The problem as I see it that we have left the politician and economist behind. Politicians and economist don’t understand how to measure and report on eco system consequences when they discuss or take decision and evaluate GDP and GNP. We need a resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of the planet. The initiative Economics of Eco system and Bio Diversity (TEEB) -http://bit.ly/IMlGJR – is a promising work by Pavan Sukhdev and others. Another interesting article is written by Charles Secrett - 9 reason why environmentalist should called them self economist where he point out the necessary of recognise the full productive value of delivering sustainable development (sustainability) in the round, generating honest capital and maximising human well-being.

Our economic system is failing people and the planet. I think the innovation issue should be up for economists and politicians. Why not inspire, push, demand that the political and economic sector to be the new change agents before the nature say no and give us humans no options.

And we need brave and outspoken politicians and economist in Rio+20

Where are you politicians and economists?

Kaj Embrén

I spent three days this week attending the Stockholm+ 40 conference.  We were a pretty eclectic group, formed of politicians, business people, young thinkers and legislators from many countries but with one common goal: to try and progress in this very complicated and difficult process to establish concrete changes to secure a sustainable environment changes that will prevent the globe from a melt down.

I can say that the Stockholm’s + 40 Conference managed to gather world’s leaders who presented their proposals and  agendas for the  Rio + 20 meeting in June, thus creating some momentum for the rather subdued expectations for Rio.

The Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, stressed the importance of a circular economy and paid tributes to the Nordic countries, mostly Sweden for its role providing technical solutions for sustainable development.

Achim Steiner, Head of UNEP was one of the most outspoken speakers. He stressed that governments and businesses need to accelerate and put in a new gear to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and take the necessary actions to meet our planet challenges. He drew attention to the large subsidies that still exist for fossil fuels and wondered what is stopping us from taking concrete actions to build a greener economy.

Teresa Fogelberg, Deputy Chief Executive at the Global Reporting Initiative reported that more and more companies, government agencies and organizations report their sustainability efforts. In my interview with Teresa Fogelberg as she sees that the issue of mandatory reporting are discussed with increasing frequency.

There were about fifty young leaders from developing and developed countries that were invited to the conference. They voiced their concerns regarding the lack of popular support to actions that mitigate global warming.  According to Alex Wang, the executive director of  The Youthink Centre in Beijing, there is very little involvement from the public in green issues.

Citizens need to participate and demand that politicians prioritize the development of a low carbon economy.  However, we all know that grass roots mobilization is a slow process and perhaps the earth does not have that much lifetime left!

We are faced with few options. Either the public, politicians and the business community together embrace the urgent need of change to a sustainable economy or there will be no future for any of us.

Read the conclusions of the Stockholm +40

Listen to the opinion of Sha Zukang, the United Nations Secretary General for the Rio +20 conference on the results and challenges coming out of Stockholm +40.

Kaj Embrén - Follow on Twitter

On 23-25 April 2012 Sweden’s Ministry of Environment and Ministry for Foreign Affairs opens an international conference, Stockholm+40 – Partnership Forum for Sustainable Development. The discussions, which will attract a number of the world’s leading political figures, mark the 30^th anniversary of the first UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972.

But will the conference deliver any meaningful messages ahead of the Rio Earth Summit in June?

Summits in Copenhagen, Durban and other world cities have been tasked with discussing national governments’ ambitions to find global agreements on sustainable development, Millennium Development Goals and climate change. Despite this, the climate deal is still up in the air and in my view there are no clear signs of a breakthrough. Instead, I see passive national governments that are not engaged enough to bring us closer to any solid agreements.

But at the same time, we’ve seen more cities working together with businesses and their stakeholders to act positively and deliver solutions on sustainable development. It is these initiatives that have been most successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and finding ways to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

It seems fitting that the conference is being hosted by Sweden, a country that has benefited from such programs. The Swedish now use more bio energy than fossil fuel so perhaps when discussions start on Monday, the participants will be inspired by the sort of Swedish initiatives highlighted in the new edition of Sustainable Solutions magazine. It highlights some of the country’s most innovative solutions that have been successful because they embrace local perspectives and involve all stakeholders.

The real question therefore, is whether the Swedish Government will take the lead ahead of the Summit and bring these powerful local solutions from its cities to the negotiating table in Rio? That question will be answered by Wednesday when the Stockholm+40 conference draws to a conclusion.

