1. Chengdu promised: to give “one hour to the world”
On February 1st, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) announced that the Municipal Government of Chengdu had promised on January 29th that it participate in the activity of the “Earth Hour 2010” at 20:30 of March 27th, which indicated Chengdu had become the first city to join the WWF China “Earth Hour 2010”, and the prelude of the activity in China was also drew open therefrom.
2. Green Chengdu, 100 electric buses to drive on streets this year
This year, the program of actions on the promotion of the industrialization of electric vehicles of Chengdu City had finally settled, learnt the journalist recently from the Municipal Energy Office. The program fixed the execution of the “Hundred-thousand-ten-thousands” project, the demonstration and popularization of electric buses, namely hundred urban public transport, thousand taxis and ten thousand private cars. According to the program phased targets, in 2010, Chengdu will complete the target of putting into the demonstrational operation of 100 electric buses and 100 electric city sanitation trucks. The State Grid Corporation Sichuan branch then launched a supporting facilities construction project, and will build 3 electric vehicle charging stations and 300 charging stacks in Chengdu this year. In 2012, Chengdu will form a production capacity of 20,000 electric vehicles.
3. Chengdu plans to invest 43.85 billion yuan to build modern agricultural base
Chengdu recently has published the Construction Plan of Modern Agricultural Base Project of Chengdu (2010-2017), planning to invest 43.85 billion yuan in the construction of modern agricultural base, and to realize 8.5% annual growth of the average peasantry income and achieve 2.8 million tons of total grain output in 2017, striving to build Chengdu into a “Western China first and domestic leading” modern agricultural development demonstration zone and the country’s important modern agricultural base.
4. “Water city of Abundance Heaven”, Jintang awarded as first “National Garden County” in Sichuan
Recently, through the initial approval of the Ministry of Construction, expert review and publicity, Jintang County of Chengdu has successfully obtained the title of “National Garden County” of 2009, not only becoming one of the 31 honored counties throughout the country in 2009, but also being the first in Sichuan, which signified that the county’s constructing of a new livable landscape city had taken a milestone step.
Located in Songjiang, Tongchu ‘s farm is about an hour’s drive from downtown Puxi and quite easy to get to. Driving southwest and once you leave the downtown freeways and roads the agricultural fields are suddenly noticeable and a contrast to the other farm areas we’ve visited so far. There are a handful of light industrial factories and we crossed the Huangpu river (which by the way didn’t look so good at all) but the majority of land use is agricultural. It felt like a drive out into the “countryside.”
Tongchu organics is on a road off a main road and surrounded by other local farms and a natural water canal on one side. Upon arrival we were shown their vegetable packing room, pretty well set up with glass windows and a group of ladies with aprons and caps working inside on the vegetable washing conveyor belt machine. Tongchu supplies many of the supermarkets, restaurants and hotels in town and they have always had a large lettuce and leaves supply to meet the demand for salad ingredients for Western tastes. This leaf washing was quite a novelty as it occurred to me that we weren’t shown the washing/packing area in the other farms. So far so good, we were impressed.
Next we went out to check out the water supply and a small pump/purifier machine which purifies the natural water sources. Again the quality of water and cleaning process is one I know people are interested in and all I can report is that all farms purify the water, just how safe it is for vegetable watering and us eating raw vegetables I don’t know but as Tongchu produce a lot of salad mixes the leaves are pre-washed and then packed in bags/plastic boxes.
