“Green investing isn’t just for greens any-more. Now an increasing number of invest-ment professionals view ecological efficiencyas a vital criterion for judging the quality of acompany.” So said the Wall Street JournalEurope on August 14, 1996. In a similar vein,the International Herald Tribune stated onJune 23, 1997, “It is in everyone’s interest—whether government, business leader orconsumer—to promote a healthy environ-ment.” And just recently (January 25, 1999),the Financial Times declared that “Investingin companies that care about the environ-ment is a way to outperform the market.”

What a change in perceptions of ecologyand the environment, and what a long waythe world has come since Rachel Carson’sSilent Spring put environmental degradationsquarely before the public gaze. Until the endof the 1980s a clear dividing line ran throughecological politics. At one end of the spec-trum were environmentalists who demand-ed pollution be eliminated and ecosystemsprotected, whatever the cost. In their view,big business was raping the environment forthe sake of profit and bares the blame for allenvironmental damage. At the other end,the business lobby seemed to believe thatany legislation aimed at protecting the envi-ronment would hamper economic growth.In their view, protecting the environmentwasted corporate financial resources thatcould otherwise have been used to supporteconomic growth.

Farsighted representatives of both campsbegan to cross the line and thereby started toerase it. Throughout the 1990s, both sidesdiscovered that sound business practice anda sound ecological approach are not mutual-ly exclusive. By harnessing the mechanism offree market, pollution can be minimized,environmental protection maximized, andeconomic growth realized. The ecological orsustainable approaches have by no meansproved to be a shackle on the economy. Onthe contrary, it has become increasingly clearthat ecological thinking toward sustainabili-

ty can act as a catalyst for innovation, devel-opment, and economic expansion.

The shift from the strict notion of pro-tecting our environment (in essence, at allcosts) to managing our resources generated afreedom of thought that allowed a changeand a coalescence of views. Instrumental tothis change was the report “Our CommonFuture” from the World Commission onEnvironment and Development, an indepen-

dent body set up by the United Nations andchaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. In it, forthe first time, the principles of sustainabilitywere formulated for a larger public, and theseprinciples not only encompassed environ-mental protection but went far beyond it.The publicity around the Rio Conference onBiodiversity in 1992 was a powerful dissemi-nation tool for the philosophy of sustainabil-ity, a healthy environment and biodiversity.

Following the Rio conference, companyleaders were urged by Stephan Schmidheinyand Frederico J.L. Zorraquin in their bookFinancing Change: The FinancialCommunity, Eco-efficiency, and SustainableDevelopment:

. . .to build a sustainable development reflexinto corporate activities, so that when themarket comes to reward eco-efficiency moresystematically, company leaders will havetheir strategies in place, the teams trained andfit, and their stakeholders loyal.

John Elkington of the consultancy firmSustainAbility calls this strategy the triplebottom line approach: profitable operations,sound ecology and social progress. The per-

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOL 17 SUPPLEMENT 1999 http://biotech.nature.com BV 25

formance of the stocks of sustainably man-aged companies—over 60% better than theworst companies—seem to support this view(Fig. 1). While adopting environmental andecological best practice may not be a cause ofoutstanding business performance, it cer-tainly appears to be an indicator of it.

The tightening link between ecology andeconomy is promising and creates a spaceand platform for alternative thinking andacting. Such a platform will not protect thehuman society from alarming new discover-ies, such as synthetic chemicals acting asendocrine disrupters, ozone depletion, ormelting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shieldsbecause of global warming. Al Gore writes inhis foreword to the book, Our Stolen Future(from Colborn, Dumanoski, & Myers), “Wecan never construct a society that is com-pletely free of risk.” Nevertheless, environ-mental sciences and technologies can help toreduce such risks. Environmental sciencestoday go far beyond pollution control andecotoxicology. Although short-term solu-tions will still be needed in the years ahead,consideration for the environment and thecall for sustainability requires technical andsocietal innovations and the readiness tothink in alternative ways.

Production technologies can be opti-mized for less pollution and diminishedresource use. However, there are limits to theoptimization of our daily lives’ activities, ourneeds, wishes, and desires. The fuel economyof a car can be increased (although there islittle incentive to do so in countries wheregasoline costs are around €0.2 (US$0.2) perliter), but how can the human desire for(excessive) mobility be changed?

The challenge for scientists and engineersis to come up with alternatives satisfying thebasic necessities of human existence anddevelopment. The challenge is heightened asrapid demographic development overtakesand renders obsolete much of the progressalready achieved. Creating products, tech-nologies, and processes that meet the triplebottom line approach and encourage fairtrade will benefit both North and South.Science provides the knowledge, technology,and tools for a prosperous future. To havethe most impact, scientists and engineersmust act within a transnational or evenglobal political, economic, and culturalframework. ///

THE ENVIRONMENT

Business and theenvironmentAlexander J.B. Zehnder and Harald Wulff

Alexander J.B. Zehnder is at the Swiss FederalInstitute for Environmental Science andTechnology (EAWAG), CH-8600 Duebendorf,Switzerland (zehnder:eawag.ch). HaraldWulff is at Henkel KgaA, D-40191Duesseldorf, Germany.

90%

110%

130%

150%

170%

190%

210%

230%

250%

270%Leaders135.9%

Laggards83.3%

1994 1995 1996 1997

Shares of US chemical and pharmaceutical companies

Figure 1. Sustaining competitive advantage.Shares in the US chemical and pharmaceuticalcompanies that rated highest for a set ofsustainability criteria outperformed theindustry average and far outperformed theworst-rated companies. Data from SAM(sustainable asset management).

© 1999 Nature America Inc. • http://biotech.nature.com©

199

9 N

atu

re A

mer

ica

Inc.

• h

ttp

://b

iote

ch.n

atu

re.c

om