At the Crossroad

Venezuela has one of the highest road death rates per 10.000 motor vehicles in Latin America. Every year thousands of human lives are lost on Venezuelan roads. Despite having a large number of kilometres of paved roads and highways (one of the leading countries in Latin America), Venezuela has a history of roads in bad conditions. Potholes, debris, death animals, poor lighting and lack of signs are the usual conditions drivers face while on the road in Venezuela. To this we can add the dog-eat-dog attitude that many drivers assume as soon as they are behind the wheel.

To make the situation worse the road system and infrastructure is getting older and several bridges, tunnels and highways are about to collapse. Most of the traffic routes in the country date back to the late 1950s. For example in 2006, a bridge linking Venezuelan main airport and port with the city of Caracas collapsed leaving drivers without this vital corridor highway for almost two years. The only way to get to the Airport was by using an old road – a two-way mountain road. Two weeks ago the same highway was closed for six hours because of a surface sinking.

Road problems don’t finish there. Last week the highway providing access to Caracas from the west had to be closed. The reason? A broken water pipeline below the highway caused a large hole in one of the lanes (picture below). This main entrance to Caracas was disrupted for almost five days. All vehicles coming from the west into Caracas were accessing the metropolis through secondary roads.

Road conditions in Venezuela are not only a risk but also a fact that is expensive to the drivers. Vehicle maintenance has to be done on a regular basis and insurance costs are high. Oswaldo Lorenzo, Paul Esqueda and Janelle Larson provide a good description of the situation in Venezuela in their article “Safety and Ethics in the Global Workplace: Asymmetries in Culture and Infrastructures”. The paper was published in the Journal of Business ethics (2010), 92: 87-106.

It seems that corruption has been contributing to irresponsible behaviour among public authorities and private companies. Public servants and contractors see public procurement as a profitable business. Over-billing, underperformance, contract renegotiation are just some of the forms both parties make money. Considering this, it is not surprising that though the ongoing construction and maintenance work on the main roads, the repairs are not long-lasting. If clients and suppliers are not taking any responsibility, who is then? Who is then accountable for the deaths, injuries and property damages? It seems that accountability is left to the drivers and users of the roads. They are on their own. They are responsible for developing the skills needed for driving safe on Venezuelan roads – skills that can be useful in some professions. Well, we can ask Williams Formula One driver Pastor Maldonado.

I’ve been away from the blog for a couple of moths. I’m really grateful to Simo and Annukka, who with their contributions, kept the discussion going, at least, till the end of 2010. This is my first post of this year though I’ve had interesting topics to write about. However, before taking my time for writing in the blog I had to fulfil my duties towards my students, colleagues, employer, sponsors and myself. Indeed, toward myself too, if I want to stick to my goal of defending my PhD dissertation at the beginning of 2012. I think that my case provides a good example that we, researchers, have a series of responsibilities towards different stakeholder groups. However, I was not able to fulfil my responsibilities towards those who read this blog. To them, my apologies.

In the 1950s, Howard R. Bowen wrote a book titled the “social responsibilities of the businessman” referring to the duties managers have toward society. As Archie Carroll (1999) sarcastically suggests it could be that there were no businesswomen during this period. The title seems to draw attention to gender equality as an issue of ethical concern. As a CSR researcher, I’ve just been interested in understanding how the responsibility of business people and organizations are shaped in society through stakeholder interactions. However, I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss the idea of social responsibility from a research perspective. At least, not until last January when I took part in a PhD level course on this particular subject. The course was held by Professor Henriikka Clarkeburn from the University of Sydney. She created a learning context that allowed room for critical reflection, moral deliberation and even critical reflexivity. After the course, I was convinced that there is a need for studying – and promoting further discussions on – social responsibility and ethics within the academic community.

According to a questionnaire of Finnish professors, the main ethical themes in research are related to the following issues: plagiarism, unethical authorship, citation bias, repetitive publications and undeclared conflict of interest. While I wasn’t surprised about the issues addressed in the study, I wondered how the respondents omitted other important ethical issues such as the responsibility of researchers towards research participants, own organizations and society in general.

It seems that researchers tend to see ethics from a pure consequentialist and individualist perspective. It is about plain self-interest, isn’t it? Indeed, all the ethical issues mentioned referred to actions every researcher has to followed in order to play a fair game and not being excluded from the research community in case of being caught in the act of doing something unethical. This impression was confirmed by the Singapore Statement on research integrity. For me it looked like a code of conduct for researchers that intend to scare them from breaking certain research rules. It is like the idea of the Panopticon suggested by Jeremy Bentham. It gives the impression that somebody (colleagues, supervisors, readers, etc.) will be always watching you no matter where you are. None the less, the final motivation for being ethical is self-interest – as a researcher one wants to protect one’s own name and professional career.

