Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google and Alphabet, made a statement on the 14th of September 2020 that as of that date they had ‘eliminated Google’s entire carbon legacy’.
It is time to deliver on my promise and share the first post. As the name of this newsletter hints, I have planned to write extensively about leading with corporate and executive legacies in mind. While it is much more nuanced than this, and I will be sharing further insight about the approach in the next posts here and elsewhere, corporate legacy, the way I approach it, denotes the impact a business has and has had in the world historically – both positive and negative.
I intended to start this newsletter off by diving into one in-depth aspect of it, but a recent conversation made me reconsider. Namely, a few weeks ago I talked about my approach to one of the inaugural members of the Sustainability Hall of Fame[1] of the leading professional association of sustainability practitioners in the world[2]. While he was intrigued by my corporate legacy concept, he wondered whether corporations can have, or furthermore, can recognize legacies[3].
I found that detail incredibly valuable, as when experts who have consulted in the field of sustainability for half of a century can have that question, then I believe it is the first aspect that I should communicate when sharing it with readers and bringing this perspective to wider audiences. I will address below both parts of that doubt. And would love to hear your thoughts.
Why do I dare to claim that businesses can have legacies?
I argue that businesses not only can have legacies, but they have legacies regardless of whether they acknowledge them or not. Furthermore, in a way their legacy can be seen as the only thing they have created that has materialized. It is curious that it is not generally questioned today whether businesses can have missions, visions, values, and the most recently – a purpose, in the way it is being promoted. Yet, if we look at it, then these are by design largely aspirational constructs subject to change and surely not always attained. Hence, I would claim that if we have legitimized these constructs that serve as beacons to strive towards as something that corporates have, then the tangible impact left by a business is not a long stretch to link with it. Similarly, it tends to be taken for granted that businesses have their history. Corporate histories are customarily proudly shared on their websites and in other materials. Surely then, the historic impact of the business is not separate from the rest of its history.
It should be easy to agree that a business has an impact in the sense of the core services and products it provides. Also, it is rarely questioned in today’s world that corporates have a footprint. It is likely that very often when thinking of a corporate footprint, people have corporate carbon footprint in mind. That would be unsurprising, as ‘carbon footprint’ as a concept got a big boost from an immense BP media campaign in 2005, and a year later the New Oxford American Dictionary chose the footprint-erasing ‘carbon-neutral’ as its word of the year[4]. However, a wider concept of ‘environmental footprint’ was mentioned by corporate executives already in 2000, and ‘ecological footprint’ was discussed in regional planning as early as in the 1990s[5]. What else could a tangible impact a business leaves be considered if not the legacy it leaves with its existence and operations?
But is corporate legacy all negative? Classically, CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) initiatives have often focussed on creating a positive impact in the communities the businesses operate in, so undoubtedly corporates can also leave positive traces as their legacies. Furthermore, the whole current corporate purpose rhetoric is focused on the societal value that businesses can create.
Recognizing corporate legacies
I believe the above gives a sense that corporates have legacies. Now to the second part of the doubt – whether corporates can recognize their legacies. A very short answer would be: yes, they can. The triple-bottom-line approach that has been promoted since 1981 has been structured around enterprises measuring and reporting on social wealth creation and environmental responsibility in addition to financial performance[6]. Already that looks very much like businesses recognizing their wider impact.
Add to that the large variety of consulting and PR services being promoted currently that focus on creating and communicating corporate purpose and societal value, and it becomes obvious that there is a considerable willingness among businesses to recognize their positive impact and to be associated with it. But what about the less desirable aspects of their legacies? Could they be willing to recognize these?
Perhaps a landmark example is here the most illustrating. Namely, one well-known business has not only recognized a less desirable component of its legacy but, has explicitly labelled it as such in the carbon sub-aspect of it and has already gone all the way to right it. Sundar Pichai, the CEO of Google and Alphabet, made a statement on the 14th of September 2020 that as of that date they had ‘eliminated Google’s entire carbon legacy’ adding that ’Google’s lifetime net carbon footprint is now zero’ making it the first major company to achieve this[7].
Furthermore, while not yet spoken in these terms, the mindset can also already be detected at times when listening to other executives and founders. For example, recently I was delighted to observe one such statement acknowledging the positive and negative impacts of a business over its valuation. Namely, Sten Tamkivi, the CPO at Topia, who helped as an early executive to build Skype into the first unicorn in Estonia and the whole Nordic region[8], said about Europe’s leading on-demand mobility platform[9]:
“We could talk about Bolt now being worth more than a $1 billion, but it’s more important that it helps put bread on the table of 1.5 million drivers around the world and has helped 50 million people get to where they need to go. That’s the actual impact worth measuring. We must also consider how they reduce the negative impact of that, such as through environmental sustainability initiatives like the Tech Green Pledge.”[10]
These lines appear to suggest that in his view such valuations are but snapshots in time and the positive and negative impact businesses have in the world is more important.
I believe the above assures readers that corporates can have and recognize legacies. And if this is indeed what matters, then it could be worthwhile to lead with a corporate legacy in mind.
[1] ISSP (N/A) https://www.sustainabilityprofessionals.org/issp-sustainability-hall-fame (Accessed: January, 12, 2021)
[2] ISSP (N/A) https://www.sustainabilityprofessionals.org (Accessed: January, 12, 2021)
[3] Personal email correspondence. (December, 4, 2020)
[4] Safire, W. (February, 17, 2008) Footprint. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/magazine/17wwln-safire-t.html(Accessed: January, 14, 2021)
[5] Safire, W. (February, 17, 2008) Footprint. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/magazine/17wwln-safire-t.html(Accessed: January, 14, 2021)
[6] Spreckley, F. (2008) Social Audit Toolkit. Fourth Edition. Local Livelihoods Ltd. http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/files/9013/2325/3606/Social_Audit_Toolkit.pdf (Accessed: January, 26, 2021)
[7] Pichai, S. (September, 14, 2020) Our third decade of climate action: Realizing a carbon-free future. https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/sustainability/our-third-decade-climate-action-realizing-carbon-free-future/ (Accessed: January, 14, 2021)
[8] Rang, A. (January, 2021) Unicorn prediction by Sten Tamkivi: Look for the companies solving huge global pain points.https://investinestonia.com/unicorn-prediction-by-sten-tamkivi-look-for-the-companies-solving-huge-global-pain-points/ (Accessed: January, 14, 2021)
[9] UKTN (December, 17, 2020) Bolt’s £135M raise amid pandemic shows investors hold high hopes from Uber rival https://www.uktech.news/news/bolts-135m-raise-amid-pandemic-shows-investors-hold-high-hopes-from-uber-rival-20201217 (Accessed: January, 14, 2021)
[10] Rang, A. (January, 2021) Unicorn prediction by Sten Tamkivi: Look for the companies solving huge global pain points.https://investinestonia.com/unicorn-prediction-by-sten-tamkivi-look-for-the-companies-solving-huge-global-pain-points/ (Accessed: January, 14, 2021)
This post was originally published in Substack on 26. January, 2021 as Can businesses have and recognize legacies?