Kaj Embren

PS Click here to participate in the Rio+ LinkIn group

It is always pleasing when you look below the surface and see real change in a market, city or organization. No more so than with the low-carbon economy, a market that is growing rapidly and creating a more sustainable model of development. Although the low-carbon economy is not completely synonymous with the term sustainable development, it is a benchmark that provides the stimulus for growth, whilst keeping a focus on both jobs and climate change.

Let us look at a particularly important segment of this economy – end-of-life products and the problem of garbage in our city centers.

The number of landfill sites and garbage tips produced by the world’s growing cities is a huge dilemma. How much worse will the picture look in 2030, when it is predicted that 60% of the population will live in urban areas?

To a great extent, this problem is the result of consumerist societies but changing global consumption habits will be hugely difficult. Instead, in order to find a solution we must direct our focus towards the lifecycle of products and services. The answer lies in taking all of the processes involved – raw materials, design, production and recycling – and integrating them in a circular economy.

Fuelled by tougher legislation, the waste disposal issue has given rise to an increasingly lucrative market. EU law now covers everything from city landfills to vehicle recovery units, so producers have little choice but to become more responsible.

Let me highlight three examples of ways that this market is growing:

1)  Since 2001, Panasonic Eco Technology Center (PETEC) has operated a plant that transforms 1.4 billion end-of-life products into new resources. This represents enough recycled material to manufacture 95 new jumbo jets or 150,000 new cars, which meets some of the organisation’s need for aluminum, copper and steel.

2)  The Financial Times reported a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Senseable City Lab that followed the lifecycle of 3000 electronic items from Seattle. The study showed that 75% of the products ended up in recycling facilities, compared with the US average of about 34%.

3) As well as recycling for materials, garbage is also being used to generate energy through urban district heating systems. In Amsterdam, 99% of local waste (household and industrial) is used to provide heat and energy for the city’s metro, tram and road lighting. A similar system is also in use in other cities including Stockholm, Malmo and Copenhagen.

In the coming years, urban waste disposal will be about getting people to sort and recycle more of the products and materials they consume. But the question is how? I decided to ask an expert who has been working to find an answer, the CEO of Envac, Christer Öjdemark. You can watch the full interview here.

His company, Envac, has been developing waste collection systems worldwide since 1951. In the early 1960s it invented the automated vacuum waste collection system that transports waste to a central processing facility, making it easier to separate and recycle. It is still in use throughout the world – in residential areas, shopping malls, city centers, industrial kitchens, hospitals and airports – as it can be integrated with existing infrastructure, such as electricity, sewage and water supplies.

But although a technical solution exists, the greatest challenge is encouraging people’s participation and involvement, says Envac’s Director of Marketing and Communication, Jonas Törnblom. He tells me how the residents in Vollsmose, a suburb of Odense in Denmark, worked together to improve their environment: “Human behavior is always central to its success. Look at Vollsmose, a residential area with a variety of cultures, languages and experiences. With the help of local environmental ambassadors it is training its citizens in new behavior models and increased responsibility. The technical solution facilitated this transition and shows how an area can improve its environment and deal with its waste management.”

Recycling is an increasingly important part of the political agenda in almost every nation around the world. In January 2012, the EU Commission started considering changes to the current Waste Act with stronger demands for inspection, fees and taxes. Studies have shown that tighter regulation could save about € 72 billion and create an additional 400,000 jobs in the recycling industry.

Let us hope that these legislative changes stimulate further growth in this market by compelling companies to deal with their waste sustainably. As we have seen before, regulation can act as a catalyst for the rise of new and more innovative solutions.And why not inspire the Stockholm+40 conference in april and the Rio+20 Summit in june?

Kaj Embrén

“You do not just get respect, you earn it”. This quote represents a core part of the values-based mission that led to the formation of Respect in 2000.

Twelve years later and an increasing number of individuals are earning respect for their contributions to the fields of sustainable development and environment. People are being recognized for their competence and experience, with a number of yearly rankings becoming very popular in Sweden.

Two dominant media in this field, Environmental Dayli (Miljöaktuellt) and CSR in Practise,(CSR i Praktiken) have both produced lists of the 100 people that have the most power or influence in Sweden’s environment and sustainable development fields. Anyone looking to build their networks in these areas would do well to study these rankings.

