One of the elements of the sustainability debate that I find most
elusive is the differentiation between eco-efficiency, eco-
effectiveness, and suffiency.

1) While it is very well possible for firms to benefit from an eco-
efficiency strategy this does not guarantee environmental
sustainability as it is only a relative measure.

2) On the other hand I can think of very few examples in which firms
have actively persued an eco-effectiveness strategy in which absolute
carrying capacity and not relative improvements are at the forefront.

3) The picture is even bleaker when considering rebound effects. Often
increased efficiency causes more demand and thus an overall increase
in environmental impact. Here sufficiency strategies have been
discussed as a means to limit demand. While there has been much
written about the contribution of eco-efficiency to sustainability
there is much less understanding of sufficiency as a viable strategy
to achieve sustainability.

We have analysed these three concepts (and extended the notion also to
social sustainability) in a 2002 paper that aims at defining corporate
sustainability.

Thomas Dyllick and Kai Hockerts, 2002: "Beyond the Business Case for
Corporate Sustainability", Business Strategy and The Environment, 11
(2): 130-141.

Best
Kai

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Toffel <toffel@HAAS.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thursday, May 4, 2006 11:27 pm
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability

> We tried to sort out some of the challenges of defining
> sustainability in
> this article:
>
> Marshall, JD & MW Toffel. 2005. Framing the elusive concept of
> sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy, Environmental Science &
> Technology 39(3): 673-682
>
> One thing that sparked our writing this paper is that we believe
> folks are
> including way too much in the "sustainability" basket, which risks
> renderingthe term useless.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Toffel
> Haas School of Business
> University of California at Berkeley
>
> _____
>
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Barnett, Michael
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:32 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Defining Sustainability
>
>
>
> I have a simple question, but it carries a lot of baggage. How do
you
> define "sustainability"? I know there have been many discussions
> on this
> topic, and surely published work as well, and I could try to dig
> it up were
> I more enterprising, but I thought I'd seek the easy way out here.
> Let me
> frame this a bit. We're having a discussion across departments at my
> college as to the merits and demerits of declaring any sort of
> college-wide
> emphasis on sustainability, vs. just letting people do their own
> independentresearch, or at most, having some sort of department or
> center-level
> emphasis (short of college level). An immediate reaction by folks
> outsideof Management is to declare that sustainability is
> exclusionary as a focus,
> and would lead their work to be undervalued. So what's a good,
broad,
> inclusive definition of sustainability that makes it apparent that
the
> research, teaching, and service of a college full of diverse folks
> couldpotentially fall under that umbrella -- and would focus not
> just on the
> natural, but also the social environment? Or is defining
> sustainability in
> this way just a goofy thing to do?
>
> Thanks,
> 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>
>
>

Could you possibly post your article, so list members can read it?

-----Original Message-----
>From: Kai Hockerts <kho.ikl@CBS.DK>
>Sent: May 7, 2006 7:17 PM
>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>Subject: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
>One of the elements of the sustainability debate that I find most
>elusive is the differentiation between eco-efficiency, eco-
>effectiveness, and suffiency.
>
>1) While it is very well possible for firms to benefit from an eco-
>efficiency strategy this does not guarantee environmental
>sustainability as it is only a relative measure.
>
>2) On the other hand I can think of very few examples in which firms
>have actively persued an eco-effectiveness strategy in which absolute
>carrying capacity and not relative improvements are at the forefront.
>
>3) The picture is even bleaker when considering rebound effects. Often
>increased efficiency causes more demand and thus an overall increase
>in environmental impact. Here sufficiency strategies have been
>discussed as a means to limit demand. While there has been much
>written about the contribution of eco-efficiency to sustainability
>there is much less understanding of sufficiency as a viable strategy
>to achieve sustainability.
>
>We have analysed these three concepts (and extended the notion also to
>social sustainability) in a 2002 paper that aims at defining corporate
>sustainability.
>
>Thomas Dyllick and Kai Hockerts, 2002: "Beyond the Business Case for
>Corporate Sustainability", Business Strategy and The Environment, 11
>(2): 130-141.
>
>Best
>Kai
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Mike Toffel <toffel@HAAS.BERKELEY.EDU>
>Date: Thursday, May 4, 2006 11:27 pm
>Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability
>
>> We tried to sort out some of the challenges of defining
>> sustainability in
>> this article:
>>
>> Marshall, JD & MW Toffel. 2005. Framing the elusive concept of
>> sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy, Environmental Science &
>> Technology 39(3): 673-682
>>
>> One thing that sparked our writing this paper is that we believe
>> folks are
>> including way too much in the "sustainability" basket, which risks
>> renderingthe term useless.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike Toffel
>> Haas School of Business
>> University of California at Berkeley
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
>> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Barnett, Michael
>> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:32 AM
>> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Defining Sustainability
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a simple question, but it carries a lot of baggage. How do
>you
>> define "sustainability"? I know there have been many discussions
>> on this
>> topic, and surely published work as well, and I could try to dig
>> it up were
>> I more enterprising, but I thought I'd seek the easy way out here.
>> Let me
>> frame this a bit. We're having a discussion across departments at my
>> college as to the merits and demerits of declaring any sort of
>> college-wide
>> emphasis on sustainability, vs. just letting people do their own
>> independentresearch, or at most, having some sort of department or
>> center-level
>> emphasis (short of college level). An immediate reaction by folks
>> outsideof Management is to declare that sustainability is
>> exclusionary as a focus,
>> and would lead their work to be undervalued. So what's a good,
>broad,
>> inclusive definition of sustainability that makes it apparent that
>the
>> research, teaching, and service of a college full of diverse folks
>> couldpotentially fall under that umbrella -- and would focus not
>> just on the
>> natural, but also the social environment? Or is defining
>> sustainability in
>> this way just a goofy thing to do?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> 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>
>>
>>

Two thoughts:

1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the "sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense, but global effects and global preferences might differ.

2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion. Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9 billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.

To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not (priced) resources.

Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the important issues at hand.

AK


Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755

Office: 603-646-9185
Cell: 603-359-0369

Andrew,

I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.

Dick Dailey

Richard T. Dailey
Professor of Management, emeritus
School of Business Administration
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812


At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>Two thoughts:
>
>1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
>"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
>really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
>Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
>soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
>but global effects and global preferences might differ.
>
>2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
>the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
>Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
>billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
>they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
>live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
>they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
>in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
>Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
>
>To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>(priced) resources.
>
>Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>important issues at hand.
>
>AK
>
>
>Andrew King
>Associate Professor of Business Administration
>Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
>202 Chase Hall
>Hanover, NH 03755
>
>Office: 603-646-9185
>Cell: 603-359-0369

I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out that we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into values. There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross, where we go from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem and to the economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the song of a wood thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to determining value.

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 Dick Dailey
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
Sufficiency


Andrew,

I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.

Dick Dailey

Richard T. Dailey
Professor of Management, emeritus
School of Business Administration
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812


At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>Two thoughts:
>
>1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
>"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
>really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
>Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
>soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
>but global effects and global preferences might differ.
>
>2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
>the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
>Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
>billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
>they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
>live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
>they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
>in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
>Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
>
>To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>(priced) resources.
>
>Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>important issues at hand.
>
>AK
>
>
>Andrew King
>Associate Professor of Business Administration
>Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
>202 Chase Hall
>Hanover, NH 03755
>
>Office: 603-646-9185
>Cell: 603-359-0369

But don't we (I am not sure how far we want to stride into this morass,
but it is always fun) *always* "advocate values" regardless of how
objective and values-less we attempt to be. How can we "stick to
determining value" without ascribing to some values? Seems like we must
use values to even determine *what* to value. I do think that we must
be as transparent and open about our values and we should continually
re-examine and re-assess them in an attempt to allow others to interpret
what we say. But how do we possibly adopt a philosophy of science (or
anything) without values? Perhaps as scholars (rather than citizens) we
should be more thoughtful and rigorous about understanding our values
and how they inform our scholarship...and be more open and critical of
our values. But can we really do our scholarship without underlying
values that color our observations, even the most descriptive and
trivial of our observations?

db

Darrell Brown
Associate Professor and Area Coordinator for Accounting
Accounting Alumni Faculty Fellow
Box 751
Portland State University
School of Business Administration
Portland, Oregon 97207
503-725-3096 (W)
503-725-5850 (F)