Tongchu is 100 hectares, in between in size of the previous 2 farms we visited, and is only 2 years old. Previously the owners sourced and imported organic products such as shampoo, dried foods etc. We were told the soil has been cleaned and that they use a combinations of soils and organic soil from Canada and Mongolia. Also reassuring was that the organic certifiers had come the other week to take soil samples and do ongoing tests. (the certification and ongoing monitoring of the industry is still not clear to me yet)
We walked around the farm, again most vegetables are grown in the tent/canopy enclosures and were told that because its winter they don’t grow out of season vegetables. We learnt that corn isn’t traditionally winter food and we shouldn’t eat it in this season. Lots of cabbage, lettuce, leafy greens, spinach, radishes could be observed and even though I’m no soil expert this soil did look very healthy and rich. Could have something to do with the newly installed watering system I spotted up above, and turns out its only 2 months old. Tongchu organics use a raised sprinkler system, similar to the other farms, and the similar hanging boards to catch bugs inside.
One thing we were pleasantly surprised with was the variety of herbs they have, Tongchu organics has one large tent in which they grow a comprehensive range of potted herbs. Everything from lemongrass, dill, basil, parsley, chocolate mint, to spearmint and rosemary, and one of their owners is working on home herb growing system which is pretty neat, so later this year people could have their own herb garden on their balconies. Also impressive was that all the vegetables and herbs in every tent were well labeled and identifiable for visitors. Tongchu organics also showed us another new glasshouse nearby on another property, inside they grow more leafy greens and a wide variety of young lettuce to supply to the restaurants and hotels.
Tongchu does do home deliveries like the other farms and are welcome to visitors at the farm by appointment. Their vegetables are readily available at City Super branches in Shanghai. http://www.tongchu.com.cn/
Overall whilst I’m no expert I think the farm visits so far have been worthwhile in starting to understand the nature of organic farms in and around Shanghai and answering the question on everyone’s mind; is it worth paying more for organic fruits and vegetables? My answer is yes. I don’t eat organic 100% yet but from hearing stories about Chinese farmers growing a patch for sale and a patch for themselves and all the potential pesticides and growth inducing chemicals on regular vegetables I’m more inclined to check out the organic suppliers and options in Shanghai. Again, I believe it is all relative and we can only do and buy what we believe is clean, healthy and affordable.
Cultural China has put up a page for those of you looking to get out of Shanghai for a day of greener activities. Countryside Tours of Shanghai lists 10 different spots that all look family friendly (a few farms, couple of gardens, and some watertowns). Hard to say how new these places are, or what historic value they may have, but any opportunity to break away is still an opportunity.
For those of you who missed out on the first Coolbike Shanghai ride, you can relive it through the clip above, a 5 minute teaser into the background, goals, and motivations of the organization.
Website is on the way, with the next ride on April 18
Tony’s Farm is located in Nanhui district and by car is just over an hour from downtown Puxi . It’s a large scale commercial operation with 280 acres of organic vegetables surrounded by other farm and agricultural land. Unlike some of the other organic farms this is a huge project and they are currently building their own moats, or what are best described as moats around the farm to create islands of vegetable plots. Tony’s Farm also has their own fertilization and manure mixing area, water filtration and holding tanks, ponds and a very impressive clubhouse with full kitchen and dining rooms. I believe I also spotted a wind mill in front of the glass house exhibition areas- in future they will hold tours and classes in organic farming.
The water distribution system at Tony’s Farm is a combination of either hanging pipes and a drip system or an imbedded water pipe in the rows of soil mounds, depending on the type of vegetable growing in the tent. The surrounding gutters and drains were very clean and actually dry- no water run off or excess that we saw, and overall it appears to be a very clean and well organized operation. The fertilizers used are their own mixture which consists of mushroom and soy by-product which they get from Shanghai suppliers and manure from animals….there weren’t many animals observed though, except for about 20-30 healthy looking lambs in one pen area. During our tour of the farm and the fertilizer area, we also saw large tanks of bacteria, which they grow/ferment themselves and mix into the fertilizer mixture. No pesticides are allowed of course and they use the same yellow boards to attract and catch the bugs inside the tents.
This farm has 400 of its own staff and have their own staff living quarters, and Tony himself and his family are often there and live there for short periods of time. Tony’s Farm do weekly vegetable delivery to customers and members and have a good mixture of vegetables (and only vegetables at this stage) which you can chose from for the “Chinese” or “Western” box sets.
