If you ask companies what is particularly important to them at the moment, you will often get one answer: sustainability. It is often said that the topic has long been a matter for the boss, every company wants to be a pioneer and in general, they all see many more opportunities than risks in the green transition. Anyone who is still missing a box in the bullshit bingo at this point is happy to let it be known to the outside world: Sustainability has always been part of our DNA.
Such promises, praise and statements are nice, harmless – and completely useless. In the vast majority of cases, they are only intended to conceal the fact that companies are addressing the issue of sustainability because they have to address it. Because politics is driving it, because young workers are driving it, because regulation wants it that way or because energy prices are skyrocketing and corporations want to drive down costs. Because these are the real reasons for the “green transformation,” as a study by the Bertelsmann Foundation has just discovered.
Moral or ethical questions? It doesn’t really matter. And that’s perfectly fine. After all, companies function according to the principles of the market economy and the biggest incentive is money. It is important to be aware of this in order to then take the only sensible step: companies must finally link their bonus payments to sustainability goals. This is the only way to get bosses, managers and employees to seriously take on green, social and ethical goals. This is the only way to make sustainability a priority.
Why money is a stronger incentive than morality can be seen first and foremost in the companies themselves. Whenever they need to change, they cry out for the state and rarely for moral support, but rather for tangible financial incentives. People also like them, for example the scrapping bonus. Many people didn’t want or need a new car in 2009. But because the state put a fat sum on the table – 2,500 euros – the consumers changed their minds. Oh, dear money.
Similar observations can be seen in every sales sale, every salary negotiation and dozens of other bonuses. Intrinsic motivation also plays a role, especially when it comes to ecological decisions; you want to do something for the environment. But if one pair of trousers costs 200 euros and the cheaper pair only costs 40 euros, then for most people the deciding factor in the end is money. It is therefore only logical to use an incentive system that is based on an advantage for one’s own bank account to achieve sustainability goals. After all, this is much more effective than the categorical imperative or half-baked promises from the boardroom.
The great thing for companies is that they can gain a lot if they redirect existing bonus payments and tie them to sustainable goals. If employees don’t achieve the goals, the company saves money. If the goals are achieved, the company benefits threefold. It saves energy costs. It meets regulatory requirements more quickly that money would have had to flow into anyway. And the company is becoming more interesting for young employees who strongly insist on sustainability.
The specific structure of the bonus payments is particularly important when it comes to the topic of “sustainability”. For example, it makes no sense if the board receives big bonuses because they… Employees often collect trash. Larifari targets must be avoided. But this applies to all areas of the company, not just sustainability. Arguing that the topic is generally too vague for bonus payments is also pointless. Because of various guidelines and reporting requirements, companies are now collecting more sustainability data than ever before. From these, concrete and at the same time realistic goals can easily be extracted as metrics.