Business
Home > Creative > Writing > Nature Offers a Model Part II: Business
“Business models must be redefined to mirror the principles of nature. Nature’s finely tuned systems, perfected over billions of years, offer a blueprint for sustainability. A paradigm shift is needed, focusing on resiliency, cooperation, and shared success rather than capitalism and growth.”
How would businesses operate if they followed nature’s blueprints? It’s hard to know where to start since business seems to have no foundation in nature or interest in its wisdom. So, let’s talk about waste. Waste, which is nonexistent in nature, is everywhere in business, and it leads to pollution, health problems, and ecosystem collapse. What happens when we try to eliminate waste in business?
Most people are familiar with the “reuse-repair-recycle” mantra, which seeks to minimize waste and maximize resources. In terms of industry and production, this means using materials that are recyclable, biodegradable, or compostable. It means designing for modular upgrades so that products can stay in use as long possible. And it means offering take-back programs so that people can return end-of-life products to the production cycle. Perfect — but how do we get there from where we are now?
We can’t just hit the “reset” button. This simplistic overview neglects to describe the full effort. Converting to recyclable, biodegradable, or compostable materials and designing for modularity could require considerable R&D investment costs, depending on the product. And after initiating a take-back program, a company must create infrastructure to collect, sort, renew, and resell the materials or products. It is completely possible, but it involves cooperation amongst companies, and critically, from individuals. And in most cases, incentives (or deterrents) are needed to shape this behavior, which is one reason for government regulation.
If we layer on that materials must be ethically sourced, can companies still afford to exist? And what if demand for new products would indeed drop because everything is repairable, would companies be able to survive from product sales?
What is the cost of the perfect “thing” that never dies, that is sustainably sourced, and can be endlessly repaired?
Ethical sourcing is a significant part of the equation. Many common, everyday products can be traced back to inequitable working environments, where workers earn far less than many much wealthier parts of the world. The countries where such work takes place may also have looser environmental standards and poor health and safety conditions, including child labor. Ethical sourcing also extends to the materials and production processes, with the aim of avoiding harmful chemicals and pollutants.
Companies can choose to work with certified sustainable suppliers, such as Fair Trade and B Corp, and conduct supply chain audits to ensure proper conditions are upheld. Of course, this comes with a cost. When workers throughout the supply chain are paid fairly, products will inevitably cost more.
But perhaps as the cost of products rises and their lifespan extends dramatically, we begin to cherish objects more and delight from modular upgrades the same way we once did from “more” and “new” things.
Production also relies on energy. Roughly 70% of global energy consumption in 2022 came from fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and other non-renewables. Energy is required for industrial production and global transportation, but it is also a major factor in other service industries, especially as technologies like AI become increasingly integral in our lives. The solution would then be to power facilities with renewable energy, such as solar, wind, or hydro and to use energy-efficient technologies. Are we equipped to power the globe on renewable energy? And what is the cost of such a massive transition? These factors could affect the cost and availability of such goods and services to the point where we begin questioning the need for them at all.
We must also address the fact that we are driven by the economic “need” to (over)produce and (over)consume. Are improved systems that still produce and consume at today’s levels really improvements? And is it fair to ask consumers (a.k.a. people) to make the “right choice” (buy sustainable, more expensive products) and do the “right thing” (put in the effort to repair or recycle) while also bombarding them with carefully crafted marketing messages meant to drive desire and create needs? Companies are encouraged to educate consumers on sustainability so that they can use their purchasing power to change the world. The message is contradictory and a disingenuous effort at creating real change. The right choice also remains abstract since it’s difficult to draw a clear line between a single purchase and global change.
The onus should not be on the consumer alone. Companies must be held accountable for their own impact and aim towards total transformation, and this cannot be limited to a few noble brands. If people continue to be presented options that range from cheap, shiny, and quietly harmful to expensive, bland, and yet overtly sustainable, we should not expect sustainability to win. Without dedicated commitment, the emotional gut feeling will almost always beat out the voice of reason. Immediate concerns, whether or real or imagined, take precedence over “doing the right thing”, especially when that right thing is distant and abstract. Our current economic model does not award people for being conscious, global citizens, and until it does, significant behavioral changes are limited to those privileged enough to afford it.
On the other hand, imagine a world where the concept of value has shifted, where harmful, toxic, single-use products are unaffordable for the average person because their cost and availability are based on the planet’s capability to sustainably manage them. Every item or service reflects its true cost, and purchasing decisions are made prudently, guided purely by true need and personal preference.
Imagine that these well-made products are expensive, and yet the most affordable option. They last for generations, and the insatiable desire to upgrade everything disappears because time is filled with self-growth, creativity, and community building.
How would companies survive? Let’s imagine a world in which a company’s sole objective is conserving resources, eliminating waste, and sustaining the products it creates through repair rather than constant reinvention, consumption, and exponential growth. Instead of competing against each other, companies create partnerships to share resources, distribute activities, and learn from each other.
Are there companies who are doing good things and making noteworthy steps to improve conditions for life on this planet? Yes. But even companies who aim to create change are operating within a flawed, growth-based economic system and are in some ways, enslaved to its rules. These companies should continue the good work they are doing, but we can still aim for better.
Imagining other realities is just the beginning, but it’s critical to making the first step toward change. Let’s dare to imagine wildly different realities. Let’s talk about ideas, write them down, illustrate them. Let’s be critical and idealistic. Let’s make something and show it to people and show it to more people. Let’s be excited, not anxious. Energy creates energy, positive and negative, good and bad. Change is a choice, and the direction of that choice begins with you.
Writing & Illustration: Jessica Smarsch
Related reading: Nature Offers a Model Part I: Food
Seeds 