Tuesday, June 16, 2015

SCOTIA KEHL AGE

https://twitter.com/tzuru/status/650090247641022464

SCOTIA KEHL AGE

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT BANK

KEHL

'one who suffers strife during battle'

Pound for pound the Scottish wildcat is one of the most impressive predators in the world; intelligent, fearless, resourceful, patient, agile and powerful they are genuine superpredators which until as recently as the 1950s were still believed to be man killers.

Although wildcats look similar to domestic cats, these are no ferals or farm cats run wild; they're Britain's only remaining large wild predator, our only wild cat, and they walked this land for millions of years before mankind arrived or domestic cats existed. Surviving human persecution for five hundred more years than the British wolf and over a thousand more years than the British lynx or bear, they are born survivors; adaptable and resilient to some of the most substantial changes in habitat, culture and politics that any animal has had to face. Every inch a cat in every sense of the word the Scottish wildcat epitomises the independent, mysterious and wild spirit of the Highlands like no other creature.

"They'll fight to the death for their freedom; they epitomise what it takes to be truly free I think."

Mike Tomkies

The United Nations has worked since its founding to achieve a shared, secure and sustainable future for all of the world’s people. The vision and aspirations of the first United Nations members in 1945, as they set out to be the “architects of a better world”, remain a beacon today—not just for governments, but also for the thousands of companies and civil society organizations that have become key partners in tackling our world’s most pressing challenges.

In recent years we have witnessed a remarkable broadening of the corporate sustainability movement, with growing commitment in every quarter of the world to achieving success while ensuring that business benefits economies and societies
everywhere.

As the world’s largest corporate sustainability initiative, the Global Compact has a unique role to play in linking the enduring, universal values of the United Nations with a global architecture that can unlock the full potential of
business in contributing to global priorities.1

https://www.unglobalcompact.org/HowToParticipate/How_to_Apply_Business.html

In collectively seeking to outline a pathway for business to contribute to global priorities, from environmental sustainability to labor standards, human rights and
anti-corruption, we must extend our engagement beyond the four walls of the firm, to collaborate and partner with investors, governments and policymakers.

Since 2005, the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment has built an international network of investors working to understand the implications of sustainability for investors, and to incorporate these issues into their investment decision-making and ownership practices. With over 1,200 signatories representing nearly $35 trillion in assets under management, the PRI Initiative is the leading global network for investors to publicly demonstrate their commitment to responsible investment, to collaborate and learn with their peers about the financial and investment implications of sustainability issues, and to incorporate
these factors into their investment decision making and ownership practices. 2. http://www.unpri.org/about-pri/the-six-principles/

The six Principles

As institutional investors, we have a duty to act in the best long-term interests of our beneficiaries ( People of the Planet).

In this fiduciary role, we believe that environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues can affect the performance of investment portfolios (to varying degrees across companies, sectors, regions, asset classes and through time). We also recognise that applying these Principles may better align investors with broader objectives of society. Therefore, where consistent with our fiduciary responsibilities, we commit to the following:

Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.+

Possible actions:

Address ESG issues in investment policy statements

Support development of ESG-related tools, metrics, and analyses

Assess the capabilities of internal investment managers to incorporate ESG issues

Assess the capabilities of external investment managers to incorporate ESG issues

Ask investment service providers (such as financial analysts, consultants, brokers, research firms, or rating companies) to integrate ESG factors into evolving research and analysis

Encourage academic and other research on this theme

Advocate ESG training for investment professionals

Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.+

Possible actions:

Develop and disclose an active ownership policy consistent with the Principles

Exercise voting rights or monitor compliance with voting policy (if outsourced)

Develop an engagement capability (either directly or through outsourcing)

Participate in the development of policy, regulation, and standard setting (such as promoting and protecting shareholder rights)

File shareholder resolutions consistent with long-term ESG considerations

Engage with companies on ESG issues

Participate in collaborative engagement initiatives

Ask investment managers to undertake and report on ESG-related engagement

Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.+

Possible actions:

Ask for standardised reporting on ESG issues (using tools such as the Global Reporting Initiative)

Ask for ESG issues to be integrated within annual financial reports

Ask for information from companies regarding adoption of/adherence to relevant norms, standards, codes of conduct or international initiatives (such as the UN Global Compact)

Support shareholder initiatives and resolutions promoting ESG disclosure

Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.+

Possible actions:

Include Principles-related requirements in requests for proposals (RFPs)

Align investment mandates, monitoring procedures, performance indicators and incentive structures accordingly (for example, ensure investment management processes reflect long-term time horizons when appropriate)

Communicate ESG expectations to investment service providers

Revisit relationships with service providers that fail to meet ESG expectations

Support the development of tools for benchmarking ESG integration

Support regulatory or policy developments that enable implementation of the Principles

Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.+

Possible actions:

Support/participate in networks and information platforms to share tools, pool resources, and make use of investor reporting as a source of learning

Collectively address relevant emerging issues

Develop or support appropriate collaborative initiatives

Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.+

Possible actions:

Disclose how ESG issues are integrated within investment practices

Disclose active ownership activities (voting, engagement, and/or policy dialogue)

Disclose what is required from service providers in relation to the Principles

Communicate with beneficiaries about ESG issues and the Principles

Report on progress and/or achievements relating to the Principles using a ‘Comply or Explain’¹ approach

Seek to determine the impact of the Principles

Make use of reporting to raise awareness among a broader group of stakeholders

¹The Comply or Explain approach requires signatories to report on how they implement the Principles, or provide an explanation where they do not comply with them.

The Principles for Responsible Investment were developed by an international group of institutional investors reflecting the increasing relevance of environmental, social and corporate governance issues to investment practices

With support from the PRI, many of the world’s leading investors are now beginning to integrate sustainability issues into investment processes and dialogue with companies.

But a disconnect remains.

Companies still struggle to communicate to investors how sustainability initiatives are linked to their strategy, financial performance and valuation in meaningful ways.

At the same time, investors say they need more and better information from companies about how they address material sustainability issues. Understanding the views of investors worldwide on sustainability can help both companies and their investors to make progress in valuing sustainability, and in integrating sustainability into the heart of global markets to enable business to have a greater impact on the world’s most pressing challenges.

We hope that this rich, authentic, firsthand voice of business and investors can help to articulate a new set of global priorities, and engage companies and key stakeholders in an architecture that aligns business with sustainable development priorities leading up to 2015 and beyond.

Sustainability is critical to companies’ future success—but business is not doing enough. CEOs, despite their strong belief in the importance of sustainability, are struggling to make the business case to go further, faster. They are frustrated at the challenges presented by the expectations of the market, and at the difficulties of uniting stakeholders behind the pursuit of superior performance on sustainability.

NATATIONAL SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT BANK IS A SOLUIONS PROVIDING IDEOLOGY.

KEHL !

The Global Compact has grown to include nearly 8,000 companies around the planet, demonstrating an unprecedented broadening of commitment among companies worldwide; sustainability has become firmly established on the leadership agenda of almost every leading business; and in the advances of the leaders we can see bright spots of real, transformational innovation that are allowing business to create value while having an ever-greater impact on global challenges

But there is also reason for caution. Evidence suggests that the global economy is not on track to meet the needs of a growing population with planetary boundaries, and our interviews this year suggest that business may collectively have reached a plateau in the advancement of sustainability. Without radical, structural change to markets and systems, many CEOs believe, business may be unable to lead the way toward the peak of a sustainable economy.

This year’s Global Compact’s third CEO study is a unique opportunity to take stock as we stand at a crossroads in the global economy.

Business leaders and investors are committed to leading the way, but will require greater ambition and wider support as they work to align sustainability impact with value creation, and markets with sustainable development outcomes, such that these leaders can truly become the architects of a better world. For this there has to be disclosure of "CITIZEN VALUES" in any society as these include the leaders, investors alongside all stakeholders.

