Gareth's Blog

Recent Posts



stretch targets Archives - Terra Infirma

Browse All

6 July 2018

In Sustainability, there's always an excuse to do nothing...

Terra Infirma's most powerful competitor is almost certainly "do nothing". Given where we work – near the cutting edge, we like to think – we provide our clients with a choice: spend some money and get some great benefits, or, spend nothing and trundle along as usual with your fingers crossed. Unfortunately in these days of economic uncertainty, clinging to business as usual is often more tempting than taking a small risk to make the organisation sustainable in both senses of the word.

So I read with a wry smile that Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden saying that the company wasn't going to set carbon reduction targets because it could lead to litigation from shareholders. “This is not a practical way to run the company.”  he added.

Where to start?

First up: a stretch carbon target sets the direction and ambition of the company. Set a bold target and every stakeholder from NGOs through shareholders to the receptionist at head office knows the company is serious about where it is going and how quickly. In a fossil fuel company, the energy transition is going to require a huge number of people making different decisions to those they would make otherwise. No target = drift at best.

Second: I thought the whole purpose of a publicly trading corporation was to meet the needs of its shareholders, not hide from them?

Third: what better driver for progress than the 'threat' that the people who actually own the company will hold the executive to account on the biggest issue of our time?

Sorry, Mr van Beurden, your logic is risible.


Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

7 May 2018

Sustainability Lessons from 14 years in Local Government

Regular readers may have noticed that my output here and on social media has been somewhat patchy over the last few weeks, That's because I was engaged in a tough Council re-election battle, one which I ultimately lost by 12 votes out of 2000 or so cast.

Obviously I'm disappointed, but I'm very proud of my 14 years' stint on Newcastle City Council, particularly on the Sustainability front – I spent 7 years as deputy Cabinet member for Environment & Sustainability when my party ran the Council, then 7 years as opposition spokesperson. Not to put too fine a point on it, and modesty aside, during the first seven years, Sustainability performance improved rapidly peaking with being designated the UK's Most Sustainable City two years running by Forum for the Future (2009 & 2010). When we lost control in 2011, things went into marked decline.

So here's a quick reflection on the lessons that I learnt over those years (many have appeared here before, often lightly disguised!):

  • Leadership is everything – when we took control in 2004, we set two big aspirational targets: zero waste and carbon neutral. Cllr Wendy Taylor, the Cabinet member 2004-2011, showed immense grit and determination to get a massive bureaucracy to take those goals seriously. The incoming administration in 2011 dropped those goals and deleted the cabinet member post, spreading responsibility around a variety of roles and claiming a 'green thread' ran through everything. The weakness of the latter approach has been proven by falling recycling rates and stalled carbon reduction programmes.
  • Commitment = stretch targets. Those two goals drove everything we did and made it clear to the whole organisation, whether officers or councillors, that we were serious about doing things differently. Hitting the targets is not the point: we didn't get close to zero waste, but driving recycling rates from 8% to 43% wouldn't have happened with an incremental approach – as demonstrated by recycling declining to 38% once the target was removed.
  • You've got to make Sustainability easy: one of the controversial things we did was to replace a segregated recycling collection involving a open crate, to a semi-co-mingled system involving a wheelie bin. Green activists screamed sell-out, but the recycling rate went up from 25% to 38% overnight. We made it easy and convenient for busy individuals to recycle and they did so.
  • Experience works: One area our administration was slow on was promoting cycling. So I challenged a group of senior officers and councillors to cycle from the Civic Centre to Newcastle Central Station at the far side of our compact city centre. I can still hear the cry of alarm from one of my colleagues as we ventured across 4 lanes of heavy traffic. From this traumatic experience, a revamped, ambitious cycle strategy was born (our party drafted it, but it came into force under the current administration who to their credit are implementing it).
  • People love winning: when I was first told we had won the Most Sustainable City accolade, my first thought was "how bad are all the rest?" and the second was "oh no, everybody will think we've finished when we've only just got started" but I was wrong – winning first time galvanised officers, fellow Councillors and partners (success has many parents etc) and drove us further and faster (our lead in the Forum for the Future ratings increased over the following year).
  • Activism is doing, not protesting: I've had a few wins in Opposition, however I've learnt you can protest all you like, but if those in power won't listen, you can rarely achieve anything. This is why I eschew protest for action no matter how small, grind my teeth when activist-journalists get lauded more than people at the coalface, and why I recommend my clients (and everybody else) work to align responsibility with authority.

