尊敬的用户您好，这是来自FT中文网的温馨提示：如您对更多FT中文网的内容感兴趣，请在苹果应用商店或谷歌应用市场搜索“FT中文网”，下载FT中文网的官方应用。
Is corporate sustainability as we know it finally over? Are traditional green business strategies failing to the point that they are doing more harm than good?
我们所熟知的企业可持续发展是否终于结束了？传统的绿色企业战略是否已经失败到弊大于利的地步？
Perhaps not entirely. But the growing number of sustainable business leaders calling for a rethink of these measures suggests a tipping point is at hand.
也许不完全如此。但是越来越多的可持续发展企业领袖呼吁重新思考这些措施，这表明转折点就在眼前。
For those of us who have never thought it likely that businesses and the markets that shape them would be enough to fix the gathering menace of climate change, this realisation is overdue.
对于我们这些从不认为企业和塑造企业的市场足以解决日益加剧的气候变化威胁的人来说，这种认识早该到来了。
But it’s not trivial. There may not be enough time to upend capitalism but there is plenty of time for companies to push for markets to be reformed in ways that drive faster climate action.
但这并非小事一桩。对于企业来说，也许没有足够的时间来颠覆资本主义，但有足够的时间来推动市场改革，以加快气候行动的步伐。
So it has been a relief to see a rising recognition that the status quo is not working.
因此，看到越来越多人认识到现状是行不通的，这让人松了一口气。
Or as Lindsay Hooper and Paul Gilding from the venerable Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership put it in a paper this month, “it is time we questioned the founding ideas and dominant approaches in the corporate sustainability movement”.
正如剑桥可持续发展领导力研究所(Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership)的林赛•胡珀(Lindsay Hooper)和保罗•吉尔丁(Paul Gilding)在本月的一篇论文中所说，“是时候质疑企业可持续发展运动的创始理念和主导方法了”。
The Cambridge university-based institute is a prominent voice in corporate greenery, thanks in part to the backing it has had for most of its 36-year history from its royal conservationist patron, King Charles III.
这家总部位于剑桥大学的研究所在企业绿色环保领域享有盛誉，部分原因是它在36年的历史中大部分时间都得到了其皇家环保主义赞助人查尔斯三世国王的支持。
But as Hooper and Gilding point out, despite years of green corporate pledges, and mushrooming clean tech investments, “the sustainability crisis is deepening”.
但是，正如胡珀和吉尔丁所指出的，尽管企业多年来一直在进行绿色承诺，清洁技术投资也如雨后春笋般涌现，但“可持续发展危机仍在加深”。
Worse, businesses and their sustainability advisers may be adding to the problem by giving a false impression of progress that is delaying “required radical changes to markets and the policies that frame them”.
更糟糕的是，企业及其可持续发展顾问可能通过给人们一种错误的进展印象来加剧问题，从而延误了对市场和相关政策所需的根本性变革。
The pair say companies should go beyond setting targets for cutting their own carbon footprints and start lobbying for sweeping, long-term rules that reshape entire markets.
两人表示，企业不应只为减少自身碳足迹设定目标，而应开始游说制定全面、长期的规则，以重塑整个市场。
For a start, this approach should lower the competitive risks that green business pioneers often face.
首先，这种方法可以降低绿色企业先驱经常面临的竞争风险。
Another big advantage has been laid bare this year by the slew of green corporate U-turns, from Shell’s weakening of climate targets to Volvo’s delayed deadline for selling only fully electric cars.
今年，从壳牌(Shell)削弱气候目标到沃尔沃(Volvo)推迟只销售全电动汽车的最后期限，一系列绿色企业的“大转弯”，揭示了另一个重要优势。
Such backtracking underlines the fact that sustainability measures are still often seen as discretionary moves, taken by personally committed leaders and easily undone when times are tough.
