Consider environmental/social responsibility? (in job hunt)

Question

Business Week Article:

Green Isn't Gold for MBAs 
A good environmental reputation doesn't make the grade when it comes to rating a company as a prospective employer, a new study finds.

A company's record on environmental issues ranked at the bottom of factors MBAs are using to select employers, according to a study released Jan. 16 by the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton. Also close to the bottom were other so-called company value issues such as corporate ethics, social responsibility, and community involvement...

https://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/jan2008/bs20080115_911253.htm?chan=bschools_bschool+index+page_top+stories

What's your take? Would you consider environmental issues, ethics, social responsibility, etc. when deciding on a company to work for?

I certainly would, but I'm looking at sustainability/entrepreneur concentrations.

I like to think that we are the group who will encourage social and sustainable change!

Funny... literally as I write this, I'm listening to an Esurance commerical touting their paperless application which is "green for the environment and puts green in you wallet."

I see so much opportunity in the green movement - sustainability from not only an environmental perspective, but from a revenue perspective too.

kryzak · Answer

I sure would, but it's kind of sad to hear that all those criteria are at the bottom of the list...

togafoot · Answer

i think a harvard professor put it succinctly when he said that business schools have changed from developing future corporate leaders, to an industry of putting people into high paid I-banking and consultancy jobs. Arguing that the schools are no longer doing what they should be doing.

riverripper · Answer

I am planning on doing something that is with an environmental slant (though some people would definitely argue that). Of course I also realize that even with an MBA I will be towards the bottom of a large company’s structure and my impact on corporate policy will be extremely limited. A place where I can grow into a senior roll that will then allow you to have an impact on how a company runs is very important. Not only do I want a successful career (I think we all want that) but by doing so I hope that I can do something positive. I wont make what an IB makes but at the same time I know that personally I will get much more satisfaction out of my career if I know I did something that is a greater benefit to my children than a large trust fund...If I happen to make a lot of money later in life, my kids will have every advantage in terms of education but they aren't going to inherit so much that they wont have to earn their own way through life.

I could very happily live with my lifestyle right now with my current salary and post MBA I will be making more than I am now as long as I dont go work for a non-profit. I think that having a legacy beyond being a guy who made a ton of money would be more rewarding. That said it is possible to be a banker and still do a lot of good, you can do socially conscious investments or fund environmental startups...there are plenty of ways to combine banking with aultruistic goals. If I could score a position like that, I would definitely consider it.

I could very happily live with my lifestyle right now with my current salary and post MBA I will be making more than I am now as long as I dont go work for a non-profit. I think that having a legacy beyond being a guy who made a ton of money would be more rewarding. That said it is possible to be a banker and still do a lot of good, you can do socially conscious investments or fund environmental startups...there are plenty of ways to combine banking with aultruistic goals. If I could score a position like that, I would definitely consider it.

gmatclb · Answer

It's not surprising.

Sure, if everything's equal, most would choose the socially responsible company, but most would choose the sexier job.

pandeyrav · Answer

What an irony considering the lengths B-schools go to to admit "socially-responsible leaders".

solaris1 · Answer

Indeed.

And unfortunately socially responsible investing doesn't "pay" as much either.

Case in point:
 https://www.calvert.com/funds_profile.html?fund=933&keepleftnav=Fund%20Profiles

jwiner · Answer

River,

You make some excellent points. As MBA grads, many of us will hold senior positions at large corporations (eventually), with the power to make positive social and environmental change. I believe that as the market demands "greener" enterprise, environmentalism will become what globalization is now - a necessity to survival (i.e. Auto company initiatives - the success of the Prius). In fact, I believe Globalization will actual encourage the "green revolution". Just think about the waste in the following example: The company I work for makes brake pads. We make the "friction material" in the US (used to make the whole thing hear). Send the friction material to the Best Cost Country (Read: SE Asia), stamp into the backing plate, and ship back to the States. Sounds like a case study to me...

In addition, the entrepreneurial possibilities are endless! In fact, I just launched a web-site:  https://www.getoffthebottle.org  (shameless plug...) an environmental awareness organization. It's not going to make me rich, but the experience I gain could snowball into anything (plus, I can't imagine it looks bad in my application process!).

The reason I posted this, is because I see so many people who work 70, 80, 90+ hours a week to take home a huge salary. The more they make, they more they work - and the less they see their family, and do the things they enjoy. I would take a significant pay cut if it meant working for an organization whose values I share, and where I feel I am doing more than lining the pockets of share-holder and/or clients!

Ok... Sorry for the rant. Nothing against IB'rs, I swear!

solaris1 · Answer

great initiative with the website, jwiner. +1!

Praetorian · Answer

The notion that paperless is green is a little misguided. Servers and computers do not run on air - real electricity generated by real fossil fuels using tons of gallons of water. if these servers are housed in a data center, these need major cooling systems.

