The consequence conscious culture

Billionaire businessman Sir Richard Branson says most corporate mission statements are full of “blah truisms and are anything but inspirational”. He has a point – it may be time to reconsider the corporate reason for existence, ultimately articulating something more useful and tangible that will make sense to all stakeholders.

In fact, this could be the right time for the global business world to unite in an overarching mission. It makes sense when you think that most of the challenges humanity faces today are universal and apply to us all: the effects of global warming and El Ni͠no, the consequences of North Korea’s alleged hydrogen bomb testing earlier this year, yo-yoing markets, and terrorism. Not to mention the power the consumer now wields as a result of social media, creating a mass global audience who not only have the ability to use the platform to fight for what is right, but also to develop a vitriol-infested landscape where hate speech and radical propagandist thoughts gain momentum.

You may ask what any of this has to do with some random company’s reason for existence. Well, it calls for global business to adopt a universal, modern approach that renders all previous beliefs around the triple bottom line obsolete.

It’s a launch pad for fresh thinking on global business: the consequence conscious company. It is vital to consider the consequences of every aspect of business. Yes, we all want to make the world a better place, but how about first making sure we aren’t making it a worse place by our actions?

For example, a consequence conscious company would scrutinise the effects that its products, services, marketing campaigns and the causes they support have on popular culture. They would consider how these influence perceptions and shape worldviews for future generations. They would bear in mind that sometimes ill-considered short-term solutions can unleash disastrous results.

It’s not enough to merely comply with regulation and legislation. It’s not even enough to invest an appropriate amount of resources into CSI initiatives. Rather, what is called for is the adoption of a universal business approach that demonstrates the desire to really investigate and debate the consequences of what we do – we cannot plead ignorance, we live in an era where thanks to technological advancement and historical hindsight we have created a better educated society that has an awareness of the consequences of its actions – we know better.

A few examples of consequence consciousness: should telecommunications companies not invest more to determine the effects of long-term exposure to smart phone radiation? Have tech companies researched the effect that modern communication tools and instant messaging have on relationships? Do magazines which celebrate a single trans-gender icon consider the effect of possible gender role confusion on non-transgender teens? Or the carbon footprint created during the production of a solar panel?

Perhaps the answers to these questions are not about whether a company should be vilified or not. But they do point to the fact that possibly, instead of countless meetings and discussions around CSI and sustainability, we could take the new approach of being consequence conscious. Perhaps this is the first step we need to take towards being truly sustainable, purposeful and profitable companies.

The big take-out: Y&R’s Carine du Pisanie asks whether the time has come for global business to take a unified approach towards becoming consequence conscious companies and really consider the effects of their actions on humanity at large.