Applying Stories of the Environmentto Business: What Business People CanLearn From the Virtues inEnvironmental Narratives David Dawson

ABSTRACT. The use of narrative to communicate andconvey particular points of view in society has increasinglybecome the focus of academic attention in recent years. Inparticular, MacIntyre (1985, 1988, 1990, 1999) has paidattention to the role of narrative in the conflict betweendifferent traditions when developing his virtue approach toethics. Whilst there has been continued debate about theapplication of virtue approaches, some arguing that it isincompatible with business, I disagree and have alreadyargued for a form of virtue that will focus business onsociety’s needs rather than better business itself. Here Icontinue to develop the argument in two ways. First, I willexplore the predominant business narrative and offer somecomment on the ‘virtues’ that it promotes. However,rather than accepting this narrative, I want to challenge itwith a narrative from the environmental tradition. I con-sider how adopting the virtues promoted by an environ-mental narrative it would shape business practices andchallenge current business conventions. As a second step, Iwill focus on how we can change managers’ perceptions ofbusiness to reflect these environmentally based virtues.

KEY WORDS: Virtue ethics, business, environment,narrative, stories

Introduction

The use of narrative to communicate and conveyparticular points of view in society has receivedconsiderable attention from academics in recentyears. In the context of philosophical study, authorsincluding MacIntyre (1985, 1988, 1990) andNussbaum (2001) have paid particular attention tothe role of narrative in the conflict between differenttraditions. These authors and others (Foot, 1978,2001; Slote, 1996, 2001; Swanton, 2003) have alsoplayed a significant role in renewing interest in Vir-tue Ethics. This renewed interest in the role of virtuehas been felt well beyond the limits of philosophy.Indeed, it has influenced authors in disciplines asdiverse as Environmentalism (e.g. Cafaro, 2001;Preston, 2001; Shaw, 1997a), the Medical professions(Oakley and Cocking, 2001), Business (Morse, 1999;Randels, 1998; Solomon, 1992, 2000, 2003) andTheology (Hauerwas and Pinches, 1997; Meilander,1984).

Against the background of this renewed interestin the contribution of tradition and virtue to ethics,there has been continued debate about its applica-tion in practice. For example, some have under-stood virtue approaches to be incompatible withbusiness. I disagree and have already argued for aform of virtue that will focus business on society’sneeds with profit as an equal or subordinate end.Moreover, my argument is that business people arein the position to shape change towards virtuousaction in society.

Here I continue to develop the argument byrestating that tradition has an essential role in influ-encing what will be understood as human good and

David Dawson is a Senior Lecturer in Human ResourceManagement at The Business School, University ofGloucestershire, U.K. His research interests include VirtueEthics, ethical issues in HRM and decision-making inrecruitment and selection.

Journal of Business Ethics (2005) 58: 37–49 ! Springer 2005DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-1382-y

virtue. Indeed, there will be many traditions waitingin the wings to challenge the current businessorthodoxy with all their stories and, in turn, theiracknowledgement of particular virtues. However, inthis paper I will develop this project in two ways.

First, I want to explore the predominant businessnarrative and offer some comment on the ‘virtues’that it promotes. However, rather than acceptingthis narrative I want to challenge it. If we followGare (1998), to challenge a particular tradition weneed to develop and introduce narratives and storiesto society. Here, then, I will present a narrative fromthe environmental tradition and examine the virtuesassociated with it.

Second, I will explore how adopting these envi-ronmental virtues would shape business practices andchallenge current business conventions. In particular,I want to focus on how we might reorient organi-sational policy to embody these environmentallybased virtues. How exactly would organisations needto change their behaviour to reflect an environmentalvirtue based approach? However, before we begin totackle these tasks it is important to understand theimportance of virtue, tradition and narrative.

The importance of virtue and tradition

Virtue approaches to ethics emphasise people’s char-acter. They stress how the good habits, or virtues,inherent in a person’s character give them the pro-pensity to act in ways that promote human flourishing.Human flourishing is seen as the ultimate end ofhumans and incorporates those things that help ensureour well being. Here, when people think about whatto do they take into account the available facts and,using the practical wisdom given to them by thevirtues, come to a decision (Whetstone, 2001). Peoplewill consider the consequences of acts for their abilityto think about and perform future acts (Koehn, 1995)and also whether this leads to the human good. AsShaw (1997b, p. 36) notes this requires ‘‘… a balancedand coherent notion of the good’’. This balanced viewneeds to go beyond the economic and may need toincorporate environmental, social, religious andmaybe professional based concepts of well being.

People develop the good habits and, in turn, thevirtues essential to action by witnessing, imitating andlearning from the other people around them (Murphy,

1999). As such, the virtue approach relies on commu-nities (MacIntyre, 1999;Marchese et al., 2002) and theirtraditions to support and perpetuate virtues. A traditionhas an essential historical element. People in a particulartradition refer to those who come before them forguidance. They develop their own ideas and, in turn,people who come after them build on them further.This leads groups of people who belong to a particulartradition, which may be concerned with a particularpractice, to inherit a common history and memory ofevents. As I see it, this shared memory provides theframework of thought that underpins particular ways ofthinking and ways of acting or doing things.

The framework a particular tradition follows willhave its own, maybe unique, focus. It will emphasisecertain aspects of the way we live as being prob-lematic and hence, certain ways of acting as solutionsto these problems. Moreover, people will discussthose problems and not others. This means thatwhen we are examining a tradition, and trying tounderstand it, we should focus not only on what it issaying but also on what it avoids saying. Only byunderstanding both what is and what is not discussedcan we have a full appreciation of the tradition’sinfluence on the way we live, our attitude towardsvirtue and the content of any approach to virtue thatis adopted. Indeed, these are ideas that MacIntyre(1988) leads us to and he also considers how differenttraditions compete.

