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.