If we had wanted to create national unity from Haida Gwaii to St. John’s seven years ago, we could not have done better than bid on the Winter Olympics. Canadian hearts were glowing and most of the cynicism had been washed away long before the final hockey game. How can Canada sustain this patriotism? By sustaining funding for sports, and supporting the people who get up at 5 am to help young athletes train.

2. No More Minority Governments

Nothing can be more divisive for a country than to be ruled by a governing party that is opposed by 65 per cent of its citizens—it creates the feeling that the government is politically illegitimate. No other country follows this undemocratic practice. In Europe, when no party wins an outright majority, the right to become Prime Minister goes to whoever can command a political majority by forming a coalition government.

3. Go High-Speed with Trans Canada Rail

Most Canadians have no idea what it’s like to zip across the country at 250 km/h, as they do in Europe, China, Japan, and soon in the U.S., where they’ve committed $8 billion to highspeed rail. High-speed trains could take you from Toronto to Montreal in 2.5 hours or Calgary to Montreal in 18 hours. There are active plans for trains from Vancouver to Seattle, Calgary to Edmonton, and Montreal to Boston and New York. We just need leadership. See www.highspeedrail.ca.

4. Reform the Senate

A second chamber can add wise and informed reflection to proposed legislation, but an elected Senate could cause the complete breakdown of government if its majority ran counter to the Commons. The current system, which encourages political appointees, has almost no merit at all. If membership in the Senate was offered to all Canadians on a randomly selected basis, for a limited three-year term, it might imbue a deeper sense of fair representation.

5. Better Support for Public Radio and TV

There is great merit in funding public media with a mandate to create cultural, scientific, and historical programming to reach out to the full diversity of Canada’s population. When a country neglects to build a shared understanding of global culture and science, the resulting misunderstanding and hatred can tear apart the fabric that holds it together, as we are seeing in the U.S. We shouldn’t underestimate the value of the cbc as glue holding Canada together. See www.friends.ca.

6. Go Low-Speed with the Trans Canada Trail

The Trans Canada Trail is a testament to our unique landscape. When it’s complete, it will be the world’s longest trail, stretching 22,000 km from the Atlantic to the Pacific through Alberta and B.C., then up to the Arctic. It’s almost 70 per cent complete, so there’s still a way to go. Whether cycling or walking, it certainly beats being on the highway. The Trail needs our support. See www.tctrail.ca.

7. Shared Sustainability Goals

Nothing would unite Canada more than singing from the same songbook as we move into the future. And that means setting clear, inspiring goals for sustainability in every province, city, university, and chamber of commerce. We need to move together to create green cities, green industries, and super-efficient buildings. We need to plan together for a future without oil, and without carbon emissions. It’s the only kind of future that makes sense.

8. Canada’s Heart: Parks and Wilderness

Deep in our Canadian hearts, it may be nature, free and wild, that inspires us the most. The forests and mountains, the prairies and open skies, the lakes and creeks—and the knowledge that we share this land with many other species. Right now, less than ten percent is protected. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society wants to keep at least half of Canada’s public land and water wild forever. See www.thebigwild.org and www.cpaws.org.

9. Create More Democratic Representation

A healthy democracy encourages diverse political expression, but Canada’s “first past the post” system causes a quarter of the voting public to feel permanently frustrated and locked out of power. We have come to think that it is normal when an mp wins with only 36 per cent of the vote, but this breeds cynicism and anger. There are better ways to elect our mps, including systems like Proportional Representation. See www.fairvote.ca.

10. Our Home & Native Land

We may think we’re united, but for too many of Canada’s first peoples, who have been here for many thousands of years, being a part of Canada means being up against miserable poverty, lousy housing, poor health, and little economic opportunity. If we are to unite as a nation, we must do more than speak fine words and sentiments. For true national unity, Canada’s First Nations must have real economic and political inclusion.

The post Ten ways to unite Canada appeared first on Corporate Knights.

