Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 85:97109 DOI 10.

1007/s10551-008-9950-6

Springer 2008

Pragmatic Sustainability: Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage

Jeffrey G. York

ABSTRACT. In this article, I propose a business paradigm that allows and enables the integration of environmental ethics into business decisions while creating a competitive advantage through the use of an ethical framework based on classical American pragmatism. Environmental ethics could be useful as an alternative paradigm for business ethics by offering new perspectives and methodologies to grant consideration of the natural environment. An approach based on classical American pragmatism provides a superior framework for businesses by focusing on experimentation and innovation, driving a long-term focus, and providing actionable clarity. Under a pragmatic approach to ethics, the choice for sustainability becomes self-evident for business performance and moral reasons. KEY WORDS: pragmaticism, sustainability, environmental, business ethics, competitive advantage

Introduction You are a Senior Manager in charge of plant quality and productivity for a publicly-traded international paper company, Titan Paper. Titan produces 45% of

the paper stock used in the United States for a variety of purposes, including milk and orange juice cartons, cereal boxes, and other packaged consumer goods. You are in the midst of your annual budgeting process for next years plant improvements, and a particular plant is causing you a dilemma. The plant operates at an annual prot of $180 million per year, employs 1,245 local residents, and produces 25% of Titans annual production. The bad news is that the plant also produces dioxin, a known carcinogen, through its paper bleaching process. Dioxin is deposited in the local river in amounts below federal and state limits. However, in a small community downstream, there have been 167 reports of cancer in a population of 1,025 over the past 5 years. This has drawn the attention of environmental groups and multiple protests have ensued. Titan has developed a technology known as bleach ltration recycling (BFR) that would reduce the total efuent by 85% and eliminate all dioxin outow. However, BFR has never been implemented, and estimates for the cost of the test pilot run to $70 million with an annual reduction of operating costs of only $5 million. The BFR pilot proposal is not supported by your manager or shareholders in general. What should you do? Overview of argument The ctionalized case above is loosely based on the book Troubled Waters: Champion International and the Pigeon River Controversy (Bartlett, 1995). For the sake of brevity, I have condensed the facts of the case, but it illustrates the trade-offs and difcult decisions faced by business managers every day. It is difcult at this point for anybody, even middle-managers faced

Jeffrey G. York is a research assistant at the Batten Institute at the University of Virginias Darden School of Business and is a Ph.D. candidate in Entrepreneurship, Business Ethics and Strategy. He holds a bachelors degree in Journalism from the University of Georgia and an MBA from the University of Tennessee, where he focused on new venture analysis. His work is focused on studying the nexus of environmental opportunities with entrepreneurial solutions. Jeffreys past work experience includes consulting for business incubators, management in a Fortune 500 corporation, and leading the startup of a whitewater rafting company.

98

Jeffrey G. York goods (Alexander, 2007). This unnecessary conict keeps us from moving forward with a better understanding of environmental problems, and makes solutions seem unobtainable. What if the issue is not so much that business people dont care about the impact of their actions on the environment, but that the arguments from those best informed on these issues are framing the discussion in a language that business cannot even understand? Could we move to a framework that would help managers take the environment into account when making business decisions? The argument for the intrinsic value of nature in and of itself often falls on deaf ears in a business setting. Although more and more businesses are adapting a values based model and expanding their view to include all stakeholders, not simply shareholders, the reality for the people who actually make the day-to-day decisions in the corporate world is that they operate within the paradigm of shareholder primacy; if a decision does not directly create shareholder value, it will simply not be made. While many managers intuitively understand and sympathize with the environmental movement, deontological arguments for the sanctity of wilderness or non-anthropocentric arguments for the rights of animals are not only ineffective in changing the behavior of businesses, but are also not understood in the decision-making context. We might as well walk into an Earth First! rally and discuss discounted cash ow analysis or lean operations management. Although these worlds may converge some day, according to the best data we have on the environmental crisis, we simply may not have the time to wait. So, how can the discussion of environmental issues best be had with business leaders? I argue that environmentalists, regulators, ethicists, and business leaders who seek to provoke change within existing corporations can best frame their arguments using classical American pragmatism as the guiding ethical framework. When I refer to pragmatism in this paper, I am referring to the philosophical stance represented by the work of John Dewey, William James, and Charles Peirce; I will rely on Rosenthals argument that the writings of these philosophers, as well as C. I. Lewis and G. H. Mead, can be understood as a system of thought and ethics (Rosenthal, 1986), while I will use specic writings

