Archives

economics Terra Infirma


Browse All

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

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

12 November 2012

C.S.R? How about T.A.X?

Today some top honchos from Starbucks are up in front of MPs to explain how they organise their tax affairs. The papers have been full of articles recently about the minuscule amounts of tax some of these big companies pay - some of them pay no corporation tax whatsoever. Everybody from Vodafone and Amazon to U2 and Jimmy Carr have been accused of going way beyond what the man or woman in the street would think was fair.

I'm a businessman. I love business and I'm not averse to earning a profit, far from it. And I employ an accountant to make sure that I pay all the tax I should and not a penny more. So what's the difference between me and, say, Starbucks?

Well, I'm playing by the rules and the spirit of the rules - my accountant takes my income, deducts legitimate/bog standard allowances and I pay tax on the rest. These corporations have made an art-form of shifting cash between parts of their businesses around the world simply to minimise that bill.

Of course Governments should legislate - by insisting on a minimum tax on turnover, banning corporate entities which have no trade other than tax 'efficiency' and/or placing punitive taxes on those that do. There's an element of tragedy of the commons here - any one country that 'gets tough' on tax avoidance may lose out if others stand back - so an international agreement may be required, which in turn would take years of negotiation on past performance.

But what about the businesses themselves? Many of these companies claim to take Corporate Social Responsibility seriously. Well, paying tax is a moral and social issue - think of all those countries around the world which are struggling with huge deficits and who could ease their painful austerity programmes if companies operating on their turf paid fair taxes?

Is any captain of industry going to show moral leadership here? Maybe propose a code of conduct for others to sign up to? Anyone?

 

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

20 June 2012

Why Rio+20 and the G20 should be one meeting


Two big global jamborees at the same time: Rio+20 trying save the planet and the G20 in Mexico trying to save the global economy. Really they should all be meeting in the same place as to a large extent the same problem is causing both ecological destruction and the global slowdown - our addiction to fossil fuels. Countries should be listening to their own advisor, Fatih Birol, Chief Economist of the International Energy Agency who has said:

"When we look at the oil markets the news is not very bright. We think that the crude oil production has already peaked in 2006." (June 2011)

"Oil prices are a serious risk for the global economic recovery." (Feb 2011)

"Energy will become viciously more expensive and polluting if governments don’t promote renewable and nuclear power in the next two decades instead of burning coal." (World Energy Outlook, 2011)

"Oil prices remain a threat to the fragile global economic recovery. Even current prices are far too high for the current economic context. I'm concerned for Europe and I'm also very concerned that these high prices would hit the still hesitant and slow U.S. economic recovery.” (May 2012)

The IEA was set up to advise Western nations on energy policy after the oil shocks of the early 1970s. They are not some lefty green pressure group but hard nosed economic analysts. Dr Birol wouldn't make such pronouncements if he didn't believe they were true.

Yes, sceptics, might say, but alternatives to fossil fuels are too expensive. But this is short sighted - renewables technology will only get cheaper whereas fossil fuel prices, according to Dr Birol, are only going to rise. When will we jump trains to get on the one headed in the right direction?

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

20 January 2012

There's no such thing as too much renewable energy

There were stories in the press this month about £1.2m worth of 'constraint payments' made to Scottish wind farms over Christmas to not generate electricity when demand was low. These stories appear to have been placed by dodgy "think tanks" (read: propaganda machines) protesting about public subsidies going to renewables.

And I agree with them.

Sort of.

It is madness to pay to restrain renewable energy. We need as much renewable energy as we can get (here I diverge sharply from the propagandists), so what on earth are we doing saying "not now! take some cash"?

The money would be much better invested in smart grid technology and storage facilities. In a smart energy world such "excess" renewable energy would be used to cheaply charge electric vehicles and portable devices as well as distributed storage systems.

The problem is our thinking hasn't got past that of the 1930s. The grid we plug wind turbines into in the UK hasn't changed much since 1938. 1938! That grid was designed to distribute electricity from centralised power stations - a bit like television channels broadcast the same entertainment to lots of people. A sustainable energy system would be more like the internet than TV with energy entering, being stored, and accessed at different places and times by a wide variety of players. It's about time we brought energy into the internet age.

The wider point is our tendency to be hidebound by linear, incremental thinking - to innovate to the degree to tackle the sustainability challenge, we need to break free of business as usual.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

30 November 2011

Is our obsession with the cuts blinding us to the oil shock?

The BBC's Evan Davis made a very interesting point when interviewing Labour's Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls this morning on Radio 4. Trying to wrongfoot Balls, the economically astute Davis stated that the 1% impact on consumer spending from Chancellor George Osbourne's cuts was much smaller than the 1.5% impact from what he called the 'oil shock'.

