How Can the Three Ethical Principles of Permaculture be Applied to Business Ethics?

James Llewellyn

Senior Managing Consultant, Atkins Limited

In recent weeks, the UK news has been dominated by increasingly lurid allegations that the News of the World newspaper hacked into the mobile telephone voicemail accounts of a murdered schoolgirl and relatives of UK service men killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than being the work of a rogue individual, the phone hacking seems to have been encouraged by an organisational culture of getting a news story (and hence selling newspapers) at any price. The sight of the octogenarian Rupert Murdoch, scurrying to the UK in order to try and limit the commercial damage to his business empire, is a somewhat depressing indictment of the priorities that many businesses seem to have. The question is whether there is a better way to do business?

The three ethical principles of permaculture provide an alternative vision for businesses to conduct themselves; one based on dignity and respect rather than the relentless pursuit of monetary profit.

Earth Care: Every business on the planet uses the earth’s natural resources – such as water, plants, animals and energy. If these resources are not replaced and become less common, the price will go up and directly affect the bottom line. It is basic economics. A good example is oil, the cost of which is causing many businesses who rely on road or air transport to complain to anyone who will listen (although they don’t seem to realise that as consumers they are actually part of the problem). Both government and business have, to date, been very slow to wake up to the fact that Peak Oil – the point at which supplies descend into an irreversible decline – will completely change the way that we have to organise business activity. Given the reliance on natural resources, care for the earth should actually be a business imperative rather than a “nice to have”.

People Care: The recent economic downturn has unfortunately exposed many businesses and governments as being more concerned with their short term financial bottom line than the long term development of people and their careers. The mass redundancies seen in many organisations have given the impression that people are commodities who can be bought (in the good times) and sold (when things get tough). Apologists for the “hire and fire” approach would no doubt say that businesses are not charities and have to make a profit; and therefore the end justifies the means. In response it might be worth asking where all the profits, generated in the economic boom years, actually went? Were they set aside for a “rainy day” so that businesses and their staff could become more resilient against future economic downturns? No, the profits were often invested in complex financial derivative schemes as a means of making yet more money; and as it turns out at least some of those schemes have made a direct contribution to the various debt crises that have been sweeping the globe since the autumn of 2007. We can’t easily undo the mistakes of the last four years; but we businesses can take a lead and make care for people (staff, customers and local communities) a fundamental part of their future vision.

Fair Share: Anyone who watches the dismal TV show The Apprentice will know that, in the eyes of business moguls like Lord Alan Sugar, there is only one winner. Business is portrayed as a cut throat environment where you have to kill or be killed. In this kind of world view, there is certainly little room for sharing of success never mind more financial considerations such as wages and bonuses. Thankfully in reality, there is actually a fair degree of co-operation and sharing within businesses as people recognise that they have to work together to deliver an outcome that is greater than the sum of individual efforts. But more could be done to promote genuine co-operation rather than the use of targets to promote competition. Many of the “mis-selling” problems associated with financial products such as mortgages and payment protection insurance can be directly attributable to sales

targets. And in the long term of course, companies found guilty of breaking financial standards have paid a heavy price in terms of their reputation.

Therefore the three permaculture principles are not fluffy aspirations; they should be seen as business imperatives to be ignored at our collective peril.

This article may be reproduced free of charge as long as an acknowledgement is given.