Topic: Should selected for-profit businesses working on social and environmental issues be included on Wise
Login to Post a Reply.
|
|
|
What about charging a business that wants to use WE for a Wiser Business certification? Once they are certified they can use the network like any other non-profit group. That would give us a loophole to get around the Google mapping requirement that JustinTilson mentioned (in addition: any wiserearth user can access the technology regardless whether or not their business is a member of the network -- a wiserbusiness -- so technically we are not charging for the google mapping, we are charging for the wiserbusiness certification/ access to the audience the wiserearth network offers, features of the site that the business can use etc....). Jon Ramer mentioned B corp, I mentioned the Co-Op America Green Business Network (see suggestions group)... it got me to thinking :
Does there currently exist a global responsible business certification resource? Could WE fill this niche (is there a niche?)?
WiserEarth definitly wants to research prospective businesses and decide who belongs here, who does not = a natural step would seem to involve offering a WiserBusiness Certification program with an annual charge depending on gross income of business (see co-op america figures https://www.coopamerica.org/supportus/join/cabn-def.cfm?source=WJBCAN&step=form&trk=JoinBiz-JoinPgTextLink&id=&ref=http://www.coopamerica.org/cabn/join/).
WiserEarth/ NCI reviews the application of a prospective business: if they get certified they have the privledge of entering the network, if not -- they don't. They pay for the certification if successfully admitted. Annually WE reviews the status of their business, and if they maintain operating practices which are consistent to the guidelines we set = they are readmitted for another year and pay for another year's worth of certification.
This would seem to be the solution for all the problems? |
|
I question the term sustainability. I would also like to comment on Sustainable Dave’s comment about change. I think he is very close to the root of these posted assessments and how WE could be implemental in assessing how the human's really affect this planet.
Change works in a circular form, from change comes equilibrium that equilibrium is achieved unusually by adaptation. Government/bureaucracies (intuitional) are hard pressed to the adaptive process. Market driven entities adapt in two ways, one way is to adapt to how outside change effects their bottom-line, and the other way they adapt is to literally change the market in their favor. Seers (that’s what I call non-profits) are people who see change in a positive or negative light. They are about adapting to the circumstances that the market and institutions create. Seers traditionally mostly confront marketers and intuitions, but recently have used intuitional governance process too their advantage. All this has nothing to do with sustainability; it has everything to do with change. It’s my assessment that WE is offering assessment of change – positive and negative for the seers of the world and should assess governance and marketers from the perspective of change. So how to do that, by determining how the adaptation process is working, positive or negatively. From that perspective all things can be assessed and freely commented on. Assessment of all forms of human organizing can and should take place on this portal through the lens of change; I think it’s the underlying reason that will “sustain” WiserEarth in the long run. |
|
Oh one more thing. I was just scanning Googles legal requirements for using their maps as this site does
There was some talk that business users could be charged. This would violate the requirement above.
I think a basic account could be free with more rich functionality coming at a price. Heck we could even have the WiserMarketPlace or WiserAuctions as a way of funding the organization so it doesn't have to survive on grant money. |
|
|
I've just finished modifying the WiserPlatform for an MBA school project at Bainbridge Graduate Institute. Our team was asked to asset map the Bainbridge Island community in the pacific northwest of the US. We wanted to urge our "client", Sustainable Bainbridge to use wiserearth.org site but couldn't because the lack of ability to include government and business entities.
I understand the necessity to not dilute the integrity of WiserEarth but I think business and government could be included in a way as not to. Pushing them off to a different site dilutes the user base and marketing dollars, complexifies technology & maintenance, limits cross-pollination and mashup possibilities. I'll all for their inclusion as long as the guideliness for joining are explicit and their account is reviewed before activation. |
|
Something I forgot to add:
This constellation of three networks could facilitate an institutional drive toward balance by allowing the WISER network of users to shift focus from one to another of the components so that when, for example, the social or ecological footprint of business interests have grown to an unsustainable size, the community can encourage job transitions, lifestyle changes and different allegiances to strengthen political or academic influence on prevailing human endeavor. |
|
|
I have come upon this thread from another source for a second time.
