Comment
Connecting the dots recent article in the journal Nature ("Seeking the Great Transition," Nature 2000, 403, 243) argues for a more active role for scientists in greening corporate activities. Written by two top-flight scientists, Gretchen Daily, a conservation biologist from Stanford, and Brian Walker, an ecologist from CSIRO Wildlife in Australia, the article lays out a compelling case for increased scientific activism. In this column, I want to explore some of the reasons why this isn't happening now and make some suggestions for moving it along. We need to start this discussion by acknowledging mat the academic scientific community knows more about the actual state of affairs underlying terms like "sustainable development" than anyone else. Environmental groups and corporate PR departments alike tell their story about environmental devastation or wetlands restoration efforts, but we all know that much of this is "spin". Like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, knowing the state of the world's environment is an exercise in understanding the whole through data and observation derived from myriad parts. Within the disciplines of ecology, biology, botany, and zoology, even within fields as diverse as agricultural sciences and economics, are vast tanks of knowledge about the actual state of affairs. I recently sat through a three-day conference entitled "Managing Human-Dominated Ecosystems", hosted by the Missouri Botanical Gardens and cosponsored by Columbia and Stanford Universities. During the dozens of fascinating sessions, it became astoundingly clear how much is actually known about the global impact of human activity and to what degree the data have been examined, sliced, grated, dissected, collated, and interpreted. It was equally astounding how the shocking and disturbing facts being discussed remained on a completely dispassionate super-rational level—as if they referred to events taking place somewhere far away. A lot of thought and some real live action are going to be necessary to make the incredible knowledge available in the academic scientific community available to the principal audience that needs to understand and react to it: decision makers in corporations. Perhaps the basic incentive structure provided to scientists—in the form of grants, salaries, tenure, and peer approval—are simply insufficient to reward bold exposition of insight in public settings. Or perhaps it's simply that the aca-
A
demic style of public speaking, in which every possible counterargument is anticipated and refuted, is so exactly the opposite of the corporate style of communication, in which vast complexity is boiled down to 10 words or fewer. (We bring good things to life?) In any case, there's a real need for bridge building between the two worlds. At the same time, there is a community of powerful corporations that suffers badly from lack of scientific credibility. Each time a major company wants to site a new facility or launch a new product, it has to trot out the guys in the white coats to convince the public that it's really OK. The public, long weary after a string of guys in white coats told them that Three Mile Island was safe, that DDT was safe, that Tylenol and Belgian Coca-Cola and Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers and all sorts of other things were safe, is cynical at best and openly hostile at worst. If you ask any audience of business people whether environmental issues will have more or less of an impact on what they do 10 years from now, the answer is invariably unanimous. Everyone knows, both intellectually and in their hearts, that we cannot simply carry on in the current fashion. And despite some really remarkable and innovative efforts of leading corporations to understand and operationalize more sustainable behavior, the majority of citizens continue to see these efforts as self-serving and manipulative. If there were ever a need for two groups to leverage off each other, it is the environmental science community and the community of corporations that are pursuing sustainability ethically and authentically. The business community needs the credibility. And the scientists need the power to make sure all their brilliance and hard work actually has an impact on the ecosystems they care about so much. This is an issue that is hardly just academic. Adam Davis Guest Editor Reprinted by permission of Natural Strategies, Inc. Source: www.greenbiz.com/news/ columns_third.cfm?NewsID=11363&pic=3 Adam Davis is a principal and cofounder of Natural Strategies, Inc., a management consulting firm specializing in strategic approaches to decision making using sustainability as a key driver.
OCTOBER 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 0 9 A
