A NEW AGENDA FOR MANAGERS - University of Toronto T-Space › bitstream › 1807 › 4271 › 14... · 2010-02-08 · A NEW AGENDA FOR MANAGERS If we are truly to embark on a new

CHAPTER 2

A NEW AGENDA FOR MANAGERS

If we are truly to embark on a new era of susrniTUlbility,we must lay down ethical guidelines for ourrelarionships to each other and to the ecosystem as a whole. It is the urge to suwi~e thot will eTUlbleus to strike a

susrniTUlblebalance between "eco" and "ego" systems; to look at the world and each other with a new senseof genuine partnershiP; to ensure thot the richness of our human di~ersity does not /kgenerate into the

choos of separateness; to make a reality of human solidarity; to undersrnnd thot, in our relarionship with TUlture,whot we must stri~e for is not mastery but hormony. (Ramphal, 1991, p. 62)

THERULESHAVE CHANGED

The world community is increasinglydemanding that managers in both the publicand private sectors be held accountable formore than their traditionallymandated responsibilities.This expectation reflects amajor shift in ethics and atti-tudes, which will set theagenda for managers incoming decades. In all partsof the world, foresters arebeing called upon to includevalues such as habitat con-servation, watershed protection, and recre-ation access in their forest managementplans. In Honduras, Zimbabwe, and India,farmers are being mobilizedas game wardensand forest managers for their own holdingsand for adjacent wildlife preserves. In theprairies of North America, through theNorth American Waterfowl ManagementPlan, farmers are being encouraged (andpaid) to preserve and enhance habitats ontheir farms, and to undertake more compre-hensive conservation plans for soil, water,and habitat on their properties. Mine man-agers, resort operators, and other managersworldwideare increasinglybeingheld respon-sible - and legally liable - for the impactsof their projects on environmental values,both on-site and in the surroundings.

Weare in the midst of a profound shift

Agenda 21: Action plan for the21st century; a globalconsensusemerging out of the extensiveworldwide consultative processleading up to the 1992 EarthSummit.

in ethics and values, which will affect man-agers in all sectors. A new world order isemerging, just as revolutionary as that fol-

lowing the Industrial Revol-ution or the Social Revol-ution of the last century. Itencompasses a broad spec-trum of environmental andsocial values, and it bringswith it significant challengesto the managers of theplanet. This emerging envi-ronmental ethic has helped

spawn such major public fora as the WorldCommission on Environment and Develop-ment (WCED),and the Earth Summit in Riode Janeiro. In turn, these events have fos-tered increased awareness and further com-mitment to the new mandate for sustainabledevelopment. In essence, the rules of man-agement have changed, and managers willneed new skills and capabilities to meetthese challenges and expectations. Many ofthe assumptions that have been "givens" inour past management no longer hold, andpast experience may not be enough to alloweffective response.

"We may be fast approaching absolutelimits to material economic growth" (Rees,1990). If this statement is true, then themanagers of the globe are going to be facingsome very difficult trade-offs. Certain limits

35

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILITY

are already evident: for example, the atmos-pheric and climatic symptoms caused by glo-bal CO2emissions and chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs)are warnings of mounting stresses onthe global system. Many people are seriouslyquestioning the "business-as-usual"approach-es and assumptions, and a growing numberagree that things must change. Because ofthe dependence of all enterprises on theviability of the ecosphere, the maintenanceof global ecological integrity necessarilymustbecome our highest priority. We must estab-lish a system of ethics and values thatensures the needs of everyone - not just aprivileged few- are met. The governmentsand businesses that dominate global econ-omic activity must take the lead in incorpor-ating broader values and perspectives intothe decision process.

CULTURE AND ETHICS: CURRENTPERCEPTIONS

We see what we are trained to see. What we

believe to be important, and how we defineand address problems are based upon oursystem of ethics and values.

A society's understanding of "reality"isprofoundly affected by an elaborate setof unconscious "facts," unquestionedassumptions and entrenched beliefs.These are derived ultimately from theshared experience of a people in thecourse of their social evolution and aretransmitted culrurally ro each newindividual as she or he matures in thatparticular milieu. Such a commonphilosophy or world-view shapes everyculture's social relationships, its poliri-cal insritutions and the nature of itseconomic enterprise (Rees, 1990).

Our assumptions, in effect, program us tomake certain choices or to favor certainvalues. At the global scale, there has been

36

------ -

an ascendancy of a particular value system,based on a Western perspective. This per-spective dominates the global economicsystem and has greatly influenced the rulesby which trade and development assistanceoccur, as well as the way in which we defineprogress itself. But many now question thesupremacy of this value system.

It can been argued that Western think-ing and a Cartesian world-view favor thechoice of unsustainable options. "The emerg-ing ecological crisis reveals fatal flaws in theprevailing Western world-view. The possibil-ity of sustainable development based on thegrowth-oriented assumptions of neo-classicaleconomics is illusory" (Rees, 1990). Indus-trialized society is currently dominated by the"scientific" or Cartesian world-view, andmodem neo-classical economics owes much

to this world-view. The economic process isviewed as a self-sustaining circular flowbetween production and consumption withina completely closed system. Supply anddemand functions continually adjust to oneanother, and there are no real "limits togrowth." In fact, continuous material growthis seen as a necessity, and Gross Domestic(or National) Product (GDPor GNP)is used asthe primary indicator of national progressand well-being. For those who espouse thisperspective, economic expansion is seen toprovide the surplus necessary to take care ofthe needs of the poor. Therefore, there isless pressure for policies aimed at a moreequitable distribution of wealth. But theblind acceptance of this common paradigmmay be counterproductive to the long-termsuccess and sustainability of humanendeavors, as well as to the viability ofecosystems.

It is increasingly clear that "significantchanges in sociocultural beliefs, attitudes andbehaviour will be required before sustainabledevelopment acquires substantive meaning.In particular, the concept of the environ-

_.-

ment as a 'separate entity' is a human inven-tion. The ecological reality is that the econ-omy and the environment, for example, havealways been fully and inextricably linkedeverywhere but in the Cartesian mind. Func-tionally speaking, there is only a singleentity, the ecosphere, and humanity hasalways been part of it" (Rees, 1990). Themanagement process encourages a sense ofseparateness from the environment, in thatit establishes control and dominance over

that which is being managed. At some level,managers must move beyond separatenessand dominance, to a state of identification inwhich the fundamental connections and,indeed, unity between human and environ-mental concerns are recognized. The task isto reconcile the goals of management,immediate human needs, and economicprogress with the mandate to protect,restore, and enhance the natural environ-ment.

In fact, we begin to recognize that inmeeting primarily human goals, we mayactually be defeating our own purposes- that a totally people-centeredapproach to environment and develop-ment issues may ultimately end upserving neither human needs nor theneeds of the rest of the natural envi-ronment (Kumar and Murck, 1992).

A GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANDATE

The 1992 United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED)inRio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit) marked amilestone in several decades of debate overthe global problematique. The Earth Summitsignaled the beginning of a change in theglobal consensus, initiating a process ofelevating environmental and social values toparity with economic ones. Agenda 21, thecentral product of the Earth Summit, is a


landmark document that will have consider-able influence on the way we do business aswe enter the 21st century. It constitutes arevised mandate to managers, to begin man-aging not just for economic gain, but for along list of ecological and social values aswell. This immense document contains hun-dreds of specific recommendations andapproaches. Agenda 21 represents anunprecedented global pact, a strategy for theactions and accountabilities of governments,businesses, and citizens worldwide. As gov-ernments move to respond to the goals andrecommendations of Agenda 21, there willbe profound implications for managers. Ifexpectations followingthe Earth Summit areeven partially fulfilled, there will be signifi-cant changes in globalgovernance and in therules of management, changing the rightsand obligations of corporations, theaccountability of governments, and the rolesof ordinary citizens and non-governmentalorganizations.

The road to Rio has been long. Somewould trace its origins to the United NationsConference on the Human Environment inStockholm in 1972 - others would find itsroots as far back as Malthus, the Bible, orthe Koran in addressing the role of humansin the functioning of the planet. TheimmediateoriginsofUNCEDare more evident:the concluding paragraphs of the report ofthe WCEDcalled for globalaction and definedthe need for a world congress to achieve thegoals in the report, Our Common Future(WCED,1987). Stimulated by growing con-cerns about environmental degradation andconsequent economic and social hardship,steps were taken to mobilizeworld leaders insupport of environmentally sustainable man-agement of the planet. In a sense, Agenda21 and the other products of the EarthSummit represent the cutrent attempt of theglobal community to understand and clarifyhuman-planet relationships and to prescribe

37

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILIlY

behavior that will lead to solutions of theglobal problematique that are acceptable foreveryone.

The Earth Summit became the globalfocus for efforts to define the actions necess-ary to achieve the goals of sustainabiliry.TheRio conference reiterated many of the goalsstated in the WCEDreport, as well as relatedagendas such as the World ConservationStrategy (IUCN/UNEP/WWF,1980). From theoutset, the conference became an epicenterof activiry for governments and non-govern-mental organizations. In the months leadingup to the Earth Summit, thousands of organ-izations - ranging from mainstream environ-mental non-governmental organizations(ENGOS),to educational organizations, toacademic and research institutions, to socialmovements, labor unions, and local com-muniryassociations- began to participate,along with governments and businesses, invoicing and documenting their goals andconcerns.

In some respects, the results of the EarthSummit were disappointing. Particularlydiscouraging to many was the lack of con-crete financial commitments to many of theideals that were promoted by attendees andsupported "in principle" by world leaders.The high level of public participation andvisibility during preparations for the EarthSummit may have led to inflated expecta-tions; many organizations viewed the eventas their one chance to address all problemsat all scales from global to local, and toresolve them in a sort of planetary environ-mental revolution. Reinforcing these expec-tations was the fact that 105 heads of stateand many of the most respected leaders ofinternational organizations, religious groups,and business associations would be in attend-ance, each addressing a plenary session. Thereality of the event, of course, fell short ofthe instantaneous change that some hadanticipated, but served at the same time to

38

---_.

put in place a strong environmental agendafor future action - a new agenda for themanagers of the planet in the 21st century.The Earth Summit resulted in unprecedentedlevels of attention by world leaders and theirpublic commitment to the principles ofenvironmentally sound economic develop-ment. Above all, the world's leaders gavetheir support to a renovation in decisionmaking, with greater integration of social,environmental, and economic goals.

Regardless of unfulfilled expectations,the keyproducts ofUNCED- Agenda 21 andthe Conventions on Climate Change andBiological Diversity - will influence howgovernments, businesses, and communitiesoperate in the coming decades. It is import-ant that the Rio accomplishments be neitherunderestimated nor oversold. Agenda 21 andthe biodiversity and climate change conven-tions are not the end of the route tosustainability, only the beginning. YetAgenda 21 will challenge contemporarymanagers in many ways, and unless theybecome knowledgeable participants in theaftennath of Rio, they are likely to be sur-prised by events and by new demands ontheir management skills. Agenda 21 is aglobal "wish list" for a socially, economically,and environmentally sustainable future. Itcontains 40 chapters and is an encyclopediaof environmental and human issues. It differsfrom many of its predecessors in that it is anonnative document, clearly identifying anagenda for action and tasking those whomust - alone or with partners - take theinitiative to put the building blocks forsustainability in place. The underlying con-cern behind each section is that humanshave been using the Earth's resources at suchan alanning rate, especially over the pastcentury, that the future integrity of the envi-ronment and of human livelihood arethreatened. The prescription is for funda-mental change in how decisions are made,

A NEW AGENDAFOR MANAGERS

Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Developrnrot,

Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992,Reaffirmingthe Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment, adopted at Stolkholm on 16June 1972, and seeking to buildupon it,

With the goal of establishing a new and equitable global partnership throughthe creation of new levels of cooperation among States, key sectors ofsocieties and people,

Workingtowardsinternational agreements which respect the interests of all andprotect the integrity of the globalenvironmental and developmental system,

Recognizingthe integral and interdependant nature of the Earth, our home,Proclaimsthat:

Principle 1: Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainabledevelopment. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmonywith nature.

Principle 2: States have, in accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations and the principles of international law, the sovereign tight to exploittheir own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmentalpolicies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdictionor control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areasbeyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Principle 3: The tight to development must be fulfilledso as to equitably meetdevelopmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

Principle 4: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmentalprotection shall constitute an integral part of the development process andcannot be considered in isolation from it.

Principle 5: All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task oferadicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable develop-ment, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meetthe needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Principle 6: The special situation and needs of developing countries,particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable,shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environmentand development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

39


Principle 7: States shall cooperate in a spirit of globalpartnership to conserve,protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In viewof the different ccmPhwions to global environmental degradation, States havecommon but differentiated responsibilities:The developed countries acknowl.edge the responsibilitythat they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable-cteve!epment in view of the pressures their societies pbr.e .Dn the globalmvironment and of the technologies and financial rel!l'>lU'ttSthey rnmn"..td.

PriIwipIe 8::1[(@.achieve sustainable devdoptnent and a ~r quality of likfor . ~1e" :$_8 should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns ofproc$1IOtiam:and ,oonaUllJPUionand promote appropriate demographic policies.

Principle 9: States -SIroUUl<Dm!11Perateto strengthen endogenous capacity.building for sustainalJle .d""~t by improving scientific understandingthrough exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and byenhancing the development, adaptation, diffusionand transfer of technologies,including new and innovative technologies.

Principle 10: Environmental issues are best handled with the participation ofall concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, eachindividual shall have appropriate access to information concerning theenvironment that is held by public authorities, including information onhazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunityto participate in decision making processes. States shall facilitate andencourage public awareness and participation by making information widelyavailable. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, includingredress and remedy, shall be provided.

Principle 11: States shall enact effective environmental legislation. Environ.mental standards, management objectives and priorities should reflect theenvironmental and developmental context to which they apply. Standardsapplied by some countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted economicand social cost to other countries, in particular developing countries.

Principle 12: States should cooperate to promote a supportive and openinternational economic system that would lead to economic growth andsustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems ofenvironmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposesshould not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or adisguised restriction on international trade. Unilateral actions to deal withenvironmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing countryshould be avoided. Environmental measures addressing transboundary or globalenvironmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an internationalconsensus.