with a litany of issues to deal with on a daily basis, to deny the looming impact of environmental issues on our society and in business. Economic development is often cited as the cause of many of the environmental issues our society faces, including global warming, ozone decline, nuclear radiation, industrial toxins, and widespread air and water pollution (Shrivastava, 2000; United Nations, 1999, 2004). In recent years, environmental awareness has increased at every level of society; however, in business settings, the perception persists that there is always a trade-off to be made between prots and the environment (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). Business leaders often express the desire to do the right thing, but offer a laundry list of reasons their hands are tied: Our customers simply dont buy green products. It has to be protable rst; we dont green for the sake of green. If our shareholders actually cared about these issues, there would be more focus on them. Weve tried green products, but they simply werent purchased. Adopting this approach puts us at a competitive disadvantage. These were just a few of the comments heard at a recent roundtable on sustainable chemistry from senior managers from Fortune 500 companies. It is easy for the environmentalist to complain that business people simply dont get it, or that business managers are shallow, short-sighted, or even worse, unethical. The actions of deep ecology-based social groups such as Earth First! and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and riots during the 1999 World Trade Organization in Seattle have demonstrated that it will no longer be enough for corporations to operate within the legal boundaries of environmental regulation; they will be expected to proactively address their ecological footprint. Unfortunately, these confrontations simply push business people and environmentalists into the tired old circle of environment versus business and perpetuate myths on both sides. Ethical theories often reinforce the business versus environment story, perpetuating separation between economic and environmental

Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage from James, Peirce, and Dewey to support specic arguments. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the overarching ideology common to these writers as simply pragmatism and identify the specic writer when exploring a particular concept. Another term I will use in this paper that has been the source of much confusion and controversy is sustainablity (van Marrewijk, 2003). For the purpose of this paper, a sustainable decision is one which will meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs as dened by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), an independent body established by the United Nations (WCED, 1987). Although we could debate the meaning of this term for pages, I will not do so in this paper; sufce it to say I view decisions and views that promote sustainability to also be positive for the natural environment. The goal of this paper is to outline a business paradigm that allows and enables the integration of environmental ethics into business decisions while creating competitive advantage through the use of a decision-making framework based on pragmatism. My argument will proceed as follows: 1. By integrating consideration of the natural environment, businesses can create superior performance. Multiple examples are now available to demonstrate this pattern. However, the basis for environmentally benecial decisions can be very different, and is often not based on principle driven ethics, but rather on regulation or consumer-based economic pressure. 2. Environmental ethics as a eld of philosophy can offer a new paradigm for business ethics as a eld and business practitioners by offering new perspectives and methodologies to grant consideration of the natural environment. A pragmatic approach provides a superior framework for businesses by offering the following ideas: Pragmatism focuses on experimentation and innovation The key to unlocking the mystery of protable sustainability lies in innovation. Pragmatism proposes a perspective that remains continuously open to experimentation

99

and new ideas. While not degenerating into relativism, a pragmatic approach to environmental issues can break down stereotypical thought patterns and open the door for new ideas. Pragmatic morality encompasses an approach to problem solving that considers both means and ends, ensuring a long-term focus Corporations are focused on outcomes; they are driven by, founded on, and focused around the consequences, primarily nancial, of the decisions they make. By introducing environmental decision making within a framework that considers the consequences of a decision from an empirical and character-developing perspective, we are already much closer to speaking the everyday language of business. Pragmatism is clear, actionable, and evolutionary. Pragmatism, as a philosophical framework, can provide refreshing clarity and the ability to clearly take action. For any framework to operate in the difcult and murky intersection between business and the environment, it must at least be understandable to allow movement toward easy implementation. A pragmatic approach will make the choice for sustainability self-evident; it requires no complex or difcult arguments.

Theoretical development Competitive advantage through environmental actions From the blooming of concerns about pollution during the 1960s, business leaders have to a large extent viewed dealing with the natural environment as a cost of doing business, an externality of production (Porter and van der Linde, 1995). Seldom, if ever, were environmental issues viewed as an opportunity to expand and grow a business, to think about innovation in an entirely new way, or to differentiate a company in the minds of consumers. In the past 1015 years, the tide has started to shift. No longer are the examples of environmental considerations in business conned to the cliched Ben & Jerrys and Body Shops of the world (although,

100

Jeffrey G. York Another driver can be the vision of a charismatic leader, who has made the environment a part of their, and thus, the companys, mission. Patagonia, a privately held outdoor clothing and equipment company, was founded in 1970 by Yvon Chouinard, an avid mountain climber and surfer who began the company making and selling pitons, the pins used by climbers to secure their ropes. The company evolved over time to a clothing line targeted at a variety of outdoor enthusiasts. Chouinard maintains a strong personal commitment to sustainable practices (he lives in a house made entirely of re-claimed materials) and has led his company down a similar path. Patagonia differentiated itself when in 1994 they shifted to all organic cotton, becoming the only clothing manufacturer of their size and distribution to do so. Through this and a variety of other environmental initiatives, the company has maintained a commitment to reducing its natural footprint, not for cost reduction or preferential marketing (which they do reap the benets of), but because of the culture that has grown around their founders love for and commitment to the natural environment. While these examples are exciting and demonstrate the power of ecological consideration as part of business strategy, the drivers are quite different. At 3M, the value of innovation and the view that the company exists to solve problems leads to the consideration of the environment as a way to further that mission. At P&G, sustainable packaging is driven by consumer demand, and at Patagonia, the culture is based around environmentalism. Each company is responding to different external problems through different means and adapting in different ways. We need not worry so much about why these companies chose their individual paths, but how other businesses can make the choice to pursue sustainability despite a wide variety of products, cultures, and values. Environmental ethics has offered a path within the realms of philosophy; the question now is how this philosophical stance can best be extended to the business realm.

