GRONEN 2012: Corporate Sustainability – Off to Pastures New or Back to the Roots?

We would like to remind you that the deadline for submissions to the GRONEN Research Conference 2012 is 15 February 2012. GRONEN 2012 “Corporate Sustainability – Off to Pastures New or Back to the Roots?” will be held on 26-29 June in Saint Maximin la Sainte Baume in southern France, organized by Euromed Management Marseille in collaboration with the oikos Foundation.

GRONEN 2012 invites submissions to full paper and research development sessions as well as to special topic workshops and three Professional Development Workshops on teaching corporate sustainability. There is also a special issue of Business & Society linked to the conference.

Submissions should be sent via email: submissions@gronen2012.org.

 

Pluralism in financial research: Prospects and problems

by: Andreas Georg Scherer & Emilio Marti

The financial crisis that started in 2008 was not just a crisis of financial markets. It was also a crisis of financial economists, because most of them failed to warn the public of the possibility of such a crisis. Some financial economists have therefore called for more pluralism in financial research. Last year, for example, 19 finance professors from Europe signed an appeal in which one of their key demands is a “return to intellectual pluralism”.

Pluralism in financial research means to go beyond the mainstream quantitative methods and narrow economic assumptions that predominate within financial economics. Statistical analyses and theoretical models would have to be complemented by qualitative research and conceptual clarifications which build on completely different assumptions (imperfect capital markets etc.). One promising example of such an alternative approach are the social studies of finance which use sociological methods to analyze financial phenomena. Their proponents stress that financial markets do not arise “naturally” whenever some people want to buy and others want to sell. Rather, such markets are constructed and maintained through the use of certain devices (e.g. asset pricing formulas) or the establishment of certain “facts” (e.g. LIBOR as a measure for market conditions), to name just two preconditions (this is from Donald MacKenzie’s fascinating book Material Markets).

This opens up new perspectives and leads to different conclusions, for example about high frequency trading. High frequency trading is the use of computer algorithms to trade within milliseconds in financial markets. Most financial economists conclude that high frequency trading should be welcomed by society because it increases liquidity. They analyze how the bid-ask spread evolves after the introduction of high frequency trading and find that it gets smaller. They take this as an indication of greater liquidity and conclude that this might ultimately reduce the cost of capital for firms (see e.g. this paper by Terrence Hendershott and coauthors). Proponents of the social studies of finance, by contrast, find that high frequency trading might become a problem for the stability of financial markets. They point out, for instance, that high frequency trading leads to a weakening of “market norms” for liquidity providers (which might become problematic during a crash) or that the transparency of limit orders in electronic order books might frighten off liquidity suppliers when uncertainty rises (this is elaborated in a study by Daniel Beunza and coauthors).

We have a situation in which different approaches reach different conclusions about financial phenomena. If we take pluralism in financial research seriously, such situations will necessarily arise. And they are problematic because we do not know which approach should inform individual and societal decisions (for example about whether and how to regulate high frequency trading). To deal with the problem of having alternative yet incompatible theoretical perspectives, we have to turn to a meta-level of analysis – philosophy of science – that helps us to reflect about alternative ways of theory building and their link to practice. Here it is striking that there are hardly any systematic analyses of what financial theories are and how to weigh them against each other if they build on different approaches (papers by Skip McGoun are a noteworthy exception).

In a new paper, we therefore distinguish between a positivistic, a postmodern and a constructivist conception of financial theories. Based on this, we argue that financial economists have the responsibility to critically reflect the problems in practice that need to be addressed and to keep their theories closely tied to these original problems. We refer to the “efficient market hypothesis” to show what happens when financial economists fail to do this. With this critical approach we build on insights from philosophy of science to show how to deal with situations in which different approaches reach different theoretical conclusions.

Andreas Georg Schrer and Emilio Marti’s paper “The normative foundation of finance” was published this month in the book “Learning from the Global Financial Crisis”  (edited by Paul Shrivastava and Matt Statler).

 

Andreas Georg Scherer is a professor of business administration at the University of Zurich.

 

 

 

 

 

Emilio Marti is a PhD student in business administration at the University of Zurich.

 

How promoting local fashion designers fosters social sustainability

 

by Christophe Billebaud, director of Montreal Couture, a Montreal-based nonprofit organization that has the mission to bring qualified means of production back to local designers in the province of Québec.