40


Principle 13: States shall develop national law regarding liability andcompensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.States shall also cooperate in an expeditious and more determined manner todevelop further international law regarding liability and compensation foradverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within theirjurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.

Principle 14: States should effectively cooperate to discourage or prevent therelocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances thatcause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to humanhealth.

Principle15: Inorder to protect the environment, the precautionary approachshall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where thereare threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certaintyshall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to preventenvironmental degradation.

Principle 16: National authorities should endeavour to promote the interna-tionalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments,taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bearthe cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and withoutdistorting international trade and investment.

Principle 17: Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shallbe undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significantadverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a compet-ent national authority.

Principle 18: States shall immediately notify other States of any naturaldisasters or other emergencies that are likely to produce sudden harmfuleffectson the environment of those States. Every effort shall be made by the interna-tional community to help States so afflicted.

Principle 19: States shall provide prior and timely notification and relevantinformation to potentially affected States on activities that may have asignificant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult withthose States at an early stage and in good faith.

Principle 20: Women have a vital role in environmental management anddevelopment. Their full participation is therefore essential to achievesustainable development.

Principle 21: The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the worldshould be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achievesustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

41


Principle 22: Indigenous people and their communities and other localcommunities have a vital role in environmental management and developmentbecause of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognizeand duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effectiveparticipation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people underoppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.

Principle 24: Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development.States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for theenvironment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further develop-ment, as necessaty.

Principle25: Peace, development and environmental protection are interde-pendent and indivisible.

Principle26: States shall resolve all their environmental disputes peacefullyand by appropriate means in accordance with the Charter of the UnitedNations.

Principle 27: States and people should cooperate in good faith and in a spiritof parmership in the fulfillment of the principles embodied in this Declarationand in the further development of international law in the field of sustainabledevelopment.

From: UNCED. Preliminary Report of the UNCED,Volume I. August 1992. Reprinted by permission of the United Nations.

and in the nature of the management of allaspects of planetary life.

Agenda 21 addresses the likely conse-quences of unsustainable patterns of envi-ronmental use and provides suggestions foralternative action. From a resource and

ecosystem perspective, the prognosis is poorunless major changes occur. But Agenda 21,like its predecessor, Our Common Future(WCED,1987), is a positive document, funda-mentally based on the idea that a sustainablefuture can be defined and implemented,through concerted actions and better man-agement. Agenda 21 is a synthesis of thework of countless individuals who are con-cerned with the environmental and social

42

impacts of unsustainable environmental usepatterns, and who participated in this inter-national forum to define a new global eco-logical paradigm. As a result, it is a consen-sus document with the imprecisions andtensions inherent to any broadly basedattempt to state goals and means. Butbecause of its broad base, it provides aframework from which to begin defining anew world model. If governments respond toeven a limited number of the specific recom-mendations of the Agenda, the rules of doingbusiness will be significantly altered.

Perhaps the most important message toemerge from the Rio conference is thatethical behavior with respect to sustainabiliry

is not optional. Managers must eitherbecome active participants in the design andimplementation of a sustainable future or itwill be imposed on them through the evolv-ing systems of governance and the increasingempowerment of the global citizenry. Con-crete actions have been undertaken in manynations to strengthen environmentallegisla-tion and find new ways to encourage andenforce accountability. The challenge is forpolicy makers, managers, and institutions, aswell as for individuals, to take a proactivestance and work towards formulating aresponse to the mandate of Agenda 21, aresponse that reflects their own needs whileaccommodating the broader global agenda.Managers will have to accept accountabilityfor the impacts of their own activities, anddesign and implement new programs ofaction to promote sustainable developmentin their sectors and regions.

ACTION FOR SUSTAINABILI1Y:A NEW ETHIC OF RESOURCEMANAGEMENT

Natural resources are our environmental

capital - the assets that we have inheritedand will pass on to our children. They arethe underpinnings of sustainable operation ofthe global life-support system. Developmentthat occurs at the expense of our resourcestocks or environmental quality diminisheslong-term capabilities in many ways. Ouractions or inactions can limit the range offunctions that a given area can support orreduce the capacity of particular functions,and therefore diminish the goods, services,and values that they may provide. Therealization of a sustainable future is predi-cated on how well we are able to integrateall of these values into our management inan effective manner. It is increasingly obvi-ous that we must understand and manage forcosts and effects much more broadly than we


have done in the past. More than others,resource managers are at the front lines ofthis effort, making the decisions that deter-mine which functions and values of theenvironment will be sustained.

To comprehend and respond to thechallenges of sustainability, and to begin toaddress this greatly broadened mandate,management will have to be set within anexpanded framework. The new resourcemanagement framework will have to be:

. longer term - to be able to anticipateand prevent problems better (some ofwhich may not occur for some time) andto reduce the risks of decisions;

. multisectoral- to include the full rangeof functions of the environments,including those that serve the needs ofothers;

. ecosystem-based- to recognize thecumulative and synergistic effects' oftheir (and others') actions;

. wider - to recognize the impacts oftheir actions on the values and risks ofother sectors, regions, and communities;

. deeper - to recognize that the causesand consequences of the problems theyseek to solve may involve others andother institutions; and

. full-cycle - considering and takingresponsibility for the full context ofresource use from extraction to process-ing, to end use, recovery, and reuse(modified from Manning, 1990b).

Sustainable management of naturalresources will have to include managementof demand as well as supply. How do wemanage the system so that the demands do

43


not overstress the supply capabilities? In thepast, resource management was focused onefficiently serving a demand for a specificproduct. We must now look to managing thedemand as well - with the goal of suitingthe demand optimally to the long-termcapacity of the resource base (Weiss, 1989;Milbrath, 1989). This will involve a broaderconcept of resource management - one that

looks to managing the whole system for asocially acceptable and environmentallysustainable outcome (Manning et al., 1990).

In practice, demand management willmean seeking greater efficienciesin resourceuse, more cradle-to-grave management ofresources and the products derived fromthem, greater reliance on reuse and recycledmaterials, and more attention to appropriateresource pricing to achieve these objectives.In some cases, this will necessitate reducingdemand to a sustainable level. Success will

depend to a great extent on our ability tochange public attitudes - particularly thoseregarding waste generation and levels ofmaterial consumption (Daly and Cobb,1989). Clarification of community andbroader values is essential to allowmanagersto understand the nature of possible trade-offs that can be made.

Sustainable development of renewableresources means sustained-yield managementthat is framed in terms of all of the import-ant functions supported by the environment.In practice, this will require that managers- supported by planning and other govern-ment bodies - seek to identify the functionssupported by the environment in their man-agement area. Based upon this knowledge,management plans must specify thoseattributes of the environment that are criti-cal to the support of the key functions. Inmany regions, the supporting data are not inplace to make this an easy job; this is a criti-cal area for increased development of base-line information and indicators. Initiatives

44

are underway by many governments andinternational organizations to put compre-hensive environmental monitoring systems inplace, to create useful indicators of changeand impact, and to provide better environ-mental information in support of environ-mentally informed decisions. Despite thesebuilding blocks, for many managers a signifi-cant broadening of their perceptions regard-ing the objectives of management may berequired.

