Sustainability in business – or corporate greenwash

Insect burger 

Introduction

‘Sustain’ is derived from Latin and it means hold up or support. Its etymology suggests endurance without yielding; continuity without downfall. Sustainability, by extension, may well be the capability of sustaining, but in common speech and in commercial jargon it has become a vague and abused term, laying claim to a plethora of definitions. What then does sustainability mean, and what should it mean in business? What ought we sustain, and does sustenance suffice? 

The need to address sustainability in business arose because irresponsibility in commerce and industry have led inter alia to scarcity of clean water, drain of natural resources, ill health of communities, strained employees and landfills of unsold produce – not only when mistakes have occurred, but even when operating as designed and being economically profitable. 

Likewise, a bank – having on its loan portfolio and profiting from coal power companies that have no desulphurisation, catalytic reduction or electrostatic precipitation processes in its operations, may not claim to be in sustainable business, even with pages of coloured charts about the solar panels on the roofs of its branch offices. It is irrelevant that the company’s board sits in a LEED platinum certified building or if HR shreds their printouts and sends them for recycling. Clean, or rather non-polluting energy, is desirable, but a grain of paracetamol given to the fat monkey does not bring down the fever of the elephant.

Status quo

Companies’ understanding of sustainability may be grasped from the content they publish eponymously, the measures reported within, and the exploits emphasised. Some admit the achievement of environmental and social targets in addition to the financial. Many willingly adopt reporting initiatives proposed for global application – some criteria of which one needs to be wary, and some frameworks that are best rejected outright. Water conservation, energy efficiency and waste reduction apparently matter. But reducing emissions of pollutants and atmospheric disruptors is mere ethics where it is not mandated via meaningful regulations, in which case it would be mere compliance. 

Social factors related to wages and working conditions and even quotas based on sex – albeit in power roles, are declared determinant. Funny how equality is not demanded among sexes on the shop floor in garment factories; nor religion-wise on boards; nor are quotas granted to ethnic minorities. Diversity, equality and climate change are innocent sounding yet often politically charged terms that ought to trigger alarm bells, since the current conversations around them are an intermingling of facts with ideology. Except for those components that are ideologically driven, much of what is gathered under the umbrella of sustainability is mere operational intelligence since reducing wastage or your electricity bill and motivating the workforce will directly or indirectly improve the GP. 

Such common sense practices are necessary for the survival of the business; survival at least until tomorrow amid the competition. Yet selling toy dolls with PVC bodies, nylon hair and dressed in polyester – but packaged in biodegradable polyethylene, is at best marginal sustainability. 

CEOs’ messages to shareholders suggest another focus level which is of community service, sometimes differentiated as sharing value or social responsibility. Volunteering to paint a temple, providing computers to the village school or building a footbridge over a stream is great, perhaps even altruistic. Such projects encourage communal harmony, may improve regional sales and may or may not be done with an underlying selfishness since they impress in the corporate videos. Reforestation is a dire global need that may make business sense in timber, but such projects while commendable do not make business sustainable in the paint or chocolate industries. This type of philanthropy or philigaiay could be good. But that’s just what it is – philanthropy by business entities. Alignment with business-irrelevant sustainability goals does not make for sustainable business.

Sustainable core

Distinctions could be drawn, albeit subject to imbrication, between CSR-type sustainability beyond the margins – and separate bins at the canteen that often get amalgamated at the point of eventual disposal; marginal sustainability activities focused on managing risks, driving efficiencies and waste reduction in yesterday’s operations; and sustainable business where core activities while generating profit do also by design benefit people, planet and posterity. Business for the sake of sustaining globalist agendae are not addressed here.

Whether the drive towards sustainability is peripheral or embedded into the core of business, when business models themselves are inherently harmful, the negative impacts of business felt and to be felt in the future presents a problem to the very idea of commerce. Problems need solutions – and this requires innovation, and it depends on the will and ability to innovate. 

