And I think the word that leads to both is responsibility.

You are behaving responsible if the social profit of your business exceeds its cost.

You are behaving responsible if you minimize the footprint your business leaves behind.

Why is this something that people feel should be discussed? Because the laws and regulations were made before we had any awareness of the fact that pollution has a very long-term effect? It seems that way, and only when public opinion threatens to affect the bottom-line companies feel obliged to take action. The current green movement is just as much a marketing trend as the next thing but at least we are neutralizing our carbon footprint. It’s just too bad that there are all these other possible footprints that are not in the public eye.

For example, the electric company trying to sell me green power, but I still have a choice, when they’re convinced that is the best way, why leave us a choice at all? Or why doesn’t the government use the huge percentage of tax on our energy usage to make it ‘green’?

Same goes for social profitability; a business that can only thrive by exacting a cost on its social surroundings is not thriving at all; its costs are bigger than its  profits. The gambling industry comes to mind for example.

I do understand that it’s very hard to determine what the social profits and costs of doing business are, at least in some cases. The Salvation Army for example, probably has a bigger social profit than cost, while a gambling club does not gain anyone but the owners anything. For all the businesses in between things can be more grey, but it being grey is no excuse for exacting it anyway.