirty. I am aware of the B Corps and trust this certification more than others because it is more standardized and widely recognized. Beauty without Bunnies and Think Dirty I would need to do more research, but I feel more willing to accept these certifications because the brand is B Corps certified.

I don’t know exactly if their certifications are reflecting meaningful standards, but I know I don’t have allergic reactions like I do with other brands which have not had any environmentally conscious certifications, which makes me feel somewhat more confident in their products overall.

For food, I buy what I can afford largely when it is on sale. This gives less options to buy things organic or local. I rarely look at certifications for food, so I am not very confident in judging their environmental or sustainability claims in that category.

"B Corp" by Svoboda v práci is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. Cropped and adapted to B&W Warm

2. If you were responsible for sustainability strategy in a company, how might third-party certifications help build credibility with customers and stakeholders? What limitations should managers still be aware of?

Third-party certifications can play an important role in helping a company build credibility with customers and stakeholders. These certifications allow customers to verify the claims an organization makes and ensure that the products or services they are purchasing align with their personal values. In this way, certifications help reduce uncertainty and make sustainability claims more trustworthy. They can also improve a company’s brand reputation and overall image, especially as more consumers become concerned with environmental and social responsibility. Having recognized certifications, such as B Corp status, can instill confidence in customers and signal that the company is making genuine efforts toward sustainability. Overall, certifications are generally a good idea, and even niche businesses can pursue some form of recognized certification to demonstrate accountability.

However, there are still limitations that managers need to be aware of. One major limitation is that customers may not always understand what different certifications mean, which can reduce their effectiveness. In some cases, certifications may even raise skepticism if consumers believe they are being used for greenwashing rather than reflecting real change. Because of this, businesses must ensure they are using appropriate and legitimate certifications rather than choosing them simply for appearance. Another important limitation is that companies should avoid endlessly chasing certifications just for the purpose of looking good on paper, without making meaningful operational changes. Ultimately, certifications should support real sustainability efforts, not replace them.

[lead3030a02]

Response to Reading #4

"Gassing up the Ford" by starmanseries is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

1. Think about a product you purchased this week. What social or environmental costs might be externalized in its production? Who likely bears those costs — geographically and across generations?

I haven’t bought anything this week aside from gas for my car. The social impacts could be in the supply chain. I don’t know the working conditions of any part of the supply chain for gas, but there are likely at least some poor, if not inhumane, working conditions. This could include child labour, unethical labour, unsafe labour, or inequitable working conditions (for example, for people of colour, women, or other minority groups). If there are poor working conditions, this can directly impact families, their future, and thus future generations. Since it impacts people, it could also indirectly impact the environment. Workers may not be environmentally conscious in this industry and may not prioritize the negative externalities that come from their work. Because these negative externalities are part of their daily environment, they may also be less likely to prioritize environmental care in other aspects of their lives due to learned behaviours. In this case, the social costs of purchasing gasoline are likely borne by people in different geographic regions than me, as well as their families and future generations.

Environmentally, there are also many negative externalities. The process of extracting, refining, transporting, and using gasoline is harmful to the environment. The destruction of natural lands to access crude oil, the refining process, transportation, and eventual use all contribute to environmental damage. These costs are borne both locally and globally, affecting people geographically close to and far from me, and they will also impact future generations.

"20090725 Deforestation" by Wagner T. Cassimiro 'Aranha' is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

2. Should businesses be legally required to internalize environmental and social costs, or should this remain a matter of consumer choice and market pressure? What would be the implications of each approach for equity and economic competitiveness?

Businesses should be legally required to internalize environmental and social costs. It is in everyone’s best interest for businesses to be incentivized to operate in a green and socially responsible manner. Everyone should take responsibility for their actions, and businesses as a whole are not excluded from this.

Implications of legally internalizing costs: Equity: If businesses are legally required to internalize costs, such as those associated with unfair labour conditions, then they will likely find it more practical to provide fair working conditions rather than continue harmful practices. This would help promote more equitable treatment of workers.

Economic competitiveness: A large portion of the global population is becoming increasingly concerned about the externalization of environmental and social costs. If companies are legally required to internalize these costs, it could improve their economic competitiveness in the long run. However, if a company currently has many negative externalized costs, being required to internalize them could initially put the company at a disadvantage, as it would need to restructure parts of its business to comply with new legal frameworks.