Despite the apparent contradiction,sustainable development concepts can alsobe applied to nonrenewable resources. Whatwe seek to sustain are the key functions andnecessaty products and services derived fromthe environment. For nonrenewable re-sources (by definition, not perpetually sus-tainable) this implies:

. minimization of negative impacts onother attributes of the environment

during the siting, development, extrac-tion, transportation, and use of theresource so as to safeguard the values ofothers;

. reduction, reuse, and recycling ofnonrenewables - in effect, treatingthem as reusable (renewable) resources;

. replacement of nonrenewables withrenewables,or with more abundant non-renewable resources;

. research into substitutes and more effi-

cient use, aimed at ensuring continuousability to serve societal needs; and

. management of demand for productsmanufactured from nonrenewablematerials.

This will necessarily require changes in manycurrent institutional approaches, and in

project and program management methods atall scales.

EMERGING RESPONSES

Governments and industry are taking actionin response to the shift in ethics and atti-tudes inherent in the new mandate for

environmental sustainability. In many juris-dictions, and through the actions of industryleaders, some of the underpinnings forsustainability are being put in place. Theseinclude new institutional approaches, newsrrategies to address environmental concerns,industry-led codes of practice, and exemplaryactions by industry leaders who have graspedthe implications of the new environmentalorder. All of these actions demonstrate a

growing movement to make sustainability thecentral tenet of management.

Managerial aims and responsibilitiesneed to be redefined to reflect this changedperception of the role of the manager. Theseapproaches may come as a surprise to man-agers in affected industries. Workshops heldin Canadian resource communities involvingethicists, managers, and workers in resourceindustries revealed an initial scepticism forthe concept of sustainability, followed byacceptance when it became clear that allstakeholders have a role, and that theapproach provides solutions to commonconcerns. In many cases, as a result ofchanged perceptions of its role, industry hasbeen quick to participate in risk-reducingstrategies, including forms of self-policingwith respect to many environmental values.

The New Zealand Example:New Roles and Responsibilities

How can the citizenry make cettain thatenvironmental values are truly reflected inthe actions of their government? New Zea-land has a Parliamentary Commission for the


Environment used as a device to ensure that

the government performs its mandated job inenvironmental management, and that it isheld accountable and remain open to publicinput. The stated purpose of the Commissionis to ensure that the planning and manage-ment carried out by public authoritiesimproves the environment. The Commissiondoes this by:

~ reviewing legislation that may affect theenvironment;

~ monitoring the performance of publicauthorities; and

~ providing advice on better environ-mental management.

Visible public accountability for environ-mental values does make a difference. In its

first years of activity, the work of the Com-mission demonstrated that reporting ongov-ernment to the public does discipline thepolitical process somewhat and, particularly,does make the bureaucratic structures more

responsive. On the other hand, difficultieswere encountered in terms of the amount of

resources needed to monitor and analyzewhat is going on, and respond to publiccomplaints.

In the final analysis, the Commissionacts as a vehicle to ensure accountability. Nosingle group can rigorously investigate everycomplaint and respond to every need foranalysis. Still, because responsibility forenvironmentally sound behavior is part of allgovernment activity, New Zealanders believethey have a more accountable governmentthan before the Commission was put in place(Ogilvie, 1992a).

45

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABILln'

ProspectusEarth Incorporated

Would you invest in a firm managed as we manage planet Earth? Consider thecase of Earth Inc., a multinational conglomerate with a comprehensivelydiversified range of products and services.

. Earth Inc. has for some time allowed a group of preferred shareholders totake dividends at a level that is supportable only if the enterprise continuesto allow its capital equipment and resource stocks to deteriorate.

. The burgeoning number of common shareholders of Earth Inc., dependantupon the success of the firm for their entire livelihood, have received avery small proportion of the benefits of significant growth. Meanwhile,management of the firm has continued to deplete its natural resourcesstocks in the hope that the research department will discover somethingthat will propel the firm into a continuous growth mode.

. In recent years, the firm has all but eliminated the maintenance depart-ment and has failed to pay its insurance premiums; the money was used toredecorate the executive suite and to pay for increased security patrolsaround the managers' club and at shareholders' meetings. Recently, somemajor regional subsidiaries have folded or been put into receivership.

. Management is concerned that Earth Inc. shares are being sold short, andsignificant blocks of shareholders are demanding a shakeup in management.

These images are used to demonstrate that normal business approaches andcommon sense, applied at a global scale, might yield different patterns ofmanagement and investment for the greater security of each shareholder andof the global commons. Good environmental management is fully compatiblewith good business practice, and in the long term is essential for the survivalof businesses and of the planet.

From: E.W. Manning, "Changing Attitudes Towards Natural Resources," paper presented at the International Winter CitiesForum 91: Planning for a Common Future, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada, 1991. Reprinted by permission of E.W. Manning.

The Canadian Case: A ProvincialEnvironmental Bill of Rights

ment of the Province of Ontario, Canada,has made a commitment to enact an Envi-

ronmental Bill of Rights. The purpose of theBill of Rights will be to open up thegovernment's environmental decision-makingprocesses to much greater public scrutiny.

The Ontario government began the pro-cess of legislating the Environmental Bill of

A central element in the ethical shift is the

growing understanding that a cl~an, safeenvironment is part of basic human rights; itbelongs to each individual and to society ingeneral. In recognition of this, . the govern-

46

Rights in May 1993, with the promulgationof the Bill expected in early 1994. The Bill,which was developed through amultistakeholder consultation process, recog-nizes the inherent value of the environmentand the right of the people of Ontario to ahealthful environment. Under the Bill, thegovernment is given the primary responsibil-ity for the overall goal of protecting, conserv-ing and restoring the natural environmentfor the benefit of present and future gener-ations. The people of Ontario are given themeans to participate in achieving this goaland are empowered to hold the governmentaccountable for results through variousmechanisms, such as:

~ notification of environmentally significantdecisions proposed by government minis-tries through a computerized Environ-mental Registry of proposals for policies,legislation, regulations, and instruments,including approvals, orders, licences, andpermits;

~ creation of the Office of the Environ-mental Commissioner to serve as an

independent body to oversee and reporton the operation of the Bill;

~ establishmentof a formal procedureformembers of the public to request aninvestigation by the government of allegedoffences of environmental laws;

~ creation of a new "cause of action" for

environmental harm to a public resourcewhere there has been a contravention ofenvironmental laws - thus, a member ofthe public may be able to stop activitiesthat are harming the environment and toobtain a court-approved plan to restorethe environment; and

~ expanded protection for workers who


"whistleblow" on polluting employers.The clear statements of responsibility and

accessibility demonstrate that the province ofOntario is serious about environmental

values. An ethic of governmentaccountability underlies the concept of theEnvironmental Bill of Rights, and it is thisethic that has to pervade the actions anddecision-making processes of governmentseverywhere if the challenge of sustainabilityis to be met. Managers in government, noless than managers in business and othersectors of society, must share informationand accept accountability for environmentalresults; otherwise, they may find themselvesin court for their inattention to the newethic.

The Greening of the Corporate Sector

In many parts of the world, the corporatesector is also beginning to provide leadershipin addressingenvironmental issues."Not onlyare companies within an industry beginningto follow the environmental leader, wholeindustries are beginning to emulate otherindustries that are setting the most progress-ive pace" (Buzzelli, 1990, p. 16). Industryleaders have concluded that successfulhandling of environmental sustainability andcorporate environmental responsibility iscritical to their own long-term success.Internationally, many of the major industryassociations have begun to take active rolesin making sustainability and environmentalaccountability key goals. Most internationalindustry conferences now include environ-mental sessions, and the growing list ofinternational industry codes - the ValdezPrinciples, The Hague Declaration, TheTokyo Declaration, and the BusinessCharterfor Sustainable Development, for example -reflects the increased attention to this aspectof doing business. Nevertheless, while indus-try leaders may visibly espouse such goals,

47


much needs to be done to systematicallydeliver on the environmental agenda, andindustry laggards are as numerous as pro-gressive firms.

The corporate sector may have beenreluctant in the past to accept a broadenedmandate that includes environmental

accountability, but substantial progress isnow evident. In some industrialized nations

there is widespread agreement that the cor-porate sector has more than just an obliga-tion to its shareholders. Several international

industry associations have made environ-mental responsibility a core element in theirefforts to improve business practice (e.g.,International Chamber of Commerce, 1990;Pacific and Asia Travel Association, 1992).These efforts usually take the form of codesof ethics with few provisions for activeimplementation, yet such documents demon-strate an evolution in ideas of what consti-

tutes corporate responsibility and revealemerging views and leadership in this area.Through codes of ethics for entire sectorsand national associations (e.g., TourismIndustry Association of Canada, 1992; Cana-dian Petroleum Association, 1989), industryis trying to take charge of its own future -both to achieve environmental goals and toreduce the risk of external regulation or lossof markets. Through company manuals ofpractice (such as the Valdez Principles),many firms are putting increased emphasison more efficient use of energy andmaterials, more responsible planning andmanagement of operations, and greateraccountability. This is becoming an integralpart of corporate philosophy for industryleaders, reinforced by the exhortations of theEarth Summit and the messages receivedfrom their customers - the world citizenry.

The rules of operation are changing, andrisk-reducing strategies for. corporationsincreasingly include provisions for environ-mental risk. Already, many international

48

financial institutions are requiring environ-mental audits or certification from an envi-

ronmental rating service; a Swiss firm, forexample, is now operating full time doingindependent environmental ratings - akinto bond rating services - for internationallenders. This reflects a growing recognitionthat sustainability concerns are real, and canaffect both profitability and the ability torepay debts. It also reflects a concern bylenders that they may be left holding liabil-ities, such as sites that require costlycleanup. The message to borrowers is thatboth social and environmental values are

important and - like other assets and liabil-ities - must be part of their decision-makingprocess.

There are growing advantages to indus-tries in being seen to accept environmentalresponsibility. The Canadian tourism industryhas recently adopted a code of ethics andspecific guidelines for practice in each of itscomponent sectors, viewing this both asnecessary and advantageous - what theindustry sells, after all, is the image of aclean, safe environment. Furthermore, indus-try has "an ethical responsibility to protectthe health and safety of the people and theenvironment throughout the life-cycle of itsproducts...and it has more technologicalcapability than individuals and governmentsso it has an ethical responsibility to help findpractical solutions" (Buzzelli, 1990, p. 59).

Most laws and standards apply to whatcomes out at the end of the pipe or stack ofan industrial facility. The substantive expert-ise generally does not exist within govern-ments to take a detailed look at industrial

operations and make suggestions forimprovement, nor is this capability easilyprogrammed into government. Industry willhave to solve a lot of internal problems itself;corporations cannot afford to wait for gov-ernments to go to the end of the pipe.There are compelling economic reasons, as


The Valdez Principles

In September 1989, the Coalition for Environmentally ResponsibleEconomiesset forth the followingten broad principles for evaluaring corporate activitiesthat directly or indirectly affect the biosphere.

1. Protection of the Biosphere

We will minimize and strive to eliminate the release of any pollutant that maycause environmental damage to air, water, or earth or its inhabitants. We willsafeguard habitats in rivers, lakes, wetlands, coastal zones and oceans and willminimize contriburing to global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, acidrain or smog.

2. Sustainable Use of Natural Resources

We will make sustainable use of renewable resources, such as water, soils andforests. We will conserve nonrenewable natural resources through efficient useand careful planning. We will protect wildlifehabitat, open spaces and wilder-ness, while preserving biodiversity.

3. Reduction and Disposal of Waste

We will minimize the creation of waste, especially hazardous waste, andwherever possible recycle materials. We will dispose of all wastes through safeand responsible methods.

4. Wise Use of Energy

We will make every effort to use environmentally safe and sustainable energysources to meet our needs. We will invest in improved energy efficiency andconservation in our operations. We will maximize the energy efficiency ofproducts we produce or sell.

5. Risk Reduction

We will minimize the environmental, health and safety risks to our employeesand the communities in which we operate by employingsafe technologies andoperating procedures and by being constantly prepared for emergencies.

6. Marketing of Safe Products and Services

We will sell products or services that minimizeadverse environmental impactsand that are safe as consumers commonly use them. We willinform consumersof the environmental impacts of our products or services.

49


7. Damage Compensation

We will take responsibility for any harm we cause to the environment bymaking every effort to fully restore the environment and to compensate thosepersons who are adversely affected.

8. Disclosure

We will disclose to our employees and to the public incidents relating to ouroperations that cause environmental harm or pose health or safety hazards. Wewill disclose potential environmental, health or safety hazards posed by ouroperations, and we will not take any action against employees who report anycondition that creates a danger to the environment or poses health and safetyhazards.

9. Environmental Directors and Managers

At least one member of the Board of Directors will be a person qualified torepresent environmental interests. We will commit management resources toimplement these Principles, including the funding of an officeof vice presidentfor environmental affairsor an equivalent executive position, reporting directlyto the CEO, to monitor and report upon our implementation efforts.

10. Assessment and Annual Audit

We will conduct and make public an annual self-evaluation of our progress inimplementing these Principles and in complying with all applicable laws andregulations throughout our worldwide operations. We will work toward thetimely creation of independent environmental audit procedures which we willcomplete annually and make available to the public.

From:The CERESPrinciples were adopted by the CERESBoard on April 28, 1992. For more information, pleasecontactCERES,711 Adantic Avenue, Boston,MA 02111. US.A.Reprintedby permission.

well as ethical responsibilities, to use existingindustrial expertise to look for solutionsinternally.

How can business best internalize envi-

ronmental responsibility? In the BusinessStrategy for Sustainable Development (nSD,1992), practical suggestions are made forbusiness on how to deal with corporateaccountability and reporting to the public.The nSDdocument categorizes the way indus-try operates into four modes.

~ Fixingproblems.Such companies are pri-marily interested in damage-controlstrategies and contingency plans. Theytend to be unconcerned about social

values or broader responsibilities. Theywill fix what they have to fix.

~ Complying with laws and regulations.These firmswillwrite corporate environ-mental policies to improve some of theirreporting activities, and they will do

50

environmental audits, basically to reducerisk and make sure that they don't makethemselves vulnerable to loss of prof-itability.

. Seekingcompetitiveadvantage.These firmsperceive a competitive advantage bybeing a leader in the environmentalfield, so they focus on processes andsystems. Everyone in the companybecomes involved in environmental

management. They start to set meaning-ful and measurable targets in corporatereporting and corporate performance,and they expand environmental assess-ment and audit activities.

