Corporate Responsibility and a Greener Future
Nobel Laureate and Academy Governor R.K. Pachauri says business must take the lead in promoting a more sustainable future across the globe.
Published September 1, 2009
By Adrienne Burke
Academy Contributor
Rajendra K. Pachauri stepped into the global green spotlight in 2007 when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with former Vice President Al Gore. The 69-year-old industrial engineer and economist has chaired the IPCC, established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, since 2002, and recently took a half-time position as head of Yale University’s Climate and Energy Institute. But he has been working on issues of sustainability and climate change for far longer. He has directed The Energy and Resources Institute, one of Asia’s leading centers of sustainable development research and education, since 1981, and he helped lay the groundwork for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
In the interest of continuing to build its strength as a global resource of sustainable science and technology expertise, The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) recently elected R.K. Pachauri to its International Board of Governors, and will honor him for his work promoting urban sustainability at the Sixth Annual Science & the City Gala in New York on November 16.
An ardent vegetarian who urges individuals to take responsibility for the environment, Pachauri has also been outspoken about the importance of corporate leadership in sustainability. The Fourth Assessment Report issued by the IPCC under his leadership is considered the most detailed analysis of global climate change ever undertaken. Among its numerous recommendations is the advice that “changes in lifestyle and behavior patterns can contribute to climate change mitigation across all sectors. Management practices can also have a positive role.”
How do you define sustainability?
Simplistically, it is what Mrs. Brundtland and the World Commission on Environment and Development put forward in 1987: a form of development which meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs. It’s simple, but how one applies it in practice is not all that easy.
Is there a different definition for corporate sustainability?
No, I wouldn’t say so, because the principles are the same. Corporates also have a responsibility to see that we don’t degrade the environment, that we don’t overspend our natural resources.
Could corporations be models of sustainability for communities, cities, or governments?
As a matter of fact, they have to become models for all of society because there’s going to be a greater and greater level of economic activity in the corporate sector, and therefore what they do will have a profound and a very wide impact on society as a whole.
What do you mean when you say that a “complete reorientation of thinking” among the leadership of the corporate sector is overdue?
There’s been a disproportionate focus on profits, not only in the very narrow financial sense but also in the very short term. You’ve seen many examples of corporates who found over a period of time that their profitability was actually impaired because they had this narrow and short-term focus. Given the changes that are taking place in the world, customers and even suppliers are going to be much more sensitive to the corporate responsibility that leaders show towards society. If corporate organizations don’t take this newly apparent dimension into account, they are obviously going to lose markets and their market share. This is why a complete reorientation of thinking will be necessary.
Sustainability contains a genuine profit motive?
Yes, and that profit motive essentially would require reflection for a longer period of time than has been the case traditionally. Let me take the example of Wal-Mart—this is one major company that has moved more genuinely towards sustainability, towards green issues. Or you take a company like General Electric. They’re pursuing the business that they’ve been doing in the past, but they have shown a clear commitment to looking at the future of green technologies and investing in them. To different extents, a number of organizations are beginning to show this, and the ones that have practiced this philosophy have actually benefitted.
Where governments have failed, then, could corporations take the lead in promoting sustainability?
You really need the combination of the two. If government has policies, for instance, which impose irrational prices rather than promote sustainability, then clearly the corporation will not be able to do much about it. Corporations are answering to their shareholders. It’s important, of course, for shareholders to be educated and to show a certain sensitivity to social causes, but there’s a limit to that. If governments come up with policies that run counter to sustainable development, then there’s nothing you can do about it. You really need a combination of enlightened government policy and enlightened corporate leadership. In the absence of that, I don’t think you get the right results.
You’ve said it’s crucial that governments from around the world reach agreement on tackling the challenge of climate change at the United Nations Climate Change Conference this December in Copenhagen. What will you consider to be a successful outcome of that gathering?
There are three [desired] outcomes. First, a very firm commitment to reduce emissions by 2020. Then, a commitment to provide funding for those countries that are really deprived, that don’t have the money to adapt to the effects of climate change. And something that allows relatively easy access to clean technologies for the developing countries.
Is addressing climate change and getting to sustainability a bigger challenge for policymakers or for R&D scientists?
First and foremost, it’s a challenge for people at large. You really have to convince the public of the fact that what we’ve been practicing for a long time is not sustainable and we have to bring about a shift. In a democracy, you would expect that the public will put pressure on the politicians and the leadership to do what’s expected.
And it’s essential for scientists to become effective communicators. Unless they do that, the public is not going to get to know the seriousness of some of the problems that we’re facing and the kind of solutions that are required. Scientists have an increasing role in informing the public.
The Fourth Assessment report from the IPCC suggests that management practices could have a positive role in climate change mitigation. What are examples of such management practices?
There’s a tangible part of the impact and an intangible part. The tangible part is what you actually save, what you actually reduce in energy consumption. On the shop floor or in a factory, launch a program of energy efficiency whereby you ensure that every unit of energy is consumed using the most efficient methods, the most efficient ecologies. Just cutting out waste as part of management practices could have a major impact.
The intangible part is creating a culture that would ensure that the organization will always focus on sustainability. It’s like safety. There are organizations that are extremely safety conscious with seldom any accidents or explosions. Similarly, for organizations that are very particular about the efficiency of energy use and minimizing waste, it’s all part of managing practices which can achieve a great deal.
Also read: Climate Change: A Slow-Motion Tsunami
