The moral argument for sustainability & green practices.

• Author: Gray-Grant, Heather

Law firms tend to expend an enormous amount of time and resources every single year on their compensation review process. They form committees and task forces to deal with the issue, and members of the firm participate in countless meetings discussing how to divide the pie. These meetings take place in the interest of consultation and fairness--they are not seen as optional or an inappropriate expenditure of time.

But you will rarely see such debates over the development of a sustainability, or a "green," program in a law firm, because many firms consider sustainability to be a fad, expensive, a waste of time or simply one for the "too hard" pile. As legal marketers, many of us have been asked to participate in or at least comment on such programs. It serves us to understand the arguments for and against them. We've heard the arguments against; we've considered some of the arguments for. Here is a perspective that is not often shared: the moral obligation for law firms to participate and even lead in this area.

If you've seen the documentary "The Corporation," you know that corporations are considered "persons," which provides them with a number of business advantages. Yet while most of us would agree that people have a moral obligation to conduct themselves in a way that serves the best interests of their society, corporations are not so compelled. A building cannot have morals, but the people inside of those buildings should. Unfortunately, corporate executives are faced with a conundrum: They are legally obligated to serve the business goals of that corporation, which are focussed on increased profitability. So faced with the decision to conduct business in a "moral" way (to protect the earth's resources, even if that process is more expensive) or in a profitable way, they must choose profitability. The only way to force good behaviour, it seems, is to legislate it.

Not so for Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, Inc., the largest carpet manufacturer in the world. He suggests that businesses that continue to operate in this fashion are practicing inter-generational tyranny by levying a tax without representation on children yet to be born. He goes so far as to say that CEOs such as himself who have allowed their companies to operate in this way should be punished. His opinion is extreme, but so are his solutions. His company aims to have a neutral sustainability footprint by 2020.

The Cost to Future Generations

For those who feel his goal is...