News & Views from the front line

24 May 2013

Supply Chain Secrets of the Sustainability Masterminds

Crown Hotel Wetheral

Tuesday saw the fourth meeting of our Corporate Sustainability Mastermind (CoSM) Group. This time we went for a rural location - the Crown Hotel, Wetheral, Cumbria - with another great restaurant (one of the rules of the group is "no executive buffets").

The theme of the meeting was greening the supply chain. As the group operates under the Chatham House rule, I can't share the company specific solutions we discussed, but here's a sample of the three dozen or so generic lessons we recorded at the meeting:

  • Sustainability risks in the supply chain often exceed risks within the factory fence
  • Proactive anticipation is essential – reacting is usually too late
  • Need to continuously scan horizon for future legislation from around the world - legislation has impacts way beyond its immediate jurisdiction in a globalised world
  • The business model defines the supply chain – only incremental improvements can be made without rethinking that business model
  • Awareness days are highly effective ways of sharing good practice across silos and identifying synergies
  • Identify the ‘difference makers’ and make them your champions
  • Use competition to drive performance above standards eg allocate 15% of tender scoring to sustainability and let bidders compete for those points
  • Investment appraisals must be made on through life costs, not just capital costs
  • Joint research with suppliers on greener options can deliver synergistic benefits
  • There is plenty of scope for closed loops for certain materials, particularly metals
  • Small products can be very difficult to recover. Composting and energy recovery may be preferential routes
  • Widen tolerances on inputs to open up a wider range of raw material sources
  • Chicken and egg situation with closed loop business models and civic infrastructure (materials recovery/composting) – need to be proactive and lead

As always, the real benefit was how we got to these generic points and the examples of company specific challenges and shortcuts members threw in to the discussion.

The CoSM Group is for senior sustainability managers in large organisations which meets quarterly in great locations for open and frank discussion - and NO Powerpoint. The next meeting will be in September and will be themed around Sustainability Strategy: The Next Generation. If you'd like to learn more, please drop me a line.

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

22 May 2013

Words Matter: What "The Bedroom Tax" can teach us about selling sustainability

words-that-workYou can win or lose an argument on the words you choose to use.

Take the recent furore over changes to UK housing benefits. The Government introduced what they called a "under-occupation charge" for those living in social housing with more than the minimum number of bedrooms they needed. The Opposition branded this "the bedroom tax" and the press adopted the term. The Prime Minister tried to fight back, talking about the status quo as a "spare room subsidy", but it was too late, "the bedroom tax" had stuck.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the policy, the case demonstrates how important language is. The original name was a dreadful piece of technocrat-speak, wide open to attack. The attack was effective as it used the much more emotive term "bedroom tax" which painted the policy as a 'bad' - tax - applied to a 'good' - a nice cosy bedroom. The response of a "spare room subsidy" was an attempt to apply the 'bad' (subsidy) to something much less cosy - a 'spare room', but it was too weak, too late.

This kind of verbal reframing is all part of the daily cut and thrust of politics, and, more often than not, whoever coins a resonant phrase first wins.

I was thinking of this at yesterday's Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group meeting on sustainable supply chains. We were discussing Industrial Symbiosis - one company's waste becoming another's raw material - when one group member said that when talking to colleagues he preferred to call it "Waste to Value".

Genius!

Why? Do some green jujitsu and put yourself in your colleagues' shoes.

You are busy doing your job when someone comes up to you to talk Industrial Symbiosis. Your reaction is likely to be "Huh? Can't this wait?"

Or they could ask you about Waste to Value - "What, we can make money from our waste? Tell me more!"

To win sustainability arguments, we have to think more like politicians, kick out the technocrat-speak, and put a positive spin on our sustainability ideas and projects. As Frank Luntz, George W Bush's infamous spin doctor put it, it's not what you say, it's what people hear. We need to use words that work.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

20 May 2013

Book Review - The Green Book: New Directions For Liberals in Government

green-bookI've been a member of the UK's third political party, the Liberal Democrats, for the best part of a decade - and an elected Councillor here in Newcastle for most of that time (full disclosure!). When I first joined, the party seemed so far from power that its earnest and sometimes fiery debates on policy seemed somewhat quaint, but the 2010 General Election changed everything.

