Harvard Business Review

Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria are right to call for a re-orientation of the management profession rooted on the notion of service to society. And their insight about the value in establishing a professional code of conduct to articulate the higher aims of our profession is right on target. As a case in point, our experience at Thunderbird provides a practical illustration of how such code can help drive change in attitudes and behaviors.

In May 2006, the Thunderbird board of trustees formally endorsed the following Professional Oath of Honor, which has since become part of our academic rituals and curriculum:

As a Thunderbird and a global citizen, I promise:
I will strive to act with honesty and integrity;
I will respect the rights and dignity of all people;
I will strive to create sustainable prosperity worldwide;
I will oppose all forms of corruption and exploitation; and
I will take responsibility for my actions.
As I hold true to these principles, it is my hope that I may enjoy an honorable reputation and peace of conscience. This pledge I make freely and upon my honor.

The board resolution was the culmination of a multi-stakeholder collaborative process dating to 2004 that included faculty, alumni and students. A student-led team started off working on a text developed by a group of young leaders at the World Economic Forum and gradually incorporated concepts from universal codes and ideas from other alumni and faculty.

A “Hippocratic Oath” is not the only way to articulate a professional service ideology, but our experience has proven that it can be a powerful instrument. By publicly declaring our commitment to a set of universal, core professional principles, and by reiterating that commitment regularly in our academic ceremonies, it has become difficult for us to ignore our responsibility as educators. The Oath has shaped conversations inside and outside the classroom, and it has molded the educational values of our school in a profound way.

The underlying idea behind this project is, as Khurana and Nohria point out, not new. As early as 1959, an influential report by Gordon and Howell argued that management should accept the responsibilities that accompany any true professional discipline—to develop a scientific base of knowledge through academic scholarship and to prepare individuals to serve society. Business schools have been effective in their scientific endeavor but unfortunately, they have for the most part ignored the other requirement.

As educators, we can no longer pretend to be exempt from conveying values to our students. As Sumantra Ghoshal so powerfully argued, the theories that dominate the business curriculum are imbued with values—only, quite often, the wrong ones. It is time to accept that businesses exist to serve society—to bring about lasting prosperity—and that it is our shared responsibility to treat management as a true and critical profession of our times.

In case it might be of value to this discussion, I'm posting the version of the "Hippocratic Oath" for business which was proposed by a group of young leaders (Global Leaders for Tomorrow) gathered by the World Economic Forum in 2003. This text is longer--but also more explicit about the commitments of the manager with respect to different stakeholders--than the Thunderbird Oath.

A critique by Ron Alsop of the Wall Street Journal at the time can be found in the following link: http://www.collegejournal.com/mbacenter/mbatrack/20030428-alsop.html

Ron described this text as "long and a bit flowery"... As I re-read it, I think we may have indeed overdone the closing statement when we wrote it, but I still believe some poetry may help underscore the "higher aims" of the management profession. Judge by yourself:
___________________________________

As a manager of a corporation, an adviser or an entrepreneur, I pledge to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, the following covenant:

- I will safeguard the interests of the enterprise's financial claimants and will strive to create endurable shareholder value.

- I will utilize natural resources in an efficient, sustainable way, thus ensuring the rights of future generations to enjoy a clean and resourceful planet.

- I will respect the rights and dignity of the individuals working for the enterprise, as well as the people that may be affected by its activities.

- In meeting my commitments with my clients, suppliers and allies, I will engage in honest and transparent transactions, respecting their rights and standing up to my promises.

- I will remember that I remain a member of society, and that, as a manager, an adviser or an entrepreneur, my actions may have great impact on the well-being of others. I will ensure that the operation of the enterprise contributes to the creation of wealth and progress for society at large. I will assume the responsibility for my acts in the execution of my duties and will respond to society for them.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art and personal success. May I be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of business and may I long experience the joy of helping improve the lives of my fellow human beings. This pledge I make freely and upon my honor.

Should managers be forced to adopt a code to consider the effects of their actions on the environment? What would such an oath look like?

The difficulty in answering a question like this is not so much whether or not a code should be adopted but how managers would actually be held accountable for the adhering to the code. Today, we're already seeing a spread of environmental codes and promises, in addition to the promises of anti-discrimination and financial transparency and efficient corporate governance. But at the end of the day, the issue of accountability and regulation come to the fore. Most bulge-bracket firms have already launched green initiatives, started carbon or climate indices and proclaimed their dedication to the reduction of global emissions and environmental impact. But if we look at their list of clients, if we look at their portfolio and their investments, we find conflicts of interest. This is an eternal issue of business because no matter how ideal and righteous our codes sound, at the end of the day, the business needs to operate, sales need to be made and shareholders need returns. It's not just an issue with environmental codes, it's an issue with codes in general. Take Google for example, here is a company that prides itself on diversity, on people, on creativity, on "nurtur[ing] an invigorating, positive environment by hiring talented, local people who share our commitment to creating search perfection and want to have a great time doing it" but we would hardly consider their agreements with the Chinese government to follow these tenets. And in many instances, the rebuttal becomes, "Someone's going to go into China and make a fortune on this, why not us?" And indeed, that is the question. It's the, "Why not?" If companies are not going to be held accountable for the principles they publicize, how much importance can the public actually be expected to place on such unfounded proclamations?

Control Data Corp. launched a series of very expensive public relations projects in the 1980s and 1990s to improve the environment, employ the unemployable, provide automobiles for ex-convicts and a handful of other do-gooder enterprises.

Control Data Corporation is no more. It bankrupted itself and returned zero value to its shareholders and, most tragic of all, thousands of workeres.

In retrospect, none of the projects CDC management launched was based on much evidence other than good will and social engineering rules of thumb. A great deal of green rhetoric and almost all of the global warming puffery are on shaky grounds to say the least.

Wise corporations would invest in solid, scientific research before joining the Green Lemmings.

Is the code really necessary?

Consideration of the notion that managers should be forced to adopt a code to consider the effect of their actions on the environment is misleading. Also, calling for the “Green Hippocratic Oath” based on environmental concerns alone is not sufficient to justify the need to “force” managers to consider the impact of their action on the environment.

True, the environment is a very sensitive subject and that is why we should consider it as a whole in order to get logical as well as practical solutions. For example, for an important medical treatment, if you were asked to choose between two doctors, one who willingly took the Hippocratic Oath and another who was forced to take it, who would you choose? I am sure you would choose the former.

There is therefore need to inculcate environmental concerns and values through well thought and planned change management strategies that will encourage managers to freely take up such a code of conduct and therefore act genuinely.

Reality

Practically, let us agree that the environment is yet to become one of the key drivers of an organisation’s existence. In most cases, managers find themselves taking up positions in various types of organizations aiming at either profit maximisation or maximising the share value. All other goals, though important are secondary therefore we need to critically strategise how managers can increase consideration of more critical factors such as the environment.

