The same collectively shared values that contribute to fulfilling interpersonal relationships
are the basis for the Economy for the Common Good: confidence building, cooperation,
appreciation, democracy, solidarity. Scientific research proves that fulfilling interpersonal
relationships constitute a key factor to happiness and motivation (Economy for the
Common Good 2010a).
Following from this are the basic paradigmatic changes that lead away from
contrapetition to cooperation, from profit to common good output, and from market
control to democratic decision-making. This is not to be confused with the socialist
centrally planned state that Felber believes suffocated individual freedom. It is also
not about prohibiting asocial business conduct but simply stopping the incentivization of it and making it instead the more difficult solution under an altered
institutional framework. Thus the overall idea is to change the default setting so that
unsustainable behavior, like the externalization of social and environmental costs, is
no longer a competitive advantage. Behavioral economics is full of such ideas and
has coined the term ‘nudging’ for non-regulatory interventions in which the
architecture of choice makes sustainable behavior easier rather than harder.
Supporting evidence on the anti-sustainability impact of the current default has
been delivered by the Global Compact—Accenture CEO Study on Sustainability
cited above.
Changing accounting rules to internalize environmental and social costs thus
seems to be an obvious leverage point that would allow plenty of disruptive innovations to drive ‘dirty’ competitors out of markets while at the same time incentivizing efficiency technology breakthroughs. However, the question remains: can
endless exchange value competition for private profit remain as the overarching goal
of business and lead to sustainable systems? The answer given by the Economy for
the Common Good movement is clearly negative and their prototype for new balance sheets is far more encompassing. As principle 3 states, “economic success will
no longer be measured with (monetary) exchange value indicators, but with
(non-monetary) use value indicators” (Economy for the Common Good 2010a).
As a consequence, similar indicators for business and societal performance can
align bottom-up and top-down initiatives toward the new purpose on which
economies should deliver:
On the macroeconomic level (national economy) the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will
be replaced—as an indicator of success—by the Common Good Product. On the microeconomic level (company) the financial balance sheet will be replaced by the Common Good
Balance Sheet (CGBS). The CGBS becomes the main balance sheet of all companies. The
more companies act and organize themselves along social, ecological and democratic lines,
the more solidarity they display, the better will be the results of their Common Good
Balance Sheet. The better the CGBS results of the companies within a national economy,
the higher its Common Good Product (Economy for the Common Good 2010a).
The genesis of this movement came from 70 businesses that started reporting
with the first CGBS in 2010. By mid-2015 the number of companies had risen to
1811, in addition to 232 clubs, six communes or regions and over 6000 individual
supporters. An interactive map of the network can be found on the website www.
ecogood.org. The initial experiences of the pioneers has led to slight modifications
124
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice
are the basis for the Economy for the Common Good: confidence building, cooperation,
appreciation, democracy, solidarity. Scientific research proves that fulfilling interpersonal
relationships constitute a key factor to happiness and motivation (Economy for the
Common Good 2010a).
Following from this are the basic paradigmatic changes that lead away from
contrapetition to cooperation, from profit to common good output, and from market
control to democratic decision-making. This is not to be confused with the socialist
centrally planned state that Felber believes suffocated individual freedom. It is also
not about prohibiting asocial business conduct but simply stopping the incentivization of it and making it instead the more difficult solution under an altered
institutional framework. Thus the overall idea is to change the default setting so that
unsustainable behavior, like the externalization of social and environmental costs, is
no longer a competitive advantage. Behavioral economics is full of such ideas and
has coined the term ‘nudging’ for non-regulatory interventions in which the
architecture of choice makes sustainable behavior easier rather than harder.
Supporting evidence on the anti-sustainability impact of the current default has
been delivered by the Global Compact—Accenture CEO Study on Sustainability
cited above.
Changing accounting rules to internalize environmental and social costs thus
seems to be an obvious leverage point that would allow plenty of disruptive innovations to drive ‘dirty’ competitors out of markets while at the same time incentivizing efficiency technology breakthroughs. However, the question remains: can
endless exchange value competition for private profit remain as the overarching goal
of business and lead to sustainable systems? The answer given by the Economy for
the Common Good movement is clearly negative and their prototype for new balance sheets is far more encompassing. As principle 3 states, “economic success will
no longer be measured with (monetary) exchange value indicators, but with
(non-monetary) use value indicators” (Economy for the Common Good 2010a).
As a consequence, similar indicators for business and societal performance can
align bottom-up and top-down initiatives toward the new purpose on which
economies should deliver:
On the macroeconomic level (national economy) the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will
be replaced—as an indicator of success—by the Common Good Product. On the microeconomic level (company) the financial balance sheet will be replaced by the Common Good
Balance Sheet (CGBS). The CGBS becomes the main balance sheet of all companies. The
more companies act and organize themselves along social, ecological and democratic lines,
the more solidarity they display, the better will be the results of their Common Good
Balance Sheet. The better the CGBS results of the companies within a national economy,
the higher its Common Good Product (Economy for the Common Good 2010a).
The genesis of this movement came from 70 businesses that started reporting
with the first CGBS in 2010. By mid-2015 the number of companies had risen to
1811, in addition to 232 clubs, six communes or regions and over 6000 individual
supporters. An interactive map of the network can be found on the website www.
ecogood.org. The initial experiences of the pioneers has led to slight modifications
124
4 Mapping an Emerging New Economic Paradigm in Practice