One of my closest school friends, Conor, now lives with his wife and two kids in a dormitory commuter town in Maryland, USA. My partner and I went to visit about a decade ago and stupidly forgot to take our driving licenses so we couldn't hire a car.
Our first full day there, we wanted to travel into Washington to do the tourist thing. Conor offered to drop us off at the railway station, but, as it was only a mile away, we said we'd walk. Conor said "No way. My Dad tried that once and he came back white and shaking. He had to cross several interstate slip roads and nearly died." The idea that you couldn't walk from a suburban house to a station a mile away – or to any form of shop or other amenity for that matter – simply stunned us.
This kind of living is the target of Charles Montgomery's Happy City. He argues that uncontrolled sprawl makes us unhappy by locking us into our cars and failing to give us space to interact and be convivial. He travels the world to show us exemplars: Vancouver, Bogota, Paris, Freiburg (Germany) and Houten (the Netherlands). As he winds his way, he lightens the design theory with travelogue notes, touring the neighbourhoods with some of the experts he interviews and seeing first hand what they talking about.
While the focus is on the happiness of a city's citizens, Montgomery cleverly weaves in the bigger picture of sustainability. The same solutions that make us happy – local services everybody can access by bus, by foot or on bike – come with a much lower carbon footprint than sprawl.
Montgomery acknowledges limitations in some attempts at urban design, but non-US readers would benefit from a deeper analysis of heroic failure (we already get the 'sprawl bad' message). For example, Malmö famously tried to design a car-free neighbourhood at Western Harbour but ended up having to retrofit a multi-storey carpark – and I could quote more. Given the theme of the book is urban design, it would be good to know why so many well-meaning designs have failed and others succeed.
That grumble aside, I was certainly inspired by Happy City. Any book that demonstrates so vividly that sustainability, happiness and economic vibrancy can go hand in hand is alright by me.
So I had my meeting with sustainability officials at the City Council of Portland, which is unlike any local Government I've come across before. It has only 6 elected officials – the Mayor, four commissioners and an auditor – for a city of half a million people. Apparently this means things can happen quickly – IF you have the attention of one of the first five.
My meeting wasn't on the record, so I must emphasise the following things I gleaned are my impressions rather than the express opinions of the Council officials (and I take full responsibility for any errors):
While the City now has an exemplary sustainability reputation, it wasn't always this way. It was sued by the federal Government in the 1970s over air quality standards.
The City has integrated sustainability into its city plan, but that plan doesn't mention sustainability – it is just embedded in there;
Renewable energy is not a big thing in Portland as Federal incentives are weak and electricity is dirt cheap (8c a unit). This explains the one weakness I've noticed in Portland compared to, say, Newcastle where I live, a lack of domestic solar;
Summer temperatures are definitely rising (it hit 36°C yesterday and may be warmer today) which has led to retrofitting of domestic air conditioning which is a big challenge;
The first move in the cycle network was to install cycle parking around the city. As local businesses saw more business coming their way from cyclists, they became open to the idea of more cycle infrastructure. There's now a waiting list from businesses for cycle parking;
The cycle greenways that form the wider network were very low cost – signs, speed bumps and the occasional cycle crossing. The idea is to divert drivers and create safety in numbers for cyclists by funnelling them along those routes;
The sustainable drainage swales I saw, are not just a trial – there's 1,000 of them across the city. In addition, every new development is responsible for dealing with 100% of stormwater on site. As a result, many buildings have green roofs and/or gardens to retain excess water;
While the hippy/alternative culture creates expectations, it can also cause resistance to, for example, a shift to more dense housing to avoid unlimited sprawl;
A key tactic is to compare the cost of 'sustainability infrastructure' with that of car infrastructure. For example a new major bridge is about to open for trams, light trains, cycles and pedestrians. If cars had been factored in, it would have tripled the costs.
I'd like to send a big thank you to everybody who helped with this visit – I've learnt a lot!
I've now been in Portland Oregon a week - long enough for my body clock to adjust (almost) to the local time zone. And in those seven days, I've picked up on plenty more sustainability related stuff which I thought I would share (my initial thoughts are here).
First up, the integrated transit system - bus, local train and streetcars. While I find it frustrating that the bus services follow the N-S, E-W grid iron street layout rather than radially from the centre (which means you can't get a direct ride into town if you live in the NE like us) the service is otherwise pretty amazing. A flat fare covers all rides for 2 hours or you pay double for all day. An app gives real time information on arrivals at any stop – people tend to magically appear just as the bus hoves into view – it also acts as an electronic ticket. And just in case you think that you couldn't get much more integrated than that, buses have a nifty double bike rack on the front. These are well used, as is the service in general – 45% of commuters use the service according to the posters.
