In discussions about environmental conservation, the notion of assigning a monetary value to nature often elicits feelings of discomfort and attracts criticism based on it being “inappropriate”. There’s a prevailing sentiment that individuals and corporations should simply “do the right thing” to protect the environment, or that investors ought to adopt a philanthropic approach, donating funds for the sake of conservation. While these arguments are rooted in a sense of morality, they overlook both an unfortunate and equally fundamental reality: this isn’t how the world works.
A Reality Check: Financial Responsibility Isn’t Optional
At the heart of the environmental debate lies a mistaken belief that business leaders, fund trustees, and investors can act purely out of altruism. The truth is, that they legally and practically cannot ignore their financial responsibilities. Whether in the boardroom of a global corporation or during the trustee meetings of a pension fund or indeed a charity, those in positions of financial stewardship are bound by duty—and often by law—to generate returns for stakeholders (appreciating that we can now and should consider the planet a stakeholder).
But this shouldn’t be considered as inherently negative. Financial stability and success aren’t adversaries of environmental progress; they are essential allies. Expecting the private sector to abandon the profit motive in favour of pure environmental altruism is an indulgence of fiction or fairytale. While nature possesses a magical allure, our approach to saving it must be firmly grounded in the practicalities of economics and markets.
Public Funds Alone Won’t Suffice
Another stark reality is that there isn’t enough public money to address the environmental degradation we’re all responsible for causing. Governments are financially stretched, and the challenges we face are immense and global. The imbalance is glaring: significantly more resources are funnelled into industries that harm the environment than can possibly reach those striving to protect it. The public purse simply cannot compete with the vast scale of private capital – it’s an arms race that nature has lost!
If we desire real change, we must tap into the financial incentives that drive our modern world – you don’t have to like it for it to be true. This means making it profitable to do the right thing for people and wildlife. Restricting environmental improvement to the realms of philanthropy or public funding is a limitation we can no longer afford.
Elevating Environmental Performance Through Profitability
We need to substantially raise the bar for environmental improvement, from funding mechanisms to execution strategies. Paradoxically, despite the moral criticism, embracing profitability is a crucial part of this elevation. We must create conditions where investing in sustainable practices is not only possible but preferable and profitable. By making environmental restoration financially attractive, we can draw more capital, talent, performance and innovation to the cause.
In a marketplace where investors constantly seek returns, environmental solutions must become more profitable than the industries causing harm. This is how we can shift the balance. If regenerating landscapes, restoring biodiversity, and building natural capital become compelling investment opportunities, the flow of money will begin to favour environmental solutions.
Overcoming Internal Divisions
A significant obstacle we face is the infighting within the environmental community—a kind of “friendly fire” that hampers progress. Too often, efforts are derailed by narrow focus and debates over whose vision of a better landscape is the “correct” one – the purest example of this are those advocating for ground-nesting birds over everything else in the landscape. In pursuing perfection (or often preference), we waste time, energy, and resources we don’t have. Instead, we should unite behind a fundamental principle of progress: better is better.
We may not all, and almost certainly shouldn’t, share the same vision of an ideal restored environment. Some may advocate for reforestation, others for rewilding, and still others for regenerative agriculture. But can we agree that any movement toward improvement—no matter how incremental—is preferable to inaction? By embracing iterative progress, we can achieve far more than by allowing perfection to be the enemy of progress.
The True Moral Imperative
Undeniably, there’s a profound moral dimension to this issue. Critics assert that profiting from environmental improvement is unethical, believing that the sanctity of nature should remain untouched by commercial interests. But let’s scrutinise that stance: Is it not more objectionable to allow environmental degradation to persist simply because the solutions don’t align with a purist, non-profit ethos? By insisting that only altruistic efforts are morally acceptable, aren’t we inadvertently endorsing inaction? Perhaps the greater ethical failing lies not in generating profit from healing the planet, but in letting it deteriorate because we refuse to harness the motivating power of financial incentives.
It is far more concerning when we fail to act than when someone benefits from doing good. The moral outrage should be directed at those who continue to exploit and harm the planet for profit—not at those who find ways to heal it while generating returns.
Aligning Morality with Profit
Ultimately, we must embrace the moral imperative to improve our environment. This moral compass must acknowledge that financial sustainability is a necessary component of any large-scale solution. Profit doesn’t have to be the enemy of nature; it can be the reason for its regeneration and restoration.
A Lesson from Political Satire
This article draws inspiration from the classic episode “The Moral Dimension” of the satirical series Yes Minister, where we are reminded of the complexities and ironies that often accompany moral decisions in the political and economic arenas. If you haven’t watched the show – please do so and quickly. In the episode, characters navigate the murky waters between ethical considerations and practical necessities, highlighting how rigid adherence to ideals can sometimes hinder effective action.