Implications of business as usual (consumer choice and market pressure): Equity: In present times, more and more consumers are concerned with equity within the businesses they support. Money talks, so this gradual shift toward supporting businesses that engage in equitable practices would eventually pressure businesses to adopt fairer workplaces.

Economic competitiveness: Having negative externalities can provide short-term economic advantages in a competitive market. Businesses do not have to spend resources addressing these externalities and therefore may have greater economic leverage than those that do internalize their environmental and social costs. However, brand image is becoming increasingly important in determining a business’s success. As more consumers prefer companies with minimal negative social or environmental impacts, businesses will likely be pressured over time to internalize their costs.

1. Ray Anderson described his realization as a moral awakening. Do you think large-scale corporate transformation requires this kind of personal ideological shift at the leadership level? Why or why not?

Yes, I think large-scale corporate transformation requires a personal ideological shift at the leadership level. This is because, for a business to run like a well-greased cog in a machine, all levels need to be in unison and working collaboratively. For a business to become fully engaged in environmental and social equity when it currently is not, wholehearted and absolute devotion to the corporate transformation is required.

Since leaders of a corporation make many major company decisions and set the example for employees, it is necessary for them to undergo an ideological shift to become more conscious of environmental and social issues. With this shift, the rest of the personnel within the business will hopefully be more accepting and willing to follow suit.

"refinery" by ljmacphee is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

2. Interface demonstrates that sustainability can align with profitability. Do you think this alignment is always possible, or are there industries where true sustainability would fundamentally challenge the core business model? Explain your reasoning

I think that it is a pipe dream that sustainability alignment can be achieved with any business in any industry. While it may be possible in some cases, it is extremely unlikely that every single industry can become sustainable without changing its core business model.

For example, personal jets and personal yachts are inherently unsustainable. They are used largely for pleasure and individual consumption. The market for these products is relatively small, but they still exist and are used. More than likely, their material procurement relies on metals (a finite resource that must be extracted from the Earth, often damaging ecosystems) and wood (which can involve deforestation). Their production is likely energy-intensive, contributing to CO₂ emissions, and their use for leisure requires fuel consumption that emits greenhouse gases.

That being said, the production of personal jets and yachts is part of larger industries. For example, the aerospace industry includes military and defense, commercial, and personal aviation. The industry as a whole may be able to move toward a more sustainable model, but some segments (such as personal jets) may need to undergo drastic changes to their core business model.

Another industry that may require a fundamental shift is the oil industry. This industry is inherently harmful to the environment and relies on finite resources. I do not believe that the oil industry can achieve full sustainability without fundamentally changing its core business model.

1. Many environmental regulations focus on managing pollution after it occurs. How might policy shift if green chemistry principles were embedded into product design from the outset?

If green chemistry principles were embedded into product design from the outset, there would be less need for damage control from negative externalities. Current policies often act as bandaids to complex, “wicked” problems, whereas green chemistry offers a more systemic and preventative approach.

If policies shifted to prioritize green chemistry principles, it would likely make businesses more efficient overall and better aligned with an environmental and social economy.

This shift would likely require more time for development and additional research into how to design products and processes effectively. However, in the long term, it would likely result in better outcomes by reducing negative externalities. It could even lead to the creation of positive externalities rather than negative ones.

"Chemical Plant" by Forsaken Fotos is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

2. If you were leading a company that relies on chemical inputs, what barriers — financial, technical, cultural, or regulatory — might prevent you from fully adopting green chemistry principles?

If I were leading a company that relies on chemical inputs, there would be several barriers to fully adopting green chemistry principles, including financial, technical, cultural, and regulatory challenges.

Financial: It may be expensive to perform research and development and then implement those changes to transform the business toward adopting green chemistry. This process requires both time and money.

Technical: Depending on the industry or the nature of the business, adopting green chemistry may require significant changes to the technologies used in the workplace. Some existing technologies may become obsolete and need to be replaced with newer, greener alternatives, which also requires time and financial investment.

Cultural: Certain workplace cultures may be more resistant to change and could have difficulty adopting green principles. The transition may take a large amount of time and could be slow to fully implement.

Regulatory: A potential regulatory barrier is that it may be common practice to use harmful chemicals that already have established certifications for specific business procedures, whereas newer green chemistry alternatives may not yet have the same level of certification. This could create limitations, as companies may not be legally allowed to use greener options due to the lack of regulatory approval.

