Finding Our Ethical Compass

Introduction

As ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and Sustainability initiatives continue to gain traction, a central tension remains unresolved: the lack of a clear ethical foundation. While Sustainability is fundamentally about ethical stewardship – caring for people and the planet – ESG often leans on financial metrics and profit-oriented decision-making. To unpack this difference, we must first explore the ethical “truths” that inform our values. By understanding where these truths originate, we can better navigate debates in ESG and sustainability, recognizing the impact of differing ethical frameworks.

Sources of Ethical Truth: Where Do We Begin?

When we talk about ethics, we must recognize that people derive their understanding of "right" and "wrong" from different sources, and these sources shape their actions. This makes ethics a complex field in sustainability, where the environmental and social impacts of decisions are as critical as the financial implications. To have a productive discussion, we must first examine our ethical foundation—our source of truth.

Two Core Ethical Frameworks

Broadly speaking, people operate under two different frameworks when it comes to ethical truth: Correspondence and Coherence theories. Each offers a different way of understanding what’s “ethical,” and both have unique implications for sustainability.

1. The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Realists)

Realists believe that ethical truths correspond to an unchanging external reality or source. For instance, in many religious traditions, ethics are derived from sacred texts or doctrines that are considered authoritative. In this framework, actions are judged by whether they align with these sources, not by whether they are logically consistent with other beliefs or evolving societal standards.

Implications for Sustainability:

For a realist, environmental harm would be unethical if it conflicts with the ethical principles outlined in their source (e.g., a religious text that emphasizes stewardship of the earth). However, if the text does not explicitly address an issue—like modern slavery or climate change – the ethical response may require interpretation, and what is deemed “ethical” might be constrained by the source’s explicit guidance.

2. The Coherence Theory of Truth (Constructivists)

Constructivists view truth as coherence among beliefs, meaning that ethical truth depends on the consistency of beliefs within a given framework. However, constructivism divides into two key approaches: relativism and non-relativism. Both see truth as coherence, but they diverge sharply in terms of whether ethical truths are absolute or adaptable over time.

Constructivist Relativists:

Relativists believe that ethical truths can shift as societal beliefs evolve, provided these beliefs remain internally consistent. For relativists, what is deemed "right" or "wrong" depends on context – who is acting, when, and where. Ethical norms adjust to fit the current, cohesive set of beliefs in a society, meaning past actions might have been acceptable in their time even if they are considered unethical today. For instance, a relativist might argue that resource exploitation was once acceptable in a less environmentally conscious era but is now unethical due to shifting values. The same holds for issues like modern slavery; what is unethical today may have been rationalized within an earlier belief system that viewed it differently.

Constructivist Non-Relativists:

Non-relativists, in contrast, maintain that ethical truths are unchanging, even within a coherence framework. For them, something is "always true" if it aligns with a coherent set of beliefs that remains internally consistent, regardless of context. However, they also accept that new information or contradictions in beliefs can prompt a re-evaluation of what is coherent. If new insights reveal internal contradictions, the ethical system is adjusted to restore coherence. In this way, ethical truth remains constant unless a rational inconsistency arises. Take environmental degradation: a non-relativist would argue that it has always been wrong, even if society failed to recognize it. The same goes for modern slavery—it is unethical based on a coherence with fundamental human rights and rational principles, and this stance would hold across time and place, unless proven logically incoherent with other beliefs.

Why These Distinctions Matter for Sustainability

The distinction between relativist and non-relativist perspectives within constructivism directly impacts sustainability discussions and how we approach ethical issues in Sustainability:

Inconsistencies in Relativism

A relativist perspective could justify fluctuating ethics, aligning with profit-driven goals in Sustainability by accommodating shifts in societal values. This might mean that a profit-focused stance, such as resource depletion, is acceptable as long as it coheres with the current belief system within a particular investor community. However, this adaptability risks undermining sustainability by potentially disregarding long-term ethical considerations.

Stability of Non-Relativism:

In contrast, non-relativist constructivists push for ethical consistency that does not vary by context unless challenged by rational inconsistency. This approach might argue that environmental harm has always been unethical, irrespective of past or present norms, as long as the belief system remains coherent over time. In the Sustainability context, this perspective supports a more stable ethical foundation, advocating for sustainability practices that protect people and the planet consistently, unless new evidence disrupts this coherence.

The Challenge of Competing Truths

The friction between correspondence and coherence theories of truth is not merely theoretical; it has real implications for professional conduct, regulations, and personal interactions.

1. Disagreement on Ethical Topics

Differences in ethical frameworks often underlie disagreements in the Sustainability sphere.

Scenario A:

Suppose a person using a correspondence theory relies on an unchanging source for their ethical views. If their interpretation of this source supports unsustainable practices, they may resist arguments for change, even if these arguments are rational. In contrast, a coherence-theory proponent may view these arguments as inconsistent and push for practices that align with a broader set of rational beliefs.

Scenario B:

Disagreements are also likely when one person holds a non-relativist perspective (believing issues like modern slavery are always wrong) while another sees ethics as context-dependent, accepting that practices viewed as unethical today may have been permissible in the past.

2. The Role of Professional Codes of Conduct

Many professions, including those involved in Sustainability, abide by codes of conduct that define ethical behaviour. Yet, what makes an action "ethical" according to these codes?

Relativist vs. Non-Relativist Codes:

If a professional code aligns with coherence theory but is relativist, it could allow for flexible interpretations over time. This flexibility may leave room for practices once deemed acceptable but now considered unethical, causing potential conflicts for professionals reflecting on their past actions or decisions.

Rational Consistency:

In a non-relativist coherence framework, ethical standards are upheld over time but remain open to evolution through rational inquiry. Here, the stance would be that sustainable practices were always ethical, even if not widely recognized as such, and conversely, that exploitative practices were always unethical – even if previously tolerated.

A Practical Approach to Managing Ethical Disagreements

Since sustainability calls for cooperation across diverse perspectives, one way forward is to recognize the basis of each other’s ethical beliefs and find ways to live with these differences constructively.

Questions to Ask:

1. What is the Source of Ethical Truth?

When discussing ethical disagreements, it’s valuable to ask about the foundation of the other person’s ethics. Are they grounded in a correspondence theory or coherence theory? This understanding helps clarify whether the disagreement is about the interpretation of a fixed source or the logic of a changing belief system.

2. Is the Ethical Framework Relativist or Non-Relativist?

If one person’s ethics are context-dependent while the other’s are timeless, the clash becomes clearer. A relativist may accept that modern slavery was once “acceptable,” while a non-relativist will always find it wrong.

3. How Do Codes of Conduct Address Ethics Over Time?

For professionals, examining codes of conduct can reveal whether their field expects ethical practices to evolve. If so, what is the ethical justification for this evolution, and does it align with sustainability values?

Conclusion: Building Ethical Consensus in Sustainability

Understanding the ethical frameworks behind our beliefs allows us to navigate the challenges in Sustainability more thoughtfully. While ESG ?remains financially driven, recognizing these differing perspectives on ethics can help bridge gaps between profit-oriented goals and the deeper call of sustainability to prioritize people and the planet. By fostering conversations on our sources of ethical truth, we can build a more inclusive, impactful approach to Sustainability – one that respects diverse beliefs while striving for ethical coherence.