When you think fashion, what comes first in your mind: the parties, the famous designers, that one special dress that made you swoon? In fact, far from this glamorous fantasy, our local fashion industry has been highly weakened because of mindless delocalization strategies from big companies with the result to make many clothing producers shut down. But our local fashion designers that had no other alternative to produce than locally are now the first to be impacted in their business development by induced specific problems like the scarcity of local production facilities and the lack of experienced human resources availability. To address those issues and because we believe that a well-informed customer could make a difference using its purchasing power with intelligence, it has been essential for Montreal Couture to manage projects where consumers could become an active “consum’actor” by engaging in a new and direct way with fashion designers and local producers through co-creative initiatives that would directly impact jobs and businesses in a much longer term: this is how The Citizen Collection was born… a project made to raise awareness about the strong and direct link between buying local fashion and sustaining local jobs, bringing also a twist in the way the collection would be created, as any citizen would have to ability to interact and influence the design of the collection during offline and online co-creative sessions. Who said fashion was futile? Not us. Did you?

 

How do we get mainstream finance to be more ecologically and socially responsible?

by: Milla Craig

This is a question that I have recently been asked.  To some in mainstream finance, I’m sure that just posing such a question would be sufficient to make them shake their heads in exasperation.   One would likely get responses of this nature:  ”To be ecologically and socially responsible? — Our job is to make money and to get the best possible returns!”

In understanding the world of investments, it’s probably more appropriate to ask the question “What is the key to helping those in mainstream finance to understand that including environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into their research methodology can provide better returns?

Professionals in the investment community are subject to the rules of fiduciary duty. This means, that no matter how much an individual may personally be pre-disposed to a particular thinking or direction, one has a duty to follow the directives (or the policy) as stipulated by their client.  What’s not well understood by the mainstream financial community is that the 2009 UNEP Financial Initiative report produced a legal opinion on fiduciary responsibility. The report suggests that an investor might not be respecting his/her fiduciary duty if he/she does not take ESG issues into consideration.

So if we reframe the question – then, how do we get mainstream investors to understand the important of ESG factors?  Well, according to an 2010 Accenture survey of more than 700 Global CEO’s, 93% noted that sustainability is “important” or “very important” to their company’s future success.  (From an investment standpoint, the use of the word sustainability includes the integration of environmental, social and governance factors into fundamental financial analysis).  Given the acknowledgement of the importance of such issues, it is becoming increasingly apparent that integrating ESG factors should be part of all analysts and portfolio managers day-to-day work.  The issue is that the majority of these individuals are:

1. Unaware of the importance of sustainability issues;
2. Unaware of the competitiveness that these issues bring to not only their own roles, but also to the companies in which they invest;
3. Unable to find appropriate education that is adapted to their specific needs given they are under enormous pressure to perform on a day-to-day basis.

I believe education is the key.  In my opinion, those most in need of education are:

• Research directors of buy and sell side firms
• Financial analysts of buy and sell side firms
• Portfolio managers who actively use this research
• Chief Executive Officers and Chief Investment Officers of all public funds
• Directors of publicly-listed companies, public funds, endowment funds and foundations
• The general public

I’d like to comment on the last point.  Recently I read an article by Hazel Henderson who noted that a tipping point is when public sentiment shifts.  Well, in regards to sustainability and the specific ESG factors that can provide a insight into competitive positioning the companies — we need to educate the public.

As society becomes increasingly aware of global environmental and social issues that we face, frustration is growing.  Status quo no longer works.  As we watch the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators, my sense is that members of society are not aware that they too hold power.

Many people in society, in some form or another, are participates in pools of capital.  Many have access to a pension fund (be it provincial or corporate), own shares in companies through their retirement investment portfolios or the organizations for whom they work, through endowment funds or possibly through a foundation with whom they give of their time. Each of these pools of capital will need to be invested to generate a return.

Where the power lies is in requesting that those who manage these pools of capital make a concerted effort to put into place responsible or sustainable investment policies. Once the policies are in place, those who manage said capital have a fiduciary duty to manage it according to such policy.

So ultimately the question is not only how we can get mainstream finance to become more responsible, but also how do we educate society so they realize that they hold in their hands the power to make the difference they desire!