In my opinion, we as researchers have to look beyond our own personal interest and recognize our role in society. This would mean taking more responsibility for what we do and say and what we – intentionally or unintentionally – omit in our research. Research ethics cannot be simply based on consequences as a matter of moral concern. Other ethical approaches are, indeed, needed to gain further understanding of the social responsibility of researchers.

Is the most obvious choice always the most ethical? Are we as decision-makers blind to significant details after finding temping option? We – students attending a course titled business ethics & corporate social responsibility – faced a challenge situation in the form of an imaginary problem based learning (PBL) -case. In our group, we had to decide whether our company of African origin should start producing generic HIV-drugs for serving its local market – a market that couldn’t afford the brand-name equivalent.

We started to work on the case with limited background information – later our PBL-tutor explained to us that an ill-defined case should promote our critical thinking and reflexivity. We gathered information by doing research on real-life examples from the pharmacy industry, attitudes and ethical theories that may help us rationalize and justify our decision. At the end of the PBL-process, we decided to start producing the generic drugs, even if the market segment was considered risky and legal actions by patent holders were imminent. This however should not be a problem. According to the PBL case the government of the African country where our company happens to operate offered us unconditional political support against possible litigations related to the production of HIV-generic drugs. We saw that starting the production of generic HIV-drugs was the most ethical option available.

As we were presenting the case, our findings, arguments and decision to the rest of the class, we sort of believed in the rightness of our decision. After all, we were saving peoples lives – we were doing something that greedy brand-name corporations failed to do – namely to sell their drugs for a reasonable price. We must have been convincing, since after our presentation one student asked; what was actually the dilemma in this case?

One of the essential challenges in our case might have been overlooked or remained unaddressed by even some of our group members. However, I was expecting counter-arguments concerning the development of the drugs. Neither the question ”are the drugs safe to use?” nor the question ”how do you know how to produce the drug”, which were asked by our opponents, were essential in my opinion – the problems were more multifaceted.

Our group decided to put people’s lives before the rights of the patent-owning pharmaceutical companies. Most of us didn’t probably think about who did – and who in the future would be doing – the research and development needed for these drugs to exist in the first place. After all, companies producing generic drugs don’t spend their resources on R & D.

In my opinion the dilemma for this case could be formulated as follows; if generic drugs are produced, lives may be saved and profits may be generated. All this may however take place at the expenses of companies which spend capital on the invention and enhancement of drug formulas. Without a return on investment or compensation for their important efforts, they wouldn’t be able to carry out this kind of work. On the other hand, if generic drugs are not produced, everybody loses in a way. Most of the people suffering the disease remain untreated and no significant market for the drug can be developed, because it’s not affordable by those most in need. In other words resources are underutilized.

What do you think could be the answer to this dilemma in the real world?

Simo Vilhunen, 4^th year marketing student, University of Lapland

In early August I had a chance to participate in the 6th edition of South American Business Forum in Buenos Aires. This conference is arranged by students of Instituto Tecnológico Buenos Aires (ITBA) for around 100 university students from all over the world. The event counts with the participation of some 40 leaders of business, political and academic areas (www.sabf.org.ar).The main topic was “Boosting our actions in the new decade” and this was divided into three secondary topics; (1) Sustainable Business: A Global and Feasible Solution?; (2) Synergy: The Road to a Bigger Impact in Society; and (3) Citizen Participation: Assuming an Active Role in Change.

The conference was aimed at students, future leaders and business professionals. We weren’t so much taught or lectured about strategies, techniques or concepts but we were introduced to lots of successful cases that illustrated how sustainable business can be done. I think that academics and scholars can do research on the principles, motivations and outcomes of performing corporate social responsibility, but at the end, it always comes to what leaders and managers do in practice. Their desire and interest in social issues and their contribution to society and the natural environment is crucial.

I personally feel sometimes that CSR actions are just a way of doing marketing and a part of marketing communication and building brand image. But sometimes I do also see a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel and I believe that some companies do good because they want to build a better future. When we, the students, start to consider these issues as important part of business strategy and to take up managing positions in corporations, we know that the future is in our hands. The earlier, we start changing our thinking and the dominant paradigm of neoclassical economics into a paradigm that recognize the social role of business, the better we will be able to make progress toward more fair and just societies.

There were some comments and advices presented during the conference, that really made an impact on me. One of them was ITBA’s provost, José Luis Roces’ reflections on the time when he was still a young man. He said: “Even though 50 years ago the challenges were similar, there was trust in a better future, nowadays this is put into question.” This is somehow true, since we don’t know what to expect from the future, but the best thing is that we are making the future and thus we can influence it.

That is why I also found really important Rabbi Sergio Bergman’s advice “Don’t save the whole world, save the world you are.” Too often, we try to dodge important issues, managers blame the corporations, students blame the teachers or children blame their parents. ‘It is not us, but they.’ We make ourselves outsiders on purpose. But the fact is that we must act like being part of the world; we are the future that we make to ourselves.

By Annukka Erkheikki (marketing student)

Recently there has been an interesting development in the strategy of McDonald’s. Believe it or not, the brand is becoming green! Yes, McDonald’s has changed from red to green – at least in France, Germany and the UK. Is this strategy going to be followed by other company’s subsidiaries across Europe? What about the Americas, Asia and other continents? Why is McDonald’s going for green? It is hard to imagine that they are giving up the old “well-known” red label for a green one? This is a step ahead of the idea of promoting healthy life-styles and introducing fresh fruits in their menus.

Some stakeholders have accused McDonalds of literally “greenwashing” itself. This company, which has been seen as the icon for all the negative consequences of globalization and has appeared as the main villain in documentary films such as Super Size me and Mc libel, is trying to change for better or for worse. Ronald McDonald will appear in new “green” cloths. But the question remains: Will the emperor (our friend Ronald) actually change?

Can McDonald’s be judged for what it is doing? After all, McDonald’s is part of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Aren’t companies in this index do-gooders and best practices of corporate citizenship? After all, it is difficult to get in such an index and even more difficult to stay inside. It becomes, indeed, difficult to determine what is a socially responsible company? Are ethical funds also including McDonald’s in their portfolio? Perhaps they are excluding all fast food companies since they are regarded as major enemies of a healthy society. If McDonald’s wouldn’t fulfil the screening criteria of ethical funds then the question remains: Is there a difference between ethics and social responsibility?

Another case also hitting recently the headlines is Unilever owned Ben & Jerry’s. This socially responsible company has been accused of misleading their customers by using the phrase “All natural”. After all, the alkalized cocoa, corn syrup, hydrogenated oil among other ingredients are not as natural as they argue. Could this be a backlash for the company? Some customers seem to prefer Ben & Jerry’s products due to its naturalness and lack of added colour. But how ethical then “ethical brands” are? Is Ben & Jerry now less ethical than before?

I think that we need to look beyond companies’ marketing communication before categorizing a company as unethical or ethical. We need to take a look at their strategy and the things they believe in. I don’t think that removing “all natural” from Ben and Jerry’s product labels will decrease the ethical nature of the company or its commitments to society. Neither will the green colour on McDonald’s make it more ethical or socially responsible. Social responsibility and the idea of an ethical corporate identity require more than a green logo. I hope McDonald’s is moving in that direction. Otherwise, the green logo will certainly  backfire on Mr. Ronald and pals.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Iceland – a magnificent and mystical island. The trip was initially planned for last spring but it had to be suspended due to the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull. This volcanic eruption is not the only thing that had recently put Iceland in the spotlight but also the still haunting world economic crises which has had a deep impact on the Icelandic economy. The devaluation of the national currency, rinsing unemployment – a new phenomenon in the history of modern Iceland – discussions about joining the European Union and Icelanders leaving the country in search of jobs are some of the consequences of the financial crises. Despite all these struggles and challenges, the word sustainability and responsibility can be felt in the way people around Iceland talk about their future. Political, economic and social responsibilities are on the top agenda of this Nordic country – or at least in people’s mind. Icelanders want to have responsible politicians and business people that care about the people and promote the sustainable development of the whole island.