clearly, there is still a place and always will be for start-ups incorporating the environment into their values.) We have seen a global shift in awareness of environmental impact among some of the largest corporations who are creating true, measurable competitive advantage by addressing environmental issues, both through cost savings and increased revenue. For example, 3M is a global, publicly traded corporation that produces a wide array of industrial and consumer products. In 2004, the company had a net income of $2.99 billion, employed 67,071 people in 60 countries, and began celebrations for the thirtieth anniversary of its Pollution Prevention Pays (3P) program (3M, 2004). From 1975 to 1989, 3M saved over $500 million through this program, while preventing 500,000 tons of pollution (Shrivastava, 1995); today, the company puts its total cost savings at $1 billion and pollution prevention at 2.2 billion pounds (3M, 2004). As demonstrated by a split-adjusted stock price increase from $1.96 to $77.86 over the past 30 years, this commitment does not appear to have inhibited 3Ms competitiveness; in fact, CEO W. James McNerny cites a combination of solid topline growth combined with continued improvement in operational efciency, which has been driven to a large extent by the 3P program (3M, 2004). While 3M has had a longtime commitment to sustainability, the commitment has been powered primarily by economic, not ethical drivers. Every 3P project must demonstrate signicant cost savings, and the company maintains a fanatical focus on operational efciency through its six-Sigma program as well. While savings have driven 3Ms ecological success story, other companies are driven by potential prots. Proctor and Gamble, another large mainstream company, which operates in 53 countries and employs over 106,000, has made environmentalism a more recent aspect of its strategy. The foundation of the P&G story is not around cost savings, although those have surely been realized. As a company that knows its products are in nearly every home in America and around the world, P&G has quickly responded to customers desires for more environmentally safe packaging and products (Shrivastava, 2000). This initial action has led to a company-wide program, Total Quality Environmental Management (TQEM).

Environmental ethics and business Since the publication of Aldo Leopolds A Sand County Almanac in 1949, and arguably before, a rich sub-eld of ethical studies termed environmental

Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage ethics has emerged. The overriding project of the sub-eld has been to somehow extend the traditional anthropocentric eld of ethics to provide moral standing to non-human entities including animals, plants, and ecosystems. The various frameworks of environmental ethics have provided an array of approaches to this project, which include the extension of existing ethical frameworks such as Benthams utilitarianism (including, of course, his allusions to the rights of animals), or Kants categorical imperative. Other examples are based on virtue ethics focused on sustainable decisions and the emergence of environmental pragmatism (Gurdorf and Hutchingson, 2003). I will examine each of these approaches to environmental ethics, and show why pragmatism offers the clearest approach for dealing with business decisions. Many environmental ethicists have taken the foundational approach of either utilitarianism or deontology and extended these traditional ethics to include the consideration of non-human species. The animal liberation movement is a well-known extension of the utilitarian argument that takes Benthams statement of The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? But Can they suffer? as its rallying cry (Bentham, 1789, 1982). Through this extension, equal rights are granted to all sentient creatures as part of the utilitarian calculus of the greatest happiness for the greatest number; the argument is that we must avoid speciesism by bringing the pain and suffering into our realm of moral concern (Singer, 2001). While this could be a useful framework for consideration of business issues on the margin, such as animal testing or food production, the extension does not go far enough to be truly relevant to most managers. This version of utilitarian thinking can also be used to justify large scale environmental degradation. For example, the increased numbers of snow geese in recent years has led to widespread damage to private property such as golf courses, farms, and other ventures, as well as actively destroyed wetland habitats (Johnson, 1997). Under the non-anthropocentric extension of utilitarianism, we make the individual suffering of geese our primary concern, leading to a poor outcome for private industry, the ecosystem, and ironically, the geese themselves. From a managerial perspective, similar issues arise with the extension of rights to non-human