The Environmental Dayli

The Environmental Dayli’s (owned by IDG) list of the 100 most influence figures is topped by Johan Rockström, Professor and Executive Director at Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI), who will shortly be leaving the position to focus on his role as the Head of the Stockholm Resilience Center.

Number 2 on the list is Maria Wetterstrand, former spokesperson for the Green Party. She is joined by current Green Party members at numbers 3 and 4 - Isabella Lövin (MEP) and Åsa Romson (present spokesperson).

In at number 5 is Svante Axelsson, Secretary General of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC), Sweden’s largest environmental NGO.

Places 6 to 10 are as follows:

6.  Christian Azar, Professor at Chalmers University, Gothenburg

7. Mikael Karlsson, President, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC)

8. Mattias Klum, Photographer and speaker

9. Johan Kuylenstierna, new Head of Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI)

10. Tomas Kåberger, President of the Japan Renewable Energy Foundation.

CSR in Practise (CSR I Praktiken)

CSR in Practise (which is owned by the media company Bonnier) claims that its list of the 100 most influential people in Swedish business indicates who you can trust to work with or listen to. The first of its rankings is for strategists, communicators and people acting as market advisors.

Top spot is given to Klas Eklund, Senior Advisor to the Scandinavian Bank and Sweden’s answer to Thomas L. Friedman.

The top 5 also includes Leo Razzak, professional Speaker; Niclas Ihrén, Senior Advisor for Respect; Christian Åberg, Advisor to the tourist industry and Peder Michael Pruzan-Jørgensen, Head of BSR Europe.

CSR in Practise has also selected its 5 most influence people in civil society, which comprises of the following: Anna Ryott, Secretary General of SOS Childvillages (SOS Barnbyar); Lina Thomsgård, Founder of “Rättviseförmedlingen” (‘translating as ‘Equalisters’ in English – ‘equal’ denoting equality and ‘listers’ for all the people that contribute towards compiling huge lists of people who challenge prevailing norms); Patrik Eriksson, Head of Campaigns at Greenpeace, Magdalena Hermelin from The Cancer Foundation and Martin Åhdal, CEO of the think-tank Fores.

The third list is of people is for coming from business, with a top 5 is made up of: Monica Lingegård, CEO of Samhall; Michael Wolf, CEO of Swedbank; Sasja Beslik, CEO of Nordea Bank Fonds; Helena Helmersson, Head of Sustainability at H&M and Stina Billinger, Strategy Advisor at SPP&Storebrand.

So, when you visit Sweden next time – why not get in touch and build your network!

Kaj Embrén

On friday the 24th of February the European Commission invite stakeholders for consultation in preparation of the 2012 Renewable Energy Strategy.

As recently pointed out in the Commission’s Energy Roadmap 2050, renewable energy sources will play a major part in Europe’s long-term decarbonisation efforts. While the Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC sets a clear framework for further growth in renewable energy until 2020, the debate about how the policy should develop beyond the 2020 horizon needs to start now.

This is why the Commission is preparing a strategy document that will look at the policy framework for renewable energy in a post-2020 perspective, to be published in the second quarter of this year.

The legislative framework as regards renewable energy is laid down in the Renewable Energy Directive which sets an obligatory target of 20% renewable energy in final energy consumption as well as a 10% target in transport for 2020. Given the long-term perspective of investors it is necessary already now to look beyond that year. Against the background of the EU’s ambition to move towards a reduction of 80-95% of GHG emissions in a 2050 perspective, it is clear that a further strong growth in renewables will be needed beyond the 2020 targets.

This public consultation has the aim of soliciting the view of interested parties to assess in how far the orientations of the current policy framework remain valid in the medium term - i.e. until 2030. Interested parties are requested to consider the specific questions addressed in the consultation document. Read more in the EU document.

As far as I can see the traditional lobby organisations from the industry complain about the cost, binding targets and neutrality issues.

Green groups, together with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, power association Europex and sustainable energy group Inforse support a post-2020 binding renewables target.

Regarding the ongoing debate on the European financial measurement tools it would be logic to look at national budgets and their role tosupport EU Climate Change targets and the tools for renewable energy. Read also Greeks, be aware of the Trojan horse!

There is a systemic crisis affecting most countries on the planet. It is not restricted to capitalism and in fact extends far beyond it. It is a crisis that has been in the making for decades and one that results from our disregard for nature and one another.