People have the power to ask the right questions.   The problem is that most are either intimidated by the world of finance or simply don’t know enough to ask the right questions.  Overall, the education needs to be focused on both sides of the equation. Those who own the money and those who manage the money!

Milla Craig may be reached at: millani@videotron.ca

 

To Fight Global Warming We Need to Do Battle with Our Own Brains

Manuel Werner holds a PhD in economics and is CEO of Catagori, providing a Cap and Trade platform for individuals.  He has taught at HEC, was an executive with a global bank, a principal with Applied Decision Analysis in Menlo Park California and ran the Real Options Valuation business for PricewaterhouseCoopers. Dr. Werner has designed several greenhouse gas reduction strategies for large emitters.

by: Manuel Werner

If a fundamental axiom of consumer theory fairly reflects human nature – that more is better and, its handmaiden, having more than our neighbours is even better – then we should stop worrying about global warming, as that war is lost in advance. And there is little reason, looking about, to doubt the truth of that axiom; people do indeed want more; some would call this greed. The impulse to acquisitiveness is neither good nor bad. It just is; a derivative of the survival instinct. The need to always get more is one that evolved in a long ago world where there was never enough. But we don’t have to lean on biology to confirm this observation. We can just observe how far the drive for a bigger screen, a smarter phone, a faster car or an overflowing plate at an all-you-can-eatery has decoupled from actual need in any practical sense of that term. It seems that those who didn’t want more never passed along their genes.

Are we then doomed to perish in an overheated world, in murderous competition for ever scarcer water, food and dry land? Not if we are sensible about tackling the problem. And that means accounting for human nature while directly and practically engaging the individual in the struggle against global warming. After all, there is no economic activity, no matter how obscure, that takes place on this planet unless there is somewhere an individual willing and prepared to buy the final product. It is also the individual to whom political leaders look to for validation.

Economic theory, when it tries to explain consumer behaviour (preferences for the purist), relies on the notion of utility. The word utility is used here in the sense not of liking something because it is practical but, rather, because having it is a source of pleasure. Up to a saturation point, like overeating an irresistible desert, more will always increase the consumer’s utility; it is true that the extra joy from each successive mouthful will come in lesser amounts but accumulated pleasure will nevertheless grow. So, why on earth would anyone want to give up the pleasurable acquisition of goods, even though these goods depend for their very existence on dangerously adding to global warming?

Perhaps that question should be reworked: What can we do to constrain behaviour that is fundamentally self-destructive? This is, of course, a very hard question to answer, since utility maximization is an instinct that evolution has burnt deeply into our unconscious brains. It is akin to addiction, awfully difficult to treat. While some individual behaviours that create a public nuisance, such as speeding, are easier to constrain than others, those touching on basic survival, like overconsumption, are the most difficult.

If there is any doubt as to the good sense of basing decision-making in economic theory on utility maximizing behaviour, then just look around. Every discipline engages the notion of utility in one way or the other. Examples include the “willingness to pay” principle used by engineers and the reward-punishment notions of psychology. In evolutionary terms, utility maximizers have adapted and been naturally selected.

You might say that utility maximizing behaviour should militate against people knowingly contributing to global warming and thus harming themselves. You’d here be invoking that other very important axiom behind consumer theory: rationality, the idea that we won’t act in our own worst interests. But this bumps right into the “having more” problem. And therein lies the paradox which could well be our undoing.

The nucleus accumbens, a pleasure seeking region in our brains, is constantly prodding our frontal lobes to make poor judgments in return for greater pleasure. As long as global warming seems to be mainly affecting others and the catastrophic damage being foretold by most of the world’s climate scientists is still a long way off into the future, our frontal lobes have no chance against the siren call from the nucleus accumbens.

What can be done to overcome this deadly obstacle to action on global warming? First we should give up on the idea that people must make drastic lifestyle changes. Contrary to the axiom of rationality, our very human nature more or less ensures they simply won’t – at least not until they are actually staring into the abyss. This way of carrying on to the brink is tellingly encapsulated in the all too commonly invoked business aphorism, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” And our climate doesn’t appear to be broken except, of course, to most of the world’s climate scientists.