SUSTIANABILITY - SCOTIAAGHELEK1306 HAS "CATLIKE" EGO

https://twitter.com/tzuru/status/650090247641022464

"Cultural competence is the ability to engage with, and/or create conditions, that maximize the optimal sustainable utility of resources throughout the planet for all living species. The core values that cause man to seek to ensure quality of life for all are bonded to our progress towards our goals of being humankind, currently we are human-unkind, we know we can be far more competent as stewards of planetary health when we express our immediate values as constant contributions that are constant conflict resolutions in minutia that build to bond humanity gathering relentlessly towards sustainable renewable hygienic goals"

ETHICAL ? "ASK EGO !"

https://twitter.com/tzuru/status/650090247641022464

The Ethics of Socrates
Abstract: The ethics of Socrates is briefly outlined.

Socrates' Life (469-399 BC): Several features of Socrates' life give some insight into his ethics.
1. As a young man in battle, he distinguished himself for bravery several times.
2. Socrates exhibited a "daimon" (his genuis or demon)--a sign or inner voice which issued prohibitory messages in periods of dazes (suggestive of epilepsy).
3. The Delphic Oracle: "There is no person living wiser than Socrates." Socrates interpreted this response as indicating his purported wisdom was simply that he knew he was not wise.
4. His persistent questioning of authorities and public figures was probably aimed not to humiliate but to discover truth with a view to the good life.
  1. Socrates considered himself a gadfly annoying the state.
  2. The "Socratic irony"--the profession of ignorance was probably sincere but exaggerated because of his presumptions..
  3. Socrates irreverent cross-examination of prominent persons aimed not to humiliate but to discover truth with a view to finding the good life.
5. The great example of the trial and death of Socrates demonstrated, as well, the agreement between his character and his philosophy.
  1. Socrates was found guilty of impiety (not worshipping the gods the state worships), corruption of the youth (infusing into the young persons the spirit of criticism of Athenian society), among other accusations.
  2. Socrates refused to leave Athens, although he could have escaped: (1) escape would have been contrary to his moral principles and (2) escape would have been an injustice to the state which was his parent, education, and origin of law.
  3. Apology [28B]: "You are mistaken my friend, if you think that a man who is worth anything ought to spend his time weighing up the prospects of life and death. He has only one thing to consider in performing any action--that is, whether he is acting right or wrongly, like a good man or a bad one" trans. Hugh Tredennick.
Socrates was predominantly interested in ethics.
1. Self-knowledge is the sufficient condition to the good life. He identified knowledge with virtue. If knowledge can be learned, so can virtue. Thus, virtue can be taught.
2. The unexamined life is not worth living. One must seek knowledge and wisdom before private interests. Knowledge is sought as a means to ethical action.
3. What one truly knows is the dictates of one's conscience or soul: the philosophy of the Socratic Paradox.
Socrates' ethical intellectualism has an eudaemological character.
1. Socrates presupposed reason was the way to the good life.
  1. Our true happiness is promoted by doing what is right.
  2. When your true utility is served (tending your soul), you are achieving happiness. Happiness is evident from the long-term effect on the soul.
  3. The Socratic ethics has a teleological character -- mechanistic explanation of human behavior is mistaken. Human action aims toward the good, and there is purpose in nature.
2. The Socratic Paradox: People act immorally, but they do not do so deliberately.
  1. Everyone seeks what is most serviceable to oneself or what is in one's own self-interest.
  2. If one [practically] knows what is good, one will always act in such manner as to achieve it. (Otherwise, one does not know or only knows in a theoretical fashion.)
  3. If one acts in a manner not conducive to ones good, then that person must have been mistaken (i.e., that person lacks the knowledge of how to obtain what was serviceable in that instance).
  4. If one acts with knowledge then one will obtain that which is serviceable to oneself or that which is in ones self-interest.
  5. Thus, for Socrates…
    - knowledge = [def.] virtue, good, arete
    - ignorance = [def.] bad, evil, not useful
  6. Since no one knowingly harms himself, if harm comes to that person, then that person must have acted in ignorance.
  7. Consequently, it would seem to follow we are responsible for what we know or for that matter what we do not know. So, then, one is responsible for ones own happiness.
  8. The essential aspect of understanding the Paradox is to realize that Socrates is referring to the good of the soul in terms of knowledge and doing what's right—not to wealth or freedom from physical pain. The latter play no role in the soul being centered.
3. No one chooses evil or chooses to act in ignorance.
  1. We seek the good, but fail to achieve it by ignorance or lack of knowledge as to how to obtain it.
  2. No one would harm themselves. When harm comes to us, we thought we were seeking the good, but we lacked knowledge.
  3. Aristotle's criticism: an individual might know what is best, yet still do what's wrong.
4. Socrates' influence extended to almost all areas of the history of ethics in the West.