. Managingfor sustainability.These firmstry to integrate the concept ofsustainable development into their busi-ness strategies and environmental pol-icies. They plan over long time framesto achieve goals such as zero dischargeof toxic chemicals, full cycleaccountability for products, or efficiencywith respect to energy and materialproduction. This mode also requires thatmanagement consider the effects of itsactivities on the environment and thelong-term interest of stakeholders,including surrounding communities.These enterprises engage in a differenttype of dialogue and consultation withstakeholders. They form advisory panelsand committees outside of the corporatestructure to facilirate communicationwith srakeholders. Some of the leadersput environmentalists on their boards ofdirectors, and corporate reportingexpands in relation to the needs of thevarious stakeholders. These are calledsustainable development corporations..

Those who are most effective in emulatingthis last mode will be the industry leaders of


the 21st century; those who are unable toadapt will likely find themselves legislatedinto compliance, regulated out of operation,or forced out of business by a marketplaceincreasingly intolerant of violations of itsethic of corporate responsibility.

Voluntary compliance isone waycorpor-ations can demonstrate ethical behavior withrespect to the environment. This approachwaspioneered in the United States, with the33/50 Program, aimed at reducing toxicchemical emissions. Companies voluntarilyregister in the program and document theiruse and discharge of chemicals. They committo achieving target reductions in toxicchemical releases. The program has alreadyachieved massivedecreases in toxic chemicalemissions,simplythrough voluntary effortsbycorporations to inventory, monitor, andcontrol their chemical usage. It has becomea very effective program, reducing emissionswell beyond many regulatory standards. InCanada, a National Pollutant Release Inven-tory is in preparation, and goverrunenrs areencouraging industries to join the PollutionPrevention Pledge Program ("P4"). Theobjective of P4 is a 50 percent reduction inreleases of specific toxic chemicals beyondregulated standards by 1995, and a 90 per-cent reduction by the year 2000. Companiescan voluntarily join the program - they

don't have to be parr of it, but there is somegoverrunent encouragement and peer pres-sure to be on the list. Once firms are on thelist, they will be reported upon. If companiesdon't meet target reductions, they may gettaken off the list - and there will inevitablybe some publicity involved. If they do meetor exceed target reductions, they will getspecial recognition by the goverrunent. Vol-untary programs are non-regulatory, butthere is alwaysthe possibilitythat regulationswill follow.

Why are companies performing beyondwhat is required of them? To some extent

51

---


Business Charter for SustainableDevelopment

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

1. Corporate priority

To recognize environmental management as among the highest corporatepriorities and as a key determinant to sustainable development; to establishpolicies, programs, and practices for conducting operations in an environ-mentally sound manner.

2. Integrated management

To integrate these policies, programs, and practices fully into each business asan essential element of management in all its functions.

3. Process of improvement

To continue to improve corporate policies, programs, and environmentalperformance, taking into account technical developments, scientific under-standing, consumer needs and community expectations, with legal regulationsas a starting point; and to apply the same environmental criteria inter-nationally.

4. Employee education

To educate, train, and motivate employees to conduct their activities in anenvironmentally responsible manner.

5. Prior assessment

To assess environmental impacts before starting a new activity or project andbefore decommissioning a facility or leaving a site.

6. Products and services

To develop and provide products or services that have no undue environ-mental impact and are safe in their intended use, that are efficient in theirconsumption of energy and natural resources, and that can be recycled, reused,or disposed of safely.

52

_un

A NEW AGENDA FORMANAGERS

7. Customer advice

To advise and, where relevant, educate customers, distributors, and the publicin the safe use, transportation, storage, and disposal of products provided; andto apply similar considerations to the provision of services.

8. Facilitiesand operations

To develop, design, and operate facilities and conduct activities taking intoconsideration the efficient use of energy and materials, the sustainable use ofrenewable resources, the minimization of adverse environmental impact andwaste generation, and the safe and responsible disposal of residual waste.

9. Research

To conduct or support research on the environmental impacts of rawmaterials, products, processes, emissions, and wastes associated with theenterprise and on the means of minimizingsuch adverse impacts.

10. Precautionary approach

To modify the manufacture, marketing, or use of products or services or theconduct of activities, consistent with scientific and technical understanding,to prevent serious or irreversible environmental degradation.

11. Contractors and suppliers

To promote the adoption of these principles by contractors acring on behalfof the enterprise, encouraging and, where appropriate, requiring improvementsin their practices to make them consistent with those of the enterprise; andto encourage the wider adoption of these principles by suppliers.

12. Emergency preparedness

To develop and maintain, where significant hazards exist, emergency pre-paredness plans in conjunction with the emergency services, relevant author-ities and the local community, recognizingpotential transboundary impacts.

13. Transfer of technology{

To contribute to the transfer of environmentally sound technology andmanagement methods throughout the industrial and public sectors.

53

THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABllI1Y

14. Contributing to the common effort

To contribute to the development of public policy and to business, govern-mental and intergovernmental programs and educational initiatives that willenhance environmental awareness and protection.

1S. Openness to concerns

To foster openness and dialogue with employees and the public, anticipatingand responding to their concerns about the potential hazards and impacts ofoperations, products, wastes or services, including those transboundary ofglobal significance.

16. Compliance and reporting

To measure environmental performance; to conduct regular environmentalaudits and assessments of compliance with company requirements, legalrequirements, and these principles; and periodically to provide appropriateinformation to the Board of Directors, shareholders, employees, the authorities,and the public.

from: International Chamber of Commerce Publication 210/356 A. Reprinted by permission. The Business Charter forSustainable Development was adopted by the 64th Session of the ICC Executive Board on 27 November 1990, and was firstpublished in April 1991. It was prepared by the ICC Commission on Environment by the Commission's Working Party onSustainable Development. The ICC is indebted to numerous companies and business organizations for their input inpreparing the Charter. For more infonnation on this project, contact ICC Headquarters, Paris.

this reflects the degree to which many haveadopted the environmental ethic - whetherbecause their leadership is environmentallyconscious, because stakeholders are pressur-ing companies to accept environmentalresponsibilities, or because the marketplace isgiving signals that it will favor companieswith responsible environmental records. Onestudy found that greater reductions inemissions were achieved through voluntaryparticipation in the 33/50 Program than hadbeen achieved through laws and regulationsin the two or three years before the programwas started (Ogilvie, 1992a). This providesan optimistic lesson about corporate respon-sibility - a lesson about asking industries tolook closely at what they are putting into theenvironment, and respecting their ability to

54

solve problems voluntarily. No one wants topollute unnecessarily. Once commitmentshave been made, the corporate sector hasproven reliable in following through onthem. This gives a strong message to otherfirms and sectors who may not haveresponded (Ogilvie, 1992b).

STRATEGIESAND INSTITUTIONS

An ethic of accountability and sustainabilitywill lead to significant new demands on bothour institutions and those who manage them.Many of the specifics can be found in thechallenges outlined in Agenda 21. Theseveral hundred action items, covering pro-ductive sectors, specific ecosystems, andhuman institutions, have the potential to

change management practices in all sectorsand at all scales. Key recommendations thatwill impact on managers include:

. Strengthened regulatory mechanisms,particularly with respect to: the manage-ment of hazardous substances; the pro-tection of sensitive ecosystems and spe-cies; the control of site impacts on therights of neighbors and downstreaminhabitants; the disposal of waste (intoair, water, or land).