These eggs could be sold the day they’re laid, but not beyond the front gates of the small, organic farms that produce them. According to the Ontario Ministry of Food and Agricultural Affairs, all eggs retailed beyond the farm gate must be graded for quality. It can take up to three days for eggs from the farm to reach grocery stores.

Likewise, farms that have more than 99 laying hens must pay for a certain share in the production market. For farms trying to meet growing demand, this can cost hundreds of dollars per hen, depending on the province. This makes farm-fresh eggs even less available to consumers.

A February 2010 Globe and Mail article reports that this has created a hushed underground market, where farm-fresh eggs are kept out of sight and access is limited to people who “know the password.”

For those not in the know, the lack of farm-fresh eggs in mainstream markets makes “backyard chickens”—hens raised privately in individual backyards—an attractive alternative. Tom Henry, editor of Small Farm Canada, says once people taste the alternative, “industrial chickens and eggs don’t look good. People are asking for free-range or organic, but the bulk of eggs in the supermarkets are not.”

“Mary,” who asked her real name not be used, bought her first backyard chicken in 2007, even though it’s currently illegal to raise backyard chickens in Toronto. But, Mary, owner of torontochickens.com, was frustrated with the lack of alternatives. Motivated by concerns for food security, animal welfare, and the disparity between consumers and food producers, she turned to urban chickens as a way of taking control.

“We’re so dependent on food labels to understand what’s in our food because we don’t know where it’s made,” says Mary. Even certified organic labels aren’t enough to guarantee quality. In Mary’s opinion, having backyard hens means “being able to control the quality [yourself].”

Egg Farmers of Canada, the national marketing agency for eggs, claims the contrary. With recent listeriosis and avian flu outbreaks, consumers are increasingly concerned for the safety and regulation of eggs, says Laurent Souligny, the agency’s chairman. “And that’s what we spend a lot of time on. We want to make sure the eggs get to the consumer, and that they are safe to eat.”

However, factory farming exacerbates the risks of virulent strains of avian flu in the poultry industry, according the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In recent avian flu cases, the existence of food safety standards failed to prevent outbreaks, and overcrowded animal conditions foster the spread of pandemics.

These impacts are pushing concerned consumers towards organic options. According to Agriculture Canada, Canadian egg consumption has dropped over the past decade, but sales of organic and free-range eggs are increasing every year by nearly 20 percent.

Beyond the panic for organic, people still want backyard hens.

Bill Bruce, head of the City of Calgary’s bylaw services, says that Calgary’s city council is currently revisiting a backyard livestock ban. “There’s been a real swing in what the public wants. There’s a whole movement towards [sustainability], and backyard hens are a part of [that].”

Although consumers may be more focused on sustainability, urban hens aren’t always viable. The City of Vancouver addressed potential concerns when reviewing its ban on backyard chickens in March 2009. A draft bylaw outlines—among other specifics—that owners must provide basic animal healthcare, and nuisance complaints and humane animal treatment will be regulated by animal control services and the B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The new bylaw could be implemented as early as April 2010.

These changes in Calgary and Vancouver are a sign of progress, says Mary, but she is skeptical as to whether urbanizing egg production will make a dent in conventional egg sales.

The post City chickens, country eggs appeared first on Corporate Knights.

What happened that May has been well documented. After heavy rainfall washed bacteria from cattle manure into the town well, known for years to be vulnerable to contamination, residents began to experience bloody diarrhea, vomiting, cramps, and fever—all symptoms of E. coli.

Although the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission received a fax confirming the presence of E. coli in the water on May 15, 2000, it assured the Medical Health Officer that the water was safe. But on May 23, the Medical Health Officer came forward with his own results and publicly declared Canada’s worst E. coli outbreak.

Almost half the town’s 5,000 people were affected. More than 2,300 people became ill and seven people died, including a two year old girl who was visiting Walkerton on Mother’s Day. The cost of cleanup, including human suffering, was estimated at $155 million. Some residents still suffer side effects from the disease, including diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, high blood pressure, and kidney damage. Some are on medication for the rest of their lives.