So now I have just the one job, I will be able to focus full time on implementing these lessons in Terra Infirma's clients!


Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

2 January 2018

Sustainability Predictions for 2018? Hmmm...

Happy New Year, Everyone!

It is traditional at this time of year to gaze into the crystal ball and make some predictions for the following 12 months. Given that 2017 gave us served up the most unlikely figure of Michael Gove Eco-warrior, and with the increasingly childishly unpredictable Donald Trump, I am very loath to make specific predictions for the year ahead.

However, the following are almost certain to occur:

  • The low carbon and circular economies will continue to grow at a rate unpredicted by even the most optimistic a few years ago;
  • We will continue to pick up signals from the natural world that we have to move even faster.

But the short term noise of politics, innovation and media storms remain beyond my deductive powers, so we will just have to wait and see.

But I'm not saying 'wait and see before taking action'. Let's go back on the old cliché of "the best way to predict the future is to create it". The only way to prevent occasionally inclement weather from knocking the good ship Sustainability off course is to set a clear destination and keep the vessel pointed in that direction.

So, please ask yourself, what are your three most important goals for the next twelve months, what will you have to have achieved by the six month-mark to be on course, and what do you have to start/stop doing right now to hit that trajectory.

For some inspiration, check out our freebie webinar on 24 January, 12 Kick Ass Sustainability Ideas for 2018. Click here to register. 



Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

8 December 2017

More rubbish about the SDGs

There's a constant stream of articles on my social media feeds about the 'failure' of corporates to engage with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). One that caught my eye was a report from PwC which, amongst other things says on its cover:

"It makes commercial sense to embed the SDGs in operations and strategy, but how ready is business to support governments achieve these global goals?"

I would rewrite that to say "It makes commercial sense to embed Sustainability in operations and strategy..." How you do that, whether by SDGs, Science-based targets, or, my favourite, Zero targets (zero waste, zero carbon, zero toxins), is really up to you.

The second bone I have to pick with the PwC report is its accusation that businesses are 'cherrypicking' the SDGs they want to engage with. I assume that top management consultants are aware that having 17 generic goals (and 169 associated targets) in every business strategy, no matter what sector,  is ridiculous? After all if you prioritise everything, you prioritise nothing.

I recommend to my clients that, if they want to engage with the SDGs, that they choose which 5-7 are most relevant to them and set stretch targets around those. If you are, say, a cement manufacturer, then trying to tackle world hunger (SDG 2) will inevitably detract from the need to cut carbon emissions (SDG 13) a problem with which the cement sector contributes to by a significant degree. By focussing on that goal, a cement business would also contribute to SDGs 3, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12, but trying to hit all 17 targets at once will lead to incremental progress, not the climate breakthrough we require.

As always in Sustainability, we must not let the tail of the latest hot topic wag the dog of progress.

For more on the SDGs, check out this edition of Ask Gareth on that very subject.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

1 December 2017

The need for 'outrageous ambition' on Sustainability

I spent yesterday morning at the always-excellent North East Recycling Forum annual conference. The conference chair, the ever-ebullient Mark Shayler of APE, challenged us in the second half of the session to think up both 'standard' and 'outrageously ambitious' ideas on, in our table's case, how to apply technology to waste.

My two outrageously ambitious solutions were:

  • A small scale pelletiser/3D printer so you could, say, create your own Christmas decorations from plastic packaging, or turn yesterday's faddish kids' tat (e.g. loom bands) into today's (fidget spinners), all in your kitchen;
  • An Alexa-style smart bin which would not only advise you on what can be recycled and/or how, but could count what materials you put in so you can 'earn as you recycle' rather than 'pay as you throw' - incentivising good behaviour rather than penalising bad.

I was really quite pleased with those, but the more I thought about them, the less outrageously ambitious they seemed. Yes, costs would preclude the latter for a long time, but it could be implemented in a neighbourhood recycling centre?

But the bigger thing is, well, thinking big. When Interface announced their Mission Zero Sustainability target (zero impact on the environment by 2020) in 1996, it seemed bat-s**t-crazy, but now they're almost there, and zero waste, zero carbon or 100% renewable electricity targets are being adopted by business left, right and centre. Yesterday's ambition is today's meh.

The old cliché is that Sustainability should be like the moon programme – 'no-one ever got to the moon by aiming half way', but that's slightly misleading representation of that programme; the reality is more interesting. It was Apollo 11 that made it to the moon, the previous 10 missions ranged from tragic failure on the launchpad (Apollo 1, where the three astronauts perished) through to flying the lunar module down to 15km above the moon's surface (Apollo 10) before turning back. So while a lunar landing was the ultimate goal, there were plenty of intermediate steps to master on the way.

