Obviously, we can celebrate big oil getting in on the shift to a renewable resource or we can question their motives. We should remember that the reason biodiesel is so attractive is that it can be a regional resource. The real "harm" of the global corporations is undone when we get the idea into our heads that we need to localize our goods and services and globalize our hearts and minds.

So even as Big Oil jumps on the biodiesel bandwagon, the rest of us have to keep working towards reclaiming our local economies.

The motive of "big oil" is to make money. That's all there is to business - profit. Anyone who can recognize that without investing emotional energy into the notion (particularly FUD) should then realize that big oil doesn't care about oil at all, and if they can be sold on the idea of renewable carbon neutral energy resources, then they'll move it to market with great enthusiasm. But the next thing you have to realize is that big businesses like Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil aren't usually agile enough to do this in time with or ahead of consumer demand. That's why small to midsize companies (Valero anyone) are the place to look to if you want true change.

"That's all there is to business - profit."

That's not true. Plenty of businesses serve other purposes besides just making money. Cooperatives and non-profits are businesses, and plenty of for-profit businesses serve a purpose that goes beyond amoral pursuit of profit.

This website is one of those businesses, for example.

Joseph is right, though it is usually harder to pursue other purposes than profit for publicly traded companies.

Dr. David Suzuki and Holly Dressel have a good chapter about that in their book _Good News For a Change_.

"Joseph is right, though it is usually harder to pursue other purposes than profit for publicly traded companies."

That's going to depend on how control is allocated among owners. Google, for example, has a different stock class for its founders and top management which gives them far more voting power than shares which were sold to the public.

Or you could look at a company like UPS, which was essentially an employee-owned company before its IPO, and limited public ownership to a very small portion of total ownership.

There's also the situation of one or a small group of people holding a majority or sizable minority of shares such that it gives them effective total control.

So even if a company is public, it's possible to maintain varying degrees of control such that simple profit pursuit isn't the objective.

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that the basic notion that a business exists simply to maximize profits is also false. Every company faces investment opportunities with varying rates of return. But they don't always simply choose those with the highest returns since that usually means greater risk. Plenty of companies exist (eg, "blue chips") whose main funciton is predictability of returns as opposed to the pursuit of maximum profit. With the recent change in tax treatment to dividends, this actually encourages more conservative approaches to capital allocation by public companies.

Very true, and I agree with the general substance, but the companies you mentions are more or less exceptions (which might be part of the reason why they are so successful).

In general, I'd say that shareholders don't mind it when corporations try to "do the right thing" as long as the money is good, but as soon as things are going badly, they will often replace the "do gooders" on the board with ruthless individuals.

"In general, I'd say that shareholders don't mind it when corporations try to 'do the right thing' as long as the money is good, but as soon as things are going badly, they will often replace the 'do gooders' on the board with ruthless individuals."

I didn't mean to imply that "doing the right thing" was the only thing that businesses may do (or function for) besides pursuing profit. It's certainly one possible thing, but there are plenty of others. One could think of things like sports teams, or the Experience Music Project, or anything really. Being financially sustainable is what keeps a business going, but as you know, that doesn't mean that the only function of a business must be to make profits. To me that kind of statement is like saying the only reason humans do anything is for sex. Or money. In reality, we have complex motivations, goals, etc, just like businesses do.

Some businesses, for example, exist primarily for the sake of providing good jobs. It really just depends.

And when you speak about owners of publicly-traded corporations, the same sorts of things apply. It really depends on who the owners are, who has the power, and what their motivations are. But I agree at this point, investments remain, by-and-large, amoral. And that's why that generalization about "all they exist for is to make profit" tends to make sense for some people, even though the reality is far more complex than that.

This is actually something I've studied in depth for quite some time, because one of my main concerns is how to design onwership structures such that a firm can persist with integrity for a long period of time, even though a founder may not have bankrolled the whole thing, or a core group (or individual) who provides the initial vision moves on, passes away, etc. Seeing how many socially-conscious businesses slowly morph away from their original approaches once they get taken over has been instructive in this regard. Even if you get past the "socially-conscious" filter, you can see it all kinds of businesses which changed their fundamental character after an IPO, or when owners make changes to push out founders, etc.

This is all very important because at some point environmental sustainability has to blend completely with human welfare (including the total pursuit of happiness and freedom), as well as capitalism in general. Things aren't going to change for the better if we just leave things up to "free hands" or if the "socially conscious" sit outside the game and decry its naked lack of values, ruthlessness, and so on.

Of course corporations will enter a business to make money. Why would they going into a business to lose money.
I don't pay work for my boss all day for free and at the end of the day pay him $50 for being there. Also corporations and individual that make lots of money are usually the most generous. A corporation or individual that has no money can't be a philanthropist.

"Also corporations and individual that make lots of money are usually the most generous. A corporation or individual that has no money can't be a philanthropist."

True, but if they made their money destroying the Earth and exploiting humans and animals, there's very little chance that their philanthropy will balance it out...

"Of course corporations will enter a business to make money. Why would they going into a business to lose money."

You're logically constricting the possibilities. The fact that one doesn't pursue profit as the sole motivation doesn't mean that one has "gone into business to lose money". It simply means that profit-seeking (or profit-maximizing) isn't the sole purpose, as the original statement asserted.

"I don't pay work for my boss all day for free and at the end of the day pay him $50 for being there."

Ha - that's ironic. It reminds me of one two consecutive shifts I ran as a cabbie when I ended up losing money for 10+ hours of work. But my bosses (the owners of my cab) sure got paid by me, just like they always do.

Strippers, hairdressers, and other types of workers also face similar risks if business is slow on a given day.

"Also corporations and individual that make lots of money are usually the most generous."

There's no way to make that conclusion without data.

"A corporation or individual that has no money can't be a philanthropist."

So? What's your point?

It's an old way of thinking that the the only way to do good things in the world is to do bad things to it first, then take a little slice of the profits from doing that and turn around and try to ameliorate some of the damage you just caused.

It's strange to be on a site called "Treehugger" and deny that businesses can stay in business and make the world a better place at the same time.

Aside: Kudos! While I'm a regular reader of Treehugger and would have eventually seen this article here, I read about this entry at the CBC.

"It's strange to be on a site called "Treehugger" and deny that businesses can stay in business and make the world a better place at the same time."

I totally agree. My own hopes are to see BIG oil broken up and have it replaced by small regional biodiesel, wind, hydorgen and solar. That's why I read this site every day.

What I'm objecting to is the notion that a corporation or an individual is wrong because they enter a new market to make a "profit".
I've never met an individual who says that they are going to start a business so that they can lose their shorts. It's the same with oil companies. They are not going to enter the biodiesel market unless it is profitable.

"What I'm objecting to is the notion that a corporation or an individual is wrong because they enter a new market to make a 'profit'."

OK... but did anyone actually take that position in the post or in this thread?

"I've never met an individual who says that they are going to start a business so that they can lose their shorts."

I'm sure that's true, but as I said, having reasons other than (or in addition to) pursuing profit doesn't mean that one starts a business to "lose one's shorts". But there are certainly people who start businesses knowing full well they'll lose money (eg, non-profits, pet projects of billionaires, etc).

"It's the same with oil companies. They are not going to enter the biodiesel market unless it is profitable."

OK... but again, I don't see what that has to do with what's being discussed. I think most people understand that business decisions generally follow the "gotta make money" rule, but that's a far cry from saying "that's all there is to business - profit". In fact, businesses that seek profit without ethical considerations sometimes even know full well a pursuit in and of itself may never make money, since they may have ulterior (or systemic) reasons for doing something.

Certainly you're familiar with the retail concept of "loss leaders", right? It's along the same lines of this, in the sense that the business knows they'll never make money selling them, but the function is perhaps drive customers to their store so they can then purchase things that are profitable.

PR is also a money loser as a marginal business decision, but it's often used to deal with negative notions about a company, thus stopping greater losses that would occur if a bad reputation were to snowball.

Joseph,

I think that I took the first few comments as saying that big oil should stay out of biodiesel since they only want to make a profit, upon rereading them I realize that I missread them.
I do agree with what you are saying though. Good corporations should be more then money making machines, they should be stewards of the land and also the benefactors of their employees and communities. Profit is not all , however GM and Ford may not be able to give to their charitable foundations too much longer....

Studies have shown that in general less well off people give more money to charity percentage-wise than richer people and corporations.

Robert, I made the statement that the sole purpose of business was profit, and I stand by that as 100% accurate with all my capitalist heart. Nietzsche said it best when he quipped that "in individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." Expecting large corporations like ExxonMobil to act with the same individual sense of responsibility as the twenty or so people who make up TreeHugger is unreasonable if not naive. After a certain number of people, companies only respond positively the bottom line. Therefore, it's up to consumers as individuals to make those kinds of decisions, and let corporations read their bottom lines for a sense of direction. Also, by that same logic, getting mad at some multi-national corporation for polluting makes about as much sense as getting mad at a table because you stubbed your toe on it. Not that I haven't punched my fair share of coffee tables...

"Robert, I made the statement that the sole purpose of business was profit, and I stand by that as 100% accurate with all my capitalist heart."

It's because you don't know the first thing about business and are merely parroting some cliche which is totally false, and continue to do so despite being shown how clearly wrong that belief is.

"After a certain number of people, companies only respond positively the bottom line."

That's pure horseshit. Yes, money needs to be made to perpetuate an enterprise, but rarely is it the sole motivating factor for decisions.

A country club is a business. Does it exist simply to make a profit?

Ben & Jerry's is a business. Does it exist simply to make a profit?

UPS is a business. Does it exist simply to make a profit?

Many churches are businesses. Do they exist to simply to make a profit?

Co-ops are businesses. Do they exist simply to make a profit?

Non-profits are businesses. Do they exist simply to make a profit?

The Experience Music Project is a business. Does it exist simply to make a profit?

The list is endless and any single one of those examples disproves your silly thesis. Quoting Nietzsche won't help your poor argument. Nor will turning to Niebuhr, who explored the dynamics of individual versus group behavior and morality much more deeply than Nietzsche.

Stop trying to "educate" the "poor misguided hippies" about "hard-nosed reality" with simplistic claptrap.