The 2002 Walkerton inquiry, led by Justice Dennis O’Connor, found that the tragedy was preventable. He blamed it on the mismanagement of the Public Utilities Commission where staff routinely falsified daily operating reports; some didn’t even realize that E. coli was a health hazard. But he also blamed the tragedy on the Ontario government’s budget cuts and the Ministry of Environment’s ineptitude.

Indeed, nine months before Walkerton’s outbreak, an eerily similar E. coli contamination occurred at a fair in New York state. The associated inquiry report was published just six weeks before Walkerton’s outbreak.

Lessons learned?

“Walkerton could have occurred in a number of locations,” says Bruce Davidson, co-founder of Concerned Walkerton Citizens. “The provision of drinking water in many of our small and remote communities was not being actualized as a professional operation.”

Eleven months after Walkerton, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium occurred in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, causing 6,000 to fall ill.

“North Battleford was an even clearer example than Walkerton of municipal mismanagement,” says Dr. Steve Hrudey, drinking water expert and professor emeritus at the University of Alberta. “Probably the most tangible example is that they had a training budget of $750 and took pride in never spending a cent of it.”

The Walkerton tragedy served as a catalyst for drinking water policy reform. Justice O’Connor provided 121 recommendations, all of which are being implemented. He favoured the multi-barrier approach, which protects water throughout its journey from source to tap. Key components of the approach are a good source of water, effective treatment, a secure distribution system, continuous monitoring of the system, and an appropriate response to adverse results.

Before Walkerton, water plants had been approved using a voluntary certificate system, which often meant little oversight. Now all plants must be licensed, and certification for operators is mandatory. Ontario also appointed a Chief Drinking Water Inspector in 2003, whose latest report finds that 99.85 per cent of submitted water quality tests meet provincial standards. These tests cover systems that serve 80 per cent of Ontario’s population.

O’Connor also recommended better drinking water education and training for owners, operators, and operating authorities of drinking water systems. The Walkerton Clean Water Centre, a Government of Ontario agency, opened its doors in 2005 and has trained more than 2,700 people. The Centre also showcases new water treatment technologies and will be moving into a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Gold building in June 2010.

“Now we’re known as the education outreach for other communities to learn about the provision of safe drinking water,” says Walkerton Mayor Charlie Bagnato. “It’s just phenomenal how we’ve turned infamy into excellence.”

While Bagnato believes the checks and balances provided by the reformed drinking water regime mean “the chances of another Walkerton are virtually nil,” Davidson isn’t so sure.

“With Walkerton being ten years in the rearview mirror, the tendency is to say we’ve got it covered,” cautions Davidson. He worries about increasing watershed pressures from agriculture, industry, chemical use, and urban sprawl.

His concerns aren’t unfounded. At publication time, there were 975 boil water advisories and 23 do not consume warnings in Canada—including 116 boil water advisories for First Nations reserves.

Third world conditions, first world country.

Drinking water problems disproportionately affect First Nations communities, which are the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government.

“This is a perpetual crisis,” says Tony Clarke, Executive Director of the Polaris Institute. “As long as the Canadian Safe Drinking Water Guidelines are applied across the country, but not to reserves, we’re going to be faced with ongoing problems.”

In autumn 2005, there was an E. coli outbreak on the First Nations reserve Kashechewan, populated by 1,900 Cree near James Bay, Ontario. The community had been under various boil-water advisories for years.

For eleven days, the provincial and federal governments bickered over whose responsibility it was to deal with the outbreak. In the meantime, stories of Kashechewan’s desperate living conditions, overcrowding, sky-high unemployment, and illness began to emerge. Finally, the provincial government evacuated the reserve.

Kashechewan’s outbreak, like Walkerton’s, occurred primarily because of a lack of water operator training. Beaver dams were causing sewage to flow directly into Red Willow Creek, the reserve’s water source. Engineering consultants had told the operators three years before that the dams should be removed.

Dr. Hrudey laments this knowledge gap. “Most of the communities with [water] trouble have high unemployment or underemployment,” he says, suggesting training and supporting operators would help remedy this. “People running facilities in remote locations can’t be expected to be able to know and do everything. But you can train them well enough to recognize when they’re dealing with trouble.”

