LinkedIn Dialog
Group: Conscious Capitalism

Discussion: Sanjay Kapoor ... Let 'em die? What would the conscious capitalist do

Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

Let 'em die? What would the conscious capitalist do?

Sanjay Kapoor ... shift your THINKING Top Contributor

So here is an issue I have been wrestling with and would be grateful for the wisdom of the collective.

If I lead a company largely dependent on fossil fuels to manufacture my product, e.g. Arch Coal and I know that my company is contributing to global warming, what is the conscious course of action to take? 1. Should I strand the company's assets i.e. leave them in the ground? 2. Plot a path to non-dependency and leave company assets i.e. coal deposits in the ground? 3. Mine the coal

My question is about what should that company guided by the paradigm of conscious capitalism? What principles should guide the strategy?

My hope is that the discussion exposes principles that can be applied not only at the scale of of companies, but for countries e.g. Inuits from Greenland drilling for oil as their glaciers melt and their traditional way of life disappears(http://bit.ly/1qUxIqP)

Looking forward to your thoughts...

Like Comment (23) Unfollow Reply Privately14 days ago Comments 23 comments

Norman Wolfe Norman Norman Wolfe Founder, CEO Quantum Leaders, Inc

Sanjay I love that you ask the really hard questions (and the fact that no one yet has responded). So let me be the first to do so.

Your thinking is still within the machine paradigm in that you are looking for an objective answer, one that will fit all situations. Life however is actually subjective and situational. So the only way this can really be answered is it depends.

It depends on what is actually the best use of the resource. And how to use the resource coming from a conscious place.

If there is a need for the resource then it should be made available, for it would not serve to have a resource that Nature provides go unused. Would it serve the world for us not to use what nature offers us.

The second question then arises, how do we use the resource. I remember years ago working through the issue of eating meat and the slaughter of the animals. I then came across the way indigenous people approached the killing of animals. They did it with respect, honoring the animal that gave its life so they may be nourished. The same is true of the way predators claim their prey. They do so as part of a great natural balancing act.

Back to the coal question. If coal is needed, and I believe it still is in many parts of the world, then we should mine it. We should also find ways to make sure its use does no harm to our planet, including the process of mining.

IF there is one thing I think we have learned over the years of the environmental movement, is that there are effective solutions that transcend the either shut it down or destroy our planet.

ANd I would also suggest that the CEO decide how long coal will be needed and begin the migration to other offerings, because once there are effective alternatives, which there are and they will become more effective over time, then coal will not be needed and the mining of it will stop.

Like (3) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 13 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D., Jeff Cherry and 1 other like this

Sanjay Kapoor Sanjay Sanjay Kapoor shift your THINKING Top Contributor

Norman - Thank you for your response and am grateful for the opportunity to engage in discussion. I have been sitting with your response for the better part of the day now and find it unsatisfying.

Perhaps evidence of being a prisoner of the machine paradigm. I am not looking for one objective answer, but I am, in fact, looking for some underlying principle that may scale in degree, with a singular essence. If I am understanding you correctly, that quest is a fruitless exercise as it does not comport with the reality of the world. Hmmm...

One thing that I find helpful based on what you are saying is identifying the need. I would submit that the need is not for coal but for energy. Also, should we consider coal a resource if it emits a gas that threatens civilization as we know it or should it be considered a poison? What should the CEO consider it?

Does it behoove the conscious CEO to recognize the need as a need for energy? Support the stranding of assets that contributes to the company's valuation? High valuation benefits investors, one of the stakeholder groups. Is there perhaps a principle hidden in here that you can benefit a stakeholder group, but not at the expense of another?

I do totally agree with you that there are solutions beyond the either/or approach. Elon Musk's Tesla is a great example and reflects the Bucky Fuller quote you are so fond of. :) (BTW! Musk on Colbert week before last was great - http://on.cc.com/1pWO242)

Like (1) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 12 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. likes this

Gal Avrahamy Gal Gal Avrahamy Product Manager at Amazon

See Ed Freeman's stakeholder theory - it talks just about that - never prioritize one stakeholder group over another. Don't think in term of making trade-offs but rather how you can maximize the collective benefit for all stakeholder groups. Like (1) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 12 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. likes this

Sanjay Kapoor Sanjay Sanjay Kapoor shift your THINKING Top Contributor

In this case the benefits seem opposed - one stakeholder's benefit is another's loss. So what is your solution in this particular instance. Perhaps a reframing of the problem is needed, but I do not see it...