Second, the car drivers here are so polite, I gather it's become a national joke. Time after time, I've stopped at the corner of a block to check back for straggling family members and then turned back to the road to find a driver waiting patiently for me to cross, even on reasonably busy roads. I'm not quite brave enough to try walking around blindfold, but I think my survival chances would be reasonable.
Despite the current drought, leavened by a couple of downpours in the last couple of days, Portland is famous for its heavy rain. We couldn't help notice these nifty soakaways installed around one of the local colleges – it appeared to be a trial.
Finally, there seems to be a great culture here. Posters urge people to get involved in planting trees, even though the city is relatively verdant as you can see from the main picture. Lots of front yards have veg growing in them and a satirical book on the city in our house suggests "If you don't keep chickens in your back yard, people will suspect you are a Republican."
On Sunday, it happened to be the 'Sunday Parkway' for our neighbourhood – a car free circuit was in place to allow active transport – watching 8 year olds wobble safely up the middle of the road was a sight to behold. Stalls ranging from 'boycott Shell' to the local church were dotted along the route and some streets just off the circuit had decided to throw a party.
Oh, and it's not just the beer that is local – most of the wine we've quaffed has been produced in the Willamette Valley.
Apart from that last one, I'll be asking the Council about all these things on Tuesday.
So, I'm in sunny Portland with the family, recently declared the most sustainable city in the US by the Mother Nature Network and the second most sustainable in the world by Grist back in 2007 (annoyingly Portland wasn't included in the recent global sustainability ranking of 50 cities – other US cities were – so it is difficult to judge how it stands up against, say, Copenhagen.)
The city is renowned for being achingly hip, so much so it has even spawned its own sketch show, Portlandia. I overheard an unwittingly hilarious conversation at a cafe about the traumas of trying to survive on a vegetarian, gluten-free diet which could have been straight from the show. But the upside is organic food aplenty, craft beer (OK, we took the kids to a beer festival... above) and more people on bicycles than I've seen anywhere else in the US (albeit in my limited experience).
Portland seems to be the Prius capital of the world – I've certainly never seen so many in one day's walking. But through European eyes, any carbon savings from the Prii will be more than obliterated by the sheer number of humungous SUVs which many Portlanders seem to drive for no discernible reason other than because they can. Even the hipsters seem to prefer unhealthy sounding elderly station wagons than something leaner, cleaner and more modern.
There's a drought on here. Not enough snow in the winter or rain in the spring has depleted reserves. Most people in this neighbourhood have respected calls not to water lawns – most are parched brown.
Last but not least, the people we have encountered so far are delightful. Not just the 'have a nice day' clichés, but ordinary passers -by going out of their way to be helpful to a family of Brits trying to negotiate a strange city.
Next week, I've got a meeting with the City Council to hear how they are delivering sustainability in the city – expect a post next week.
As of today, I'm on my usual summer mixture of holiday, work and childcare - blogs will be less frequent, less regular and more informal.
The good news is that for the next three weeks, I'll be based in Portland, Oregan, renowned as a sustainable city, and I've got a meeting booked with the City Council to hear what they've done and how they've done it. Salves my conscience a little for the most carbon-hungry trip I've taken in a decade...
The phrase "get people out of their comfort zone" is a cliché which gets bandied around a lot, but have you ever sat down and thought about it?
During my sustainability training and/or engagement workshops, I used to try and split up work teams to get them out of their comfort zones. Then a couple of times I got lazy and didn't bother, and found that people performed better in the workshop when they were with colleagues they knew.
I recently found this diagram in a paper by Moran and Tame (Journal of Sustainability Education, 2013) which may explain this. It comes from the field of experiential adventure education.
It basically says, yes, to make real change, you have to get people out of the comfort zone. But, if you drag them too far, they end up in the panic zone and flee or freeze. In between is the stretch zone where you get peak performance and peak learning.
The sustainability workshops I run are challenging to most people and will stretch them. To throw them into the unknown without their colleagues around them was probably pulling people towards the panic zone – not full on meltdown panic, but "I don't like this, so I'm going to keep my mouth shut" discomfort.
So by all means challenge people, but don't drive them too hard or you will lose them.
I've often said leadership is the difference between the best and the rest in sustainability, but of course there's leadership and there's leadership. Management boffins sometimes categorise three different styles (in order of increasing effectiveness):
Laissez-faire: no real leadership – organisation is allowed to drift;
Transactional: business as usual with interventions only to fix problems;
Transformational: visionary leadership with all resources focussed on meeting the vision.