	Socratic Ethics

Platonism	Hedonism	Cynicism	Stoicism
teleological character	Aristippus Epicurus	Diogenes	Zeno of Citium Epictetus Marcus Aurelius
"the good"	happiness	the example of Socrates	emotional independence; self-knowledge

IV. Objections to the Socratic Ethics

If evil is never done deliberately or voluntarily, then evil is an involuntary act and no one can properly be held responsible for the evil that is done.
Since the good is that which furthers a person's real interests, it will follow that if the good is known, people will seek it. But they don't.
If moral laws are objective and independent of feelings, and if knowledge is identified with virtue, then it would seem to follow that moral problems are always capable of rational resolution. But they are not.
Psychiatric evidence is that people behave in an entirely self-damning manner. St Paul said, "The good that I would do, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do."
Freud's disclosure of the unconscious indicates that reasoning is rationalization.

Recommended Sources

Plato's Apology: Lecture notes on the trial of Socrates are given in Introduction to Philosophy.

Ethics Ethical Egoism

Abstract: The various forms of ethical egoism are defined. Standard objections to ethical egoism are evaluated, and the conclusion is drawn that ethical egoism is incomplete.

I. Ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons ought to act from their own self-interest.

Personal ethical egoism is the belief that only I should act from the motive of self-interest, nothing is stated about what motives others should act from.
1. Personal ethical egoism is not a theory because it is not generalized to others.
2. I cannot recommend personal ethical egoism to others because such a recommendation would be against my own self-interest.
Individual ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons should serve my self-interest (i.e.,egotism)
1. Individual ethical egoism is a belief that can't be consistent unless it applies to just one person. In other words, this belief is not universalizable.
2. Practically speaking, the doctrine is similar to solipsism—there's no way to justify the belief since it applies to just one person.
Universal ethical egoism is the universal doctrine that all persons should pursue their own interests exclusively.
1. One problem is without knowledge of the world, how can we truly know what's in our best interest? (c.f. the Socratic Paradox).
2. Another problem is trying to figure out what "their own interests" means. Does this phrase mean short-term or long-term benefit, pleasure, happiness, preference, or something else? What gives you pleasure might not be a benefit or in your interest.

A theory of ethics should

set forth systematically the first principles of morality
show how to justify these principles, and, as a result,
elucidate a conception of a life of excellence for people.

Therefore, the theory should be both consistent and complete.

Consistency: there should be no contradictions or incompatible statements.

e.g., the injunctions from folklore morals, "Haste makes waste" and "Look before you leap" would be inconsistent with "A stitch in time saves nine," or "The race is to the swift."
Completeness: there should be no moral truth which is not provable from the basic moral principles of the theory.

e.g., In Christian ethics, the principle "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21) is meant to distinguish between secular and religious situations in order to avoid political difficulty for religious belief and so would be an incomplete theory of action in the secular realm.

Consequently, the three ways to raise objections to an ethical theory is to show that the theory is

mistaken in truth or
inconsistent or
incomplete.

I. Charge: Ethical egoism is contradictory because it allows one and the same act to be evaluated as both right and wrong. Charge: the theory is mistaken in truth; it is inconsistent.

Example: suppose Jack is competing against Jill for a job. Ethical egoism would say
1. It's right for Jack to praise Jack's qualities.
2. It's wrong for Jill to praise Jack's qualities.
  
