Climate Corner: Profit, people, planet

Mar 8, 2025

Jean Ambrose

editorial@newsandsentinel.com

Is it true that government should be run more like a business? This seems to be a given these days, but it couldn’t be further from the truth.

The goal of a business is straightforward: to return a monetary profit to its owners or shareholders. The objectives are clear and simple.

However, the goals of government — our government — are not as easily defined. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution outlines our national purpose: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare. Nowhere in our national purpose statement do we find efficiency or profit as objectives. Rather, the Constitution describes how we will make decisions together to achieve these ambitious goals.

Our Founding Fathers set forth a challenge: to balance multiple, often competing, priorities. Running a democratic government successfully requires a level of competence, experience and intelligence far beyond that needed to run a business. The general welfare of the people does not lend itself to the cheapest option possible. If “We the People” truly means all the people, then ensuring access to health care, education, housing, nutrition and safety is not just a financial decision — it is a shared commitment to long-term prosperity and a resilient nation.

While such a mandate from the past requires resources, an unhealthy, uneducated and unskilled population is no asset to a nation. Smart governments invest in their people and their environment with confidence that the general welfare and prosperity will be strengthened, just as smart businesses invest in research and development. The current obsession with slashing government spending is akin to taking a chainsaw to our Constitution instead of making thoughtful, measured adjustments. Using efficiency as the primary benchmark for government success ignores its fundamental responsibilities. A better approach — the Triple Bottom Line — considers more than just cost reduction.

The Triple Bottom Line concept, introduced by John Elkington over 25 years ago, holds that sustainable decision-making requires balancing three key pillars: People, Planet and Profit. Including social and environmental considerations alongside financial factors provides a more accurate picture of an organization’s true impact. Yet, economic priorities often overshadow the other two, putting long-term sustainability at risk.

Many businesses have come to embrace this philosophy, endeavoring to ensure that their economic decisions actively support human and environmental interests rather than harm them. They have successfully integrated social impact initiatives into their business models, and they expect places where they operate to have similar ambitions. Examples include Ben and Jerry’s, LEGO, Mars, Starbucks, Unilever, Patagonia, Intuit, Dannon and IKEA. There are many more.

West Virginia provides one example of the Triple Bottom Line in action. Since 2019, communities across the state have participated in the SNAP Stretch program, created by the WV Food and Farm Coalition in partnership with the USDA. This initiative provides access to fresh, affordable food while supporting small agricultural businesses and promoting environmental sustainability. Local food production reduces long-distance transportation, cutting fossil fuel use and benefiting the environment. To date, the program has benefited nearly 80,000 families and generated $3 million in agricultural sales but its future is threatened, like many state/federal partnerships that have been incubators for new ways of doing things.

The Triple Bottom Line challenges the idea that financial goals should override human and environmental well-being. Sustainable economic decisions must support people and the planet rather than exploit them. This 3P approach should also guide policy decisions today, rather than allowing financial goals to be the sole driver of governance.

This kind of forward-thinking approach is what we should demand from leaders at the community, state and federal levels — not short-sighted, indiscriminate budget cuts. We need to demand to know the costs to people and to the environment of budget cuts. If we are to thrive as a nation and as a state, we must recognize that prosperity is not just about profit — it is about people and the planet as well.

***

Jean Ambrose lives on a ridge near Mountwood Park.