101

entities in the form of extending Kants categorical imperative. The Kantian argument that we must treat all members of humanity as ends rather than means (Kant, 1785, 1997) is extended in several environmental ethics to include rights for animals, plants, and ecosystems (Gurdorf and Hutchingson, 2003). This concept is taken to its logical extension by Holmes Rolston III when he states that Earth, and the ecosystems inherent in it, are not only worthy of duty and objective value, but are the ultimate object duty short of God, if God exists (Rolston, 2002). While the duty we humans have to the larger environment is an admirable maxim, from a business standpoint, it is difcult at best to internalize this paradigm within a specic business strategy. An environmental ethic based on principles of intrinsic value is difcult for any manager to comprehend, much less to act upon. While the deontological argument resonates with environmentalists, conservationists, and others who have a core emotional attachment to the value of natural objects inand-of themselves, such an ethic can lead to a moral quagmire for the business manager. This valuation of wild and pristine wilderness can smack of elitism and disconnectedness from the environmental problems prevalent in the actual setting of business, large metropolitan areas (Light, 2001). Also, by placing environmental resources as beyond value and as meta-ethical principles outside the realm of nancial consideration, a deontological approach to environmental ethics can itself be in direct opposition to the world of business, because it constrains strategies by non-goal related criteria; while this is ne for an ethical stance, it does not leave us much to work with while integrating environmental issues into the fabric of business planning. While utilitarianism focuses on the consequences for the involved parties and deontology focuses on the inherent principle upon which an act is committed, virtue ethics is primarily concerned with the actors moral development. Virtue ethics is traditionally related to the Aristotelian concept of human character being formed by habits, and evaluates these habits according to their tendency to move the actor toward his telos or purpose (Aristotle, c. 330 B.C., 1999). For the purpose of environmental ethics, the preservation of the environment must become one of the virtues or habits that lead humans to achieving a state of eudaimonia (happiness and

102

Jeffrey G. York problems of humanitys relationship with the environment (Light, 1999). The classical American pragmatic framework will is an effective tool in bringing environmental consideration to bear in the realm of business decisions. The use of pragmatic decision making would inherently lead to the consideration of ecological issues within the decision-making process while fostering competitive advantage. Through the implementation of pragmatic moral principles, managers can create better outcomes for their company and the environment in which it operates. In order to make this nexus clear, I will relate pragmatism to the strategic decision-making process, and demonstrate exactly how the relationship would improve both the deliberation and the outcomes. It will be helpful to offer a brief overview on my assumptions around the business decision process.

fulllment). In other words, humans must develop a character that leads to good environmental decisions. The extension of virtue ethics to encompass the environment seems to be most readily accomplished by including care for the natural environment within the virtues loyalty and benevolence (Welchman, 1999). It seems that following the linkages necessary, from traditional virtue ethics all the way through to specic issues concerning nature, or at least reconstructed to be concerning nature, would be a difcult framework for business decisions. All decisions would be based on the principles of character and the development of virtuous character with regard to the environment. Again, while admirable from a theoretical standpoint, it is difcult to see how an environmental virtue ethics framework alone would be effectively applied in a business setting to environmental decisions. Certainly, the development of ones character should be considered, and is within a pragmatic system; however, in issues as complex as the choices managers face in environmental issues, reducing the question to one of character would seem a vast oversimplication. All of the environmental ethics perspectives discussed thus far are based on the extension of an existing ethic to non-humans. In our quest for a new paradigm, perhaps the most interesting perspective is offered from eco-centrism and deep ecology. Realizing the inherent difculty of extending an anthropocentric model, some environmental ethicists have taken a new path, and based their ethic around the belief that humans are nothing more than the components of their relationship with nature. Deep ecologists view the earth as a living system, which we have no right to inict harm upon. This nexus view, as we shall see, comes very close to the views of pragmatism regarding the individual and the community. However, it seems unlikely that business practitioners, no matter how open-minded, will rush to embrace the concept that humans are meaningless other than their role in supporting the larger ecosystem; the obvious end conclusion is that all business activities are immoral and should cease. How then can we merge the elds of environmental ethics into the decision framework within which business operates? Perhaps, we should turn to environmental pragmatism, dened by environmental ethicists as the open-ended inquiry into the real life

Making business decisions: the strategic planning process Any choice that has a signicant impact on a business and the world around it can be seen as a strategic choice. Strategic choices are those made to help the rm achieve its dened purpose, according to the values it wants to perpetuate. As such, strategy is not a simple matter of what tactics to employ, but a question of how the rm will develop and maintain competitive advantage (Clawson, 2003; Porter and Kramer, 2006; Porter and van der Linde, 1995). For the purpose of this paper, we will simplify competitive advantage to be derived from two sources. Competitive advantage can be gained from either differentiated cost savings, in other words, the ability to produce the same goods at a reduced cost relative to the competition, or from increased revenue attained by access to new markets, or preferential treatment by current customers. Making the business case for investments, particularly ones that alter conventional strategy, always combines nancial arguments with strategic rationales. Positioning a company for future growth requires adapting nancial models. In other words, once models are built, the companys strategy staff works with the nance managers to adapt them to desired future strategic outcomes. Imaginative strategic thinking about creating future market

Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage dominance, with a clear understanding of risks and nancial downsides, leads to market differentiation and new market creation. When managers are faced with decisions that include an element of environmental impact (i.e., to expand R&D in compostable materials, ensure that products meet or exceed regulatory requirements, and dene standards for environmental improvement), they will intuitively utilize nancial measures to determine success. Given this reality, we must seek to dene environmental questions in a manner that allows for the consideration of these factors within a business context. As we continue to treat environmental goods (clean air, water, timber, etc.) as common goods, they cannot be factored into the equation of a business decision other than from a moral perspective. Unfortunately, the moral perspective of business can be very different as businesses are not individuals but large organizations within which multiple individuals make decisions with environmental impacts every day. This is why pragmatic deliberation is the appropriate paradigm for business decisions which include environmental considerations.