With no clear majority for either the incumbent Labour Party or the opposition Conservatives, the decision to go into coalition with the latter, on the grounds they got more of the vote than anyone else, sent shockwaves through the party, the 'Westminster bubble' and the electorate. Suddenly what the Lib Dems did or said meant something - for better or worse.

The central thrust of this new tome, The Green Book, is that the party should focus on its strong reputation on environmental issues to define the next stage in its history. The editors make the case on three grounds:

  • Moral: many environmental pressures are now hitting critical levels and the time for action is now;
  • Economic: a green economy could rescue the UK economy from its current torpor;
  • Political: as the Conservatives' initial ambition for 'the greenest Government ever' has faded, the Lib Dems have continued to fly the flag, providing clear green water between the coalition parties.

What follows is a collection of 31 essays designed to set out a vision for eco-liberalism, as distinct from the eco-socialism championed by the Green Party. The authors are predominately MPs and party insiders, but many of the latter are sustainability professionals in their day jobs, and they are augmented by heavyweight guest authors. As a result, the majority of the pieces are intellectually hefty pieces of work, going way beyond the usual political blandishments. Here are some of the key themes I distilled:

  • The need for political leadership: across the UK economy, companies are sitting on mountains of cash which could be invested into greentech, if they the confidence to do so;
  • The need for a narrative: too much of the environmental debate has consisted of barrages of data and statistics, we need a narrative to take people with us on the quest for sustainability;
  • The need to sell the wider benefits of a green economy as well as the risks of inaction: energy security, rebalancing the economy, job creation etc;
  • The need to tackle the (politically more difficult) demand side of the economy as well as the supply side;
  • The need to understand and work with prevailing culture: "Persuading people to change their behaviour is, in general, only likely to succeed when it goes with the grain of their lifestyles and beliefs." (fits with my concept of Green Jujitsu);
  • The need for finance: for example, 3% of companies in the Cambridge greentech cluster have venture capital funding, compared to 36-40% in sectors such as healthcare or IT;
  • The need for policy integration: only the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) sees a green economy as more than a standalone issue, the need to see resource management as more than a waste issue etc;
  • The need to break up vested interests and cartels to open up markets and devolve solutions to the local level.

Given there are more than two dozen authors, the book provides a smorgasbord of potential solutions to these issues rather than a tightly defined manifesto. The ideas range from high level principles, most well understood in the sustainability sector such as the circular economy, to some quite specific solutions, such as how to allow the Green Investment Bank to borrow to invest without upsetting national finances. There is however a significant job left to do to weave these together into a cohesive whole and, more importantly, develop that narrative to make a compelling case to the electorate - we're still deep in policy wonk territory here.

Obviously this is a party political publication, and non-party supporters will have to put up with a degree of Lib Dem braggadocio, but there's plenty of red meat in here for environmental policy geeks no matter what their political viewpoint. As many psephologists are predicting another coalition Government after the 2015 election, and the party leadership has adopted its key thrust, The Green Book could become very influential indeed.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

17 May 2013

Sustainability Stories or Statistics?

LOTR or Data

 

How many times have you sat through a sustainability presentation that consists of graph after graph, table of data after table of data. And then at the end the presenter says "OK, what are we going to do?" and you rouse yourself from your day dream and think "about what?"

I've long promoted storytelling as a way of making sustainability more enthralling than an avalanche of evidence. Most people who use storytelling use a simple little personal story, but the best use the classic narrative ark of the quest. Somebody like us is suddenly thrown into a challenge and they must change to meet it - just like Frodo in Lord of The Rings, the everyman who is suddenly tasked with saving the world. The best example is the late Ray Anderson of Interface who talked of the 'spear in his chest' which made him set off on 'Mission Zero'. I once saw him tell this story in person, calmly and politely with no histrionics, and it was riveting.

