By Jason, on February 2nd, 2012, at 7:44 am%
 What motivates you more? Is it values (“It’s the right thing to do”) or is it incentives (“This helps me in some way, so I’ll do it”)? Recently I’ve been reading a bunch on environmental ethics. One of the interesting things I’ve noticed is that there is a lot of research and data out there demonstrating that dramatic action needs to be taken now because failure to address our environmental issues will have potential catastrophic consequences for future generations. At the same time, the information alone hasn’t been enough to bring about a widespread transformation in behavior.
In Michael Strong’s article, “Solving All Environmental Problems” from the book Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the Worlds Problems, he makes an intriguing claim:
…in a world of more than six billion, in which even within a given nation-state there are diverse beliefs about morality (and reality), it is unrealistic to expect that everyone will be persuaded. People react to incentives and disincentives. Moral suasion is useful in projecting a values system, but if the persuasion lacks a meaningful, tangible incentive structure, the values are likely to be ignored. Carrots and sticks work far better than words and, when manifested in the price system, they allow for nearly instantaneous “sustainability” decisions to be made worldwide.
Michael Strong, “Solving All Environmental Problems,” 147.
Similarly, from the book Creation in Crisis: Christian Perspectives on Sustainability –
“[In the past] social collapse … occurred when nations and civilizations failed to adapt sufficiently quickly to threatening scenarios. This means that the creation of a better successor to the Kyoto Protocol involving ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ is imperative. It will have to focus on a low- or zero-carbon economy … and create innovative carbon pricing schemes that do not penalize low-income countries.”
Brian Heap, Flavio Comim and George Wilkes, “International Governance and Unsustainability,” 78.
These suggestions made me wonder–are incentives and punishments the most effective way to bring about environmental sustainability? Part of me says no–there are certain things that people will do simply because it’s the right thing to do. Recycling is a good example. There’s little benefit to separating out cans and garbage, but the vast majority of people in the Bay Area do it, I think. A more difficult example would be something like installing solar panels on a home. Right now there are tax benefits to doing so that can save you thousands of dollars (an incentive). If those benefits went away, would people still take the financial hit, knowing that they might not get a return on their investment? Some people might based on values, because their financial hit paves the way, however small, for a more sustainable future. On the flip side, what if you were penalized on your energy bill for high electricity use? Would that change things?
At the core of my inquiry is this–is the pursuit of value transformation (through information dissemination, reading books, lectures, demonstrations, focus groups, etc.) enough to bring about lasting behavioral change? Or do we need to rely on a system of carrots and sticks? Or a little of both?
Can you help me with this by taking a quick survey? Just your gut reaction, and you can only pick one: When thinking about environmental issues, what would motivate you more-values or incentives? See it below. (If you can’t see the survey, click this link: Motivation Survey)
By Jason, on January 30th, 2012, at 9:07 am%
A few weeks back, I put up a brief post on Apple and Its Pursuit of Fair Labor, which contained the content of a letter sent out by CEO Tim Cook and a link to their webpages addressing their efforts to ensure that fair and equitable labor practices were in place or in progress across their supply chain. In the post, I said they were an excellent example in the sense that they were, at the very least, trying to do something systematically in their company.
This article, “In China, Human Costs are Built into an iPad,” from the New York Times makes me wonder about their ability to deliver on the promises they make. The article chronicles two accidents that occurred at Foxconn iPad manufacturing plants, that resulted in four deaths and dozens of injuries. According to the article, part of the tension is that Apple’s demands are so stringent that its suppliers feel compelled to cut corners wherever they can to create even the slimmest of profit margins. Here’s a snippet from the first part of the article that really illustrates the problem:
Some former Apple executives say there is an unresolved tension within the company: executives want to improve conditions within factories, but that dedication falters when it conflicts with crucial supplier relationships or the fast delivery of new products. Tuesday, Apple reported one of the most lucrative quarters of any corporation in history, with $13.06 billion in profits on $46.3 billion in sales. Its sales would have been even higher, executives said, if overseas factories had been able to produce more.
Executives at other corporations report similar internal pressures. This system may not be pretty, they argue, but a radical overhaul would slow innovation. Customers want amazing new electronics delivered every year.
“We’ve known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they’re still going on,” said one former Apple executive who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements. “Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn’t have another choice.”
“If half of iPhones were malfunctioning, do you think Apple would let it go on for four years?” the executive asked.
Is there some sort of systemic Jekyll and Hyde thing going on here? I believe that Tim Cook is completely sincere in his letter and that their policies are filled with good intentions. At the same time, it appears that when the bottom line is affected, their values are pushed off to the side. This is a company that has nearly $100 billion in the bank, yet seems relentless in pursuing maximizing profit margins–a relentlessness that appears to come at the cost of real people, just people that you and I don’t see.
By Jason, on January 28th, 2012, at 10:14 am%
I’ve been waiting for this ever since they released Logos Bible Software for iOS – highlighting and notes are now available on the mobile app! And better yet, it fully synchronizes with the Desktop app. Awesome.