My suggestion would be to establish three separate domains for the three kinds of entities, non-profits, businesses and government agencies. These sites would then interact in a great many ways (particularly some form of the Areas of Focus taxonomy) but their separation would demonstrate how their interests are opposing. Business and Government undermine the needs of Civil Society if left unchecked. Academia is the counterbalance to Business and Government and could be used as a supporting structure for WiserEarth. Interesting fact: the success of Facebook was largely dependent on its reliance on trust in and networks within academic institutions. Without the connection to this very real world institutional framework, it would not have overtaken MySpace as it has for general Social Networking. Perhaps WiserEarth can draw lessons from the strengths and failings of networks like Facebook to figure out how to generate the social capital necessary to accurately represent civil society. If a closer connection to academia is the route to go, it will be with the idea that academic pursuits too, are subject to excess and must be balanced by the political and economic needs of society. |
|
|
First, we should edit the topic name from "... Wise" to "... WiserEarth".
Second, I'd say we ought to include business in WiserEarth to the extent that they bend to our principles. That is to say, I think we should invite every organization possible to join WiserEarth but they must first enter the realm of Civil Society and demonstrate a commitment to Social and Environmental Justice. We should formally invite, say, Wal-Mart to join but joining would require them to either change to or establish a non-profit or non-governmental organization to engage with WE. Feelings on this idea? Suggestions? |
|
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your reply. I think when you say 'our culture' it might be speaking from the US perspective where (from what I've heard), civil society is less respected than government, business or the military. However from a UK perspective, civil society is the most respected. Of course, respect may not translate into 'attention and resources', I want to point out that realities differ around the world (for which I don't claim to speak for!). What I do know is that running a small company whos primary purpose is to 'help people have a fair say in shaping their world' (and profit is only a means to have a broader impact - if there is profit!) is that the 'resources and attention' you speak of being showered on business is almost non-existent since the company doesn't qualify for funding related to its purpose and it doesn't maximise profit which is what attracts investors. I respect and understand the concern that for-profits could come to dominate this space, although there are ways of handling it. On the other hand the creativity and collaboration that could arise from opening it up a little would be a powerful force for positive change. Part of the work I do is to advice non-profits (I only work with non-profits) on setting up online communities like this one, and most non-profit managers constantly want to control things up front rather than open things up and intervene when abuse occurs. I almost always advise ('almost' because there are exceptions for venerable people using communities) that a community is kept open and unrestricted with clear guidelines on the principles and objectives of the community and that abuse is dealt with as it occurs. A few years back Greenpeace International had a clobal 'cyber-activist' community and they mentioned that of the few hundred-thousand people they had (this was 2000/2001), they only had to intervene once. There were other edge cases but in almost all other cases the community dealt with it. I also want to challenge the 'floodgates' argument (often called the slippery slope argument) which is only valid if you have no control over the community. However ultimately, you can put a stop to things whenever you wish so I'm not yet convinced :-) I didn't realise you filter the non-profits that are entered as that strengthens the case as your are managing the growth (which is perfectly reasonable to do!). Also - your technical points sound reasonable - and I would add it would be good to filter on the principles or impact of an organisation rather than just the type since type tells one very little. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't expect instant results (as we generally can't for sustainability), I just wanted to express the disconnect I experienced between the vision and the current reality. Of course - to succeed - you need to focus on something so I'd rather it starts somewhere than not at all - and that is what NCI has done with WiserEarth - so congrats on that! I look forward to working with the community to explore and clarify the metrics / process/ criteria by which every organisation is judged by its purpose and impact rather than its organisational type. Cheers, Duane |
|
Hey Duane,