Of course I have been a bit naughty and set up a false choice in the title of this post, but it's a mistake many people make. Stories and narratives wrap us up into sustainability, but the hard facts must be there to underpin the story - substance to match the style.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

15 May 2013

The New Mindset

wasted

 

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

13 May 2013

How to Unblock Global Progress on Climate Change

escher

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was set up at the Earth Summit in 1992. That's 21 years ago and where are we? Atmospheric carbon levels have just hit 400ppm for the first time in human history and emissions show no sign of slowing. We're running out of time.

Is it time to admit that, no matter how many international jamborees held or acronyms forged, trying to agree an over-reaching framework of targets, processes and systems that will satisfy Beijing, Washington and Dar es Salaam just ain't gonna happen?

On the other hand, we know what will happen if we don't have some form of international agreement. Nations that take action will lose polluting industries to those who won't, creating to a race to the bottom and no reduction in emissions. The Tragedy of the Commons writ large.

This is a conundrum I've been wrestling with for a long time and I've come to the conclusion that simplicity is the answer. Just think about when you get overwhelmed at work - trying to do too many things at once just leads to you rushing around like a headless chicken and getting nowhere fast. The only solution is to list what needs doing, pick the one which will give you the biggest return on your efforts, and focus on that 'til it's done.

So if you could pick just one thing to do on the climate, what would it be?

My vote goes for a carbon tax in every nation. A carbon tax is very simple, penalises carbon intensive energy (eg coal) more than cleaner energy sources (renewables), and some countries have already gone down this route so we have some experience to build on. If every UNFCCC country committed to impose a carbon tax then, in theory, there would be no carbon 'leakage' as industries would find a similar regime in place wherever they went. Nations could spend the revenue raised as they see fit to avoid 'World Government'-type paranoia.

In order to prevent poor countries being penalised, the level of taxation in each country could be linked to per capita GDP. This could lead to limited carbon leakage initially, but growth and carbon emissions would be decoupled.

This approach would lead to immediate action on carbon emissions, rather than arguing over targets which, once agreed, might lead to reduced emissions at some point in the future - and might not.

Once a such a global carbon tax agreement was agreed and implemented, then the UNFCCC could start looking at other issues one by one, such as protection of forests, targets, development mechanisms etc. These would have to play second fiddle in the medium term, but at least we'd have one practical measure up and running and cutting carbon, rather than yet another avalanche of position papers.

So let's keep it simple and actually do something. Carbon taxes for all!

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

10 May 2013

Green Business Confidential: Lighten Up

Here's the latest in my Green Business Confidential podcast series. It's called "Lighten Up". Make sure you listen to the end...

Audio MP3

Or, you can download it here and listen on your MP3 player:

GBC22 Lighten Up.

You can get the whole podcast series here or subscribe on iTunes.

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

8 May 2013

What would you ban, if you could?

law"Hurrah!", shouted the green world, as the neonicotinoid pesticides blamed by everybody (except their producers and their political allies) for the worrying decline in bee numbers.

Bans work. Some major environmental problems have been pretty much fixed by banning the substances involved:

  • The Montreal Protocol banned the use of CFC refrigerants, leading to a stabilisation and slight closure in the hole in the ozone level.
  • The ban in leaded petrol has been credited for great improvements in local air quality - and even for the steady reduction in violent crime which has occurred since the ban.
  • Restrictions on DDT use have been attributed to the rebound in Bald Eagle numbers in the US (although eggs shells remain thin). A ban in lead shot fishing weights led to a massive increase in swan numbers in the UK.

What is inevitable, however, is that those threatened by a ban (and those who are against any environmental protection as a 'cost' to business) will resist, producing their own research to prove that, in the memorable title of a book on the subject, "toxic waste is good for you." This happened in response to the call to phase out DDT in Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and it is happening in the neonicotinoid ban now.