Managers certainly do not take an oath to ensure profitability or high value of shares yet these are the main reason of the existence of the organization. Furthermore, without profit or share value organizations cannot exist therefore, we can not consider environmental issues. Managers should therefore first take an Oath to ensure they maintain profitability of the organisation they are managing before taking the “Green Hippocratic Oath”.

Strategy and Conclusion

Organisations are run by managers. The managers run the organisations to provide good and services for customers. In the process of providing the goods and services, the environment is affected in more negative ways than positive. Organizations are increasingly being driven by customer need. If a customer does not demand for a commodity, supply of the commodity eventually secedes resulting in reduced environmental impact. The higher the customer demand, the higher the suppliers. This also translates into higher environmental damage.

The burden considering the environment should therefore be shared between us, the consumers as well as the managers. I propose that the Oath be voluntary but emphasis should be on the education of new managers, re-education of the existing managers and public sensitisation.

The biggest issue here seems to be the inevitable conflict between business practices centered on profitability (the name of the game) and social responsibility (the rules of the game). In an article to the NY Times Magazine of the 13th September 1970, Milton Friedman wrote that business had only one social responsibility and that was "to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game".

Whilst at first read what seems striking is the emphasis on increasing profits, a second reading might set one's mind on a different course. And that is when the phrase "so long as it stays within the rules of the game" is linked to the point about increasing profits.

April 1970 saw the birth of the modern environmental movement, but I doubt that Prof Friedman was thinking of the environment when he wrote this article. I think, though, that it was clear in his mind that business changes with its surroundings, with the available resources and ultimately with humanity and its ethical dilemmas.

In substance, this is not a "dog eat dog" world (as some fund managers and investment bankers would like us to believe), but rather a place in which rules are needed to guarantee an orderly access to these resources by humanity today and, crucially, by those who will come after us. It's in this sense, that business does not act in a vacuum and, in a world were resources are more and more scarce, it's important that business stays within the rules of the game. This will inevitably mean that the rules of the game are not just coherent with the need for a profit, but also with the need for a safer and cleaner world. Increasingly so, stakeholders (if not the environment) expect this from their managers.

Is the Oath needed? Just as much as increasing profit is.

To draw parallels between the medical, law, and business professions, and thereby the applicability of a similar oath, is a difficult task. First, there is no set standard for an MBA: medicine has the boards, law school has the bar. What qualifies an MBA to “practice” is their employability in the market, not some standard measure of intellectual rigor. Second, in business, it is much easier to manipulate the environment in which we work. MDs and JDs have little choice but to “play by the rules” -- medical discoveries take years and a lawyer cannot fabricate a new law—and thus their time in school is dedicated to learning protocol and procedure. Business practitioners, on the other hand, are taught the virtue of disruptive innovation while case studies create legends out of companies that changed the way the game was played through out of the box thinking.

Keeping in mind these cultural differences, it is necessary to understand how this oath would be applied: would it be voluntary or would it be legally binding? If it were a voluntary or non-legally binding oath, I would argue it would actually go against the culture of business: if your competitor can undercut you legally in some way, they will. A voluntary oath for MBAs could put those who abided by it at a competitive disadvantage, and therefore, few would abide by it.

A legally binding oath, that is one that carried with it legal penalties for disobeying, is also problematic. Casting aside the necessity of more stringent regulations, problems arise due to the lack of environmental definitions. Drawing on language from the Geneva Convention, what is “respectful” of the environment is highly dependent on science. In working on chemical policy issues, I have witnessed that because the US takes a weight of evidence approach to chemical issues, what is “harmful” to the environment is highly debatable. Layer on top of that the investment made into discrediting science when it’s economically inconvenient, and suddenly we are back to an issue of culture: business virtue is embedded in finding ways to break-out of or circumvent the status quo “rules” for financial benefit.

In my opinion, fighting the competitive and innovative nature of the MBA culture is futile. Therefore, an oath is not feasible. The original prompt on the oath topic suggests that business school courses should teach frameworks that “go beyond conventional market logic that now dominates the MBA curriculum,” so that students incorporate the environment and society in their decision making. I agree that changing business curriculum to incorporate evaluation of environmental and social goals is key. However, I would suggest that environmental and social concerns should not just be a goal, but a part of “market logic.” Incorporating these things into market logic is something that most business schools are failing to teach properly. Again and again we see examples of poor business decisions made due to not taking into account the social and environmental envelope in which the transaction was taking place—the Bechtel debacle in Bolivia comes to mind. Rather than just talk about the environment and society as abstract goals, let’s begin looking at how the business community can determine an agreeable metric to quantify environmental damages and risks.

In sum, giving MBAs an oath is almost like giving them a dare – most will find a way to work around the oath if it means they can gain an advantage by doing so. What’s more important is to change the business education so that it incorporates environmental and social risk factors into everyday quantitative analysis. To do so, the business community must determine an acceptable metric for quantifying environmental and social risk for these purposes. By giving everyone this “tool” for better environmental action, you can change how the game is scored, rather than fight how the game is played.

'Managers need to increase shareholder value', is the mantra that you learn in business school and the entire curriculum revolves in some form or the other around it in terms of strategy, marketing, leadership and so on and so forth.

Take a minute and question, "**WHY** exactly should managers strive to increase share holders value?" and how does it affect society at large and you in specific ...ponder ... it is obvious that society needs money - money to lead a good quality of life - in simple terms, to participate in the world just beyond satisfying core human needs of food, clothing, shelter and the other levels of Maslow's heirarchy.

If a person had all the money needed but cannot buy cure to save a loved one from skin cancer caused by the ozone layer, how valuable is money ? Of course society needs money, but what we often forget is that society (mankind and the plant and animal kingdom) needs a planet which is safe to live on. Maslow, like the rest of us took it for granted that life on earth would not be disrupted - ever (though it is addressed in the safety layer of the Maslow pyramid in an indirect way). We know that the rate at which the icebergs on the poles are melting, taking life on earth for granted would be mankind's costliest mistake.

With every right comes a responsibility. The opportunity to make money for an organization comes with the responsibility that society and environment remain untainted.

'Gut instinct' decisions do set apart the great managers from the ordinary ones. But no matter how well financially evaluated and intentioned a decision or action is, it has to be evaluated for effects on two basic aspects
1 - Is it enhancing share holder value, effecting society at large in a positive way ?
2 - Is it leaving the environment as is, if not better than before ?

For the answer to the second question be a strong affirmative, it is very important that it be a conscious decision that was ingrained into the managers' purpose and conduct just like the shareholder value mantra.

A manager needs to abide by an oath that says
"I work with the best of intentions to increase share holder value but not at the cost of overall societal good and the environment.

I shall refrain from any harm to the environment in both professional and personal life. Under my purview, I shall not encourage any action that shall has a negative consequence on the environment.