In the same way, we need to set those stretch targets but appreciate there's quite a journey to get there. But that headline outrageously ambitious goal drives you on. As someone else said at NERF yesterday, "if you're not pushing at the boundaries of what's possible, what's the point?"


Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

23 June 2017

Science-based Targets: Hope or Hype?

carbon footprintThe latest thing in Sustainability is 'Science-based Targets'. The basic idea is to use the carbon emissions trajectory that the IPCC says is required to stick to 2°C of warming and apportion that reduction to your organisation's carbon footprint either in absolute terms, via a sector-based target, or based on your turnover. I always think it is worth questioning whether the 'latest thing' stands up to the hype or not, so here is my take.

The advantages I see of the science-based approach are:

  • You can be reasonably sure that you are committing to your 'fair share' of emissions cuts;
  • It will communicate the scale of the challenge to stakeholders and decision makers;
  • You can point to other organisations (preferably competitors) who are using science-based targets;
  • Many, but by no means all, will see 'science based' as a seal of approval for the target.

The disadvantages are: Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

3 May 2017

To SDG or not to SDG? That is the question...

The ThinkerInteresting report last week on Edie that the UK Government has no plans in place to  meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and that private sector uptake has been slow. The implicit assumption in the article is that the SDGs are a good thing, but I always believe you should question everything.

The case for the SDGs are that they are comprehensive, third party and UN endorsed. Demonstrating how you are doing against the SDGs makes a pretty good table in an annual report or a slide in a corporate presentation.

The case against is that there are a whopping 17 SDGs, 169 targets, and many of those targets are extremely vague – e.g. "7.2 Increase substantially the level of renewable energy". How do you know when you have contributed to that target?

If you want to inspire people inside your organisation then you need 3 - 7 stretch targets – something jaw dropping like 'zero carbon' or 'zero waste' that really make people sit up and think.

Seven is pretty much the limit of how many items in a list we can easily recall – I'd be very surprised if anyone could recite all 17 SDGs without stumbling. By all means compare your targets against the SDGs, but using the SDGs to drive Sustainability in one organisation is the tail wagging the dog.


Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

6 February 2017

Will Sustainability get Trumped?

A very topical question for this month's Ask Gareth – what will happen to Sustainability in the age of Donald Trump? I offer three important principles to make sure short term political upsets don't derail your Sustainability programme.

Ask Gareth depends on a steady stream of killer sustainability/CSR questions, so please tell me what's bugging you about sustainability (click here) and I'll do my best to help.

You can see all previous editions here.


Tags: , , , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

18 January 2017

The Sustainability bar is rising – fast

Athlete compete in paul vault

There has been a raft of big Sustainability announcements from Corporations recently:

  • Ikea achieving zero waste last year;
  • Google saying they'll be 100% renewable-powered by the end of the year;
  • Unilever's pledge to make all its plastic packaging ‘fully reusable, recyclable or compostable’ by 2025.

These are BHAGs (big hairy audacious goals) and a half. And what's more they're being delivered. That's because big stretch targets such as zero waste or 100% renewable energy make you think in a quite different way to incremental targets. Business as usual will not do the job, neither will Sustainability as a bolt on.

Go large or go home.


Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

19 October 2016

Is your Sustainability Programme hitting a ceiling?

go green

This week I read an article on entitled "Why I’m breaking up with sustainability" by Tara Holmes, which suggests that Corporate Sustainability programmes are plateauing. Holmes says:

...the word sustainability has devolved into a word that embodies a non-offensive, contradictory acknowledgement of the need to address the dire issues facing our rapidly changing climate without actually having to shift core business models...

...I bump into professional contacts of mine at various conferences and events in the sustainability space who say they feel disempowered in their role. They’ve “hit a ceiling” with executive leadership, they’ll tell me. Or they work in a silo in the facilities department or operations, or only have an intern for support. How can any single person in a massive organization have the opportunity to fundamentally shift the bottom line, particularly when that bottom line is triple-down, without the necessary backing and support?

I find this analysis depressing, a tad self-pitying and ultimately self-defeating. Enough exemplars have shown that massive leaps towards Sustainability can be made while making increased profit. The contradiction Holmes identifies is only in the mind – it's not an 'or', but an 'and'.

