Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will esteem the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” To whom do we owe our affection? Do we harm shareholders without thinking about anything else, or do we consider ethical and environmental obligations? Is there a balance that can be achieved between the two?

The Wall Street Journal reported that Rick Waggoner, Chairman and CEO of General Motors, announced on Sunday, January 13, 2008, that the company would purchase an equity stake in Coskata. Coskata, a startup in Warrenville, Illinois, plans to make ethanol without the use of corn. GM did not disclose how much it paid, nor how much stake they took in the company. This is the first time that a car company records an investment in alternative fuel sources. Was this an act of environmental obligation? “I don’t really see the logic of this,” Christopher Flavin is quoted as saying. Flavin is the president of the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington environmental group. He believes that GM should focus on maximizing the fuel economy of its current lineup. Lee Schipper of the University of California, Berkeley has given the project a stamp of approval. “Ethanol made from waste materials could result in substantially less carbon per mile.” He goes on to say later in the article, “Why wait for someone else to invest?”

In a similar move, Wal-Mart recently “helped reduce the packaging of a popular toy. As a result, they were able to ship the product using 230 fewer containers, saving 356 barrels of oil and 1,300 trees.” Constance E. Bagley writes in her book Managers and Legal Environment, “Social responsibility issues arise in the areas of product safety, sweatshops and underpaid foreign workers, advertising, campaigning, antitrust violations, customer conflicts of interest, managed profits, and Internet companies.” Most companies find a big gray area in the social responsibility angle. In the early 1990s, for example, Wal-Mart had claimed that products were made in the United States. In reality, however, 12-year-olds were making the product in a sweatshop in Bangladesh. Wal-Mart now clearly labels its origin products, and has moved on to the slogan “Save money, live better.” They relieve the conscience of the consumer with the promise of living better while spending less money. In recent years they [Wal-Mart] have adopted social and environmental standards. In further efforts to clean up its social policies, Wal-Mart has also begun supporting local businesses, such as Nectar of Life Coffee Company. Nectar of Life Coffee Company is a 100% organic and Fair Trade certified coffee roaster with roots in Spokane, Washington, and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Wal-Marts pushed to improve its image this decade, and it’s paying off. They have increased the amount of organic produce (crops grown without harmful pesticides and herbicides) being offered across the country.

Wal-Mart has also started building “green” stores to meet its energy needs. You can see more about how Wal-Mart tries to “provide profitable products while reducing its environmental footprint” on its website. With GM now on the environmental cleanup bandwagon, you can expect more companies to find ways to compete to provide alternatives to fossil fuels, energy and other resources. Countries around the world are changing their approach to meet the need for alternative fuel.

Published in the New York Times the same day, there was an article by James Kanter, Europe is considering banning imports of certain biofuel crops that lack sustainability. In countries like Malaysia and Indonesia, massive deforestation is taking place in an effort to plant palm trees for palm oil export. Palm oil is currently one of many crops being produced for use as alternatives to fossil fuels. Although the current consumption of ethanol in Europe is only 1% in 2005, they are thinking about the impact of using food as fuel. “Farmers growing maize for ethanol could also be affected, because the European rules contain provisions on conservation of grasslands,” said Mr Drinkwater. Matt Drinkwater is a biofuels analyst at New Energy Finance in London.

With all the efforts to reduce a global impact, are we really making progress? “A flurry of studies has debunked some of the claims made by biofuel producers that the fuels help reduce greenhouse gases by reducing fossil fuels and growing plants that consume carbon dioxide. Growing the crops and turning them into fuel can result in considerable environmental damage.” (New York Times, January 15, 2008). So turning food into fuel is not a good idea after all.

General Motors shareholders may not all agree with Waggoner’s financial choice, but perhaps his announcement will help boost shares as perceptions of company standards “change.” The goal of improving stock could be as simple as showing care for the land. While moving away from biofuel, Waggoner and GM entered the unknown world of ethanol made from waste. The GM stock purchase will likely be seen as a very smart move. There is a growing number of consumers demanding that companies show their financial and environmental responsibility. They are promoted in commercials for companies like Subaru that have 0% waste plants. McDonalds who bought $3 billion worth of materials made from recycled products. Ford Motor Company has even created a new “guilt-free” luxury vehicle made from recycled materials and “chrome-free” leather. It would seem logical for companies to cover their pockets where the United States is buying. Clearly, the United States wants the good to work.