"Green building varde denmark" by alexanderdrachmann is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. Adapted to B&W Warm

1. Should green building standards be voluntary market-based certifications, or should governments mandate higher performance standards for all new construction? What are the trade-offs of each approach?

Green building standards should ideally have a standardized set of performance requirements regardless of whether they are voluntary market-based certifications or government-mandated policies. Having a clear and consistent baseline would help ensure that all buildings meet certain environmental expectations while reducing confusion about what qualifies as “green.”

If green building standards are voluntary and market-based, one major advantage is that it could make participation more accessible and easier for businesses to engage in certification programs. Companies that are motivated can opt in and work toward higher sustainability standards without being forced. However, a limitation of this approach is that market-based certifications can become inconsistent, and not all buildings will participate, which reduces overall impact.

On the other hand, if governments mandate higher performance standards for all new construction, this would create a universal baseline that all buildings must follow. This would make the system simpler in the sense that there is one clear standard or rating system that everyone must meet. However, a key challenge is that there would need to be defined industry ranges of acceptability, since different types of buildings have different functions. For example, the standards for a small mom-and-pop grocery store would not be the same as for a large commercial vegetable processing plant. This can create complexity, confusion, and additional steps for categorizing buildings correctly.

Overall, both approaches have trade-offs, but a standardized baseline combined with appropriate category-specific adjustments may be necessary to make green building standards both fair and effective.

"BREEAM CERTICICATE" by Marketing Palladium is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Adapted to B&W Warm

2. If you were a corporate leader choosing between LEED, WELL, or Living Building Challenge certification, what would drive your decision — cost, reputation, performance, health outcomes, or something else? Why?

If I were a corporate leader choosing between LEED, WELL, or Living Building Challenge certification, I believe I would more than likely opt for a combination of BREEAM and any other certification. In my eyes, all the certifications work well with BREEAM. The reason why I think it is vital to choose BREEAM in tandem with another certification is because I believe that lifecycle assessments are vital to being environmentally conscious and to problem solving how things can be done better. Integrating lifecycle assessments into building certifications is, in my view, an all-encompassing way to certify the “greenness” of a building. This standard also aligns with my core values of leaving things better off than you found them. By employing BREEAM with lifecycle assessment (LCA) and ecological impact considerations, the business could conduct substantial research and apply that research to create positive externalities associated with the building and its construction, rather than neutral or negative ones.

Cost: This process may prove to be more financially intensive than other methods, though I believe that the long-term benefits would support financial stability.

Reputation: Since it is academically rigorous and document-intensive, the BREEAM standard supports transparency in the certification process, which helps build and maintain a positive reputation.

Health outcomes: Because this standard incorporates ecological impact, the likelihood that a building with a positive ecological footprint will also have positive effects on its occupants is higher.

[lead3030a02]

Response to Reading #3

1. How does the Circles of Control framework help explain stress or burnout in academic or professional life?

Provide an example of how shifting focus from concern to control or influence might improve well-being or effectiveness.

"out of focus (cc)" by marfis75 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Stress and burnout are likely the outcomes of students acting as more reactive people. The students who experience high levels of stress and burnout can have negative consequences associated with their studies by fixating on that which they have no control. This could include uncertainty in curved grading, uncertainty in group partners’ work, or past test results. Employees in high stress jobs may experience higher than necessary stress levels and undergo burnout for similar reasons. They may be reactive in their thought patterns and focussing on things outside of their control. Examples could be fixating on last month’s meeting where they spoke out of turn, or the productivity of another firm in comparison to your own. Students and working professionals alike, along with many other people may experience augmented levels of stress past what is necessary and productive to feel. 

Shifting focus onto aspects of your life over which you have control, and where things matter to you are beneficial to your mental health and your productivity. By learning to let go of the emotions of the past and instead using past information or events as inspiration for the future, you can learn to act in more of a proactive way. For the student worried about grading on a curve, they can focus on doing their best in the class and studying hard. For the employee who can’t stop thinking about that meeting last month, they can learn from his mistake to ensure it does not happen again. 

2. Brianna Wiest’s quote reframes self-care as a structural rather than indulgent practice.

What might “building a life you don’t need to escape from” mean in the context of your own work, education, or leadership aspirations?