For example, in Three Rival Versions of MoralEnquiry, MacIntyre argues at length that the Gene-alogist superseded the Encyclopaedist tradition andthat again Thomism has the potential to challengethis tradition. In terms of our discussion here, anddominant environmental thought, we might acceptthat the Christian concept of stewardship wassuperseded by a more scientifically rational mode ofthought based in modernity that was, in turn, chal-lenged by more atomistic thought based in post-modern ‘traditions’. But how do these changes comeabout?

MacIntyre (1988) starts with the proposition thatpeople from a particular tradition will often fail torecognise the legitimacy of another tradition’s pointof view. Two sets of circumstances might lead tothis. First, the traditions may not share commonconcepts and therefore they will not recognisecommon issues. In addition, they may not have acommon language of concepts and therefore, they

38 David Dawson

will not be able to understand the other’s discourse.Put simply, people from one tradition are blind tothe other. The second reason relates to the standardsheld by those who adhere to each of the traditions.Those who adhere to competing traditions mayunderstand common concepts and may share acommon language to discuss them. Still, they mayhold standards that conflict with one another andthis will lead them to dispute the view contained inthe other’s discourse. In the short term, these dis-putes may leave the traditions in opposition.

In the longer term there is more opportunity for apredominant tradition to falter or fail and othertraditions to gain ascendancy. Where a traditionfaces a lack of progression – in the terms of progressas it is seen in the context of the tradition – itsadherents will begin to question its ability to sustainitself. This questioning is the basis of an epistemo-logical crisis. The tradition will need to rewrite itselfby drawing on new resources that solve the crisis bygiving the tradition a new focus or face internaldissolution. Internal dissolution may lead toencounters with rival traditions as people look fornew resources or alternative traditions and, ulti-mately, submission or merger. Of course, the otheralternative is that the tradition faces complete failureon its own terms or defeat by another tradition.

What is important in MacIntyre’s (1988) argu-ment for our examination of tradition, narrative andvirtue is that he argues that for traditions to under-stand each other they must understand each other’slanguage. They must understand not just at the levelof rote learning, but as if it was their first languageand this entails that they have a full appreciation ofthe culture, way of life and way of thinking in theother tradition. This inevitably means that, to someextent, they have to belong to the other tradition. Isit then not inevitable that one tradition that under-stands another tradition has the potential – evenunknowingly – to adopt another tradition’s per-spectives on at least some issues? Put another way, itseems that through language, and thereby storytell-ing, we have the potential to change traditions.

Tradition, narrative and the environment

So, what is the role of narrative? We have already saidthat narrative, or stories, have a role in underpinning

traditions. But how do they do this? It is my view thatnarratives communicate a particular tradition’s viewof the world. By that I mean that narratives and thestories that support them tell us about things that aparticular tradition finds important. We are told whoor what is good or evil from that tradition’s per-spective. In understanding this we need to be clearthat, as Kearney (2001) says, narratives are createdusing events. Initially, each event may be seen as anindividual fragmented element. Only when a num-ber of events are linked together are they constructedinto a narrative. And here is the point. Which eventsare included in the narrative (are supportive of aparticular point of view), how they are structured(the order the events are put in) and the way theevents are presented (the view that is put forwardabout the event) will depend, to a large extent, on thetradition to which it belongs.

Gare (1998) has usedMacIntyre’s (1985) ideas in theEnvironmental Ethics arena. He argues that people’svalues are led by the prevailing meta-narrative. Theimportance of this is made clear when he says,

‘‘the beliefs that matter for how people choose to liveand act are those embodied in the narrative they areliving out… [If people] really are to live in a way that isecologically sound, then their lives and the institutionsand traditions of which they are part must be consti-tuted by different narratives than they are at present.These narratives will be associated with differentpractices, different virtues, and, ultimately, differentideas…’’ (Gare, 1998, p. 7).

Gare continues to argue that the prevailing meta-narrative promotes a mechanistic worldview thatemphasises progress through science, technology andeconomic development. Countering this meta-nar-rative will mean drawing on opposing narratives andbringing them to the fore. If we are to challenge aparticular tradition we need to develop and intro-duce narratives and stories to society that challengethe predominant narrative.

This point is of vital importance when we con-sider the influence of narrative on the way we thinkand act toward the environment. Glotfelty (2001)shows how stories about places influence our atti-tudes and, in turn, our actions towards those places.She uses the many examples of literature that derideNevada to explain why people are willing to allow

Applying Stories of the Environment to Business 39

nuclear testing and waste storage in that state. Herargument makes it clear that stories can have veryreal consequences for people’s actions. True, this isnot to say that stories always lead to actions, or that itis inevitable that people accept the stories. Glotfelty(2001) recognises that there may be a number ofreactions to narratives that include trying to under-mine them by pointing out inaccuracies or coun-tering them with opposing narratives. For example,Harper (2001) shows how the Chernobyl nuclearaccident challenged both socialist and western nar-ratives of the environment that were based in therhetoric of science and technical expertise. Buthighlighting these tactics only goes to show howpeople value and utilise the power of stories topromote action.