Indian and Northern Affairs Canada’s (INAC) 2006 Plan of Action for Drinking Water in First Nations Communities is meant to provide training and infrastructure support. The latest progress report shows that while a third of First Nations water treatment operators still lack certification, the number of high-risk drinking water systems in First Nation communities has fallen from 85 to 48 in two years.

But 48 communities is still too many, begging the question of whether a nonreserve water system would be allowed to languish. While INAC allocates $250 to $300 million per year for First Nations water infrastructure, Lee Ahenakew, Proprietor at Canadian First Nations consulting firm 4Sight, estimates the cost of fully connecting all First Nations communities to a clean water supply is $5 billion.

In a 2008 Polaris Institute report, Boiling Point, six high-risk First Nations communities were profiled. The report highlighted deplorable conditions such as astronomical rates of gastrointestinal illness, overflowing outhouses, one community under a 13-year boil-water advisory, and high suicide rates. While some of these communities have seen improvement since then, “there are lots of communities near the point of explosion,” says Clarke. “We need a regulatory regime that is aimed at safeguarding drinking water for First Nations communities.”

Ontario Environment Minister John Gerretsen says that First Nations issues were among his concerns when drafting the soon-to-be-released Water Opportunities Act. “It would not be right for Ontario to export our tremendous [water treatment] technology without first making sure that our people, including First Nations, have the best protection when it comes to the quality of their water.”

But Chief M. Bryan LaForme of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation has yet to experience this protection. “Walkerton had an effect in mainstream Ontario, but not in First Nations,” he says. Twenty- five per cent of his southern Ontario community does not have access to clean drinking water. “We’re still underfunded. We’re still under capacity. All my staff have to multitask.”

The danger of indifference.

Clearly, there’s still work to be done. Even though most urban areas have safe tap water, the Canadian Water Attitudes Study finds that 21 per cent of Canadians are not confident in their drinking water. And there are no legally enforceable national drinking water standards.

But Dr. Hrudey believes change won’t happen until Canadians demand it—and are willing to pay the full cost of safe delivery. “We’ve gotten used to the idea that drinking water outbreaks are rare, so why should we care?” he says. “We understand that if you don’t pay for cable, we can’t watch TV. But Canadians don’t [equate] their cable bill with their water bill.”

Davidson shares his experiences with getting people to understand the costs of water safety.

“I don’t think people think about being a senior citizen under a boil water order. The only way he can get water to his upstairs bathroom is to lift a jug up the stairs one step at a time,” he says. “Or the people like my wife, who are on medication for the rest of their lives, or the young boy who is waiting for a kidney. These are the things we need to animate for people.”

And it’s crucial that drinking water operators and policy makers remain vigilant.

“Stagnant water isn’t nearly the problem that stagnant thinking is,” says Davidson. “The minute we say we don’t need to focus on this anymore—that’s the minute we’re in trouble.”

The post Thirsty for answers appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The Government of Canada says they are making strides to come across as fair, but many First Nations believe “fair” will only occur when all of their rights are respected.

Of those rights, land claims are the main point of contention between the Federal government and First Nations peoples and the most contested article in UNDRIP.

After years of conflict, document drafting, and protests surrounding development projects, many Aboriginal communities were filled with hope following the March 2010 Throne Speech, which included a promise to make steps towards endorsing UNDRIP.

UNDRIP was drafted in 1985 with the help of more than 100 Indigenous organizations, and yet the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues continues to refer to the 370 million Indigenous peoples in 70 countries worldwide as the most “disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of peoples in the world today.”

The creation of the declaration was considered an unprecedented, comprehensive statement on the rights of Indigenous peoples. But the Government of Canada has been opposed to UNDRIP since the un adopted the declaration on Sept. 13, 2007. A majority of states voted in favour, while Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the U.S. voted against the 46 articles.