And, yes, one person will struggle to make a difference if they adopt the silo mentality of their organisation, but they need to turn that mindset around and see their role as facilitating others to make a difference instead (check out this edition of Ask Gareth). You don't need a huge team, or a team at all, to do that.

In her conclusion Holmes proposes education, suggesting starting over, for which, as she points out earlier in the article, we have limited time. Personally, I think if your organisational Sustainability programme is stuck under a ceiling there's a very simple formula to smash through to the next level:

  1. Get buy-in from key players using Green Jujitsu (in large part by involving them actively in the following steps);
  2. Set stretch targets within a reasonable timeframe (7-10 years typically);
  3. Use backcasting to work out what that future vision of the organisation would look like and a list of what you have to start doing now to get there;
  4. Help those key players do the things on your list which will have biggest impact, while identifying and eliminating barriers as you go along.

The first step is the most important. By involving key players, they have 'skin in the game' and you will start to see those ceilings disappear. The backcasting process itself is fun and really energises those involved. You'd be surprised how often meaningful engagement makes resistance to melt away like snow on a warm spring morning.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

25 July 2016

Ready to take your Sustainability up a league?

steep climb

I'm shaking the lactic acid out of my legs the day after the toughest cycle I've done in a long, long time (possibly ever), a 75-mile sportive around the North York Moors with plenty of brutal ascents and descents (the pic above is actually from the Yorkshire Dales, but we did quite a few 25%+ climbs yesterday). What shocked me was, having come in the top 9% on the 'Standard' route in the 64-mile Cyclone sportive a month ago, I just scraped into the top half of the 'Standard' table yesterday. Added to that, at least two thirds of the participants did one of the two much longer, tougher routes than the one I did. It was sobering – I was suddenly plunged into a different league and it wasn't entirely a comfortable experience.

There are definitely different leagues in the Corporate Sustainability world. At the top we have those such as Interface, Unilever, Tesla, GE and, arguably, Marks & Spencer who are transforming the way they do business. The next level down contains the kind of business that signs up to the RE100 (100% renewable energy) pledge which will be tough to meet, but who aren't going through such a level of transformation. Below that are the companies who may be doing exciting things, but don't have really challenging targets. The bottom two leagues are those who are following the rest at a distance and those doing nothing.

What I find interesting and frustrating in equal measure is that many practitioners define themselves against the others in their league rather than aiming to leap up to the next level. Like my cycling, doing well at one level feels much more comfortable than being mediocre to poor in the next level up. But if you stay in your comfort zone, your efforts will inevitably plateau.

So what are you going to do to challenge yourself? Stretch targets matching those in the league above make a fine starting point.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

16 March 2016

We need unrealistic ambition, but realistic expectation in Sustainability

Sustainability Targets

I'm a big proponent of the Big Hairy Audacious Goal in Sustainability – I've always held Interface's Mission Zero (disclosure: a Terra Infirma client) as the epitome of ambition. There's no way Interface would have delivered the sustainability achievements they have if they hadn't set that vision of success. But it takes real guts to go for broke like that – what if you fall short?

A idea that came up at last week's Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group was 'a threshold of realism'. In other words, if you set a zero waste target and you get to 99.9%, have you failed? Only a pedant would say 'No.', a reasonable person would say 'Wow! That's amazing!"

The real reason to set an 0%/100% target is not to meet it exactly (you've got the laws of physics against you if nothing else), but to inspire the organisation to think big and deliver the scale of change which will get you into that ball park. So have the guts to set ambitious goals, strive to meet them, but don't beat yourself up if you fall fractionally short.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

23 October 2015

The mentality of sustainability targets

Athlete compete in paul vault

The installation of a pull-up bar on my school run route last year started a "challenge Daddy" thing with my kids where they joyfully count reps as I huff and puff, lugging my beer gut into the air over and over again. As I could barely manage 10 when we started, I set myself a target of 20 by the end of 2015. I achieved that by March and slowly crept up to about 24 by the summer. Last month I decided to reset my target to 30 and managed 32 last week. This morning I was disappointed with 29.

The psychology fascinates me. I quickly met my original target and was then happy to coast until I set another target – unthinkable this time last year – and easily met it again, hardly noticing the extra effort.

A sustainability manager I was interviewing a couple of weeks ago (for an exciting client project you'll hear about next year) used a high jump analogy for this. You have to be able to see the bar to clear it. If the bar was replaced by a laser detecting how high you jump, you would never manage the same height. In the same way you need clear, ambitious sustainability targets, and, when you hit them, raise the bar or the organisation will coast.