A number of perspectives can be taken on howstories can best be used to influence people’s viewsof the environment. Raglan and Scholtmeijer (2001)put the case that stories of outstanding quality will beable to show the environment on its own terms.Nature will form our thought, rather than ourthought and language forming the way we thinkabout nature. And these stories, the ones that help uslearn (Taylor, et al., 2002) by shocking us intothinking in a different way, are the ones that make areal contribution to the grand narrative of theenvironment. Moreover, in the context of our virtueapproach we need to appropriate these stories andpresent them in a way that draws in a point of view,a point of view that emphasises virtue. Whilstshocking people into change may be important,King (1999) focuses us on the importance of makingour message comprehensible to the audience. Heargues that we need to ground the stories in thecontext in which people actually live if they are tounderstand them. This will increase the likelihoodthat they will adopt the ideas. In effect, King (1999)is stipulating that we use the language of those weneed to influence to achieve our ends. This couldcause difficulties as using language that is not basedin the environment or virtues may dilute the mes-sage. Whilst this raises challenges it does not detractfrom the role of narrative in creating change.

In arguing that narratives have a central role incommunicating, sustaining and challenging tradi-tions, and have very real implications for action, Ihave acknowledged the importance of analysingnarratives. Hence my task here is to identify the

predominant business narrative and its implicationsfor virtue. I can then go on to identify the narrativesand stories that are there in the background with thepotential to resist the dominant narrative. These arethe very stories that we need to promote if things aregoing to change and the virtues they promote aregoing to take hold. In taking this position I am al-ready shaping a particular approach to my analysis,but it is an approach that nevertheless meets tworequirements that are very important to this project.

The first requirement is for any analyticalapproach to fit with the framework that has beenadopted from MacIntyre. In this, it must allowexploration of what a narrative is not saying (thesubtext) as well as what it is saying, not so much as totool for deconstruction, but as a route to deeperunderstanding. It is also important that the approachis not hostile to tradition itself. Indeed, it mustrecognise the value of the historicity of narrative andthat the teleological nature of a story needs to bebought to the fore in the analysis. Of course thisleads us to the second requirement, that the analysismust allow a focus on the ideas of virtue and theteleological ends embedded in the narrative andassociated stories.

Thus, the first step in the analysis is to identify thedominant stories in business and the virtues implicitin them. These stories will combine to create thegrand narrative of business. Once the grand narrativehas been identified the second step is to identify thestories of other traditions. These stories help us togenerate alternatives to, and in this develop a criticalanalysis of, the grand narrative. The juxtaposition ofthe grand narrative and the stories gives us a resourcefor a deeper understanding of both the business andenvironmental stories. Indeed, it helps ascertainwhich virtues are important in the stories and, inturn, reveals potential resources for the resistance ofthe grand narrative.

A predominant business narrative

Randels (1998) makes the point that there are manynarratives that influence us. He presents us with fivegroups of narratives that relate to business in par-ticular. Homo-economicus narratives present a pic-ture where people act on the basis of self-interest,either in general or in particular spheres like busi-

40 David Dawson

ness. Here, stories support an ethic of survival of thefittest, rather than an ethic with a role in supportingwider society. Libertarian narratives of businesscentre on communities and groups that are formedby individuals. Individuals’ freedoms are neverthelessparamount and government is seen as secondary tothe markets in regulating society. Conservativenarratives focus on the role of private institutions insupporting the good of society, a good that isreflected in standards that all actions, includingbusiness’ actions, need to reflect. Liberal narrativesfocus on tolerance and individual liberty and thechampioning of positive action towards the less welloff. This stance leads to a suspicion of businessmotives where clear links to social good cannot beseen. Religio-philosophical narratives are broad inscope. Here there is a place for business as far as itsupports what are seen as appropriate behaviours orends.

The existence of these competing narrativesmakes identifying the predominant business narra-tive more difficult. As narratives cannot be neutral,the particular ethical or political standpoint you takemay influence the narrative you portray as dominant.This point would be significant if I wanted people toaccept the narrative as objective truth. However, myaims are more limited than showing a true account.Instead of showing a ‘true’ account, I want topresent a grand narrative of business that would befamiliar to many and accepted by most people. Iwant to portray business as people understand it.

Therefore, for now it is suffice to say thatLibertarian, Conservative, Liberal and Religio-philosophical narratives are not what I would con-sider to be the predominant business narrative. AsRandels (1998, p. 1304) notes, the Homo-eco-nomicus perspective ‘‘supplies the narratives mostcommonly associated with business.’’ I would agreeand, albeit with notable departures from Randels’(1998) characterisation, use this perspective as thesource of my predominant business narrative. Here, Ipresent a story where business is ethically neutral, isin partnership with science, promotes competition,supports progress, and distributes the fruits of thatprogress to society to be consumed. Large parts ofthis story focus on consumer oriented capitalistmarkets where individuals are the focus for compe-tition and profit.

Business, as it is presented in the dominant nar-rative, is a neutral and technical tool. A businesscannot be ethical, and even if it could, it would notbe its place to be. Business is a servant of society, aset of tools or mechanisms, to use technical meta-phors, which are based on markets. They can beused by individuals – whatever their faith, philoso-phy or values – and as such they are neutral. Anyindividual is free to use business, as they will. Ofcourse, this raises the risk that people may usebusiness for unethical ends, but this is not businessitself being unethical, that is about the individualsthat use business. And in any case, if there were anyplace for business to be concerned with morality itwould only be to make sure that it meets its domi-nant objective, to help individuals to generate wealththrough developing, producing and distributinggoods and services. This wealth is what benefitssociety as a whole and is the right end of business.

We can see that because business is neutraltowards individuals this does not make it neutraltowards the generation of wealth and it is set up tocontinually strive for more. Science, of course, playsa central role in this drive for wealth. Business is inpartnership with science. Science helps business bygiving it more efficient production processes,cheaper more robust materials and more innovativeproducts. Science gives business progress and pro-gress is essential to the predominant story of business.Think of the number of industries that are based onprogress. Some, like home computer manufacturing,mobile phone technology and many healthcareproducts have resulted from what seem like dramaticadvances in science. These advances have createdsome markets and revolutionised others. Almostinvariably, this has led consumers to buy newproducts. It has reinvigorated commerce.

