Should green mandates alter supply and demand? (part one)

Should individual states mandate that government offices and schools use only green cleaning products? That decision presents a tightrope to walk especially when almost every business, municipality and individual employed at the state and local level is watching spending like never before. On the other hand there is a common interest and expectation from citizens that local government bodies are acting in the best interests of the public at large. The reality is that in ten US states the mandates already exist after being passed in 2009 and more may follow. Critics and cynics are complaining that financially desperate governments should be looking to save money at every juncture rather than in some cases purchasing a more expensive certified green cleaning product.

Time to be objective, if you take a state that has passed such legislation lets choose Illinois for example, you can find balance in the overall positive as a result of a state approving green policies such as these. Illinois has almost 13 million residents and a state budget that is earmarked for $53 billion for 2010, that makes for an economy larger than many European nations. When spending per resident is almost $4100 is anyone convinced that paying an additional 5-10% for cleaning products that are environmentally friendly is causing any significant fiscal harm to the state of Illinois? As giant corporations and smaller local business are seeing the value in becoming more green so should our elected bodies. Politicians run on such principles and voters form their expectations around the elected officials. When taking measure of consumers, customers or the public it is sound business to make decisions that display responsibility toward the environment we live in. We applaud businesses that are making responsible choices when choosing suppliers and vendors therefore government should on a case by case basis also act accordingly.

Back to the example at hand; looking at what is at stake as assessed by lawmakers. The health of students and state employees can be at greater risk due to the harsh chemicals currently often being used. Democratic Rep. Cory Mason, sponsor of a bill in Wisconsin said

“The goal of the bill is to make schools and other public space less toxic and healthier for kids and the general public,”

That sounds like a good reason to make a law, but in these politically charged times penny pinching and party loyalty is causing debate to rankle principles. Legislation and vetoes become the common outcome rather than greater good and societal impact, the onus is being missed however in that the environment should be considered if the pricing is competitive. Moreover the ultimate goal should be comparable pricing, critics suggest that a green product shouldn’t cost a penny more than the product it is to replace. While that is a noble goal it also suggests the least expensive option is by default the best option. If that was indeed the case  we probably wouldn’t have the environmental damage we currently do. If cheaper is better then disposable plastics would be the ultimate goal. If cheaper is better products that are inefficient and don’t last for very long would be the only ones in demand.This story is an interesting one, part two will follow soon.

Corporate Social Responsibility isn’t about cutting corners and saving pennies. It is about looking at longer term planning, impacts and contributing via business to a more sustainable future for both the planet and our economy. Governments should follow these same principles.