I read the phrase “building a life you don’t need to escape from” similar to “the world is your oyster”. Many people get stuck in a box where they feel they don’t fit. That box is often depicted in society and reflected in everyday media. Everyone is quite exposed to this perceived box, and so some may feel that they are in it against their will. People will start to believe any piece of information if they are constantly and endlessly subjected to hearing or seeing it. To build a life where you don’t need to escape means to me that you must trust there is more for you than inside the box. There are ways to live life that you can feel content in, not trapped as if you need to escape. In work, it means that you can dance to the beat of your own drum and do things the way that works for you (so long as it follows basic workplace deccencies). In school, you can learn the way you need to to retain the information. Some people prefer self teaching, some ask questions, some want more help, and some want less. It is up to you to build an environment where you can learn as effectively as possible. 

3. How does the World Happiness Report challenge the idea that wealth alone leads to happiness?

Which of the six contributing factors do you think is most undervalued in business and policy discussions, and why?

"Albert Camus" by DietrichLiao is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

The World Happiness Report challenges wealth’s role in the path to happiness. With all the money in the world, if you don’t have contentment, security, trust, or meaningful connection, then it won’t be worth a dime. Granted money will solve some problems and enable you to achieve some of these things, but it is not simply a golden ticket to happiness. 

Meaningful connection is likely one of the more undervalued factors in business and policy discussions. In some countries, relationships between business partners are far more meaningful in the sense of having a deep connection. In North America, it feels much more individualistic where people do not have much concern for others or their community. It appears as though most business communications are shallow and each side wishes only to benefit their own. In these cases, meaningful connection is lost. 

4. How does the Danish emphasis on contentment challenge your own assumptions about happiness and success?

Identify one Danish strategy (e.g., hygge, work–life balance, trust, or mindful use of money) that you could realistically incorporate into your own life, and reflect on how doing so might influence your well-being, priorities, or future approach to work.

Ernest Hemingway with sons Patrick and Gregory with kittens in Finca Vigia

Not specified, owned by John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Personally I would agree with the Danish emphasis on contentment. Happiness can come from success, although success can be defined in different ways. Having your needs met and a healthy lifestyle I think inherently lead to more productivity. It is logical that the less stress of simply getting by you have, the more time you can explore other aspects of life such as creativity and curiosity. When you are able to feel creative and curious, you will be able to feel more success.

Hygge is one that I could incorporate more into my life. Given how messy and busy life can get, it does not feel as though connections and coziness are attainable at times. You still have to put the effort into developing a framework which can allow for time set aside to simply enjoy connections and coziness which doesn’t feel too forced. The fine line would be for it to feel organic and not engineered which can be difficult to attain in a world of deadlines and schedules. However, if you can achieve this balance, then you would likely feel much more integrated and rooted in life rather than just watching it pass by.

5. What was the most striking or surprising insight from Wilkinson’s talk?

How did the evidence presented challenge or reinforce your existing assumptions about inequality and social outcomes?

I thought it to be interesting Wilkinson brought up social-evaluative associated stress and to mention the parallels in income inequality and social psychology. The ties to greater social inequality to status competition and consumerism is particularly insightful. It is intuitive for this social connection, but interesting to see it compared to income inequality. Much of what Wilkinson discussed I already am in agreeance, and so to have more supporting data and further comparisons reinforces the idea that great inequalities are cause for general concern.

6. Wilkinson argues that income inequality affects everyone, not just those with the least.

How does this idea connect to earlier course themes such as trust, mental health, flourishing, or business as usual? What implications might this have for leaders, organizations, or public policy?

"LEONARD COHEN ..." by mrbill78636 is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Large power differences in the form of monetary wealth, social statuses, access to social securities and other aspects logically would cause unrest in all people. Humans I believe are meant to be social, curious, and creative. If you do not have enough money just to survive, or not enough social recognition, or not enough access to social securities, you will not be able to be social, curious, or creative. You may not be able to mentally stop yourself from worrying about getting enough money to live, having friends to pick you up when you are down, or availability for community help when going through tough times. Rich people are people too. They just simply have a different playing field with a set of different resources. They may be used to being rich and that is their normal day. They will at the end of the day still have the same issues, just on a different scale. Having not enough or having too much is a spell for disaster no matter which one you have. 

Leaders, organizations, and public policy should be formulated in a way that can help mitigate any kind of large inequalities. This should be in the form of either preemptive redistribution of wealth or otherwise. This of course gets dicey as some people have worked hard to get to where they are today. To make a lasting equitable solution to this problem would take serious thought, research, and considerations from all angles. 

