The Millennial Generation– Upheaval Of Business As Usual

by
Generation Y

Generation Y (Photo credit: علي – ali)

Criticism of the Millennial Generation (Generation Y) by its predecessors appears to be rampant on many fronts.  Generally, young people today have been characterized as lazy, politically apathetic, economically informed and self-consumed.   Upon closer inspection, it appears that the basis of these complaints generally lie in the potential upheaval of business as usual that is on the horizon in terms of  the Millenials’ values on politics, economics, culture and the environment.  Clearly, the overall values of the Millennials differ significantly from those of the previous generations in many significant ways:

  • They are more charitable.
  • They are more global minded.
  • They are more tolerant of racial, ethnic, political, social and economic differences.
  • They are more informal.
  • They are more educated and receptive to technological advancements.
  • They are more adept at multitasking.
  • They embrace networking.
  • They are more environmentally conscious.

Growing Up In A World Shaped By Technology

The Millennial Generation (ages 18-30) grew up in an environment that was much different from that of their parents and grandparents.  With the development of personal computers, smart phones and tablets, this generation has easy access to the Internet, which immediately delivers information and news, accompanied by vivid real-time images devoid of the filter of time delay and editorialized reporting.  The competition to be the first to deliver breaking news has resulted in an onslaught of sources of information, such as traditional news wire services, social media platforms, including, but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc., and even individual messaging services on personal camera-equipped smart phones.  These technological advances allow those who use electronic devices to access factual information, examine the sources of the information and form their own conclusions about political, social, cultural and economic issues.

In his book, The Greatest Generation, Tom Brokaw stated, “It’s easy to make a buck.  It’s a lot tougher to make a difference.”  It seems that the Millennials have taken this advice to heart.  To a large degree, they have shown great interest in being different (than previous generations) in order to make a difference.  Consequently, the Millennial Generation has matured into a group of self thinkers, who resist previous generations’ perceived notions of success and value, particularly ownership of stuff.  Millennials are more likely to resist moving to the suburbs and buying expensive houses and cars.  They often enjoy urban living and are pleased to have access to green energy-efficient buses or to walk or ride bicycles.  A meal does not have to include meat for many of this generation.  They are more likely to be environmentally conscious and to recycle and reuse.  They love to travel and are more likely than their predecessors to visit other countries.  Most importantly, Millennials are independent thinkers, whose truth does not have to be based on a preconceived consensus.

This brand of thinking is a major problem for the previous generations, who worry about passing the torch on to this “irresponsible” next generation.  How do they have the audacity to destroy this great society that has been built on the sweat and labor of so many dedicated citizens?  The answer here is that the Millennials have identified the missing link to our very survival, namely sustainability.  They see the prior generations manipulated by corporate greed, political gridlock, racial, social and cultural intolerance and the burdens of materialism— ownership of too much stuff, overwhelming debt, depression and unhappiness.  They choose not to participate in a political system that is consumed by partisan interests and burdened by ill will, contention and gridlock. They reject value defined by ownership of material things.  Rather, they prefer to collect experiences as opposed to objects, to enjoy the world’s natural resources rather than deplete them.

There is a quiet revolution going on, a grassroots movement that is gaining momentum.  The Millennial Generation is leading an upheaval of business as usual, and this is what the world needs, a new path to healthy lifestyles and environmental consciousness.   Perhaps we all should stop and pay attention to this movement.  To do so is to live green, be green.

Sustainability: What’s In A Word?

by
Sustainability?

Sustainability? (Photo credit: Tom Raftery)

Presuming our readers are of the variety that keeps up with recent articles in the green ideological sphere, we would like to address a current trending topic – the integrity of “sustainability.”

If you have browsed green articles in the past several days, chances are pretty good you’ve come across an article or two pertaining to the banning of the term “sustainability.”  It is important to understand the motives behind those views, before supporting or dismissing them, and further, it becomes crucial that we alter our approach to understanding modern-day uses of the term.

Looking briefly back in time, first came the term “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR), and then alongside it rode in “sustainability.”  Focus was first placed on the meanings behind these terms, to take an analytical look at current business practices’ impacts on the environment and the masses in order to determine policy changes that could better the sustainability and longevity of the business, as well as the environment, within which it operates.  Very well.  However, over time, this view on the matter has almost completely deteriorated from a point of forward-looking, voluntary initiatives to its current mess of fashionable, mandatory bragging rights.

The main issue with sustainability?

It has become corporate prerogative to assemble corporate social and sustainability programs or plans as a means of current comparison with outside competitors, rather than as a means of examination and implementation for future betterment inside the corporation.  Likewise, these terms have been thrown around the world of politics, too, with little or nothing to show for it.  Sure, there have been some new mandates and a couple new proposals, but the essence behind these has not been that of driven change.  It has been used as yet another tool by which politicians can gain acclaim, another platform piece upon which some may choose to run.  What a shame.

Needless to say, with this deterioration of the views surrounding and motives behind these practices, the integrity these practices and terms hold depreciates.  It makes the everyday consumer’s job a bit more difficult.  Now, we must be wary of all that we read and hear.  Simply put, approach each public issuance of these terms with caution, place a bit of research into the root of their use, and conclude whether the issuer is taking legitimate initiative to change the bad or badly issuing socially charged terms to gain corporate or political prowess among competition.

For more information on how and why sustainability should be used, I recommend a simple article by Adam Aston, which can be found here.  In it, he outlines the benefits of legitimate sustainability planning.