In addition to not being involved in environmentally unhealthy activities, I shall also not tolerate any environmentally unhealthy actions by others. I shall try my level best to educate them about the adverse effects so that the harm can be stopped in the bud."

It is very important that every manager not only understands but also undertakes all duties with the quote, "Once the last tree is cut and the last river is poisoned, you will find that you cannot eat your money."

Rashmi Vittal
MBA participant,
INSEAD

Prof.Khurana and Prof. Nohria have indeed come out with an excellent proposal; I believe that it is not enough if managers alone take such an oath; every employee has to take the oath instead. I cannot imagine a company to be Sustainable in the long run if high moral /ethical ideals are confined to the top alone; these ideals need to percolate down to the last employee. Deviations to the code of conduct take place at the operational level too. Of course a deviation at the management level can cause the immediate death of the organization (e.g. Enron); deviations at the operating level lead to slow death / deterioration of the organization. I believe that in order to be sustainable in the long term, the whole organization has to follow the code of conduct, embracing ethical, social, environmental imperatives.

I think the discussion overlooks the fact that most major corporations already have a surfeit of codes, credos, policies, trainings, etc. While one could argue about how extensive or how explicit those documents are in terms of addressing sustainability, they assuredly address ethics, compliance, fairness, and many other elements of a green oath. In our case we have a set of "Standards of Business Conduct", a sustainability policy, guiding principles and other relevant materials. The key as always is in the context of implementation and that is a function of individual motivation, corporate culture and many other factors. A green "oath" may lay more emphasis on the subject, but it will likely be no more successful than any of the other tools that are already being employed.

I had to check my calendar. We have indeed passed April 1 and tomfoolery cannot be the object of the good professors’ contribution.

Those who promote sustainability produce many silly ideas. This one is worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

Business can only operate within the rules of the game. The rules are set by politicians, supported by the prevailing social value systems. The rules are complicated by globalization.

Getting your middle managers to take a green oath could be fun. But the impossibility of compliance would only lead to the equivalent of a starving vegetarian locked in a meat factory.

It would be far more productive if managers were helped to understand the world better. This would lead to sensible decisions. One of which would be to lobby politicians for frameworks that are sustainable.

I disagree. Though the issue is not one of whether or not to be green. Professionals that take an oath are those with not only public responsibility, but are also those with public authority through a legally recognized structure. A military officer, a doctor or public servants have oaths that bind these individuals not only to their civic duty but also to justify their reciprocal public prerogatives. A private corporation hires its management to perform specified duties, but no matter how far-reaching the impact of those duties, a manager is only the agent of the business and is not empowered with public authority. This reduces the manager's obligation to that of obeying the law and operating under ethical conditions that justify his/her job to the operations stakeholders. The idea of a "green oath" is nothing more than a feel good proposition that has no basis in law or authority. The only way an oath could have any meaning is if we were to legally license and empower certain individuals in a legal structure as "business executives" and use that structure to enforce ethics and behavior based on the terms of the license as in attorneys and doctors--which then allows the prerogatives of authoritative decision-making.
By the way, who is writing this oath? Will it be individuals with a vested interest in assigning blame to any problem that may arise in the future regardless of what was known or possible in the present. The "learned professions" need to be able to act in their authorized prerogatives without respect to political pressures or temporal themes. The concept of professional oaths seems to me to transcend popular pressures implied by this article.

This is a critical issue in today’s marketplace and I applaud the efforts of HBR Green and the Thunderbird program in bringing it visibility. I believe the concept of an “oath of honor” should be promoted among all business programs and that it should be a comprehensive one – i.e., going farther than the environment alone.

The more detailed oath that resulted from the World Economic Forum (2003) is very interesting as it extends the social responsibility beyond the firm’s corporate perimeter to “the people that may be affected by its activities.” This notion is one that is being pursued by a non-profit organization, The Global Sourcing Council that is focusing on the social and economic impacts of global outsourcing. (see the website at http://www.gscouncil.org)

An organization that is actively pursuing a policy of social responsibility towards its own employees and environment should also be extending that social responsibility to any service providers with which it works. It would appear hypocritical for an organization to proclaim itself as socially responsible and then NOT investigate the practices of its own service providers, supply chain contributors, etc.

The ultimate issue in this discussion is one of sustainability. How can an organization conduct itself so that it is economically viable without destroying the resources that it uses in pursuit of its economic success? Bringing together economic success with social responsibility toward human and environmental resources is the key.

It is important that we recognize the primary function of corporate management to safeguard the enterprise’s financial assets and create shareholder value. However, there is no reason why that function cannot be carried out in a socially responsible manner.

The fact that we are even discussing the notion of a management oath that holds business leaders accountable for their companies’ influence on the environment demonstrates how far we’ve come in recent years. As Professors Khurana and Nohria point out, the notion that corporations should consider their obligations to society is not a new idea; however, the recent media attention paid to issues of climate change and related environmental problems does present an auspicious opportunity to consider how future business leaders are prepared to respond to these critical challenges.

Perhaps managers should be forced to adopt a code of conduct along the lines discussed here, but at the same time we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the way that the market itself may work to encourage such actions on its own. Take Wal-Mart, for example. The retail giant that formerly topped everyone’s list of environmental offenders has recently launched an impressive array of green initiatives designed to use its market power to encourage energy conservation at its stores and environmentally friendly practices among its suppliers. Even small efforts (such as promoting the sale of compact fluorescent light bulbs) allow Wal-Mart to promote green business by doing what it does best: muscling suppliers to meet its demands and using its massive market power to shape consumer behavior.

Of course, this is hardly an example of purely social-minded benevolence. Wal-Mart stands to gain a great deal through such efforts – not only by reducing its own bottom line (by using solar power at select stores or creating a more fuel-efficient trucking fleet, for example), but also by improving its tarnished public image through these highly publicized initiatives. In cases such as these, shareholder interests and social responsibility need not be at odds – in fact, the market may actually encourage green initiatives in the name of thrift itself. Rising energy costs may prompt grocers to take a closer look at “food miles,” for example, not for moral reasons but for economic ones.

Given their pervasive influence, we shouldn’t let managers off the hook for considering their corporations’ impact on society in all situations. But neither should we assume that environmental wellbeing and economic profitability are always at odds. A fruitful conversation about a Hippocratic oath for managers should pay particular attention to this common ground.

I agree that there is a cultural difference between the medical, legal, and managerial professions. What is interesting is that in some versions of the Hippocratic Oath, there is effectively a call to help the patient as well as respect the morals of the community. This effective duality, I think, brings into question the relationship between two managerial goals – the client (investor) and the greater social/environmental community.