The crisis is one of unsustainable business and it is most easily explained by the systemic thinking of Karl-Henrik Robert, Founder of The Natural Step. Twenty years ago, Robert defined four basic rules of engagement with mother earth:

1. Substances from the Earth’s crust cannot systematically increase in the biosphere.

This means that fossil fuels, metals, and other minerals can not be extracted at a faster rate than their re-deposit back into the Earth’s crust.

2. Substances produced by society can not systematically increase in the biosphere.

This means that substances must not be produced at a faster rate than they can be broken down in nature. This requires a greatly decreased production of naturally occurring substances that are systematically accumulating beyond natural levels, and a phase-out of persistent human-made substances not found in nature.

3. The physical basis for the productivity and diversity of nature must not be systematically deteriorated.

This means that we cannot harvest or manipulate ecosystems in such a way as to diminish their productive capacity, or threaten the natural diversity of life forms (biodiversity). This requires that we critically examine how we harvest renewable resources, and adjust our consumption and land-use practices to fall well within the regenerative capacities of ecosystems.

4. In order to meet the previous three system conditions, there must be a fair and efficient use of resources to meet human needs.

This means that basic human needs must be met with the most resource-efficient methods possible, including a just resource distribution.

Today, huge sectors of commerce and industry completely ignore these fundamental principles. However, some progressive CEOs embraced these four rules and successfully redesigned their businesses to be sustainable and profit-making. In 1990 for instance, Leif Johansson at Electrolux started the process of completely removing CFC gas (1993) from his fridges. This was ten years before this greenhouse gas was prohibited for its damaging effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. In a similar feat, the late Ray Anderson at Interface reduced the company’s greenhouse gas emissions by 35% and ensured that the company use 30% of renewable energy in its energy mix.

These examples, and my own experiences working closely with The Natural Step, showed me that Robert’s four principles were entirely achievable in business. I was inspired to set up a values-based consultancy that could expand on his thinking and encourage long-term change. I founded RESPECT in 2000 and its mission is to promote the much-needed dialogue between business leaders, politicians and the environmental sector.

Such conversations are imperative if we are to prevent systemic failure from becoming systemic collapse. But whilst impending crisis may seem like a cause for pessimism, the work of Respect and the various initiatives that it spawned give me great hope. With the right guidance and motivation, even the largest companies can obey Robert’s basic rules and build sustainable corporations.

Upon formation, our team was made of some leading figures in the field including Tom Cannon, who previously led the British government initiative on sustainability issues and wrote the first long-term sustainability strategy for a government, Per Uno Alm, who worked closely with business leaders during his time as a Secretary General of The Natural Step, and John Morrison who developed the Body Shop’s global human rights agenda. They helped Respect establish programs that addressed the three pillars of a new economic paradigm: sustainability, low carbon economy and human rights. Most notably they launched Business Leaders’ Initiative on Climate Change (BLICC) and Business Leaders’ Initiative on Human Rights (BLIHR), two groundbreaking programs that encourage stakeholder dialogue between CEOs, politicians and NGOs and define how they can together implement this new approach to business.

BLICC focused on creating sustainable company models. Its first program worked with CEOs of companies including Ikea, Interface, Birka Energy, DHL, Inveco, McDonalds and Stora Enso, as well as politicians such as the EU’s Environmental Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom. They met, found a common agenda and collaborated to develop it. The results have been remarkable (see here for yearly reports). Through a variety of pioneering schemes, from transporting waste by rail to manufacturing plastic bottles with shorter neck rings, BLICC companies reduced emissions by approximately 30% between 2004 and 2009.

Organizations in the initiative also reported increased efficiency and reduced costs as a result of the program, demonstrating that profitability and sustainability can go hand in hand. This is a view that has gained increased traction in business and is perhaps best articulated by Michael Porter, a leading academic at Harvard Business School who said: “For thirty years, I have been preaching to corporations that what is good for business is good for society. However, times have changed and so has the logic. What we need to understand is today is that what is good for society is good for business.”