If you want to learn about organic farming, drive around in a golf buggy and take a healthy day trip out with the family this is a great option. From a commercial point of view this has to be one of the largest if not the largest organic farm in Shanghai, and its run as a business to grow vegetables for individual and commercial customers. They work with a number of the 5 star hotels and chefs.
I have come to realize that eating organic is very much a concept of relativity. The wet market vegetables in Shanghai are better quality than the individual carts selling produce, the supermarket vegetables are more expensive but appear to be “cleaner” than the wet market vegetables, and the organic vegetables that you can buy at a Farmers market or get home delivered are safest, taste freshest and make you feel healthy and clean. Now, the organic vegetables in Shanghai may not be 100% totally organic in terms of the soil, water, seed or air pollution BUT they are cleaner and definitely greener relatively speaking than the mass produce available on the market. Its your choice whether you want to pay more for organic vegetables, and realistically unless I’m on the raw food diet I will continue to purchase a mix of organic produce, supermarket and occasionally wet market vegetables.
Next week we are staying in Puxi and visiting Tongchu Organic farm.
Hi everyone, my name is Kimberly and I have recently been asked to contribute to this website in the area of health, food, nutrition & well-being. I’ve been in China for almost 8 and a half years and have always been conscious of our surroundings in terms or air, water, food but have never really taken the time to explore certain areas for myself. Until now that is. Over the past 10 months I have moved on from just being well through exercise and fitness to seriously trying to be well through what I eat. A TCM course, food therapy and now Integrative Nutrition has played a huge part in my shift from some packaged foods, eating out and convenience to whole foods, grains and incorporating organic produce as much as possible.
With the aim of trying to understand what the term “organic” means in Shanghai and of course being able to answer confidently that organic farms are relatively healthy and the produce better than the local wet markets, I embarked on a few weekend adventures to the organic vegetable farms to find out if and how their farms are clean, chemical free and healthy.
Some key issues that a wise friend told me before going out to the farms to look for and ask about include; soil, water supply, nearby water sources and rivers, surrounding infrastructure and manufacturing or industry, vegetable produce handling and refrigeration/ transportation.
Biofarm is located a lot closer than I thought, a short 40 minute ride from downtown Puxi, Shanghai. It is in the Pudong area and not far from light industry and what I could call on the fringe /beginning of small agricultural fields. Off the highway you drive past sparse factory buildings, and a small river and then suddenly its roadside farm land.
The farm is bigger than it appears at first, with many rows of partitioned “indoor” greenhouses. It was a cold winter day when we went however inside the various tents it’s cozy and the smells of fresh soil and vegetables were evident. We stepped into the lettuce and herbs section first and the colour and fragrance hit us first. I’m a city girl who loves her vegetables but this overwhelming greenness was inspiring with bright green, dark green, a large selection of leaves, stalks and stems surrounding us. We inquired about the soil and were told that it is clean and some of it imported from Japan originally, we were impressed. Then the water- supply comes from nearby natural sources, very interesting I thought as unfortunately the small river nearby didn’t look totally clean. I’m also not one hundred percent sure about the drainage and surround water catchments either to be very honest.
Biofarm does not use any pesticide or herbicides , instead they have a number of big yellow cards hanging in well spaced out fashion over the vegetable rows and this is covered in hormones we were told. The male bugs are attracted to this and end up stuck to it and caught. This helps the farm manage pests however they do have overnight problems from time to time and if the bugs get in a whole crop can be eaten in a few hours as a midnight snack.
Despite some mixed thoughts the best part of the morning was picking fresh green vegetables and taking them home. They definitely taste better and have amazing texture compared to supermarket “plastic” looking and plastic wrapped vegetables. It’s all relative folks…….it may be hard to find 100% organic in Shanghai (Biofarm is IFOAM certified) but this stuff was better than what I’ve had so far and you can’t get much fresher than this and eating purple carrots, celery and broccoli right out of the ground. Delicious!
