Page 33 - The Green Building Bottom Line The Real Cost of Sustainable Building

12 CHAPTER 1

So, if a variety of paths could get us to a green bottom line, does it matter all that
much which particular narrative speaks to each of us? It matters greatly. The question
hinges on issues of pragmatism and timing and on two distinct s-shaped diffusion
curves projecting how change occurs.
While there is no question that government has the capacity to move the practice of
business toward a more sustainable orientation, it has shown a general resistance to
doing so. For example, proposed innovative legislation, such as the Apollo Project on
clean energy (calling for a $300 billion investment in clean tech alternatives over ten
years) and the Health Care for Hybrids Act (linking fuel economy to providing health
care for autoworkers) were apparently killed by political maneuverings. 15 For gov-
ernment to play a timely leadership role in shaping the way business is conducted calls
for a significant transformation in government itself, a transformation that is unlikely
to occur from within the system. 16
Looking to market forces to move business toward more sustainable practices is
more promising, though only slightly so. One the one hand, market forces, such as the
2003 Equator Principles, in which ten global banks have joined together to require
large-scale development projects to account for their environmental and social
impacts, have influenced businesses to move toward a green bottom line. On the other
hand, such influences are hardly broad or rapid enough to address such urgent issues
we all face. As environmental educator David Orr notes:

The things that need to happen rapidly such as the preservation of biological diversity,
the transition to a solar society, the widespread application of sustainable agriculture
and forestry, populations limits, the protection of basic human rights, and democratic
reform occur slowly, if at all, while ecological ruin and economic dislocation race
ahead. What can be done? 17

Orr has his finger at the crux of the problem: Sole reliance upon the current para-
digm of indifferent capitalism to respond to exigent environmental issues is a strategy
that is simply too slow. The strategy’s s-shaped curve—a tool used by economists and
market analysts to project the time it takes for an innovation to become widely dif-
fused, hit a tipping point, and become adopted—is too flat, taking too long to reach a
tipping point. Lacking is a critical mass of innovators and early adopters that would
accelerate change (see Figure 1-2).
Instead, what is needed is a strategy—or a set of strategies—that ratchets up the
number of innovators and early adopters and thus accelerates the time it takes for busi-
ness to be more responsible for its social and environmental consequences. What is
needed is the s-shaped curve depicted in Figure 1-3. That is where the narrative of cap-
italism with a difference offers so much promise.
Accelerating change in the way business is conducted, creating a shift in an s-shaped
diffusion curve, calls for a recognition that a crisis is at hand, a true paradigm shift, a
18
change in systemic thinking. As one executive in charge of corporate social respon-
sibility for a large company noted, “Can you think of a company that’s embraced
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) without feeling pressure from outsiders first?” 19