Gareth's Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

News & Views from the front line

19 December 2014

Some consistency please, Mr Cameron

CameronHuskiesAs a good liberal, I'm always keen to give people the benefit of the doubt. When newly installed Prime Minister David Cameron promised back in 2010 to preside over "the greenest Government ever", I was delighted, if a tad sceptical. Then, last winter, he was said to want "to get rid of all this green crap" in relation to energy bills.

The last few months, and indeed days, have seen a continuation of this wild see-sawing between rampant scepticism and enthusiastic flag waving. Here are some high- and lowlights:

  • 23 September 2014: To the UN, Cameron put forward a solid right-of-centre argument for a low carbon economy: "We need to give business the certainty it needs to invest in low carbon... we need a framework built on green growth not green tape." This was probably the first major speech on climate change by a UK PM since Margaret Thatcher in 1990.
  • 1 October 2014: To the Conservative Party conference, the green economy got the very briefest of mentions: "leading the way on tackling climate change".
  • 16 December 2014: He tells the Liaison Committee that people are "Frankly fed up with so many wind farms being built that won't be necessary. Enough is enough and I am very clear about that." He goes on to say he wants to phase out subsidies on renewables and talks up fracking instead.
  • 17 December 2014: Prime Minister's Questions: Cameron answers two questions on green energy, both times enthusiastically declaring that the green economy is creating jobs. In response to a third question he brags of having halved excess winter deaths from fuel poverty through insulating homes.

In The Green Executive, I posit that to deliver sustainability, we need leadership above all else. Paraphrasing leadership guru Warren Bennis, I listed 4 key leadership qualities:

  • A sense of purpose;
  • Trust;
  • Resilience;
  • Bias towards action.

It's clear that on all of these things, Cameron's performance is lacking. His sense of purpose is all over the place which impacts in turn on trust - and without trust, investors will hedge their bets, slowing progress. He shows little resilience and we could do with a lot more action rather than a constant wrestling match with his much greener Liberal Democrat coalition partners (usual disclosure: I'm a member of the Lib Dems).

The strangest thing of all is that, despite this, the UN recently ranked the UK third in the world for its efforts in tackling climate change, so Cameron could justifiably say he had delivered on his promise. But just imagine what we could have achieved if he showed a bit of leadership!

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

17 December 2014

The Sustainability Revolution Starts Here!

My latest book, Accelerating Sustainability using the 80/20 Rule, is out this week!

It was written to change the way we address sustainability issues. As I explain in the video above, I am fed up with the mucking about that passes for progress in our industry - all the bureaucracy, over-precise but inaccurate analysis and low expectations.

The 80/20 Rule says there is often an imbalance between effort and results - typically 20% of effort results in 80% of results, and the other 80% of our efforts deliver just 20%. If you focus on the former and throw off the latter, you'll get much better results, faster - it's a mindset thing.

I'll be hosting a webinar on the book on 28 January where I'll be giving you an insight into how this mindset can change how you approach everything from employee engagement to your sustainability strategy - you can register here.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

15 December 2014

The Oil Industry: Resurgence or Death Throes?

old oil pump

Like many, I've been completely gobsmacked by the plummeting oil price - down from over $100 a barrel at the start of the year to $64 a barrel this month. Trying to unpick what has happened has led me to the following line of thinking:

  • The growth in demand is slowing dramatically, worrying all producers (IEA);
  • Production is actually falling (IEA);
  • Shale oil production in the US is threatening OPEC's stranglehold on oil markets (BusinessWeek);
  • OPEC are trying to drive out shale oil and other competitors by keeping quotas high (BusinessWeek) - presumably draining their stocks.

Given this political/economic wrestling match, it is very hard to say where oil prices will be in 2-3 years time. Given the relative flexibility of shale oil extraction compared to lumbering OPEC conventional extraction, I can't help but think, like BusinessWeek, that OPEC are going to emerge a much weaker force as a result of their tactics. It may be they are up against the wall and lashing out in desperation. So the answer to my question above is: both - resurgence for shale, long term decline for OPEC.

This uncertainty is a massive problem for investors in alternative energy - who need to know what the market will be like to invest. I can't help but think that the solution is still a carbon tax to reflect the damage done by carbon based fuels - along with the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. This would stabilise the market and give renewables a level playing field.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

12 December 2014

Green Communications - Secrets of the Sustainability Masterminds

biscuit factory

Last Friday saw the final Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group of 2014. We met in the fantastic Biscuit Factory art gallery in Newcastle, surrounded by some wonderful pieces of art (above).

The theme of the meeting was Green Communications and here are 12 of the 44 learning points arising from the discussion:

  • It’s easier to get green communications very wrong than wonderfully right.
  • All communications have to be able to answer the question “so what?”
  • Facts must be in context – what does it mean?
  • 'Green' and ‘sustainable’ are difficult words – facts may be more powerful.
  • Authenticity is the key success factor.
  • Admitting mistakes or including honest third party views (eg Jonathan Porritt with Marks & Spencer) helps authenticity.
  • Some people want detail, some want the big picture – need to provide for both by 'layering' the message.
  • Need to target the audience(s) with influence – may be a step or two removed from your immediate stakeholders eg customers of your customers.
  • Match format to the audience – eg data and charts for technical audiences, infographics for non-technical audiences.
  • Age matters: millennials have different values/language than, say, baby boomers.
  • Litmus test – does the message get echoed back, or does the same question get asked over and over again?
  • Make your communications team part of your sustainability team to cut the number of hoops you have to jump through.

As ever, the discussion that lead to these points was more valuable than these bullet points.

The Group members have identified a fascinating and challenging topic for the next meeting - 'Age and Sustainability' - how we need to account for the differences between millennials and baby boomers in our sustainability programmes.

The Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group is for sustainability practitioners working in large organisations. You can learn more about the Group here.

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

10 December 2014

You've got to celebrate success in sustainability

Terra Infirma is 4 years old!On Friday night, my partner and I watched her hometown football team Blyth Spartans - a bunch of spirited part-timers - beat the full time professionals of Hartlepool in the FA Cup. The town went wild.

On Saturday, the local premiership team, Newcastle United, continued their unexpected run of form by beating the all-conquering Chelsea, ending the Londoners' 23 game unbeaten run. Again, the joy in this football mad city was palpable.

Yesterday, the UN published its index of national rankings of 60 industrialised countries on their efforts in tackling climate change. All three UK news outlets where I saw the story - The Guardian, the BBC and the Independent - used the same headline: Australia came bottom of the list. You had to read well past that headline to find that the UK came third.

Third!

Out of 60?

Beaten only by Denmark and Sweden?

That's brilliant!

So why aren't the news outlets running that? Is it because the truly want to pillory Australia? Is it because bad news sells? Or is it because the media line has been "PM Cameron promised the greenest Government ever and failed" and this doesn't fit that narrative? Who knows?

But whichever, it is a real shame, because, as any top sportsman (or newsagent from Blyth with twinkle toes for that matter) will tell you, you've got to celebrate success. Celebrate and build on it. Because that's the way to keep on winning.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

8 December 2014

Green Communications: Are you speaking to the right audience?

Angry manager

Last Friday saw the last Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group meeting of 2015 - we were discussing green communications. I'll be posting some of the multitude of learning points here later in the week, but one key point that arose was the need to speak to the right audience.

Most companies try and speak to everybody with the same bland, uninspiring message - and waste their time and money as everybody ignores it. Green jujitsu says you must tailor the message to the audience, so first you need to identify your audience. The 'right' audience is the one which will have maximum impact (positive or negative) on your sustainability efforts. It might not be immediately obvious who that target audience should be:

Internally, people with influence over business models and product/service design are the people you need to target.

Externally, it gets more difficult. If you produce an eco-friendly material, then the people you need to speak to are often a couple of levels along the value chain - in the ultimate brand for consumer goods. You want them to instruct their suppliers to buy your material.

It might take a bit of head scratching and trial and error to get it right - but it's worth the effort!

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

5 December 2014

Message to George: "Green = Growth"

George_osborne_hiI sat through Wednesday's Autumn Statement from UK Chancellor George Osborne with increasing disappointment. Normally such a set piece speech will have at the very least a token mention of the green economy, but we got nothing. Nada. Rien. Chochote.

Even worse, we got exactly the kind of subsidies for fossil fuel extraction that his boss David Cameron said we needed rid of back in September. As Cameron put it:

In short we need a framework built on green growth not green tape.

There are four issues the Chancellor should have considered:

  1. Leadership: the mixed messages coming from the top of Government will do nothing to encourage investment in the low carbon economy. A clear steer is needed.
  2. Innovation: the fossil fuel industry is mature and has little scope for driving technological development. Boosting Government investment in, say, the smart grid and/or energy storage could trigger a cascade in innovations for future energy and transport systems.
  3. Costs: despite all the hype about oil prices plummeting in the last month or so, they are still higher than they ever were pre-2007. Renewable energy has huge amount of scope to get cheaper, the price of fossil fuels will inexorably rise in the medium term.
  4. Politics: given the level of public support for renewables, leadership on the green economy would have appealed to centrist swing voters.

And he if doesn't believe me, he can always ask his boss.

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

3 December 2014

Thinking about a career in sustainability?

In this edition of Ask Gareth, I describe how I switched career into sustainability from engineering and how you can do the same, no matter what your background.

You can see all editions of Ask Gareth by clicking here.

If you'd like to send a question to Ask Gareth fire away!.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

1 December 2014

What makes a company 'good'?

There was an article in the Observer yesterday on Simon Anholt and his 'Good Countries Index' that was so fascinating, I immediately checked out Anholt's TEDtalk (above). It asked a really fundamental question. What do we want a/our Country to do? Make us rich? Happy? Healthy?

Anholt's refreshingly selfless answer to this question is that he wants a country to do good for humanity as a whole. So his good country index consists of seven international metrics:

  • Science & Technology
  • Culture
  • International Peace & Security
  • World Order (not as ominous as it sounds - it includes charitable giving, refugees given refuge, UN declarations signed)
  • Planet & Climate
  • Prosperity & Equality
  • Health & Wellbeing

Ireland tops the rankings, with the UK 7th and the US 21st. My only quibble of Anholt's TEDTalk is his claim that Kenya making no 30 means money isn't a prerequisite for 'being good'. I think that's wishful thinking, the predominance of Western nations in the top 30 suggests resources and attitude help a country to make a difference in practice.

That aside, I found this a highly refreshing approach to measuring progress. And as Anholt briefly asks at the end of his talk, what would make a good company in this sense? Reporting standards such as the GRI allow companies to choose which issues are 'material' to them or their industry. But what would a standard, outward looking, international set of metrics look like? Who would top it?

That's too big a question to answer here, but we can ask "what does a good company look like from the outside?", and what are you doing with your company to fulfil that vision?

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

28 November 2014

You can't push a circular economy

Green ThreadYesterday I went to the North East Recycling Forum (NERF) Annual Conference, which as usual, punched way above its weight when it comes to speakers. We had Steve Lee, CEO of CIWM, David Palmer-Jones, CEO of SITA, Roland Arnison of AEA Ricardo and Mark Shayler of Ape giving a wide range of views from the waste industry through to the whole nature of consumption.

The broad theme of the morning was the circular economy and Steve and David started with the EU circular economy package which was adopted this year. What bothered me though, and I said so, is the provisions in the package revolve predominantly around the waste end of the linear economy - with the headline target of a recycle rate of 70%.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower put it:

Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.

The one factor which will make or break the circular economy is demand or pull. Without demand, you can try and push as much stuff into the recycling pipe as you want, but it'll be like trying to push string - or a shop full of unwanted and unsold toys. And, even indirectly, recycling target based on quantity, not quality, is unlikely to attract much enthusiasm from the manufacturing industry - the cart is being put before the horse.

If the EU changed their focus to setting standards for recycled material in products then it would create demand for high quality secondary materials. This demand, and only this, is essential to create the pull which would bend our linear economy into a circular one, driving up quality and pushing down cost. It's that simple.

 

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

26 November 2014

What do we need to solve climate change? A hashtag!

Yesterday the UK's Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) launched a tweetathon around the hashtag #BackClimateAction. The idea was that each hour between 9am and 7pm people would tweet on a different theme - everything from Cities & Homes to Sport.

Now, DECC's previous attempts at public engagement have included an unmitigated disaster - the infamous 'bedtime story' in 2009 (above) signed off by a certain Ed Miliband MP. So, despite the change in administration at DECC, I must admit I was more than a little sceptical before I started, but I dutifully chose Business Hour at 3pm and settled down in front of Tweetdeck with a cup of tea.

Reader, I tried my best. I tweeted resources, I asked questions, I answered others' questions.

The results?

I had a couple of brief interactions with people I already knew while a torrent of noise slid past on TweetDeck. After 30 minutes, I gave up and started writing this piece.

To be slightly more objective, I put out a question at the end of the hour asking whether anybody had found it of value. Three people got back to me to say they had picked up some good ideas.

That said, the numbers taking part were certainly impressive - DECC says they got 100 million 'impressions'. But the exam question is, did all this effort lead to ANY engagement of the disengaged?

I know this is non-scientific I couldn't see one person tweeting who didn't already have a strong vested interest in sustainability (apart from the ubiquitous semi-clad spam merchants who pick up on any trending hashtag). This effect is known as an 'echo chamber' - people who agree on something agreeing rather noisily and at length. They tend to assume that it attracts a wider audience, but this is debatable - witness all those exasperated #CameronMustGo tweeters complaining that the mainstream media is ignoring their protest against the British PM.

But in a way, this lack of wider engagement is inevitable. The whole point of a hashtag is to bring people of similar interests together, not to attract those on the sidelines. As a rallying call to the faithful, the tweetathon was obviously successful, but we need to go beyond that - and fast.

Engaging the disengaged is the biggest challenge in sustainability, but a hashtag probably isn't the way to go about it.

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

24 November 2014

Winter is coming*... or is it?

harry winterfell

 

My eldest son, Harry, is doing a project at school entitled 'The Angry Earth.' Last night over dinner he suddenly shouted "I hate global warming!"

His mother, possessor of more degrees than you can shake a stick at, said "Why?"

"Because we will get no more snow!" he retorted.

"Or we might get lots of snow..." I muttered

"Why?"

"Because it could mess with our weather system."

As I spoke I realised I had opened the whole weather/climate can of worms. He's a very clever boy but I was at risk of leaving him confused. We talked it through and he seemed OK with the idea that global warming might result in local freezing. But it begs the question - is it better to leave people with a over-simplistic understanding of climate change or confuse them with the complexities?

It is this reason that I've given up trying to explain climate change science to people in my employee engagement work for clients. I prefer to ask people what they are going to do about carbon emissions instead - usually a much more fruitful conversation.

* Sharp-eyed fans of Game of Thrones might notice that Harry is pictured in the courtyard of Winterfell, give or take a little CGI and a lot of mud.

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

21 November 2014

We are all ethical - until we go to work...

business angel

Interesting piece of research doing the rounds in the media where they found that bankers were more honest when they weren't thinking about being bankers. This suggests that bankers aren't inherently more unethical than the rest of us, but rather that the culture of modern banking is responsible for LIBOR, Forex, PPI and all the other banking scandals.

Culture is an incredibly powerful force - for good or bad. It is incredible how resilient culture is to change, particularly in larger organisations where you get what I call 'institutional inertia'. Management legend Peter Drucker (is said to have) put it like this:

Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

If you want to change anything for the better - ethics, social impacts, environmental performance - you better start with the culture.

But Drucker also said:

Company cultures are like country cultures. Never try to change one. Try, instead, to work with what you’ve got.

This is the essence of Green Jujitsu - work out where the overlap between the existing culture and sustainability sits - and use this as the entry point. It applies just as well to ethical/social issues as it does to green issues.

 

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

19 November 2014

Interview with Paul Taylor, Sustainability Manager, Camira Fabrics

paul taylorHere's an extract of an interview I did with Paul Taylor, Sustainability Manager of Camira Fabrics over the summer. Camira Fabrics is the biggest producer of commercial fabrics in the UK, producing 9 million metres of fabric per year, employing 600 people and turning over £70 million. Paul has since left the company, but there are some great nuggets of wisdom in here which we can all learn from.

How did you first get involved in sustainability?

You could say it started when I was five years old. I lived in Central London, surrounded by concrete, and I just felt claustrophobic. For one week a year we went to West Sussex to stay with a relative because the family couldn’t afford a holiday. But on the South Coast, when you are exposed for one week a year in the summer to coast line, marshes, sunsets, sky – it’s extraordinary the impact it has on you. Eventually I went off and studied environmental management and geomorphology – that was my passion to understand the world and to find a route where I could have a positive impact on it.

I started my professional life as a community development officer in Central London, because sustainability options weren’t open to me at that time. But those years taught me about how to have an impact on people and I decided that I had to find a career in sustainability. So it was apply for a job anywhere – pin on a map – and the first opportunity was at Middlesbrough Environment City. I had the opportunity to work on a project which was all about Agenda 21 and the world opened up. The path since has taken me through some dark days in the public sector, but nevertheless, it was a great, great experience. It was about realising you can’t just change the world from the bottom up, you have to have the policy from the top down as well – for a positive contribution you need to do both. And the path led me here, to Camira.

What’s the history of sustainability at Camira?

Camira has only been around since 1974. We started out as Camborne Fabrics, a textile supplier, and we began manufacturing here in Mirfield in 1987, and grew very quickly despite the perception that textiles production in the UK was declining. The big change happened when Camborne was bought by Interface in the late 1990s and became part of a company whose whole drive was around sustainability – and using sustainability to grow the business, not just as a bolt on. Camira was born in 2006 when there was a management buy-out from Interface. So we were born with a culture of sustainability, wholly owned by directors and investors who had seen what sustainability could do for a business. The turnover was £26m in 2006, now it’s £70m. And that’s been purely from a drive for sustainability- in terms of people understanding it, getting the processes right and the whole idea of leaving behind a better world than the one you found.

How do you induct new employees into the culture?

Well we have a new laboratory manager starting this week and on day 3 I have her for half a day informal discussion on sustainability. Every single new person who walks through the door gets that half day – and we learn from it too – what their previous experience of sustainability has been. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

17 November 2014

A neat trick to engage your boss in sustainability

Tony_Abbott_-_2010An interesting thing happened at the G20 summit which took place in Australia over the weekend. Aussie premier Tony Abbott (right) is one of the few pro-coal, anti-climate action leaders in the world, but he ended up signing a communiqué including the following phrases:

We support strong and effective action to address climate change.

We reaffirm our commitment to rationalise and phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

(I've stripped out the detail to focus on the commitments)

How did this happen?

A: Peer pressure.

With the weight of the leaders of the world's greatest economies pressing down on him, Abbott crumbled and signed. Whether he will act is another matter, but he signed - a significant step that he can be reminded of if he doesn't act.

How can you perform a similar miracle in your business if the boss, or one of the bosses, isn't interested?

Look to their peers and identify those who are taking sustainability seriously. Those peers could be individuals or they could be organisations. Then ask yourself: Are your competitors doing better on sustainability? Well, constantly compare your organisation to the best. Are you a member of a trade organisation? Suggest your boss gives a presentation on your sustainability programme. Has an individual peer been recognised? Work that into your communications.

The G20 showed that peer pressure works. Use it.

Photo © MystifyMe Concert Photography (Troy) Creative Commons License

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

14 November 2014

Should we be exploring space when life on earth is unsustainable?

avZGG4q_460sa_v1

Like much of the population on Wednesday, I was gripped by the Rosetta mission to the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Never mind that it's parked worse than my car on a Saturday morning trip to B&Q with a hangover, as an engineer, I cannot help but marvel at the sheer ambition of propelling a probe the size of a fridge 300 million miles through space (as the astrocrow flies), slingshotting it around planets and landing on a lump of rock less than 3 miles across.

But, as an old colleague pointed out, is this really a good use of resources and ingenuity when we face the challenges of climate change, resource depletion and global poverty?

That's a toughie.

But here's the way I look at it:

  • There is no 'or' here - we can do both. There is plenty of money to tackle global problems, what we need is political will and co-operation. If it was an either-or choice, then obviously we should prioritise sustainability, but it isn't.
  • Space exploration has already told us a lot about our planet and we rely on satellites and their technology whether monitoring the ozone layer, measuring the energy imbalance that is driving climate change, or warning of drought conditions.
  • OK, the Rosetta mission isn't about the earth. But the challenge is driving forward important technological advances in everything from solar panels to data analysis via environmental sensors.

So, I'm happy to spend billions pushing forward this kind of exploration, as long as we spend commensurate billions back here on earth sorting out our own backyard.

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

12 November 2014

The military has climate change in its sights

sniper

Despite all the jibes about 'military intelligence being an oxymoron', armed forces around the world spend an awful lot of time and effort analysing geopolitical trends, identifying potential causes of conflict and scoping out what preparation is required. Back in my days at the Ministry of Defence in the mid-90s, water resources were regarded as a key flashpoint, but in recent weeks both the US and UK military have come out to say that climate change is a major risk to national security and peace.

The Pentagon’s 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap says:

“Climate change will affect the Department of Defense’s ability to defend the Nation and poses immediate risks.”

Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti told UK MPs earlier this week:

“Climate change will require more deployment of British military in conflict prevention, conflict resolution or responding to increased humanitarian requirements due to extreme weather impacts. It is posing a risk to geopolitical security, which is a prerequisite for economic growth, good health and wellbeing for all of us.”

The military isn't renowned for its wishy-washy lefty-liberal tree-hugging. If they see risks, we can be pretty sure those risks need to be considered seriously.

I had hoped that such unequivocal statements and respect for the military from the political right would jolt the latter out of their doubts about climate change science.

But no.

In May, Republicans in the US Congress passed an amendment to stop the Department of Defense from spending money on any climate-related initiatives, including planning programs. Republican David McKinley put it like this “This amendment will ensure we maximize our military might without diverting funds for a politically motivated agenda.” The Democrat-controlled Senate threw the amendment out (source Businessweek). The mid-term election results mean that the US is likely to see more such moves, not less, for the foreseeable future.

Let's hope the military keep making the point and the penny eventually drops. In the meantime it looks like the old George Porter quote "If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago." mightn't be so far from the truth.

 

 

Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

10 November 2014

Putting my money where my mouth is...

wallet

I've just made a modest investment in Triodos Renewables via the TrillionFund. This follows a smaller peer-to-peer loan to another renewables project I made earlier in the summer. My reasons are:

  • I want to build an income stream in addition to my consultancy and invest for my and my family's medium to long term future;
  • I want to make that investment to be environmentally- and ethically-sound (or as sound as it reasonably could be);
  • I want to do my bit for the renewables industry;
  • If I don't invest in green energy, how can I expect anybody else to do so?
  • I now have some 'skin in the game'. As with anything I have a monetary stake in, I will now take a lot more rigorous and objective interest in the topic - it's no longer an academic subject to dip into as and when I feel like it.

This last point is very important for all of us. I often ask clients or potential clients the killer question "what's your budget?" and usually get some stammering in reply.

No budget = no commitment.

When Sir Stuart Rose created Plan A at Marks & Spencer he gave it £200 million to get going - and didn't expect to see a direct financial return on that investment. That is commitment.

Do you have skin in the game?

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

7 November 2014

"Why?" is the most powerful weapon in sustainability

questions

One of the things I love about my job is I get to speak to people from a wide range of sectors - from charity shops to defence, from crazy golf course owners (really!) to national newspaper groups. On Wednesday I chalked up a new one - the laboratory sector when I was asked to talk about Green Jujitsu at LabInnovations2014.

One of the perks about these gigs is hearing other speakers - I've worked alongside sport legends such as Steve Backley and Ellen MacArthur - and this time the keynote was given by Robin Ince of Infinite Monkey Cage fame. He was very entertaining and made a wonderful case for being proud and excited by science for science's sake, never mind solving the world's problems.

Another highlight for me was Andrea Sella, Chemistry Prof at UCL and frequent Monkey Cage participant. Andrea is one of those ferociously intelligent people who has never lost that childhood knack of questioning absolutely everything - and has the manic energy to pursue any enquiry to its fundamentals. And he reminded me of the importance of asking Why? because the answer is usually "We've always done it like this."

Andrea told an anecdote about lab gloves at UCL. Every student entering a lab was being issued with gloves - a total of 250,000 per annum at a cost of £15k, even though:

  • Not all the chemicals the students were using were harmful;
  • The gloves don't actually protect your skin against many organic solvents such as toluene - giving a false sense of security;
  • Students spill more chemicals when they're wearing the gloves than when they don't.

He persuaded his Health & Safety people to only issue gloves when they were needed - and would actually make a difference (I would love to have sat in on that conversation). The result was a massive reduction in glove use, a cut in waste production and a decent financial saving - and no rise in accidents as the students take more care with bare hands.

You will be surprised how many decisions are made by default. Your job as a sustainability practitioner is to find your inner toddler and always ask "Why?" You may be surprised by the results.

 

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

5 November 2014

How do you define sustainability?

In this edition of Ask Gareth, I discuss how to define sustainability in a way which makes sense to your fellow employees.

What do YOU think? Is this a valid approach or is it ducking the issue? Do you have a good definition of sustainability? Let's hear your views in the comments below!


 

You can see all editions of Ask Gareth by clicking here.

If you'd like to send a question to Ask Gareth fire away!.

 

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