The Landscapes for People, Food and Nature initiative spends a lot of time trying to show the private sector that it is in their own self-interest to practice, support and finance integrated landscape management. If we focus so much on self-interest as a motivation for good behavior, it is because we have learned that is what works. Businesses are looking for things to do that will reduce their negative impacts on the environment, while also reducing their susceptibility to climate change, building their reputation for corporate sustainability, and improving their bottom line. Smallholder farmers – another important group in the private sector – are benefiting from sustainable agriculture land management practices that mitigate climate change but also increase their yields and profits – another win-win situation.
Successful partnerships and stakeholder initiatives thrive in that space where everyone wins. In South America, brewer SABMiller, Colombia’s National Parks administration, and the Aqueduct and Sewage Company of Bogotá are working together to reduce excessive sediment delivery into the Chingaza and Tunjuelo Sumapaz rivers. In North America, Walmart stores are donating food that is past its sell-by date – but perfectly good – to Feeding America food banks. By diverting food from their dumpsters, they’re able to save a bundle on trash collection fees, not to mention generate a lot of positive press, but also reduce the social and environmental effects of food waste – hunger and unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. But not every situation poses a benefit to both the private sector and the public good.
Players in the private sector are often faced with situations where socially and environmentally beneficial behaviors would increase costs and reduce profits. According to the International Energy Agency, over two-thirds of today’s proven reserves of fossil fuels need to stay in the ground in order to prevent catastrophic levels of climate change. But that’s not going to help the fossil fuel industry generate profits. Similarly, except in cases where livestock and crop producers polluting water sources with fertilizers, manure, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticides receive money from downstream stakeholders or the government to change their practices, cleaning up their act is not beneficial to their bottom line. So what happens in these situations?
I joined others in pondering this question at Worldwatch Institute’s recent release of State of the World 2014: Governing for Sustainability. As Worldwatch states, “Citizens expect their governments to lead on sustainability. But from largely disappointing international conferences like Rio II to the U.S.’s failure to pass meaningful climate legislation, governments’ progress has been lackluster.” Governing for Sustainability explores barriers to progress, looks at areas of success, and makes suggestions for creating the power we need to build a more sustainable world in the face of powerful lobbies that are blocking climate action. At the event, speakers talked about exciting trends like benefit corporations, a growing class of corporate enterprises with legal protection to make environmentally and socially responsible decisions – even when they don’t maximize profits. Others discussed the the importance of supporting the labor movement to build a large middle class that will support stronger environmental legislation, and encouraging governments to use alternatives to the GDP to measure the impact of policies on the economic health of society.
What other strategies can we use to build environmental accountability into the public and private sectors? Please share your ideas below.
Margie Miller is communications associate at EcoAgriculture Partners. She has previously done program outreach, communication, and coordination for the Union of Concerned Scientists Food & Environment Program, Worldwatch Institute’s Nourishing the Planet project, and the National Family Farm Coalition.
Comments are closed.