But as well as encouraging sustainability and a low carbon economy, there is a third pillar of our new economic paradigm. It is the responsibility of our other initiative, BLIHR, which concentrated on the human factor. It counted amongst its patrons the former UN’s High Commissioner in Human Rights Mary Robinson and it too has worked with leading CEOs from companies including ABB, Barclays, GE, Ericsson, Gap, Coca Cola, MTV. Again, the results have been hugely impressive (see full reports here). By incorporating human rights responsibilities into their business agendas, from improving workplace safety to guaranteeing maternity leave, our partners significantly improved conditions for their global workforces and their communities.

To support this, Respect worked with the Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative and the World Resource Institute to develop the principles, policies and tools to be reported on and addressed by both programs.

The success of these initiatives came about because they value the distinction between actors in the political and market arenas. They also recognize the genuine desire for collaboration between the two, and most of the companies we have worked with strongly favor close relations with policy makers. They see them as a way to foster what is often termed as “smart” legislation that promotes sustainable community development. Contrary to what one might expect, green tax has also always had strong support in our discussions with businesses as well as heavier penalties for those who do not do enough.

The call for incentives that promote greener development and procurement actually has broad support within the corporate sector. Respect’s experience suggests that the business community is progressing down the road to change. With the right guidance, companies are beginning to realize that unless Robert’s four systemic conditions of engagement are fulfilled, they cannot build a sustainable businesses or create lasting wealth, peace or prosperity for the communities they operate in.

I believe that the BLICC and BLIHR models have a great deal to offer to the world at this moment in time, especially in the emerging world where rapid growth often comes at the expense of long-term solutions. The initiatives promote environmental and social sustainability, offering examples that can and should be replicated.

Kaj Embrén

Just before Christmas the European Union Court of Justice successfully upheld EU law to include foreign airlines in its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). From this month, the EU Aviation Directive will force all airlines to buy carbon credits for flights in and out of Europe. The response from large parts of the aviation industry has been hugely disappointing.

As the world’s only mandatory programme to address emissions from aviation, the Directive’s measures have provoked a chorus of criticism from India, China and, in particular, the US. Many airlines outside Europe have reacted angrily to the decision as it will increase the cost of flying to the continent. True, if they cannot increase their efficiency or absorb this expense it will have to be passed on to customers, but this negative attitude towards a progressive policy is sadly reminiscent of the wider ongoing climate negotiations.

Whilst airlines may not be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (2-4%), this figure will rise significantly if action is not taken. Global urbanisation means we now have more than 400 cities with populations over 1m, in a system already served by 1700 active airlines across 44,000 airports. These airports are increasingly important hubs and the burgeoning size and interconnectivity of cities, especially in Africa, China and India, can only worsen the damage caused by airlines.

But this growth also represents vast commercial potential for the aviation industry and serves to strengthen its opposition to change. Sector-based interest organisations (in this case airlines) and national government representatives are almost always the biggest threat to attempts to solve the issue of climate change. The stronghold of lobbyists in Washington (a total of about 25,000) ensures that commercial interests influence decision makers in both Congress and Senate, drastically curbing the impact of environmental concerns.

True to form, the voices of the aviation industry were heard the loudest after the EU ruled against them. In a letter to the EU that was undoubtedly the result of pressure from lobbyists, Hillary Clinton criticised the ETS and portrayed Europe’s forward-thinking approach as a sign of its increasing isolation.

This marks a sad departure from the approach taken by her husband, Bill Clinton, whose Climate Initiative encouraged airlines to work together with city airports to build more efficient (and therefore sustainable) transportation hubs. His C 40 network, along with the European Committee of Regions, is working on new agreements between governors and mayors in Europe, India, US and China. Cities there are beginning to build new networks and sustainable strategies, including the use of public-private partnerships.

This innovative approach (which also promotes cooperation on emission trading) represents a better platform for a new type of dialogue. There is also compelling evidence in Europe that these solutions can benefit the airlines and the planet.

We can look to Sweden for evidence of just how successful these collaborative models can be. Swedavia, which owns and operates 11 of the country’s airports, was the first major Swedish company to become climate neutral. Since 2003 the company has reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from its airports by a staggering 73 percent. The target is to achieve zero emissions by 2020 through a comprehensive set of measures that expand year-on-year. Both Swedavia and SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) have been working with voluntary cap-and-trade agreements to help keep emissions in line with Kyoto targets.

It is this cooperation between airline and airport that has impressed the most. Take Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport, for instance, which now uses a carbon-neutral aquifer (a groundwater reservoir that acts as a thermos) to cool all airport buildings during the summer, including the terminals. What’s more the aquifer also stores heat that can be used in the winter for ground heating systems at aircraft parking stands and to pre-heat ventilated air in buildings.

