Michael Braungart, TEDx video (2016): How to Celebrate a Positive Footprint? <\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n From Weak to Strong levels of Ambition\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n According to Golberg 2023:<\/p>\n \u00abSustainability generally strives to reduce impacts on people and the planet as compared to the status quo \u2014 say a baseline of previous operations or the industry standard (..) In too many cases, sustainability is still seen as “doing less bad.”\u00bb<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Kori Goldberg\u00a0 (February 10, 2023) <\/strong>Back to basics: A systems thinker’s view on circularity<\/span><\/strong><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The level of ambition needs to match our values, vision and principles, here defined as:<\/p>\n A healthy*, fair and environmentally sound economy where cities and communities take responsibility for own supply chains and for reduced inequality, all embodied by the principle of economic democracy.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n 98% of Europeans breathing highly damaging polluted air linked to 400,000 deaths a year. <\/em>(<\/em>Matthew Taylor and Pamela Duncan, The Guardian, 20 Sep 2023: Revealed: almost everyone in Europe is breathing toxic air<\/span><\/strong><\/a>)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n McDonough and Braungart 2013 raise the level of ambition from \u2018being less bad<\/em>.\u2019 to \u2018do more good<\/em>\u2018:<\/p>\n \u00abHuman beings don’t have a pollution problem; they have a design problem. <\/em><\/strong>If humans were to devise products, tools, furniture, homes, factories, and cities more intelligently from the start, they wouldn’t even need to think in terms of waste, or contamination, or scarcity. Good design would allow for abundance, endless reuse, and pleasure.<\/em><\/p>\n ..We like the way businesspeople look at charts: A CEO prefers seeing an upward-climbing line. She wants growth\u2026Much of the well-intentioned environmental work thus far has preferred a different chart, one inclining down toward lower CO2<\/sub> emissions, decreasing population growth, fewer cubic tons of pollutants ..What if those two charts, of the businessperson and the environmentalist, could be combined?<\/strong> Take a look. The top side of the zero axis is the upcycle\u2014striving to be \u2018more good,\u2019\u00a0 not \u2018less bad\u2019<\/u><\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00bb<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n William McDonough and Michael Braungart (2013): The Upcycle. Beyond Sustainability-Designing for Abundance<\/em>. (see also this 2 min. video<\/a><\/strong>)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Left-Libertarian (2013) argues that we can progress considering 3 types of abundance:<\/p>\n \u00ab<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/p>\n The Left-Libertarian<\/strong><\/a> (2013)<\/u><\/strong> The Commons \u2013 Beyond the State, Capitalism, and the\u00a0Market<\/span><\/a> [emphasize and bullets added]<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n From Market Only to Results-focused Stewardship<\/u><\/p>\n Much of our problems relates to resource extraction, economic orthodoxy, price setting and property. Bollier (2014) illustrates this by comparing mainstream economic theory and practice with the concept of stewardship:<\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong><\/p>\n Once a resource is legally recognized as property, the door swings open for markets to set its price.<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n This is considered a great advance, because markets consider price to be the supreme indicator of value and prices as the fairest way to identify the true value of things. People are said to maximize their individ\u00adual, rational self-interests through the price system and market exchange; the collective good then naturally manifests itself through the Invisible Hand.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Markets are presumed to be more efficient and fair in allocating wealth than governments\u2014so the best strategy for managing natural resources, according to the economic orthodoxy, is to privatize and marketize them.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The truth is that this system of market-based governance is a disaster in the real world. The price system typically fails to take account of all sorts of value that are external to the marketplace<\/u>.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n For example, price cannot easily represent types of value that are subtle, qualitative, long-term and complicated\u2014precisely the at\u00adtributes of nature. What’s the market value of the atmosphere? Of a clean river? Of babies born without pollution-induced birth defects? Markets have trouble answering such questions because there is no meaningful market price for such things.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Price only measures exchange value, after all; it doesn’t really measure use value<\/em><\/strong>. And so the grand narrative of conventional economics celebrates Gross Domestic Product as the height of human progress by totaling the value of all market activity. It doesn’t really care if that activity is beneficial to society or not\u2014 in fact, it doesn’t even ask that question! Instead it just measures if money has changed hands, which is its moronic definition of wealth creation.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n By this reckoning, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and the Fukushima nuclear disaster should be considered good, because they ended up stimulating economic activity.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n John Ruskin called the unmeasured, unintended harms caused by markets “illth.”<\/em><\/strong> The problem with the price system, as yoked to private property, is that it generates as much illth as wealth\u2014but hardly any of this illth gets counted. It’s off the books<\/strong>. A company’s bottom line and a nation’s GDP reflect only the monetized wealth generated by markets; they deliberately omit the nonmarket illth.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n This damage is borne mostly by com\u00admons as markets take what they can from nature, for free, with\u00adout acknowledging its actual value (because nature is seen as res nullius). Once profits have been taken and privatized, the market then dumps its wastes and disruptions back onto the commons, leaving commoners and governments to mop up the mess.