This economic barrier is bunk as bans lead to innovation which is good for the economy. We still have fridges despite the CFC ban. Non-toxic 'sharkskin' anti-fouling paint was developed in response to a ban on toxic TBTs. So we shouldn't listen to the voices of 'no change'.

You don't have to wait until international authorities act, of course. Many organisations run black and grey lists of undesirable chemicals and other materials. Black listed substances must never be used, and whoever proposes a grey list chemical must make the case why it should be used over alternatives. This pre-empts legislation and makes sure the company is ahead of the curve. Some companies have added green lists of preferred chemicals too.

InterfaceFLOR deleted quite a number of carpet tile lines because of the flame retardants required by the other raw materials. The company sees ruling out toxic materials as a drive to innovate and maintain competitive advantage, so they're quite gung-ho about it.

So, over to you. What would you ban, if you could?

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

6 May 2013

Is business evil?

HieronymusBosch

Very amusing column from Lucy Mangan in the Guardian at the weekend where a trip to her local independent bookshop threatened to tempt her from her from her bookish, left of centre, middle class intelligentsia comfort zone into the raging vortex of greed that is free market capitalism. Well, she had a thought that if she took a stake in the bookshop she wouldn't want people hanging about in the cafe for too long, which seemed to mean the same thing to her.

It is easy to mock such woolly thinking - if booksellers couldn't make a profit, there would be no bookshops. And quite probably no books.

On the other hand, business has done itself no favours recently with greed outstripping common sense in the banking sector, big businesses shifting money around the world until it settles in the lowest-tax jurisdiction, the horrendous factory collapse in Bangladesh, and pharmaceutical and engineering companies caught bribing officials. We can't even caveat this as a big business problem - cf the "entrepreneur" who made millions selling war-ravaged poor countries golf ball detectors instead of the bomb detectors he promised them.

So is business a necessary evil?

I would say 'no'.

Business decisions are not made by 'the market' but by people. In each of the cases above a person or people are making those moral decisions and coming up short. This can be through greed, or it can be through ignorance. And these scandals can cause as much lasting damage to the business as they do to society.

And beyond that, business brings fundamental benefits like political stability - a functioning local economy is one of the criteria used to measure the recovery of a war-ravaged state. It is business which has brought people out of poverty, not aid. There could be no free press if it didn't operate in a market.

In Ms Mangan's case, I suspect that she might find that her instinctive urge to bring more efficiency to her putative bookshop cafe would put off exactly the sort of bookish customer like her she would be trying to attract. Because capitalism gives people choice and, if they don't like what you're offering, they can choose to go elsewhere.

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

3 May 2013

Can you design a green economy?

Darwin monkeyYou only have to see the repercussions of the 'Arab Spring' to see that revolutions are inherently unstable. Yet we constantly call for a 'revolution' in sustainability.

Evolution is stable, but slow. Nature itself took over a billion years to come up with a stable, sustainable environment which could support a diversity of life.

The internet 'revolution' of the mid nineties was over 20 years in the making - waiting for a number of key technologies to mature.

Far too many big green ideas seem to involve trying to 'redesign' chunks of the economy - cf the Hydrogen economy. And like the hydrogen economy they tend to fail.

On the other hand, evolution is slow, and in terms of climate and biodiversity in particular we don't have much time to waste.

So how do you accelerate evolution?

In economic terms, anything that boosts demand which produce change much more quickly than any other intervention - see how the costs of solar PV plummeted as Feed-In Tariffs produced a domestic market for a technology which was previously a specialist niche. Marks & Spencer boosted demand for recovered polyester fibre by using low grade material in bulk in cushion filling etc which brought down the price of high grade fibre for clothing.

That's not to say that business and Governments shouldn't intervene in supply chains when there is a key sticking point. But they shouldn't try to 'design' a whole green economy as one thing is sure - they'll get it wrong.

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

1 May 2013

Have eco-labels had their day?

eulabel You get eco-labels on everything these days. You can't grab a coffee without it being rainforest-certified, fair-trade, organic or all three. This very ubiquity bothers me - are all these products wonderful, or is the bar too low and do labels continue to challenge industry to strive harder?