Most of us think that people in Iceland are suffering in the aftermath of the economic collapse. As one of our hosts in Iceland told us, “you know people think we are starving to death… they have been offering us lunch bags abroad because they think we cannot afford it”. However, It was surprising to find out that many Icelanders saw also the crisis from a positive point of view. The crises has slowed down the way of life of most people in Iceland and slowing down is after all not too bad. It seems that “slow life” has become relevant for most people in Iceland. At least they have realized that it is not too bad at all. For example, instead of spending the Christmas holidays abroad, most Icelandic families have decided to stay home and spend these holidays with family and relatives. As the manager of a tourism organisation commented, “the crisis has strengthened family bounds and brought people closer… Family values are IN… Imagine that the divorce rate has gone back since the beginning of the economic down turn”.

Also the effects can be seen in how Icelanders see their natural resources nowadays. They have become aware of how important it is to preserve their natural resources and to keep national control over them. Tourism has also been seen as a kind of sustainable industry as long as it is conducted in a responsible way. As most people working in the tourism sector agreed “we want to develop the tourism industry… but none the less we want quality and not quantity”. The member of a tourism development agency mentioned even that in order to do so tourists could be asked to pay a fee in order to enter the country – as e.g. countries like Nepal does. Another good reason for not joining the EU in the future.

Iceland with its 100 000 square kilometres and 300 000 inhabitants – most of them living in Reykjavik and its suburbs – seems to be an interesting place for getting in touch with the sustainability debate.  1000 years ago the Vikings contributed to the deforestation of the island. Nowadays the country is able to generate energy out of geothermic sources. It could be said that energy production in Iceland is green. However, the government want to dam several rivers on the island because they need extra energy for attracting Aluminium producers such as Alcoa into the country. People have started to ask themselves do we need to produce more energy. Furthermore aluminium is used in the weapon industry for the production of missiles. An ethical question haunting Icelanders’ minds “Do we want to support an industry that is in the business of killing human beings?”

I found Iceland as an interesting place for following the sustainability debate. Different industries competing on the same natural resources – should it be fisheries, energy, metallurgic or tourism? Which is the most convenient one for the future development of the island? Which is the most sustainable industry? Can all of them co-exist together?

I bought an interesting book in Iceland titled “Dreamland A Self-Help Manual for a Frightened Nation”. The author Andri Snaer Magnason introduced the reader into the sustainability debate that has been taking place in Iceland. Despite the focus of the book on this small country, it reflects the environmental and social challenges that we are facing at a global scale. Good stuff!

One representative of a tourism organization was telling us how sustainable their ski resorts were till he stopped and said: well it’s not completely sustainable… we use snow cannons to cover the ski tracks with snow… and they consume energy… to what I wondered and had to reply to him: Isn’t it geothermic energy… To what he responded: yes, indeed… then it’s sustainable…isn’t it?

It seemed to me that most tourism businesses in Iceland are involved in a kind of silent sustainability… They should start bringing sustainability issues into the spotlight!

Christmas values

Last December inspired by the Christmas holidays I wrote something about the moral values that can be related with “Santa Claus Village” (a Finnish visitor attraction). In my post, I argued that this business idea should shift from the idea of a simple commercial site to a place where the values of Christmas can be experienced by its visitors. Kati Hienonen, a Finnish trend analyst, recently commented in an interview given to Lapin kanssa [Lappish Folk in English] (a local newspaper) that places like Santa Claus Village should move away from the image of Santa Claus as a gift giver and focus more on what this mystic character represents; namely, what he stands for.

She based her argument on the trends emerging in our society. According to her, tourists are nowadays looking for something more than mere souvenirs. They are looking for experiences that can help them to improve their wellbeing and life as a whole. Less is better, slow is better; of course, as long as it’s valuable. And valuable doesn’t necessary refer to monetary value. Santa Claus Village seems to offer a fertile ground for facing these trends. However, the business logic has to change and this calls for groundbreaking product development. There is indeed a need to create products that help visitors to experience the values of Christmas.

Teddy bears on the move

Two days ago I was fascinated by an article published in the same local newspaper. The headline of the article was “Brits relaxing in Lapland”. Well, you may ask yourself: what is fascinating about this? After all, it is not new that Brits come to Lapland for holidays. The reason I was captivated was due to the kind of British tourists visiting Lapland. They were teddy bears! Today, we do not only send our pets for holidays but also our stuffed animals! This is amazing!

It seems that some people get engaged in a meaningful consumption act by sending their beloved teddy bears to an interesting destination. The tourists then come home with a baggage of video clips and pictures so that his owner can see where they have been, with whom and what they have been doing. This is, however, not a completely new tourism market since there are several tourism companies specialized on this customer segment.

