Well, I'm always wary of these types of questions . . . seems a trick . . . I'm betting you already have a sense of whether you have it right or wrong, Andy! :) But I'll take a crack at it. I think you are right that it is our job, as social scientists in business schools, to determine the costs and benefits of business activities. It is also our job to disseminate our findings. It is not our job, though, to say that certain activities are right or wrong; it is our job to find out if the costs outweigh the benefits. That's where the tricky part comes in, of course, in defining the costs and benefits. Bottom line: I don't think it's our job to be green advocates; our job is to be social scientists investigating these topics. Often our results will find in favor of being green, and so in disseminating this information, we become de facto green advocates. That's fine. But there's a line there that should be heeded. If we become green advocates and not social scientists, we (rightfully) lose scientific credibility. I refer all to current events to see what happens when moral/ethical "values" trump science in general, and to this linked article I co-authored a few years for a bit more specific to social science and social responsibility:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=624070
Thanks for the interesting question, Andy.
Best,
Mike
*********************************************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
Department of Management, BSN 3527
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620
Phone: (813) 974-1727
Fax: (813) 974-1734
Website:
http://coba.usf.edu/barnett
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Andrew A. King
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:15 PM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: epiphanies and environmental performance
Am I right to understand that the thinking of the people on this list that managerial cognitive/perceptual limits represent a principle cause of environmental damage resulting from business activity? It sounds like we believe that most businesses would go green if their leaders would just "get it". Presumably, what they would "get" is a recognition that they can make money and save the environmental at the same time. Alternatively, they might discover a moral requirement to protect the environment.
This idea seems to influence how we understand our roles in the academy. Given management's mistaken perceptions, our role is to enlighten them in the true links between profits and environmental protection.
Do I have it right?
Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755
http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.king/
Cell: 603-359-0369
Office: 603-646-9185