Even the most successful of the eco-labels - the EU energy label on white goods which drove up energy efficiency dramatically - has a fatal flaw. Instead of cranking up the ratings so it was more difficult to meet them, the EU simply added ratings to the top end - A+, A++ etc. So a fridge that hit A in 2000 will still be ranked A in 2020 - where's the drive to improve or ditch old and under-performing technologies?

More worrying was a conversation I had with a sustainability manager at a major multinational last week (not one of our clients). He said something along the lines of:

We lobby to make sure the eco-label is something we can achieve, then we meet that target and no more - there's no pressure to exceed the standard.

In other words, industry tries to dictate what "green" means, makes sure it is easily achievable and then, bingo, achieves it! And sits back, job done.

Such lowest common denominator thinking exasperates me. We need to be creating powerful drivers to make industry strive forwards, not sit on their (modest) laurels. The rankings in all eco-labels should be designed to tighten over time to keep people on their toes. If there is no fear of losing the label, then it is worthless.

An alternative approach is the league table. Industry loves competition and hates to come last - certainly the Greenpeace ranking of electronics firms made even Steve Jobs sit up and listen. A comprehensive set of rankings across sectors would really spice up progress to sustainability.

Whatever is done needs to be done quickly - very soon the public is going to notice that almost everything has a label of some sort. And if they get cynical, the eco-label won't be worth the product packaging it is printed on.

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

29 April 2013

The Real Tragedy of Bangladesh

denial

As I write, the official death toll from the collapsed Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh has hit 380, hundreds remain unaccounted for, and the eponymous Mr Rana has been nicked by the police trying to flee the country.

Who is responsible for this tragedy? Mr Rana and his fellow factory owners? The Bangladeshi authorities? The big brands who use such suppliers? Western consumers who think a £2 T-shirt doesn't come at a bigger price? Global capitalism?

That debate will run and run - and to me it's an impossible question to answer except "all of the above." The more pertinent question is "who's going to step up and fix it?"

Inevitably some journo/polemicist was going to play the contrarian card - step forward Alex Massie of the Spectator who has been declaring that while such sweatshops are awful, they're better than the alternative - hardscrabble subsistence farming. While that is indeed true, it's a false choice - a moral-cop out to justify the status quo. This is the real tragedy of the Bangladesh disaster - that so many people think such events are somehow inevitable.

There's a clear third option - decent working conditions for all.

The inevitability position is blown out of the water by the brands who have "fixed" such problems in their own supply chains. 15 years ago, Nike was a dirty word amongst the international social justice movement, but it has driven standards down through its supply chain (although some concerns remain). Marks & Spencer sponsored a low-carbon, high quality lingerie factory in Sri Lanka. Apple has been shining a torch into the darkest corners of its supply chain - and publicising what it found there.

These brands know that investing time, effort and money into their supply chains creates a win-win-win-win for the consumer, the brand, the supplier and the worker. So we can either do that and everyone's happy or we could all just shrug our shoulders and say "Que sera, sera" - and that would be a real tragedy.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

26 April 2013

Triple Dips, GDP and Sustainability

George_osborne_hiAll eyes were on UK Chancellor George Osborne yesterday as the first quarter's GDP growth results were released. If they were negative, then we would have been in a 'triple-dip' recession - don't you love the way it rolls off the tongue - which would be terrible, and if positive then everything's absolutely fantastic. It went positive and George sighed a big sigh of relief.

The whole hoo-hah over the figures of course is nonsense. The definition of recession - two negative quarters in a row - has absolutely no economic significance in itself. Statistically the UK economy has been flatlining for 18 months, and whether or not we hit the accepted definition of recession or not in this period makes little practical difference.

All this makes me think about the growth/no growth debate in the sustainability world. If this is what zero growth feels like, then nobody seems particularly happy with it. My argument is that we've never really tried to decouple GDP and, say, carbon emissions, so we don't know whether the two are locked together as tightly as the no-growth proponents claim.

Which leads on to GDP itself. The big problem with this being the dominant measure of progress is that it treats all economic activity as equal whether that activity is highly socially/environmentally damaging or whether it adds value to society and the natural world. If we could get a better definition of GDP that focussed on 'good' economic activity, then the growth/no growth argument might become redundant.

Another aspect of the weakness of GDP was flagged up on BBC's Today programme early yesterday morning. The debate was how come employment was increasing if there was no growth. Economist Prof Jonathan Haskell of Imperial Business School explained that method of calculating GDP used in the UK was developed in the grimy post-war times of Keynes and doesn't handle 'production' from the modern knowledge economy. If we switched to the system used by the US, growth would leap by 1% - which would make George a very happy boy indeed.

But the implications of that current system is that relatively clean industries like software (and by extension the whole lightweight digital economy) don't register as growth whereas old smokestack industries and resource intensive sectors like construction do - a perverse incentive. So, go on, Georgie boy, change the system and make us all happy.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

24 April 2013

Our Place in the World

Harry WWT

My eldest son, Harry, is mad about nature. If you ask him "What would you like to do this weekend?", he'll respond with the name of one of half-a-dozen nature reserves. At six years old, his knowledge of birds in particular is quite remarkable - he'll spot a nuthatch or a reed warbler from quite a distance.

As most boys of his age do, he asks lots of questions, many of which start "Dad, does nature..." Sometimes I tease him "Well, you're part of nature, what do you think?" He always gives me his nervous not-sure-about-this laugh.

And I think that this is the default, anthropocentric position of most if not all of us, that we somehow float above the natural world, observing it remotely. We like to point out to Harry that he still has to poo, just like everything else alive. That breaks the tension if nothing else.

Yep, we all have to eat, drink and poo - we are all part of nature, like it or not. There are three different dimensions:

  • Spiritually: Everybody gets a spiritual lift from the natural world - evidenced by everything from higher hospital recovery rates amongst those with a natural view to higher prices on houses with river/sea views. Some take this to the extent of neo-spiritual nonsense with its healing crystals, prayer flags and Paulo Coelho books, but we don't need to go all hippy-dippy to commune with nature - just walk to the top of a hill and breathe in.
  • Physically: Everything physical we need, we get from nature - animal, mineral or vegetable - plus all the eco-system services we rely on like stable climate, screening the sun's rays and waste disposal. Many businesses forget this, but they are embedded into the natural environment and highly reliant upon it. Therefore it makes practical sense to nurture the natural world rather than ravaging it.
  • Intellectually: the scientific discipline of 'biomimicry' has shown us many ways we can learn from the way nature does things. Nature has been pretty sustainable for over 2 billion years so it has much to teach us whether on a macro level like the circular economy or in micro level solutions like emulating sharkshin on boat hulls to avoid using toxic anti-fouling.

And if you want to really experience nature, take a young child with you. They get it.

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

22 April 2013

8 Ways to Bring Creativity to Sustainability

Frame

Oh, look, it's Earth Day! And it was Earth Week just last week when I was bemoaning this rash of me-too, unoriginal thinking. Don't worry, I'm not going to rant about this again, but meeting the sustainability challenge is going to require more than the bog standard range of 'solutions' - awareness days, protests, posters, switch it off stickers, ISO14001 etc, etc.

To reduce the sheer bandwidth of information that floods our senses, we restrict our worldview to a certain frame and block out what doesn't fit in that frame. So us sustainability practitioners tend to see the world from a "Save the World!" point of view where "doing something, anything, for Earth Day" is more important than doing something effective.

The problem here is that the people whose attitudes and behaviour we need to change are looking at the world through a quite different frame. This is the whole point of my Green Jujitsu idea - that us practitioners need to take a look at the world through those other people's frame(s) and develop engagement techniques to suit.

Another problem with our mindset frames is that they restrict us creatively. We tend to focus on those things which are urgent, easy to understand, close to us physically and/or which we are familiar with. So how do we expand our frames to see breakthrough solutions?

Here are some guidelines I use:

1. Don't go down the mumbo-jumbo route. In my opinion much of the 'mindfulness' movement is inward looking whereas solutions are largely found outside our experience. And you'll put off cynics like me, so put away the crystals and the prayer wheels;

2. Don't be a doom-monger. If you want to get people creative, telling them the world is about to end will make many think "what's the point?" Get excited about sustainability and others will too!

3. Likewise, go easy on the green jargon. I try to introduce ideas such as the circular economy, product service systems and industrial symbiosis as work progresses rather than trying to get everyone up to speed before starting.

4. Read outside your discipline. If you look on my bookshelf, many of the books which have influenced me most are not 'green' books but those that tackle broader issues like change (Switch, Nudge), communications (Lend Me Your Ears, Visual Meetings) and management (Good to Great, In Search of Excellence, The Fifth Discipline). There are big themes in many of these books which apply to sustainability as much as any other aspect of life.

5. Draw. When I get people to plot out their business processes graphically, it always has some interesting results. It also gets the problem down on to one large sheet of paper which makes it more manageable.

6. Use the Toddler Test aka The 5 Whys to get to real reasons: We need this piece of kit. Why? To dry the materials. Why? Because we added water to make them flow. Why? To shift them from that side of the factory to this one. Why? Errr...

7. Ramp up the challenge. Even in my short workshops, I try to get each team to rotate around the issues under discussion and instead of starting from scratch on each one, challenge them to build on the ideas of the teams that have gone before. The good ideas often come in the last iteration when all the obvious ones have been identified.

8. Ditch Powerpoint. Presentations kill creativity. I recently did a Powerpoint-free workshop but two thirds of the way through had to cede the floor to a guest speaker who fired up the projector. You could feel the enthusiasm drain out of the room like air escaping from a punctured lilo.

I hope these 8 points give you plenty of food for thought - as I've said the need for creativity is just as strong amongst practitioners and facilitators as it is amongst our clients and colleagues. Keep trying stuff and keep what works for you.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

19 April 2013

Who's for yet another environmental awareness week?

CalendarApparently it's Responsible Business Week.

And Earth Week.

And Work Zone Awareness Week, National Beanpole Week, Bowel Cancer Awareness Week, Parkinson's Awareness Week, Depression Awareness Week, World Voice Day, World Haemophilia Day etc, etc, etc.

Please, please, spare us from more me-too 'awareness raising'. It is just lazy copycat activity for activity's sake, preaching to the converted. It might make us feel good about ourselves (a rude person might say 'smug') but it clearly flies over the heads of the intended audience.

Because, let's face it, if these weeks, days and hours worked, I'd know what Work Zone Awareness was. But I don't. Do you?

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

17 April 2013

Sunrise Industry

sunrise wind turbines

 

The view from Casa Lobo, Salobreña, Spain

 

Tags:

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

15 April 2013

Do Business Schools Get Sustainability?

bowlerDeprived of BBC radio here on my Spanish holiday, I've taken to downloading the Beeb's podcasts to listen to while cooking or doing the washing up. The change in medium is leading to quite a bit of serendipity and at the weekend I happened upon Peter Day's World of Business and, in particular, an edition on whether big-name MBA courses are worth the huge amount of money they cost.

Pertinently, Day asked academics from Harvard Business School and the Sloan Business School at MIT how come the Masters of the Universe they had expensively groomed had failed to avoid the great financial crash of 07/08. The immediate response was "we have an ethics module."

We have an ethics module.

Hmmm. Kind of reminds me of "we have ISO14001" as a straw that businesses clutch at when they're challenged on their sustainability performance. ISO14001 will not deliver sustainability. A module on business ethics is hardly going to overcome the predominance of the profit motive in the rest of the course.

Out of interest I took the top scoring business school on the 'Beyond Grey Pinstripes' social/environmental ranking, Stanford Graduate School of Business, and had a browse through their MBA cirrculum. There was indeed quite a lot on ethics, but virtually nothing worthwhile on the fundamental relationships between business, society, and the environment. On environmental issues there was a lot on the green buildings in which the course was taught, but I couldn't find anything about, say, the circular or low carbon economies. If it was there, it wasn't obvious. And Stanford is meant to be the best at this.

No-one needs to pay me megabucks a year to learn an inconvertible and basic truth that underpins all business: the economy exists to serve society which is part of the environment - and all three are thus interdependent.

If a business school isn't teaching you that, I'd ask for your money back.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

11 April 2013

MMR, climate change and the irrational me

syringeI am Mr Rational.

Strict atheist, anti-tribalist, and demander of evidence, statistics, margins of error. Black cats, broken mirrors and ladders hold no fear for me.

In fact, the quickest way you can put me off you is to ask what star sign I am.

Which is why it is so strange that 5 years ago, when my eldest was up for his measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination, I had a genuine wobble. Should I? You know, with all the fuss that there's been in the papers (and papers I don't even read)? Should I risk it with my own flesh and blood?

Fortunately Mrs Rational put me straight or I too might be panicking like all those parents in Wales who demurred and ended up putting their children at risk of dangerous disease outbreaks.

It struck me recently that there were great parallels between the MMR scare and the climate change 'debate'. In both cases, a small number of people have managed to seed doubt in people's minds using circumstantial anecdotes which flies in the face of robust scientific evidence. But that doubt is very powerful. Do health professionals really know what they're doing? How can the world be warming if it's snowing?

It is tempting (and hands up, I've succumbed) to fight such irrationality with a deluge facts, graphs and hard evidence, but it rarely works. In the elephant/rider/path model of human behaviour, the elephant/subconscious is always more powerful than the rider/conscious. If the elephant is spooked, there's precious little the rider can do to calm it down.

So, what's the answer?

My Green Jujitsu approach says acknowledge the power of the irrational mind and try to use it to your advantage. Inspire people to do the right thing by making it inviting, fun and in line with our cultural norms.

Unfortunately the merchants of doubt will always be there, but lets worry about what we can change, not what we can't.

 

 

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

10 April 2013

S/Hola from Spain! (Part 2)

villa solar

villa solar detailMy first impression of Spain on this holiday was a huge amount of installed solar PV capacity, then, when we got to our villa, we found a huge homemade solar hot water system (above and right) at the bottom of the terraced garden. It turns out that this heats the private outdoor pool (we're really slumming it).

Unfortunately, as you can see, the sun has bleached the dark blue collector pipes almost white, which will significantly curtail its effectiveness by reflecting more light and heat than it absorbs. Certainly the pool is a little on the cool side (26°C) with at least one oo-oo moment on the way in.

The domestic hot water is heated by another solar panel on the roof which we can't see, but seems to be very effective. The villas below us all have professional systems installed, so I assume it is one of these. By default, the panel is the sole provider of hot water - if we want to heat it electrically, we physically have to plug the immersion heater into the wall.

Why all this solar power? Spain, like Israel, made solar hot water systems mandatory on new and refurbished domestic buildings in 2006 (commercial buildings must have PV as well). Our villa, and I would guess the big solar panel, would appear to predate this legislation, but there are also incentives like 0% VAT and low interest loans for equipment. Given the amount of sunshine you get here, it must make a lot of economic sense.

While I sip my beer on the veranda, in between shouting at the kids, I can watch two wind farms turn lazily in the distance. At night, kids in bed, slinging a couple of logs in the chiminea allows me and the old girl to enjoy the sea breeze until bedtime. Flight aside, this holiday is turning out a lot greener than I expected it to be.

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses


Free monthly bulletin:

Learn how to help your business go green from the comfort of your desk..

View events

By Gareth Kane

Everything you need to know to integrate sustainability into the DNA of your business.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

A highly accessible, practical guide to those who want to introduce sustainability into their business or organization quickly and effectively.

Submit button

By Gareth Kane

The smart way to engage effectively with employees

View events