Your right Lisa, learning something new does take time, just ask my son.
Also, I think that some of the reticence on the part of older corporations
isn't so much due to the company being run by evil men, bad men, dumb men
(uhhh and women too), or anything like that. Often times these
corporations become rigid in their outlook and changing and adapting is
very tough to do (those that don't eventually cease to exist). Think of
it this way, suppose you are used to getting up a 7 AM every morning. You
have been doing it for 25 years. Suddenly you have to get up at 5 AM,
every damn day. It isn't just simply setting your alarm to go off two
hours earlier. You will probably have to start going to bed 2 hours
earlier. The stuff you did in those two hours will have to be moved to
earlier times. You might have to stop watching a favorite television
show. You might have to start taking a shower at night, etc. Lots of
people would probably bitch about it for quite awhile till they got used
to it. Why should a corporation be any different?
Steve
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
> There have been some serious thinks, with the word sustainable
> devolopment.
> Last year, I went to a symposium on global ethicals. What I learned was
> sustainable development does not imply business as usual or an easy way
> out
> for corporations. In fact, in means quite the opposite, you will always
> have
> companies that will try to save a buck because "profit is not ethics."
> But
> there is a new breed of corporation trying to develop, the ones who
> realize
> that people do not want business as usual. These companies are working
> torwards sustainable development, whether that means redefining thier
> goals,
> outcomes, or even the technology and science they use. They are
> re-learning
> , but I think this ideology takes time because it takes restructuring.
> Obviously, I am not talking every company, but some out there are
> trying, and
> sustainable may just mean business not as usual. What the outcomes are
> remain unknown, but I don't think it
> is reasonble just to wash your hands of an idea which can do some good.
> You are right, if one sector fails, then nothing will be accomplished,
> but
> then
> thats why there are watch-dog groups out there trying to make sure that
> doesn't happen.
>
>
>
> In a message dated 7/28/00 12:48:52 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << he first part of your sentence is correct. I have not read the
> paper.
> And, at risk of being charged with having a closed mind, I see no
> reason to.
> Sustainable growth simply can't happen. If one region or economic
> sector
> continues to grow without control, rest assured that it is being
> subsidized,
> and quite heavily too, by another region(s) or part of the economy.
>
> I have worked in this area of study for a LONG time; long enough to
> learn to
> distrust the discussions that tend to rage around current environmental
>
> fads. I suspect that this world will never attain a voluntarily
> sustainable
> state, but that sustainability will eventually arrive, imposed upon us
> by
> the collapse of the biosphere, one ecosystem at a time.
>
> The result will be sustainable -- for some.
>
> I also suspect that the process has already begun, and while I have no
> idea
> how long it will take, I fear for my grandsons -- and hope the rest of
> us
> can slow it down. Somehow.
>
> [log in to unmask] - Tallahassee, FL - revelling in Prokofiev's
> Sixth as
> I write.
>
> _______________________________ >>
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
