In a world where communication rules, it is sometimes useful to sit back and reflect on the meaning and substance behind the words we use, or the ones we sometimes feel we’re bombarded with.
If we don't want to end up repeating empty slogans or being numbed by catchy but meaningless phrases, paying attention to the messages we send, but also to the ones we receive, is actually crucial – because if we disregard the content we end up living surrounded by white noise.
Or, to be a bit more specific and topical, should I say... green noise? At the risk of being seen as slightly provocative, I have to say that I've come to the point where I'm not convinced that slapping a colour onto the issue is necessarily the only way to deal with sustainability. I acknowledge the fact that putting the "green bit" back into our lives was a reasonably effective initial spark a couple of decades ago, before those problems became 'mainstream' and when the general public's awareness needed to be raised.
Breath of fresh airAs a reaction to the greyness of our industrial revolution, the green argument emerged naturally and did bring a breath of fresh air to a world that had begun to overlook the fact that our most precious resources used to power countries and even produce chemicals do actually come from our earth and therefor nature.
Unfortunately, the word 'green' quickly became a cliché that eventually generated two major unwanted side effects: firstly, many people started looking at it suspiciously, as a pure selling argument and nothing more. I remember reading a report published by the Futerra Sustainability Communications agency, in which a focus group participant was quoted as saying "you don't use those words, you see them on packages".
Secondly, like any banner or label, it started acting as a dividing force. You're either a 'green' or you're not, and if you are, well you end up preaching to the converted or attracting animosity – and what sustainability issues require is a vision that brings people together, rather than splitting them into different camps.
A model that works
As a sailor, I've often missed seeing green things when I was at sea for long periods, I know it's traditionally the colour of hope, and as a country girl brought up on a small holding, I'm about as close to nature as anyone could get. Yet I don't see myself as 'green', because that's not the point. The point is that we need a model that works, and I'd be hard pressed to choose any colour over another to symbolise that vision for the future. We need a framework that allows us to thrive whilst respecting the importance of the environment we live in as a resource.
The 'green' route is somewhat misleading, in the sense that it only considers one side of the problem: for the vast majority of people, at best it suggests that people should reconnect with nature. Granted, our industrial model and associated urbanism made that reconnection genuinely necessary, but that remains a partial approach, because in the meantime, we still function within the same industrial model through which we became unsustainable in the first place.
Good business
To be fair, there are a lot of big businesses that are really rethinking their practices and coming up with solutions. I've met an encouraging number of ceos and engineers whose work is guided by a real desire for change. And the conclusion I’ve come to is that we should perhaps forget the colour of the flag and think in a more comprehensive, encompassing way, not 'green’ business, but just plain 'good’ business, and a business which would consider the system as a whole...
Like this? Please subscribe to our free weekly e-newsletter at the top of the page for more content like this