Biofarm is open to the public every weekend and I encourage you to get out there on a sunny day and do some grocery shopping. They also have a barn style area with dry goods such as nuts, beans, grains, brown rice, organic juice concentrate (the passionfruit and apple one is a favourite ingredient in my smoothies), dried fruit, and if in season- organic apples. They also have organic eggs from Yunnan if you ask the team. Biofarm has a great spirit, a positive and welcoming onsite staff who will show you around and it was a worthwhile and enjoyable excursion for us.
Biofarm will deliver produce to your home in Puxi or Pudong on a weekly basis, however encourage you to come to a collective pick up point if possible to get your vegetables and reduce transportation and ensure quality freshness.
Next week, we’re heading to Tony’s Farm in Nanhui district.
Following up on some earlier posts about driving sustainability through education, McKinsey has loaded an interview with the Blair Sheppard, dean of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business.
Encouraging to see these shifts, although I personally would like to see more schools really integrate sustainability into their core curriculum. That, rather than just capture those that are interested, really training on a braod base the concepts of sustainability as they relate to how decisions can have an environmental impact for the better or worse.
That, there are externalities that need to considered going forward
For anyone looking to come down from 30,000 feet to get their hands dirty with Green Buildings, then I recommend checking out this Saturday’s GIGA event (1:00 – 5:30pm).
Full details are at their website (click here), but here is the basics:
Schedule:
13:00 – 13:30: registration and networking
13:30 – 13:45: event introduction and welcome
13:45 – 14:20: case study: building positive impact
14:20 – 14:30: RCC: China’s premiere project information network
14:30 – 14:40: WoiGreen: making green fashionable
14:40 – 15:10: Manufacturer 1 GuLi: quality window and door hardware
15:10 – 15:30: break
15:30 – 16:00: Manufacturer 2 JinJing: ultra clear glass
16:00 – 16:30: Manufacturer 3 Haworth: positive furniture
16:30 – 17:00: GIGA: incremental improvements
17:00 – 17:30: GIGAbase LIVE: reviews of Manufacturers 1, 2, and 3
Where:
Haworth Organic Workspace
16F Shanghai World Financial Center
100 Century Avenue Pudong New Area
Shanghai
When:
Saturday, January 23rd, 2010.
13:00-17:00
The event is free, but you must register here before joining.
Also, a word of warning, when going to the site you will need to bring some ID. The World Financial Center will not let you in otherwise.
It has been nearly a month since the 15000 (or so) people descended upon Copenhagen to hammer through what was to be “the biggest moment” of our lives, to address the BIGGEST ISSUE FACING MANKIND. Right?
No shortage of commentary on who was at fault, my first lecture for the second semester gave me the reason and opportunity to sit down and think about what really went wrong. I did so party because I have been bothered by what I saw at Copenhagen, not to mention the endless abuse of media publications by politicians trying to deflect their own responsibility, but primarily because my students are about to kick off 35 of their own projects that will in many ways mimic the process that Copenhagen was SUPPOSED to be as they identify critical issues, bring stakeholders together, plan programs, and work with the various groups to take the next steps.
In short. Because Copenhagen was a massive failure of epic proportions, I thought that I should take the time to break it down for my students and show them how they (through their next semester) need to act very differently.
It is a lecture whose slides are above, and in the below I will work through some of the key issues that I feel lead to this failure of EPIC proportions.
So, what happened?
To answer the question “What happened”, I think it is important that we look at the structure of the Copenhagen meeting: a look at the goals of the conference,the people who were there, and the process that was the Copenhagen 15 conference, be given a closer look. Because, like carbon, the failure of Copenhagen is nothing more than the byproduct of a process. A process that had many flaws.
What was the goal of the Copenhagen conference?
