Circular Patterns of Capitalism

Being a Symbolic Capitalist I enrolled in a course titled "Sustainability and Climate Risk" first out of curiosity first, and second to capitalize upon timing of a highly needed skill by the Corporate world that is facing increased pressures to be accountable for its impact on the planet. As ambitious as I am, I wanted to tie sustainability and climate risk management to buying practices using the business executive language of profits. Part of me was excited about the opportunity to use business metrics such as Return On Investment to nudge, convince, or cajole organizations towards more sustainability.

I guess this was a soft approach informed by hegemonic practices through considering that "natural resources" is capital that we can own and can treat as “capital”.  My knowledge of free markets operations and the philosophies of free market prevailed in this dimension as well as in my conditioning working for Corporate America and Earning an MBA from one of top US business schools. I call the hegemonic practices in the sustainability as the "The Bloomberg doctrine" as he was the one behind the "Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)".  To me Michael Bloomberg is trying to save capitalism from capitalism itself. This soft-reform approach is an ethnocentric projection of the world capital markets response to climate change and its impact on its profits and operations and the so called “free” market. It is adopted by all major corporations as the truth and the only truth, is that we need just to do less harm than we did last year irrespective if how many planetary limits we are breaking through that year. That is the essence of the green movement that stemmed from Corporate Responsibility that mushroomed now to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). Dissents to this point of view is highly discounted, oppressed, and marginalized. Examples, Quakers Earth Action Team activism towards Vanguard investment firm due to its continued deep investments in Fossil Fuels production was responded to by bringing the police to push and shove the protesters outside the building. In studying Sustainability and Climate Risk Management from a Bloomberg perspective, I found myself signing up to ahistorical thinking (forgetting the role of historical legacies and complications in shaping current problems), examples of such ahistorical thinking is that top five companies responsible for a significant portion of global branded plastic pollution are: Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone, and Altria-Philip Morris International. These companies are only required to disclose climate-related risks looking forward, and measure year-over-year harm reductions irrespective of contributing among others, to the vast amount of plastic waste that ends up in our oceans, according to studies and reports.  Similarly, a 2024 report by the Climate Accountability Institute identified 57 companies linked to 80% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1965. Specifically, the top 20 companies, primarily in the fossil fuel industry, are responsible for a significant share of these emissions. These 20 companies are getting a free-out-of-jail card by just developing colorful and presentable sustainability reports talking about how they have harmed less year over year and are only required to disclose their future-looking climate risks . This kind of hegemonic practices and ahistorical thinking does not only absolve the corporate world from the negative impacts they already had for decades on earth and human beings but is seeking the perpetuation and perhaps the expansion of the existing Business As Usual state of affairs.  This tells you that these mega corporations are addressing the sustainability and climate risk as a financial or political risk to be mitigated by their sustainability reports, a self-serving motive. 

The other side of the coin is the requirements for Financial Disclosure of Climate Related Risks are there to protect the "innocent" investor from non disclosed climate-related risks. The whole underlying doctrine is about persevering the existing capitalistic system and its promised securities, certainties, and entitlements. This is a pattern that leads people to approach change in conditional ways wherein capitalism calculate the perceived benefits of change against the potential losses, and generally does not make changes that compromise their own futurity or position of advantage. That is why depending on corporation to make the necessary changes (the courageous choices needed) will always fail as capitalism will always seeks Continuity of past practices and privileges.

When you read the sustainability reports of major corporations you cannot help but sense the self-congratulatory heroism that is making these reports smells odorous. Capitalism has historically coopted governments and multi-national organizations to make their bidding for them. The "truth" about the world is always coming from the top Governmental Bodies, Multi-nation organizations, United Nations, World Bank, IMF, etc.    Also, the Sustainability reports pick up on certain aspects of sustainability and ignore major issues such as forced labor still contributes to billions of dollars in consumer products markets. It highlights certain aspects and ignores other aspects for example, cage free  eggs as an issue that is of some how importance as animal welfare is yet, it still ignores the more systematic impacts of the factory farming industry irrespective of the labels assigned, cage-free, cage-free plus.  So, we emphasis a certain type of welfare (animals) over other welfare (like non violence towards humans).  This is not to mention that Paternalistic investments (seeking gratitude from those who have been helped). This is evident in the photo ops that CEOs, and board of directors, and senior executive take with the marginalized communities,  a recognition of how much such an organization is “making a difference”.  The outcome of all of these sustainability reports reflects the vulnerability of these how are using them in order to provide a good-feel and good-image cover for a system that continues to harm even further and to oppress even further in the name of modernity.  All these sustainability reports never promoted more symmetry of power for example between workers and owners ( Corporate America provides a stark example of how even knowledge worker are stripped of their power for collective action in the face of the great tech companies). All these soft reforms does not provide hope or aspiration for reduction in systemic harm actually to the contrary, it provides air cover for perpetuation (and perhaps expansion) of existing systems, innocence  as position these government entities, nonprofit organizations, and corporation outside any complicity in violence (just because of one’s stated commitment against violence (a case in point companies declarations regarding human rights are merely empty words with no teeth, regulations, consequences behind them for violations). Sustainability reports basically recenters “Capitalism” as the one and only ultimate dispenser of knowledge, solutions, mitigations, and roadmaps. 

Sustainability Reports basically provides “Capitalism” with unrestricted autonomy in deciding how, when, how fast, and how serious each company will address its own structural faults that contributes to harm.  Each company in its own sustainable report typically frames itself, or its community of collaborators,  as the leader who is uniquely worthy of and deserving the power to determine the type, mode, direction of change.  This deprives anyone else from having the agenda item, and idea, or solution that can contradicts with the Leader’s position.  Sustainability report legitimize companies authority as a moral and political authority with the right to arbitrate the most desirable way forward.