Why we need more Ray Andersons

Read the full story at GreenBiz.

Editor’s note: This article is the third part of a three-part series “Do we need the “S-word?” Read the previous parts here: Part One, Part Two.

An entirely separate article by Joel Makower, “Why Aren’t There More Ray Andersons,” is another great question, and received many fine comments, but is too important to leave siloed. Therefore, we can use it here for perspective on the first and overall question of this series: Do we need the “S-word?” The career of Ray Anderson, what people thought of him, and pondering why we’re not getting more “Rays,” even more clearly shows the answer to the big question is “Yes.”

I’ve taken some of the views expressed in this article, by either Joel or people he quoted (if not further referenced below, that’s where it’s from); some direct comments on that article; and also some views by people to whom I sent the article. I used some of these ideas earlier in the series, but they are now cited by others specifically about what made Ray “Ray.”

These lead to quite a picture, almost a table of contents for a contrarian CSO guidebook, and exacerbate the tragedy if, in a couple of years, we still can’t identify not just another clear new “Ray” — but a league of them!

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s