This may sound like a dumb question, but what was the goal of all those people who were in Copenhagen? Why were they there? what did they hope to achieve? It is a question that first must have answers to several other questions like: (1) What are the problems we really face?, (2) What are the causes and effects of the problems we face?, and (3) What needs to be done to alter the current path we are on?
Why I need to answer these is a simple fact that if not everyone is on board with what the prlbems are, then how can we realistically expect that there will be a single goal? That while the goal may be a legally binding agreement, perhaps not everyone thinks that a legally binding agreement will really translate into something tangible for them.
It is under this context then that Carbon needs to come into the picture as it was the single focal point, but sadly, it was not a fixed point. That, because carbon is an intangible and is a byproduct of many problems that we face, its allowed for much of the debates to become clouded and tied to other issues that were completely unrelated at times.
Who was there?
Behind determining goals, knowing who was there (and what they looked to achieve) is equally important, and it is perhaps through this layer of the cake that things begin to really get messy.
At the highest level you have two groups, the believers and non-believers, that provided the basic splice for splitting the conference attendees down. Next, you have the developed nations (lead largely by the U.S.), developing nations (lead largely by China), and then you had everyone else, who for the context of this discussion were countries who had no independent voice at the conference. they were nations who many would argue were going to be the first to feel the effects, but regardless, had to stand in line behind either the developed or developing nation blocs. And functionally we wind up the profiling with functional differences between politicians, business leaders, scientists, tree huggers, and students. With tree huggers and students pushing the hardest for change, and politicians and business leaders who have vested interests in staying in power, but operate in environments that do not necessarily guarantee that power too long (an interesting dynamic that essentially determines the motivations of maintaining the “Status quo”)
Which, when you put all of these together in the same room, creates a very interesting dynamic that initially would lead to the opening of minds in some cases, but ultimately leads to the creation of camps based on common goals (economic growth vs. environmental sustainability). goals that are based on common needs (maintaining power vs. maintaining shorelines ), and then results in very different stances (Everyone Change/ Action vs. West change/ We follow).. which leads to a condition of where two people are put into a room to work through the “sticky” points.
Almost important, if not more so, than who was there was how did these groups work together. First question, WHERE WAS THE TEAMWORK? For me there was no greater sign of problems than the fact that there was no teamwork in this entire process. That, with the exception of being a joint statement in Singapore pre-Copenhagen was , there was little teamwork in the entire process. 15,000 people showed up and entered into a mass ping pong tournament, from which a few (Wen Jiabao and Obama took their paddles to the main stage for one-on-one).
It was a process (dare I say there was an actually process) that was NOT defined by cooperation, but only defined by self interests (be it economic, political, or environmental). Self interests, that aligned along a single “goal” of reducing carbon, created two potential outcomes.
Binding agreement, or no binding agreement.
The Process
Any time there are more than 2 inputs to anything, there is a natural process that takes place, and in the case of the Copenhagen conference where you have 15,000 people, 200 countries, 10 types of stakeholders, and one big problem… you need a process that effectively manages all these competiting interests.
Copenhagen, and more widely the UN itself, has no process.
It was a conference where everyone showed up with proposals in hand. Proposals were being developed by parties where there were offensive and defensive positions, and (getting back to my original point of having a single goal) rather than breaking Carbon down into the 55 or so structural issues and tackling those one at a time… Copenhagen became the biggest game of roulette to ever be played. It was an all or nothing bet.
Where this failure of process is all the more sad is that if the two biggest blocks had sat down to break down carbon into its components (transportation, buildings, energy production, waste, etc) progress could have been made in each of these area where common interests aligned naturally, and then set aside other issues that required more time, or at the minimum developed some basic KPIs and steps for next time.
Instead. It was China and US representing 40% of the world’s carbon emissions who HAD to agree first, and then the remaining 60% would fall in line… a HUGE sign of a failed process.