Relying on good sense is probably not the best way to make sure that global warming does not get the best of us; if we could only make them understand…. Why would anyone confronted with a choice between believing climate deniers like Stephen Harper or apologists like Bjorn Lomborg, or the climate Cassandras like Al Gore ever choose the latter? Most people will ogle that nice pickup, rated at six times the emissions of a sensible fuel efficient vehicle, and think fondly of the nice Mr. Lomborg and his comforting advice not to worry too much about global warming since technology will make it go away.

Relying on behavioural modification solutions that ignore human nature is also right up there with betting on good sense: a sure road to failure. If constraints are put in the path of what people think is in their best interests, like price controls on agricultural products, black markets will quickly develop to get around those roadblocks. And depending on the enlightened self interest of those toiling in finance to self regulate and so ensure both incredible prosperity and comfortable stability ignores the insights of Thomas Hobbes when he says,

“For the laws of nature (as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to) of themselves, without the terror of some power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like.”

Look at our recent experience. Not having addressed the problem of depending on goodwill where none exists, after the collapse of 2008, has practically ensured that we will stagger into an unusually similar credit crisis in 2011. The individuals who make up the financial industry always act in their own self-interest; we should have reined them in right after the 2008 credit crisis. Unfortunately, the pursuit of self-interest is also true for the individual putting the personal the drive to acquire more above the well-being of the environment.

For a way out of this destructive conflict between pleasurable need and rationality we should, perhaps, be looking at the recycling model, which began with small gestures and quickly grew into a must-do phenomenon. We should be enlisting people directly in the war against global warming, asking for small commitments until it builds into a global movement, the way recycling has done. The alternatives are not very attractive.

Placing carbon taxes on individuals might work but would be unfair, since the burden would fall unequally, greatly affecting those least able to pay. It is also an approach that political calculation has often discarded as too risky. It would either offend the entire electorate or alienate support from regions commercially dependant on fossil fuels. However, asking those who cannot (or will not) reduce their carbon emissions to compensate those who can and are willing to act now, offers a fairer, workable alternative. And, there are ways to do so.

Cap and Trade (CAT), the model used by the European Union to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases, works on that very principle. It is a successful system and is being copied by jurisdictions elsewhere, such as California, the US states that are part of the RGGI, Quebec (in 2013) and others. It avoids the pitfalls of across the board carbon taxes. Carbon taxes immediately penalize the higher cost enterprises which would eventually, in any event, either reduce their cost structure or wind up in an orderly manner. CAT, on the other hand, works at the margin and allows emitters to make better choices as to when to close down or introduce green technologies, based on market prices. And market prices are always a better indicator of how much should be paid to get what is needed, whereas taxes are just best guesses.

However, markets are not perfect. If they were, we could conceivably leave them be and allow them to provide the best allocation of resources. But the conditions needed for perfect markets are near impossible to ensure. Two such conditions in particular, that all players have perfect information and that no participant is big enough to have price setting powers rarely, if ever, occur. In financial markets, for example, some of the products are so complex that they are not understood by most market participants. So, without these conditions markets must be sufficiently regulated to ensure that they are not hijacked by clever manipulators and unscrupulous players. As we have seen in the European Trading System, it is not always immediately apparent how to best design and regulate a market. The second trading period, running from 2008 and due to expire in 2012, learned from mistakes in the first trading period (2005 to 2007), and will again make changes for the third trading period slated to begin in 2013. For example, installations will no longer receive allocations from National Allowance Plans but will get them instead from a pan-European base. This will address the problem of individual countries, for various reasons, over-allocating carbon credits, which has tended to distort the market.

In the end, though, while it is good to rein in large emitters we must also look to the individual to pull his/her weight. Indeed, it can be argued that without the individual there would not be any large emitters and if the individual could be made to care about global warming, his/her decisions would force large emitters to do what is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions. Add to this the fact that it is the burning of fossil fuels by the transportation sector that adds most to global greenhouse gases and we have an urgent case for getting the individual involved.

Easier said than done. There is a Catch 22 here. Politicians are loath to impose carbon taxes or other coercive measures on an electorate, which can turn against them if they are not already predisposed to doing something about global warming. Indeed, North American and emerging economy leadership has shown a singular lack of interest in doing anything of the sort. However, should the individual ever show a real interest in actively reducing CO2, politicians would rush to the join the game.