Innovation

Let’s consider dyeing. Improving a dyeing process to reduce water consumption and employ safer and less chemicals is good economically and operationally irrespective of benefits on the social and ecological front. Such process changes are a step beyond waking up to measure manage and plug the leaks. However, methods that could colour your material without consumption of water would bring sustainability closer to your core. If colour then is the objective, providing colour sensations without colourant or a colouring process at all would be a step further. Further value is generated if this mechanism is controllable by the consumer and perceived colour can be varied by adjusting a voltage. 

Cold water detergents enabled by enzymatic action may clean clothes without requiring the pre-heating of water, enabling substantial reduction in energy consumption when accounted over the garments’ lifecycle. Even better are clothes whose fibres or yarns are enhanced such that only rinsing is needed to clean them – and no detergents at all, thus saving energy, water, time and money. The presence of odour in clothes is indicative of loss of freshness and therefore the necessity for laundering. Beyond dirt-repellence are fabrics that inhibit microbial growth since microbial decomposition of the fat and protein in sweat is the cause of malodorous by-products. Anti-microbial garments therefore facilitate a lower frequency for washing. A step beyond would be fabric advancements that offer odour management without inhibiting microbial activity by means of counteracting the odour itself, thereby preventing disruption of skin flora.

Leading up to the London Olympics, a sportswear company revolutionised the application of flat-bed knitting technology to create shoe uppers with a process that reduced waste by 60% - when comparative contemporary technology had waste reduction targets in the decimals. Furthermore, it offered highly tailorable solutions and superior product performance. Transformations such as this go beyond innovations related to colours, designs and the next advertising campaign.

Considering the rising demand for protein and meat and the disincentives on cattle farming on account of dubious political justifications, entrepreneurs are rethinking the hamburger - and replacing meat with insect sourced substitutes. Cultivating insects is comparatively attractive with a high feed conversion rate and the feed consisting of agricultural waste such as discarded lettuce. Insect cultivation does not compete with existing farmland, nor require forests to be cleared. A Dutch start-up has calculated that 1 kg of cricket meat uses 85% less food, 90% less land and 95% less water compared to 1 kg of beef. Further the protein content on dry weight basis of cricket is well above twice as much as chicken or a sirloin steak. 

Faced with challenges of land scarcity, high water requirement, pesticide use, soil health deterioration, varying yields and dependence on weather, precision urban vertical agriculture offers higher yields and healthier crops; and eliminates trucks and transportation and thereby fresher produce to consumers. This goes beyond better irrigation methods or lowering heavy metal contents in pesticides. 

Such as these are not incremental improvements to mitigate risk and harm, or enhance process efficiencies. This is sustainability-driven innovation that sees business opportunity in the necessity to grow wealth while sustaining the health of man and land – and it may require a re-assessment and refining of your organisational purpose. This is economically profitable entrepreneurship driven by creativity of business conceptualisation, efficiency of operations and enhancement of value to customer, synergised with an ethic of mitigation or elimination of adverse impacts on external stakeholders – or better, that benefits them, whether people or places.

Businesses can approach sustainability via innovating in their core products, core processes and their business models. Certainly, to solve broad ranging problems and achieve success in sustainable business model innovation, systemic solutions need to be implemented and collaboration is required across the value network. Think clothes, think consumerism, and it’s not only the industrialists – but important in the value chain is everyone who purchases goods that could last years but discard them after using them twice.

Conclusion

Sustainable business creates value not only for shareholders, but also for other stakeholders, including those who have not yet been knit in their mothers’ wombs. Business becomes sustainable when corporate core operations are driven by innovations drawing on strategies to capitalise on opportunities that increase shareholder gains, and therewith benefit ecology, geography and society. Such benefits can be realised by reason that you – ennobled with this vision, will fervently and innovatively engage in commerce and industry: Sustainable business is indeed your opportunity to do much good at impactful scales.

(The writer, a Chartered Scientist, Chartered Engineer, Certified Corporate Director, holds a doctorate in Chemical Engineering from the University of Cambridge.)