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n (..) \u00a0this might be called the “tragedy of the market”\u2014the unmetered, hidden subsidies and costly “exter\u00adnalities” that markets, in the service of private property, impose upon the commons. <\/strong>This should not be surprising in a society that looks to price as the highest, most reliable metric of value. If a resource does not have a price or property rights, it naturally will be regarded as “not valuable” or “free for the taking.”<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201c<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n David Bollier (2014:107): Think Like A Commoner<\/em> (empasis added)]<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n This entire website can be regarded as argumentation for a result-focused stewardship. The course outline for cooperative social entrepreneurship elaborates on many levels and issues. Suffice to mention here the following:<\/p>\n Limiting ourselves here to this website, the below lists internal links and references.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Pulverization of Liability<\/u><\/p>\n Rau og Oberhuber 2023 [R&O], first referred at the homepage<\/a><\/strong>, are among those who most strongly stress \u00a0pulverization of liability as a major problem of the linear economy. IIt can also be seen as one reason we are not close to a real circular economy.<\/p>\n \u00ab..the separation of power and responsibility is the fundamental problem of our current economic system<\/strong>.. Our current production chain is organized so that nobody ever really needs to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.. The power to influence the production process and the responsibility for the consequences are separated from each other by the distance of an entire \u2018production chain\u2019; meet the linear economy.\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n (Rau og Oberhuber 2023:179, 40:\u00a0Material Matters. Developing for a Circular Economy<\/span><\/strong><\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n To remedy this fundamental problem, R&O argues that:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The ability to take on responsibility has been reduced by Globalization: The Need for (Re-) localization of the Economy<\/u><\/p>\n Globalization has resulted in wealth being extracted from local communities. To regain control and economic democracy, we need a (Re) Location of the Economy<\/span><\/strong><\/a>, an agenda closely linked to the Principles for a Democratic Econom<\/span>y<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ownership Design\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n Relocalization of the economy will spur economic actors to be more accountable through ownership design<\/span><\/strong><\/a>. These are corporate forms for democratic ownership were social and environmental stewardship are enshrined in the company\u2019s constitution. Ethical and democratic ownership design can thus facilitate a result-focused stewardship approach.<\/p>\n Revisit the Principles for a Democratic Economy<\/span><\/strong><\/a>, particularly no 5<\/strong> (Creating Enterprise Designs for a New Era:\u00a0The principle of democratized ownership<\/em><\/u>) and\u00a0no 6 <\/strong>(Protecting the Ecosystem as the Foundation of Life:\u00a0The principle of sustainability<\/em><\/u>).<\/p>\n This is important because of the widespread principle (in the mainstream economy) of fiduciary\u00a0<\/span><\/a><\/strong>duty<\/span><\/a><\/strong>. As countless examples as shown, this has given -and continues to give- large and negative social, economic and environmental consequences. That\u2019s why we have called this the elephant in the room<\/strong> (see also Economic Democracy<\/span><\/strong><\/a>):<\/p>\n \u201cWhen the first moral duty is a fiduciary duty to maximize returns on investments, in effect it becomes the only duty, requiring all other concerns\u2014the well-being of communi\u00adties, employees, and the environment\u2014to be justified in terms of impact on capital.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Marjorie Kelly and Ted Howard (2019: 25):\u00a0The Making Of a Democratic Economy.\u00a0 Building Prosperity for the Many, Not Just the Few (<\/em>emphasize added)<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Different forms of ownership design<\/em><\/p>\n Co-operatives are the only form of corporate entity with a clear entrepreneurial compo\u00adnent where the subordination of the economic to the social is inherent in the logic of the organi\u00adsation and is usually stipulated by law.<\/em>\u00a0(Levi and Pellegrin-Rescia 1997, p. 160)<\/p>\n Quoted in: [Tim Mazzarol, Sophie Reboud, Elena Mamouni Limnios, Delwyn Clark and Edward Elgar (ed.) (2014: 11): Research Handbook on Sustainable Co-operative Enterprise. Case Studies of Organisational Resilience in the Co-operative Business Model<\/em>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n It regards the<\/em> exclusion of stakeholders from ownership as a cause of contemporary poverty. Believing it\u2019s much harder to distribute political than economic power, shares are allocated so that ownership\u00a0 -and the wealth created- is shared fairly amongst member\/share classes.<\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The FairShares Model integrates entrepreneurs, producers, consumers and (social and community) investors.<\/strong> Through this multi-stakeholder ownership, governance and management system to social enterprise development<\/em>, common bonds emerges. Apart from special resolutions, all voting is on a one-person, one-vote basis irrespective of the number of shares held, or the number of shareholder groups to which a person belongs. With the below share classes, financial investment ceases to be the sole basis for company ownership:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n What if Uber was owned and run by the drivers? What if Airbnb was owned and managed by those who actually rent? Say welcome to Platform Cooperatives. The formula is simple: combine the efficiency and reduced transaction costs of digital platforms with the horizontal ownership and democratic control that characterize worker-owned cooperatives.<\/em><\/p>\n Examples include\u00a0the cleaning platform Up &\u00a0Go Co-op<\/a><\/span><\/strong>\u00a0(New York):<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00ab<\/em><\/strong>Up & Go relies on its own app to attract and book clients in the classic gig economy fashion. But while other booking services may pocket 20-50 cents on the dollar for lining up jobs, Up & Go cleaners, as co-owners of the co-op, keep 95 cents on the dollar and pay only 5 cents for booking.\u00bb<\/em><\/p>\n David Bollier (2021):\u00a0The Commoner\u2019s Catalog for Changemaking<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/coopreneur.no\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/100-percent-good.png\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n