[.ca] Capitalism at the Crossroads: Aligning Business, Earth, ... (ISBN 0136134394)

Great Source of New Paradigms for a Polluted World:
This is an important, but flawed, book. Capitalism at the Crossroads is that rare book that compellingly describes new paradigms with powerful examples . . . but with which almost every reader will find fault in several ways. At the same time, I doubt if many readers will fail to change their viewpoints and actions at least in some ways as a result of reading and thinking about the material in this book. The book is comprised of three basic lines of inquiry. First, environmental problems that threaten us all will not be overcome by continuous improvement of reducing pollution of the sort that is being done now. You have to create entirely new business models that are built around the concept of long-term environmental sustainability. Second, most of the environmental challenges will come in the parts of the world inhabited by the poorest two-thirds of the population. To deal with their economic needs and environmental challenges, you need to solve the problems from their perspective. Third, new leadership and management paradigms are needed to change the way that organizations operate themselves that allow for the innovative sparks and direction to come from stakeholder interactions in the most difficult environments. Most authors would feel like they could retire satisfied if they proposed even one of those ideas and explained the idea well. Professor Hart should take great pleasure in having helped give birth to three such important ideas. Packaging the three ideas into one brief book, however, turns out to be an overwhelming challenge for Professor Hart. He doesn't quite carry it off. That's where the reader disagreements come from. Let me give you some examples. Professor Hart places the entire burden for solving these problems on business. Now, I agree that business can do a lot . . . and needs to do more . . . but there are other organizations that can play pioneering roles. The U.S. government has played a positive role in encouraging the development of very important technologies in the past (such as the predecessor to the Internet, funding research into making biotechnology feasible, and creating advanced materials). Individual inventors have produced remarkable breakthroughs in the past (such as Jacques Cousteau and the aqua-lung). Charities have funded research to stop dangerous diseases (The March of Dimes and polio vaccine). And so on. As raw materials and essential resources become scarcer and more expensive, most businesses will be doing a lot of thinking about how to keep operating. In some parts of India today, it's hard to get electricity for about 9 hours a day. Many Chinese plants run on their own generators. Simple initiative will create many of the solutions. This book suggests that only large multinationals can play a big role because they can afford to develop major new technologies. I would argue that large multinationals are not likely to be the largest source of new technologies . . . cash-strapped entrepreneurs will be instead. That's been the history of technology innovation for a long time. Without taking issue with everything that Professor Hart has to say that I disagree with, I would simply note that this book will have its best and highest use when read and applied by entrepreneurs in emerging market nations who have access to enough skill and resources to address these issues from the perspective of the local culture and economy. "Small Is Beautiful" solutions can come best by equipping those who know the problems best with knowledge, education and some experimental resources. The developed world can probably be most effective in ensuring that happens by encouraging the development of small-scale entrepreneurship as the Grameen Bank does in part. If I had some many problems with Professor Hart's arguments, why, then, did I grade the book as a five-star effort? First, I found his call for business model innovation to include environmental concerns to be compelling . . . and better than any other investigation of this opportunity that I have read. Second, his ideas are useful and should be used . . . if not exactly in the ways that he envisions. You've heard the old joke about pioneers, I'm sure. They are the ones who die with a back filled with injuries from their critics. The courage of such pioneers to take us someplace else should be applauded . . . even when they get part of it wrong. Otherwise, why would anyone read Freud anymore?