7. Reflect on your own position in the Privilege Walk.

How might your lived experiences—both advantages and disadvantages—shape the challenges you face and the way you move through the world? How does recognizing these starting points influence how you understand your own efforts, resilience, and opportunities?

I will never not be grateful for my privileges. I am extremely privileged in my life. 

Being able to be happy with what you have is a virtue. And it is a virtue I strive to achieve. Growing up, I was ashamed of the privileges I had. I knew how “bad” things can be for some people. I also knew how “good” some people have it. I felt and still feel that the world is a cruel and unforgiving place where life is not fair and good people get hurt. The thing is, bad people get hurt too. Everyone has their own lived experiences which is all they know. Everyone’s privilege is different, and everyone’s hardships are different. I don't have to walk for 10km to get potable drinking water, but I also don't own 7 million dollar mansions outfitted with Gucci furniture. Someone I knew wished she was born white to have more privilege. My father wishes he was born able bodied. Everyone has a different life experience and different ideals of privilege. The best thing that you can do is play with the cards you’ve been dealt and try to make the world a better place for everyone. This is a very serious topic which I do not take lightly. 

Every experience, good or bad, shapes who you become. The same experiences for different people can shape them differently though. There is your nature and how you were nurtured. People are complex and cannot be boiled down to whether or not they were privileged. Privilege is subjective and will always be. 

Understanding where you have had hardships and where you have had it easy allow for compassion and empathy. These are necessary traits to form meaningful bonds with people and to treat them with dignity. Doing this allows you to recognize not only your own, but others’ resilience and help you and others identify opportunities. 

8. How does recognizing unequal starting points complicate common ideas about merit, success, and personal responsibility?

What implications does this have for leadership, hiring, education, or organizational decision-making?

"Alexander Solzhenitsyn" by openDemocracy is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Success is subjective. Merit is subjective. I believe that it is everyone’s personal responsibility to treat others with grace no matter from where they started. To be a leader in my eyes is to give everyone a fair shake. And some people deserve a different shake than others. People learn differently and they have different needs. However, there is a place for everyone in this world, and they deserve the chance to prove it. 

Hiring is a big topic in terms of equality. Would I want my disabled father to work as a fireman? No. He has a deficit in skills physically, but he has a surplus in other skills. He is a strong problem solver. He can bring a smile to other people’s face. He is smart, intelligent, and a valuable member of society. Hiring should accommodate for peoples’ skills and weaknesses. A fish will never climb a tree as well as a monkey, just as a monkey will never be able to swim as swiftly as a fish.

Organizational decision making should take each individual in mind. With an established team, support should be given to those who need it however they need it. Some may need more than others, and that is okay. It is important to communicate what is needed and where in order to avoid creating disdain amongst employees. This is also a hard topic to tackle. I am no expert, and I have no steadfast solution.

[lead3030a02]

Response to Reading #2

This is a response to LEAD 3030 A02 Reading #2 questions.

1. Which stage of the “stuff” lifecycle did you find most troubling or surprising, and why?

How does this challenge the idea that consumption is a neutral or purely personal choice?

"Fly Agaric (The term fly- refers not to insects as such but rather the delirium resulting from consumption of the fungus)" by Charles de Mille-Isles is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

All of the stages are troubling. The overuse and thus destruction of natural resources to the point they are no longer renewable, the synthetic, toxic materials and unethical worker conditions being used in manufacturing, the marketing used to promote buying more, the cradle to grave mentality and mentality that garbage disappears from our lives once the garbage truck picks it up, the continual pressures to perpetuate this linear style of consumerism; these are all distressing and saddening to see. Everyone is living life beyond their means, but few are truly seeing the consequences. The shift to large scale consumerism is unfortunate and sad. People have lost ingenuity from repurposing, discipline in mending and maintaining, and respect for where your materials are sourced. The longer the supply chain, the more convoluted it gets. The bigger the company, the more important consequences are not felt. 

The entire “cycle” is troubling because it is not sustainable. It is hurtful for the people and the planet. It is not the way the systems can stay. One day humans will over stay the Earth’s welcome should we keep up like this.