If we apply that model down to the narrower field of sustainability leadership, it is clear that the big names – the late Ray Anderson of Interface, Sir Stuart Rose at M&S, Paul Polman at Unilever, Jeff Immelt at GE – you can see all the fingerprints of transformational leadership.
If that's the best, then most of the organisations I come across are in the transactional level. They may have gained buy-in to launch a programme and get the CEO to write a bland introduction to the annual report, but there's no drive from the top. Nobody is asking "Why aren't we the best in our sector in sustainability?" Nobody is writing a big cheque. And they get incremental improvements at best,
The difficult bit of course is getting from here to there as it has to come from within the leader – here's how I do it!
Recent events have reminded of that legendary, probably apocraphyl, letter from a bank manager to a spendthrift student:
"We have increased your overdraft to £1,000. Please note that this is a limit, not a target."
This attitude appears to have been adopted by the UK Government on carbon and renewable targets – they are seen as just that, targets, to be met and no more. Taking this view narrows mindsets and efforts down to 'business as usual plus a bit'. The 'plus a bit' tends to cost us extra, rather than going for renewable breakthroughs which would drive innovation, economic growth and job creation – a worthwhile investment in anybody's book.
This conservative attitude is not limited to politics either. I have heard the words "what's the least we can do to get out of jail?" uttered in one of my sustainability workshops (but we ended up raising the bar, not lowering it by the end of the session).
In another session a delegate mused on a 10 year target of 40% reduction in carbon footprint, saying "4% per year, mmm, I think that's doable." I challenged him – to get to 40% probably means not reducing carbon very much for several years while installing the kit or transforming the supply chain to deliver 40%. If you chunk it down, you'll exhaust the 4% improvements – and yourself – in a couple of years.
To deliver the kind of change we need requires a change in mindset. A Big Hairy Audacious Goal is a key step to delivering that new mindset.
Last week, watching him deputise for the PM at Prime Minister's Questions, I was pleasantly surprised by Chancellor George Osborne making some quite strong pledges to tackle climate change, albeit with the caveat "at the lowest possible cost." Osborne has long said to be a 'luke-warmer' – someone who accepts the basic science of climate change but believes the risks are over-stated (see Matthew D'Ancona's excellent 'All In It Together' for more) – so this appeared on the face of it to be a positive move.
But this week's summer budget was a major let down. Although the media has focussed on Osborne's efforts to shift the working poor from welfare to higher salaries, there was a lot of bad news hidden in the details for the emerging green economy. You can see a good, if depressing, summary at Carbon Brief here.
There are some big questions here:
Why undermine what is probably the most exciting drive for innovation, jobs and investment we have?
Why stunt the growth of the next generation of energy production to allow North Sea oil and gas to stagger on for another couple of years?
How does he square the pledge to tackle climate change with these backwards moves?
This cognitive dissonance was all too common in Corporate Social Responsibility a decade ago, but many have realised that the only way forward is to align business growth to sustainability. Osborne would be well advised to learn from the very people who will deliver the economic growth he so craves.
I've spent a lot of time over the last couple of years trying to find an effective measurement of employee engagement in sustainability. You can easily measure your side of the equation – how many people have been through engagement processes or training courses – but measuring results is trickier.
Looking at the wider employee engagement literature, three measures of engagement stand out and some put them in the following order:
Intention to Stay
The second one is difficult to link to sustainability as there's a whole bundle of factors will determine whether you stay in a job or go.
In my experience, the best in sustainability have difficulty keeping up with projects and initiatives springing up spontaneously all over the place, so discretionary effort in sustainability makes for a really good litmus test for successful engagement.
Advocacy – whether employees would boast about their employer's sustainability efforts to a friend – makes for a second level measure.
I've long argued that Leadership is the difference between the best at sustainability and the rest. Leadership is responsible for two critical sustainability issues:
Strategy: all the goals, objectives, projects and resources required to deliver change for sustainability;
Culture: the attitude of employees to the sustainability programme.
Arguably the second outweighs the first – "Culture eats strategy for breakfast" as the quote attributed to Peter Drucker goes.
Towers Watson's Global Workforce Study 2014 gave an interesting insight into the relationship between the effectiveness of leadership and management and the engagement of employees (which in turn is related to how likely those employees are to deliver on strategy) (see below).
In other words, to get employees effectively engaged you need both leadership and management. The remarkable thing is how the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. While this is for general engagement with the job, there is no reason to think it is any different for sustainability in particular.
It also gives weight to my views on the critical importance leadership – and my description of middle management as "the place green projects go to die." So we need to get the whole line management aligned to sustainability.