I was, ironically, driving to a client's site at the time and nearly swerved off the road. I have always believed that oil prices were hurting the recovery, but I didn't realise just how much an effect they were having.

We have pages and pages of newsprint and hour after hour of broadcast on the political battle between Osbourne and Balls over public spending, but almost nothing on oil prices. If Davis is right, and he most probably is, we are barking up the wrong tree. If we want to get the economy running again, weaning ourselves off our addiction to oil should must be much higher up the agenda.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

16 November 2011

Standing Still or Going Backwards?

You read it and you hear it again and again, the same old mantra "we/you/they can't afford to go green in the current economic climate". It gets repeated so many times it becomes reality and it rarely gets challenged.

The evidence explodes this lazy myth - the latest of many studies to show green businesses out perform the rest was released by Harvard and London Business Schools shows that $1 invested in "high sustainability" companies in 1993 would earn you 47% more than if you invested it in "low sustainability" companies.

The threat from the myth is serious. Companies are losing business as contracts are awarded to greener competitors. Laggards are more susceptible to price rises in utilities and raw materials, will lose out on the best recruits and be at higher risk from legislation and green taxes. In the current economy you have to make modest progress on environmental performance just to stand still commercially, and you really have to go for it to get competitive advantage.

Some people clearly get it - my business is booming!

Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

26 September 2011

Does Commerce Trump Charity?

I spent a very pleasant evening on Friday listening to Chris Packham at a Northumberland Wildlife Trust fundraiser (he's vice-president of the Wildlife Trusts). He may be 50 now, Packham retains all the enthusiasm, charisma and rebelliousness of the days when I watched him present The Really Wild Show back in the late 80s - and he isn't afraid to mince his words.

He started his talk with photos he had taken of Siberian tigers in the snow. This took him to the conservation of these beautiful animals and the shocking figures that a tiger is worth $100,000 to the poacher that shoots it, and $300,000 to the guy illegally selling its parts for medicine in China.

He went on to berate what he called "the tiger conservation industry" for hoovering up huge amounts of money, but failing to even slow the decline of the tiger. "The only thing I've seen that works is eco-tourism", he said "You've got to make the tiger worth more alive than dead to local people."

This is something I passionately believe in. In my opinion, much 'charity' is at best ineffectual and often makes serious problems worse - in effect when we sign a cheque we are buying a feeling of "having done something". If you look at international development, the third world countries which are breaking through like India are doing it by entrepreneurialism, not by accepting charitable handouts which can undermine local markets, trapping people in poverty. (If you are interested in this way of thinking, you must read "The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid" by JK Prahalad - and before anybody gets angry, I'm not including disaster relief in this critique).

Bringing it closer to home, when I started in this career, a surprising number of businesses expected to be given environmental advice for "free" - paid for by the taxpayer in other words. For many years this was what I did - delivering projects where the beneficiary wasn't writing the cheque. Something I noticed early on was that the "free" advice I gave was rarely if ever acted upon, not because it wasn't any good, but because it was seen as free and wasn't valued. Thankfully we have largely thrown off the shackles of publicly funded business support and the bulk of Terra Infirma's turnover is now earned from those who are directly benefiting from our skills, experience and knowledge. We charge them quite a lot of money for this and guess what? Our clients value what we do.

Another great example is the explosion of solar energy in countries which enact feed-in tariffs, creating a market for small generators and undermining the monopolies of the big generators. Those markets are doing more  to ramp up renewable energy than virtually any other attempt I can think of.

The free market is by no means perfect, but I believe in working with what we've got. The challenge is can you harness markets for good? Can you make 'good' financially worthwhile and 'bad' expensive?

Photo © BBC

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 3 responses

29 September 2010

It's the economy, stupid

Back in the early 1980s, I persuaded my parents to part with the princely sum of £399.00 for a BBC Micro Model B. My initial reaction was to feel a bit let down - all that white-heat-of-technology talk around home computers and the best thing this one could do was putting you in charge of a crudely realised kingdom with a river, fields and mountains (at least until Elite came out, but that's another matter...). At today's prices, that £399.00 could buy you four, yes, four, iPhone 4 handsets, each with about a million times more processing capability and a cornucopia of sci-fi type technology (video, maps, access to vast stores of information) that the 11 year old me would never have dreamed of.

So what has this got to do with green business? Well it demonstrates a number of basic economic principles - new technology starts off expensive until a mixture of economy of scale and innovation makes it accessible to all. But reading some accounts, you would think that renewables, to take an example, were exempt from this rule. "They're too expensive" we keep hearing. Only because they are the exception, rather than the rule. Already, with demand increasing and manufacturing shifting to China and India, prices of solar panels and wind turbines are starting to drop.

By the way, I'm not saying that offshoring manufacturing is a good or bad thing per se, just that once again, in the economic world we live in, that's what happens and we shouldn't be surprised if it does.