I fully support the adoption of such an oath. However, protection of one goal (i.e. ensuring the financial interest of the investor/shareholder) might necessarily exclude other, broader, aims. Added on top of that is simply the length of time business men/women have been evaluated on financial goals. To address success in terms of social, equitable, environmental benefits would essentially mean imposition of an entirely new regulatory and evaluative framework. Both cannot coexist currently, because old biases and familiarity with working in profit-maximizing pathways will dominate.

To what extent are non-financial goals achieved in the non-profit and NGO communities? I don’t know the exact answer, but these sectors benefit from distinct regulation – not unlike that of other professional fields. Government/legal endorsement of a new social business framework might similarly have interesting consequences. For example, if a manager were to work within a company that demanded (and evaluated) maximum social/environmental benefits and required no additional profit beyond recouping spent investments (in this case endowment-like donations), such goals might be readily achievable. Managers could either choose to work in such a company, or for a profit-maximizing one.

Ultimately measuring success in this way will inevitably lead to uncertainties. Even though physicians are directed to strive to help the patient, we can’t often know if it was the lifestyle of high-cholesterol foods, the fast-food industry for marketing and distributing the food, or the genetic disposition to produce clogged arteries that is at fault and should be prevented. Such distinctions between proximate and ultimate causes to society will always cloud debate, but action to designate a framework in which a manager is explicitly told to maximize social/environmental welfare could arguably leave society better off than before. After all, even with the shortcomings in medicine, not the least of the benefits to humanity have been drastically increased life-spans and reduction in outbreaks of many complex diseases.

I think any professional oath applied to MBAs should be optional. While I strongly believe in sustainable business and disagree with some others that committing to sustainability would put some MBAs at a competitive disadvantage to their peers, I think a voluntary pledge is more effective. A self-selecting group of pledge takers builds a community of committed MBAs that can share resources and support each other, while a required pledge could create resentment from those who do not believe in the sustainability movement.

I also see no reason that MBAs should have a pledge that only applies to them. MBAs take positions in many different functional areas in many different industries. Since there is little consistency across MBA graduate jobs, I think that a pledge is more effectively offered on a university scale rather than just to an MBA program within that university. An optional pledge that spans a university creates a community of like-minded graduates from all disciplines.

What I have just described is what the Graduation Pledge Alliance has been disseminating to universities for years.

The MIT effort is strong and growing and you might be interested to learn that the Harvard undergraduate classes of 2000 and 2001 took part in the pledge. The Graduation Pledge of Social and Environmental Responsibility simply states:

“I pledge to explore and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job I consider and will try to improve these aspects of any organizations for which I work.”

I think the pledge is simple and to the point. Students commit to think hard about the company that they choose to join upon graduation and vow to work to improve the social and environmental performance of that company. What is more valuable is that the Pledge Alliance keeps in touch with members and creates a network and community of all who have taken the pledge. Check out their Facebook page.

What is most important are the other things mentioned in the article. All students need to be provided with tools, resources, and training on what sustainability is and what it means for a company and an individual to operate in a sustainable manner. These items must be incorporated in the curricula of all courses of study. Taking a pledge without the tools or knowledge to live up to it is putting the cart before the horse.

Such an oath will be meaningless. Compliance is likely to be at the same level as commitment to Enron’s company values, which stressed integrity and respect.

Instead, there has to be continuing pressure to develop an atmosphere where such an oath is unnecessary. Business practices will be constrained by law, which is optimally a reflection of the prevailing will of society. Laws that address the most pressing environmental problems are increasingly becoming promulgated. Compliance with laws requires no oath and is part of the rules of the game.

This is not to say that business schools don’t have a place in the process. Corporate decisions have a large and growing influence on the environment. As the training ground for corporate leaders, business schools have a responsibility to equip students with the mindset and tools to make these decisions in a responsible manner. Some graduates will make their mark not only in business, but also in government.

Change starts with awareness, and MBA programs must make a greater effort to integrate environmental consciousness as part of the B-school experience. These efforts should be both integrated into the academic curriculum and stress behavior during school. Academically, the core curriculum should include courses on natural resource conservation and market based mechanisms to promote sustainability. There should also be an emphasis on minimizing resource consumption during B-school.

The goal should be to graduate students who are both aware of macro environmental problems and who are also responsible environmental citizens in their private lives. One of the central tenets of leadership is leading by example. The capstone could be an oath during graduation, but such an oath will be meaningless without the academic and personal framework. Conversely, if awareness and training are in place, an oath is likely to be unnecessary.

This is not a process that happens overnight. The process is also predicated on a hope that the changes necessary will happen before environmental degradation reaches a point of no return. It would be ideal if there was a magic bullet such as an oath that shortcuts the process. Unfortunately, an oath for corporate managers is not such a panacea.

Whosoever is empowered or required to take decisions that influence actions of consequential outcomes to society, or sections of it, must take the suggested oath. Managers are certainly part of this category of people.

Interesting and valuable discussion. Several points have come up in the thread -- if they remain unresolved, it seems it would be impossible to bring about meaningful and positive change in this area (which, of course, is the primary driver for creating a code of conduct).

Definition of terms
At a basic level, there is confusion around terms. And for good reason -- the fast uptake in interest around green issues has led to a sort of semantic fugue.

I have seen some great progress made in this area by the creative community, who has been proactively resetting the boundaries around the term "sustainability" so that we can move the discussion away from solely considering environmental issues to encompassing social justice too.

In addition to creating positive social and environmental impact, sustainability is about driving value – this is the triple bottom line: measuring success by economic, environmental, and social effect.

Follow the truism: If you want to solve the big problems, then make them business problems. We're trying to take sustainability out of the media ghetto, to actually be a productive and important vector in business decision-making. The first step is creating a baseline around terms.

Code of Conduct and Guidelines
I founded a global grassroots movement called the Designers Accord. It is a coalition of designers, educators, researchers, engineers, business consultants, and corporations, who are working together to create positive environmental and social impact. There have been a few significant design activism movements before, but nothing quite like this has ever taken place -- in the last 3 months, we grew from 3,500 members in 21 countries, to about 91,000 in over 100 countries.

I attribute this to the fact that we have a code of conduct (modeled conceptually on the Hippocratic Oath), AND a set of guidelines, which give adopters a specific set of activities to fulfill the spirit of the code of conduct. We've had a new wave of corporate and educational adopters recently because they say the Designers Accord provides tangibility to their current corporate social responsibility documents. Everyone seems to be looking for some handle to access this seemingly intractable issue.

While our code of conduct will persist, we plan to adapt the guidelines as our collective sophistication around the issues evolves. For instance, we ask adopters to measure their carbon footprint. The reason we started with that is because it would have been too abstract and dense to have people measure their "ethical footprint" (although that is where we're going). Carbon measurement is inherently limited -- you could have a very low carbon footprint, but be making very toxic products. What we are trying to do with this guideline in particular is to start the conversation and bring forward a certain level of self-awareness. When you start to measure, you see the complexities around the issue, and you become sensitized to possible creative solutions.

