The sustainable development business model is the way of the future.

Internationally, the recent conference in Johannesburg, as follow up to the Rio conference ten years ago, addressed sustainability in its broadest context - aids, famine, poverty, etc, as well as environmental issues. Reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the question as to whether we should be setting new goals or trying to meet old ones. But business models that promote a sustainable environment are another matter. There is no excuse for not moving in that direction whenever possible.

Much has been written about the subject in recent years, from Paul Hawkin's, The Ecology of Commerce, in 1993, to William McDonough's and Michael Braun's, Cradle to Cradle, in 2002 - and much in between. The message is clear and undeniable. By redesigning products - and the manufacturing process - there doesn't have to be a conflict between economic growth and environmental impact. As Bill McDonough points out, " The waste, pollution, and crude products….are not the result of corporations doing something morally wrong. They are the consequences of outdated and unintelligent design."

The current model followed by our society is an attempt to do things "less bad". This creates a mountain of regulations that have a point of diminishing returns: increased enforcement costs, increased manufacturing costs, and often hostile conflict between industry and environmentalists - with the government acting as referee.

Although regulations will always be with us, the sustainable development model can result in nurturing the environment while promoting growth - a goal virtually unachievable using the current model. There are numerous examples of non-polluting initiatives: durable, attractive fabrics, including their dyes, can be made so that the trimmings, and the fabrics themselves, can be composted when discarded, with zero contamination in the effluent discharged from the manufacturing process; replacing solvents with non-polluting cleaners; movement toward the "green car", making more car components from recyclable materials; and building a "living" roof at a Ford Rouge Plant, eliminating the need to treat run off, while creating heating and cooling efficiencies. All of these activities make economic as well as environmental sense.

Admittedly, some of the most aggressive goals of the sustainability movement seem like nothing more than pipe dreams. Having companies sell us "computing services" instead of computers, by providing computer upgrades and taking away old ones with 100% recyclable components, and manufacturing "nutravehicles" that emit nothing more than water. But there are many things we can do, and must do, even if we fall short of these lofty examples.

Despite the best intentions, industry will be slow to change - particularly the auto industry, which we service here in Detroit. ( Fortunately, I suppose, for General Oil Company, because there would be no oil to recycle if there was no waste being generated.) But, as the redesigning process unfolds, there are many steps that can be taken along the way. One of these is the most intelligent re-use of by-products generated in the current manufacturing process.

As with any movement, there is jargon used that has no particular value, and the sustainability movement is no exception. It has, however, incorporated a few useful terms, such as "upcycling" and "downcycling". Recycling is not always good. For example, some materials are recycled for reuse in clothing, using materials that were never meant to be worn close to the skin. "Upcycling", on the other hand, means cycling material to as close to the original use as possible. General Oil, for example, makes products from the residuals of the industrial oil recycling process, "upcycling" it from the usual practice, solidification and land-filling. Another useful sustainability term is "recirculation". Again, although recycling used oil into a fuel is admirable, "recirculating" the oil by making an industrial lubricant or cutting oil results in a more preferable multiple reuse cycle.

The sustainability business model is important to us for several reasons:

1. Continuing to resolve environmental issues by conflict resolution between opposing sides is simply not that effective. If environmentalists continue to emphasize worst-case industrial examples, and industry concentrates on the most absurd environmental group activities, moving forward will be very difficult. In my experience, the vast majority of industrialists and environmentalists are reasonable people looking for reasonable solutions. This does not mean that there aren't intentional polluters and environmental whackos out there, but they are clearly on the fringe. The sustainable development model affords us an opportunity for the vast majority of us to work together. Let's do it!
   
2. Continuing to rely on a finite supply of natural resources is not just dangerous for the United States, but for the world as a whole. Whether you believe the most dire predictions of environmentalists or not, the less we have to rely on the continued supply of finite resources, particularly from other countries, and the less we pollute our land, water, and air, the better off we will be. Finding solutions where we can work together to preserve these resources is in everybody's best interest, and can often be accomplished at no economic costs. General Oil's recycled product, for example is as good as virgin - and less expensive.
   
3. Sustainability is socially more desirable. A society doesn't have to be based on "using up" stuff, when the stuff doesn't really get used up. We call ourselves consumers, but we really consume very little of what we purchase. We throw things "away", but there really is no "away". There is no reason, with proper product and manufacturing design, and intelligent decisions along the way, we can't continue to be a highly productive society - and environmentally responsible.

As a supplier to industry, General Oil Company will continue to promote sustainablity initiatives, small or large, wherever possible. As an individual, who considers himself a businessman and an environmentalist, I will not participate in activities that result in industry or environmentalist bashing, complaining about what "they" are doing to "us". There is a better path, and we had all better wake up and follow it.

More Pipeline Articles >