Making Money Like the Bee

"People are now more able to compartmentalize their lives, so that they can have different values at home than they do at work"

It's not very surprising to do readings for social context and seeing that dialogue is such an important part of a sustainable and environmentally friendly. I feel like a lot of the success stories in this article featured people that were able to clearly communicate their ideas, study and research as groups and make organizational decisions made in sync with the environment and the business in mind. A member of Collins Pine observed, "any kind of dialogue generates some level of trust. You have to vent back and forth; but you learn." This article introduced some people that didn't have this slogan in head: Got my mind on my money and my money on my mind.


This journey to sustainability is never ending

Judy Wicks' restaurant (the person attributed to the pull quote) White Dog Cafe, is a business leader whose mission statement is fundamentally made not with profits in mind, but with the well being of its employees, its customers, its community and most importantly the environment.

She made a really good comment and that made me think. I always wondered why head of organizations acted the way they did. Weren't they brought up with good family values and learned to be responsible for their own actions? Wicks remarked that these business leaders are able to compartmentalize themselves so that they can walk into work in the morning and check their morals and ethics at the door. I feel like this is something that needs to be quickly changed as the first decade of the new century is slowly winding down. Throw away these preconceived notions about Corporate Social Responsibility, because companies don't do enough, but still call themselves a company that follows CSL.

A couple of things I remarked about some businesses featured here:

1. These companies most of the time sacrifice some profits and competitiveness to become more sustainable.

2. The companies who are the most sustainable are not rightfully rewarded by the government or by legislation. Actually, they are hampered and disadvantaged facing more regulations and less tax credits.

3. Revolutionary and sustainable design costs more up front, but pays itself back.

4. Companies, which I believe this needs to be changed, do not adopt environmentalist views and socially responsible ways until only after their reputation has been tarnished.

5. Aside from this article I've noticed that emulating nature in many ways is an environmentally sound practice.

Imperialism 101: A necessary evil?

First and foremost, I just wanted to say that I did not like this article much at all. Yes, it was instructive in the sense that I learned where the word "slave" came from. No really, I didn't know that slave came from the Slavs that toiled over the land Charlemagne ruled over.

<-----See Charlemagne helping little kids. Medieval PR?!?

Okay, so I decided to go against the grain on this one. And since I am going to write what my mind thinks, and not what will get me a grade, I am going to say that I am FOR imperialization, or at least some forms of it. Let me kind of reflect over those thoughts.

I think imperialism is good, otherwise we'd still be hunters and gatherers, we would not share technological secrets or have capital to undertake massive projects.

Imperialism was necessary to get to where we are today. Now I won't say that the Holocaust was necessary, or that Russian Gulags helped us become industrialized. No, I think those are atrocious acts by evil men. Although I do say that empires needed to expand, gather resources and enrich themselves to accomplish their lofty goals. Without greed, the de Medici family would never have become patrons of the arts, and funded artists with masterpieces such as Michelangelo and Raphael.

The alluded to the Natives having social customs that were "more gracious and humane" and that they were more happy and peaceful. Was he there when the Mayans and Aztecs grew their civilizations in South America? They were some of the most cutthroat and aggressive civilization to have lived. Had we given them guns, armour, and ships that could sail oceans, they might have done the same thing.

the first thing that crawled when I Googled Aztecs--------->


Oh and that comment he said, "they need to be given back their land and labour so that they might work for themselves and grow food for their own consumption". Okay, well we will take out all the infrastructure that Britain put up in India, and then let them fend for themselves. Look at what happened to Guinea when France gave them independence.

And the author is saying that the companies in North America, Europe and Japan are reaping all the third world profits. Hold on a minute, Japan was on the verge of becoming a third world and backwards country with samurai swords and their bushido code. But they worked relentlessly and worked together to become industrialized.

Countries might have become more industrialized than others, and those countries' time will come. And in 2008 and beyond, countries need and WILL be industrialized in a Sustainable way.

I don't want to make enemies, and in 250 words I feel like this post is all over the place and rantish, but that is my opinion. I don't think we would be here today without some form of imperialism or capitalist imperialism. And if you think imperialism is the worst thing ever, and it should have never occurred, let me hand you a hoe and and an ox and you can go till your own land, trade for your goods, and make your own clothing.

Six Sins of Greenwashing

The first idea that came to my head after reading this article is why are there so few reliable, sustainable companies. Well actually according to the study, less than 1% of products are actually reliable and sustainable. This is 2008, why are companies still thinking like only have to do something if another company does it? I feel like this is their mindset: Oh I need to make a claim for the environment in my product so that I can stay competitive. Stop being REACTIVE and start being PROACTIVE! Didn't your momma tell you any different?

With so many fibbers and sinners out there making false claims about the environmental safety of their products, what companies will actually go the extra mile to make REAL claims? Similar to coin debasing in the Roman and Medieval times the bad and misleading product claims are pushing all the good and genuine product claims out of circulation. How are we consumers supposed to react to this examination by TerraChoice?

Have I been walking around the grocery store like a chicken with its head cut off, buying green toilet paper, green detergent, and the like? I do not feel mislead or betrayed, however, I realize the need to be more vigilant when buying such products from now on.

<---I pay more for this toilet paper... it's only made of 20% post consumer recycled content!

One thing I remarked while reading this that I thought of before was the Sin of Vagueness. I thought about this before when eating at McDonald's. Their burgers are 100% beef and 100% natural.. does that mean that they just throw the whole beef in the blender and make burgers out of that. Haha! sorry it's a little gross but that's the image I got into my head. aaaaaaaawhat is 100% beef?!? ----->

To make a few closing remarks, the box on multi-attribute vs single-attribute claims struck
me: Do companies sit around the board room trying to come up with one environmental attribute to add selling points to their products? Do they think that doing one thing is enough? I feel like being environmentally friendly is more than DOING THE BARE MINIMUM! My last point is that environmentally friendly doesn't only mean the product itself, it's the whole life cycle of the product: so there you go organic food buyer, how do you think your food is delivered: 18-wheeler trucks..