“Sustainability” means different things to different people. Megan Stoffer addresses a trans-Atlantic divide.
Words have strong connotations. The meaning of a word extends beyond its definition to include a set of impressions the word leaves on an individual, which can vary by geography. For example, in the United Kingdom the word “quite” is often taken to mean “slightly”, while in the United States it usually means “very” or “completely”. Most Americans would use the word “anxious” to mean they are eagerly looking forward to something, whereas most Brits would use it to mean they are worried or dreading something.
What does this mean for sustainability?
In the United States, oftentimes it appears that sustainability equals the environment. This narrow view has been shaped by several influences:
The environmental movement launched sustainability to the forefront. Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962 and the US EPA passed a series of environmental regulations in the 1970s. These events shaped our collective perceptions of what it means to be sustainable.
The media frames sustainability as an environmental issue. Headlines share new innovations to reduce CO2 emissions and report on international climate talks. In particular, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth reinforced the connection between environment and sustainability.
Practitioners perpetuate this traditional view. Sustainability plans often boast strong environmental targets and offer only vague commitments in other areas. While it is much easier to establish, measure, and report on environmental targets as compared to other areas, this practice continues the cycle of misrepresentation.
However, a holistic view of sustainability extends far beyond the environment. Economic and social considerations cannot be ignored. Taking a progressive approach, Europe recognizes that these areas are crucial to the long-term company viability. They also provide a platform to approach issues such as human rights, ethics, and community investment. However, the United States is slow to adopt this all-inclusive mindset.
Communicating the importance of this holistic approach is a challenge in itself. Social and economic actions are far less tangible than environmental improvements that have a clear return on investment. Building the case for this viewpoint only comes to light when companies face backlash such as the widespread tax avoidance problems in the UK last year.
This discussion becomes a greater challenge given the United States’ assumption that sustainability equals environment. While you may approach sustainability holistically, many of the people with whom you communicate are not there yet. Practitioners have a responsibility to breakdown this wall whether you are trying to share your progress with consumers or are building a case for sustainability internally. Consumers must open their minds to the breadth of topics sustainability includes rather jumping straight to environment. In order to get employees engaged, they must first adopt the holistic viewpoint before they can begin to integrate sustainability into their daily business decisions.
Some companies do this very well. Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan takes a holistic approach and embeds sustainability across brands. They also communicate this approach clearly among external stakeholders through various channels including their sustainable living labs. Levi Strauss also communicates sustainability well through social media, recognized as the leader on the SMI-Wizness Social Media Sustainability Index 2012.
So, how do we bring the United States up to speed to unite these continents in a common word? Dissolve the connotation sustainability equals environment, select the right words to communicate effectively, and continue to grow the number of people who view sustainability in a new and different light.
COMMENTS