Whilst science has sustained business through itsadvances, this does not mean that the partnership isall one way. Business also has a role to play in dis-ciplining science and acts as the main intermediarybetween science and individuals. For many, disen-franchised with government, their activity in themarket is the only way they can influence scientistsand businesses to produce the products that havesuch a profound effect on the way they live theirlives. Consumers may be weak as individuals, but asa group in the market they have immense power

Applying Stories of the Environment to Business 41

over what is produced and how. This can be seen inhow the genetically modified food debate has takenvery different course in different continents; manyUS consumers embracing the technology whilstEuropean consumers have been much more cau-tious. There is then a role for business in directingscience and technology to where it is needed.Businesses, as they compete against one another, canidentify what consumers need, what they will findacceptable and what they will grow to like.

Competition, then, becomes a central element ofbusiness. It acts to sustain the progress that underpinsbusiness’ continued success, but also to disciplinescience so that it keeps in line with what consumerswill accept. This happens because competition offersreward based on reciprocity. Consumers expect topay for the things they need and want. The idea thatscientists would or should innovate for the good ofsociety without the expectation of significant rewardis derided. If we just focused on societal wealth,where would the drive for efficiency come from?Where would the incentive be to take the risks onwhich scientific progress is founded? Instead, themeasure of progress and success is whether con-sumers have bought a product. Wealth is somethingthat is measured by consumer spending and profit.

The implication is that through consumptionbusiness provides the basis for social exchange and,moreover, interaction. By providing people withproducts that help them define themselves relative toothers, it promotes a form of interaction that doesnot explicitly rely on social position, conflict orrepression and on the whole allows us to leadpeaceful lives. These peaceful lives are spent strivingfor and consuming the next offering that sciencegives us, the next improvement in comfort, healthand wellbeing. Of course, some people will choosenot to participate in a system that hangs on thepartnership of business, science and consumption.And this, in itself, can be seen as a triumph ofbusiness. Business gives people the freedom to optout at little cost and it gives people that choiceprecisely because it is neutral.

What we have here is a narrative that bringstogether stories that have their roots in the history oftrade, science and politics. The predominance ofscience in our society is one that has its roots in theEnlightenment. The free market based approach tothe economy is one that has had more or less

influence since aristocracy and mercantilism set theframework for trade and exchange. Indeed, we cansee that there has been a continued development ofthe capitalist system that has led us to a consumerbased capitalism that, as well as being an economicsystem, has started to play a political role. Con-sumerism as a way of expressing preferences andviews has, for some, become a substitute for whatthey see as faulty and discredited political systems.

So, what virtues come to the fore with thisbusiness narrative? It seems that the narrative ofbusiness, as I have presented it here, would demandseven virtues: Impartiality, Enterprise, Capability,Innovation, Perseverance, Constraint and Consumption.The business person would be impartial in that theywould accept the right of all people, irrespective oftheir faith or values, to trade and partake in business.They would be enterprising in that they would befocused on the generation of wealth, for themselvesand their families, but also with regard for thebenefits this wealth will have for society as a whole.Capability is a virtue in the sense that a person who iscapable at their work should be efficient and moreable to generate the progress that is so central to thepartnership between business and science.

Indeed, the fourth and fifth virtues, perseveranceand innovation, are important for those who aregoing to succeed in business or scientific endeavour.The ability to innovate is necessary if the advancesthe business system thrives on are going to occur. Atthe same time, we should not delude ourselves intothinking that the process of innovation is easy. Itrequires continued effort and perseverance. Theenergy that the virtues discussed so far offer needs tobe tempered by constraint. The constraint we speak ofhere is market based and it is demanded by society.In turn, this leads us to the final virtue consumption, asconsumption is necessary if we are going to play ourpart in communicating to business what we findacceptable.

An environmental narrative

Environmental Ethics concerns itself with the moralconsequences of our interactions with the environ-ment. That is, with non-human animals, plants andsoil. In this, we can see that Environmental Ethics isdistinct from ethical disciplines that limit their focus to

42 David Dawson

human society. However, this distinctiveness doesnothing to limit the proliferation of the narrativespromoted by those with environmental concerns. In-deed, as with business, there are several perspectives.

Elliott (1995), when surveying EnvironmentalEthics, differentiates between the anthropocentric orpeople centred and non-anthropocentric or envi-ronmentally-centred approaches when discussing themain perspectives. These approaches have their ownstories to tell and, hence, narratives. Elliott (1995)includes Welfareism, which argues that we shouldpreserve animals and the environment to ensure thefuture survival of humans, as an example of ananthropocentric approach to the environment. Withthis approachwewill protect the natural environmentbecause it is in our self-interest to do so.Non-anthropocentric approaches can be Existen-tialist or Holistic. Existentialist approaches vary fromthose that would give limited rights to those thatwould offer the full extension of rights to all flour-ishing organisms. Holistic approaches tend to focuson the moral worth of the whole and, for example,our ability to protect the natural evolution ofecosystems.

As with business, with environmentalism I am inthe position of choosing between a range of narra-tives. And again I will aim to show a grand narrativeof environmental concerns that would be familiar tomany and acceptable to most people. In other words,I want to present the environmental narrative aspeople would tell it. The environmental narrative Iwill present emphasises ecological sustainability (vanWensveen, 2001) based on interaction and interde-pendence within the environment, diversity and acombination of science and experiential observation(Preston, 2001).

