By Bill Baue
Part 9 of a series on the r3.0 White Paper, From Monocapitalism to Multicapitalism — 21st Century System Value Creation.
“There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”
Immanuel Kant, 1785[1]
Human self-restraint may serve human purposes better than human dominance of the biosphere can. Mankind derives benefits from ecosystems not dominated by man, benefits that may be unavailable from ecosystems man does dominate.
William Catton, 1980[2]
Anchoring Multicapitalism in the definition of “capital” grounded in the “ultimate end”[3] of well-being (“vital capital is a stock of anything that yields a flow of valuable goods or services important to human well-being”[4]) establishes an ethical underpinning to the doctrine. Furthermore, the third element of the Multicapitalism ontology (“other parties (i.e. stakeholders) whose well-being depends on the capitals”) introduces explicit accountability for how business impacts capitals — and others who rely on those capitals. Finally, the normative directive of managing organizational impacts on capitals in ways that preserve those capitals for use by other stakeholders who rely on them for their well-being (or what r3.0 calls “rightsholders,” as they have the fundamental right to well-being) further deepens the ethical foundations of Multicapitalism.
And seemingly paradoxically, ethical approaches actually advance a strong business case better than approaches that neglect to integrate ethical considerations. In Overshoot, William Catton points out that self-restraint advances self-interest, as it may be necessary “to protect the human species by curbing human dominance.”[5] Monocapitalism is predicated on the dominance of financial growth over all other considerations — including the broader well-being of rightsholders and the biosphere. (Remember William Nordhaus’ dictum: “Don’t let anyone distract you from the work at hand, which is economic growth”!)
Multicapitalism, on the other hand, is predicated not on dominance, but on mutual consideration, applied not only on human-to-human interactions, but also on human interactions with other living species and non-living entities in the biosphere. While it’s tempting to prioritize financial gain in the present, figuring it can buy well-being in the future, this formula ignores that well-being requires the very resources that near-term financial prioritization often undercuts. In common parlance, this “kicking the can down the road” is also called “shooting yourself in the foot.” The stronger business case is to pursue financial gain precisely by supporting the ongoing health and viability of the vital capital resources business models depend on to remain “ongoing concerns.”
Furthermore, supporting the ongoing viability of vital capital resources that the business — and its rightsholders — rely on for their well-being is wiser than overusing those resources, as adverse impacts on rightsholders also exert adverse impacts on the business, through reputation risks (of negative perception) and market risks (of lost consumer confidence), not to mention the physical risks (of resource depletion), etc…
Ultimately, Multicapitalism takes a “mass balance” approach,[6] grounded in Kant’s Categorical Imperative:
“There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”[7]
In other words, Kant asks us to ask ourselves, if everyone does as I do, will the outcome be just for all? If everyone consumes resources like I do, will there still be resources enough for all? Or am I exceeding my fair-share “slice of the pie” — which would require that someone else get less than their fair share — or that we need more than one pie. Mass balancing introduces discipline in recognizing that in closed systems (such as the earth), we have only one “pie,” suggesting we must share it fairly. Monocapitalism systemically encourages concentration of resources, whereas Multicapitalism systemically encourages preservation of resources for continued use by all who have a rightful claim to them.
In its simplest formulation, Multicapitalism applies the ethic of Aesop’s “goose that lays the golden egg” — or Shel Silverstein’s The Giving Tree or Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax: taking care of our resources and relationships in the present is the best guarantee of future benefits from “ongoing concern.”[8]
[1] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785. Via McElroy 2008 p 118
[2] William Catton, Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change, University of Illinois Press, 1980, p 264.
[3] Donella Meadows, Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development, Sustainability Institute, 1998. http://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/IndicatorsInformation.pdf. pp 40–44.
[4] Mark McElroy & Jo van Engelen, Corporate Sustainability Management: The Art and Science of Managing Non-Financial Performance, Earthscan, 2012.
[5] Catton, op cit, p 261.
[6] “Mass balance,” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_balance
[7] Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, 1785. Via McElroy 2008 p 118
[8] Aesop’s Fables, Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop%27s_Fables; The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs, Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goose_That_Laid_the_Golden_Eggs; Shel Silverstein, The Giving Tree, Harper & Row, 1964 (interpreted as a critique of human exploitation of nature — see also “The Giving Tree,” Wikipedia,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Tree and Ruth Margalit, “‘The Giving Tree’ at Fifty: Sadder Than I Remembered,” The New Yorker, 5 November 2014. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/giving-tree-50-sadder-remembered); Dr. Seuss, The Lorax, Random House, 1971.
Here’s the link back to Part 8 (:
