I've been asked again this week how certain sustainable supply chain ideas fit into a particular procurement framework. As I'm bureaucracy-intolerant, I always have to bite my lip at such times as my honest answer would be to scream "Who cares?! That's the wrong question! Sod the framework! How do we take sustainability to the next level? is the question!"
I recently interviewed Ramon Arratia of InterfaceFLOR and he made similar points:
“We continue to be impressed by what can be achieved when suppliers are encouraged to innovate and are rewarded for solving our problems instead of us trying to solve theirs. We have witnessed how much more the ‘inspire, measure, innovate’ approach can deliver than ‘code, questionnaire, audit’.”
"Rather than ticking boxes and checking certificates and all that crap, if you stop doing business with a high impact supplier and start using low impact suppliers, things will start to change very quickly."
Whether we are talking with suppliers, employees or partners, the question should always be "how will you/we raise the bar?" That might mean ripping up existing systems if they only serve to choke off progress. Let's unleash people's latent creativity by challenging and inspiring them first - and sort out the dull bits second.
At three and a half, my middle boy, Jimmy, has hit the golden age of the killer question - why?
Daddy, why do we have ceilings?
Daddy, why do cows moo?
Daddy, why is the sky blue?
Actually that last one really threw me as I assumed I knew the answer but found out I didn't have a clue (the answer is here). I look at the sky every single day - and sometimes it is blue, even in the UK - but I've never queried its colour. This is what kids like Jimmy can remind us - never to take anything for granted and never, ever be afraid to ask "why?"
Engineers talk about 'The Toddler Test" or "The 5 Why's" - keep asking why until you get to the fundamental truth. It works for sustainability practitioners as well, to take a simple example:
Why are we producing this amount of waste?
Because it comes from offcuts of sheets of raw material.
Because of the shape of our product's components means we can't avoid creating lots of big offcuts.
Why are the components that shape?
Um. Because they always have been...
Because no-one ever thought about waste when the product was designed 10 years ago, OK?
Obviously, like a kid who won't stop asking questions (naming no names...), you run the risk of being thought to be a right pain in the backside. But you won't cut through layers of institutional inertia and implicit assumptions to get to underlying truths without asking difficult questions. And without getting down to those underlying truths you won't be able to make the fundamental changes required.
One of the benefits of having one of our household on maternity leave is that we have a steady stream of tradesmen turning up to fix all the things that have broken over the last couple of years. One of these was the security light at the back of our house. When the chap came to give us a quote, it was clear that his default position was to install a bog standard 150W light. I asked him to install the most energy efficient one he could and he did, selling us this dinky little 10W LED light - a whopping factor 15 energy efficiency improvement over the other one - giving the same brightness at a tiny extra cost.
What hit me though, was his instinctive default position which I had to challenge. Many people would simply assume that they were getting the best option and go with the flow and the electrician was assuming we'd be happy with that. Everyone stays in their comfort zone and (high carbon) life continues as usual.
This sums up the challenge for those trying to effect change at both the organisational level and at the macro-economic level. Too many people on both supply and demand sides of transactions assume that the same old same old is perfectly acceptable, even if there is a much better and greener option available.
One tactic is to pick a clear winner - such as LED lighting - and use that to demonstrate the benefits of new thinking. LED technology gives a swift return on financial investment and LED lamps are now coming in all shapes and sizes from oven hood lights to huge industrial factory lamps. Once you've driven through one winner, people will tend to be more receptive to other changes in the status quo.
As for my electrician, I hope that my decision has gone some way to nudge him out of his comfort zone and make him more likely to at least proffer up the efficient option. One day, LEDs will almost certainly become his instinctive default and the more nudges he gets, the quicker that day will come.
We're in the midst of party political conference season and one thing you will notice in any discussion about sustainability and climate change is the focus on shiny new technology. You will not of course hear anything about the destruction of the old unsustainable way of doing things. This is for one very good reason - no-one ever got far in politics by emphasising the down side of what they want to do. But, as the cliché goes, you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs.
There is some irony in the title of this post - that to build a sustainable society, we must destroy the old one. But sustainable in the ecological sense does not mean unchanging, merely the concept of operating within natural limits in an equitable way. Like nature itself, a sustainable society will be constantly evolving, not frozen in aspic.
There are two ways to approach the transition. Firstly the politicans' method - build the new and let the old wither on the vine. And to a certain extent this is happening - as Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall point out, the more renewable energy the country produces, the less gas is burnt. Rising renewable capacity will eventually lead to reduced gas capacity as who will build what isn't needed? The upsides are that it is easy to sell and usually produces a robust end product, the downside is speed of change as the system evolves.
The other way is the machismo approach. Companies like InterfaceFLOR appear to relish deleting product ranges which are incompatible with their sustainability targets. They see this as a badge of pride - revolution rather than evolution. This is obviously easier in an organisation than it is in the democratic system as business leaders don't tend to have the Daily Mail breathing down their necks chasing headlines, but it is fast and decisive.
The answer will no doubt be a mishmash of the two - large scale evolution powered and accelerated by many medium scale revolutions in the value chains that provide our material quality of life. But we can't duck the fact that change requires destruction as well as creation.
My eldest, Harry, is four and a bit years old and like most kids of his age, he's the king of the cheeky killer question, the hardest ever being:
Do the neurons in your head speak in proper language?
How do you answer that without getting metaphysical on his ass? But the classic pre-schooler question is the most powerful - "why?". Other parents will know the score:
Daddy what are you doing?
Pruning the tree.
Why are you pruning the tree?
Because it grew too big.
Why did it grow too big?
And so on...
At this age kids are trying to sort out fundamental principles in their heads so they are never afraid to challenge what they see, hear or feel, whereas we adults make most of our decisions based on experience, habit, social pressures and gut instinct and we rarely sit back and question why we do things.
Given the scale of the sustainability challenge we need to radically rethink why we do things and why we do them in a particular way. Inside organisations sustainability efforts often come up against "That's the way we do it here" - a blind assumption that the status quo is the status quo for good reason. Using the toddler test - asking "why?" until you can't any more - is a powerful weapon in your armoury as a change agent. "Why?" makes people stop and think, and it can get the conversation back to to fundamentals which can lead to greater innovation.
But the power of why? should also be brought to bear on the field of sustainability itself where many myths prevail over common sense. People assume the waste hierarchy is carved in stone, biofuels and offsetting are dismissed offhand as evil and many just follow the well-trodden path without asking what they are trying to achieve.
So, sometimes it pays to think like a child - after all it was a kid who saw through the Emporer's New Clothes.
The lead author of "The Necessary Revolution" is Peter Senge - the author of "The Fifth Discipline", a famous book about creating learning organisations. Along with two change management colleagues, Bryan Smith and Nina Kruschwitz, and two sustainability bods, Joe Laur and Sara Schley, Senge brings his thinking to bear on the biggest of all challenges, creating a sustainable world.
First impressions were great - a brilliant start setting out the problem and some fantastic case studies demonstrating how some people have managed to find solutions, and in particular "never doubt what one person & a small group of conspirators can do" about how small seeds can grow into powerful networks for change. Examples included the creation of the LEED green building protocol in the US and the setting up of Green Zones in Sweden, based around green fuels.
However I felt that the promised 'how to' and 'toolbox' parts of the book are a bit vague and sparse. The best lesson I drew from these sections was the power of inquiry over advocacy (if your boss thinks sustainability isn't a priority, don't tell him he's wrong, but ask him what if he's wrong), but I didn't feel I was being armed with a tool box of techniques to make change happen. There's also a tendency to illustrate an intellectual argument with a very lengthy anecdote which never quite nails the point down. And, then after all the 'bottom up' arguments (inquiry, small groups, building networks etc), we're suddenly told on p337 "Start from the top down". I didn't get the relevance of most of the points in the last part "The Future" either - the anecdote of Amory Lovins designing a monkey house with the help of the residents (inmates?) was amusing, but left me baffled as to what I was meant to draw from this.
Having started so well - as good as Lovins' superlative Natural Capitalism in places - I was left feeling more than a little shortchanged on the toolbox front - particularly as the authors' intellectual firepower is biased towards change management. A flawed gem - get it for the case studies, anecdotes and inspiration - but don't expect too much in the way of new technique.
I live in a delightful river valley, 20 minutes walk from the centre of Newcastle upon Tyne. A couple of times a week, I pull on my trainers and run 2.5 miles up the river through the famous Jesmond Dene and 2.5 miles back again in a big long loop. The paths undulate up and down the sides of the river gorge and over the years I've learnt the pattern of the climbs and downhills and adjust my running to suit well before each change.
Once in a blue moon, I run my route the other way - same path, different direction. It never fails to surprise me, even shock me, how different the valley looks. Small features become huge rocky outcrops and vice versa, and whole new routes and vista open up. These were invisible when plodding the same routine week after week. The other shock is how much more uncomfortable the run is - the climbs come in a different rhythm and the downhills often steeper, putting pressure on the old quad muscles.
Its the same in most businesses - waste occurs but it is the norm, people either don't see it or don't want to to rock the boat, but would rather get on with their routine (the 'day job'). Change is uncomfortable, but essential to survive, and you have to get out of your comfort zone to see it. So once in a while, get out of the routine, be disruptive, ask people what they think and, most importantly, try to look at your business with fresh eyes.
The UK's Committee of Public Accounts has criticised the Carbon Trust's ability to cut emissions as 'pretty small beer'. The committee has listed a number of reasons why the Trust can't be more effective (reluctance of senior executives, EU rules), but, in my opinion, they miss the big one.
The Carbon Trust, along with Envirowise and other similar business support organisations, works on the model of an 'expert' walking into a business, spotting a number of potential improvements, writing them up with some signposting to other help and sending the business the results. This is bound to fail for the following reasons:
1. The 'expert' spends most of the visit trying to understand the operations and has limited time to get under the skin of the business. As a result, savings opportunities tend to be drawn from a generic list.
2. The 'expert' is given no opportunity for trial and error, pilot projects or doing anything particularly innovative.
3. The business has little or no ownership of the solutions and is unlikely to implement them.
This doesn't just go for Government backed schemes, but much traditional consultancy. So what can be done differently?
OK, how about:
1. The 'expert' carries out a baseline assessment of the business's operations.
2. The 'expert' and the client put together an team drawn from the client's staff.
3. The 'expert' briefs the team on the baseline and trains them on what a low carbon business would look like (check out this month's Low Carbon Agenda for a generic model).
4. The team meets over an extended period of time to develop solutions, piloting them and monitoring their implementation.
5. The 'expert' gradually hands over the process to the team so it becomes self sustaining.
Trust me, that would beat the old model hands down. If you want to try it, give me a shout on 0191 265 9850.
One of the services Terra Infirma offers is facilitation. I'm just about to change the entry on this site for it as it sounds a bit flowery and, well, wimpy. Most people have a picture of do-we-have-to away days and token public consultation. Well it can be used for these, but it is a powerful weapon with applications way beyond that.
Facilitation really means group working using an outside agent to guide the process from problem definition to solution. We're starting to integrate it into our projects where we can as it gives the client ownership of the solution, rather than the traditional consultant's report/dust trap/shelf filler. I've used facilitation in the past to help large rooms of industrialists come up with solutions that have diverted many thousands of tonnes of 'waste' into useful and lucrative uses.
But like many people facilitating, I was winging it, frankly, using common sense, trial and error, and no little charm . So, last week I went on an excellent course run by Resource. The course has confirmed my approach was broadly good, and it has given me a whole new armoury of tools, techniques and skills. These will be available either for stand alone sessions, or as an enhancement to our 'Lean, Mean & Green' and 'Low Carbon Business' programmes. So if you want to create sustainable change (in both senses of the word sustainable) in your organisation, get in touch.