Accountability and the motivation to self-police
If you're saying something externally -- like adopting a code of conduct -- then you need to have an authentic internal story. There is an inherent motivation for people to self-police, and a community to help support that (as evidenced in the early post about the community on Facebook). However, while the barrier to entry for adopting a code of conduct should be low, accountability need to be a critical part of the equation. For the Designers Accord, we require periodic submissions of evidence of adherence to the guidelines.

Open the dialogue
For this issue specifically, I'm interested in the "show your math" aspect. Companies -- even those who feel they are too "known" to have questions – should be given permission to have a conversation about their struggles with some of this. Sharing knowledge, methods, and practice for fulfilling the code is the way you can extend your zone of influence beyond your traditional zone of control.

The question, in my mind, is not whether managers should consider the effects of their actions on the environment and society but rather, as others have alluded to in this discussion, how this will be enforced?

I believe that the market will be much more effective in regulating environmental considerations than a hippocratic oath could be. If the market believes that environmental considerations are an essential input into the valuation of a corporation, organizations would have to report on any activities that had an impact on the environment and these reports would be audited no less closely than financial statements. If our society truly believes that managers should be held accountable for the impact of their actions on the environment this will be reflected in market valuations and all managers will surely take notice.

Lawyers and doctors serve society through upholding the law and healing people, businesses serve society by producing goods and services and ultimately creating shareholder value. The oaths that lawyers and doctors take are central to the work that they do everyday; creating an environmental oath for business people is not only outside their core purpose, but is unnecessary. There is no reason that a separate oath should be needed to invoke the kind of strategic and long-term thinking that is required for business leaders to make decisions that benefit society and the environment, good decisions in this realm serve customers well and create true value for shareholders.

Take climate change, for example, if a manager is currently ignoring the issue and not addressing how future legislation and/or changing climate is going to impact his or her business, it isn’t an ethical question, it’s just bad business. Wasting water, energy, or materials in a manufacturing process doesn’t just cause environmental harm, it costs the company money. Taking full responsibility for the lifecycle of products, whether it is the bottles that Coca-Cola puts its beverages in or the carpets that Interface sells, it is not just “closing the environmental loop”, it is providing good customer service. And what about cutting costs by buying from suppliers with bad social or environmental practices? Just ask executives at Nestle or ADM how much value they lost after getting dragged through the mud over child labor issues on their African cocoa farms, or ask a Mattel executive just who’s feeling the brunt of the lead paint debacle with their made in China toys.

The business case is there, making sustainable, socially responsible, products is not only the “right” thing to do, it is the only way to operate that will create long-lasting value for shareholders. The authors are correct in saying that the education of managers needs to shift, the Sustainability Manager can no longer sit in a siphoned corner of the company, environmental thinking and management will have to reverberate throughout every department and each employee. But the oath would make it seem that this shift is something other than what it really is, and what it really is – is good business.

Annie Barton
MBA/MS 2010
Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise
University of Michigan

There are two connected, but separate issues that have so far been discussed in trying to answer the question whether managers should have a green Hippocratic oath:
1)Should we “encourage business leaders to be aware of the broader implication of their actions, including those related to the environment”…
2)…and, if the answer is yes, is a ‘management oath’ the right tool to do so?

I will address the second point first, as I personally think this is an easier one to tackle. Let’s assume that yes, we indeed need to encourage managers to think on a ‘broader scale’, is an oath the right tool? I almost wish I could answer the question with a yes. It seems like a neat, easy and convenient solution. But unfortunately, the realist in me doubts its effectiveness. My doubts mirror those mentioned in several of the other threads: I fear that an oath will turn into a promise with merely symbolic meaning, accompanied neither by action, nor by honest intention to act.

What then, is the alternative to this admittedly nice ‘gesture’? How can we create a global incentive system such that shareholder maximization is not possible without the consideration of stakeholder interests in general – ranging from the employee to the environment?
Which brings me to the first – and much more essential - issue: should we even bother to encourage business leaders to be aware of the broader implication of their actions? Is it not the sole purpose of a CEO (and of a company’s management) to ensure the long-run sustainable profitability of his or her company? I have read threads in this discussion arguing both sides.
I would like to propose an answer that does not treat the two issues as mutually exclusive. Ultimately, if – as is my firm belief - long run profitability is not possible without broad stakeholder management (including consideration of environmental concerns), then it is not an either/or question. (The examples provided by some of the other featured writers provide great examples to this point.) If this is in fact the case, then the answer to issue one becomes an easy ‘yes’ and the second issue becomes irrelevant. It becomes not a question of whether to consider broad implications, but rather the extent to which the business incorporates ‘sustainability’ into its business model. Sure, it will always be a question of tradeoffs, however an imaginary graph of sustainable actions (x axis) plotted against profits (y axis) will not be a downward sloping line, but rather a
Parabola (with vertex pointing upwards).

Managers will thus, by definition, be forced to consider the implications of their actions. Hence, what remains to be done, is the (admittedly complex and challenging) task of educating managers – and future managers - of the necessity of the triple-bottom line for true long run sustainability. Which brings us back to Prof. Khurana’s and Nohria’s point of embedding these topics in the MBA curriculum… being sustainable needs to become the norm. And, while a case discussing the pro’s and con’s of taking a green Hippocratic oath might well make entertaining teaching material, in the world after the business school, hard facts, laws, public perception and an increased awareness of all involved decision makers will have more impact than an oath.

Sandra SCHMIDT
MBA Participant, INSEAD
President, INDEVOR (INSEAD Student Club for Social Impact)

As some of the other respondents have already commented, an oath may easily become a symbolic gesture and nothing else. As a member of BGI, a relatively new and innovative sustainable MBA program, the "issues" around making business decisions that incorporate social, environmental, and economic factors are integrated in our courses. We do not take electives on social justice or environmental business; we cover these topics as part of the core. As I see it, instead of an oath, these topics must be integrated into the courses of the "mainstream" business schools. If they are topics that will be graded and deemed desirable by employers, students will pay attention.

Why do businesses exist? To provide goods and services to people for the benefit of society. If the activities of business systematically pollute our environment, subvert the democratic process, and create social unrest, how is it benefiting society?

I am certain that most business people are interested in doing business responsibly, bringing their core values to what they do. The next wave of managers will be charged with creating these businesses.

Wayne Maceyka
MBA Candidate - 2009
Bainbridge Graduate Institute
http://www.bgiedu.org
http://www.renewacycle.com

There is a need to recognize that need identification, designing product to satisfy those needs and then its subsequent marketing are the prime business activities. All these lead to need proliferation. There is alternative view that of need minimization- encourage people to have fewer needs so that there is less adverse impact on environment.