103

Pragmatic strategic planning The pragmatic approach allows us to shed the weight of utilitarian or deontological principles and rather focus directly on the task at hand. Pragmatism argues against the concept of ideology on immovable principles, but rather embraces an approach of multi-perspective pluralism, which allows the integration and valuation of multiple perspectives. These
1. New, Disruptive Data (Problem or Challenge)

perspectives are driven by the cultural inheritance of the actor, the other members of the community, and experiences from which they have established principles. The moral role of each individual is to begin with the societal norms embedded as they are in institutions and in the habits of life as a hypothesis for testing, not to assume they are imbedded in the nature of things (Dewey, 1934, 1998). In deciding which perspectives to value, workability is the main criteria; we should begin with our current values, but continuously question whether these ideas help us in moving toward our stated goals (Rosenthal and Bucholz, 2000). The pragmatic approach to decision making involves a process of constantly evaluating and evolving our personal perspective and seeking to ensure accommodation of the broader communitys perspective. Pragmatism does not embrace moral relativity and simply says anything goes from an ethical perspective; rather, it is focused on maintaining and building upon our historical knowledge while constantly questioning our assumptions and beliefs in light of new information. Figure 1 illustrates this process.1 Dewey described this process as a reective thought in which active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends, is used in the process of making any decision (Dewey, 1910, 1997). Pragmatism does not give us an immovable set of principles to fall back on when making decisions; it requires us to engage in careful and sincere deliberation when making decisions. It will not tell us what to think, but how to think.
5. Adjust or Amend Previously Held Principle 5. Deny New Principles

or
2. Starting Point
Personal & historical principles based on experience

4. Potential New Principles

3. Broad Consideration

Figure 1. Pragmatic process of reective thought.

104

Jeffrey G. York Experimentation and innovation A unifying concept of pragmatist writing is a relentless focus on experimentation (Rosenthal and Bucholz, 2000). Only by constantly challenging our assumptions and trying different ideas can we arrive at the optimum answer. For the pragmatist, the morality of a decision does not exist in a separate reality from the decision; the morality comes to exist through the decision-making process. By embracing this value of experimentation, business managers could treat decisions in an entirely different manner. For decisions to pursue the sustainable path of business development to take place within an existing rm, there must be an atmosphere of openness to experimentation (van Marrewijk, 2003), especially if there is any hope of garnering competitive advantage. By denition, competitive advantage will only emerge from activities that differentiate a rm, hence, they will not be what everyone else is doing. When focusing on environmental issues, the built-in false dichotomy between prots and sustainability makes this gap even larger. Therefore, the openness to new ideas that is fundamental to the pragmatic approach is absolutely essential for a business to pursue a greener path. What does this look like within a business? We need look no further than our familiar example of 3M. Two of the companys values: Innovation; Though Shalt not kill a new product idea and Respect for individual initiative (Collins and Porras, 1994) offer a clear implementation. When a business environment is founded around, and performance is measured by, innovation, true imaginative thought can exist. Pragmatic decision making, as described above, includes the process of utilizing the imagination and emotion in the process. By encouraging managers to expand their decision-making capacity beyond a shallow version of rationality, this mode of decision making can open up the practitioner to a new realm of unconsidered possibilities, a deeper, and more truly rational way to solve problems. Through the process of examining current principles, opening ourselves to new ideas, and then accepting or rejecting those concepts, the process of decision making is more considerate and comprehensive.

A common objection to this form of decision making is that it is no ethic at all; we are simply deciding to do what we want to do. This is a misunderstanding of the pragmatic decision-making process, and is based on the objectors belief that there is a separate truth or principle outside of our existence. It must be remembered that pragmatism rejects this concept. As James wrote, the truth is nothing more than the concept that:
Ideas (which themselves are but part of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience Any idea upon which we can ride any idea that will carry us prosperously from any one part of our experience to any other part, linking things satisfactorily, working securely, simplifying, saving labor; is true for just so much, true in so far forth, true instrumentally (James, 1896, 1997).

From a pragmatist perspective, the moral point of decision making is twofold: 1. Make the choice that gives us the optimal chances of valuable (promoting harmonious decisions by accommodating multiple perspectives) experiences in the future, and 2. Make the choice that aligns with the person we want to become (Rosenthal and Bucholz, 2000). Thus, a pragmatically moral decision cannot be based on a single principle, no matter how grand it may be; it is based on the imaginative grasp of the possibilities and deep sensitivity to the nexus of past and future relationships that surround an issue. As decisions are made, habits are formed producing a character or the type of person we become. Peirce described the function of thought as to produce habits of action; and that whatever purpose there is connected with a thought, but irrelevant to its purpose, is an accretion to it, but has not part of it (Peirce, 1878, 1997). In other words, while we should engage in wide consideration of perspectives and consequences, the point is always to dene our ability to act. The question now facing us is how then the elements of pragmatic ethics encourage the ability of business decision makers to include environmental issues within their decision.

Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage In addition, by adopting a pragmatic approach to environmental decisions, business practitioners would open themselves to alliances and partnerships with a wide array of stakeholder groups. Although it is unlikely that business leaders, conservationists, and deep ecologists will ever come to agreement on the rst principles of environmental value judgments, they may very well agree to a specic goal. This sharing of a common goal is what allows businesses to progress and to make meaningful decisions which consider environmental impacts (Stead and Stead, 2000). Means and ends considered The pragmatic perspective does not lock the decision maker into a specied truth forever dened in principles that must not change. The very foundation of pragmatic thought was based heavily around moving out of the paradigm of the utilitarianism versus deontology. In the process of making a morally correct decision, the pragmatist will be encouraged to consider and carefully weigh both the reasoning, empirically grounded in reality, and beliefs, driven by the community (including the actor) driving her decision as well as the possible consequences. Dewey described this as Genesis and ends are of equal importance, but their import is that of terms of boundaries which delimit a history, thereby rendering it capable of description (Dewey, 1940, 1998). Through equal consideration, we can tap into something primordial and beyond what either previous forms of reasoning offer us. Business decisions confront the duality between ends and means from their very nature; when considered from a traditional framework, there is a false tension in considering the moral path against the most protable path. In a pragmatic framework, there is no tension because both must be carefully considered. From a pragmatic perspective, the best outcome to a decision is the one which helps us move forward and accomplish our goals while becoming what we intend to be. According to James, decisions are best made by expanding the set of living options as wide as possible when the stake is signicant and when we cannot reverse our mistakes (James, 1896, 1997). This perspective could be extremely useful for inspiring sustainable decision making; by the nature of the issues we are dealing with, they are focused on future consequences of decisions made today on the environment. Because we are dealing

105

with the future, there can be no proof of what will happen until the events have actually transpired. Combine this with the disagreement among scientists around issues such as global warming and resource depletion, and you have a situation that is at best confusing to a business practitioner and not intrinsically motivational for expanding their realm of concern. Pragmatism cuts the knot of unknowable futures by allowing us to rene our beliefs as needed to deal with the situation at hand. James must be quoted at length on this cornerstone of pragmatic thought:
Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds; for to say, under such circumstances, Do not decide, but leave the question open, is itself a passional decision-just like yes and no, and is attended with the same risk of losing the truth. There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come to be at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming. And where faith in a fact can help create a fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientic evidence is the lowest kind of immorality into which a thinking being can fall. In truths dependent on our action, then, faith based on desire is certainly a lawful and possibly and indispensable thing. (James, 1896, 1997, p. 7787, emphasis in original)

Pragmatic decision making focuses on the consideration of currently known facts and the future consequences they may have. It is not essential that business people wait on the sidelines for the debate around climate change to be settled, for new legislation to be passed, and for technology to provide solutions. Managers can choose to believe that the environmental crisis is an issue worthy of consideration and begin creating innovation today. Even in the case where the decision maker doesnt morally believe that the environment is worthy of consideration, the fact of looming legislation, increasing concern among consumers, and rising costs of factors of production can lead to an environmentally friendly decision. If it can be demonstrated that believing the environmental crisis is real enables better decision making and allows a company to evolve into what it seeks to be, it is enough to satisfy the requirements of the pragmatic environmental ethicist, and it is enough to satisfy most

106

Jeffrey G. York WACC) X invested capital. ROIC stands for return on invested capital and WACC refers to weighted average cost of capital. Three levers in this formula that can be used to analyze investment in sustainable business choices are: 1. Increased ROIC Driven up by increased revenues from sales or reduced costs from improvements to your operations. 2. Decreased WACC Driven down by decreased risk in the eyes of lenders. 3. Increased Capital Availability Expanded sources of capital availability through a widened pool of funding availability. How would a pragmatic approach to consideration of EVA differ from the traditional business approach? Without the pragmatic environmental framework, the consideration of environmental goods is completely left out. Precisely, because clean air, fresh water, renewable resources, and a sustainable environment are priceless resources, they are also considered valueless resources within a nancial calculation. However, by adopting a pragmatic environmental approach, the sphere of consideration will become inherently more creative and acknowledge the complexity of the decision process. Looking simply at the components of EVA, we can draw examples of how a pragmatic consideration of environmental issues could reveal value that was previously left on the table while leading to a more sustainable decision.