Barnett, Michael wrote:
> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
> that we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value
> into values. There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want
> to cross, where we go from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush
> to the ecosystem and to the economy, to instead telling folks that
> they should value the song of a wood thrush more than the sound of a
> logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross this line as individual
> citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay away from
> advocating values, and stick to determining value.
>
> 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
> Dick Dailey Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM To:
> ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability:
> Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>
> Dick Dailey
>
> Richard T. Dailey Professor of Management, emeritus School of
> Business Administration University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812
>
>
> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>
>> Two thoughts:
>>
>> 1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>> resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>> fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>> maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>> extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as
>> the "sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal
>> extraction really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a
>> whole? The Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an
>> optimal rate of soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable"
>> in some sense, but global effects and global preferences might
>> differ.
>>
>> 2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability
>> shapes the debate around resources and thereby weakens the
>> discussion. Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to
>> feed 9 billion people, or that we will make advances so that they
>> believe they are better off than we are today. My concern is that
>> they will live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their
>> loss, that they do not even value it. They will be like children
>> that grew up in a city and never knew what it is like to see the
>> stars, hear a Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild
>> beach.
>>
>> To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>> figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>> (priced) resources.
>>
>> Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>> important issues at hand.
>>
>> AK
>>
>>
>> Andrew King Associate Professor of Business Administration Tuck
>> School of Business at Dartmouth College 202 Chase Hall Hanover, NH
>> 03755
>>
>> Office: 603-646-9185 Cell: 603-359-0369
>
>

Of course you're right, and that's why it's a fine line. Nonetheless, this inability to perfectly separate church from state, if you will, should not serve as an excuse to muddle the two. A researcher is still a person, and personal characteristics will always shade research activities and interpretations in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. That doesn't destroy the possibility of engaging in acceptably objective research.

Practically speaking, I'm not sure what the answer is. I would doubt that providing a "values" disclaimer on papers would do the trick . . . not what you suggested, but a reasonable extrapolation. It probably comes down to peer review, and insistence on standards of objectivity in publication decisions. Of course, much groupthink can happen there as well.

At the end of the day, it just seems rather critical that we maintain credibility by reporting the facts, as best social science can determine, and not our opinions. The line is fine in places, but crossing it is not fine. Think CNN vs. Fox News.

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Darrell Brown
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:25 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
Sufficiency


But don't we (I am not sure how far we want to stride into this morass,
but it is always fun) *always* "advocate values" regardless of how
objective and values-less we attempt to be. How can we "stick to
determining value" without ascribing to some values? Seems like we must
use values to even determine *what* to value. I do think that we must
be as transparent and open about our values and we should continually
re-examine and re-assess them in an attempt to allow others to interpret
what we say. But how do we possibly adopt a philosophy of science (or
anything) without values? Perhaps as scholars (rather than citizens) we
should be more thoughtful and rigorous about understanding our values
and how they inform our scholarship...and be more open and critical of
our values. But can we really do our scholarship without underlying
values that color our observations, even the most descriptive and
trivial of our observations?

db

Darrell Brown
Associate Professor and Area Coordinator for Accounting
Accounting Alumni Faculty Fellow
Box 751
Portland State University
School of Business Administration
Portland, Oregon 97207
503-725-3096 (W)
503-725-5850 (F)


Barnett, Michael wrote:
> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
> that we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value
> into values. There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want
> to cross, where we go from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush
> to the ecosystem and to the economy, to instead telling folks that
> they should value the song of a wood thrush more than the sound of a
> logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross this line as individual
> citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay away from
> advocating values, and stick to determining value.
>
> 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
> Dick Dailey Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM To:
> ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability:
> Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>
> Dick Dailey
>
> Richard T. Dailey Professor of Management, emeritus School of
> Business Administration University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812
>
>
> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>
>> Two thoughts:
>>
>> 1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>> resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>> fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>> maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>> extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as
>> the "sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal
>> extraction really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a
>> whole? The Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an
>> optimal rate of soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable"
>> in some sense, but global effects and global preferences might
>> differ.
>>
>> 2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability
>> shapes the debate around resources and thereby weakens the
>> discussion. Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to
>> feed 9 billion people, or that we will make advances so that they
>> believe they are better off than we are today. My concern is that
>> they will live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their
>> loss, that they do not even value it. They will be like children
>> that grew up in a city and never knew what it is like to see the
>> stars, hear a Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild
>> beach.
>>
>> To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>> figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>> (priced) resources.
>>
>> Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>> important issues at hand.
>>
>> AK
>>
>>
>> Andrew King Associate Professor of Business Administration Tuck
>> School of Business at Dartmouth College 202 Chase Hall Hanover, NH
>> 03755
>>
>> Office: 603-646-9185 Cell: 603-359-0369
>
>

I must admit, that one hit me out of left field. In my language, I certainly intended to convey no male dominance. I wasn't even bearing my teeth when I typed it. Seriously, we have to use a language when we talk. Having the conversation in English already implies dominance of the field by English speakers. I'm afraid I don't know how to be multilingual at all, let alone in a way that uses no words that might imply male dominance beyond my apparently male dominated mother/father tongue (whatever it is). And if I can't use words I know, then I'll be excluded from the conversation. I'm not trying to be a wise guy/gal here -- I just think a fear of using the wrong word, especially when one doesn't know what the right words are, according to some, has a chilling effect on conversation.

Warily,
Mike (no need to assume, it's a male name)

********************
Michael L. Barnett, PhD
University of South Florida
College of Business Administration
Department of Management & Organization
4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3527
Tampa, FL 33620-5500
Phone: 813-974-1727
Fax: 813-974-1734
Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
<http://ssrn.com/author=414796>


________________________________

From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of hilary@BRADBURY-HUANG.NET
Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:02 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency


Michael

You write: "We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to determining value."

I do not doubt that putting numbers/prices on nature (determining value) is useful. I do it all the time in my work. I feel we go too far when we forget that the reason we do this is to speak in a language that corporate (male) leaders can understand. But this language is not my "mother tongue," nor do I wish it to be mistaken for such by my students or my children. Therefore let us be multilingual and not insist that "determining value" implies a value free language. The language of the market has colonized so much of contemporary western life, but to declare it value free as well is really just too much (and in many ways hinders the effort of moving toward sustainability).

Respectfully,

Hilary Bradbury-Huang, Ph.D.
USC|Center for Sustainable Cities

cell phone: 626 372 1516






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
Sufficiency
From: "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>
Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 11:08 am
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out that we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into values. There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross, where we go from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem and to the economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the song of a wood thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to determining value.

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 Dick Dailey
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
Sufficiency


Andrew,

I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.

Dick Dailey

Richard T. Dailey
Professor of Management, emeritus
School of Business Administration
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812


At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>Two thoughts:
>
>1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
>"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
>really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
>Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
>soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
>but global effects and global preferences might differ.
>
>2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
>the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
>Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
>billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
>they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
>live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
>they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
>in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
>Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
>
>To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>(priced) resources.
>
>Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>important issues at hand.
>
>AK
>
>
>Andrew King
>Associate Professor of Business Administration
>Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
>202 Chase Hall
>Hanover, NH 03755
>
>Office: 603-646-9185
>Cell: 603-359-0369

I was not trying to get us into value driven research. I was trying to make the heretical argument that preferences are not fixed and exogenous, but instead learned and endogenous. What do we think of a world a 100 years hence the world is an artificial place of aquaculture and processed suburban savanna? If people survive and consider themselves to be happy, has the world been sustained? And if not, what does that imply for your sense of how welfare is defined and governance choices should be made?

After all, many people love to go to Hawaii and revel in its nature and its beauty, but from an ecosystem point of view, most of Hawaii is gone. Avian malaria has wiped out almost all of the native birdlife. The plant life has a high percentage of exotic species. Yet, tourists lie happily on the dredged beaches of Waikiki. What if the entire world is like that?

I cannot quite grasp why, but I have the sense that the world will have lost something if there are no more Northern Orioles and Scarlett Tanagers. And they are going soon.

The simple solution is to argue that ecosystems are a web and that if one thread is lost the fabric unravels, but this is clearly not so. Temperate ecosystems in particular are robust. We get along fine now without the passenger pigeon and the American Chestnut.