I hope that most if not all MBA students can agree that something needs to happen in the area of environmental sustainability. And as we live in a business world that is measured by the daily stock price and 3 month earning reports, it is very difficult to take into account the long term needs of the environment.

The power of an oath can at least get people thinking. In conjunction it can give NGO watch groups and others a leg to stand on when they question the actions of businesses and managers. I don’t think there is a problem with that. While it is not enforced now maybe we can move in that direction, it becomes a unifying line in which a finger can be pointed, bad press or good press can be generated and change can begin to happen.

While I do not see it as an all encompassing fix to the environmental problems, I see it as the beginning to change. And at least it does something, it gets every new MBA, manager and executive to at least stop and repeat some words that they say they will follow, and at the very minimum they think about the environment and their impact for 20 seconds. Again at the very least it is better than nothing and at the most it is the beginning to change and hopefully a sustainable future.

Whether even a voluntary oath makes sense is one thing. What about whether we even want executives to become more professional? Professors Nohria and Khurana say we need professional management because business has become too complex and interdependent, with society and the planet, to be managed without sophisticated analytical tools and a perspective oriented to serving the greater good. What about the downside to professionalism?

It will likely promote conservatism, if not complacency, among executives at a time when we need innovation as much as ever. Entrepreneurship is the buzz word of the day even in big companies, yet professionals are rarely known as creative and daring.

Also, it may well reinforce faith in top-down leadership at a time when we need more empowerment, not less. We should do more to connect executives with knowledge workers, not drive them further apart.

Meanwhile we have tried-and-true methods of promoting corporate social responsibility. Government regulation, nonprofit monitors, and the demands of enlightened and affluent consumers, have enabled the United States and many other countries to effectively address almost every serious environmental and social problem. Wouldn’t we be better off lobbying governments for carbon limits than putting our energies into making management more professional?

Isn't the fundamental assumption, upon which the need for a Hippocratic oath is based, is that the primary purpose of business is no longer to just deliver shareholder value but, in fact, to do more? If that is our primary question, let's address that.

Is there another purpose for business other than to deliver shareholder value?

I say yes.

Shareholders are simply one stakeholder whose need for an investment return is neither greater nor lessor than another engaged stakeholder. Those engaged with the business include employees, customers, suppliers, partners, management, local communities, the larger world, etc. Why should investor needs be placed at the top of some arbitrary hierarchy of needs?

Astute and responsible managers understand and are deeply challenged by the need to weigh and balance the multiple and conflicting requirements of all these stakeholders in the performance of providing a service or good to the marketplace. Let's stop assuming that profit and shareholder return trump everything. They are simply one part of the equation.

Sandy Skees

All the managers should help the people of the organization where they work to understand that any action the business takes, will have an impact in the society.

For example we can talk about the wrong steps Enron and World Com took when they did the things every body knows today, the business world changed dramatically, mainly because as result of that, a lot of companies not only in United States but in a lot of countries now are spending a lot of money, time and effort to accomplish with the Sarbaness Oxley law and similar regulations.

When Microsoft, General Motors, Toyota or IBM to name some of the big companies, decide to open a branch or plant in some country like Mexico, Panama, China or India, they are going to help a thousands of families given them an oportunity to live better than in the past. But when they decide to close a plant or branch in these contries, they are hitting in the body of a lot of families.

The managers, directors or leaders of the goverment or private companies must to think that they are the example for their employees and also for the students and families where they have a lot of influence with their actions, so a lot of people will do the things they are watching from them.

When some of my childreen asked me how is going to be the future, allways I answered him the following: The world must be better than today and than yesterday my son, but at the end of the day, it will be exactly as the leaders of the world are drawing in their hands.

Finally I want to say that every manager has to apply the management principles:
1. Plan for the growing of your company and of the region where you are doing business
2. Hire, educate and retain the people that have the commitment, skills, values and social responsability in order to get the results of your business plan where the environment is one of the top priorities.
3. Support your employees in any topic that can take them to the next level until you can get of them the best of the human values they have inside.
4. Listen the outside comments and suggestions, maybe there are the other things you lack when your planning is not getting to the goal zone.

Since the interior of the oathees is not addressed, the single bottom line will remain dominant.

What works is: change the interior.

See for yourself:
- http://web.mit.edu/smcs/scharmer/2008/mit-scharmer-presencing-9152-03apr2008-1000-220k.ram
- http://www.theoryu.com/documents/Theory_U_Exec_Summary.pdf

Emil Möller

I agree with Bill in that the Global Warming fad has created a bunch of "Green Lemmings", as he calls them. These alarmists, like the authors of this article, assume that Global Warming is fact, and that the Earth and its inhabitants are headed for extinction unless some sort of governing body steps in to save the planet. The notion that managers should take a Green Hippocratic Oath is preposterous. Have we forgotten the benefits we have reaped from capitalism? Why socialize the marketplace by requiring managers to swear oath to be faithful to this flavor of the day. (Let's not forget that not so many years ago, scientists were concerned that we were entering another ice age.)

One thing seems to be missing in this discussion: personal responsibility.

It is the responsibility of each investor to ensure that his portfolio meets his personal values. If the investor values a company's "green-ness" over its ability to generate green backs, then his portfolio should reflect that value. If it becomes apparent that the individual investors who make up "the market", favor one value over another, then our capitalist system will reward the companies with that value and will punish those companies whose values are not in line with the market, which, then, should cause the value systems of businesses to migrate toward the values of the market.

We managers have much to worry about with the government regulating our businesses, it should be the furthest thing from our minds to muck up our already full and complex lives with self-imposed regulations like this ridiculous oath.

It should be incumbent upon each one of us to live with such integrity that we can look ourselves in the mirror each and every morning and know that the person staring back at us did everything yesterday in his/her power to do no unnecessary harm while prospering as many of those within his/her sphere of influence as possible, and will act in such a manner today that tomorrow morning's face-off will be as pleasant.

Very interesting discussion. The authors have posed a question for which the answers lie in human history, religion, politics, economics, philosophy and professional ethics.

Oath or no oath it does not make a difference. More fundamental issues that need to be addressed are - human greed, value based education system, human lifestyle and personal code of conduct.

As long as these issues are not addressed by the education systems from very early age, the commitment and responsibility will never be seen in the educated class.

I have seen illiterate individuals in tribal communities in central India, protecting their environment and promoting sustainable living.

The corporate social responsibility programs at best are small initiatives to enhance the brand image. If they walk the talk and not harm the environment and ecosystem whithin which they operate, they obviously enjoy better brand image.

Main purpose of any business venture is wealth creation. It has its roots in leveraging available resources to create wealth. The resources here refer to both living and non living. As long is it is only a leverage and is carried out by a method wherein the same resources are regenerated, it is termed sustainable development. The day leverage is replaced by exploitation to satisfy ulterior selfish interests of few individuals the activity becomes immoral and unethical.