The False Argument
Outside of my slides, there is one more aspect of Copenhagen that lead to failure. Everyone’s argument was built on a false floor (again, a byproduct of having no goal), and while the world leaders would love to point fingers, the fact is that the cardinal rules of the environment never entered the discussion.
That regardless of what the Earth’s carrying capacity for environmental degradation (getting beyond carbon), members were still arguing points on economic development, their right to it, and little real recognition that there are laws in nature that cannot be broken without seeing massive failures.
Which leads me to my last point. Climate change is not something that is going to occur as a result of carbon emissions. It is something that is already here. It is deforestation areas turning to deserts. It is dead water lines, and coral reefs. It is air pollution and increases in lung cancers/ asthma… and it is here where the conference ultimately failed to translate into action.
The fact that natural disasters are increasing in size, frequency, and scope. that large swatches of land are no longer farmable, and water sources are undrinkable is the problem that everyone should have been focused on. Because, while they may not realize it, they too are by products of the same systems that spew carbon, and they are problems that we all face in a very TANGIBLE way.
It may not be as emotionally compelling as a polar bear or a sinking island nation. But, without real goals, and based only on emotions, it becomes far to easy for politicians to use jobs as a KPI for success of greening the economy (vs. reduced cancer
Conclusions:
So, let’s recap. 15000 people allocated 2 weeks to solve humanity’s biggest issue ever, in a structure that:
1) There was no clear goal. Focus on “Carbon” allowed parties to maneuver and deflect, and the opportunity to develop common understandings and programs around real issues was lost.
2) There was a complete failure to work as a team. Everyone brought their own proposals, and looked out for their own interests (as a country or as a block). Factions formed. People lost face.
3) No one was willing to make a real sacrifice. The Discovery channel slogan “live a sustainable life without sacrificing luxury” pretty much says it all for how we as humanity have come to look at balancing the environment in our lives, and sadly little progress has been made since Bush Sr’s comment at Rio that the “American way is not up for negotiation”.
4) Everyone forgot the golden rule. Mother nature will not negotiate.
That for all the efforts of those people who attended, it was not about Obama and Wen Jiabao signing a binding agreement. It was about humanity accepting the laws of nature, and respect the fact that (carbon aside) we are red lining many of the systems that support our existence on their earth. That, without drastic changes (and I am not talking about cleantech deployments), our biospheres will become so polluted that major changes will be FORCED upon us.
People will move. Crops will die. air will become un-breathable.
This weekend while attending the Three on The Bund Sustainable Business and Society Event I knew that it would be one that I would be interested in as at the top of the ticket you had thee leaders of business management schools talking about sustainability.
Moderated by PhD Lu Xiongwen ,Dean of Fudan University’s Business School, the main event was really when Prof. Richard Locke got up to speak. Proceeded by his Dean, Prof Locke’s speech was basically broken out into a few major areas: How Sloan defined sustainability,where “sustainability” is going , and what Sloan was doing to educated its students.
Much like some of my own posts, Locke immediately took issue with the focus on carbon and framing the issues we face as being systems that emit carbon, and he was very upbeat about the prospects about “sustainability” because, as he saw it, there were three things pushing sustainability forward (1) Economics and the fact that recessions are a great time to remove inefficiencies (2) Concern for climate in the market (3) Increase transparency and active citizenry. (Note: I would have added government regulations and incentives in there as well)
.. and then wrapped up by discussing some of the programs that MIT offered its students (including Slab)
It was a very interesting speech delivered by someone who had a long history in the area of sustainability, and almost immediately following that, the topic of should management schools be a place for teaching sustainability came up.
.. a dialogue that sadly did not provide a clear yes or no, and it is a topic that I will hope to address below.
Going back 9 months ago when I was first beginning my conversations with CEIBS, I must admit that I was fortunate to be speaking with people who had a strong vision and understanding that their school had the opportunity to take a big step. It was a step that took years to prepare, but when all was said and done, all of the 193 MBA 2009 – 2010 students were going to be required to take a course on sustainability.