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Freeman's stakeholder theory did not explicitly include non-human stakeholders. Perhaps this explains why the original SPICE model from Firms of Endearment (FoE) did not include the environment. I think it also sidesteps the matter of hierarchy among some stakes...

Norman - I find myself thinking about your description of the eating of meat. Whom would the CEO apologize to - climate refugees (http://bit.ly/1sGChn4), the species on the brink of extinction, my child, yours? The scale of this issue is daunting.

Like (1) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 9 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. likes this

Norman Wolfe Norman Norman Wolfe Founder, CEO Quantum Leaders, Inc

Sanjay, the paradigm shift is a difficult one, and you find yourself faced with the essence of the challenge. You cannot solve this problem from the perspective of the mind, trying to find a logical answer in a linear framework. This, as you have discovered, is the problem with the stakeholder model. Not only does it leave out the non-human stakeholders, as you call it, it runs smack dab into the issue of opposing needs.

The essence of the machine paradigm is that it sees the world through the lens of individual components, not an interdependent ecosystem. It solves problems through tradeoffs, not holistic (whole system) solutions.

To try to find your way out of the machine paradigm into the living organization (or any other organic paradigm) you must accept that solutions arrive from the system itself, not from some external model. And the solution can only be found through the heart, not through the rational mind.

To help provide you with a way of experiencing this (as the only way to truly understand the new paradigm is experientially not intellectually), think of your own family. How do you resolve opposing needs within your family. do you have a single set of rules that you apply to every situation, or do you rather listen to all members of the living entity that is the family, and from the conversation, from loving and caring about each other a solution is discovered.

This is the path of the future, when a CEO will open their heart and listen to all members of the family, yes including the earth, and discover the right solution for that situation. This is the path of living form context, from accepting the suchness (seeing what is in as much of the totality of the situation as one can), and making decisions from the heart that will enhance the whole.

The example I used about the way the indians killed the buffalo, was not to say that they apologized to the buffalo, rather they had a way of honoring the whole cycle of life. It is appreciating the vastness of Life, Nature herself, and their role in the system of things. This is what we as humans, and our leaders must learn to hold as a context. It is not us versus nature, but our role as part of nature.

One of the current challenges is to learn to transcend the either - or nature of our thinking, as my teacher Brugh Joy used to say, wholeness comes when you learn to see opposites as compliments. I would also add that when we can accept that evolution by its very nature means that things will pass away, even whole species, to allow for the next evolutionary cycle. Only when we can attune ourselves to this process will we be able to know what choices enhance this process. In the end nature and evolution will prevail. We can either be a part of it or be run over by it, that is our real choice

Like (2) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 9 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D., Runa Bouius like this

Sanjay Kapoor Sanjay Sanjay Kapoor shift your THINKING Top Contributor

Norman - I chose to sit with your response for a couple of days to see better.

I am completely aligned with you when you talk about whole system solutions as also that the system defines the solution. I am reminded by a line from J. Krishnamurti 'If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.'

I also agree with your needing to leave behind the either-or paradigm. For me that is reminiscent of the Hegelian dialectic of thesis-antithesis leading to synthesis. Let me urge consideration that viewing things as complements suggest a unity, which endorses at least the direction of fewer rules or governing laws. And in this I see commonality between my quest and your view.

The idea of a solution being found through the heart and not through the rational mind, sits awkwardly with me. While I align with the intention, I also see it as falling prey to the western dichotomy of mind and heart, struggling to bridge a duality that to my mind does not really exist in the first place. So also with the dichotomy of human vs. nature which has placed humans out of nature, invokes the schizophrenia of dominion vs. stewardship, neither of which let her/him back in as part of nature.

To the original question of assets and stranding them, where I am coming to is that there is in fact a way of seeing the benefits of coal with externalized costs internalized. This leads me to see that the assets are a quirk of the measurement system and not inherently valuable. I further think it is a mistake to look at coal as the resource that is needed - instead the need is more accurately simply one of energy.

To the stakeholder orientation, despite Freeman's omission, I do see parallels in the notion of the greatest collective benefit (also a mechanism of dispelling either-or thinking) and what we are discussing here.