It is clear that as human beings we are dependenton the environment in which we live. We wouldnot be able to survive without the resources that theenvironment provides us. At a fundamental level, weneed clean air to breath, our rivers for water, the seato provide fish and good soil to grow crops. Forthese reasons alone we need to be concerned withthe environment. Indeed, we should care for theenvironment to ensure our future.

When we start to look at how we can maintainthese resources it soon becomes apparent that ourfocus has to go beyond seeing them in isolation. Theresources we use exist as part of ecological systems

where one species depends on another and all ofthese may depend on the soil, climate or otherconditions. Indeed, we need to understand theseecological systems in order to protect the naturalresources we use. Science can help us do this byshowing the interaction and interdependence ofdifferent species. It can show us that we should valuea diverse environmental base if we are to continue toprosper. Still, science also shows us that ecologicalsystems are massively complex and hence difficult topredict.

This ecological complexity means that as much aswe can try to understand the systems, in reality, ourunderstanding is limited and we can rarely predictthe full effect of our actions in the environment.Therefore, the focus on ecological systems meansthat our attitude has to shift from one that em-phasises what we as humans find directly useful toone that emphasises our dependence on the envi-ronment as a whole. It moves us from a position ofinstrumental calculation to an attitude that recog-nises the intrinsic worth of the environment. Onlyby encouraging ecological diversity and ensuring ourrestraint when acting in the environment can wereally be certain of having natural resources for thefuture.

This shift in attitudes leads to a focus on sustain-ability. We should work to maintain environmentalresources, but this does not mean that we have towithdraw from the environment. We should insteadcontinue to use the resources that the environmentgives us but, being grateful for this gift, consider theimpact we are having. In effect, there is a demand onus to act with respect and care for the ecologicalsystems of which we are a part. This means havingregard for the way in which ecological systemschange. That ecological systems change over time isinevitable and, in fact, is part of their healthy evo-lution. Still, these systems only have a certain pro-pensity for evolution and changing them too quicklycan be immensely destructive. The questionbecomes what level of change is destructive?

I have already said that although science can help usunderstand the ecological systems that exist theircomplexity means that it can never predict the effectof our actions on the environment. This means thatwe should show restraint when we are takingresources from the environment or making changesin it. It also means that we should pay much more

Applying Stories of the Environment to Business 43

attention to our experiences of ecological systems.Indeed, there is considerable value in closeobservation of the environment in particular loca-tions. Only by developing a close relationship withthe environment we live and work in, and by caringfor and working with the flows of that environ-ment, can we really come to promote propersustainability.

This narrative reflects stories that have beendeveloped over the last 150 years, although some aremuch more recent than that. For example,Thoreau’s (1989) work at Walden ponds highlightsmany intellectual and physical virtues that arereproduced in the narrative’s emphasis on restraintand integrity in our dealings with the environment.The narrative also reflects both Leopold’s (1949)emphasis on the interdependence of biotic com-munities and on keen perception and precisedescription through its emphasis on the importanceof experiential observation. In more modern times,Carson (1962), when arguing against the abuses ofthe agro-chemical industries, discussed the role thatscience can have in understanding the environmentand how humility and gratefulness is essential to abetter relationship between man and environment.Indeed, in highlighting the similarities with theseauthors, Cafaro (2001) would argue that we areactually citing virtue ethicists. In this, then, thereshould be little surprise that there are similarities inthe virtues the narrative promotes and the virtues theenvironmental virtue ethicists (Cafaro, 2001; Fraz,1993; Shaw, 1997a) discuss.

It has already become clear that the environmentalnarrative promotes nine virtues: Humility, Respect,Prudence, Judgement, Patience, Eagerness, Persistence,Precise description and Restraint. We need to have Re-spect for the environment because we need the re-sources it offers to survive and destroying them maylead to our destruction, but also because environ-mental forces are so much more powerful than hu-mans. We just cannot master them. The widerrealisation that we are part of hugely complex andpowerful environmental systems requires Humility.And indeed, this very complexity means that Prudenceis needed when working in the environment andgood Judgement about when we should hold backbecause we are uncertain about the consequences ofour actions. Restraint is certainly important when weare working and living in the environment. Patience is

fundamental as we need to take time to observe andlearn about the environment and Eagerness, Persistenceand skills of Precise description are essential to ensuringthat we learn from our experiences within theenvironment.

Links between business virtues andenvironmental virtues

Explicit links between Business Ethics and Envi-ronmental Ethics are limited. Rosenthal and Bucholz(1998) try to bridge Environmental and BusinessEthics at a conceptual level. They argue that BusinessEthics has slipped in to a state of ethical pluralismwhere no one set of theories is adequate. On theother hand, environmental ethicists, they argue, haverejected the theoretical perspectives used by businessethicists. In light of these conclusions, they argue forAmerican pragmatism as a meta theory. Obviously, Iwould want to counter the argument that VirtueEthics does not give a sufficient basis for guidingmoral development in the business and environ-mental domains, but their work does highlight theconceptual gaps that exist between those in theBusiness Ethics and Environmental Ethics fields.

Whilst the conceptual links may be weak, thereare clues in some of the main debates in Environ-mental Ethics of more concrete links to businessissues. Dickinson (2000) argues that changing peo-ple’s attitudes will not solve environmental prob-lems as they have only limited power. He arguesthat organisations are the real holders of power andthat changes must be promoted at this level. Whe-ther this is a realistic prospect or not, and if so, onwhat terms, it clearly makes the link betweenbusiness and the environment. Indeed, the majorityof people are going to change only if businessespresent them with ‘realistic’ alternatives. Offer thelong distance commuter environmentally friendlycars or efficient rail services that take them wherethey are going, and they are likely to use them. DeGeorge (1999) cites pollution and deforestation asexamples of where there are clearer links betweenbusinesses and the environment. Here, it is theprocess used to make the product, rather than theproduct’s use that has an impact on the environmentand he goes on to discuss these issues in terms ofrights based ethics.