An action that I would learn through my trip to Copenhagen was in many ways ground breaking (i.e. this is still the only MBA program we have found to date that REQUIRES all students to take a course on sustainability), but that we were soon going to be met by a number of others who had long histories of offering mixed degrees and lots of electives in the area of environment and sustainability.
But, for the most part, the schools we met were not “ranked” in the top tier.. and it was at about that time that I started to begin wondering why that was? Why was it that business schools, as incubators for future business leaders, were not moving their programs from their current position to one that balanced sustainability.
In answering this big question, I began to break it down into smaller questions:
1) What is the goal of a business management school?
2) Are the current issues we face the result of man, but more specifically of how we make management decisions
3) Will we need to, on a large level, begin to make changes that will reverse, mitigate, or adapt to X?
4) Do Management schools have a responsibility to the wider market and begin training more “sustainable” leaders?
Questions I thought that needed to be answered first, or at least tested, prior to understanding why it was that no one was putting “sustainability” next to finance, accounting, and marketing… and here is what I came up with.
1) The goal of a business management school is to incubate future leaders, who are hoped to go onto careers the will create economic growth. Economic growth is the primary model that is taught, and throughout the majority of classes and projects that are offered as part of the core curriculum, economic growth at the country, city, market, and corporate levels is te goal, and that there is no good alternative to positive growth.
A recession (negative growth) is always evil and a depression is always destructive, regardless of what the external costs of economic growth may be. Or what the positive externalities of a recession may be (i.e. improved efficiencies and reduction of resource consumption).
2) Answering this question gets a bit tricky as for it to be true, we must accept that man is the primary catalyst of climate change, and for the purposes of this post I will do just that by simply stating that it is managers who are deciding on where to extract materials, install coal fire plants, and how to design cars. Decisions that can exacerbate what some feel is an issue that we are not responsible for in its entirety, but none the less, decisions that ARE made by man that ARE having an impact on the physical environment.
3) Regardless of whether or not the Maldives and/ or Shanghai ultimately sink as sea levels rise, the fact is that we are already seeing large scale climate change and environmental failures occur. Algae outbreaks, melting ice caps, acid rain that destroys farm yields, water that is unusable (even in an industrial setting), falling fish stocks, and do on these failures are affecting the air, food, and water that we as humans need to survive. Failures that are getting bigger, more frequent, and can longer be dilluted.
Failure that will require us to make some changes. Changed in policy. Changes in systems. Changed in cities. Changes in lifestyle.
Changes that will require business leaders to make different decisions…. which leads to whether or not management schools have a responsibility to begin addressing a wider responsibility (perhaps a responsibility that is wider than they originally planned for) and begin putting forward curriculum and structures that train their students to act with the concepts of sustainability in mind
4) In answering this question, I think I need to start by returning to the first point. That business management schools have historically been places where future leaders could be incubated and trained to be successful in the market. A market that historically did not consider the environment as a priority, and did not view the issues of sustainability (economic, environmental, or societal) as issues that were ultimately their responsible for.
They were responsible for sustaining growth trajectories, and making decisions that put their organizations on that path.
But times are changing. Consumers, investors, and governments are beginning to change the way they view things, and what may have been a problem once overlooked is no longer. Which ultimately leads back to firms, and the leaders of those firms.
Which leads me to the following conclusion.
without a doubt, for us to move forward on the issues we face, we need to see a change within our academic institutions, and while there are clearly a number of institutions who have brought together some fine elective courses, there needs to be a core curriculum change. A change that requires all business management classes to begin incorporating the issues of sustainability into their class work, and in a way that engages the students in such a manner that students understand that they will face options of green and brown, but unlike before, they will be judged with a new lens, held to a new standard, and relied upon to clean up economies and systems that are inefficient, emit pollutants, and are otherwise out of balance with the wider economy, environment, and community.
