The whole idea of John Elkington's "triple bottom line" is to deal with
the "profit-making mission that is logically antithetical to
conservation" - see
www.SustainAbility.com - and chapt 3 at
http://intergon.net/phd
John Elkington has been working with Shell and BP for almost 20 years.
BP has no excuse.
In my thesis I cited a copy of an 19 Nov 1999 email (appendix A, p
195-6) in my thesis from the then CEO of Ford (Jac Nassur) discussing
the meeting between him, John Elkington and then then CEO of BP (Sir
John Browne). It was sent to "all Ford employees and others" around the
world.
http://adt.lib.rmit.edu.au/adt/uploads/approved/adt-VIT20081212.104859/public/02whole.pdf
BP had no excuse. Industry has no excuse. ISO9001 (quality) requires
that organisations manage their suppliers properly and ISO14001
(environment) has more environmental-specific requirements - the
Chairman of BP said he was not responsible and blamed his supplier!!!!!
As an ISO9001 lead auditor (I audit over 100 businesses per year) I
suggest that BP was responsible, because their supplier was not managed
properly.
Society at large has a responsiblity, which is a cultural issue and
culture is at the heart of this problem.
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Graduate School of Business
my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
>>> "Andre, Rae" <
r.andre@NEU.EDU> 28/05/10 7:36 AM >>>
This oil spill tragedy saddens me deeply. It probably saddens most
people in the country.
If we think of the organizational world as comprised of government,
government sponsored enterprises, and private firms (among others),
which
of these is most likely to be responsive to a paradigm shift like the
shift to sustainability? The government, probably, because as
individuals
shift their paradigm from growth to conservation, they will elect
representatives who agree with them, who will in turn implement
conservation. GSEs and companies
are just that much farther removed from elected officials that they will
be less affected by such paradigm changes. And, too, in the case of
companies (and some GSEs) , they have a profit-making mission that is
logically antithetical to conservation. (Long conversation on that will
not follow!)
Which brings me to my main point: In my view we are irresponsible, as
citizens and as teachers, if we are not teaching our students
about government--good government, accountable government,
administrative government, corrupt government, and of course business
and
government. Somewhere understanding government (and the attendant power
structures ) has to get into curricula for business (and all) students.
Rae André, Ph. D.
Professor, Organizational Behavior and Theory
College of Business Administration
Northeastern University
website: raeandre.com
"To more hopeful prophets, ties based upon conscious relatedness may
someday replace those of blood and soil."
--David Riesman
________________________________________
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Charles Wankel
[
wankelc@VERIZON.NET]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:07 AM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Has anyone noticed the environmental missteps by BP and the US
government in the Gulf?
Has anyone noticed the environmental missteps by BP and the US
government in the Gulf? If so, post your comments. What would be
especially appreciated would be teaching or research takes on the issues
and approaches that we should be mulling over.
Best regards,
Charles Wankel
ONE-L List Director
St. John's University, New York
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~wankelc
Add me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wankelc