Thanks for your input on this topic. While it could be a while before definitive direction is taken, your comments will help shape the direction and deliberations. From being involved in this discussion for years, and also as a member of WiserEarth, maybe I can articulate the current justification for not including for-profits: 1) Our culture already showers attention and resources on business and government, only two pillars of our society. The third pillar, civil society, gets almost no attention. WiserEarth was originally developed to dedicate a space to them. A place they can call their own. Once the floodgates open, for-profits could come to dominate this space and dilute the space for civil society. 2) WiserEarth is already selective about the non-profits that are entered. It focuses on proactive organizations that address root causes and tries to avoid reactive, palliative organizations. It may be difficult to justify why some for-profits are included, and some non-profits are not included. To avoid this, at least two technical features need to be improved on WiserEarth before for-profits can be safety integrated. 1) A user should have powerful filtering results to include or exclude for-profits. Our filters don't include that at this point. 2) More challenging, the metrics by which for-profits AND non-profits are judged, needs to be articulated. The staff of NCI has started this process, but the metrics should truly be developed by the community at large. This presents a further challenge: How does the community decide? At this point, WiserEarth has no system for rating or voting and until that happens, big decisions such as this will be left to early adopters with strong opinions. I know this isn't exactly what you are looking for, but I hope to clarify that for-profits are not included, simply because they are for-profits. A precautionary principle has been adopted, so if or when for-profits are included, it is done correctly. Best, Michael |
|
|
Hi,
I've just joined this site was excited about the possibility of engaging with peers on sustainability issues. However almost immediately I faced the issue that the organisation I run (legally a llc) is 'not welcome' here and it immediately put me off (I posed about it on the about page comments and was directed here) Let me say I am no stranger to sustainability issues having been actively working on them in NGOs since 1989 (when at university) and later professionally in NGOs, in a masters course and in a big company (I got out 8 months after getting in). While it is good to see the plans mentioned below for a WiserBusiness and WiserGovernment, I am still left with an unease about my professional work being unwelcome and still think this should be reconsidered. As charlesuchu points out, the 'earth' includes everyone - so perhaps WiserEarth should be for all until the two above and a WiserNGO comes along. Furthermore, it isn't just business who are 'the problem', some NGOs are set up by those opposed to the sustainability agenda or just trying to make a fast buck by defrauding people. The same is true for any human organisation and thus there needs to be some deeper criteria than an unintelligent red-line by organisational type: perhaps peer reviewed. For me, any organisation can be sustainable if it is designed to be and is proven to be and how we do that is one of the most difficult questions. Furthermore, I accept that this site (like all sites) must have a priority/focus in order to event start and to succeed, in which case that should be clearer (e.g. towards a just and sustainable work created only by grassroots and non-profits communities) By claiming to be more welcome than the terms allow, the site commits one of the 'vices' of 'bad' business (or bad communication): overselling. That said - if it is interesting enough I'll continue to engage - but am saddened by the constraints on real diversity of the site (which I otherwise love!) Cheers, Duane |
|
Hey, all:
Hey, Lauren: Thanks for acknowledging the reality of the "dominant economic model"; I will in return acknowledge that it is "dominant" and not universal, i.e., there are exceptions to the greed-driven, lowest-common-denominator business practices. Your definition of economics sounds plausible as well, but the last economics course I took was when hand calculators were all we had--and they cost $200! But I would point out that while all the needs you present, all the features you describe, all the potential benefits (and difficulties) you note are valid, all these would be ably fulfilled by WiserBusiness. I think the original distinctions--between civil, business, and government entities--that Paul Hawken and the folks at NCI developed are not in need of any modification, but I think that allowing businesses into WiserEarth is an erosion of those distinctions, and an abandonment of the elevating overall principles that we all should be observing. I would reiterate that these principles are and should remain very high--indeed it is the only way to achieve improvement in conditions and policies. It is the essence of leadership. There are difficulties I cannot imagine in setting up WE, let alone WB, but these difficulties are no reason for not doing it right. One difficulty I see in WE is generating enough active individual people as members to thoroughly vet all the other entities--organizations, groups, resources, etc.