I was very struck by the above photo showing the aftermath of the Glastonbury festival. Every year we hear how Glastonbury is more than just a big series of concerts, that it has a spiritual dimension, has a strong environmental message, is the crux of 'the new politics' etc, etc. But the picture suggests if you want a symbol of our consumerist, wasteful, throwaway society, you couldn't go to a better place.
The intention might be there – this is the age group most likely to vote Green – but when it comes to practice, it seems the younger generation isn't quite where they think they are. I wonder if that couple in the picture is saying a fond farewell or shedding a tear for the future.
Everybody looks at the world through their own 'frame' – the psychological filter that blots out the majority of stimuli to concentrate our attention on what matters.
One thing the sustainability practitioner must realise is that, when it comes to sustainability, some people's frame is extraordinarily narrow. At the HR event I attended last week, someone said "The only sustainability issue HR can get involved in is commuting." They simply hadn't thought about recruitment, behaviour at work, training, personal sustainability objectives or employee engagement.
For those of us who eat, sleep and breathe sustainability, such a narrow view is unbelievable. Trying to 'correct' a narrow viewpoint, however, is dangerous – you can't nag or humiliate someone into taking a broader point of view as the shutters will come down instead (although I personally struggle to fight the temptation, I have to say). Green jujitsu says you need to get people to work it out for themselves.
You can accelerate this process, not by saying "No, that's not the case", but by saying "Another issue HR can get involved in is communicating our sustainability culture during recruitment." If you let the conversation go for a bit and then make another suggestion, everyone will soon start to explore the breadth of the topic. And that's when sustainability gets under their skin.
On Wednesday I was at an event organised by CIPD North East for HR professionals. I'd been asked to come along by my colleague Tracy Scurry of Newcastle University Business School as she was facilitating a discussion session on the role of human resources on sustainability and she thought my experiences would add to the conversation.
As is often the case in these sessions, the interesting thing is the 'journey' that delegates go on. At the start, the discussion was centred around how people could be persuaded to behave in a sustainable way, by the end, it had evolved to focus on how to keep up with the sustainability demands of current and future employees. That's quite a change in perspective and the change in mindset of delegates alone made the session worthwhile, never mind all the hints and tips.
By chance, when I got home, I came across a zingy quote in a WBCSD document:
CSR - HR = PR
Actually, I'm not sure it is strictly true. Surveys suggest on 10% of business drive CSR/sustainability through HR (although that figure had doubled in the last few years). But it is certainly true that if employees are not involved, they will tend to see any CSR project as greenwash and the project will almost certainly be less effective than it would without the involvement.
Whether employee involvement in sustainability is driven by HR is a different matter... but if you want to engage your HR department in sustainability, it's a flattering quote!
I'm working on an employee engagement project for a major client which requires a quite detailed literature review. While I endeavour to keep up to date with the latest thinking in practical terms, it is rare that I get to plunge into the murky depths of the academic literature. While ploughing through the peer-reviewed papers, it struck me that they tend to fall into two camps:
Those that conclude that employee engagement is vital to the success of sustainability performance;
Those that find that sustainability is a great way of getting employees engaged in a more general way with their employer with consequent financial benefits (some quote 18% more productive employees and 12% more customer loyalty).
These two form a nice virtuous circle – the more you engage, the better your sustainability programme, which gives you more opportunities to engage etc.
It also opens up a new case for employee engagement for sustainability. Instead of saying "I need £X,000 to engage our employees to meet our sustainability targets." you can say "Invest in £X,000 in our sustainability engagement and I will give you much more productive, effective employees, better business performance – and progress towards our sustainability targets."
For those of you struggling to persuade senior management to loosen the purse strings, this kind of argument might just tip the balance.
Update: As I read on, I've come across a third nexus between employee engagement and sustainability/CSR – those who see having engaged (read: happy) employees as a CSR goal in its own right. Interesting...
I loved this picture when I saw it on LinkedIn last week (I don't know who to credit it to, I'm afraid). It sums up for me why many sustainability efforts fail – because they expect every member of the public/employee/consumer to go out of their way for sustainability.
Green Jujitsu understands that people aren't stupid, but most are busy, and they'll always take a shortcut. Our challenge is to make sustainability the shortcut and not the long way around.
It's been quite a week in terms of political positioning on climate change.
One of the most interesting statements came from UK Chancellor George Osborne who was standing in for his boss at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday – the weekly ritual of verbal violence in the House of Commons. He got three climate-related questions, probably stimulated by the climate march outside. His first answer, in relation to fracking, was no surprise – he's pro-. But to two questions on climate commitments and carbon leakage, he gave a reasonably solid commitment to getting an international agreement at COP21 in Paris and for the UK to meet its climate targets, although with the slightly unnecessary caveat "in the cheapest way possible".