Incidentally, I did ask my son (10 years old) what he would do if we had land that had coal and he could get money if he got the coal out. He said he would not get the coal out, but might sell it. I upped the ante for him, asking even if we really needed the money because the bank could kick us out of our house. He said he would get a tent and live on the land. And then the deadliest of questions back - 'Wouldn't you?'

Like (1) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 4 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. likes this

Norman Wolfe Norman Norman Wolfe Founder, CEO Quantum Leaders, Inc

Sanjay, first let me say how much I appreciate the depth by which you are willing to engage this topic. I am a little surprised that no one else in this community has entered the conversation. I wonder why? Oh well at least you and I are willing to really explore the challenges of shifting the paradigm.

I must also say that I did forget to respond to your comment about is it the need for coal or the need for energy in your earlier post. I agree that the real issue is the need for energy not coal. And as the leader (CEO) of the company, (s)he should see their mission as an energy company not a coal company, or when coal is no longer viable energy source the company will be out of business. (Railroad saw themselves as railroad companies not as transportation companies and never entered the airline business.)

As for the issue of mind versus heart, i must apologize for not being more clear about what I mean. For me, making decisions from the heart is inclusive of the mind, while making decision from the mind is all too often exclusive of the heart. When I use the term from the heart, I am referring to a specific way of knowing. I knowing that goes beyond the rational process of seeing things through objectification, labels, and comparison. A knowing that is at once holistic and connected.

The reason I use from the heart, is because in essence what we are doing is shifting the vibration frequency of our being to a higher frequency, which allows for more information to enter our consciousness. We can now beyond the thing as an object of study, to know its full essence and all its relationships. We call this frequency by the term love and to make decisions form the heart is to make it from a state of love.

I know Raj has been taking his talks to a new level and I think he will eventually get to the realization that Love is the state that CC is leading us to, (but this may be a longer conversation than for this particular thread).

Back to you original question about whether to leave it in the ground and the need for energy.

I think we must look at our choices not in terms of right and wrong at a particular point in time but along the axis of evolution. At one time the need for energy was satisfied by cow dung, then we moved along the axis towards wood and then to coal and then oil and now we continue the journey. There are still places when the energy needs is best satisfied by lower levels of evolutionary solutions. As CEO of this company (s)he should be connected to ALL stakeholders (as we have previously discussed) and from the heart determine whether coal is right for this phase of evolution for that particular segment.

I hope you notice that I stay away from it being a decision of whether it makes me a profit or not. As you know I believe that a CEO should make their decision based on serving society through fulfilling their Soulful Purpose. If my purpose is to satisfy the energy needs of our society, then the question is which is the best way to do that. That is what will determine the 'right' course of action. If that is coal for right now then the next question is how to do it in a way that serves all. And to get to knowing how to serve all one must be be connected not form the mind alone (making tradeoffs) but from the heart connected to all, serving all.

Like (3) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 4 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D., Runa Bouius and 1 other like this

Jeff Cherry Jeff Jeff Cherry Executive Director at Conscious Venture Lab

Norman and Sanjay:

First of all how are you guys? It's been a while since I've engaged here as I've been at least neck deep in executing the Conscious Venture Lab! It's been a great ride so far and I'm looking forward to the next round.

I'd love to sit with you guys some time and talk this one out because I think it is a really important topic. One which I've had to think about deep and hard when developing a strategy for identifying and investing in publicly traded conscious companies. I know I'm a little late to the discussion so I'll just give you my impressions about the initial question without trying to tie back too precisely into your specific points and counterpoints.

First of all as you both know I spend a lot of time talking to Raj and Ed and I would say that they both spend significant time thinking about the environment as a stakeholder. I'd consider the environment as a topic of care is firmly ensconced in the 'S' Society pillar of the SPICE model for Raj and from Ed's pragmatic view he'd clearly suggest (I think) that dealing with the environment through those environmentally focused stakeholders is at least a requirement and perhaps even more a duty of the executive team. (For clarity and transparency I haven't asked either of them this question specifically I'm only relying on conversations we've all had over the last 10 years to draw insights).