这种倒退突显了这样一个事实，可持续发展措施往往仍被视为由领导者个人决定的随意之举，在形势严峻时很容易前功尽弃。
As another sustainability veteran, John Elkington, wrote last month: “We must become less dependent on the goodwill and good citizenship of individual business leaders, both of which can be fragile foundations for sustained commitment.”
另一位可持续发展方面的资深人士约翰•埃尔金顿(John Elkington)上个月写道：“我们必须减少对个别企业领导人的善意和良好公民意识的依赖，这两者都可能成为持续承诺的脆弱基础。”
Elkington knows of what he speaks. He coined corporate sustainability ideas such as “triple bottom line” reporting to measure social and environmental, as well as financial, performance. But as he wrote last month, sustainability can no longer be only about transforming businesses. “Increasingly, too, it must be about transforming markets.”
埃尔金顿深谙其道。他提出了“三重底线”报告等企业可持续发展理念，以衡量社会和环境以及财务业绩。但正如他上个月所写的那样，可持续发展不能再仅仅是企业的转型。“可持续发展还必须越来越多地涉及市场转型。”
A more strident case for the perils of relying on green-minded leaders has come from Jonathon Porritt, a sustainability campaigner who has spent years advising large companies, including Unilever.
可持续发展活动家乔纳森•波里特(Jonathon Porritt)多年来一直为包括联合利华(Unilever)在内的大公司提供咨询，他提出了一个更为尖锐的案例，说明依赖具有环保意识的领导者的危险。
The consumer goods giant has dismayed green activists by rolling back targets on measures such as plastic use and recycling following last year’s appointment of a new CEO, Hein Schumacher.
这家消费品巨头在去年任命新首席执行官海因•舒马赫(Hein Schumacher)后，取消了塑料使用和回收等措施的目标，这让环保活动家感到沮丧。
His approach marks a sharp break with that of former Unilever bosses like Paul Polman, who memorably told investors who didn’t approve of his sustainability efforts “don’t put your money in our company”.
他的做法与联合利华前老板保罗•波尔曼(Paul Polman)的做法截然不同，后者曾令人难忘地告诉那些不赞成他的可持续发展努力的投资者“不要把钱投到我们公司”。
For Porritt, “Unilever’s fall from grace reveals the deep flaws in that whole concept of corporate sustainability as a primary driver of more sustainable ways of creating and distributing wealth.”
对于波里特来说，“联合利华的失去人心，揭示了企业可持续发展作为更可持续的财富创造和分配方式的主要驱动力这一整体概念的深刻缺陷。”
So will much change? Maybe. Talk of the need for greater regulation was in the air at last week’s New York Climate Week, as it would be.
那么，会有什么变化吗？也许会。在上周的纽约气候周上，关于需要加强监管的言论不绝于耳，这也是正常的。
Jes Munk Hansen, chief executive of the Danish insulation maker, Rockwool, told one event that regulators could slash the sizeable carbon emissions from buildings by setting tougher standards.
丹麦隔热材料制造商Rockwool公司的首席执行官杰斯•蒙克•汉森(Jes Munk Hansen)在一次活动中表示，监管机构可以通过制定更严格的标准来减少建筑物产生的大量碳排放。
Government rules had helped to drive the shift away from incandescent light bulbs to more energy efficient lights, said Hansen, a former executive at the Osram lighting group.
曾任欧司朗照明集团高管的汉森说，政府的规定有助于推动人们从白炽灯泡转向更节能的灯泡。
As he told me later, “It would help the green transition greatly if building regulators used more tools such as higher energy efficiency standards.”
正如他后来告诉我的那样：“如果建筑监管机构使用更多的工具，如更高的能效标准，将大大有助于绿色转型。”
He is right. Regulators and governments could do more and some firms are pushing them to do so. But these companies are still in a minority. A lot more must join them if corporate sustainability is ever going to create a more sustainable world.
他说得没错。监管机构和政府可以做得更多，一些公司正在推动它们这样做。但这些公司仍然是少数。如果企业的可持续发展要创造一个更加可持续的世界，就必须有更多的企业加入进来。