What we need is strong deterrants in the international law that ensure exploitation is stopped and the corporates survive to serve the exploited.

Let me substantiate my arguements with a case of corporate negligence-the Bhopal Gas tragedy. If Union Carbide was made to pay on an on going basis regular payments to families and survivors of the Bhopal Gas tragedy to meet the basic needs of living, for a certain period of time till they become empowered sufficiently to take care of themselves economically, we would have set a great precedent. Instead what we did was allowed the lawyers, governments run by greedy politicians and greedy business managers to pay and take kickbacks and ensure no social justice is done.

If we extend this principle of justice and equity, America should have taken care of people affected in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Did it happen? No.

Bottomline - You cannot fight human greed and immorality with oaths, policies, procedures alone. You Fight them at the root by instilling the right value system. Make every major human misery thrust on societies world over due to human greed and corporate negligence as a moral lesson by incorporating it in the education curriculam globally.

Srinivas

When I first read about the requirement of an oath related to a green hippocratic oath, I must admit I thought this is going nowhere. Upon reflection it has merit. For many of the reasons stated throughout the discussion.

If an organization felt that an "oath" was important, then that organization could monitor commitment to this through key performance indicators or other performance assessments. These KPIs would be seen as an individual's commitment to green and not compliance to being green.

The oath in its simplicity is a frame work or guidle line on expectations. When I worked in the forest industry a few decades ago, mill managers were rewarded by their ability to drive profits. This resulted in safety problems going on unattended as one example of a myopic approach to profitability. When the company introduced a balanced scorecard, operations changed. The scorecard required an improvement to safety, amongst other issues, but more importantly it said that safety was mission critical. This also transalted into lower workers' compensation rates, and reduced lost time due to injuries and so on. And this did not detract from profitability.

Following this was the green movement from NGOs and the company then added green KPIs with similar improvements in its operational performance - tied to individual performance. It led to using fewer toxic chemicals and did not affect profitability.

If leading organizations require an oath to green and social issues, and linked them to the individual's performance and bonus, based on merit and results, then an oath would be the means and not the end.

Enron treated codes of ethcis as the end and not the means. They rewarded one factor of business only - the profitability box on their scorecard. Their business model led to an unsustainable model financially and ethically.

An oath could reiterate that business is also responsible for changing behaviour. This could lead to behaviour across an executive's work/life which affects far more people through the mulitplier effect. An oath is evidence of a commitment. Compliance is meeting minimal expectations - there are no points awarded for that. Commitment to an oath is similar to a commitment to other corporate philosophies such as "hiring the best talent". It can lead to a higher return to shareholders and better value for stakeholders.

The question posed by professors Khurana and Nohria is:

Should managers be forced to adopt a code to consider the effects of their actions on the environment?

I offer another question in response: Are managers not already required to consider the effects of their actions on the environment through the financial results of their companies? And if the financial results of the company do not also accurately represent the cost of that company’s operations on the world’s scarce resources, then:

Does the fault not lie with the prices that society assigns to public goods like air, water and land rather than the managers themselves?

In her post, Rita Hudetz promotes the notion that: the business community must determine an acceptable metric for quantifying environmental and social risk. I agree with Ms. Hudetz, but I believe that this metric already exists and it is prices. For centuries, economists have understood that all resources are scarce and have believed that prices are the best way to allocate scarce resources. So why have prices (i.e. financial results) suddenly fallen out of fashion in favor of measuring managers by much less qualitative means like adherence to “management oaths”?

The failure of prices, of course comes with “public” goods. When property rights for something are shared among everyone, it becomes difficult to assign a price to consumption of the good. But the failure of prices has also been surmounted in modern economies through the application of taxes (for example, petrol taxes that increase prices in order to reduce consumption and therefore carbon emissions) and outright prohibition (for example, outlawing disposal of dangerous chemicals into public water sources). So why are taxes and laws now suddenly not enough to protect the environment from the heavy hand of the modern, malevolent manager?

In my opinion, the reason prices, taxes and prohibitions are no longer enough to satiate "environmentalists” is because there is so much uncertainty about the true price of current consumption of resources in terms of tomorrow’s prices. The effects of actions like water pollution are immediate, but will releasing excess carbon into the air today really make life more difficult and costly tomorrow? Even those who are certain climate change exists are uncertain about when the most serious problems will manifest themselves or whether new technologies that eliminate the effects of climate change will be developed first. Should managers of companies be expected to have a better crystal ball than everyone else?

Of course managers are always expected to have a view into the future, constantly providing company stakeholders with future projections of profits. But these forecasts are always uncertain. So to mitigate this uncertainty, company shareholders discount these future earnings in order to determine the company’s value today. The riskier the stream of future earnings, the higher the dicount rate applied, thus lowering the company’s current value.

My view is that if society wants to provide incentives for managers to make sustainable decisions for their own companies and for society, the best way to do it is through the discount rate. If a company engages in activites that degredate its own future competitiveness and the quality of the environment, then the discount rate applied to its future earnings should be higher, thus making its current value lower.

For example, imagine if two electric utility companies of equal value in terms of future profits are compared. One is constructing new (highly polluting) coal power plants whereas the other is investing in (cleaner) nuclear power. Savvy investors should anticipate that the cost of dirty coal fired electricity plants will be much higher in the future than it is today. When the present value of each of the two companies is calculated, the company investing in coal power plants should be worth less to investors. Punishing managers with a lower stock price is surely more effective than having them sign an uninforceable oath.

In summary, it is up to all of society, not just company managers, to protect the world’s scarce resources. The best way to protect our scarce resources is to assign prices to consumption of public goods (air, water, land) by using taxes and regulation. When a company’s consumption will occur in the future, or future prices are not well known, it is up to society to assign a higher discount rate to the company’s future earnings in order to lower its present value. In this way, managers are held financially accountable for decisions made today that will effect the future sustainability of their own enterprises and the natural environment.

This is certainly a good way to enforce business ethics. However,
if made this as mandate we should also talk about Business Councils like Medical Councils to ensure oaths are taken not only as an obligation but to abide by ts meaning as well.

The idea is definitely is great but it would need a wider acceptance as many business houses have their own way of doing business and they may not follow any new world methodlogy or process.

Also, enforcing it to the new bunch of managers will create a difference of opinion with the experienced ones. No doubt, any individual have a responsibility towards the society but how much do we really help out of the business environment with various forces in action.

This needs little more thought for implementation and real time feasibility.

Look forward for revolution of such kinds.

Thanks prof. Rakesh

I think that such a committment is definately overdue, given the present state of affairs, and how voluntary programs, in of themselves, (such as ISO 14001) really haven't done much to curtail our collective environmental footprint, and other coluntary initiatives, such as the CDP, GRI and other next-generation voluntary reporting programs really haven't gotten a firm foothold yet on the corporate psyche -even as more and more conferences extolling the virtues of green openess, such as ECO:monics, becoem the norm.