That said I think you've both made some really fantastic points about how to think about this issue. First of all thinking about this issue allows the executive to come to the conclusion that coal isn't the thing that's needed, energy is the end goal. This is a primary example of how thinking with a conscious or stakeholder mindset drives innovation. Once we free our mind to understand that what we sell is energy, not coal, the possibilities begin to open in front of us. Innovation takes time and so having thought about this we may start new initiatives but continue to mine coal in the short term. For me then the question becomes how will I mine coal in an interdependent manner? Like Norman's questions about how you solve family dilemmas, I don't think interdependence means every stakeholder gets exactly what they want at every turn but I do think it requires we think of the organization as a whole system as opposed to discrete parts that are all fighting for what they want. That is stakeholder centricity and we all know that leads to flawed decision making. While Stakeholder interdependence on the other hand leads to more equitable and effective decision making process which at times in the short term, may leave a particular stakeholder with a feeling of empowerment and still with less of the 'gains' than they would have hoped for if their point of view was the only one that need be considered.

The beauty of what we are all striving for is it gives us ample space and tools to really do 'both/and' thinking. We now live in a paradigm that tells us either coal mining is bad because of what it does to the environment (and let's not forget the coal miners!!) or if you're on the other side of the table you believe coal mining is legal, legitimate and required and the unintended consequences of ruined landscapes, horrible pollution and dead miners is acceptable given our needs and the financial potential. For me both of those two sides of the same coin. They are born out of a 'Friedmanist' mindset. I think that the 'Freemanist' or 'Sisodian' mindset leads us to thinking about innovative alternatives for coal first and then thinking about how can we extract the coal and provide energy in a way that not actually honors the environment and the people doing these dangerous jobs, and the people who need the energy and our shareholders who have provided us with capital and the communities who have allowed us here through public license. The key here for me is that you can actually answer those questions. It's not easy and it may take some short term moves that ...

Like (1) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 3 days ago Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. likes this

Jeff Cherry Jeff Jeff Cherry Executive Director at Conscious Venture Lab

(Continued) require some stakeholders to be more long-term minded (Like shareholders may not get the quarterly earnings they seek in the coming year if we make serious investments in safety and environmental R&D?) This mindset also helps us really think about which stakeholders can weather the short term suboptimal return in order for all stakeholders to achieve extraordinary interdependent value in the long-term. What most companies do is default back to the shareholder centric model, and force short term losses on all other stakeholders. That, in my opinion even influences your question. It informed the three choices you gave when in fact there are infinite choices and at least one more: Find a way to mind the coal such that I achieve everything I want: No stranded assets and no contribution to global warming....

Like (2) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 3 days ago Norman Wolfe, Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. like this

Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. Michelle Lopes Michelle Lopes Maldonado, J.D. 'Intrepreneur' | Business Leader | Strategist | Writer | Speaker

Sanjay, Normal and Jeff - I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you personally (save Jeff - hello Jeff!), but hope to in the future. In the meantime, I have to say that your conversation is deeply thoughtful, introspective and respectful in a way that is often not found in many business circles. It's honesty and transparency reflect the difficulty and true nature of the work that is before all of us - that which is required before societal transformation can take sustainable root. Thank you for sharing this exchange with the group. I am inspired and appreciate your live example of conscious discussion between conscious leaders.

Like (2) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 3 days ago Norman Wolfe, Jeff Cherry like this

Norman Wolfe Norman Norman Wolfe Founder, CEO Quantum Leaders, Inc

Hello Michelle and Jeff it is good to hear from you. It's nice to get another perspective into this conversation.

Jeff I like the way you frame the issue around the interdependence of stakeholders. It is definitely a step forward from the stakeholder centricity. Yet some of your comments (Some stakeholders sacrifice in the short term...) leads me to think that there is yet another step you can take. That while your thinking is more advanced it is still routed in machine paradigm thinking.

Let me take the family model again (one can use biology, or physics, or nature models and will arrive at the same place. I choose to get married. I do so because I feel that being married to my wife is the best way I can have what I want for myself in my life. Hence I willingly join 'The Collective.'

Now in my own personal self interest I will want to ensure that the collective is healthy and functioning and achieving its purpose. For I can only get what I want when The Collective gets what it wants, or said another way I achieve my purpose when The Collective achieves its purpose. (NOTE: this will also require me to view the collective as a living entity otherwise it has now purpose of its own). Under this paradigm, The Collective as a living entity (The Living Organization) there are no stakeholders there are only members of The Collective. When I am truly concerned and aligned to the purpose of the collective of which I am a part then my focus is no longer on my individual needs and wants as separate and distinct from the collectives.