 Logos 2.0.1 on iOS
By Jason, on January 27th, 2012, at 7:13 am%
In my Bible reading yesterday morning, I came across one of my favorite passages in the Scriptures, Matthew 9:35-39. As Matthew recounts this story, he sets the context by telling his readers what Jesus was doing: (1) going everywhere he could (“all the towns and villages”), (2) teaching where they were already gathered (the synagogue), (3) preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and (4) healing every disease and every sickness. I think there’s something neat about those four in that it’s a great “practice what you preach” sandwich–the inner two describe his teaching and preaching ministry, and the outer two describe his on the ground, active seeking out of people and helping them in a holistic way. He taught and he healed, connecting the spiritual and physical realities of the gospel of the kingdom.
 Rembrandt - Return of the Prodigal Son My favorite part of the passage, though, sits in verse 36–”When he saw the crowds, he had compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη) on them.” The verb translated “had compassion” is σπλαγχνίζομαι, defined as “have pity, feel sympathy”, and I have to say it has a nice, albeit harsh, ring to it: splanchnizomai. The noun form is σπλάγχνον (splanchnon), which literally means “the inward parts of a body, including esp. the viscera, inward parts, entrails” (BDAG, 938). Thus, the translation “had compassion” connects a deep, heartfelt emotion that goes all the way down to your guts. Jesus really felt it for these folks. They were harassed and helpless, and he was moved in his most inward parts to love them.
Following the trail in a dictionary a little bit further, I found that there are two other key stories where this verb shows up: The Parable of the Prodigal Son and The Good Samaritan story. In the story of the prodigal son, the father–betrayed, spat on, and rejected by the younger son–has this response to his wayward son’s return:
“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη) for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.” (Luke 15:20 NIV)
All he needed was to see him, and his guts were moved, he ran, and he welcomed him home.
Then, there’s the Good Samaritan seeing the injured man in Luke 10:33 (ESV): “But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη).” But he didn’t just feel bad for him, he did something about it–he tended to his wounds, brought him to an inn, and paid for his stay. As Hans-Helmut Esser notes,
In the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10:30–37) splanchnizomai in v. 33 expresses the attitude of complete willingness to use all means, time, strength, and life, for saving at the crucial moment. It contrasts with the passing by on the other side (vv. 31, 32). Since seeing and being prepared to help are one, it sets in motion as with Jesus himself, a whole chain of events which together are called eleos (v. 37a). Humanity and neighbourliness are not qualities but action (v. 37f.).
Hans-Helmut Esser, s.v. “σπλάγχνα, σπλάγχνον,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 2:600, boldface added.
I’ve heard it said that compassion without action is not compassion at all, but sympathy. Jesus demonstrates to us that real compassion involves active participation in addressing the needs of the hurting.
Humanity and neighborliness are not qualities but action. That takes guts.
By Jason, on January 24th, 2012, at 7:31 am%
A great piece from The Economist on how Fuji weathered the turbulent waters of the shift from analog to digital photography. It basically came down to forward thinking and a willingness to let something die and embrace something new. Here’s an excerpt:
Shigetaka Komori, Fujifilm’s boss, expresses admiration for Kodak in an interview prior to the lawsuit, calling it “the strongest company I ever saw.” He entered his firm in 1963, when the American firm towered over its Japanese rival in every way. “Its situation fills me with a bit of regret and emotion,” he says about Kodak’s woes.
Like Kodak, Fujifilm realised in the 1980s that photography would be going digital. Like Kodak, it continued to milk profits from film sales, invested in digital technologies, and tried to diversify into new areas. Like Kodak, the folks in the wildly profitable film division were in control and late to admit that the film business was a lost cause. As late as 2000 Fujifilm counted on a gentle 15 or 20-year decline of film—not the sudden free-fall that took place. Within a decade, film went from 60% of Fujifilm’s profits to basically nothing.
If the market forecast, strategy and internal politics were the same, why the divergent outcomes? The big difference was execution.
Fujifilm realised it needed to develop in-house expertise in the new businesses. In contrast, Kodak seemed to believe that its core strength lay in brand and marketing, and that it could simply partner or buy its way into new industries, such as drugs or chemicals. The problem with this approach was that without in-house expertise, Kodak lacked some key skills: the ability to vet acquisition candidates well, to integrate the companies it had purchased and to negotiate profitable partnerships. “Kodak was so confident about their marketing capability and their brand, that they tried to take the easy way out,” says Mr Komori.
When sales from film developing and printing were dwindling, for instance, some revenue could still be gained by installing kiosks to print digital photos. Yet whereas Fujifilm had its own system, Kodak needed to partner with another firm—and thus share the income. Moreover, whereas Fujifilm could apply the kiosk technology to other businesses in its digital-imaging division, Kodak could not because it did not own the technology. The Japanese company was also able to strike a deal to place its kiosks in Walmart stores, which gave it scale. Today Fujifilm controls nearly 40% of the photofinishing market in America, whereas Kodak’s share is only 15%, according to IBISWorld, a research firm.
|
|
|
Recent Comments