Perhaps it is just ego and vanity as Jon Entine is sure to tell me. Maybe, but I am not certain this is not also a cop out. We throw up our hands and say: "well this is what people wanted". But I cannot see myself through to a clear sense of my intuitive logic. Yet, anyway.



Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755

Office: 603-646-9185
Cell: 603-359-0369

andy

i agree with you that this current obsession with sustainability has succeeded in deflecting attention from resource use/misuse/distribution. but as far as feeding the world's poor i think the problem is misspecified: in 2002 the world produced enough food to feed every child, woman and man. yet 800 million people went hungry. like you i believe that thru biotechnology the world can produce enough food to feed 9 billion people in the future. but people will still go hungry. the problem as amartya sen has pointed out is not about the production (or even distribution) of food: the problem is lack of access to income to buy food. and that problem has a variety of structural causes: uneven development, political corruption, neocolonial modes of development and its going to take some pretty significant changes in the political economy (not just corporate environmental strategy or triple bottom line strategies) to even begin to address the problems. as india and china have shown opening up to the global economy has seen the creation of enormous wealth for the middle mainly urban classes. the results for the silent and not so silent majority among the rural poor are mixed: depending on which statistical figures you read, their condition has worsened significantly, improved marginally or stayed the same.

but not to worry: our management and strategy gurus have a solution to world hunger and poverty. its called the "bottom of the pyramid" strategy: all multinational corporations need to do is sell to the world's poor affordable consumer products like shampoo in disposable sachets, branded toothpaste and cosmetics. once the poor enter the market as consumers they can consume their way out of poverty. to quote one of the gurus: "When the poor are converted into consumers, they get more than access to products and services. They acquire the dignity of attention and choices from the private sector that were previously reserved for the middle class and rich".

sustainable strategy? you betcha!

Bobby

Bobby Banerjee, PhD
Professor of Strategy
International Graduate School of Business
University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000

Voice: +61 8 8302 0876
Fax: +61 8 8302 0709
Email: apache@unisa.edu.au
http://people.unisa.edu.au/Bobby.Banerjee





-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU]On Behalf Of Andrew A. King
Sent: Monday, 8 May 2006 9:58 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency


Two thoughts:

1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the "sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense, but global effects and global preferences might differ.

2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion. Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9 billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.

To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not (priced) resources.

Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the important issues at hand.

AK


Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755

Office: 603-646-9185
Cell: 603-359-0369

I rarely chime in on this list serv, but always find it interesting.
(I just finished a PhD in corporate environmental change at U Michigan
and am now at MSU).
I think there's a difference -- as we all know -- between research that
is value-driven and research that takes account of value in more
interestingly nuanced ways, i.e. beyond economics. The other list-serv
I read faithfully is the environmental anthropology one (E-Anth) and I
think there could be some fascinating cross-fertilization between the
two! Postings on that list serv draws on anthropology, psychology,
even philosophy to develop more contextualized notions of the value of
different environmental "goods."

Cheers, Maya

Quoting "Andrew A. King" <Andrew.A.King@Dartmouth.EDU>:

> I was not trying to get us into value driven research. I was trying
> to make the heretical argument that preferences are not fixed and
> exogenous, but instead learned and endogenous. What do we think of a
> world a 100 years hence the world is an artificial place of
> aquaculture and processed suburban savanna? If people survive and
> consider themselves to be happy, has the world been sustained? And
> if not, what does that imply for your sense of how welfare is defined
> and governance choices should be made?
>
> After all, many people love to go to Hawaii and revel in its nature
> and its beauty, but from an ecosystem point of view, most of Hawaii
> is gone. Avian malaria has wiped out almost all of the native
> birdlife. The plant life has a high percentage of exotic species.
> Yet, tourists lie happily on the dredged beaches of Waikiki. What if
> the entire world is like that?
>
> I cannot quite grasp why, but I have the sense that the world will
> have lost something if there are no more Northern Orioles and
> Scarlett Tanagers. And they are going soon.
>
> The simple solution is to argue that ecosystems are a web and that if
> one thread is lost the fabric unravels, but this is clearly not so.
> Temperate ecosystems in particular are robust. We get along fine now
> without the passenger pigeon and the American Chestnut.
>
> Perhaps it is just ego and vanity as Jon Entine is sure to tell me.
> Maybe, but I am not certain this is not also a cop out. We throw up
> our hands and say: "well this is what people wanted". But I cannot
> see myself through to a clear sense of my intuitive logic. Yet,
> anyway.
>
>
>
> Andrew King
> Associate Professor of Business Administration
> Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
> 202 Chase Hall
> Hanover, NH 03755
>
> Office: 603-646-9185
> Cell: 603-359-0369
>
>
>

Our Values are reflected in the value (price) of an object

Thus, I am willing to pay more for a car with side airbags, because I
value the life of my child enough to pay the extra price... perhaps a
lame example, but we pay for various attributes of a thing be it in
money, time or effort.

In the same way we pay for the attributes of a woodthrush's song - by
the effort it takes to get there, be it by foot, etc.

This is the essence of contingent valuation and health state valuation.
Our values are implicit in our behavior. And our values are influenced
by our perception of what it important, lacking, or necessary for our
quality of life. Hence, a child who has never heard the song of a rare
bird, should at a minimum learn about its existence and gain the
perception that such a bird is irreplaceable. (Suddenly, I am starting
to think back to my philosophy classes and Decartes: I think therefore I
am..... :)


Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research
8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9687
202-233-0678 (fax)

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409














To ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
cc
bcc
Subject Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency,
Effectiveness, Sufficiency
Darrell Brown <DarrellB@SBA.PDX.EDU>
Sent by: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
05/08/2006 11:24 AM MST

---

Please respond to
Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>

---

But don't we (I am not sure how far we want to stride into this morass,
but it is always fun) *always* "advocate values" regardless of how
objective and values-less we attempt to be. How can we "stick to
determining value" without ascribing to some values? Seems like we must
use values to even determine *what* to value. I do think that we must
be as transparent and open about our values and we should continually
re-examine and re-assess them in an attempt to allow others to interpret
what we say. But how do we possibly adopt a philosophy of science (or
anything) without values? Perhaps as scholars (rather than citizens) we
should be more thoughtful and rigorous about understanding our values
and how they inform our scholarship...and be more open and critical of
our values. But can we really do our scholarship without underlying
values that color our observations, even the most descriptive and
trivial of our observations?

db

Darrell Brown
Associate Professor and Area Coordinator for Accounting
Accounting Alumni Faculty Fellow
Box 751
Portland State University
School of Business Administration
Portland, Oregon 97207
503-725-3096 (W)
503-725-5850 (F)


Barnett, Michael wrote:
> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
> that we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value
> into values. There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want
> to cross, where we go from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush
> to the ecosystem and to the economy, to instead telling folks that
> they should value the song of a wood thrush more than the sound of a
> logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross this line as individual
> citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay away from
> advocating values, and stick to determining value.
>
> 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
> Dick Dailey Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM To:
> ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability:
> Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>
> Dick Dailey
>
> Richard T. Dailey Professor of Management, emeritus School of
> Business Administration University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812
>
>
> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>
>> Two thoughts:
>>
>> 1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>> resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>> fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>> maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>> extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as
>> the "sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal
>> extraction really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a
>> whole? The Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an
>> optimal rate of soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable"
>> in some sense, but global effects and global preferences might
>> differ.
>>
>> 2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability
>> shapes the debate around resources and thereby weakens the
>> discussion. Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to
>> feed 9 billion people, or that we will make advances so that they
>> believe they are better off than we are today. My concern is that
>> they will live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their
>> loss, that they do not even value it. They will be like children
>> that grew up in a city and never knew what it is like to see the
>> stars, hear a Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild
>> beach.
>>
>> To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>> figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>> (priced) resources.
>>
>> Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>> important issues at hand.
>>
>> AK
>>
>>
>> Andrew King Associate Professor of Business Administration Tuck
>> School of Business at Dartmouth College 202 Chase Hall Hanover, NH
>> 03755
>>
>> Office: 603-646-9185 Cell: 603-359-0369
>
>

I just hope that you are defining to whom the fiduciary responsibility
should apply....