Just a detour: The real problem is the paradox of efficiency and the notion of materialism as a symbol of quality of life - we are all guilty of it. As things become more affordable, more people use them. 15 years ago, think of how everything worked. Today, it is very likely that in an average family, most members of the family have cell phones, two computers - desktop and laptop, two cars, we eat out more often, we shop at supermarkets instead of the farmers market and there are frequent upgrades with everything.

Ethanol is yet another mirage, but I digress.

I consider Nabil Nasr at Rochester to be one of the few experts on sustainability.

https://www.sustainability.rit.edu/

A Threat So Big, Academics Try Collaboration
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/busin ... oref=login

The Eco-Advantage
Introducing the Green 50, a collection of entrepreneurial companies that are showing what it means to run good businesses, attack the most pressing problems of our time--and make serious cash along the way.
https://www.inc.com/magazine/20061101/green50_intro.html

Sustainability at MIT
https://sustainability.mit.edu/Main_Page

riverripper · Answer

This is why nuclear power combined with electric cars and electric heat for homes is going to be the future. Its the only constantly available source that can be made on a large enough scale in all areas to really be feasible, France is the perfect example for the what we should be aiming for (80%+ of their power is from nuc plants). At least that is how I view it and is why that is my post grad career path. Gonna be fun joining all those environmental groups at b-school with that line of thinking though...then again a lot of environmental people are starting to see that its the lesser of two evils. Nuclear power vs fossil fuels such as the newly advertised "Clean Coal" There is a reason power companies are starting to submit applications for new reactors and some are utilities are strongly pushing congress for stricter emissions since those that have a lot of nuc plants would have a huge competitive advantage.

I am also a huge fan of insanely high gas taxes, we complain about $3 a gallon, what would people do when its $7 a gallon. Maybe then people will dream of a 120hp diesel hybrid hatchback that gets 85mpg instead of a V8 Hummer H2. You would then see more people in NYC on vespas than in excalades on 24".

I am also a huge fan of insanely high gas taxes, we complain about $3 a gallon, what would people do when its $7 a gallon. Maybe then people will dream of a 120hp diesel hybrid hatchback that gets 85mpg instead of a V8 Hummer H2. You would then see more people in NYC on vespas than in excalades on 24".

jwiner · Answer

Praetorian, first, who said that paperless is green? Maybe I missed something in this thread. Second, the computers and servers we use will be running regardless of whether or not we print emails, documents, "junk mail", newspapers, etc. Yes, we are all guilty of over-materialism. Unfortunatley the rest of the world is trying to emulate our (The U.S.) attitude. There is an extremely interesting book about this - Deep Economy by Bill Mckibben. I reccomend reading it. It offers an excellent different perspective. River - I am not very well informed on nuclear power... One concern that comes to mind is the tremendous amount of fresh water required for cooling... We are running out of fresh water faster than we are running out of oil! Ya gotta love steam as the only emission though (as long as there isnt a melt down!) Neither does investing in automotive, housing, banking... Sounds like a recession! Thanks! It's a work in progress! Let me know if you want to buy a shirt! :-D

Aaudet - chime in on this one! I'd like to hear your thoughts!

kryzak · Answer

I'm all for Nuclear energy, especially with the way France does it by utilizing 97-98% of the nuclear fuel. I think the only reason the attitude in the US is so negative about nuclear energy is because of Chernobyl, fear and misinformation, gov't worried about over-refined fuel (good for nukes if smuggled out), and old technology (that doesn't recycle as many times).

I'm personally getting a diesel turbo when it comes out, probably from Audi.

I'm personally getting a diesel turbo when it comes out, probably from Audi.

riverripper · Answer

You actually dont need freshwater, the ones on the coast are cooled by sea water. Most major cities are built on major bodies of water (oceans, very large lakes, and huge rivers). Many nuc plants dont have the huge cooling towers you see in the images, they pump water in and then back out. In a large body of water or river they do not affect the overall temperature except in the immediate area of the discharge. The cooling water never is in contact with anything contaminated so it is exactly what went in, just a little warmer...coolant discharges on the ocean are actually great fishing spots since they are rich in algae and plankton which baitfish are attracted to, which in turn attracts predators.

Remember a nuc plant operates on the same principle as a coal plant or oil plant, the only difference is what provides the heat. Both use steam turbines to power the generators and that steam has to be condensed in either a condensor on a body of water or in a large cooling tower. Gas turbine plants (natural gas) dont require steam gens but they are usually built with them otherwise they would be wasteful because all the heat content of the exhaust gases would just go in to the air.

New plants are passively safe, meaning you could know exactly how to operate the plant and purposely attempt to cause a meltdown and it wouldnt allow it. This is not done by computers in the new plants, its done by the design of the phyical plant (hydrodynamics beyond all but very geeky peoples understanding).

