We got some very interesting feedback on the green/biodynamic posts (
1 and
2). They ranged from skepticism, through cautious optimism to nonchalant dismissal of the controversy. Thanks to Matt, Paul W, Jared, Debby Z, Paul M, and some anonymous respondents.
For several years I’ve been involved in the field (as in: “the trenches”) of
sustainable use of natural resources – from aquaculture to silviculture (and just about everything in between). In this time, I’ve seen first-hand some of the impacts of these practices on the environment, but, more importantly, on business results.
Based on my experience,
the adoption of environmentally-friendly processes improves operational efficiency and financial sustainability. My big question is whether or not my experience applies to vineyard operations.
Here’s a classic example: in forestry, many loggers still clear cut the Amazon jungle to arrive at the species of tree they want to fell, leaving the resulting “waste” to rot or burn (sometimes usefully as compost or fuel, but oftentimes, just detritus). This requires the use of multiple teams of chain saw operators, spotter, skidders, trucks, etc. – when you factor in diesel and salaries, it becomes a huge tab. On the other hand, once an operation has geo-tagged species, mapped the trees, and planned their harvest, one crew has the same productivity in logs per day of the first example, without the environmental cost, AND has reduced direct costs by close to 90%. Of course, switching costs from one to the other aren’t trivial: GPS hardware, species census, precision mapping, planning, GIS and all the required training has an upfront cost, which is why we still see a lot of clear cutting in the Amazon basin, but, based on my interviews with folk in the field, this cost is recovered in the first year!
I can quote similar examples in other fields (shrimp farms, coffee, quinoa, babasú, etc), but won’t bore you with the details.
Bringing the meandering discussion back to general terms, I think that the crux of the matter is that
up to 60% of the world’s ecosystems have been degraded or are being used unsustainably on one hand, while on the other, there appears to be little financial incentive in the short to mid-term to correct this trend (see
post 2).
For those of us that agree with Jared Diamond’s theories (neatly and convincingly explained in his book
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed), it is easy to see the source of the controversy: according to the “uninitiated” masses of decision-makers, the cost of sustainable practices is not easily transferred to the market, making it financially unviable for the practitioner to adopt sustainability.
Furthermore, the very use of the term “
sustainable business” (in my mind, simply: the impact of current practices and the subsequent future required remediation) is controversial. The scientific community has no clear answers, as the reported research results are couched in terms that can be discounted / misinterpreted on their conservative / probabilistic or alarmist / extremist terms. Admittedly, the scientific community has a tall order – how do you explain to the masses in clear understandable terms the behavior of a complex system without oversimplifying (which opens you up to criticism as an activist or sellout) or confusing the audience (which opens you up to misinterpretation or obscurity).
I think that, in the end analysis, as is the case with many decisions in the field of strategy, you need to find a position that sits well with the “who” and the “why” of the operation (sometimes seen in mission and vision statements), and then make it happen. I just wish more organizations were true to their “who” and “why” (so much
Corporate Social Responsibility blah, blah out there), and less concerned with justifying the “how”. I guess that I just concluded that the customer doesn’t matter. Hmm…