I would be nervous letting corporate managers be the holders of that
fiduciary responsibility as it is in the best interest of many managers
to feed off of general public myopia:

I need to buy stuff now and not save (good for business)
I need to eat my lunch quickly to get back to work...or whatever else I
am doing (fast food)
I need to have a big intimidating car (SUVs)
Who cares about water quality as long as I can use my teflon pots and
pans
etc.

In the good old days government was the keeper of that "fiduciary"
responsibility, but with so many cash strapped governments fighting over
access to oil, I see little promise here at least in the near to long
term.


Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research
8722F, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-343-9687
202-233-0678 (fax)

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409














To ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
cc
bcc
Subject Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency,
Effectiveness, Sufficiency
Ralph Meima <ralph@MEIMA.COM>
Sent by: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
05/08/2006 10:45 PM AST

---

Please respond to
Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>

---

Dear Colleagues

This conversation about defining "sustainability" has coincided with
preparations for an upcoming ISO SR plenary to continue the development
of ISO 26000, the socially responsible management standard.  There has
been talk of excluding the term "sustainability" from the standard (or
minimizing its importance, because of many of the issues discussed
here).  A concept our shadow group (in support of the NGO Ecologia,
which is a participant) is working on is "fiduciarity", to place
emphasis on holding and managing public assets in public trust for
private economic returns, with a substantially expanded notion of what
public assets are.

This is a very rough and evolving concept at present, but here it is,
FYI:

ECOLOGIA ISO SR Shadow Group
Ralph Meima
May 2, 2006; rev. 5/2;

The Fiduciarity Principle

Proposed Content for Section 5 of Document ISO /TMB/WG SR  N 55
Definitions
Fiduciarityrefers to the state of standing in a special relation of
trust, confidence, or responsibility in certain obligations to others,
especially financial obligations, including the holding and management
of assets in trust for another person, for the benefit of the other
person rather than for one’s own profit.
The Fiduciarity Principleholds that, when economic actors employ public
assets for private gain, they are entitled to a reasonable capitalist
(i.e., entrepreneurial) rent from the productive use of those assets,
but – since the assets are being managed in the public trust – the
public shall share in this rent, and, equally importantly, the value of
the asset managed in trust shall not be diminished unnecessarily.  The
Fiduciarity Principle is a special case of usufruct[1], where the owner
of the asset is the public and the usufructuary only claims a share of
the capitalist rent, not the full value.
Scope
Public assets held and managed in trust by private economic actors
include, but are not limited to:

·  Natural habitat and ecosystems

·  Air, water, and soils

·  Scenery

·  Cultural heritage and historic sites

·  Human capital

·  Social capital

·  The productive capacity of a community
Such public assets may occur coterminously with privately held land,
water, or mineral rights.  However, despite this they remain by
definition public assets, a part of the human and natural commons.
Modes of Rent Sharing
Given that a private actor can directly collect capitalist rent from the
productive use of such assets in the form of for example fee or license
revenues, the public can recoup its share of this rent in a variety of
ways, including:

Taxes
Land rents
Usage fees
Profit sharing
Wages
Payments that Do Not Qualify
Compensation paid to persons or a community for suffering caused by for
example an environmental accident or act of injustice (i.e., in
accordance with the Polluter-Pays Principle) does not qualify as a share
of reasonable capitalist rent, but should be seen as a separate type of
transaction.
Violation
Violation by an economic actor of the Fiduciarity Principle, either
willfully or through neglect, constitutes a dereliction of social
responsibility and is thus unsustainable.
Right to Invoke; Stakeholder Process
Any entity, including the State at any level, non-governmental
organizations, and community organizations, has the right to invoke
(i.e., assert the validity of) the Fiduciarity Principle in any
situation where a private economic actor uses a public asset for private
gain.  Upon receiving such an assertion of the Fiduciarity Principle,
the private actor shall engage in a good-faith, transparent, and
participatory process with its stakeholders to establish the value of
the public asset, the value of rents, the share of the rent to which the
public is entitled, and the condition of deterioration of the asset (if
relevant).

[1]  Usufructis the legal right to use and derive profit from property
that belongs to another person, as long as the property is not
damaged.


On May 8, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Andrew A. King wrote:

Two thoughts:

1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a resource
economics view of the world.  Renewable resources like fisheries have
many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which maximizes welfare.
Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of extraction.  Both of
these extraction paths can be thought of as the "sustainable" harvest
rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction really be applied when we
consider ecosystems as a whole?  The Amazon basin has an optimal rate of
forestry, or an optimal rate of soy bean cultivation.  Each could be
"sustainable" in some sense, but global effects and global preferences
might differ.

2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes the
debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.  Personally,
I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9 billion people, or
that we will make advances so that they believe they are better off than
we are today.  My concern is that they will live in a diminished world
and be so unaware of their loss, that they do not even value it.  They
will be like children that grew up in a city and never knew what it is
like to see the stars, hear a Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on
a wild beach.

To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in figuring
out how to value and protect those things that are not (priced)
resources.

Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
important issues at hand.

AK


Andrew King
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
202 Chase Hall
Hanover, NH 03755

Office: 603-646-9185
Cell: 603-359-0369

Mike, I think you misunderstood Hilary's comment. I think she was simply
saying that her "mother tongue" is one of values, not one of (supposedly)
value-free economics. I agree with that. While efficiency is important, it
isn't the most important thing. I agree with her and others who have implied
that those who hold that maximization of profit is the most important (moral)
value have had tremendous influence and impacts on American (and global)
society, and that much of this impact has been harmful. To not speak the
language of other values in our role as scholars, especially in the classroom,
at least some of the time (thus being "multi-lingual"), is a disservice to our
students and to society.

Gordon

Quoting "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>:

> I must admit, that one hit me out of left field. In my language, I certainly
> intended to convey no male dominance. I wasn't even bearing my teeth when I
> typed it. Seriously, we have to use a language when we talk. Having the
> conversation in English already implies dominance of the field by English
> speakers. I'm afraid I don't know how to be multilingual at all, let alone
> in a way that uses no words that might imply male dominance beyond my
> apparently male dominated mother/father tongue (whatever it is). And if I
> can't use words I know, then I'll be excluded from the conversation. I'm not
> trying to be a wise guy/gal here -- I just think a fear of using the wrong
> word, especially when one doesn't know what the right words are, according to
> some, has a chilling effect on conversation.
>
> Warily,
> Mike (no need to assume, it's a male name)
>
> ********************
> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
> University of South Florida
> College of Business Administration
> Department of Management & Organization
> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3527
> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
> Phone: 813-974-1727
> Fax: 813-974-1734
> Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
> hilary@BRADBURY-HUANG.NET
> Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:02 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
>
> Michael
>
> You write: "We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but as
> scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to
> determining value."
>
> I do not doubt that putting numbers/prices on nature (determining value) is
> useful. I do it all the time in my work. I feel we go too far when we
> forget that the reason we do this is to speak in a language that corporate
> (male) leaders can understand. But this language is not my "mother tongue,"
> nor do I wish it to be mistaken for such by my students or my children.
> Therefore let us be multilingual and not insist that "determining value"
> implies a value free language. The language of the market has colonized so
> much of contemporary western life, but to declare it value free as well is
> really just too much (and in many ways hinders the effort of moving toward
> sustainability).
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Hilary Bradbury-Huang, Ph.D.
> USC|Center for Sustainable Cities
>
> cell phone: 626 372 1516
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
> From: "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>
> Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 11:08 am
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>
> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
that
> we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into values.
> There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross, where we go
> from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem and to the
> economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the song of a wood
> thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross
> this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay
> away from advocating values, and stick to determining value.
>
> 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 Dick Dailey
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>
> Dick Dailey
>
> Richard T. Dailey
> Professor of Management, emeritus
> School of Business Administration
> University of Montana
> Missoula, MT 59812
>
>
> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
> >Two thoughts:
> >
> >1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
> >resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
> >fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
> >maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
> >extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
> >"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
> >really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
> >Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
> >soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
> >but global effects and global preferences might differ.
> >
> >2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
> >the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
> >Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
> >billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
> >they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
> >live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
> >they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
> >in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
> >Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
> >
> >To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
> >figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
> >(priced) resources.
> >
> >Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
> >important issues at hand.
> >
> >AK
> >
> >
> >Andrew King
> >Associate Professor of Business Administration
> >Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
> >202 Chase Hall
> >Hanover, NH 03755
> >
> >Office: 603-646-9185
> >Cell: 603-359-0369
>

Michael Barnett said:

'we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into values'.

Can anyone on ONE-l explain to me how the economics of value is without
values??

I accept that often the values of economic value are often implicit.

The values of utilitarianism, or the notion that more is better than less
and so on.

But, in my view, if values provides a slippery slope then economists have
been sliding down it and worse (without knowing they are sliding) since
economic analysis began.

Nigel Roome


> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out that
> There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross,
> where we go from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem
> and to the economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the
> song of a wood thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're
> welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I
> think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to determining
> value.
>
> 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 Dick Dailey
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>
> Dick Dailey
>
> Richard T. Dailey
> Professor of Management, emeritus
> School of Business Administration
> University of Montana
> Missoula, MT 59812
>
>
> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>>Two thoughts:
>>
>>1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>>resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>>fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>>maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>>extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
>>"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
>>really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
>>Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
>>soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
>>but global effects and global preferences might differ.
>>
>>2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
>>the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
>>Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
>>billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
>>they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
>>live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
>>they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
>>in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
>>Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
>>
>>To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>>figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>>(priced) resources.
>>
>>Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>>important issues at hand.
>>
>>AK
>>
>>
>>Andrew King
>>Associate Professor of Business Administration
>>Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
>>202 Chase Hall
>>Hanover, NH 03755
>>
>>Office: 603-646-9185
>>Cell: 603-359-0369
>

Hi Gordon. It's not clear to me that I misunderstood what Hilary wrote, but obviously I, and most any (long-term) thinking person, agree with your restatement of her words.

It appears that the word "value" is akin to a Rorschach test. In no place in my response did I say "economic" value, nor did I say maximization of profits, or anything male dominated, or anything but "value." Instead, some folks looked at the word, maybe looked at my profile, and then inferred things I never said, nor implied. Any inference, it seems to me, is more a reflection of the values of the reader than of the writer.

One is free to value things any way one wants -- be it economically, morally, socially, aesthetically, pathetically, whatever. To restate what I said, or intended to imply, but perhaps did not lead others to infer, is that we should not be in the game of telling folks what to value. Rather, we should be in the game of demonstrating to folks what the presence or absence of certain things implies for them, their organizations, their economy, their planet, etc. We have an obligation to be systematic, big-picture thinkers who use defensible analytical techniques to argue and test -- not a bunch of folks who offer personal commentary. Indeed, I suspect that much of the work we will do, and have done, will show folks that "valuing" some things over other things has perverse consequences -- be they economic, social, environmental, aesthetic, feminine, whatever -- but we can't tell them that the tradeoffs are or are not worthwhile. Is the life of one owl of greater or lesser "value" than the livelihoods of 45 loggers? I don't know. Probably not economically, but perhaps in other ways one might value. But I shouldn't be taking a stand on this as a researcher. Instead, I should be arguing, and hopefully solidly demonstrating, that logging kills the owl. Minds will change if we adequately argue our case; if our case is dismissed because it is intentionally and excessively biased, then we lose our ability to change many, and some of the most relevant, minds. That's the slippery slope I speak of.

Best,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon P Rands [mailto:GP-Rands@wiu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:23 AM
To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion; Barnett,
Michael
Cc: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
Sufficiency


Mike, I think you misunderstood Hilary's comment. I think she was simply
saying that her "mother tongue" is one of values, not one of (supposedly)
value-free economics. I agree with that. While efficiency is important, it
isn't the most important thing. I agree with her and others who have implied
that those who hold that maximization of profit is the most important (moral)
value have had tremendous influence and impacts on American (and global)
society, and that much of this impact has been harmful. To not speak the
language of other values in our role as scholars, especially in the classroom,
at least some of the time (thus being "multi-lingual"), is a disservice to our
students and to society.

Gordon

Quoting "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>:

> I must admit, that one hit me out of left field. In my language, I certainly
> intended to convey no male dominance. I wasn't even bearing my teeth when I
> typed it. Seriously, we have to use a language when we talk. Having the
> conversation in English already implies dominance of the field by English
> speakers. I'm afraid I don't know how to be multilingual at all, let alone
> in a way that uses no words that might imply male dominance beyond my
> apparently male dominated mother/father tongue (whatever it is). And if I
> can't use words I know, then I'll be excluded from the conversation. I'm not
> trying to be a wise guy/gal here -- I just think a fear of using the wrong
> word, especially when one doesn't know what the right words are, according to
> some, has a chilling effect on conversation.
>
> Warily,
> Mike (no need to assume, it's a male name)
>
> ********************
> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
> University of South Florida
> College of Business Administration
> Department of Management & Organization
> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3527
> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
> Phone: 813-974-1727
> Fax: 813-974-1734
> Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
> hilary@BRADBURY-HUANG.NET
> Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:02 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
>
> Michael
>
> You write: "We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but as
> scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to
> determining value."
>
> I do not doubt that putting numbers/prices on nature (determining value) is
> useful. I do it all the time in my work. I feel we go too far when we
> forget that the reason we do this is to speak in a language that corporate
> (male) leaders can understand. But this language is not my "mother tongue,"
> nor do I wish it to be mistaken for such by my students or my children.
> Therefore let us be multilingual and not insist that "determining value"
> implies a value free language. The language of the market has colonized so
> much of contemporary western life, but to declare it value free as well is
> really just too much (and in many ways hinders the effort of moving toward
> sustainability).
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Hilary Bradbury-Huang, Ph.D.
> USC|Center for Sustainable Cities
>
> cell phone: 626 372 1516
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
> From: "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>
> Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 11:08 am
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>
> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
that
> we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into values.
> There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross, where we go
> from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem and to the
> economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the song of a wood
> thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross
> this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay
> away from advocating values, and stick to determining value.
>
> 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 Dick Dailey
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>
> Dick Dailey
>
> Richard T. Dailey
> Professor of Management, emeritus
> School of Business Administration
> University of Montana
> Missoula, MT 59812
>
>
> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
> >Two thoughts:
> >
> >1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
> >resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
> >fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
> >maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
> >extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
> >"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
> >really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
> >Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
> >soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
> >but global effects and global preferences might differ.
> >
> >2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
> >the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
> >Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
> >billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
> >they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
> >live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
> >they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
> >in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
> >Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
> >
> >To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
> >figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
> >(priced) resources.
> >
> >Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
> >important issues at hand.
> >
> >AK
> >
> >
> >Andrew King
> >Associate Professor of Business Administration
> >Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
> >202 Chase Hall
> >Hanover, NH 03755
> >
> >Office: 603-646-9185
> >Cell: 603-359-0369
>

Hi Michael,

I don't know about others but I can be very clear on how I read your
commentary about valuation and values.

I interpreted your words in the same way I did when I was doing my PhD
thesis on the use cost-benefit techniques to assess the costs and benefits
of protected wildlife areas (in the 1970s).

At that time there was a need to distinguish valuation (the placing of
monetary value on a good or service) from evaluation (the assessment of
the visual merit of say landscape or the ecologiacl merit of wildlife,
without using a monetary scale) and values (which provide the basis frame
on which humans found judgement).

Now if you were using these words in others ways I do apologise for
miscontruing your comments. However, in the absence of further
clarification I assumed you were using the words in this way.

Which still leads me to observe that (economic or accounting) valuation is
always based on values and that in addition to valuation there are a
variety of other techniques to evaluate (bits of the) world in the light
of a wide range of human values.

I do hope this helps clarify the basis for my comments.

