sustainable business/cradle to cradle

catherine gray, of the natural step, writes:

"at a fundamental level, our industrial system was built without sustainability in mind."

how common is it that people utilize partnerships with sustainability experts like the natural step?

she continues: "the reward system currently in place supports unsustainable business practices."

this feels like a game theory issue, that for every company that cooperates and plays by the rules, the way is left open for another, even more insidious, company to come in and get ahead by defecting toward exploitative practices. 

how big does a company have to be before they trust their ability to make it, even by playing fair? 

/

the book cradle to cradle asks, "what do we gain by playing environmental roulette?"

and indicts: "recycling is an aspiring, alleviating a rather large collective hangover… overconsumption."

it contrasts between two characters, guardian and commerce.

guardian: 

•the government

•preserve & protect the public

•slow & serious

•regulation is its tool

•right to kill/war

•public interest

•shuns commerce

commerce

•day to day instant exchange of value

•currency is its primary tool

•urgent, quick, creative, inventive

•short & long term advantage

•inherently honest.

money + guardian = corruption.

commerce + regulation = slow.

the use of the tool of the guardian, regulation, is a signal of design failure. regulation is a "license to harm", to dispense sickness, destruction and death at an "acceptable rate."

can we really trust that good design can require no regulation at all? is it safe to have that much faith, or is it in our nature as humans to try to enslave nature, and should there always be regulations to safeguard that protection?