Demand also derives technology improvements and recently we have seen breakthroughs in dye-based solar PV technology which could deliver lower costs, higher efficiency and lower carbon footprint. Likewise, electric vehicles are currently expensive, but that's because the extraordinarily lean supply chains that supply conventional vehicle manufacturers have not been built for electric vehicles yet. One manufacturer told me that an extra 1000 vehicles a year would cut his bill of material costs by 40%. 45% of the cost of an electric vehicle is the battery, so, given the innovations in mobile phone battery technology, we will eventually see massive improvements there.

The flip side of this is true too. I once sat through a presentation on a new biodiesel plant for the North East of England. I asked whether it would take waste oils as well as rape seed oil, but the presenter said that to make the economics of the plant would only stack up if they produced pharma-grade glycerol as a by-product so they needed to be very tight on the quality of raw materials. His company later went bust, allegedly because putting that amount of high grade glycerol on the market depressed the price. More supply, same demand = lower prices. Welcome to the real world.

I also have little patience for those who complain that environmental legislation or corporate social responsibility will cost business or the economy money. Hold on, what's a cost? It's an income for someone else in the economy - it's not lost. Environmental legislation protects the world we live in and creates new markets. What's not to like?

Whether or not you like the economy we live in, we live in it and that's a fact. If you run, or want to run, a green business, you'll quickly find you're not exempt.

Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

24 March 2010

What's a Green Investment Bank?

With today's UK Governmental budget expected to be all doom and gloom, one green diamond in the murk could be Mr Darling's well trailed Green Investment Bank. If you, like me, are wondering what such a bank might look like and operate, the Guardian has a useful compendium of opinions here. We shall have to wait and see what Mr Darling has in his red box...

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

7 September 2009

There's more to it than money...

Last Friday I was editing the nine interviews I have carried out with CSR/environment executives for book#2, The Green Executive. Reading through all nine in quick succession, it struck me how few of them were driven primarily by cost savings. While cost is a factor, the majority say that an overriding factor is company image. Building a trustworthy, progressive and friendly image will enhance sales, win contracts and attract and retain good staff. All of this will improve the bottom line. But there's more than this - the interviewees talk about bringing their values to the workplace and greater personal satisfaction that they are doing something for the greater good.

So we have to remember two points:

1. The financial benefits to going green are much wider and greater than cutting utility and raw material costs. This has to be understood and factored into investment decisions (the next edition of The Low Carbon Agenda will address this in more detail).

2. We should not forget the deeper, philosophical questions about who we are and why we do what we do as soon as we enter our workplaces. We should not feel, or be made to feel, guilty for doing the right thing.

Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane 2 responses

22 April 2009

Will Gordon give us green green shoots?

It is budget day today here in the UK and it is probably the trickiest budget to pull off in living memory. The big question is whether Gordon Brown and his chancellor Alistair Darling will stick their neck out and go green in a big way. The world and his Portuguese water dog has been proclaiming that the recession/world economic crisis/credit crunch is the ideal opportunity to build a low carbon economy in place of the collapsed oil-fuelled one we've had for the last 100 years or so. The (now) environmental economist Nick Stern (he of the Stern report) has recommended 20% of financial stimulus packages for green measures as a minimum. So how well is this going in practice?

According to the Financial Times the UK has committed a measley 7% , the US 12% and South Korea a whopping 81%. China, long blamed by Western politicians and NGOs for its environmental record, has the biggest single green investment of $221bn (38%). Gordon Brown has pledged to up the UK's game to 10%, but we'll have to wait for Darling to drone his way to the environmental part of today's speech to find if we'll meet even that.

It is interesting that, despite all the proclamations of world leadership on this issue from the White House and Nos 10 & 11 Downing St, it is the Far East which is leading the way.

+++ Update 13:15 +++
The chancellor has just announced an extra £1bn for green measures - if this is truly additional to that announced before, then this would boost the green incentivisation to 11.7%. The billion breaks down into £435m extra for energy efficiency measures, £525m for offshore wind. There will also be support for using waste heat from power generation by exempting them from the Climate Change Levy. Verdict so far: not bad.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane one response

5 December 2008

Another Perverse Incentive

A perverse incentive is an economic driver that encourages 'bad' behaviour. Examples in the sustainability field include the lack of tax on airline fuel (how do you think those cheap flights are so cheap?), the lack of VAT on building materials for new build when you pay VAT for refurbishment materials and the fact that, despite all the belly aching from the trucking industry, lorries do not pay road tax commensurate with the damage they cause.

Well, when I had to adjust the VAT rate on the Green Business Bible on Monday, it struck me as odd that ebooks are regarded as 'software' by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and thus attract VAT when paper books don't.

Ebooks are eco-friendly, books require trees, pulping, glue, distribution, waste. It's perverse...

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