. Greater legal liability for effects ofactions that degrade environments,cause health problems, or affect com-mon property resources. This mayinclude longer time frames, broaderinterpretation of the rights of thoseaffected, and even liability for productuse or abuse after it leaves the control

of the producer.

. Expanded international agreements andconventions for control of particularsubstances or activities (similar to oceandumping and ozone conventions) andnew standards for current practices(transport of hazardous substances; ani-mal rights).

. National and regional planning ap-proaches that are more inclusive, morecomprehensive, and involve greaterintegration of the values of many groups,as well as integration of social, econ-omic, and environmental planningapproaches. Such processes may be moretime consuming and/or place greaterdemands on managers for active partici-pation and involvement to articulateand defend their own values.

. Greater use of marketplace and policyinstruments to achieve sustainable


development goals. This will force man-agers to be cognizant of a wider range offactors that may impact upon theirenterprise.

. More training in environmentally soundpractices for both managers andemployees, as a basic tenet of doingbusiness.

. Greater public accountability, whichimplies the involvement of managers ofpublic and private enterprises in muchmore open decision-making processes.

Each of these will require more of managersthan their current knowledge and traininghas prepared them for.

An important objective in buildingsustainable systems is to find win-win sol-utions early in the process, before monetaryand personal investments have been madein particular solutions or localities, andbefore positions become inflexible. Often,there are alternative locations for projects, oralternative means of staging developments sothat the key needs or wants of other users ofthe environment are not adversely affected(Crerar, 1986). Why site a mill in an areawhere critical habitat or recreational valueswillbe directly impacted, if five miles away isan equally economic site with no potentialconfrontations or costs? Why use a processwith a high risk of polluting, when less riskyalternatives exist, particularly when new,cleaner technologies are frequently moreenergy or materials efficient and less proneto breakdown? To take full advantage ofsuch circumstances will, however, require amuch more co-operative approach than istraditional from firms, communities, andgovernments. The monetary and time costsof confrontation are escalating, and thereforethe benefits of such approaches are becoming

55


increasingly evident. One way ro clefine goalsand identify rhe means ro achieve them isthrough participarory srrategy development- involving non-traditional parrners early inthe planning process - for regions, forprojects, and for policies.

Explicitly stated conservation or susrain-able development strategies are a promisingmeans to identify changing ethics and expec-tations and to define rhe means to achieve

rhem. Through such strategies, it is possibleto identify particular problems or social andenvironmental sensitivities very early in theoverall planning process and to devise con-sensus solutions to them Oacobs and Munro,1987; Manning, 1990a). They are an attemprto broaden institutional perspectives - togive value to the attitudes and ethics of allpartners in development. Conservationstrategies serve as consensus frameworks forlong-term planning in jurisdictions wherethey have been developed. The developmentprocess for such strategies has generally beenone of broad community-level consultationinvolving business, government, communityleaders, academics, and interest groups. Aconservation or sustainable developmentstrategy can mobilize the efforts of firms,governments, and communities for commongoals, and identify the required steps andrespective roles in building rowards asustainable future. This approach also canlead to productive alliances, particularlywhen applied to the use and management ofcommon property resources such as coastalzones or watersheds. Conservarion and

sustainable development strategies are aneffective way of tasking government andprivate enterprise with new social goals anddefining in precise terms the expandedexpectarions that society has for the behaviorand accountability of decision makers in allsectors.

Through regulations, incentive anddisincentive programs, research, infrastruc-

56

ture, planning, and review criteria, govern-ments have a major impact on resourcedevelopment and environmental manage-ment. This impact is inevitable because ofthe pervasive influence of government activ-ities and rules in nearly all societies. Inrecent years, several nations have come torealize that some government activities havebecome barriers to environmentally soundsolutions. Through such bodies as the OECDand the World Bank, many jurisdictions havebegun to re-examine their existing policy andprogram instruments to determine whetherthey can be made more supportive ofsustainable development. Increasingly, gov-ernments are putting new programs in placeto help develop strategies, to identify envi-ronmental limits and opportunities, and toprovide the information needed for envi-ronmentally sensitive decision making. Apromising approach has been to append newenvironmental conditions to project andprogram funding - in effect, requiring ameasure of cross-compliance to environ-mental objectives for eligibility. Suchapproaches are commonly used in the UnitedStates, for example, where eligibility forcertain categories of farm support dependsupon the farmer following specified conserva-tion practices. Some aid agencies are begin-ning to impose environmental conditions ontheir aid programs (Scandinavian nations inparticular), and many donors now requirethorough environmental impact assessmentsof projects before approval.

A NEW MANAGEMENT ETHIC

Managers must accept responsibility for theimpacts of their policies and practices onother sectors and other regions. The globalconsensus is becoming stronger that man-agement and policy must be framed withinthe paradigm of sustainability. Global,national, and local systems are responding to

reinforce this accountability - in effect, toforce managers to build environmental fac-tors into their policies and projects, and tointernalize the costs fully. New laws, includ-ing revised environmental impact assessmentlegislation, are reinforcing the legal bases andrequirements for more environmentallysound decisions and actions in many nationsand local jurisdictions. Stricter and broaderenvironmental enforcement continues to

receive strong public support globally; ourmanagement of natural resources will have tochange to accommodate this. This willrequire better access to information byresource managers and decision makers, toallow them to consider cumulative effects,cross-sectoral impacts, and broad scaleimpacts on other regions and otherstakeholders. Systems will have to be devisedto provide the needed information and themeans (including standards) for integraringthese factors into specific decisions. A keystep will be the development of effectiveindicators that distill the vast quantities ofdata available on aspects of human-environ-ment interactions into digestible, usableinformation.

There remain some significant chal-lenges. Full incorporation of environmentalobjectives into our decisions will not comeeasily, and will be a significant challenge tomanagers, particularly in developing nations.To understand more fully the environmentswe manage, we must first obtain the basicinformation on the environment and the

impacts we have on it. We will also needbetter analytical methods and means ofprediction, so that we can anticipate andprevent problems that will affect the envi-ronmental resource base and the functions

and dependencies related to it. An importantstep will be to identify success stories: whatworks in practice, why does it work, andwhat can we learn from good examples thatcan be replicated elsewhere? Another criti-


cal element lies in determining the produc-tivity response of a wider range of environ-mental goods, services, and experiences toalterations and interventions. Are therethresholds? If so, what are the cumulativeeffectsof a wide range of different actions onthese? How do our actions relate to thegoalsof our society and of the global citizen-ry, and what can be done to reduce the riskof unsustainable outcomes?

We will need to re-examine our manage-ment structures and institutions so that wecan more effectively internalize environ-mental factors. We may need new institu-tions to provide us with the needed infor-mation, the scientific support for soundmanagement, or the legislated base thatallows or encourages us to behave in anenvironmentally sound way. A thoroughexamination of the processes and institu-tional frameworkof management worldwidewill require keeping in mind the followingquestions.

