Results and Discussion of Exercise 2

This post is dedicated presenting and discussing the results of Exercise 2. In this exercise participants were asked to sort eleven behaviors into a hierarchy according to how important they think it is that a company engages in each of the activities. Behaviors could tie for a position on the scale, and if one or more of the behaviors were not important at all the card was not included in the hierarchy.

The eleven behaviors are as follows:

1. Employees may organize and bargain collectively
2. Company is actively working to reduce energy and resource consumption
3. Company is working to reduce the amount of waste it creates
4. Company employs independent monitors to oversee overseas production
5. Company practices environmental stewardship even if the country it operates in lacks environmental regulations
6. Employees have freedom from forced labor
7. Company is engaged with the community and supportive of it
8. Company employs metrics to measure and manage energy consumption
9. Employees earn a living wage
10. Employer sponsors job-related education programs for employees
11. Company routinely collaborates with non-profit groups

Behaviors at the Top of the Hierarchy: In brief, respondents were asked about a number of characteristics of companies and their products that would typically be characterized as “sustainable.” My participants tended to sort these behaviors with an eye to ethical concerns, especially those that are not easily dismissed, by placing broad goals at the top of the hierarchy and appealing to moral values and ethical codes when defending the position of those corporate behaviors. The specific behaviors they chose to rank at the top differed between respondents, but often included basic environmental concerns like “company is actively working to reduce energy and resource consumption” and “company is working to reduce the amount of waste it creates” as well as relatively uncontroversial issues regarding basic human rights like and “employees have freedom from forced labor.”

For instance, Participant 46 explained “employees earn a living wage” was at the top of her hierarchy because it is a matter of respect and should be prioritized.

“I think earning a living wage is just like a respect to the people who are, like the, like are the actual force behind the production of your product. And I think -- I mean, I just think a living wage is really important because it like, just like ensures that the employee stays above water and if they get sick, or if they have an accident, or if they, if they – if their spouse loses their job, they have enough savings and they have enough -- they have like a moderate cushion, not to go, not to go like below the poverty line, so I just think it’s important to like treat employees with that respect.” Participant 46 #180-186

Participant 6 appealed to human rights when he ranked “employees have freedom from forced labor” at the top of his hierarchy.

“I’m against slavery. I think it's wrong, um, I guess I've never been asked this before. I guess it's a human right than a freedom of your life.” Participant 6 #363-365

Participant 36 also appealed to human rights in his defense of “employees have freedom from forced labor” as his highest ranked behavior.

“I think that's just from, like, a human rights standpoint, you know, it's—forced labor is, you know, really morally indefensible.” Participant 36 #432-433

Behaviors at the Bottom of the Hierarchy: The bottom of hierarchies tended to consist of corporate behaviors that were perceived to require stringent corporate regulation or a significant expenditure of corporate capital. These behaviors overwhelmingly included “employees my organize and bargain collectively,” “employees earn a living wage,” “company employs independent monitors to oversee overseas production,” “company is engaged with the community and supportive of it,” “employer sponsors job related education programs for employees,” “company practices environmental stewardship even if the country it operates in lacks environmental regulations” and “company routinely collaborates with non-profit groups.” Most often participants would express a favorable disposition toward these ideas in theory, but see them as contradictory to the generation of capital.

Participant 6 identified the preference for capital over environmental protection when he explained why less developed countries allow more pollution than more developed countries.

“I think it all comes down to economics. In more developed countries were we can afford to put levies on pollution, we do. In less developed countries, they value the return on their industry more, so they allow pollution and contamination to occur, but I still think it's bad.” Participant 6 #460-463

Participant 3 appealed to the benefit of simply having a job, even if the wages were unreasonably low by her standards.

“And that even if they do like make their goods in America, they’re still likely, very likely, using material that came from, you know, somewhere where they pay people less than a dollar a day, but that’s a whole different story cause they do some of the best jobs in those regions.” Participant 3 #107-110

Participant 29 also appealed to the benefit of simply having a job when he argued that there is some value to performing sweatshop labor that could be lost if wages rose.

“I think it’s good that there’s any money in those places at all, and if they had to pay a living wage they probably wouldn’t be in those places, and there would be no money for those people.” Participant 29 #330-332

Participant 18 considered how companies would be impacted by being made to publish information about their energy usage, and was most concerned by the capital impacts.

“I mean if every single company would have to do it, then it'd probably be good for the consumer just because they would know which companies hurting the environment and which ones are making more of an effort to conserve it. But I just see -- it would just take a blow to the company itself -- just a lot more money to put out and a lot more work.” Participant 18 #438-442

Concern for Capital: It appears that my respondents (and probably Americans in general) see some sort of “good” emanating from the existence of profit-generating firms, which is capital. At some level respondents are willing to trade socially and environmentally sustainable practices for capital concerns, and would expect others to agree – even those others who were employed in the sweatshop or who were citizens of the polluted country. Respondents also alluded to the negative impacts of regulating negative effects by noting that regulations tend to make capital unhappy and likely to flee to less regulated areas, which would disadvantage the population who insisted on regulation in the first place.

Historical Roots of Concern for Capital: The notion that an individuals pursuit of capital has beneficial consequences for the society has deep roots in the American psyche that can be traced back to Bernard Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, which elucidated many key principles of classical economics including the division of labor and the invisible hand. The Fable of the Bees also propositioned the idea that the true causes of social welfare and social progress are a result of human vice – people work out of greed, are polite out of self-interest, and keep the law for fear of punishment.

"As Sharpers, Parasites, Pimps, Players,
Pick-Pockets, Coiners, Quacks, Sooth-Sayers,
And all those, that, in Enmity
With down-right Working, cunningly
Convert to their own Use the Labour
Of their good-natur'd heedless Neighbour.
These were called Knaves; but, bar the Name,
The grave Industrious were the Same" (Mandeville, 1705).

This notion was picked up on by Adam Smith and further propagated in the Wealth of Nations, which was undoubtedly influential in laying the basic groundwork for capitalist economic theory in America. Smith’s version of this concept is as follows: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love” (Smith, 1776).

The Conclusion: Stability = Unsustainability: Although my respondents care about sustainable business broadly, they do not seem to fully support regulatory standards or the expenditure of corporate capital to reorient business toward operating sustainably. They see sustainable business practices as antithetical to profit, which is a direct risk to a company as well as any individual engaged market.

My participants associate economic stability (capital generation) with businesses they identify as unsustainable (big, opaque, cheap goods) and because of a concern for capital are not ready to associate economic stability with sustainable production, no matter how positively they view sustainability. These attitudes signal a fundamental disconnect in that participants associate unsustainable firms with profit and an opportunity to accumulate monetary wealth for themselves, but they also associate these firms with negative impacts like harming the environment, employees, and the communities.

More on this conclusion soon…