  Therefore, praising Jack's qualities is both right and wrong—right for Jack and wrong for Jill.
But this is not to say the same act is both right and wrong—these are two different acts: one is done by Jack and one is done by Jill.
The best that can be said is that there is a conflict of interest which could be settled by contract law. Hence, this is not a good objection.

II. Charge: Ethical egoism is committed to giving inconsistent advice. (The charge is inconsistency.)

Example: Jack and Jill are competing for a job.
1. We tell Jack to do his best and we tell Jill to do her best, or
2. Jack tells Jill to be an altruist.
3. Isn't this inconsistent?
But there is no inconsistency. All statements are consistent with Jack's interest. There is no formal contradiction. In contest in sports we can hope that each team will do its best without contradiction; in fact, we can even hope that each team wins without contradiction..

III. Charge: If the (universal) egoist believes that each person should promote his own interest, then isn't he acting against his own interest to state his theory. (The charge is inconsistency.)

Example: Jack believes that Jill should promote her own interest in accordance with ethical egoism.
1. Jack might believe this, but he isn't going to tell Jill.
2. He looks to his own interest first.
Again, there is no inconsistency in not telling Jill.

IV. Charge: There are certain interpersonal decisions that have to be made that transcend the egoist's point of view. (The charge is of incompleteness)

Example: Where the hirer for a particular job has no personal stake, who should he choose for a job when the candidates have equal qualifications: Jack or Jill?
This objection holds good—there have to be some impartial decisions, and the belief that each person should seek his own interest does not tell how a person should act in this instance.
1. Hence, the theory of ethical egoism is incomplete.
2. When there is a conflict of interests between egoists, egoism provides no way to resolve the conflict.

V. Final Comments on Ethical Egoism: the egoist is often seen to be egotistical and selfish, rather someone acting under enlightened self-interest.

Life is not seen as a contest between people so much as it is a challenge. If someone an egoist, then that person does not necessarily act against my own self-interest.
Some observations are in order.

Acting in one's self-interest very often benefits others.
1. E.g., your going to college is in your self-interest, and it will help keep you off welfare. In pursuing your self-interest, you will get a job which will benefit others.
2. E.g., you start a business to make money, but you must have satisfied employees and a competitive product thereby helping others.
The egoist is affected by many more events than one would first think. I.e., it is in his interest to think about others.
1. If the egoist doesn't help others to be happy, they will not return the favor.
2. Often, it is in our own interest to look to our long-term interests by the effects of our actions on other people as a group. Hence, there is no inconsistency for the egoist to help a group of which he is a part.
  
  E.g., An ethical egoist can act in self-interest by contributing to the Salvation Army or to the United Fund.

VI. If the egoist is to choose what is in his own interest, then he must have the personal freedom to choose.

Hence, the egoist must allow everyone to pursue his own personal interest (universal ethical egoism).
Consequently, egoism leads into a right-based theory-each individual has certain inalienable rights or
Egoism leads to a rule-based theory that certain rules of conduct are in the interest of everyone to observe. That is we are all better off if everyone obeys the law—we have to give up some good to achieve our maximum possible good.

Recommended Sources

Solipsism: An excellent discussion of the role of solipsism in the history of Western and Eastern philosophy and its role as a limiting case in thought experiments and epistemology from Wikipedia. See also from this source links to various related concepts to egoism including ethical egoism.

Ethical Egoism: A section of the entry "Egoism" discussing arguments for and against by Robert Shaver published in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Ethical Egoism: A section of the entry "Egoism' from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Alexander Moseley emphasizing conflict resolution.

The study of models brings MANY to the conclusion that, if a complete and non-conflicting model for ethical decision-making is at all possible to exist, it could only be a procedural one. The procedural decision-making model treats the process of decision making as a "step by step" procedure - define the problem, identify available alternative solutions of the problem, evaluate the identified alternatives, make the decision, implement the decision, evaluate the decision.

Global Sustainable Environment Bank

https://twitter.com/tzuru/status/650090247641022464