~ Are our institutions at the right scale?That is, do they have control over theentire system they need to manage?Problems such as global warming orocean resourcemanagement may requireglobal-levelresponses through new insti-tutions and worldwide conventions.

~ Does our management involve the rightpartners?Thorough identification of allaspects of a problem, such as river pollu-tion and effective cleanup and mitiga-tion, may require partnerships amonggovernments, industries, communities,and other stakeholders.

~ Do our structures act as catalysts or asbarriers to environmentally sound decisionsand actions? Some current structures are

fragmented and located at great distancefrom the problems they seek to manage

57


(Milbrath, 1989; Adams, 1990). Pro-grams designed to accomplish one goal,such as increasing grain production, mayhave significant negative side effects onenvironmental or economic objectivesofother sectors.

. Are there ways to establish cleareraccountability for the environmental effects

of policies and management decisions?

. Can weprovidenwre comprehensivetrain-ing programs for managers and pro-fessionals to help them deal with thisbroader responsibility and accountability?

Managers must strive to make certain thatevaluation methods include all of thosethings that we really value. Emerging tech-niques can help us understand which valuesare present, and more thorough assessmentprocedures can aid in identifying the poten-tial repercussions of our decisions.

How do we measure progressand reward- rather than penalize - good practice?

Often reward systems are aimed at the short

58

term rather than the long term, or recognizeonly direct results rather than more indirectones that may benefit the community, thenation, or the planet. The current market-place may financially reward the producerwho uses a polluting technology in a jurisdic-tion with few rules to undercut the price ofa more environmentally responsible com-petitor. While there are signs that this israpidly changing, as long as we reward prac-tices that cause environmental problems forourselves and others, little can be expectedto change. How do we make certain thattrue environmental and social costs arereflected in the bottom line? These are

difficult questions for the management ofEarth Inc., and for its shareholders. Butthese are fundamental ethical questions, andthe future of our common enterprise dependsupon how effective we are at finding goodanswers. Unlike other corporations, if EarthInc. goes out of business, there is no goldenparachute for management, no alternativeemployment for workers, and no competingfirm to fill the void.

A NEW AGENDAFOR MANAGERS

Questions for Review1. How can managers broaden their perspectives in order to meet the

challenges of sustainability and accountability for environmental impacts?What are some of the specific effects and impacts that must be managedand taken into account?

2. What are the primary messages from the Earth Summit at Rio, and whatwill these mean for managers?

3. What questions can we ask to facilitate a re-examination of structures,processes, and institutions worldwide and at all scales, so that ourinstitutional framework might better incorporate environmental concerns?

4. What progress is being made by governments and industry to take responsi-bility for the goals of sustainable development?

5. How are governments moving to establish environmental accountability fortheir own actions, and those of firms within their jurisdictions?

Questions for Discussion and Research

1. In the late 1800s, firms and governments were forced by social change tointernalize responsibility for new values such as worker health, education,and workplace safety into their planning and management. What lessonsdoes this experience provide with respect to the need to respond to currentdemands for accountability for environmental factors?

2. How can decision makers in your industry or department obtain theinformation needed to incorporate environmental factors into their day-to-day work? What barriers are there to obtaining this information? How canthey be eliminated?

3. What would have to happen in your organization for environmental issuesto be a key agenda item at every management meeting?

4. How can your organization effectively identify the real costs of changes inthe environment and the costs/liabiliries of its own impacts on the environ-ment?

5. How will your organization or community likely react over the next decadeto demands that it take a more active role in delivering on the environ-mental agenda? How will your organization or community likely be affectedby the outcome of the Earth Summit and steps to implement Agenda 21- locally, nationally, and internationally?

59

THE CHAllENGE OF SUSTAINABIUTY

REFERENCES

Adams, W.M. 1990. Green Development:Enllironmentand Sustainabilityin the Third World. London, U.K.:Routledge.

Buzzelli,D.T. 1990.Corporate ethics and the envitOn-ment: The challenge for business leaders. In Proceed-ings, Agenda for Action: A Report on Business and theEnllironment:An Ethical Solution. Toronto, Canada:The Canadian Centre for Ethics and Corporate Policy.

Canadian Petroleum Association. 1989. Enllironmental

Code of Practice. Calgary: Canadian Petroleum Associ-ation.

Crerar, A. 198. Anticipate and prevent. PolicyOptions,Nov.

Daly, H., and J. Cobb. 1989. For the Common Good:Redirectingthe Economy toward Community, the Envi-ronment, and a Sustainable Future. TotOnto: OxfordUniversiry Press.

IISD(with Deloitte and Touche and the participationof Business Council for Sustainable Development).1992. Business Strategy for SustainableDevelopment:LeadershiPand Accountabilityfor the 90's. Winnipeg:IISD.

Internal Chamber of Commerce (ICC).1990. BusinessChorter of SustainableDevelopment.Paris: ICe.

IUCN/UNEP/WWF.1980. World Conservation Strategy.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, UNEP, and WWF.

Jacobs, P., and D.A. MuntO. 1987. ConservationWithEquity: Strategiesfor Sustainable Development.Cam-bridge, U.K.: International Union for the Conserva-tion of Nature and Natural Resources.

Kumar, R., and B.W. Murck. 1992. On CommonGround: Managing Human-Planet RelationshiPs.Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.

Manning, E.W. 1990a. Conservation strategies:PtOviding the vision for sustainable development.Alternatives 1 (4).

60

Manning, E.W. 1990b. Presidential address:Sustainable development, the challenge. CanadianGeographer34(4):290-302.

Manning, E.W., B. Rizzo,and E. Wiken. 1990. Con-servation Strategies, Sustainable Development and CUmate

Chonge. Ottawa: Sustainable Development Branch,EnvitOnment Canada.

Milbrath, LR. 1989. Envisioninga SustainableSociety:Learning Our Way Out. Albany, New Yotk: StateUnivetsity of New York Press.

Ogilvie, K. 1992a. Presentation at the Seminar on theChallenge of Sustainability, 9-11 November, KualaLumpur, Malaysia. Organized by the Foundation forInternational Ttaining, the Institute of Strategic andInternational Studies (ISIS), Malaysia, and theNational Institute of PublicAdministration (INTAN),Malaysia.

-. 1992b. Personal communication.

Pacific and Asia Ttavel Association (PATA). 1992.Code for Environmentally Responsible TauTism. SanFrancisco: PATA.

Ramphal, S.S. 1991. Equity and sustainability: Asouthern perspective. Ecodecision.No.1.

Rees, W.E. 1990. The ecologyof sustainable develop-ment. The Ecologist20(1):18-23.

Tourism Industry Association of Canada. 1992. Codesof Ethics and Guidelinesfor SustainableTauTism.Ottawa: Tourism Industry Association of Canada inCollaboration with the National Round Table on theEnvitOnment and the Economy.

Weiss,E.B. 1989. In Fairness to Future Generations:International lAw, Common Patrimony, andIntergenerational Equity. Tokyo: United NationsUniversity.

WCED.Our Common Future. 1987. Oxford, U.K.:Oxford University Press.

Documents

A NEW AGENDA FOR MANAGERS - University of Toronto T-Space › bitstream › 1807 › 4271 › 14... · 2010-02-08 · A NEW AGENDA FOR MANAGERS If we are truly to embark on a new