44 David Dawson

Given that we have demonstrated links betweenEnvironmental Ethics and Business Ethics, it shouldbe of concern to us that the virtues embedded in thestories associated with them are so different. This isnot to say that the virtues apparent in our narrativeof business (Impartiality, Enterprise, Capability,Innovation, Perseverance, Constraint andConsumption) are all at odds with the environ-mental virtues (Humility, Respect, Prudence,Judgement, Patience, Eagerness, Persistence, Precisedescription and Restraint). Innovation (business)versus eagerness (environmental) and perseverance(business) versus Persistence (environmental) seem tocorrelate and, on the surface at least, have the sameteleological ends. Constraint (business) versus Pru-dence, Judgement and Restraint (environment)seem to correlate, even though they are directed atdifferent teleological ends. Nevertheless, there areother virtues that contradict each other at a funda-mental level. In particular, restraint (environment)and consumption (business) contradict each other atthe level of their ends but also a practical level.

The key, then, is to build a link between thesenarratives. Considering what King (1999) says aboutputting our stories into the audience’s context, it isclear that we need to tell these stories in businesslanguage. For example, when the BBC web sitereported on the campaign to reduce pollution fromaircraft it told the story in language people willunderstand saying:

‘‘…aircraft emit more of the main greenhouse gas thancars for each passenger they carry… one return flightfrom the United Kingdom to Florida produces asmuch carbon dioxide (CO2) as a year’s driving by theaverage British motorist. And [the environmentalgroups] say commercial jets add almost as much toglobal warming annually as the whole of Africa.’’(BBC, 2000)

The next step is to show why the airlines shouldwant to act to limit their effect on the environment.Indeed, we need to tell the airlines’ stakeholders,whether they are suppliers, customers or share-holders, what it is in their environment that meansthat they should change. In building this case weneed to show the benefits they would receive fromdoing this in their, business, context. In this exam-ple, as well as the benefits to the local environment,

using technologies that are more fuel-efficient andcan cut costs once they are embedded help show acommitment to the local community, create bettercustomer relations and support a different way ofthinking about business. This way of thinking caninclude in its foundation the environmental virtues,thus ensuring environmental ends are seen as legit-imate business ends, but also that these other benefitsare achieved.

The differences in the narratives I observed abovemean that the change to environmentally virtuousbusiness that we are trying to promote with thesestories will be dramatic. Indeed, the example ofAirline pollution shows that a distinct shift in busi-ness policy will be required. This is a point that Iwish to make first, by reference to Dion’s (1998)typology of environmental policies, and second, byway of analysing the virtues apparent in UK businessenvironmental policy.

Environmental virtues in business policy

Dion (1998) presents us with a typology of corporateenvironmental policies that is helpful when exam-ining the way organisations might respond to envi-ronmental issues. The typology includes fourcategories of organisation; the Neo-technocratic,Techno-environmentalist, Pseudo-environmentalistand Quasi-environmentalist (Table I). Starting withthe Neo-technocratic enterprise, organisations thatfollow these policies will, incrementally, becomemuch more committed and take more complexapproaches to environmental issues whilst, at thesame time, becoming less anthropocentric.

Therefore, an organisation that took aNeotechnocratic approach would limit its environ-mental aspirations to conformity with regulations,transparency, collaboration with community groupsand government. At the same time they would beemphasising individual employees’ responsibilities,which Dion (1998) notes, shows that these organi-sations lack the commitment needed to takeresponsibility for environmental issues. In contrast,organisations in the Quasi-environmentalist categoryhold ecological ideals that have supporting strategiesand go as far as promoting green research anddevelopment and educational initiatives that go be-yond training staff.

Applying Stories of the Environment to Business 45

TABLEI

Dion’s(1998)

typology

ofcorporate

environmentalpolicies

Neo-T

echnocratic

Enterprise

Techno-Environmentalist

Enterprise

Pseudo-Environmentalist

Enterprise

Quasi-Environmentalist

Enterprise

Non-

anthropocentric

Ecologicalidealsandthe

supportingstrategies.

SupportofgreenR&D.

Educationalobjectives.

Recycling.

Recuperationandreuse.

Reduce

use

ofproducts/

materials.

Safe

elim

inationofwaste.

Meansandmethodsof

prevention.

Recycling.

Recuperationandreuse.

Reduce

use

ofproducts/

materials.

Safe

elim

inationofwaste.

Meansandmethodsof

prevention.

Environmentalprogram

s/em

ergency

plans.

Quasi-legalmechanisms.

Personnel

training.

Supportingscientific/

technologicalinnovations

forenvironmentalprotection.

Environmental

program

s/em

ergency

plans.

Quasi-legalmechanisms.

Personnel

training.

Supportingscientific/

technologicalinnovations

forenvironmentalprotection.

Environmentalprogram

s/em

ergency

plans.

Quasi-legalmechanisms.

Personnel

training.

Supportingscientific/

technological

innovations

forenvironmental

protection.

Anthropocentric

Conform

ityto

lawsand

regulations.

Corporate

transparency.

Collaborationwith

communitygroups,

associations,andgovernments.

Emphasisonindividual

responsibility.

Conform

ityto

lawsand

regulations.

Corporate

transparency.

Collaborationwith

communitygroups,

associations,andgovernments.

Emphasisonindividual

responsibility.

Conform

ityto

lawsand

regulations.

Corporate

transparency.

Collaborationwith

communitygroups,

associations,andgovernments.

Emphasisonindividual

responsibility.

Conform

ityto

lawsand

regulations.