Consumption is a personal choice, it is simply that those who have power exert their choice onto others. Those who promote the ideal of consumption and those who encourage others to spend more to fuel this “cycle” are adept at influencing and generally successful at getting others to act against the world’s ecological and ethical interests. There is always a choice, but sometimes the choice’s consequences are skewered to make you think what you’re doing isn’t wrong. As in the video, consumers are constantly fed that they need to consume more to adhere to societal trends and norms so as to not fall out of favour of their friends or of society. Should they instead be fed accurate information as to how unethical and unsustainable continual shopping practices are, and instead of how to live more sustainably, would they change their behaviours?

2.The film argues that consumerism is not accidental but designed into the economic system.

In what ways does this challenge “business as usual,” and what implications does this have for the role of business leaders rather than just individual consumers?

To be fair, business as usual changes as the usual changes. As the video mentioned, in the 1950’s advertising changed. So business as usual changed. I should hope that business as usual is changing in today’s day and age. I hope that it is moving back to slower living, being content with what you have, fixing rather than throwing away. The idiom that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure is completely true. However, it should be that one man’s trash is the same man’s treasure. People should not be pushed to consume more, they should be self driven to use the materials and tools they already have. Creativity and resourcefulness are cultivated when using this mindset.

It is counterintuitive for business owners and leaders to promote not buying things. Business as usual today is all about selling, cutting costs, and making a profit. It seems as if those are the only things in the world that matter to businesses. That being said, there is a loss of connection, community, and respect for the environment. Business leaders should be supporting their workers, the environment, and the connections between them. This would be making products that last, products that are designed to be repurposable, and products that serve a purpose more than accumulating material wealth.

3. Why is climate change increasingly described as an economic and business risk rather than only an environmental issue?

Provide one example of how climate instability could directly affect business operations or supply chains.

"Yellowstone flood event 2022: Employee housing in Yellowstone River" by YellowstoneNPS is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.

Many businesses today realize how vital the environment actually is to their businesses. Some may see this as they actually want their business to adopt a circular system, but most are more likely driven to care about the environment because it affects their businesses’ profits or reputation. 

Climate change affects crop harvests, can damage infrastructures from floods or other extreme weather conditions, affects insurance costs which incur more costs for the business, among other things. In areas where wildfires can run rampant, should an entire area be affected where houses and communities are destroyed, the owners of homes there may lose their homes and have no place to live. These are people foremost, but employees too. When your employees have no home or have endured some form of hardship linked to the environmental disasters invoked by climate change, your business suffers. 

4. Despite decades of scientific evidence, large-scale action on climate change has been slow.

What structural, economic, or institutional factors do you think make meaningful change difficult?

The simple fact that many of the businesses today which are established or mature already have far reaching roots into a linear business style leads to a slower adoption of large-scale action on climate change. Many of these businesses function profitably as they are, and so it would take some elbow grease to reassess and reconfigure the operations to reflect a more sustainable method of doing business. On top of this, it would likely take a fair amount of monetary investment to change infrastructure to one of more sustainable construction and operation. For many large businesses, this is a huge undertaking which to some may have no benefit in terms of profitability. For them, they will see unethical worker conditions as a way to cut on costs, and so to increase profits. This poses as a problematic supply chain, though they may say it is an economic supply chain. People who live by “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but cannot tell when something is broke, will have a difficult time seeing the need to change.

5. How can food be simultaneously “cheap” and yet contribute to poor health, inequality, and ecological degradation?

What does this reveal about how efficiency is defined in current food systems?

"110113-F-5549S-211" by ResoluteSupportMedia is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Food is cheap because of economies of scale and externalized costs. Economies of scale in food I personally do not believe is a good idea. I think that there should be regional diversity, and diversity in general in the food you eat. Fresh ingredients and local varieties can cause even the same recipe to turn out slightly different. Many industrial agricultural businesses use copious amounts of nonrenewable energies, high GHG emitting fertilizers, and long routes for transportation. Many of these businesses are unethical to their workers and to their animals. The large-scale monoculture of produce and animal products cause a loss in biodiversity and crop or livestock pest resilience. Among all this, the food produced is not as nutritional as a homecooked meal. The food is so incredibly processed to the extent of being largely calorific without much nutritional value. 

Efficiency in this sense is tied to production solely, not on the quality of the food or the accessibility to quality food. Food systems today are incredibly productive at producing low quality foods in mass amounts, but terribly unproductive in producing nutritious, affordable, accessible foods.