--many people here join and do practically nothing else--hence the need for "active"--and this likely would be a difficulty for WB as well. Individuals in WE should be allowed, invited, or automatically enrolled in WB so they will perhaps have some incentive to be active across the platforms. None of us has to "qualify" for membership; mere interest or curiosity is sufficient. When it is set up, I'll be active in WB, searching out the undeserving and pretenders with all the rest. For whatever detailed reasons WB is not up and running, two things remain true. There is no reason for not doing it right, and time and effort are universally necessary for doing anything right. Building a large group of active people will provide the means of vetting and monitoring, plus it will also increase donations for day to day operations and development. Lauren, to answer what you may have offered as rhetorical questions: Q: "If not here, where?" A: It is not absolutely necessary that it be done here, but in any case "here" should be WiserBusiness and not WiserEarth, and someone else could do it, but perhaps more hastily and with fewer principles and less stature. Q: "If not now, when?" A: As suggested, "...now..." is just not sufficient. "Ready now" is more valid. It does not have to be perfect--perfection is an abstraction and not in the realm of reality--but it needs to be "ready". Q: "If not us, who?" A: Provided we observe and apply the highest of standards, I agree we should be the ones to do it. But this implies that whoever has those highest standards should be the ones. Whoever that is will have the greatest potential for success at achieving the goals of universal survival, sustainability, and restoration. I think a little historical perspective is in order, coupled with human nature and necessity. I can't speak for Eastern history (I am ignorant of it), but in the West, most of the greatest advances in civilization and rights--the Magna Carta, the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution, the French Revolution, American Civil War, real communism, and the fall of Soviet communism, have all--all--been eroded by passage of time and being chipped away at by those who oppose them. The greater the advance as a starting point, the longer time it takes to be eroded and chipped away, but the greater and more tragic the loss. In my own lifetime, I have seen this phenomenon at work, and for younger people only perception or lack of maturity prevent them from seeing it happen before their very eyes. We have all heard the principle, stated in various forms, "Eternal vigilance is the cost of freedom". What we are doing here is a significant portion of the practice of "Freedom"--it will soon prove to be the most important--and therefore deserves the utmost of our attention. This is a starting point for an advance, and then we must prevent the erosion and chipping away. High, non-erodible principles support both phases. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
While the dominant economic model is all that SustainableDavid brings up, economics is fundamentally a system by which energy is exchanged and people's needs are met, this could be done at all levels of sustainability from WalMart to a local organic farm. The approach taken by Wiser that allows people to edit an organization's profile could be replicated for businesses, and thus would act as a screen for businesses not wanting that kind of exposure (the bad ones). Even if they tried to "greenwash" the transparency and democracy of this site would call them on it, potentially even offering constructive feedback.
More importantly however, small/local businesses striving to act with social and environmental responsibility would be able to gain broad exposure and access to sharing information and best practices with one another through this comprehensive network. The development and success of these kinds of businesses will be crucial for sustainability in that they will model ways of meeting needs without exploitation. In addition to consumers, non-profit organizations, like Feed the Children referenced by Evon below, could begin to collaborate with for-profits sharing support in a way that improves business practices while maximizing resources. Once WiserGov is activated, this platform could become THE central hub for all sectors to collaborate and share best practices and support for social and environmental responsibility. If not here, where? If not now, when? If not us, who? |
|
All:
While I agree that for-profit organizations may not be what was intended for this site, where and who draws the line. For instance, my organization is For profit - Nourish the Children, works in partnership with Feed the Children which is a Non-profit who distributes the VitaMeal food bought at the Nourish the Children site. Anyone donating to Nourish the Children gets a receipt from Feed the Children as proof of donating to a non-profit for tax purposes. Could the tax deduction be a profit for the person who donated? Think about a local food drive in your grocery store. You buy food (that company makes a profit), you donate that food at the grocery store check out counter (they make a profit) and the food benefits the people to whom it is distributed through a non-profit. So, I believe that in an open forum such as this, each of us must decide what is relevant and what is not. Evon Nourish the Children Ambassador |