To make the point perhaps a little clearer would one expect the lungs to compete with the heart or the liver for certain outcomes or would we speak about certain organs having to take a long term view and not get their short term desired results?

This is the next generation paradigm organization's as living entities and it is not an easy journey to reframe out thinking. But as Joel Barker once said, What is difficult to achieve in the old paradigm is trivial, even non existent in the new paradigm. In the new paradigm there is no need for a stakeholder model, for we are not simply interdependent we are interconnected.

Like (1) Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 3 days ago Gail L. likes this

Paul Smith Paul Paul Smith Communicator, Connector, Compassionomics, Senior Executive and Non-Executive Board Director

This is a fascinating discussion everyone. I have not had the pleasure of meeting any of you (yet) but did catch Raj on his recent Australian tour. I was present at a small roundtable that included a Chair of a coal company and the CEO of a top 10 ASX listed diversified group that includes huge coal assets. This very question was pitched by me to the group and no one, not even Raj, could answer. We got distracted by the energy v poverty equation to justify the continued mining of coal and then distracted by Carbon Capture

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 2 days ago

Sanjay Kapoor Sanjay Sanjay Kapoor shift your THINKING Top Contributor

Norman - First of all thank you for your persistence in engaging in the conversation - seems to be paying off. I think these are challenging issues and forbidding in the challenge, so grateful for your engagement.

Great to hear from you Jeff and glad that the Conscious Venture Lab is going well! Thank you Michelle, for your kind words.

Paul - Thank you for raising the issue and your thoughts. Truth be told, it was Tony Abbott's repeal of Australia's carbon tax which sent me further down this path. Australia has significant coal deposits, and as a country what should its position be viz.its national assets, which adds yet another twist. What would the conscious nation do?

Jeff - your responses are illuminating. I appreciate the inclination and the belief that there are infinite choices, and yet in this example I am looking to take the principles we tend to hold and looking at its applicability as it stands today - not an easy venture as Paul has highlighted - one thing to hold a principle - quite another when confronted with the reality that Paul highlighted or that Australia has been facing.

A few other thoughts...
1. I suspect that there is a fundamental flaw in thinking that the environmentalist should represent the environment. While I need to sit with this notion, my intuition suggests that stakeholder representation through proxy is an inherently compromised effort
2. I think there are some fundamental issues in the measurement system - it seems that what we characterize as suboptimal returns are only suboptimal with true costs externalized - they are suboptimal relative to a 'standard' that does not account for the whole and so in that sense is but accounting sleight of hand. Would love your thoughts on this?
3. I could be off in my reading of your comments, but I find them strongly imbued with shareholder primacy. That leaves a question for me as to what is meant by 'extraordinary, interdependent value.' Heck for that matter it leaves me wondering what is value?

Norman - Thank you for highlighting that the motivation of the CEO should be their Soulful purpose. Underscoring that point is valuable - 'connected to all, serving all'.

I also find your evolving interdependence to interconnectedness, both powerful and apropos. The interconnectedness suggests not a cognitive acknowledgment, but describing the way it is - known through the intellective heart. And being part of The Collective and serving it has a deep resonance for me. There is a coherence and harmony in your thoughts which I value. So I find myself at the next step of this journey - What is this collective? What are its boundaries? All the stakeholders/impacted species/creation itself?

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 2 days ago

Sanjay Kapoor Sanjay Sanjay Kapoor shift your THINKING Top Contributor

Norman - Your comment about knowing with the heart rings especially true as last week I was in a strategy meeting and it became apparent that trying to see the solution with the mind was simply inadequate. Just wanted to add that further endorsement.

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 2 days ago

Peter Roche Peter Peter Roche Helping organizations close the gap between what they do, and what they are capable of, in the service of their purpose

Sanjay, I stumbled on this string and got hooked reading your 'issue' and everyone's contributions.

What has this be, 'an issue I have been wrestling with' for you? I wasn't clear in the formulation of the initial question, nor in your responses to the contributions so far, what your 'stake' in this 'issue' is. Is this an issue in which you personally have a stake – and you have some decisions to make in the near term and are looking for some 'thinking partners' to help you sort out how you should act?

Or, is this a thought experiment, a hypothetical, for example: what would I do if I am the decision maker In Arch Coal; how would I advise/coach/counsel Arch Coal's decision makers if that is how come this question engages me; if I had an investment opportunity in Arch Coal what would I do, is that your lens; If I were formulating policy/regulations …?

Or, is this 'issue' a means of helping you surface your fundamental operating principles; what you are committed to, really; what your core values are; what you can tell 'your tribe', this is what you can count on me for? Or, said another way, is this an inquiry to help you be able to declare, 'this is who Sanjay Kapoor is as a committed, reliable soul in the world – how you should know me and relate to me'.

I am always biased to go from the abstract to the particular; from the global to the local - given all actions are local; and from the impersonal, it or they should; to the personal, about my commitments and values.

I hope there is something here that is useful to you :–)

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 2 days ago

Sanjay Kapoor Sanjay Sanjay Kapoor shift your THINKING Top Contributor

Peter - I am not sure that the answer is an easy one... I am also trying to figure out whether the journey changes based on my answer back to you. But let me attempt a response...

1. 'Is this an issue in which you personally have a stake?'

Response: I believe this is a matter in which we all have a stake and that stake becomes more and more urgent. I also suspect, as Norman highlighted, that I am not quite looking for 'thinking partners' so much as I am looking to understand and hopefully to harmonize with the 'knowing' of this interconnected community.

2. Is this a thought experiment, a hypothetical?

Response: The particular example is a hypothetical to me (hopefully not to Arch Coal), but stems from real considerations. I recently worked on a strategic plan for WA state and our governor is a big proponent of clean tech. Our state also has the 6th largest oil refining capacity in the nation. So what are the associated policy implications? As Paul highlighted above, this is a real issue because what we are asking the fossil fuel industries to do is to keep 80% of the assets buried in the ground. I already spoke to the national version of this in Australia's case. The ideas alluded to here about CCS (Carbon Capture & Sequestration) are nowhere as developed, cost-effective or as advanced as a tree. Would it not be nice to convert carbon to building materials as trees do?

3. Is this 'issue' a means of helping you surface your fundamental operating principles?

Response: It is a means of me trying to surface fundamental operating principles of the collective.

I think in your comment 'abstract to the particular; from the global to the local.. from the impersonal, to the personal' you may have identified a salient difference..

If I were to speak these words out loud, I would probably say something of the sort - 'if the particular is the abstract instantiated, there is harmony between them and they move forward with the impulse of all creation.' What we call the impersonal is only a way to describe limitations of the personal as it tries to know its self as part of the collective.

Thank you for helping me take this journey.

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 1 day ago

Norman Wolfe Norman Norman Wolfe Founder, CEO Quantum Leaders, Inc

Paul, your experience at the RoundTable is very indicative of the challenges work business leaders and even the CC movement faces. It is not easy to shift one's paradigm mostly because we are so inside of it, or ore accurately it is so inside of us, that we cannot discern the limitations of our own thinking. It is easy to expound on the ideas of triple bottom line or CC etc, but we are often doing so within our existing paradigm.

To shift one's paradigm is to literally think in terms that are counter intuitive. So when we try to solve the challenges we face with broad concepts like SPICE we are still doing it through the lens of a machine orientation.

That is why my response to Sanjay comes from a completely different framework. I am not tying to reframe capitalism or any other aspect of the machine paradigm. I am actually moving into a completely different frame of reference. From this new frame of reference the problems Sanjay raises really doesn't' even exist. There are no tradeoffs when everything is part of the same whole.

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 23 hours ago

Sanjay Kapoor Sanjay Sanjay Kapoor shift your THINKING Top Contributor

So first of all in fairness to the original stakeholder model, SPICE was updated a couple of years ago to SPICEE to include the environment as a stakeholder.

There are some great ideas and incredibly deep thinking that has been proffered, but I am also not sure that the original question has been answered, nor do I believe it has been dissipated.

Carbon capture & sequestration is cost-prohibitive; renewables have great potential, but existing infrastructure needs to change; current valuation of the company assumes assets in the ground being extracted and burnt; write-offs (in the existing paradigm) need to be accepted, admittedly towards an enduring existence as an energy company.

These are the facts of today and I am still missing the path to the current paradigm (A) to new paradigm (B). This is not to say that it cannot be found - only that I do not see it clearly, at least not right now.

