Life Cycle Thinking Blog

Current and recent events and articles

I very much like the article by Daniel Altman and Jonathan Berman, “The Single Bottom Line.” Companies that think about long term profitability – i.e., being sustainable beyond just the next quarter – should make rational decisions that would now be categorized as “Corporate Social Responsibility” or “Sustainable” solely on the basis of whether or not such “do good” actions will enhance the traditional bottom line long term. I think that’s why we see some fairly old line companies leading the way on sustainability and CSR – 3M, P&G, Johnson& Johnson, Unilever, GE. Their culture is to think for the long term with the expectation that they’ll be around in another century. Thus, they view investment in community and the environment to be in their long term interests and are rewarded by loyal employees, investors and customers.

Nice article in Minneapolis StarTribune: Is sustainability sustainable? by Greg Breining, June 12, 2011.
I just can’t get comfortable with the term “sustainable.” I’ve blogged about it many times, starting in 2007 with The Meaning of “Sustainable.” Proponents of sustainability seem to be be fantasizing about some utopia that could exist if we just quit consuming so much stuff, having so many babies and begin (return to?) living a subsistence life in blissful contemplation of the wonders of nature. Get real!

EPA revealed another set of chemical identities in health and safety studies June 8, 2011, here. I think most of them were “voluntary” by companies, but EPA is claiming some were not.
Protect what is legitimate and be ready to back up your claim. Provide meaningful generic names. Let it go if you can protect your trade secrets by protecting your company name or if historical information is no longer trade secret. Quit jeopardizing the ability to protect real trade secrets by being lazy and claiming everything confidential.