One of the owners of Teddy Tours Lapland (the Finnish company specialized in this market segment) told that this is a suitable gift for grandchildren, godchildren and children are unable to travel due to health problems. However, I’m sure that there would also be adults who would like to send their teddies for holidays. The French film Amélie (2001) is a good example of elves, toys, teddies travelling on behalf of their owners.

These trends represent good opportunities for the tourism sector in Lapland and for developing a profile based on the idea of sustainable development. They can help emphasize the role of moral values in our personal life and create a sense of global social responsibility. I dare to say that the tourism market for teddy bears could be observed as a type of sustainable tourism. These customers are not only “easy customers” but their foot-print is minimal (their energy consumption is very limited). On the other hand, Santa Claus Village as a place for experiencing the values of Christmas could teach children and adults about how to live our live in more sustainable way by respecting our natural environment and our fellow human beings.

Any other weak signals to be spotted…?

It is amazing to see how our world is becoming smaller and smaller. Last night, I was enjoying a nice Argentinean red wine. I got the bottle from a local liqueur shop in the small Finnish city I live in. The interesting thing is that I heard about the wine through a friend of mine who live in the United States. Isn’t it fascinating that two persons living far a way from each other can experience the same wine – a wine produced in a third country (Argentina)?

It is indeed very exciting to see how Sol beer, mangos and sweet potatoes are sold at the “local” German Lidl supermarket. And it is also gripping to realize that Lost’ fans in Finland and Venezuela are watching every week the same episode of this action television series produced by ABC in the United States. It seems like the idea of the “global village” has become real. Perhaps it’s not an idea anymore but just reality. Yet, moral demands are still different among the inhabitants of this global village. The vision of a global or macro ethics is far away from being consummated. I would like to address this phenomenon by drawing attention to two particular cases:

Central European Finnish sauna

Finnish sauna is one of the Finnish cultural icons that have made its way through our global village. It is not surprising nowadays to find a Finnish Sauna in Greece or Spain. Even some industrious Finnish soldiers on peacekeeping missions have been responsible for building saunas in places like Eritrea and Afghanistan. It has become common that most Central European hotels offer to their guests the possibility to experience a “real” Finnish sauna.

While Finnish sauna seems to have become global, its norms differ from country to country. Most foreigners who come to Finland feel uncomfortable with the idea to go to the sauna naked with persons of the same gender – a norm in the Finnish sauna culture. However, it is more intriguing how most Finns react to the idea of going to the sauna naked with people of both genders – something that have become a common practice in most Austrian and Hungarian hotels. It seems that people differ in their views about what is morally appropriate and inappropriate in regard to sauna practices.

Western life-style rules!?

In Dubai, you see a lot of different fast food places like McDonalds and Burger King. Starbucks is also part of the cityscape. The modern shopping malls of this Emirate provide for every consumer’s need from clothing to cars. Modern resorts and excellent infrastructure around the city make any visit to Dubai a pleasant and unforgettable experience.  The Emirate seems to have widely emulated a western style. The Louvre Abu Dhabi will be the consecration of such a process.

Still beliefs about what is morally right and wrong seem to differ between Dubai and the West. For some people, the recent jail sentence for kissing in public seems to question the premises of the global village and the homogenisation of values around the globe (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263446/Britons-lose-appeal-jail-sentence-kissing-Dubai.html). For most people in the West it is incomprehensible that somebody has to spend a month in jail because of a kiss. The global village exists but moral demands and norms are not global at all. They continue to be local.

All this may confirm the idea that globalization is about fragmentation of culture as described by Fuat Firat (1997)*. According to Firat, globalization doesn’t contribute to the homogenization of our global society but to its further heterogenization. The Finnish sauna becomes a Finnish “Central European” sauna and Dubai a western “Muslim” destination.

* Firat, Fuat (1997) Globalization of Fragmentation – A Framework for Understanding Contemporary Global Markets.  Journal of International Marketing, 5(2), 77-86.

Recently, more attention has been given to the role of practices in sustainable development policies. Both researchers and practitioners have realized that the dissemination of information and education do not necessarily lead to changes in behaviour that could reduce our negative impacts on the natural environment. For example, there is an EU-project called “Changing Behaviour” (www.energychange.info) which focuses on promoting a shift from the notion of a technical energy market toward the idea of energy services based on end-user needs. Interestingly, the project draws attention to the need of adapting best practices to the specific context of end-user groups.