business practitioners. By ignoring the possibility of environmental degradation, business leaders are simply making decisions without including relevant information, which is a surere recipe for competitive destruction (Freeman et al., 1999). Clarity and actionability Descriptions of classical American pragmatic thought can be a bit difcult and complex, but in implementation, a pragmatic ethic regarding the environment can be clear and actionable for managers. Pragmatic sustainability simply requires the principles of careful, collaborative consideration of the elements of any decision, including the natural environment. To a large extent, the adoption of pragmatism is asking ourselves to simply accept the way we think and to embrace our own intuitive process of decision making (Menand, 1997). Business decisions must deal with consequences; as discussed previously, businesses only exist to achieve their stated goals. These may include perpetuation of the rm, delivering shareholder value, or ensuring consideration of all stakeholders. Regardless of the particular focus of the business, the nancial impact of a decision will be considered. Rather than shunting nancial impacts to the side and relying on ideals that must be adhered to, a pragmatic sustainability ethic would allow businesses to continue to include the estimation of nancial impacts within consideration of environmental choices. Although many environmentalists will argue that environmental goods are beyond value and thus cannot be part of costbenet analysis, this argument, when applied in a business setting, ignores the fundamental reality of corporate operations. A pragmatic approach allows not only the current methodology of nancial considerations to continue, but by casting a wider net for information and utilizing the imaginative and emotional capabilities of decision makers, could breathe fresh air into the traditional nancial measures framework. Let us consider a traditional nancial measure for corporate strategic decisions, Economic Value Added (EVA).2 EVA is a commonly used method to report on value created during a given time period (quarterly, annually, etc.) and is typically used as a top down measure of the entire companys performance (Harris, 1997). The equation is EVA = (ROIC -

Pragmatic sustainability EVA By employing the broader powers of her imagination and carefully reecting on the broader implication of her EVA calculation, the manager practicing pragmatic sustainability could nd hidden sources of value: Differentiated Cost Savings: The ability to produce the same product as your competition at a lower cost. Willard (Willard, 2002) has provided a useful framework for considering the cost/benet of sustainability, including, but not limited to:

Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage a. Reduced Operating & Manufacturing Expenses Derived from reuse, waste reduction, and reduced resource consumption (water, electricity, packaging, etc.). b. Risk Reduction Includes legal, regulatory, and social risks from environmental and health issues. c. Decreased Employee Expense Increased productivity and retention, reduced recruiting expenses because employees feel they work at a good company that aligns with their values. Increased Revenue and Market Share: Obtained through differentiation and preferred access to markets inaccessible to competitors. These may include, but are not limited to: a. Access to Markets Access to previously, or soon to be, inaccessible markets can be improved through environmentally friendly products. b. Preferential Purchasing Current customers may be retained through passing the cost savings generated in production through the supply chain. c. Increased Innovation Pragmatic Sustainability thinking can serve as an impetus for innovation; the company that gures out how to comply, and even be in advance of, regulation better, faster, and cheaper will have a competitive advantage. By taking a truly pragmatic nancial approach, not the constricted view we sometimes identify as pragmatic, we can see the possibilities that emerge in the most concrete and consequential nancial calculations. As pragmatism embraces evolution, a pragmatic ethic would allow for the incorporation of expanded consideration of the natural environment across all business operations. Can we imagine what possibilities might come to exist in the realms of strategy, marketing, and operations, and what future this might create? The opportunity for creating competitive advantage is there for rms that move quickly to outpace rivals and the regulatory environment to create lasting, values-based relationships within their supply chain and customers. The possible movement and my overall argument are summarized in Figure 2.
Hi
Systemic Avoidance of Issues, however may be short-term focused or inflexible Hypothesized Competitive Advantage stemming from: Waste Reduction Innovation Customer Preference

107

Environmental

Anthropocentric Values, could miss opportunities related to natural environment

Low
Business as Usual

Low

Values Basis

High

Figure 2. Potential movement to create competitive advantage.

Decision time at Titan Lets return to the situation of Titan Paper Company. As you will recall, as a Senior Manager, you are making the decision to attempt a pilot of BFR, a system that will signicantly reduce the environmental degradation caused by one of your most protable plants. Unfortunately, the project is a nancial loser. Or, is it? Lets say that in the months since you initially realized the predicament you were in, Titan has rolled out new set of values: Innovation is our life, thus, We are always willing to be open and challenge the status quo. We make the best decision possible through careful consideration. We deal in reality and the best information available. Every situation is unique and requires that we take in all perspectives. Because you want to do well and be promoted, you have done your best to take these values to heart. Looking at the BFR situation, a new set of questions start to emerge in your mind. Is there a