Catagori.com accepts that asking people to make major lifestyle changes or to pay to offset the totality of their emissions, will not work. The idea is not to eliminate all carbon emissions, but rather to reduce them to sustainable levels, which means working at the margins. Asking all individuals to reduce to the same sustainable level at the same time will also not work. However, given that there are already individuals who have a substantially lower carbon footprint than others there is room for cooperation with those who have a much larger emissions profile. Which brings us back to Cap and Trade, but this time for individuals, something the Royal Society recommended a number of years ago as the best approach to dealing with CO2 from vehicles.

At Catagori individuals are allocated a fixed number of allowances per trading period, just like in the European Trading System. Those who have emitted less CO2 than the allowances received can sell the surplus into the market through the Catagori trading platform, while those who are over the average allocation can buy the shortfall. This allows each individual to adjust their emissions at a pace which is suitable to their particular circumstances.

More importantly, this Cap and Trade system provides individuals with a way to directly impact CO2 emissions. It will sensitize them to the enormity of the problem posed by excessive greenhouse gases and make them willing participants in the fight against global warming, a sine qua non for governments to also get actively involved. As citizens, we should expect nothing less, the nucleus accumbens notwithstanding.

manuel.werner@catagori.com

514-276-3519/514-594-2887 (mobile)

 

How can we get capitalists to change their ways?

 

by: Chris Cooper

If we take capitalism to be a system in which private capital can operate free of government regulation, then we know that capitalism has already changed. There are few jurisdictions that don’t increasingly restrict what for-profit businesses can do, and most of this legislation requires actions beneficial to the common good.  So the good news is it’s happening, the tide is coming in, and the question is one of degree and velocity.

It’s observable that in democracies public opinion and social values generally precede legislation: this is been the case most places with respect to social issues such as divorce, child labor, working conditions, safety standards or gender equality. One swallow doesn’t make a summer, but we can also see the first signs of more enlightened regulation in areas of water quality, food safety, ozone depletion, and the like.  Changes can be made to market-based structures by legislation (for example Bolivia’s law giving right to life to nature) or by monetizing public goods that may currently be “free”, water being a good example. And more good news is that the weight of public opinion is becoming increasingly easy to bring to bear, as evidenced by the web-enabled Arab Spring and Occupy movements: this pressure can be a catalyst of change throughout market-based economies and businesses.

We have to expect for-profit corporations to go beyond regulatory compliance in CSR and sustainability and adopt a long-term strategic vision (to quote Al Gore on this topic, “short term thinking is functionally insane”) of their organization as enduringly profitable, but entirely beneficial to the world community. This means doing no harm (by no means easy), as well as affirmatively using the organization’s resources to reach out and increase community capacity and resilience.  While some are already doing this, we should challenge every for-profit entity to create and/or support non-profit social enterprises, and we should make a particular point of demanding the same of non-profits and charities, all of whom have a social mission but far from all of whom are completely beneficial to the community.

Additionally and most importantly, we must resist the temptation to argue only logic and self-interest. Both change-leadership theory and our own experience remind us that people change through a process of “we see, we feel, we change” not “we see, we analyze, we change”: it’s people who feel and people, not “organizations”, who make decisions.  We must put the moral issues squarely in front of them, and frame the debate in terms of ethics, values, ideals, and legacy: what’s right and what’s wrong.  This kind of language languishes in organizational disuse, suppressed by avoidance and cynicism, but we must be bold enough to use it: we are all people, we all have families, we are all mortal, and we all understand the power of doing right. We should all be able to face ourselves in the mirror as Ebenezer Scrooge was made to in A Christmas Carol: what picture will our great-grandchildren paint of us and how we ran the world?

Surely, if we can replace today’s rather grim survivalist discourse of sustenance and compliance with one of luminosity, inspiration and long-term vision, and do it in practical terms to which mainstream leaders can relate, can’t we collectively accelerate the current trajectory of change?

 

I don’t want a Birkin bag. I want to change the way we consume!

by Aleece Germano

Am I CRAZY?!? In response to “Are Social Entrepreneurs Crazy?” by the Washington Post

Three years ago, I left behind a well paid, 10-year consulting job with a Fortune 500 client to launch two nonprofit social enterprises that address clothing overconsumption and garment industry waste in North America: The SWAP Team and Style & Conscience.