Corporate

transparency.

Collaborationwith

communitygroups,

associations,and

governments.

Emphasisonindividual

responsibility.

fi‹

46 David Dawson

Putting Dion’s (1998) typology into the context ofthe narratives we presented earlier, it is not surprisingto see that the business narrative, and the virtuesassociated with it, would only support the use of theNeo-technocratic and Techno-environmentalist ap-proaches. Adopting policies that supported theseapproaches could be justified because they reduce thethreat that causing damage to the environment mayhave to profits. No organisation wants to see itself thesubject of litigation with the penalties that may result,or moreover, face the public relations disaster thatmay ensue. It seems, then, that the virtues of enter-prise, driven by the demand to generate profit in boththe short and long term, and constraint, promoted bysocietal concern, will lead organisations to take lim-ited action on environmental issues. Indeed, for someorganisations, in some industries, this may mean thatthey have to expend some considerable effort,meaning that the virtues of capability, innovation andperseverance become relevant.

Only if an organisation had come under particularscrutiny from environmental lobbyists, or had been inreceipt of particularly damaging publicity, would thebusiness virtues support a longer term Pseudo-envi-ronmentalist approach as, here, organisations mayneed to do much more to establish their environmentcredibility. To give the Pseudo-environmentalist andQuasi-environmentalist approaches the support theyreally need we have to turn to the environmentalnarrative and the virtues that it promotes. We can seetheQuasi-environmentalist approach requires each ofthe virtues discussed in the environmental narrative ifthe core values that this approach suggests are actuallygoing to be transformed into action.

When actually looking at environmental policies,it is interesting to consider the advice given by theUK government. Whilst encouraging organisationsto write an environmental policy they suggest that‘‘the benefits associated with writing an Environ-mental Policy include:

• assuring customers of commitment todemonstrable environmental management;

• maintaining good public/community relations;• enhancing image and market share;• improving cost control;• reducing incidents that result in liability;• conserving raw materials and energy;• sharing environmental solutions;

• improving industry/government relations’’(Envirowise, 2000).

An examination of these benefits shows that theyappeal to the business narrative and drive towards theNeo-technocratic and Techno-environmentalist ap-proaches to environmental policy. Indeed, manylarge UK organisations, including Barclays andUnilever, seem to be limited to these approaches.Even where organisations like British Petroleum(BP) support green R&D and have explicit educa-tional objectives, their policy statements stop short ofmaking the sorts of commitments that will limitprofits. And the primary reason the managers ofcompanies like this give for not going further is thatthey have an obligation to shareholders to optimiseprofit. This means that, short of demanding a revo-lution in the capitalist system as it is currently con-stituted, the route to getting businesses to adoptenvironmental virtues is to change shareholder views.Our stories of the environment need to target them asmuch as the businesses themselves. Until this happensit will be difficult for these companies to embrace theecological ideals needed when cultivating the envi-ronmental virtues and the Quasi-environmental ap-proach to policy that would follow. Indeed, onlyorganisations that are brave enough to give as muchprominence to environmental objectives as profitwill be able to do this. At the moment, the fewcompanies that do this tend to be small, privatelyowned and operating in industries that are intrinsi-cally intertwined with environmental improvement.If we are to get more organisations to operatethrough the environmental virtues we need to con-vince large organisations and their shareholders totake this approach.

Conclusions

I have, then, presented a picture of two worlds, twoworlds that promote different virtues. One is theworld of business and science where enterprisingpeople go about putting huge effort into creatingchange and producing new innovative products andservices. People work to satisfy the markets and, atthe same time, act as consumers in those markets.Moreover, it is their duty to participate in thosemarkets. The other world, the world of the

Applying Stories of the Environment to Business 47

environment, is one where we realise that peoplecannot master everything and are actually part of anenvironmental community. Here, we work and livein an environment that we don’t fully understandand at times have to hold back from doing what wewant because we are not certain of its consequences.We have to learn before we act and this entails adifferent type of progress. We are no less eager tomove on, but we want to innovate in ways thatenhance our experience of being with the envi-ronment rather than conquering it.

These stories of two different worlds are bothpositive. They are both about making things better.However, it is important to realise that the domi-nance of the business narrative is having damagingeffects. It makes us blind to the situations where weharm the environment that we depend on. AsGlotfeltey (2001) shows us, our actions really doreflect dominant stories. Therefore, it is imperativethat we start to counter the dominance of the busi-ness narrative by introducing stories that will movepeople to see the environment in a different way.The message that we can have productive businessand a healthy environment is an important one.

We can see that there are moves to take theenvironment into account when doing business.Legislation and negative publicity ensures thatorganisations show at least a basic level of concernfor the environment and the UK government em-phasises the benefits to business of doing this. Still,we have seen that organisations are reluctant tomove to a position where environmental issues areof equal concern to profit. This is in part becausepeople have not yet accepted that the environment isreally that important. To get people in general, andshareholders in particular, to accept environmentalaims means that we need to put much more effortinto developing stories of the environment. Onlythen will people begin to move toward the Envi-ronmental Virtues.

References

Armbruster, K. and K. R. Wallace: 2001, Beyond NatureWriting: Expanding the Boundaries of Ecocriticism (Uni-versity Press of Virginia, Charlottesville).

BBC: 2000, Pollution Warning on Holiday FlightsBBC.co.uk, 5 July 2003.

Cafaro, P.: 2001, ‘Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson:Toward and Environmental Virtue Ethics’, Environ-mental Ethics 23(1), 3–18.

Carson, R.: 1962, Silent Spring (Fawcett World Library,New York).