108

Jeffrey G. York
Constraints on Implementing Normatively Preferable Alternatives, Journal of Business Ethics 76(2), 155162. Archer, G., A. Larson, M. White and J. York: 2008, Sustainable EVA: Green Chemistry Links of Financial Analysis and Business Strategy, in J. Stoner and C. Wankel (eds.), Innovative Approaches to Global Sustainability (Palgrave-Macmillan, New York, NY). Aristotle. c. 330 B. C., 1999, Nicomachean Ethics (Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana) 2nd Edition (T. Irwin, Trans.). Bartlett, R. A.: 1995, Troubled Waters: Champion International and the Pigeon River Controversy (The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville). Bentham, J.: 1789, 1982, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislations (Oxford University Press, New York). Clawson, J. G.: 2003, Level Three Leadership: Getting Below the Surface (Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle Rive, NJ). Collins, J. C. and J. I. Porras: 1994, Built to Last (Harper Collins Publishers, New York). Dewey, J.: 1910, 1997, How We Think (Dover Publication, New York). Dewey, J.: 1934, 1998, Art as Experience, in L. A. Hickman and T. M. Alexander (eds.), The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, and Democracy, Vol. 1 (Indiana University Press, Bloomington), pp. 391400. Dewey, J.: 1940, 1998, Nature in Experience, in L. A. Hickman and T. M. Alexander (eds.), The Essential Dewey: Pragmatism, Education, and Democracy, Vol. 1 (Indiana University Press, Bloomington), pp. 154161. Freeman, R. E., J. Pierce and R. H. Dodd: 1999, Environmentalism and the New Logic of Business (Oxford University Press, New York, NY). Gurdorf, C. E. and J. E. Hutchingson: 2003, Boundaries: A Casebook in Environmental Ethics (Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC). Harris, R. S.: 1997, Value Creation, Net Present Value and Economic Prot (The University of Virginia, Darden School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA). James, W.: 1896, 1997, The Will to Believe, in L. Menand (ed.), Pragmatism: A Reader (Random House, Toronto). Johnson, M.: 1997. The Snow Goose Population Problem. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. Kant, I.: 1785, 1997, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK). Light, A.: 1999, Environmental Pragmatism (Routledge, Abingdon). Light, A.: 2001, The Urban Blind Spot in Environmental Ethics, Environmental Politics 10(1), 735.

way of demonstrating the protability of BFR besides the cost savings within the plants operations? What about the litigation Titan could avoid, the potential recreational use of the river, the ability to avoid a re drill when new regulations (as they invariably do) come around? Could Titan garner favorable press and turn the entire PR nightmare around? What value might that have? What kind of a future would be created if BFR actually works? Could Titan license the technology? Does any of it really matter; should we just do BFR because in this situation, prots are not the only way to make the choice? There are a hundred other questions that could be asked; the point is that the decision-making environment can be altered by implementing a set of pragmatic values, a simple, small set at that. By the way, did you notice that none of these values even mentioned the environment? In the spirit of pragmatic inquiry, Ill leave the nal decision on BFR open. Hopefully, the new possibilities opened are enough to move the conversation forward, and move businesses toward pragmatic sustainability.

Notes The author would like to thank John Mcvea for his explanation of this process during a seminar on Dewey in 2005. 2 Portions of the following section previously appeared in Archer et al. (2008).
1

Acknowledgment
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge helpful comments received on an earlier draft of this paper by Willis Jenkins, Pat Werhane, and Stasi York and the support of the Batten Institute at the Darden Graduate School of Business in conducting this research.

References
3M: 2004, 2004 Annual Report. Alexander, J.: 2007, Environmental Sustainability Versus Prot Maximization: Overcoming Systemic

Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage

Menand, L.: 1997, An Introduction to Pragmatism, in L. Menand (ed.), Pragmatism: A Reader (Random House, Toronto). Peirce, C.: 1878, 1997, How to Make Our Ideas Clear, in L. Menand (ed.), Pragmatism: A Reader (Random House, Toronto), pp. 2648. Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer: 2006, Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review 84(12), 7892. Porter, M. E. and C. van der Linde: 1995, Toward a New Conception of the EnvironmentCompetitiveness Relationship, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4), 97118. Rolston, H.: 2002, Value in Nature and the Nature of Value, in A. Light and H. Rolston (eds.), Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford). Rosenthal, S. B.: 1986, Speculative Pragmatism (The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst). Rosenthal, S. B. and R. A. Bucholz: 2000, Rethinking Business Ethics: A Pragmatic Approach (Oxford University Press, New York). Shrivastava, P.: 1995, The Role of Corporations in Achieving Ecological Sustainability, The Academy of Management Review 20(4), 936960. Shrivastava, P.: 2000, Ecocentering Strategic Management, Society for Business Ethics, Environmental Challenges to Business: Rufn Series No. 2, pp. 2343.

109

Singer, P.: 2001, Animal Liberation (Harper Perennial, New York). Stead, J. G. and E. Stead: 2000, Eco-Enterprise Strategy: Standing for Sustainability, Journal of Business Ethics 24(4), 313329. United Nations: 1999. UNEP Global Environmental Outlook 2000. United Nations: 2004. UNEP Annual Report 2004. van Marrewijk, M.: 2003, Concepts and Denitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion, Journal of Business Ethics 44(2), 95105. WCED: 1987, Our Common Future (United Nations, Oxford, UK). Welchman, J.: 1999, The Virtues of Stewardship, Environmental Ethics 21(4), 411423. Willard, B.: 2002, The Sustainability Advantage: Seven Business Case Benets for a Triple Bottom Line (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC).

Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, U.S.A. E-mail: Yorkj05@darden.virgina.edu