Australia’s government changed its tune and adopted the declaration in April 2009 after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologized for injustices inflicted on its Aborigines. The government hoped it would usher in a new era of recognition and reconciliation, and accompanied the apology with a pledge to close the 17-year life expectancy gap between Aborigines and other Australians.

In 2006, Australia’s indigenous population was 517,200—2.5 per cent of its total population and in the same year, Canada’s Aboriginal population was 3.8 per cent, meaning almost 1.8 million people identified themselves as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit.

Since its inception in 2007, the Federal Government has not been comfortable with agreeing to all of the terms that accompany UNDRIP. Chuck Strahl, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, was quoted in a 2007 cbc article as referring to the declaration as unbalanced and unaligned with Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A portion of Article 26 reads: “Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.”

It has been argued that the most troublesome area of the declaration for the federal government is relinquishing control of lands over to the respective Aboriginal communities. With landscapes of several Canadian territories saturated with valuable resources, a loss of control over said lands is a potentially expensive forfeit.

Development companies working in these disputed lands are often left in the middle trying to balance their ambitions to create revenue with new projects while respecting the sacred demands of the affected Indigenous communities.

First Nations often refer to their treaties when they feel their rights are infringed upon during development—such as oil sands projects— but treaties do not always have enough weight to stop a multi-million dollar development project. As a result, it is common for First Nations who feel threatened by projects to create physical blockades to protect their land, and, at times, livelihood. These blockades often delay development companies, which can mean time and money spent in negotiations and courtrooms.

First Nations people set up a roadblock in Caledonia, Ontario in 2006 to stop development on a 40-hectare piece of property. While developer Henco Industries had the legal land certificate, First Nations people claimed the land was wrongfully taken from them in the 18th century. The stand off between protestors and police included countless injuries due to tear gas and taser use, and numerous arrests. Road blockades occurred as far away as Quebec. The protest has lasted for years and continues to cost millions in losses to the developer and the Ontario government.

If Canada makes the decision to sign onto UNDRIP, this could significantly diminish the costly drama that currently surrounds many development projects on Aboriginal territory.

In December 2009, Northwest & Ethical Investments published Lines in the Sands: Oil Sands Sector Benchmarking, which is meant to help investors compare the risks associated with publicly-listed oil sands companies. An entire section outlines various Aboriginal engagement practices used by some of the biggest players in the oil industry. The report explains that it is a mistake for companies to engage with Aboriginal communities as if they are just general stakeholders—they have a nationto- nation relationship with the Crown that is distinct from that of other communities. Oil sands project proposals can directly conflict with First Nations and Métis constitutional rights.

Another common issue is accommodating all impacted communities. Many Nations share territories for resources or even sacred burial grounds where ancestors have been laid to rest. Some industries are unaware of the importance of consulting all of the Nations that could be affected by proposed development. All companies surveyed for Lines in the Sands said they were able to identify Aboriginal communities impacted by their operations, though some admitted they had difficulty determining what constituted an impacted community.

Confusion surrounding consultation between Indigenous communities and interested industries could also be reduced if the declaration is made as a clear reference to Indigenous rights.

Shawn Atleo, Assembly of First Nations National Chief, is one person who is anxious to get the ball rolling on Canada endorsing UNDRIP. From the moment he settled into his position nine months ago, Atleo has been clear that UNDRIP is something he is passionate about. According to Atleo, Canada adopting UNDRIP would mark the beginning of complete and thorough consultation regarding First Nations land.

“There will continue to be conflicts until it is recognized that First Nations have the right to prior and informed consent and must be consulted right at the outset of any proposal of development that happens in their territory,” says Atleo.

Atleo and other First Nations leaders yearn for open dialogues and respect of First Nations governance and traditions during the consultation process. However, Atleo says the health and safety of the affected residents comes before industrial ambitions.

“The need for clean water or a watershed might have to trump plans for development.”

Despite Canada’s cautious baby steps towards signing onto UNDRIP, most Aboriginal communities in Canada look forward to the symbolic significance that is tied to the declaration. Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd honouring UNDRIP shortly after his formal apology to Australia’s Aborigines for past government injustices, perhaps solidified the gesture as a sincere step forward, as opposed to lip-service.