There are many similar opportunities lying around the corner. The Joint Implementation (JI) project, for example, aims to involve the airlines in projects that will stimulate technology development in partnership with the airports they serve.

But as well as the power of collaboration, Swedavia’s example shows the power of localised initiatives. Air traffic largely flows in and out of cities and it may be at this level that meaningful change can be implemented. Rather than relying on international sanctions or national governments regulating from under the thumbs of aviation lobbyists, we should be encouraging each city to find its own solutions and work with local governments and businesses on sustainable city models. Mayors, not ministers, are best placed to find pragmatic and imaginative solutions.

Airports and airlines may not like Europe’s attempts to cut emissions, but the ETS is here to stay. So instead of embarking of futile attempts to stop the EU in the courts, they should work towards developing new partnerships and best practise to support more sustainable cities.

I read a very interesting article in the International Herald Tribune, that discussed how the new model of corporate management and ownership was creating companies that had anonymous and absent owners and shareholders.

I am a firm believer that companies exist to make profit and, if we are to think about decent earned money, profit will also mean long term strategy, sustainability, transparency and corporate governance. I am talking here of real business, not ‘making money out of nothing, like what some venture capitalists have ‘invented”.

Companies need values and their CEOs should be the custodians that will lead the way.  Sustainability is as important in the mission of a company as having good accounting.  For a start, sustainability is the key element to secure long term profit and success.

About 12 years ago I met the late Ray Anderson Owner and the CEO of Interface, the biggest flooring company in the world. He was in Stockholm to give a lecture at the Natural Step Foundation conference. He was on of the first Green Industrialist coming out the US.   He created a sustainability team in Interface to develop the strategy that integrated economy, ecology and social issues.  These elements were the core of the continuous success of Interface.

Fortune has described Anderson as “America’s greenest CEO,” and the title fits, because there is no one else in the corporate world that has taken to heart the essential lessons of sustainability and then put them into practice, generating profits.

I can think of other companies that became desirable and popular brands thanks to their strong values and ethics. The Body Shop was bought by L’Oreal, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream was bought by Unilever and Pret a Manger by McDonalds. The new buyers have kept the mission and values intact, as they see that these are the sources of the brands’ success.

Another model of ownership with values is the Co-op model in which the owners believe in the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity.  Many of them are successful, such as the health co-ops in Japan, the worldwide credit unions with 184 million members and the employee co-op in the UK, John Lewis Partnership, with its 23 department stores, 112 Waitrose supermarkets, a turnover of GBP 2.8 billion and pre-tax profits GBP 150 million.  John Lewis is known for its solid environmental and social strategy involving supply chain and customers.

More and more, the corporate world is realizing that sustainability means long-term success, lower operational costs and profitability, let alone good PR. John Elkington raised in an article last week and asked if 2012 should be the start of a decade of Sustainable capitalism.

And in public statement the CEO at Unilever, Paul Paul Polman, said he wants an equitable, sustainable capitalism. Iain Cheshire of Kingfisher is talking about a paradigm shift. Even the Harvard Business Review has called on CEOs to “fix the system”.

I am not convinced that the issue is so easy to give a proper answer on. But, its necessary to give the issue a place on the 2012 agenda.

Some companies still think they can ignore those issues, but bad publicity can harm a brand. Apple has been found both to ignore the inhumane conditions of workers making their products and to  be involved in buying  conflict minerals from Congo.

Unfortunately, Apple’s example is not an isolated case. The news of how corporations cause unnecessary human suffering and environmental destruction are rather common and frequent still. Lundins Oil is another business as usual “activist” in Africa that have been listed in connection to Human Rights issues.

In the shadow of what I would like to call political privatisation in the welfare state – The UK and Sweden examples are now on the agenda to discuss business ethics and values.

But there is hope.  In a study by The UN Global Compact and Accenture, already in 2010, out of  766 chief executives interviewed, 93 percent believed that sustainability will be “important” or “very important” in the future success of their companies.

As Interface’s Ray Anderson put,

“From my experience, it’s a false choice between the economy and ecology.  We can have both — and we have to have both.”

A part of a puzzle that will build Sustainable Capitalism?