According to wikipedia,
is a philosophical concept of the capacity of an agent to act in a world. The agency is considered as belonging to that agent, even if that agent represents a fictitious character, or some other non-existent entity. The capacity to act does not at first imply a specific moral dimension to the ability to make the choice to act, therefore moral agency is a distinct concept.
As we watch the slow-motion burn of the centralized economy, a few things to keep in mind.
The tide of resource scarcity is drifting us away from the island of business-as-usual for good (in both senses). Although there is a lingering, intentional misunderstanding of sustainability as just another way to make money off of money. Oh well, old habits die hard. I think the Nordic Sustainability Index might be a step in the right direction, if we are going to extrapolate greenery as another way of rating companies.
But the dissonance is rattling. At some point we’ll have to begin to reconcile what it means to be globally sustainable; that is, there’s no such thing. You can be one or the other, but not both. Not yet and not without major force projection ability. Whenever AIG(!) and UBS exhaust their advertising budgets for network television, sometime between Christmas and New Year’s, maybe the networks can devote the free holiday airtime to bringing out some philosophers to tell us how to have it all by having nothing, which may unite such formerly disparate groups such as former Citigroup employees and workers from the construction trades.
But there might be a way to put them both back to work. Now that would be green.