Gary Turner has posted a thoughtful piece on the topic of ‘green accounting.’ Trouble is I don’t buy it. Or at least much of it. Measuring what’s what in the carbon usage stakes is fine but it’s hardly going to tell us how to solve the carbon problems that are so fashionable at the moment. Whether you buy into the climate change disaster scenarios or not, it does seem there will be greater pressure on businesses of all kinds to be at least aware of the carbon footprint. So what? How does it help to know these things? It’s like the old adage: ‘Accountants will tell you the cost of everything but the value of nothing.’
Unless there is something actionable that can be tied to any accounting then quite frankly it’s a waste of time. Gary is somewhat more hopeful about this, and especially as it applies to the smaller business:
In the immediate term it is likely that the primary motivation for small business owners to get green, whether through the use of smart technologies to mitigate or negate transportation costs for example, or through the careful selection of green suppliers, will be primarily driven by a personal sense of social responsibility and choice.
The immediate words that come to my mind are: in your dreams. That’s not meant to be facetious but it seems that time and again, the only thing that motivates business people is when it looks as though an issue will hurt the pocketbook. That was one of the prime reasons why Al Gore, in his talks on the topic, always frames the discussion around ‘green’ being good for business. The business that acts out of altruism is a rare bird indeed. Some even argue it is against the reason for being in business although I tend to think of that as representative of the psychopathic fringe of business management.
Put another way, why would any business adopt ‘green’ policies when they see the forces of the state ranged against peaceful protest and the very same issues of which Gary speaks? It’s a non-sequitor.
Where an accounting might have impact is when the business feels as though it has some control over what they’re seeing. In that regard, I like the idea of smart metering, but only if it means I get to control the data upon which decisions are made. I don’t need a green P&L to do that, just an acceptance by whomever is supplying me with power that my usage = my data. Real-time. That’s one of the reasons I like what Homecamp has been doing.
Gary does make the ‘trickle down’ case and it is one I can see but that really is a slow burn. But then I am also somewhat cynical about the PWC consultants who are swanning around waving green credentials like it is some sort of new religion they need to foist upon management. Get the religious fervour out the way and make the business case. Make it comprehensible and persuasive so that I can see how my bottom line will be improved. That motivates like little else in business. Most everything else is sugar coating.
Instead, I’d prefer to talk about sustainability in general. The person I really like in this regard is SAP’s James Farrar. Yes, it’s easy to say – they’re punting solutions along those lines and therefore it’s a money making exercise for SAP. But then James’ thinking goes well beyond the accounting end of this topic. Sustainability is way more than putting the lights out, or using more fuel efficient computing resources (itself a decent reason for thinking saas by the way.) It’s about looking at business from a wholly different perspective. I’m not convinced a green P&L can give you that.
There will be those that argue of carbon accounting ‘at least it’s a start.’ Well yes and maybe so. But I’ve been hearing about this for three years with little progress beyond pretty reports. Don’t ask me for answers. I’m no expert and make no pretense in that regard. But please, don’t let’s limit the discussion to a sterile piece of paper – of whatever colour.
loading...
loading...