Having the environmental equivelant of doctors' Hippocratic Oath, is probably a good way to hold many "green" managers accountable, especialy those who proclaim their organizations are certified to ISO 14001, and yet problems exist just below the surface. This is a global issue, and not just the US's, but if we are to lead by example, perhaps we should learn a lesson from how the 50 states look at e-waste. Not all states view electroncis as hazardous, and in those states where e-waste can be casually disposed, we're setting up those who come after us. There are other examples, but let's just mull over this one first.

Sir,

While the idea of an oath or code for managers is commendable, the implementation of the idea is open to question.

1. Let us first consider the Hippocratic oath. Recently, a doctor was arrested for allegedly removing the kidneys of over 300 poor and gullible people, to be used for transplantation among rich recipients. This is said to be the tip of an iceberg. Cases of unnecessary surgeries being performed by highly qualified surgeons have been well documented. In a country where the female child is still looked down upon, any number of hospitals routinely scan women to determine the sex of the fetus and if found to be a female, facilitate abortion. Both the sex determination and subsequent action are illegal but are still carried out. To be sure, for every such unscrupulous doctor, there are scores of dedicated professionals saving lives and / or improving the quality of life. The point to be noted however is that the mere taking of an oath by itself does not ensure compliance. There have hardly been any instances of physicians being brought to book for acts of omission or commission.

2. Now for the legal profession. The 1984 riots following the assassination of the then Prime Minister of India claimed over 3000 lives. Ample evidence is available that in many cases, people were instigated by prominent political leaders to kill those belonging to a certain community. 24 years later, no one has been convicted. Who is to speak for the families of the victims? Similarly, the 1993 bomb blasts perpetrated by terrorist groups claimed hundreds of innocent lives. The judgment of the trial court was pronounced only in 2007. The matter is now before the highest court of the land. One can be rest assured that many more years will pass by before anything happens. Who is to speak for the families of the innocent victims? Such delays are now taken for granted. At least a significant part of the delay can be attributed to the dilatory tactics employed by the legal profession. Given this track record, how relevant is the oath taken by lawyers?

3. This is not to imply that there is anything wrong with the oath itself. And yet, one cannot help observing that living up to the ideals of any profession is largely a matter of personal choice. If one chooses to cross the border, who is to judge and what should be the punishment?

4. As the head of the organization that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Dr R K Pachauri observed recently: “I switch off the lights even if I have to go out for two minutes.” It is this kind of personal commitment and passion, rather than any oath or platitudes that can ensure a safe and sustainable development of this fragile planet.

Warm Regards

Should managers be forced to adopt a code to consider the effects of their actions on the environment? While Rakesh Khurana makes some very strong arguments for a code in the IdeaCast above, I don’t think so.

Part of Khurana’s argument for a green Hippocratic Oath is that students are asking for it. If the majority of students wanted an oath like this then I would expect the percentage of students involved in Net Impact and other social enterprise clubs at the top programs to be high. In my program, only 20% of the 650 or so students are in Net Impact at Darden. At HBS, the Social Enterprise Club boasts 300+ members but that’s just 17% of the total enrollment. One of the reasons why these percentages are low could be because of the normative message of business school that Khurana mentions, which has been that students “couldn’t really achieve societal benefit through business.” Khurana says that many of the students at the top business schools are getting an MBA so that they can make a lot of money first and then give back. He calls this, “learn, earn, give.” If business schools are interested in making sustainability a key part of their programs then working to change this norm will be an important part of the equation.

In my second year at Darden, I have seen sustainability come to the forefront on our grounds and that of other top programs. Recruiters are sharing their companies’ sustainability practices in briefings. Speakers from companies are touting their sustainability and corporate social responsibility efforts in hopes that they will convince the best and the brightest to come to their organizations. Business schools are creating sustainability programs, which include platforms like HBR Green and Darden’s actions toward being zero waste and carbon neutral, because the market forces have said, “Right now, this is good business.”

Sustainability is hot right now, but how long will its popularity last? As a classmate of mine said just the other day, “The problem with sustainability is that it is not sustainable.”

Therefore, I think the better question for all of us is: How can business schools help to make sustainability more sustainable? How can we make sure this is not just a fad? As has already been mentioned many times in this thread, the best way for business schools to instill sustainability values in their students is through education. Discussions of stakeholders, responsibility, and sustainability should be integrated throughout all required curriculum and electives. Programs should practice what they preach and work toward creating sustainable schools. And, even when sustainability is no longer being talked about in the Wall Street Journal and on CNN, the business programs should continue with these sustainability actions.

When I was in high school, my English teachers always used to tell me to show, not tell, because showing is much more powerful. An oath is just telling but actions show students that sustainability is important.

Elise West
Net Impact at Darden President, 2007-2008
Leaders using business to make a positive NET social, environmental, and economic IMPACT

Should Managers Have a Green Hippocratic Oath?
Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria
At this time when we have oil at 130 and the petroleum corporations presidents , mangers who want to invest in bio gas burning wheat, corn, and vegetables creating a space where breathing becomes awful and the statements they give of supply and demand does not match the oaths. I think they are for money only like the lawyers.

I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa

To answer the question...yes, and it's about time. I wish we lived in a world where an oath wasn't necessary, but leaders have an obligation to us all. My goal with ReaLeadership Alliance is to confront the problems we face today at the core with socially-strategic leadership. I believe the way up is the only way out. By “up” I mean socially-strategic leadership is a bigger way of thinking than our current thought-systems. It’s not harder to think this way; it’s actually more fun, more rewarding, and far more interesting. The time is now to save our future.

Will Marre
ReaLeadership Alliance
http://www.realeadership.com

I highly disagree.

The commitment from a manager to carry out green initiatives, ethics, or operational objectives is meaningless unless there is backing from executives.

The commitment must originate from the top; organization leaders.

True, having buy-in from employees is essential to carrying out the mission statement and objectives of the organization; however, ultimately, the manager's decisions to allocate resources in a sustainable fashion will make no difference if the business objectives of the entire organization are not in alignment.

In a past life as a project manager for a Mechanical Engineering and contracting firm, I faced much adversity when I attempted to implement "green" services, practices, and supply chains. This came to me as a shock, as construction in large has been one of the earliest and greatest adopters of green standardization and practices (LEED).

The issue was not my personal beliefs, morals, or career interests, but the business objectives of the overall organization.

Owners are skeptical of green business, and for good reason.
The demand for "green" products and services has yet to be truly validated by executives in my opinion. This shift may very well come from managers, or a greater industry initiative.

My suggestion to anyone attempting to implement “green” in any facet of their organization is to first sit down with the CEO and discuss what this would mean to the bottom line, and how soon.

Eric Livingston, LEED AP

being green is not just about saving the planet or saving our future children.. it's about saving our own selves