Some businesses are born sustainable, some achieve sustainability and some have (or will need to have) sustainability thrust upon them.  I don’t really mind how it happens as long as it does.  Unless businesses decouple profit from harm caused to the environment, we are in serious trouble.

The good news is that this message is hitting home in some Board rooms.  Take Unilever, for example.  Last year, they published the company’s Sustainable Living Plan which included a commitment to halve the environmental impact of its products while doubling sales over the next ten years.  Chief Executive, Paul Polman, has said that “there was no conflict between sustainable consumption and business growth”.  He goes further to say that he’s “not interested in whether [the plan] brings competitive advantage.  This is about long-term value creation.  It’s the only way to do business in the long term”.

How refreshing to hear this from the boss of one of the corporate giants. 

We need corporate leaders to less interested in the short-term interests of shareholders and think about the long term investments required to put business on a more sustainable footing. 

And sometimes, sectors need a little encouragement from governments.  Progressive regulation, coupled with incentives will make it easier for businesses to do the right thing.

Take the minerals industries (sand, gravel, rock, coal, clay etc).  Their operations cover over 70,000 ha of land in England alone.  There is now a planning obligation to restore every site, with potential to contribute very significantly to several nature conservation objectives especially restoration of priority habitats.

We did a little work in 2006 to understand the potential for the industry to put back lost habitat.  We concluded that 9 out of the 11 expansion targets for threatened habitats could be met and exceeded through quarry restoration.

With support from Natural England, we have been working with the Mineral Products Association (MPA) and the operating companies to help them design and implement habitat restoration schemes.  This industry recognises the potential it has to contribute to biodiversity contribution and is rightly proud of what it has achieved over a number of years.  And, the fruits of their labours are now being realised: for example, 15% of the UK bittern population now breed on restored quarries – a percentage that is only likely to increase as restoration continues to deliver more reedbed.   Oh and the RSPB has now taken on several quarries as nature reserves.

And this what our Stepping Up for Nature campaign is all about: governments focusing on the things that only it can do (policy, regulation and incentives), civil society playing its part while business doing more to step up as well.

Where do you think business should be doing more?  Who are the leaders and who are the laggards?

It would be great to hear your views.

  • Thanks for your words of wisdom, Redkite.  And, Sooty, as I have said before, I am not sure I could do this job if I didn't find cause for optimism!

  • I think it is really good that you look at these things as a optimist as opposed to being pessimistic.In the long run you are sure to get better relationship with whoever you are involved in except just in the odd case where optimism stands no chance.

  • Hi Martin, this is excellent. In my exprience generally the large companies and businesses are more responsive to stepping up than the small to medium (S&M) sized ones. The larger ones have their good name to take into account. I am sure it is with the larger organisations the the RSPB should concenrtrate its efforts when talking the business. The more so, because S&M companies often sell their products to the larger organisations and some S&Ms can be more often concerned with a "quick fix". There is nothing more that concentrates their minds if their main buyer is asking questions about how sustainable their business is and telling them they will only purchased sustainably produced products.  However that is not to say there are not plenty of good and responsible S&Ms around. It is just a case of identifying them. The less responsible ones very often operate abroad and sell their products into developed markets  . The destruction of the Tana river estaury in Kenya is a case in point.

    One comment on your blog. You say "we need corporate leaders to to be less interested in short term interests of shareholders and think about long term investment". Yes, but I would say .....less interested in short term interests and more for the long term. This then would be in the interests of both the shareholders and sustainablity. I don't think these two necessarily conflict. Where the short term may come into play much more is on bonuses!!!