This commitment is significant as Osborne has long been said to be a 'luke-warmer' ie believes the threat from climate change is much exaggerated and the impacts are manageable. And he made it twice, just in case anybody was in doubt.
However, the "cheapest way possible" was undermined by the announcement the next day that the Government would be ending subsidies to onshore wind a year early as its targets had been met. Given that onshore wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy in the UK context left much of the industry scratching their heads. New DECC minister Amber Rudd made a spirited case for solar PV instead, but this seems to be policy by aesthetics – for what its worth I prefer the graceful blades of a turbine than a field covered in black panels – but that's just a personal point of view, not a sound basis for policy.
Another big problem I have is that the Government seems to be seeing those targets as a maximum commitment rather than a minimum. And the third and most important is the lack of consistency – we need clear leadership, not politicians blowing hot and cold (pun intended).
Then came the Pope's encyclical on climate change. Now, as an atheist, I find a faith leader appealing to people to listen to the scientific rationale for action more than a little ironic, but the employee engager in me realises it is more important to appeal to hearts than minds. It will be an interesting intervention as many climate deniers are very religious. Christopher Booker is a creationist and Roy Spencer has signed a declaration that God wouldn't allow catastrophic climate change (despite the fact he apparently allowed The Black Death).
Lastly, Green MP Caroline Lucas showed exactly how not to appeal to those who 'don't get it', writing in the Independent:
It’s been a mixed week for those of us who care about protecting our environment and securing a decent future for generations to come.
Taking the attitude that we are morally superior to everybody else will get us nowhere.
A couple of months ago, I was leaving the swimming pool with the older two boys and I was stopped by a nice man selling lottery tickets for a local hospice. I've long been of the opinion that larger charities have become too much like self-serving businesses, but this was a good local cause, so I bought a tenner's worth of tickets. I went happily on my way, a spring in my step.
Since then, I have been contacted several times by phone or mailshot to tell me my lottery has expired and asking would I like to make it a regular donation. Which begs the question, how much of my donation ended up in the hospice's running costs? It doesn't take a mathematical genius to work out that my original tenner must have atrophied to almost nothing through the costs of chasing me for more money. Was the original transaction effectively a con to get my details?
I know I shouldn't let it get to me, but it does. I have been bitten this way too many times over the years and now I am cynical. In the past I have found that any donation just leads to more emotionally manipulative letters through the door – "Imagine waking up to feel hunger gnawing at your stomach." And my experience fades into nothing compared to those kind souls such as the late Olive Cooke who was getting 260 letters a month asking her for more.
But from the charity sector's point of view, are they not biting the hand that feeds? The response from the charity sector sounded like any other bog standard corporate excuse with Peter Lewis, chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising telling the Daily Mail:
"We are absolutely committed to ensuring that our Code of Fundraising Practice achieves the right balance in setting robust and clear standards which enable fundraisers to ask for money in a safe and legitimate way while at the same time respecting and protecting the rights of individuals.
We welcome the opportunity to talk with the Minister for Civil Society to update him on the plans that we have in place to review our Code and make sure that we act on any learning that arises from the FRSB’s investigation into the tragic death of Olive Cooke."
It's not about rights, it's about trust. Trust is the glue that holds society together. And if we can't trust charities who can we trust?
We've had a very educational Spring chez Kane with our camera-rigged bird box hosting its first blue tit family. The video clip above shows the mother – 'Melody' – bringing in food and removing a fecal sac. Having watched the parents build the nest, lay the eggs, feed and brood the young and, finally, a quick glimpse of the fledgelings making their way in the world, we feel a bit sad that they've moved on.
But our attention has now moved on to our Painted Lady butterflies. A friend gave our boys a kit where we could see the caterpillars fatten themselves up and then move into a chrysalis and now the first one has emerged, stretching its wings, fastening the two sides of its proboscis together and expelling shockingly bright red meconium – basically all the poo it has stored up since it last ate. As Mrs K put it, when you see the magic a caterpillar does to become an adult, there's a long, long way for technology to go.
Now you can watch all this stuff on Springwatch – and we do, religiously – but there is something about experiencing the joys of nature right in front of your eyes which can never be replicated. It is no surprise that 'eco-therapy' has been shown to help those with mental health problems, that nature is an interesting start point for engaging employees or the general public in sustainability (our local Nestlé factory kicked off the process with a butterfly garden), or that bringing nature into the urban core is becoming the in thing (see M&S's living wall in Newcastle, right).
But you don't have to think about all that, you can also just relax and enjoy it!