The post Sign on the dotted line appeared first on Corporate Knights.

After seeing the documentary Earthlings— nicknamed the “vegan maker” due to its horrifying footage of animal treatment— Laraque officially gave up all animal products on June 1, 2009.

Animals aren’t his only passion—he’s also a humanitarian. A Haitian-Canadian, Laraque teamed up with World Vision and the NHL Players’ Association to start Hockey for Haiti after the January earthquake. His goal is to raise $5 million to rebuild a children’s hospital, and he’ll be going to Haiti in June.

Laraque seems to be as full of surprises off the ice as he is when he’s throwing hard hits for the NHL. In February 2010, he joined the Green Party of Canada.

Corporate Knights met up with Georges in the parking lot of his favourite organic market, Marché Tau, in Brossard, Quebec to talk sticks, steak, and saving the world.

Did you find it hard making the jump to veganism?

No, because I have three big reasons: compassion for animals, health, and the environment. A lot of people say eating meat is tradition. Well, back in the day, women couldn’t vote. There’s a tradition. Can they vote today? Hell, yeah. Society evolves. The youth are educated, they’re careful of what they’re eating, people are eating organic, and there are vegan and vegetarian restaurants around the world. Whether we like it or not, people are eating less and less meat, but not fast enough.

Do you think people who watch hockey will see things your way?

With my notoriety, I can captivate an audience that scientists and environmentalists can’t—the people who go to hockey games, drink beer, and go to steakhouses. They go to steakhouses and feel tired and want to take a nap. But when you eat, you shouldn’t feel that way— you should feel energized. If your body’s working that hard to digest meat, you’re wasting that edge you could have used to play sports.

The stupidest question some people ask me—people defending the fact that they’re going to keep on eating meat—is, “What right do you have to talk about animals? You beat up people.” But animals don’t stand in line to get slaughtered. They can feel pain. They don’t stand in line to get cut up to finish on a plate. But when I fight someone on the ice, I fight a millionaire— someone who is willing, someone who does the same job as me. So you can’t compare.

Can business help us save the world?

Any business can change to be better for the environment. People say if there are no more slaughterhouses, what are we going to do with the industry? Well, would we tell people to smoke more to keep encouraging the tobacco industry? Instead of building factories to slaughter animals, we could grow greens. When you look at the amount of grains they give to feed animals—that’s enough to feed the world.

There is talk you may be investing in a vegan restaurant in Montreal?

I can’t name it yet, but yes. I can help people have another choice for where they eat. Another big stereotype is that if you’re vegan, all you eat is tofu. I barely even eat tofu. I want to play a role on the business side of changing the economy, because it’s one thing to talk, but another to act.

You’re involved with the Green Party. You can lose a lot of friends when you get political. Did you have any negative experiences?

When you’re in the public eye, you will get criticism. But there is not one person I cross on the street who doesn’t shake my hand and say they are happy that I’m working with the Green Party. So if somebody’s going to criticize, I guess they don’t care about the future and the environment.

Would you ever consider playing a more public role in the Green Party in Quebec?

A lot of people ask me that, and I don’t say no, because I would’ve never thought I would’ve done the stuff I’ve done. I dreamed that I would be in the NHL, and being a black kid, I had less than a 0.001 per cent chance. I made it. If somebody had told me I would be an animal activist or a member of a political party when I was 20 years old and ignoring the environment, I would be like, “Yeah, right.” Anything can happen.

You’ve shown a lot of support for the people of Haiti. Tell me about that.

Yes. We approached World Vision because they’ve been in Haiti for 30 years. They were there before the earthquake. They’re going to be there for the long run, and Haiti needs people not just for quick visiting, but people there for a long time.

…People will respect you [for your humanity], not by how many goals you scored. If the guy working at the dollar store does more for society than the hockey player does, he’s a bigger and better person than you are. Because then you’re just a toy, just entertainment— people yell at you and tell you what to do. But it doesn’t do anything for society.

You want to be more than entertainment?

