In Part I of “What Should Leaders Do?” I pointed out that we expect leaders to do something as opposed to doing nothing – especially on problems of major importance. I further pointed out that generally we expect leaders to address problems for which they are directly responsible. We do not expect the CEO of General Motors to fix what’s broke at Harvard University or even, for that matter, at Volkswagen. Finally, I pointed out that though we expected our political leaders to address the problem of climate change with deliberation and determination, they consistently have failed to do so. Moreover, there is not the slightest evidence this will change.
Given that followers are not equipped to step into the breach; given that technology cannot reach far enough or come fast enough; and given that allowing climate change further to fester dooms us to disaster, the question is, are all leaders part of the problem? Or is it possible that some leaders might be part of the solution? Are there leaders other than political leaders who could take the problem in hand?
Because political leaders seem repeatedly to disappoint, some of us have been looking elsewhere. Some of us have been looking to other leaders to tackle what on the surface is not their problem. Specifically, some of us are looking to business leaders to cure what ails us, even if what ails us is not in their bailiwick.
Writing in the Financial Times, journalist Gillian Tett wrote that “business leaders must speak up for democracy.” She went on to name some things they should do such as encouraging their employees to get out and vote by, for example, giving them paid time off to go to the polls; and providing proper transparency around political donations and lobbying. Tett concluded her piece: “Let us fervently hope that the 96 percent of companies who say that democracy is good for the economy are actually ready to defend it.”
Somewhat similarly, prominent business executive Maurice Greenberg wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lamenting the “deteriorating state of affairs between the U. S. and China.” It is in our national interest, he continued, to “do all we can to improve U.S.- China relations.” How though might this be done? Greenberg does not think political leaders are ready and willing to take the problem on, so he turns to business leaders to pick up the slack. As the Journal headline put it, given that U.S.- China relations are too important to leave in the hands of political leaders, who have proved ineffectual, it is business leaders to whom we must turn. It is they can who “help restore trust.”
A third recent example of someone drawing attention to the broader role that business leaders might play on complex social and political issues, is Professor Molly Worthen who, writing in the New York Times, described the (somewhat) changing role of business schools. Rather than clinging to traditional metrics such as profits, they are increasingly being encouraged, including by their students, to be more expansive. Worthen writes it’s time for business schools to admit that “measuring and modeling are not the same as understanding,” and that attending to, for example, the environment, is not “politically fashionable hand-waving but a call to center the M.B.A. on big hard questions.”
Climate change is not usually thought of as a problem for which corporate leaders are responsible. Up to now we have assumed that political leaders would take the matter in hand. But given the assumption was misplaced, now what? Now leaders other than political leaders must step up to the plate – a challenge that corporate leaders are best placed to meet.
Not all corporate leaders, of course, but some, a few.
- Those who are deeply informed about and genuinely interested in the problem.
- Those who lead large, global companies.
- Those who have extensive personal and professional multinational connections.
- Those who are as comfortable with, and as familiar with, political leaders as business leaders.
- Those who have a track record on environmental sustainability.
- Those who are good at networking and have demonstrable interpersonal skills such organizing and persuading.
- Those who are willing to put their money where their mouths are.
- Those who are prepared to commit significant amounts of their personal and professional capital to a problem for which they are not directly responsible.
- Those who have already made their mark in business and are hungry to do more.
- Those who are so hungry to do more on the problem of climate change they will not rest until they do. And then they will try to do more.
The World Economic Forum (Davos) points out that C-suite executives worldwide recognize the need for business to take climate action. It further states that one-fifth of companies are already taking steps on sustainability. It touts these facts proudly – not, apparently, recognizing they are no more than the proverbial, pathetic, drops in the bucket.
If business leaders are to lead on climate change, they will have to have ambitions that are global, not parochial. They will have to be from all corners of the globe and commit to work together to save the planet. They will have to do what they have never done before. First, envision collaborations that transcend the usual boundaries. Second, envision implementations that transcend the usual boundaries.
The Democratic Republic of Congo just announced that it would auction off vast tracts of land – land that is precious, environmentally sensitive, old-growth rainforest – for drilling oil and gas. While this will lead to what one expert called a “global climate catastrophe,” the president of Congo is undeterred. Our priority, he said, is to support the people of Congo. “It is not to save the planet.”
Some American business leaders have already, in one or another way, made fighting climate change a priority. They include Marc Benioff (Salesforce), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), and Larry Fink (BlackRock). But they have done so as individuals, not as members of an organized group with a global vision and limitless ambition. Another leader who could play a role such as the one I describe is Bill Gates. His first act was technology. His second act was philanthropy. Is he done? Or does he have a third all-important act?
Heaven knows planet earth needs a secular savior. Several secular saviors.