The Green Man is harmony with nature. He originated in India and travelled through the medieval Arab empire to Europe. There he became a decoration for monks’ manuscripts and spread to churches. His present imagery dates from the seventeenth century and he is the spirit of environmentalism up to modern times.
Is it wise now, for companies to mock him through greenwashing? There are three, reasons why companies have environmental objectives.
The first is compliance with litigation. National and international laws limit the abuse that companies may inflict on the environment. They are set according to the balance of interests of various parties and there are usually statutory penalties for flouting them.
The second is branding. Companies that disregard public opinion, especially is the public is a customer, may suffer losses of sales and revenue, even if their activities are legal.
The third is morality. People who have a stake in a company may share a moral code that guides their actions, even when doing so has a cost penalty. In practice, due to the principal-agent problem, this privilege is rarely available to anyone other than the private owner of a company
There are no other valid reasons for environmental objectives. Claims of ‘doing well by doing good‘ don’t stand up. If a company can save money by reducing its carbon footprint, that is something it should do anyway. If it talks about a sustainable business model, that is no more than rational anticipation of future legislation. Companies are now recognizing this and rowing back on earlier commitments. If that obliges society to look for more realistic and practical solutionsto environmental crises, it could be a good thing. The illusion that everybody will voluntariliy do their share is not working; and the longer we believe it, the further down the road the can gets kicked.
The obvious answer is increased legislation in the form of taxes, fines and imprisonment. Companies should support such moves, lobbying their respective governments to bring in clear and enforceable laws. This makes sense for them. They would no longer have the distraction of complex decisions that are outside their expertise. They would once again be on a level playing field. And some companies (the cheats) would be removed from the market.
Current legislation is patchy and ineffectual. Shouldn’t companies who make fraudulent environmental claims be subject to injunctions on their sale of their products, as when they infringe a patent? Shouldn’t individuals who take decisions be held personally responsible for the consequences? Shouldn’t shareholders lose the privilege of limited liability on investments in offending companies? Why do we still rely on the goodwill of entities that are no more than the ‘Unaccountability Machine‘ in the title of Dan Davies’ book.
This would be the true spirit of The Green Man.