6. What responsibilities do businesses, governments, and consumers each have in reshaping food systems to support both human and ecological flourishing?

Which actors do you think have the greatest capacity to drive change, and why?

Businesses are too focused on the financial bottom line when it comes to almost any sector, the food sector included. Governments are oftentimes in the same boat as businesses in terms of focussing on the financial bottom line. Consumers will follow what will benefit them most or what will harm them the least. It is up to the consumers to show that they want to have food systems that are affordable, nutritious, and accessible. It is up to governments to enforce legislation for businesses to operate to accommodate the consumers’ wants. It is up to businesses to follow legislation and conform to what the consumers want.

Ultimately I suppose consumers would have the best say, but only if it is in great numbers. Businesses are unlikely to change unless it affects sales, and governments are unlikely to change unless it affects GDP. Consumers can affect both businesses’ sales and countries’ GDP, but only if they change their ways altogether. Money talks, but individual consumers often have the smallest voices.

7. Why does paying attention to “place” matter for creating meaningful products, services, or experiences? 

Can you think of a business or organization that does this well, and what makes it feel different?

Paying attention to place allows businesses to truly listen to what the people of the place need. Knowing your place in the community and how you can best serve your customers spells for success. Success is being able to make meaningful products, services, and experiences for your customers and your community. Being conscious of the business’s place within the community allows business owners to address local issues or needs and accommodate for them.

Typically smaller businesses with loyal customers will fit this bill. The small local run businesses tend to have better reputations amongst the people of the communities and better general relations. These businesses make customers feel at home and trusting to the business and the business owners. Mutual trust and respect are felt in these businesses. 

8. How might greater attention to place change how businesses relate to the local environment and community?

What responsibilities do businesses have to the soil, water, air, and people of the places in which they operate?

"twisty forest paths" by MGSpiller is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Paying attention to place matters in an organization when you wish your business to function as a cog in the machine of the community and environment. You want to have the business integrated within the community and environment to serve both their needs. Having a business that supports its own community and people creates lasting and trusting relationships between the business and the people. Deep connection with your community inherently should lead to deep connection with your local environment. Businesses that pay attention to their place are vital to strong and thriving communities and environments.

Businesses have the responsibility to their place and to their environment. All aspects that the business affects in either the community or environment are under the responsibility of the business. The businesses on top of this should be beneficial to both, not simply just being neutral. Businesses should eliminate negative externalities and introduce positive ones. This includes having good stewardship to the land, air, soil, flora, fauna and people.

[lead3030a02]

Response to Reading #1

This is a response to LEAD 3030 A02 Reading #1 questions.

1. AI tools can generate information quickly, but they cannot exercise judgment or responsibility. What risks arise when decision-makers rely on AI outputs without strong critical thinking skills? Describe a real-world example that you have encountered, can imagine or heard about where this could cause harm.

"Critical Thinking 2" by Nouf AL Kinani نوف ال كناني is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Risks are all around any kind of decision making. Specifically with the use of AI, evaluating the consequences of certain actions can be difficult if not impossible. This poses incredible risk as AI tools are not properly equipped to understand and gauge any kind of morale implications to a decision. As AI is also based on human input, there are biases associated with the decision choices. 

One real world example I have heard from a professor that I would readily believe is the case of where a person had a conversation with an AI chatbot about whether or not they should commit suicide. Unfourtunately, the conversation ended in the chatbot recommending or agreeing with the person that they should commit suicide. The person then did just that.

2. What does it mean to be “invaluable” in an AI-enabled workplace? Based on this reading, which human skills do you think will matter most in your future career, and why?

Being invaluable in an AI-enabled workplace entails that the use of AI does not diminish your utility, but instead enhances it. Being able to critically think while employing AI to do some of your other tasks such as brainstorming or summarizing ideas is important in AI-enabled workplaces. Invaluable workers must be able to judge the credibility of resources, understand context, and challenge assumptions to name a few skills. Other skills must also include knowing how to efficiently use AI as a tool appropriately and ethically. Workers must be able to reflect on choices and be able to integrate multiple perspectives.

3. Do you feel that you currently adequately scrutinize the sources of media that you consume? Do you plan to apply more scrutiny and fact-checking in the future, if so how?