I want to be a person of impact and make change to society for the better. I’m always going to be this way, because that’s what’s important. That’s what counts in life.

The post Georges Laraque is a fighter & a lover appeared first on Corporate Knights.

CK: Why did the economic meltdown happen?

Mintzberg: Everybody has their own take on it. I am a management person, so I think it is a failure of management. It is the fact that the managers of those companies were just disconnected from what was going on. Senior managers didn’t know what was going on and the junior managers didn’t care what was going on. The pressures were so great to perform, that anything that came along that let you make a quick buck, they grabbed.

CK: Can you narrow it down to three incentives that you could change to help insure that something like this doesn’t happen again?

Mintzberg: I don’t think this is a question of incentives, I think it is a question of sheer decency. Either people care about their enterprise or they don’t. In fact, I would say that the incentives have been the problem. People have been driven to produce as quickly as possible. I think you solve our economic problems by reconstructing companies as communities.

CK: How to you rebuild companies as communities in a society where the bulk of large corporations are widely held enterprises accountable to short term investors?

Mintzberg: Some chief executives have the guts to stand up to this nonsense and say, “You are not going to push us around. This is not a way to run a company.” It is an illness, it’s a disease, and until the Americans wake up to the fact that it is utterly disfunctional, this will keep happening. But you just have to get rid of it.

CK: Do you think one of the downsides to communism’s collapse was that it took the competitive edge off capitalist countries to maintain a certain quality of life because there was an alternative to turn to?

Mintzberg: I kind of believe that. One might think communism wasn’t a model for the social sphere, but that’s not true. You have seen literacy rates in Cuba go up, and healthcare in Cuba improve. I argue that one of the effects of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe was that we swung totally out of balance on our side. I think that the main factor was not that they were an anchoring force, necessarily, but that the assumption that capitalism has triumphed meant that we could swing totally the other way.

CK: Businesses have gotten a bit smug…

Mintzberg: Actually, that’s a major understatement, but go on.

CK: Peter Drucker said that any business can be put out of business within 24 hours if society decides it no longer serves a necessary function.

Mintzberg: You see it happening all the time. Like Pfizer pleading guilty to a criminal charge relating to promotion of its pain medicine and paying a record $2.3 billion in fines and settlement payments. Corporations want to be persons in the eyes of the law, but if a person commits a felony, they go to jail. So if Pfizer wants to be a person, they should go to jail. Going to jail means not being allowed to function in society for several years. If they want to be a person, they can’t have it both ways. Wwe have a complete double standard when it comes to crime.

CK: So, what do you think it would take to make clean capitalism happen?

Mintzberg: The big factor is community. When people feel a connection to what they are a part of, they you get a whole different set of behaviors. When people are just driven to make quarterly earnings, you can’t expect to have any of that. People say let the market decide everything. I don’t believe in that. I think markets are wonderful for lots of things, but this obsession with markets, and letting markets do whatever they please on every front is nonsense. There is no balance to it.

CK: Let’s say you had U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao in here, and you were trying to help them come up with a climate deal. What would you do to broker one?

Mintzberg: I would tell both of them to go home. The only way anything serious every gets done is by community movements. Governments are so co-opted and pressured or in bed with lobbyists and all kinds of special interests that we can’t look to governments to solve these problems. The Kyoto accords are kindergarten compared to where we have to be. It will have to be a movement by the people. For example, it is nice that Walmart is rating products on how much packaging they have, but it is quite a different thing when a group of consumers say, “We will not purchase any of these products until the manufacturers get rid of 80 to 95 per cent of their packaging.” And it is far more powerful, and far quicker than Walmart or the Chinese or American government doing anything. I don’t think we can look to governments anymore.

CK: Do you think capitalism will survive?

Mintzberg: I think the raising of money through capital markets to fund certain corporate activities will survive. In a way, this whole capitalism thing is silly, because it is basically a way to raise money. But it has become the be all and end all of society, and I hope that doesn’t survive.

The post Clean capitalism: Maybe it does exist? appeared first on Corporate Knights.