|
|
Hey, all:
Begging your pardon, Morgan, I have not ignored consumers--I write as a consumer. However, in reality, consumers have been ignored in many ways, to the extent of being victims of a system increasingly skewed against them. The things I mentioned before, plus others--the corporate oligarchy, corporate media, corporate marketing, corporate personhood, corporate government, externalized costs, gobbleization, economic dislocation, and on and on and on--are the smoking guns pointed at the victims. Ideally, yes, consumers do decide. But due to the above, we have a reality which is a long, long way from ideal. The simple observation of the increasing inequity in economic standing by any measure one might wish to cobble together, in any geographic region on the globe, ably demonstrates the absence of any conceivable sense of the ideal. Health impacts to both consumers and workers, and the erosion and sheer abandonment of environmental protection should also jar anyone of a stupor believing we exist in an ideal world. We agree on one point, at the very least: education is key. That education is key is clearly evident in the efforts of the forces of corporatism seek to limit education as a means of keeping their system--their power--in place. I support NCI in getting the WiserBusiness site up and running. I'll reiterate my perception that it is a difficult project to start, and with perhaps far greater difficulty to maintain, so I understand the delays. If, in the meantime, some very limited for-profit businesses are included in WiserEarth, they should be labeled as such. I think one of the main attractions of WiserEarth is the combined idealism, strong sense of ethics, and high standards, and its embrace of non-profits and activism. If the ideals, ethics, and standards are allowed to slip, and for-profit businesses are included without a very rigorous screening, WE might as well be another Yellow Pages. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
I think this is one of the more fruitful conversations on these forums.
SustainableDavid, you raise some interesting points. I understand your reticence to endorse any arm of the Industrial Growth Society through inclusion on WiserEarth; certainly, IGS and the modern corporation are largely to blame for the situation in which we find ourselves. However, I feel you are ignoring one aspect of the model, namely the consumers. It is actually individuals like you and I who decide what is profitable. Habitat destruction and gobbleization are profitable because individuals continue to support the companies who operate in such a manner. In our defense, some of this is unavoidable as the Industrial Growth is no longer merely societal and is now truly global. What's more, it would take tremendous watchdog effort to know which companies are truly trying to be more sustainable and socially just and which are merely Greenwashing. What I am proposing is that we will be far more effective if we bring such a problematic arena into our area of focus instead of dismissing it as an evil faction unworthy of our attention. This is not the way to fix one of the primary problems. Instead, I suggest we think about ways to hold businesses accountable by informing the consumer as to who deserves the money. Change is not just a human principle; Heraclitus marked it long ago as an ontological principle. What does seem to be more localized is the concept of profit. In our time and place, people will not stop doing business and making money. It is important that we take steps to make sure profit aligns with justice. The way to do this is through the education of the individual and coordination of the community. That being said, I realize that WiserEarth does not have the resources to implement this project at this time. However, I like LQuinnT's suggestions that bringing in businesses could increase resources for Wiser. Of course, this is potentially problematic and, David, all of your warnings should be taken very seriously. Regardless, WiserEarth does not currently have the membership to warrant such a grand collective project. I merely wanted to state again why I believe figuring out a way to create accountability in business should be one of our main concerns. |
|
|
Hey, all:
I have kinda watched this topic for a while, but because I have a problem with the mixed value of the original question, and I tend to hold a more yes/no, black/white approach to many issues, I have not offered an answer or opinion. First, a better question would have helped. A clear choice in the question concerns "for-profit businesses", for which the answer is a simple "No". Otherwise it violates the guidelines for WE. However, what does "selected" mean? What standard is offered? And it really does not matter that they may work, to any extent (vaguely stated in the question), "on social and environmental issues". But what is meant by "Wise"? As has been stated, WiserBusiness is in the works, but the problems implementing such a directory beyond the nuts and bolts are very difficult, as evidenced by the popularity and content of the "Greenwashed" group, the difficulty in defining and applying and maintaining the standard of "sustainability", and what degree or percent of effort or achievement in these fields is needed to be considered. E.g., is 5% 'pro bono' work enough? I think most of us would say, "No". And, all of this ignores the problems of parsing, statistics, prevarication, marketing, wink-wink "regulation" wink-wink, and outright lies. It certainly is ambivalent to temporarily allow significant, outstanding examples of for-profit businesses, but as long as these are labeled as "for-profit", in the interest of WE's stated principles of openness and transparency, they can be moved over to WiserBusiness when that service is started up. Mere "change" is simply not enough. The human existence on Earth has been marked by constant "change", but also by a constant, concomitant decline in most measures of true intrinsic value. The biotic community and the abiotic environment certainly have vastly suffered due to "change". "Change" is categorically neutral and offers no clear benefit beyond randomness or desperation--or the randomness of desperation. On the other hand, improvement is far more valuable, and far better to be sought. If WE was yet just another website with no intrinsic improvement, it would be yet another example of "change". If this global movement without a name only achieves "change", its success is suspect and at risk. Therefore, the standard for the above needs to be high--very high--mediocrity begets a plague of mediocrity--but the nature of nearly all businesses puts them in the low range of mediocrity. At the same time, this high standard is at odds with the very principles of business--those being the imperative to make profits at the expense of everything else. This imperative is the genesis of phenomena like "externalized costs", gobbleization, severe economic dislocation, deadly worker health impacts, habitat destruction, vast economic inequity, and on and on. These phenomena are secretly praised by proponents of this sort of business practice, and lesser, i.e., more extrinsically responsible practices can lead to charges of malfeasance and incompetence being leveled at CEOs, etc. The very nature of the incorporation of a business dictates their first imperative is to make all the profit humanly possible. The doctrine of the "corporate person" has institutionalized these principles and imperatives. It should not surprise anyone that there are many people in the world who, at the very least, cast a dim eye on business. Nor should it surprise anyone that many people hate "Big Bidness". Only the most arrogant and self-righteous would be blind to the reasons why these emotions prevail. This is why I, at the very least, cast a dim eye on business, and feel the inclusion of any for-profit business on WE should be very restricted and very temporary, resulting in very few being included. That is my answer. David Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! |
|
|
It sounds like there is general agreement that multiple sectors are involved with implementing change, and that the movement will benefit by connecting them somehow. It also sounds like serving the needs of one sector is a big task, and that Wiser is currently limited on resources for further development.
I am currently volunteering to help define the needs of each sector through the WiserEarthPartners Platform group, and others who share the vision for what WE can become can greatly help in this process! Apply to join the group at http://www.wiserearth.org/group/platform/section/main, or send me a message with your ideas. Comments collected will be consolidated into new template designs serving the civic, business and government sectors. Also, one approach that could synergize efforts would be to charge a sliding-scale donation/fee for WiserBiz profiles to bolster resources for development. Businesses will benefit from exposure on WISER, and should honor this value with support. "For-profit" is not inherently unsustainable (although the majority of applications are) and it is in fact a key sector in getting most of our needs met. If we deny its value/inclusion, how will WE get needs met? |
|
Hey all,
Good conversation. I'm obviously new to Wiser Earth and hadn't full explored the issues behind for profit participation on this site. That being said, until WiserBusiness is up, I think this site is a great place for discussions. I've started a group called Sustainable Business Project as a place to talk sustainable business. Love for any of you to join in, I have much to learn and would love to share. http://www.wiserearth.org/group/sustainablebiz Onward! -David |
|
Ohh, and to definitely add.. I love what has been created so far. This is a huge leap for social networking, and a network run by a non-profit is what has needed to take hold due the commercialization that takes place on for-profit networks that clouds discussions.
Thanks. |
1 to 20 of 28 Posts
Contributors to this Page
my thought continued here: WiserBusiness Certification (for profits) wiki:
http://www.wiserearth.org/article/7cec79f3cd0af11ff5b52bd5bc347839/group/suggestions