In the United States, the US Department of Energy has also been considering a similar approach to energy efficiency (www.ideo.com/work/item/shift-focus/%2013.4.2009). As a matter of fact, instead of focusing on simple technical- and scientific-driven solutions, the approach encourages energy actors to look for solutions which fit and enhance the way people live.

Also Erik Assadourian (http://blogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures) talks about the need of moving from a so called consumer culture towards a sustainable culture. In his speech, he draws the attention of the audience to dominant behaviour patterns and cultural values that prevail in our Western societies; patterns and values that are not sustainable.

In my opinion, these projects, emerging strategies and speeches draw attention to the role of “theories of practice” in the sustainability debate. It seems that the ideas proposed by scholars such as Schatzki and Reckwitz can offer new insights for studying and promoting sustainable development. According to Reckwitz* (2002, p. 249), “a practice (Praktik) is a routinized type of behaviour which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge”.

What if we could identify and promote those types of behaviour which promote more sustainable lifestyles? What if we could support the conditions that may encourage people to get involved in more sustainable forms of bodily and mentally activities? What if we could discourage routines and habits that contribute to ecological degradation and social inequalities?

As a trainer on Corporate Environmental Management and Marketing, I was more than delighted when recently one group of students introduced theories of practice as a theoretical framework for dealing with the implementation of an environmental programme at an educational organization (all this part of a group assignment). In their group presentation, they pointed out that guidelines and policies do not work if one ignores the daily behaviour, habits and routines of the users.

For example, regarding the practice of having a break between classes, we could prohibit students to eat outside the cantinas and cafeterias. Indeed, as it has been argued by the cleaning staff, the consumption of cleaning substances increases considerably when e.g. coffee and food stains are randomly left in the different spaces of the building.

One solution could be to use “the stick” and try to change the behaviour of students by implementing a strict policy concerning the consumption of food and beverage in the building. Another solution could be to focus on what students actually do during the breaks and thus on finding the reasons why they eat in the classrooms and hallways and not in the cantina or cafeterias. What if the organization could create spaces in the building for having a rest, drinking some coffee and eating a light snack? This could be seen as “a carrot” instead of a stick.

Wouldn’t this type of carrot be tastier than the usual reward-system carrot?

*Reckwitz, A. (2002) Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2), 243-263.

Since the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the world has witnessed 15 conferences of the Parties (COPs). The main objective of the COPs is to assess progress in dealing with climate change and to agree on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The last COP in Copenhagen ended without reaching common consensus. It seems that 18 years have passed and we are still trying to agree on the amount of emissions that a nation is allowed to produce.  While the Earth Summit drew attention to one of the most important challenges of our global society, discussions on climate change seem to be based on the idea that solutions to the problem can be found without changing the “status quo”; namely, our market-driven economy. Isn’t it a kind of reactive approach to sustainable development and the so called “climate change phenomenon”?

I would like to use the metaphor of the household in order to understand the challenges faced in current climate change negotiations and why reaching consensus is so difficult. After all, the word “economy”, which comes from the Greek language, means “household management”.  Let’s compare nations to households and national industries to electrical appliances.

What would happen if a residents’ association would have plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a condominium by implementing a plan to reduce energy consumption. Their plan would include among other things restrictions in the use of electrical appliances (incl. TV, stereo) and rationalization in the heating system. Residents would be asked to reduce the use of TV-sets, computers and other appliances. They would also have to turn lower the heating in their condos. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to agree on these issues if residents are used to spend most of their free time watching TV and to have a warm condo during the cold winter days? It seems that it would become difficult to reach compromises if the status quo is to be maintained. Indeed, residents would be asked to make sacrifices in their way of life; to sacrifice their own comfort at least in the short term.

But, what would happen, if new alternatives for spending leisure time become available or if the condos have a better insulation system. Could it be that by reforming or even transforming their household and their daily practices the residents would be better able to cope with a reduction of greenhouse gases in their condominium? Or is it pure utopia?

Albert Einstein once said “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them”. If it is said that the structures of our current society (status quo) contributed to the climate change phenomenon, why are we trying to solve it by relying on the same structures. Wouldn’t it be wiser that governments, companies and NGOs focus more attention on discussing what kind of institutional change would be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I think that it’s still something we are missing in the public debate.

It is true that there are good examples of best practices in the business community; namely, companies that have proved that it is possible to do business in a more responsible and environmental friendly way. And they deserve credit for it. Unfortunately, these companies have not succeeded in transforming the principles underlying our market-driven global economy. While the basic premises of economic development remained untouched, climate is in the middle of a change process.

JC