Also fuel can be reprocessed, this returns about 95% of the energy back to the fuel. Imagine filling your car with gas, but 95% of what goes into the engine can be use again. So after you put 10 gallons to fill your car you only ever have to put another half gallon in to top it off after you drive 300 miles. This also drastically reduces the waste produced...but its not all that popular since it does have a few nasty left overs when you reprocess. Namely weapons grade plutonium.

Interesting note on peoples perception that nuclear power plants are bad for people that live nearby. Did you know that people living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to significantly higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations (close to 100X). Since coal contains uranium, thorium, and other radiological elements when it burns some goes into the air and the rest goes into the ash that is collected.

Hows this for scary, coal plants actually release more uranium into the environment in a year than is consumed in nuclear power plants. It is actually possible for coal ash to be refined for nuclear materials if someone really wanted to. So if some nut job has access to processing facilities but no uranium ore, all he needs is a real lot of coal ash which people would probably gladly give him since its a waste product.

solaris1 · Answer

Very interesting riverripper. But what do you with spent fuel, surely just dumping it somewhere in a bunker in Nevada or Montana isn't a very good idea?

I think one other reason nuclear power has never really caught on politically is because the US simply does NOT have the technology to cost-effectively reprocess spent fuel and would probably need to engage a foreign (read French) partner to participate in this. Obviously no one with even a remote shot at a political position will ever want to do this - just consider the brouhaha created by the proposed sale of a few port assets to Dubai.

jwiner · Answer

That, and our gov't administration has a vested interest in Big Oil.

Amen to that! I'd love a new clean burning turbo-diesel!!!

River - what about Solar and Wind energy? I understand that solar is expensive right now, and we cannot completly off-set our energy demand with these completly renewable resources, but I really feel we need to make a bigger effort. I know this is the competition to your intended career path, but it makes more sense to me!

I've read that our current energy grids are extremely inefficient (with any energy source they are transmitting) in that the MAJORITY of the energy that leaves an energy facility has been consumed in the transportation process before it reaches a home/business/etc. An argument has been made that as opposed to a few power plants supplying power throughout an entire state or region, smaller regionalizaed facilites would be more effective (of course you run into the problem of NIMBY - Not In My BackYard). Bill Mckibben talks about all of this in Deep Economy (I know, I sound like I work for the publisher!), as well as how homes with solar roofs and low consumption could actually put energy back into the grid (as in watch that energy gauge go backwards!)

Sweden has just announced that they will be fossil-fuel free by 2020. A quarter of there energy already comes from other resources (Hydro, Wind, Nuclear). They have committed to reaching 100% without building more Nuclear plants - using only clean, renewable resources like wind and wave.

Brazil is 100% energy independant - however they rely on bio-diesel, not very efficient at this time.

riverripper · Answer

I like wind and solar but they can never be utilized on a large scale everywhere. You arent going to put a solar array up north where sun isnt overhead all year round or in areas where it is overcast most of the time like the Pacific Northwest. Wind only works when its windy out, also a 500ft turbine that takes up a huge area cause it has to be able to spin to face the wind only generates a few megawatts. A large nuc plant is 1400megawatts. Dams destroy fishing habitat and are far worse for the environment. The best option is tidal turbines (basically windmills you place in the ocean and let the tides spin them instead of wind but those arent really practical yet and wont be for years.

As for nuclear waste, yes that is a huge concern but think nuclear power didnt exist 70 years ago and now look at where we are. If the government spends the billions on researching solutions that they waste in other areas like subsidizing ethanol that is incredibly inefficient, we can come up with a much better solution. Storage in Yucca mountain is a great idea but no one wants it in their backyard. The containers will last for thousands of years and its in solid rock so its not going to leak into the ground even if in 10,000 years they do fail. Besides by that point 1,000 half lifes will have passed so there is going to be nothing left thats radioactive. The government could easily build a large reprocessing program in a decade. France actually ships their fuel to Russia to be reprocessed.

helpslip · Answer

Hi, I think that actually Brazil's anti-petro program is based on Ethanol. One source of info about CSR (and environmental) consciousness in MBA programs is: https://www.beyondgreypinstripes.org/index.cfm , another is https://www.netimpact.org/ and https://www.netimpact.org/displaycommon. ... lenbr=1020 Help!

Praetorian · Answer

oh, I was just responding to the idea of green presented in the esurance commercial.

This was more about companies - I was talking about corporations who claim they are green because they go paperless. When companies talk about going green, it needs to be a cradle to grave type assessment.

To give you an example, it is like the green image of the Prius - oh the hype. You know what is really green? Drive less , consume less, live with less.

This is an excellent thread. I see some fresh faces participating regularly - it always spices things up in the knowledge sharing department.

thanks everyone

solaris1 · Answer

aha...I was under the impression a French company (Areva?) was doing most of the spent fuel reprocessing for the French and German plants.

Consider environmental/social responsibility? (in job hunt)

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards