The “profit vs planet” framing is convenient and wrong. In practice, much sustainability work is simply operational sanity with improved branding.
Consider:
- Cutting energy waste
- Reducing material loss and scrap
- Designing longer‑lasting products to reduce warranty and service costs
- Avoiding regulatory fines and legal messes
None of that is anti‑profit. It is literally a margin improvement dressed as climate virtue.
Climate‑project guidance from groups like ClimateSeed and South Pole is explicit: carbon credits and related tools should complement, not replace, real emissions reductions and efficiency work, and can be integrated into a broader strategy that supports long‑term competitiveness.
So instead of asking “How much profit do we sacrifice for sustainability?”, try:
- What sustainability actions have positive or neutral NPV? Efficiency, improved logistics, and renewable procurement with fair contracts.
- What actions are essentially risk insurance? Relocating vulnerable assets, diversifying suppliers, and strengthening compliance. These don’t always show up as big immediate returns, but they shrink tail‑risk.
- What genuinely costs us in the short term? Some deep decarbonization or resilience moves will hurt near‑term earnings. Those require conscious trade‑offs and good storytelling to investors.
You’re not finding a mystical “balance” between greed and virtue. You’re sorting interventions into:
- No‑brainer value‑creating
- Risk‑mitigating / option‑creating
- Genuinely sacrificial
Then you decide, as adults, how much of the third bucket you’re willing to do.