Are human sustainability policies any less vital for a 21st Century organization than environmental ones? While the surface effects may not be so obvious, the impact on society can be huge. As pace-setting companies and cultures re-optimise toward ‘higher order fundamentals’ like human prosperity; well-being, happiness, satisfaction – employee health becomes a crucial conversation to have.
Why does employee health receive so little consideration then, when examining sustainability policies in organizations? Most studies (and policies) focus on environmental sustainability. Of course eco-efficiency is and should be one of the very foremost concerns of our generation – but so too should human prosperity and ergo employee health. Some sustainability studies would have us believe, in terms of research attention, and also as a focus of company initiatives – that polar bears, for example, are more important than people.
The issues faced by companies that adopt environmental sustainability policies should be considered as parallel to those that focus on ‘human sustainability’. They are as important. Currently though, while companies have recently increased their efforts to become more energy efficient and environmentally conscious – going so far as to appoint eco-managers and even publicly report carbon emission – similar efforts focused on people are not nearly as widespread.
One of the key indicators of human sustainability in an organization is the health status of the work force. Company decisions can impact employee health and well-being for better or for worse. Those decisions can include:
One of the reasons ‘human sustainability’ has received less emphasis than environmental sustainability is that the consequences are so much more visible. We notice the results of organizational action on the physical environment. “You can see the ice bergs melting, polar bears stranded, forests cut down…” says Pfeffer. On the other hand, reduced life expectancy and poorer physical and mental health are often hidden from view.
Concerns about protecting an organization’s human resources should be just as important as concerns for protecting natural resources. Though there may be some short-term savings as a result of not providing health insurance, laying people off, paying inadequate wages, etc., in the long run there will be extra costs of increased physical and psychological illness that fall on the broader health system.
Just as “green” companies enjoy reputational benefits, companies with better records of human sustainability will enjoy similar benefits too, including:
Just as protecting the surrounding environment is the intelligent thing for an organisation to do to ensure its long-term future, so too is protecting its surrounding human society.
Ideas for Leaders is a free-to-access site. If you enjoy our content and find it valuable, please consider subscribing to our Developing Leaders Quarterly publication, this presents academic, business and consultant perspectives on leadership issues in a beautifully produced, small volume delivered to your desk four times a year.
For the less than the price of a coffee a week you can read over 650 summaries of research that cost universities over $1 billion to produce.
Use our Ideas to:
Speak to us on how else you can leverage this content to benefit your organization. email@example.com