Nick Palmer wrote:

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/

This organisation actually works on new economic models that include the environmental and social costs of economies onto the "bottom line" of the balance sheet. That is all one has to do to solve so many seemingly intractable problems. A business/country that makes a ton of money but is doing it by destroying environmental or social capital will be measured, by indicators far more subtle than GDP, as less profitable than others. If they want to be successful they will have to do the decent environmental thing to improve their balance sheet

If you can change the laws such that companies must pay for the environmental damage they do, THEN you can roll environmental damage into the P&L statement. But unless that's done it's just handwaving to claim their profits are other than what they are.

Pillage has always been profitable. Any claim that it is not profitable is vacuous -- absent a change in the laws to (somehow) drain money from offenders, it can only be supported by redefining the word "profit" to something other than its commonly accepted meaning. You can measure the value of a company any way you like, but if the measure isn't "profit" then please don't call it "profit".

Words are useful for communication because we agree on their meanings. Redefining a common word and then claiming that something has been accomplished or some point has been made as a result just dilutes communication. Trying to redefine the word "profit" will just obscure the causes which led to the behaviors we want to change; it won't eliminate those causes.

"Profit" is the amount you rake in minus the amount you invested. If the United States (or Europe, or China, or Exxon -- take your choice) lives high on the hog at the expense of the rest of the world that just says that what they're doing right now is very "profitable".

"Good" and "profitable" are two different words. "Sustainable" and "profitable" are also two different words. "Cash flow" and "profit" are two different terms. Let's not mix these up.





Reply via email to