An Ecosystem Engineer’s response to “But what about the profits?”
There is one question I’m asked over and over in relation to Nature On The Board. The wording changes, but essentially it’s: “But what about the profits?”
So, firstly, let’s clear up some basics.
- Faith In Nature was a profitable company before making Nature a director and it’s still a profitable company today. So no change there.
- I also firmly believe that it’s only the companies willing to flip the script in taking their responsibility to the natural world seriously that will prosper. (And that’s not just idealism speaking. There are plenty of reports that support this view).
- And, obviously, Faith In Nature didn’t put Nature on its board in an act of self sabotage. We did it because we honestly believed it would help. It helps advance the legal Rights of Nature movement. And it also helps us. In giving the natural world a voice, we better understand Nature’s needs — which helps with decision making. In being better informed, we can act more decisively, more confidently and with greater clarity.
From a ‘what about the profits?’ perspective, the move is easily defensible. But even when I give this relatively straight-bat answer, I sense that it still doesn’t really satisfy. We live with such a deeply ingrained belief that it’s profits vs Nature, that the follow on assumption is that introducing Nature to the boardroom will cause irreparable conflict and damage.
In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. What we actually see is that Nature’s introduction creates space for a more compassionate dialogue than before, acknowledging all perspectives as valid and needing to be heard.
And yet, for those keen to perpetuate business-as-usual, the boardroom represents a safe space. It was created by humans, for humans — and the power dynamics within it are well established. Of course the assumption is that to introduce an uncontrollable element will disrupt this comfort.
But we need only look to the natural world itself to see examples of how (re)introducing the wild brings profound benefits. For centuries, we’ve busied ourselves with shaping the land around us to suit our own needs. Shaped by humans, for humans. It too became a safe space: predictable, ‘productive’ and controllable. But this safety too was a passing delusion. The reality, of course, is that when you shut out the wild, ecosystems collapse.
‘Ecosystem Engineers’ are species that modify their environment, creating new habitats or modifying existing ones to meet their needs. Having spent centuries getting rid of them, we’re now finally coming round to reintroducing them to put right much of what we put wrong. But still very much on our terms. Bison and beavers are OK, lynx and wolves less so. A bison increasing biodiversity is one thing, but lynx posing a threat to sheep that have decimated biodiversity is another.
But, in truth, if we want a healthy, functioning ecosystem, we cannot exclude the parts of it we do not like. Where apex predators have been reintroduced, scientists have seen ecosystems rebound. Writing about wolves’ reintroduction to Yellowstone, this article states:
Scientists always knew that as the top predator, wolves were the missing piece in this ecosystem. But they were astonished at how quickly their return stimulated a transformation. The elk and deer populations started responding immediately. Within about 10 years, willows rebounded. In 20, the aspen began flourishing. Riverbanks stabilized. Songbirds returned as did beavers, eagles, foxes and badgers. “And those are just the things we have the time and funding to study,” said Smith. “There are probably myriad other effects just waiting to be discovered.”
Allowing Nature in might seem uncomfortable, but evidence shows that it actually makes for much healthier living conditions. Is it such a stretch to imagine that the same might happen in business?
There is nothing inherently wrong with deer or elk — or even sheep for that matter. As part of Nature as a whole, their voice must be heard too. But if they (in some weird analogy) represent business-as-usual, it is clear that they need a counter-balance. Nature On The Board’s role is to be that Ecosystem Engineer, to modify that business landscape. Whether Nature On The Board presents as a relatively benign bison or a fearsome wolf (or even an oyster or dwarf pansy), its presence makes way for a myriad of lifeforms to flourish. That, in itself, is a form of profit.
What I find most telling about being repeatedly asked ‘But what about the profits?’ is that contained within it is a certain insanity. If it is assumed that profits are in direct conflict with Nature, then it seems we also believe that humans will, or should, choose profit.
As I’ve already said, I don’t believe the two are in conflict. And neither do I believe in such absolutist black and white thinking. But let’s put those nuances to one side and entertain the question with a couple of very simple scenarios.
Scenario 1
Profits are in conflict with Nature. We choose Nature, lose profits and business fails. But the natural world thrives! (And within it, we get to reimagine what a business really is).
Scenario 2
Profits are in conflict with Nature. We choose profits, Nature suffers and ecosystems collapse. Business then fails anyway and we’re left with nothing.
So… what about the profits?!
