Besides which, even if every executive really was “hired to maximize profits” that doesn’t necessarily imply the imperative for short-term rapine that the WSJ’s language implies. A company that literally takes every opportunity to maximize profit is in fact not long for this world; having cut corners, paid the minimum, and sold for the maximum, it faces the united antagonism of vendors, customers, regulators, and anybody else with the misfortune to encounter it.

Maximizing profitability in the real world, on the other hand, involves running a company with a view to the long game, sustainably. Curating an institutional culture of transparency, ethical behavior, and fair dealing ain’t the worst way to go about it. Small businesses have always understood the importance of a good relationship with the community; this is why they “sacrifice profitability” to sponsor little league teams and what-not. It’s about time the MBA types figured it out.

To use an example cited in the article–McDonalds introducing healthier menu options isn’t merely a response to a shift in what customers want to eat. McDonalds is an active agent in creating demand for healthier food. It’s a positive feedback loop. The more McDonalds pushes healthy items and educates its customers, the more its business benefits. Not to say that McDonalds can unilaterally change public perception and behavior, but they certainly can play a meaningful part.

The article also suggests the best way to get companies to act responsibly is to mandate it. But short of outlawing fast food as well know it, how would the government force McDonalds to sell or promote healthier food? I think this argument is a red herring proposed by someone who knows full well that the likelihood of getting more regulations (let alone effective regulations) on the books is nearly zero. Look at the ferocious fight pro-business factions put up over reining in the historic abuses of Wall Street. Or the new consumer protection regulations. What would the reaction be if government proposed regulations addressing lesser issues?

I wonder if the pain comes more from that fact that sustainability is still an new concept for many business and individuals. The language is emerging and changing just as fast as ideas about how to be sustainable. Maybe once we’ve figured out how to live on this planet without compromising the needs of others and future generations, we’ll figure out how to talk about it too.

In the real world of business, activities/concepts that aren’t integral to the business are likely to fail.

So, to me, green is out except for talking about environmental aspects. CSR is a better alternate term if you really need one.

I will say, though, that typing “sustainability” all the time gets old. Those i-l-t’s at the end always get mixed up when I type too quickly. I write it so much that I set up Autocorrect in MS Word to automatically complete it when I type “sust”!