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 17 hours ago

Norman Wolfe Norman Norman Wolfe Founder, CEO Quantum Leaders, Inc

Sanjay, even including the environment as a stakeholder doesn't solve the issue in fact it inky adds another voice to the other voices vying for 'their needs' first. And who speaks the voice of the environment, who is its representative.

Even with adding the second E still maintains that'd there are separate components of the machine. You have only made the machine more complex and the soliton more difficult to resolve.

Your second question is more to the point -what is the path to the new paradigm. As you note your desire for a solution to your original question has not been answered. That is because trying to answer a question from the perspective of the old paradigm is difficult if not impossible. As Paul's tale of the RoundTable clearly indicates. Only in the new paradigm is there a solution to the challenge.

What is the path to the new paradigm. It's both simple and very difficult. It is simply shifting how you view the world. Stop seeing it as a machine with separate components and see it as a single living interconnected being. From this perspective see what answers begin to show up. (P.S. It will be more difficult than you think for some of the answers may not be to your liking initially)

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 13 hours ago

Peter Roche Peter Peter Roche Helping organizations close the gap between what they do, and what they are capable of, in the service of their purpose

Sanjay, this conversation/inquiry occurs to me as a conversation among a bunch 'concerned people', on the bleachers, about 'the game'. I am still curious still, who in the conversation is in 'in the game', actively in action about the question at hand with something at stake in an outcome, working to produce that outcome? Or, is this a debate among interested folks who, no matter what they feel/think will not, do not, impact any outcomes?

If the latter, then at some point the insights you generate, need to get 'on the field' shaping the actions of the players. And, what's the structure for that?

Otherwise, we are expressing to no avail.

I am committed to help find a way for committed thoughtful people to get their ideas shaping actions and outcomes. So I listen for who is on the field trying to make a difference who wants/needs help?

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 2 hours ago

Norman Wolfe Norman Norman Wolfe Founder, CEO Quantum Leaders, Inc

Peter, just to give you a sense of where I play.

I have been and am still 'on the field', not as the CEO (though I have been in that role a number of times) but as one who works with CEOs who want to shift the paradigm in how they lead their organizations.

This is not an academic exercise for me, but rather a journey into the very real and practical world of transforming business.

I am curious, what is it that you are all about. Perhaps this is a question best handled outside of this thread as I do not want to sidetrack this conversation. If you are interested you can respond to nwolfe@quantumleaders.com

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 2 hours ago

Peter Roche Peter Peter Roche

Helping organizations close the gap between what they do, and what they are capable of, in the service of their purpose

I'd be happy to share Norman. I've just sent you an email :-)

Like Reply privately Flag as inappropriate 1 hour ago

Peter Burgess Peter Burgess Founder/CEO at TrueValueMetrics developing Multi Dimension Impact Accounting

All ... great to catch up with this dialog. So far I have only done a quick 'speed read' of what is here, so I hope what I have to say is not a complete 'non sequitur'

In my view, decision makers in the modern economy have to work with the need for energy and the fact that much of the legacy energy production we have is based on fossil fuels and is GHG producing. A huge part of quality of life and standard of living depends on energy and that is a reality that we ignore at our peril.

Every economic activity and every product (both goods and services) are part of a value chain ... through organizations, through time ... or through the spatial dimension. The value chain, has a supply component, a use component and a post use waste component.

Economic activity has impact on profit, on people and on place (planet) through resource depletion and environmental degradation.

Optimizing for a money profit and money balance sheet is quite simple ... but the answers are usually wrong because the externalities which result in impact that are being ignored are now very substantial ... in some cases bigger than the money revenues (see some of the work done by Trucost and TEEB)

Optimizing for impact on profit, people and planet is more complex, but the resulting answer has a lot more relevance to a sustainable future. The computation I envision pushes decision making into a whole lot of redesign of product and a whole lot of rethink about what people do with their lives and what they consume in order to have quality of life and happiness.

I argue that in order to engage decision makers we need meaningful metrics at the big picture level ... and I argue that to change behavior we need meaningful metrics wherever buy or not to buy decisions are being made.

What I have in mind is a little bit like cost accounting ... but multi-dimensional and from multiple perspectives. The big goal is for people to have a better quality of life, and the business performance is subsidiary to this big goal.

Peter Burgess TrueValueMetrics - Multi Dimension Impact Accounting