Dawson, D. and C. Bartholomew: 2003, Virtues,Managers and Business People: Finding a Place forMacIntyre in a Business Context, Journal of BusinessEthics 48, 127–138.

De George, R. T.: 1999, Business Ethics (Prentice-Hall,New Jersey).

Dickinson, B.: 2000, ‘The Ethicist Conception of Envi-ronmental Problems’, Environmental Values 9, 127–152.

Dion, M.: 1998, ‘A Typology of Corporate Environ-mental Policies’, Environmental Ethics 20, 151–162.

Elliot, R.: 1995, Environmental Ethics (Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford).

Envirowise: 2000, Environmental Systems: How to Write anEnvironmental Policy Envirowise.gov.uk, 5 July 2003.

Foot, P.: 1978, Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in MoralPhilosophy (Blackwell, Oxford).

Foot, P.: 2001, Natural Goodness (Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford).

Fraz, G. B.: 1993, ‘Environmental Virtue Ethics’, Envi-ronmental Ethics 15(3), 259–286.

Gare, A.: 1998, ‘MacIntyre, Narratives, and Environ-mental Ethics’, Environmental Ethics 20(1), 3–21.

Glotfelty, C.: 2001, ‘Literary Place Bashing, Test SiteNevada’, in K. Armbruster, and K. R. Wallace: 2001Beyond Nature Writing: Expanding the Boundaries ofEcocriticism (University Press of Virginia, Charlottes-ville).

Harper, K. M.: 2001, ‘Chernobyl Stories and Anthro-pological Shock in Hungary’, Anthropological Quarterly74(3), 114–123.

Hauerwas, S. and C. Pinches: 1997, Christians Amongst theVirtues (University of Notre Dame Press, NotreDame).

Kearney, R.: 2001, On Stories (Routledge, London).King, R.: 1999, ‘Narrative, Imagination, and the Search

for Intelligibility in Environmental Ethics’, Ethics andthe Environment 4(1), 23–38.

Koehn, D.: 1995, ‘A Role for Virtue Ethics in theAnalysis of Business Practice’, Business Ethics Quarterly5(3), 533–539.

Leopold, A.: 1949, A Sand County Almanac and SketchesHere and There (Oxford University Press, New York).

MacIntyre, A.: 1985, After Virtue (Duckworth, London).MacIntyre, A.: 1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

(Duckworth, London).

48 David Dawson

MacIntyre, A.: 1990, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry(Duckworth, London).

MacIntyre, A.: 1999, Dependant Rational Animals (OpenCurt, Chicago).

Marchese, M., G. Bassham and J. Ryan: 2002,‘Work-Family Conflict: A Virtue Ethics Analysis’,Journal of Business Ethics 40, 145–154.

Meilander, G.: 1984, The Theory and Practice of Virtues(Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press,Indiana).

Morse, J.: 1999, ‘The Missing Link between VirtueTheory and Business Ethics’ Journal of Applied Philoso-phy 16(1), 47–58.

Murphy, P. E.: 1999, ‘Character and Virtue Ethics inInternational Marketing: An Agenda for Managers,Researchers and Educators,’ Journal of Business Ethics18, 107–124.

Nussbaum, M.: 2001, The Fragility of Goodness(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

Oakley, J. and D. Cocking: 2001, Virtue Ethics and Pro-fessional Roles (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge).

Preston, C.: 2001 ‘Intrinsic Value and Care: MakingConnections Through Ecological Narratives’, Envi-ronmental Values 10, 243–263.

Raglan, R. and M. Scholtmeijer 2001, ‘Heading Off theTrail: Language, Literature, and Nature’s Resistance toNarrative’ in Armbruster, K. and K. R. Wallace, 2001Beyond Nature Writing: Expanding the Boundaries ofEcocriticism (University Press of Virginia, Charlottes-ville).

Randels, G.: 1998, ‘The Contingency of Business: Nar-rative, Metaphor, and Ethics,’ Journal of Business Ethics17, 1299–1310.

Rosenthal, S. and R. A. Buchholz: 1998, ‘BridgingEnvironmental and Business Ethics: A PragmaticFramework,’ Environmental Ethics 20(4), 393–408.

Slote, M.: 1996, From Morality to Virtue (Oxford Uni-versity Press, Oxford).

Slote, M.: 2001, Morals from Motives (Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford).

Shaw, B.: 1997a, ‘A Virtue Ethics Approach to AldoLeopold’s Land Ethic’, Environmental Ethics 19(1), 53–68.

Shaw, B.: 1997b, ‘Sources of Virtue: The Market and theCommunity’, Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1), 33–50

Solomon, R. C.: 1992, Ethics and Excellence: Co-operationand Integrity in Business (Oxford University Press, NewYork).

Solomon, R. C.: 2000, ‘Business with Virtue: MaybeNext Year’ Business Ethics Quarterly 10(1) 339–331.

Solomon, R. C.: 2003, ‘Victims of Circumstances’,Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1) 43–62.

Swanton, C.: 2003, Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View(Clarendon Press, London).

Taylor, S., D. Fisher, and R.L. Dufresne, 2002, ‘TheAesthetics of Management Learning: A Key to Orga-nizational Learning’, Management Learning 33(3), 313–330.

Thoreau, H.: 1989, Walden (Princeton University Press,Princeton).

van Wensveen, L.: 2001, ‘Ecosystem Sustainability as aCriterion for Genuine Virtue’, Environmental Ethics 23,227–241.

Whetstone, J. T.: 2001, ‘How Virtue Fits Within Busi-ness Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 33, 101–114.

The Business School,University of Gloucestershire,

The Park Campus, PO Box 220,Cheltenham GL50 2QF,

U.K.E-mail: ddawson@glos.ac.uk

Applying Stories of the Environment to Business 49