Given the amount of hours I’ve worked on these projects for zero pay, I can understand why some people would think I’m nuts. But before you call me crazy, think about it this way: rather than give $10,000 of my hard-earned money away to a charity that may or may not be efficient — or spend it on some ephemeral “luxury” like a Hermès Birkin bag, I decided to start my own projects. Having once aspired to become a fashion designer, I’ve always been passionate about fashion industry issues — I participated in my first protest against sweatshop labour over fifteen years ago. It has confounded me that after all this time, very little has changed. The fashion industry is ripe for disruption.

Photo:  Exploiting the poor, whether as labourers or models, doesn’t make anyone look good. (Vogue India, August 2008)

I had little more than a shoestring budget, some great friends, a supportive family and the unshakable conviction that what I was doing was “the right thing” to get The SWAP Team underway. After our first event in 2007, that meant giving up more and more of my free time and activities to move the organization forward. I even put my swanky condo up for sale and downsized to keep my cost of living lower, ensuring that I could devote more and more of my time to the unpaid volunteer work I love.

Photo:  At The SWAP Team’s events, swapping is the new fast fashion! (Châtelaine, October 2011)

Could it be that a growing number of us are simply wanting to change the world more than anything money can buy — and willing to take great risks to make it happen? Look no further than Annie Leonard, whose Story of Stuff inspired many to take action, and John Wood, who quit his job at Microsoft during its 90s heyday and spent vast amounts of his own funds to launch Room to Read, now a 10-year-old successful social enterprise.

At The SWAP Team, we unite like-minded fashion activists with the simple concept of “microvolunteering”: whether you’ve got 2 minutes, 2 hours or 2 days a week to get involved, you can make an impact on our organization. There’s no way we could have grown so quickly without the support of literally hundreds of volunteers, whose work has created what some call “a tidal wave of social enterprise.”

The payoff for all this volunteer effort, you might ask?

The SWAP Team’s year-over-year impact is rapidly growing, with over 60,000 items diverted from landfills and more than 31,000 garments donated to charities. Style & Conscience celebrated its first birthday by showing at Montreal Fashion Week and has worked with designers Denis Gagnon and Marie Saint Pierre.

You know, in my experience, a paycheck doesn’t always equal satisfaction. This has been by far the most satisfying and rewarding experience of my life, and I’ve met many wonderful people along the way. I’d like to personally thank all the volunteers, swappers, advisors, sponsors and partners who have supported us as we continue to grow.

Photo: Style & Conscience introduced the world’s first 100% upcycled leather luxury handbag in June 2010. Proudly made in Quebec! (LouLou, June 2010)

 

 

What the world needs now is more support for social entrepreneurs. Let’s hear more about the ones in your community. Tell us, who has inspired you lately? Who is creating positive change near you? The future is all about WE not ME!

 

Aleece Germano
President & Founder
The SWAP Team
aleece@theswapteam.org

Aleece Germano is a Montreal-based social entrepreneur involved with numerous projects, including The SWAP Team, Style & Conscience, E-180 and The Awesome Foundation Montreal. For a complete bio, please visit her LinkedIn profile.

 

When arts and sustainability intersect

In Dr. Lidia Varbanova’s 3 of 4 video discussion on arts and sustainability, she shares her thoughts on what professionals can do to encourage the role of arts and culture in sustainability discussions.

And Dr. Lidia Varbanova leaves us on a positive note. Drawing from the Montreal International Jazz Festival, she conveys how artistic events can successfully integrate sustainability through creative and innovative ways.

 

A transdisciplinary approach to our understanding of sustainability

 

The Balance-Unbalance conference will be held in Montreal, Quebec at Concordia University on November 4th and 5th, 2011. One of the main goals for this conference is to convey how arts and artists are vital to our understanding of  sustainability.

This post is brought to us by Carmela Cucuzzella, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Fine Arts at Concordia University.

by: Carmela Cucuzzella

The focus on our academic/scientific understanding of climate change has done minimal in impacting behaviour change. This is one reason why a transdisciplinary approach is often suggested as a means to a more comprehensive understanding of the repercussions of current unsustainable practices.

However, a transdisciplinary approach or understanding of sustainability is neither obvious nor easy.  Academia fragments our world in categories of disciplines, yet, the world does not work that way. It works in very complex interrelated ways that are difficult to grasp as a whole, and why disciplinary categories have come to exist – to help understand the many parts. Transdisciplinarity does not refer to an accumulative understanding of the concerns within each of the disciplines, but rather, an understanding that is complex – one that seeks to look between the empty spaces of each of the distinct disciplines and comprehend how these spaces may be connected. Yet, to be able to see the world in this way, one must move away from the traditional scientific/academic understanding since this information or knowledge is often too reductionist, too abstract, and laden with far too many technicalities and uncertainties. All of which are far removed from the value systems of those for which such information may become an impetus for behavioral change.

Expressive art forms that provide a critique of unsustainable practices may allow humans to come to a better understanding of this complexity because art does not lie within disciplinary boundaries but rather crosses them.  An aesthetic experience allows a whole experience (rather than fragmented) since experience cannot be divided into parts as we do with our disciplines. When we experience an art form, it touches the imaginary in far reaching ways, regardless of the subject matter. It is in this way that this conference may help raise awareness of the global crisis.

 

Conservation through Culinary Creativity

Photo: Anil K. Gupta TED Conference

About Anil K. Gupta (from TED Talk): Anil Gupta is on the hunt for the developing world’s unsung inventors — indigenous entrepreneurs whose ingenuity, hidden by poverty, could change many people’s lives. He shows how the Honey Bee Network helps them build the connections they need — and gain the recognition they deserve.

In this blog contribution, Anil K. Gupta shares with us his experiences at the 8^th edition of the Satvik Traditional Food Festival in 2010. The Food Festival is organised by Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI) in collaboration with National Innovation Foundation (NIF), Grassroots Innovation Augmentation Network (GIAN), and many colleagues from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA).

by: Anil K. Gupta

In the central section of the innovation exhibition at the new campus of IIMA, the availability of traditional and nutritional foods and products from regions in India such as, Karnataka, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttrakhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, Orissa are immediately obvious. But most notable, are the displays of several new innovative products.

The non-stick clay pot …

The Dhanuk community in Ambala, Chhota Udaipur, and Vadodara created a completely natural non-stick clay pot. Earlier renditions of the clay pot (by Mansukh Bhai) used a food grade chemical which gave the pot its non-stick properties. This clay pot was polished instead by a lac that grew on a ‘phoim’ tree found in that region.

This sustainable cooking pot, which is affordable, safe, good for making tasty food and energy efficient could become a global signature in the near future. A reminder that the inventors could one day benefit financially and be able to politely refuse the aid from the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA)  (a program which considers the economically poor in communities such as Dhanuk as ‘unskilled’ ).  It is the hope that this inclusive development will be taught in places not only at IIMA but also around the world.

Soap and Face Care ….

Let me share some more examples of community knowledge which are changing our perceptions of what is possible through platforms like Sattvik. Panchal, Sajeev, Kheti, Manch have all brought a large number of women and men farmers to the Sattvik festival. A community from the Lalvadan village, Jasdan, has developed a soap made from ingredients such as, cowdung, panchgavya, multani mitti, seasme oil and camphor. The soap is all natural and has extremely good sanitation properties. Similarly, the community has made a face/skin care product, Ubtan, which are also made from all natural ingredients such as pulses, mustard, turmeric, and chandan.

Gas iron and washing machines …

Hussian Ajhmeri from Shahpur designed a gas iron for pressing clothes. While NIF had come across similar irons by Lingabrahma from andhra Pradhesh, this one seemed more compact and customer friendly. Although the irons, at the time, were under testing, more types of irons could only benefit the community by providing options to those who want to iron their clothes at home.

People from around the world have voted through making more sustainable purchasing choices. Inventions such as those displayed at the Saatwik 2010 Food Festival show us that there are places where such things are readily made and sold all year round.

The revolution is taking place in India. Perhaps this might shift the way global markets perceive India, not merely as an untapped market of rural consumers (who are at the bottom of the so called economic pyramid) but as inventors of products and services from whom they may buy from.

May all social entrepreneurs come forward to join hands with us at Satwik 2011 on December 17 to 19, 2011 at the IIMA’s new campus.

To learn more about Anil K. Gupta, we encourage you to watch his inspiring talk at TED.