"Newspapers B&W (4)" by NS Newsflash is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Unfortunately I am rather sceptical of any information I receive, be it from a real person, social media, the news, or other forms of media. I see the need to scrutinize data as I see fit. If it is for something important or academic, likely I would fact-check more diligently. If it is from a trusted person, or information I can test out myself, then I will accept the information more willingly. The higher the stakes, the higher I will scrutinize. With the rise of AI generated materials, I feel the need to scrutinize more. 

I would likely do more research into information by asking those around me, finding other sources which confirm the information, double checking the information’s sources, and logicing out given my own knowledge whether or not it should be trusted. Using SIFT and CRAAP are great ways to help scrutinize data.

4. How do media literacy skills change your responsibility as a future manager or leader? Provide an example of how weak source evaluation could lead to poor business or sustainability decisions

Media literacy in a world where the media consumes all is an important skill to have. To be able to teach or aid someone else through media literacy is even more important. Business decisions, be them sustainable or otherwise, must be taken under risk instead of the unknown. To ensure that the risks are accurately calculated, managers, leaders, and employees of all levels should be literate in many different forms of media. It is especially important to be able to communicate effectively and ensure that emotions do not take over control of the decisions. 

An example of this could be broaching the topic of introducing assisted suicide or human euthanesia in a hospital where it is legal. If a person is unable to properly convey what exactly they are trying to say in the case of potentially offering euthanesia with specific clauses to safeguard against unwilling suicide, others could take an emotional stance and state in rebuttal that they do not want the hospital to be able to kill someone without giving them the choice. This could spell heavy backlash for the proposal because of a lack of literacy in the media coverage surrounding the hospital’s choice to offer human euthanesia. 

5. Which example of ecological overshoot do you find most concerning, and why? Does the capital-versus-interest analogy change the way you think about sustainability and economic success?

Energy I believe right now is a huge issue in terms of overshoot. With the amount of technology that uses energy and the amount of technology being used, energy is a hot commodity. There is not nearly enough storage or simply use of renewable energies to sustain our consumption. Another resource currently being overused is wood. Wood is a beautiful resource that is durable and that can last the test of time with proper care. The same goes for textiles and stones or metals. Leather, wool, cotton, tiles, pavers, bricks, etc. can all last a very long time if maintained and mended properly. Unfortunately we live in a world of disposability and manufactured short lifespans. People are not aware or do not care to take the time and effort to properly preserve or lengthen the lifespan of these materials. This or they buy synthetic materials which are simply not made to last, or that are made to last for too long (many plastics). 

The capital vs interest analogy I had not heard of before in such a context, but the theory itself is something my family has lived by. This would change the way I think about sustainability and economic success in the sense that I can understand that this analogy allows for other people who think differently than myself to understand the underlying concept. 

6. Why do you think societies and businesses continue to draw down natural capital despite clear evidence of overshoot? What incentives or assumptions make this pattern difficult to change?

"Fracking Wastes" by facesoffracking is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. Modified to warm black and white

I think societies and businesses continue to draw upon natural capital for three main reasons: Lack of understanding of how depleting our resources will affect us in the long term, greed, and lack of allowance to change. 

Because using finite resources and not living off the interest of the world’s natural resources do not have instant repercussions, people find it hard to see that what they are doing is wrong. Since many of the issues we see arise indirectly or after a longer time, people may try to attribute them to other things or need to do long hours of research to indeed tell if we are causing the issues. Even if we can determine that we are the cause because of our lifestyles, the claims are met with skepticism and then more convincing needs to be done. 

The next aspect is greed. Sometimes, even if someone is aware that what they are doing is wrong, they will still do it out of greed. Often it is to get ahead, to make more money, to accumulate more things, to gain popularity, to have more power. This can come from a sense of entitlement, and a lack of tolerance or acceptance that they need to change their ways to live more simply. 

The last one is a lack of allowance to change. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. For example if someone is poor, all they may be able to afford is a cheap pair of shoes. That cheap pair of shoes may not last very long because it is not made of durable materials or not constructed in a way to last. That person who cannot afford more may not be able to buy better quality shoes, and they are stuck in a cycle of unsustainability by continually buying new cheap shoes. This can be applied to a workplace. If you are environmentally conscious and work in a workplace that is very much not so, but you cannot afford to lose your job, then you continue supporting unsustainable practices. Much of this issue comes from fear. 

All these reasons require courage, understanding, empathy for the planet and those around you, and ultimately a paradigm shift. That being said, a paradigm shift needs to start somewhere, because small actions can make all the difference.