Précis: A Road Map for Natural Capitalism

In light of the fact we did not really discuss Natural Capitalism in class, I thought I’d take this opportunity to discuss this “Road Map”. I am primarily concerned with the supposed incompatibility of capitalism with environmental friendliness. We’ve come across this incompatibility in class and I’m hoping this investigation will further illuminate the issue.
The primary argument of the Road Map is that it is more profitable to have environmentally friendly business practices. They argue that intact ecosystem services are vital to the continuation of profit because their absence would be a serious “limiting factor to prosperity”. Ecosystem services are cast as previously free services that must now be paid for because natural disasters are causing billions of dollars in damage. They argue that resources and ecosystem services are not the same thing and we must stop thinking in terms of commodities and more in terms of services. Their thesis is that by raising resource productivity, closing production loops, shifting toward solution based production model and adopting business practices that support and sustain ecosystem services, capitalism can successfully adapt to the environmentally precarious world.
The audience is most definitely business owners. The report is not pitched toward alternative lifestyle environmentalists. It is very much invested in maintaining a capitalist order and the success of the argument hinges on the ability to make people believe that environmental preservation is profitable. To this end they employ many examples of profitable “Whole-System Design”. They recount the long-term benefits of switching to initially more expensive technologies. A good five pages of the report are examples of technological successes, yet the argument of the piece does not end up being a doctrine for techno fixes. It merely cites the technological examples to support its goal of convincing business leaders to alter their conduct.
In altering their conduct the capitalist order would be altered as well. I initially wrote the goal was to maintain the “current capitalist order”, and then deleted “current” because the interesting maneuvers that happen around the ideas of “services” and “ownership” lead me to believe that if natural capitalism were our economic system, we would not have such a commodity fetish. The section on “Changing the Business Model” gives examples of companies that have changed to the “solution economy” which is essentially service-leasing. The two examples cited are those of an elevator and a carpet company that lease their products. By leasing “vertical transportation systems” the elevator company captures the saving from its energy efficient elevators, and by leasing carpets the carpet company can “remanufacture” its carpets and save on inputs. The companies are voluntarily taking on more responsibility. This theme about the benefits of greater responsibility emerges again in the argument that consumer are more likely to support environmentally responsible businesses. The latter however rests on the warrant that consumers know the truth about a company’s environmental record. If business engage in greenwashing, it is difficult for consumers to support truly responsible businesses. Regardless of whether this service economy could be achieved, would it be better then a commodity driven one? The report argues that it would be because people would be more interested in building relationships as opposed to selling products.
The report itself engages in potential greenwashing. In the same section where the “service-leasing” appears, they use Dow Chemical as a company as an example. The report was written in 1999 and Dow purchased Union Carbide (responsible for the Bhopal disaster) in 2001, but the legitimacy of the entrepreneurial practice of “service-leasing” is diminished if the full history of the company is exposed. The report does not claim Dow as an exemplary environmentally friendly company, but given its full story, it is repulsive to think that it would be used as an example of a company with practices that supposedly benefit the environment.
The whole point of the piece is to encourage businesses to consider and minimize the environmental impact of decisions. The figurative language of the piece is used to give weight to the environment. Embedded within the report are the metaphor of the river for a company’s production process and the trope of frontier exploration within the “journey toward natural capitalism”. These figures, evoke more of an exploration of nature. Journeys are not sustainable; you cannot always be traveling; so I question the meaning that the figures have on the future of natural capitalism. Perhaps they mean that once we think we’ve arrived something new and better will come up. Most crucially, although it cites many technological advances that are environmentally friendly, the report ultimately rejects the ability of technology to solve the problem (as evident in the use of the Biosphere II story) and calls for a fundamental shift from valuing short-term gains to long-term gains. If this shift happens I think there really is compatibility between capitalism and environmentalism. However, the bottom line of the report is a commitment to increased profits and not environmental stewardship. If it’s really all about profit, I wonder if the environmental ethic will actually become embedded in business practices, or if it will be greewashed in as the environmental figurative language is inserted into the text.