Nigel Roome

;

human discrimination ;



> Hi Gordon. It's not clear to me that I misunderstood what Hilary wrote,
> but obviously I, and most any (long-term) thinking person, agree with your
> restatement of her words.
>
> It appears that the word "value" is akin to a Rorschach test. In no place
> in my response did I say "economic" value, nor did I say maximization of
> profits, or anything male dominated, or anything but "value." Instead,
> some folks looked at the word, maybe looked at my profile, and then
> inferred things I never said, nor implied. Any inference, it seems to me,
> is more a reflection of the values of the reader than of the writer.
>
> One is free to value things any way one wants -- be it economically,
> morally, socially, aesthetically, pathetically, whatever. To restate what
> I said, or intended to imply, but perhaps did not lead others to infer, is
> that we should not be in the game of telling folks what to value. Rather,
> we should be in the game of demonstrating to folks what the presence or
> absence of certain things implies for them, their organizations, their
> economy, their planet, etc. We have an obligation to be systematic,
> big-picture thinkers who use defensible analytical techniques to argue and
> test -- not a bunch of folks who offer personal commentary. Indeed, I
> suspect that much of the work we will do, and have done, will show folks
> that "valuing" some things over other things has perverse consequences --
> be they economic, social, environmental, aesthetic, feminine, whatever --
> but we can't tell them that the tradeoffs are or are not worthwhile. Is
> the life of one owl of greater or lesser "value" than the livelihoods of
> 45 loggers? I don't know. Probably not economically, but perhaps in
> other ways one might value. But I shouldn't be taking a stand on this as
> a researcher. Instead, I should be arguing, and hopefully solidly
> demonstrating, that logging kills the owl. Minds will change if we
> adequately argue our case; if our case is dismissed because it is
> intentionally and excessively biased, then we lose our ability to change
> many, and some of the most relevant, minds. That's the slippery slope I
> speak of.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon P Rands [mailto:GP-Rands@wiu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:23 AM
> To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion; Barnett,
> Michael
> Cc: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
>
>
> Mike, I think you misunderstood Hilary's comment. I think she was simply
> saying that her "mother tongue" is one of values, not one of (supposedly)
> value-free economics. I agree with that. While efficiency is important,
> it
> isn't the most important thing. I agree with her and others who have
> implied
> that those who hold that maximization of profit is the most important
> (moral)
> value have had tremendous influence and impacts on American (and global)
> society, and that much of this impact has been harmful. To not speak the
> language of other values in our role as scholars, especially in the
> classroom,
> at least some of the time (thus being "multi-lingual"), is a disservice to
> our
> students and to society.
>
> Gordon
>
> Quoting "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>:
>
>> I must admit, that one hit me out of left field. In my language, I
>> certainly
>> intended to convey no male dominance. I wasn't even bearing my teeth
>> when I
>> typed it. Seriously, we have to use a language when we talk. Having
>> the
>> conversation in English already implies dominance of the field by
>> English
>> speakers. I'm afraid I don't know how to be multilingual at all, let
>> alone
>> in a way that uses no words that might imply male dominance beyond my
>> apparently male dominated mother/father tongue (whatever it is). And if
>> I
>> can't use words I know, then I'll be excluded from the conversation.
>> I'm not
>> trying to be a wise guy/gal here -- I just think a fear of using the
>> wrong
>> word, especially when one doesn't know what the right words are,
>> according to
>> some, has a chilling effect on conversation.
>>
>> Warily,
>> Mike (no need to assume, it's a male name)
>>
>> ********************
>> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
>> University of South Florida
>> College of Business Administration
>> Department of Management & Organization
>> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3527
>> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
>> Phone: 813-974-1727
>> Fax: 813-974-1734
>> Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>>
>> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
>> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
>> hilary@BRADBURY-HUANG.NET
>> Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:02 PM
>> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
>> Sufficiency
>>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> You write: "We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but
>> as
>> scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick
>> to
>> determining value."
>>
>> I do not doubt that putting numbers/prices on nature (determining value)
>> is
>> useful. I do it all the time in my work. I feel we go too far when we
>> forget that the reason we do this is to speak in a language that
>> corporate
>> (male) leaders can understand. But this language is not my "mother
>> tongue,"
>> nor do I wish it to be mistaken for such by my students or my children.
>> Therefore let us be multilingual and not insist that "determining value"
>> implies a value free language. The language of the market has colonized
>> so
>> much of contemporary western life, but to declare it value free as well
>> is
>> really just too much (and in many ways hinders the effort of moving
>> toward
>> sustainability).
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Hilary Bradbury-Huang, Ph.D.
>> USC|Center for Sustainable Cities
>>
>> cell phone: 626 372 1516
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
>> Sufficiency
>> From: "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>
>> Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 11:08 am
>> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>>
>> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
> that
>> we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into
>> values.
>> There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross, where
>> we go
>> from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem and to
>> the
>> economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the song of a
>> wood
>> thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're welcome to
>> cross
>> this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should
>> stay
>> away from advocating values, and stick to determining value.
>>
>> 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 Dick Dailey
>> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
>> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
>> Sufficiency
>>
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>>
>> Dick Dailey
>>
>> Richard T. Dailey
>> Professor of Management, emeritus
>> School of Business Administration
>> University of Montana
>> Missoula, MT 59812
>>
>>
>> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
>> >Two thoughts:
>> >
>> >1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
>> >resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
>> >fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
>> >maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
>> >extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
>> >"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
>> >really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
>> >Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
>> >soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
>> >but global effects and global preferences might differ.
>> >
>> >2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
>> >the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
>> >Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
>> >billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
>> >they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
>> >live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
>> >they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
>> >in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
>> >Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
>> >
>> >To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
>> >figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
>> >(priced) resources.
>> >
>> >Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
>> >important issues at hand.
>> >
>> >AK
>> >
>> >
>> >Andrew King
>> >Associate Professor of Business Administration
>> >Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
>> >202 Chase Hall
>> >Hanover, NH 03755
>> >
>> >Office: 603-646-9185
>> >Cell: 603-359-0369
>>
>

I absolutely agree with you Mike. I have been observing the discussion with great interest, and it strikes me that once certain cues are used, intentionally or otherwise, everyone settles into their known position, and begins to argue, in what tend to be quite predictable ways.....i.e. "[someone writes] 'value v's values', and the response is [ah ha! I know what I want to say about that......." without, perhaps really reflecting on what the person is trying to say and the context that they are trying to say it in.

But back to the argument at hand. I am about to embark on a consumer based study on green consumption. I am choosing an ethnographic method, as I believe that gaining access to consumers lived experience has the ability to prove quite insightful in terms of understanding their day-to-day lives and their relationship with the environment. The central focus will be on their consumption practices, and looking at their ecological consumption which may be evidenced in their choice of transport (including brand of lets say, car), the products they use to clean their house (home made, bought, ecological etc). I am conscious however, that I, a priori, consider myself an ethical/ecological consumer, and am wondering, when I am in the field, how will I stop myself from 'judging' people's behaviour which may not fit my own frame of reference? For example, the 'subject' could have all the trappings of sustainable living [lets just imagine we know what these are], but also might be a working mom, who has to travel excessively [you see already using judging language] during the day to pick up her kid for crèche, get back to work, go out in the evenings, or whatever. I might be thinking, well, perhaps if she was at home, she would have to travel so much and could spend time with her children....etc...[I am a female, just in case there is an immediate reaction to this]. Of course I wouldn't allow such immediate observations to become central to me 'findings' on their own, but would 'my subject' pick up on my body language? Would I make her feel that perhaps she is 'not doing it RIGHT'? - how would this affect the research.....
Of course already engaging in what I consider ecological consumption allows me to get closer to and be more sensitive towards the emerging issues in the research - but it also means that I am going into the field with my own vales, not only acknowledged but a key part of the research.

One thing that I am in the process of doing is writing a personal introspection, so that I can document, at this point in the research, what my values are, what my own consumption practices are, what role do, for example, ecological brands, have in my own "self realisation" etc. this 'document' then remains a reference point throughout the research. Of course the keeping of field notes, and observing the nature of the questions I pose during the research will also help me to continually reflect on my values and the impact they are having on the research, both good and bad. I intend to engage, that is, in what Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000) term a Reflexive Methodology" [Alvesson, Mats and Kaj Skoldberg (2000), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.]

Well I am not sure that I have contributed to the discussion, but thank you for the opportunity to reflect on my research!!!!

Kind regards
Annmarie Ryan

*************
Research Associate (postdoc)
International Centre for Sustainable Enterprise
Kemmy Business School
University of Limerick
Limerick
Ireland
*************



-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Barnett, Michael
Sent: 10 May 2006 18:39
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency

Hi Gordon. It's not clear to me that I misunderstood what Hilary wrote, but obviously I, and most any (long-term) thinking person, agree with your restatement of her words.

It appears that the word "value" is akin to a Rorschach test. In no place in my response did I say "economic" value, nor did I say maximization of profits, or anything male dominated, or anything but "value." Instead, some folks looked at the word, maybe looked at my profile, and then inferred things I never said, nor implied. Any inference, it seems to me, is more a reflection of the values of the reader than of the writer.

One is free to value things any way one wants -- be it economically, morally, socially, aesthetically, pathetically, whatever. To restate what I said, or intended to imply, but perhaps did not lead others to infer, is that we should not be in the game of telling folks what to value. Rather, we should be in the game of demonstrating to folks what the presence or absence of certain things implies for them, their organizations, their economy, their planet, etc. We have an obligation to be systematic, big-picture thinkers who use defensible analytical techniques to argue and test -- not a bunch of folks who offer personal commentary. Indeed, I suspect that much of the work we will do, and have done, will show folks that "valuing" some things over other things has perverse consequences -- be they economic, social, environmental, aesthetic, feminine, whatever -- but we can't tell them that the tradeoffs are or are not worthwhile. Is the life of one owl of greater or lesser "value" than the livelihoods of 45 loggers? I don't know. Probably not economically, but perhaps in other ways one might value. But I shouldn't be taking a stand on this as a researcher. Instead, I should be arguing, and hopefully solidly demonstrating, that logging kills the owl. Minds will change if we adequately argue our case; if our case is dismissed because it is intentionally and excessively biased, then we lose our ability to change many, and some of the most relevant, minds. That's the slippery slope I speak of.

Best,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon P Rands [mailto:GP-Rands@wiu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:23 AM
To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion; Barnett,
Michael
Cc: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
Sufficiency


Mike, I think you misunderstood Hilary's comment. I think she was simply
saying that her "mother tongue" is one of values, not one of (supposedly)
value-free economics. I agree with that. While efficiency is important, it
isn't the most important thing. I agree with her and others who have implied
that those who hold that maximization of profit is the most important (moral)
value have had tremendous influence and impacts on American (and global)
society, and that much of this impact has been harmful. To not speak the
language of other values in our role as scholars, especially in the classroom,
at least some of the time (thus being "multi-lingual"), is a disservice to our
students and to society.

Gordon

Quoting "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>:

> I must admit, that one hit me out of left field. In my language, I certainly
> intended to convey no male dominance. I wasn't even bearing my teeth when I
> typed it. Seriously, we have to use a language when we talk. Having the
> conversation in English already implies dominance of the field by English
> speakers. I'm afraid I don't know how to be multilingual at all, let alone
> in a way that uses no words that might imply male dominance beyond my
> apparently male dominated mother/father tongue (whatever it is). And if I
> can't use words I know, then I'll be excluded from the conversation. I'm not
> trying to be a wise guy/gal here -- I just think a fear of using the wrong
> word, especially when one doesn't know what the right words are, according to
> some, has a chilling effect on conversation.
>
> Warily,
> Mike (no need to assume, it's a male name)
>
> ********************
> Michael L. Barnett, PhD
> University of South Florida
> College of Business Administration
> Department of Management & Organization
> 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3527
> Tampa, FL 33620-5500
> Phone: 813-974-1727
> Fax: 813-974-1734
> Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
>
> View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
> hilary@BRADBURY-HUANG.NET
> Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:02 PM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
>
> Michael
>
> You write: "We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but as
> scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to
> determining value."
>
> I do not doubt that putting numbers/prices on nature (determining value) is
> useful. I do it all the time in my work. I feel we go too far when we
> forget that the reason we do this is to speak in a language that corporate
> (male) leaders can understand. But this language is not my "mother tongue,"
> nor do I wish it to be mistaken for such by my students or my children.
> Therefore let us be multilingual and not insist that "determining value"
> implies a value free language. The language of the market has colonized so
> much of contemporary western life, but to declare it value free as well is
> really just too much (and in many ways hinders the effort of moving toward
> sustainability).
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Hilary Bradbury-Huang, Ph.D.
> USC|Center for Sustainable Cities
>
> cell phone: 626 372 1516
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
> From: "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>
> Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 11:08 am
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>
> I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
that
> we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into values.
> There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross, where we go
> from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem and to the
> economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the song of a wood
> thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're welcome to cross
> this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay
> away from advocating values, and stick to determining value.
>
> 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 Dick Dailey
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
>
> Dick Dailey
>
> Richard T. Dailey
> Professor of Management, emeritus
> School of Business Administration
> University of Montana
> Missoula, MT 59812
>
>
> At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
> >Two thoughts:
> >
> >1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
> >resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
> >fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
> >maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
> >extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
> >"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
> >really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
> >Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
> >soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
> >but global effects and global preferences might differ.
> >
> >2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
> >the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
> >Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
> >billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
> >they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
> >live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
> >they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
> >in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
> >Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
> >
> >To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
> >figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
> >(priced) resources.
> >
> >Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
> >important issues at hand.
> >
> >AK
> >
> >
> >Andrew King
> >Associate Professor of Business Administration
> >Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
> >202 Chase Hall
> >Hanover, NH 03755
> >
> >Office: 603-646-9185
> >Cell: 603-359-0369
>

AnnMarie -

Thanks for your very interesting post. I commend you for writing the personal
introspection as you begin your research. The topic sounds fascinating. I
will be particularly interested to learn what you learn about the factors that
motivate or facilitate ecological consumption.

I assume that you are familiar with the literature (mostly non-academic in
nature) on voluntary simplicity. I think it might be interesting as you
conduct your research to ask subjects, perhaps at the end, about whether they
have read any books on voluntary simplicity, and if so, which ones. I would
hypothesize that the more people have read on voluntary simplicity, the more
pro-ecological their consumption would be.

I assume that you also are familiar with the literature on environmental
values, attitudes and behavior, primarily from the environmental psychology
field. I haven't stayed completely current in it, but there is a large body
of research that pertains to your topic. One of the key pieces that I think
would be relevant is the role of social support to an individual engaging in
ecological consumption.

I would be interested in learning more about your research. Are you going to
be at the Greening of Industry conference in Cardiff? If so, perhaps we could
meet and talk while there. In any case, good luck with what sounds like a
fascinating project!

Gordon


Gordon Rands
Associate Professor of Management
Western Illinois University
Macomb, IL 61455


Quoting "AnnMarie.Ryan" <annmarie.ryan@UL.IE>:

> I absolutely agree with you Mike. I have been observing the discussion with
> great interest, and it strikes me that once certain cues are used,
> intentionally or otherwise, everyone settles into their known position, and
> begins to argue, in what tend to be quite predictable ways.....i.e. "[someone
> writes] 'value v's values', and the response is [ah ha! I know what I want to
> say about that......." without, perhaps really reflecting on what the person
> is trying to say and the context that they are trying to say it in.
>
> But back to the argument at hand. I am about to embark on a consumer based
> study on green consumption. I am choosing an ethnographic method, as I
> believe that gaining access to consumers lived experience has the ability to
> prove quite insightful in terms of understanding their day-to-day lives and
> their relationship with the environment. The central focus will be on their
> consumption practices, and looking at their ecological consumption which may
> be evidenced in their choice of transport (including brand of lets say, car),
> the products they use to clean their house (home made, bought, ecological
> etc). I am conscious however, that I, a priori, consider myself an
> ethical/ecological consumer, and am wondering, when I am in the field, how
> will I stop myself from 'judging' people's behaviour which may not fit my own
> frame of reference? For example, the 'subject' could have all the trappings
> of sustainable living [lets just imagine we know what these are], but also
> might be a working mom, who has to travel excessively [you see already using
> judging language] during the day to pick up her kid for cr�che, get back to
> work, go out in the evenings, or whatever. I might be thinking, well, perhaps
> if she was at home, she would have to travel so much and could spend time
> with her children....etc...[I am a female, just in case there is an immediate
> reaction to this]. Of course I wouldn't allow such immediate observations to
> become central to me 'findings' on their own, but would 'my subject' pick up
> on my body language? Would I make her feel that perhaps she is 'not doing it
> RIGHT'? - how would this affect the research.....
> Of course already engaging in what I consider ecological consumption allows
> me to get closer to and be more sensitive towards the emerging issues in the
> research - but it also means that I am going into the field with my own
> vales, not only acknowledged but a key part of the research.
>
> One thing that I am in the process of doing is writing a personal
> introspection, so that I can document, at this point in the research, what my
> values are, what my own consumption practices are, what role do, for example,
> ecological brands, have in my own "self realisation" etc. this 'document'
> then remains a reference point throughout the research. Of course the keeping
> of field notes, and observing the nature of the questions I pose during the
> research will also help me to continually reflect on my values and the impact
> they are having on the research, both good and bad. I intend to engage, that
> is, in what Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000) term a Reflexive Methodology"
> [Alvesson, Mats and Kaj Skoldberg (2000), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas
> for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.]
>
> Well I am not sure that I have contributed to the discussion, but thank you
> for the opportunity to reflect on my research!!!!
>
> Kind regards
> Annmarie Ryan
>
> *************
> Research Associate (postdoc)
> International Centre for Sustainable Enterprise
> Kemmy Business School
> University of Limerick
> Limerick
> Ireland
> *************
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
> [mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Barnett, Michael
> Sent: 10 May 2006 18:39
> To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sufficiency
>
> Hi Gordon. It's not clear to me that I misunderstood what Hilary wrote, but
> obviously I, and most any (long-term) thinking person, agree with your
> restatement of her words.
>
> It appears that the word "value" is akin to a Rorschach test. In no place in
> my response did I say "economic" value, nor did I say maximization of
> profits, or anything male dominated, or anything but "value." Instead, some
> folks looked at the word, maybe looked at my profile, and then inferred
> things I never said, nor implied. Any inference, it seems to me, is more a
> reflection of the values of the reader than of the writer.
>
> One is free to value things any way one wants -- be it economically, morally,
> socially, aesthetically, pathetically, whatever. To restate what I said, or
> intended to imply, but perhaps did not lead others to infer, is that we
> should not be in the game of telling folks what to value. Rather, we should
> be in the game of demonstrating to folks what the presence or absence of
> certain things implies for them, their organizations, their economy, their
> planet, etc. We have an obligation to be systematic, big-picture thinkers
> who use defensible analytical techniques to argue and test -- not a bunch of
> folks who offer personal commentary. Indeed, I suspect that much of the work
> we will do, and have done, will show folks that "valuing" some things over
> other things has perverse consequences -- be they economic, social,
> environmental, aesthetic, feminine, whatever -- but we can't tell them that
> the tradeoffs are or are not worthwhile. Is the life of one owl of greater
> or lesser "value" than the livelihoods of 45 loggers? I don't know.
> Probably not economically, but perhaps in other ways one might value. But I
> shouldn't be taking a stand on this as a researcher. Instead, I should be
> arguing, and hopefully solidly demonstrating, that logging kills the owl.
> Minds will change if we adequately argue our case; if our case is dismissed
> because it is intentionally and excessively biased, then we lose our ability
> to change many, and some of the most relevant, minds. That's the slippery
> slope I speak of.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon P Rands [mailto:GP-Rands@wiu.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 12:23 AM
> To: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion; Barnett,
> Michael
> Cc: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
>
>
> Mike, I think you misunderstood Hilary's comment. I think she was simply
> saying that her "mother tongue" is one of values, not one of (supposedly)
> value-free economics. I agree with that. While efficiency is important, it
>
> isn't the most important thing. I agree with her and others who have implied
>
> that those who hold that maximization of profit is the most important (moral)
>
> value have had tremendous influence and impacts on American (and global)
> society, and that much of this impact has been harmful. To not speak the
> language of other values in our role as scholars, especially in the
> classroom,
> at least some of the time (thus being "multi-lingual"), is a disservice to
> our
> students and to society.
>
> Gordon
>
> Quoting "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>:
>
> > I must admit, that one hit me out of left field. In my language, I
> certainly
> > intended to convey no male dominance. I wasn't even bearing my teeth when
> I
> > typed it. Seriously, we have to use a language when we talk. Having the
> > conversation in English already implies dominance of the field by English
> > speakers. I'm afraid I don't know how to be multilingual at all, let
> alone
> > in a way that uses no words that might imply male dominance beyond my
> > apparently male dominated mother/father tongue (whatever it is). And if I
> > can't use words I know, then I'll be excluded from the conversation. I'm
> not
> > trying to be a wise guy/gal here -- I just think a fear of using the wrong
> > word, especially when one doesn't know what the right words are, according
> to
> > some, has a chilling effect on conversation.
> >
> > Warily,
> > Mike (no need to assume, it's a male name)
> >
> > ********************
> > Michael L. Barnett, PhD
> > University of South Florida
> > College of Business Administration
> > Department of Management & Organization
> > 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, BSN 3527
> > Tampa, FL 33620-5500
> > Phone: 813-974-1727
> > Fax: 813-974-1734
> > Webpage: http://www.coba.usf.edu/barnett
> >
> > View my research on my SSRN Author page:
> > <http://ssrn.com/author=414796>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
> > hilary@BRADBURY-HUANG.NET
> > Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:02 PM
> > To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> Sufficiency
> >
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > You write: "We're welcome to cross this line as individual citizens, but
> as
> > scholars, I think we should stay away from advocating values, and stick to
> > determining value."
> >
> > I do not doubt that putting numbers/prices on nature (determining value)
> is
> > useful. I do it all the time in my work. I feel we go too far when we
> > forget that the reason we do this is to speak in a language that corporate
> > (male) leaders can understand. But this language is not my "mother
> tongue,"
> > nor do I wish it to be mistaken for such by my students or my children.
> > Therefore let us be multilingual and not insist that "determining value"
> > implies a value free language. The language of the market has colonized so
> > much of contemporary western life, but to declare it value free as well is
> > really just too much (and in many ways hinders the effort of moving toward
> > sustainability).
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Hilary Bradbury-Huang, Ph.D.
> > USC|Center for Sustainable Cities
> >
> > cell phone: 626 372 1516
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> > Sufficiency
> > From: "Barnett, Michael" <mbarnett@coba.usf.edu>
> > Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 11:08 am
> > To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> >
> > I think I agree with Andy, too, but I do want to once again point out
> that
> > we risk falling down a slippery slope if we tread beyond value into values.
>
> > There's a fine line there somewhere that we don't want to cross, where we
> go
> > from demonstrating the value of a wood thrush to the ecosystem and to the
> > economy, to instead telling folks that they should value the song of a
> wood
> > thrush more than the sound of a logger's chain saw. We're welcome to
> cross
> > this line as individual citizens, but as scholars, I think we should stay
> > away from advocating values, and stick to determining value.
> >
> > 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 Dick Dailey
> > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 10:39 AM
> > To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Defining Sustainability: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
> > Sufficiency
> >
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > I absolutely agree with you. And I'm an economist.
> >
> > Dick Dailey
> >
> > Richard T. Dailey
> > Professor of Management, emeritus
> > School of Business Administration
> > University of Montana
> > Missoula, MT 59812
> >
> >
> > At 8:27 AM -0400 5/8/06, Andrew A. King wrote:
> > >Two thoughts:
> > >
> > >1) It strikes me that the notion of sustainability comes from a
> > >resource economics view of the world. Renewable resources like
> > >fisheries have many sustainable rates of harvesting, one of which
> > >maximizes welfare. Non-renewable resources have an optimal rate of
> > >extraction. Both of these extraction paths can be thought of as the
> > >"sustainable" harvest rates. Can the ideas of optimal extraction
> > >really be applied when we consider ecosystems as a whole? The
> > >Amazon basin has an optimal rate of forestry, or an optimal rate of
> > >soy bean cultivation. Each could be "sustainable" in some sense,
> > >but global effects and global preferences might differ.
> > >
> > >2) I believe that the overwhelming emphasis on sustainability shapes
> > >the debate around resources and thereby weakens the discussion.
> > >Personally, I have no doubt that we will find a way to feed 9
> > >billion people, or that we will make advances so that they believe
> > >they are better off than we are today. My concern is that they will
> > >live in a diminished world and be so unaware of their loss, that
> > >they do not even value it. They will be like children that grew up
> > >in a city and never knew what it is like to see the stars, hear a
> > >Wood Thrush sing, or pick up sea shells on a wild beach.
> > >
> > >To me the issue is not about sustaining our resources, but in
> > >figuring out how to value and protect those things that are not
> > >(priced) resources.
> > >
> > >Personally, I think "sustainability" misdirects our energy from the
> > >important issues at hand.
> > >
> > >AK
> > >
> > >
> > >Andrew King
> > >Associate Professor of Business Administration
> > >Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
> > >202 Chase Hall
> > >Hanover, NH 03755
> > >
> > >Office: 603-646-9185
> > >Cell: 603-359-0369
> >
>