That sounds obvious, but I've been reviewing the new UN Sustainable Development Goals for the next edition of Ask Gareth, and, of the 169 'targets' only a minority are quantified. "Substantially increasing the share of renewable energy" is highly unlikely to drive change (and provides plenty of cover to justify poor progress).

So set the bar, and if you clear it, raise it.


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

13 July 2015

The problem with sustainability targets...

Athlete compete in paul vault


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.

As an aside, this is being debated in front of a backdrop of record renewable energy production – for an hour last month, 43% of UK power came from renewables, pushing coal down to just 7%. For a while last Thursday Denmark managed to produce 140% of its power from renewables – the excess being sold abroad. There is no such thing as "too much renewable energy."

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.



Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

21 October 2014

Sunk Costs Sink Sustainability Ambitions

piggybanksTime and time again, clients tell me "if only we'd factored this in before we invested in that new boiler [or whatever] - bad timing!"

Sunk costs - those capital investments where the cash cannot easily be recovered - are a real headache for sustainability ambitions as no-one wants to be seen to 'waste' that money, even if ripping out a relatively new piece of kit and replacing it with a more sustainable one is the economically sensible thing to do.

The answer, of course, is to get in there before the investment is made and get the most sustainable bang for your buck. But this simple action is much more difficult in practice as the most restricting decisions are often made by default before any investment appraisal takes place.

The only answer is to have a clear sustainability strategy, with appropriate stretch targets, embedded into the structure of the organisation. Trying to waylay every investment reactively as it comes over the horizon is like trying to rugby tackle charging elephants - it's never going to end well.


Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

13 October 2014

On Sustainability: Go Big or Go Home

Athlete compete in paul vault

The first four of my rules of pragmatic environmentalism were mainly aimed at the old-school green activism mindset which in my opinion holds us back from the rapid progress we need to make. But this last, fifth rule is aimed at us all.

For too long we have been told that we face existential threats, but are given '10 Top Tips' such as reusing plastic bags and not leaving the TV on standby. While there's nothing wrong with doing these, they won't deliver sustainability on their own and the cognitive dissonance between the threat and the action can switch people off as its like firing a pea shooter at an aircraft carrier.

We need to go big, or go home.

Two weeks ago today I submitted the manuscript for my next DoShort book, provisionally titled Accelerating Sustainability using the 80:20 Rule. The 80:20 rule says that, in many cases, 20% of actions/effort/input give us 80% of results and 80% of actions give us just 20%. This is a phenomenally powerful tool as it allows us to cut away all the extraneous activity - all those networks of green champions, endless supplier questionnaires and jute bags of green goodies - and focus on those things which will make a real difference - such as ditching a low sustainability supplier in favour of one with good sustainability credentials, or substituting secondary materials for virgin materials, or purchasing an electric vehicle fleet.

Along with the 80:20 Rule, a restless mindset of "good, we've done that, but it's not enough, how can we do it better?" will keep you out of your comfort zone and continually reaching for the next level.

And one of the most powerful moves is the stretch target - if you set your sights on cutting your carbon emissions by, say, 50% in 10 years, you will come up with much better projects than you will if your target is 5% by next year.

So set the bar high, clear it, then push it higher. You may just surprise yourself!


Tags: , , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

6 August 2014

Ask Gareth: 5 Steps to Make Sustainability 'The New Normal'

In this edition of Ask Gareth, I set out the 5 things you really need to do to make sustainability 'the new normal' in your organisation.

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 2 responses

9 June 2014

Stay Hungry...

In Steve Jobs' legendary commencement speech to Stanford University students (above), he signed off with a maxim he first read in the proto-sustainability bible, the Whole Earth Catalogue, namely "Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish."

In other words, keep searching for what you want to do and don't be afraid to try stuff and fail. When you succeed, don't stop, keeping going.

This is the opposite of the 'mid-table mediocrity' trap identified by the Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group. We need to build on success, not rest on our laurels.

The CEO of Coca-Cola, Muhtar Kent, put it nicely in a recent HBR interview when he talked of being 'constructively discontent' - taking a frame of mind that what you have achieved is never good enough, but in a way that puts other people off trying.

So how do you reward success, but keep people hungry - or constructively discontent?

One of my favourite approaches is competition - whether giving out awards for good performance, internal/external league tables and/or competitive tendering where the best sustainability performance is always rewarded. No-on wants to lose that no1 slot, or that Queen's Award, or lose a contract to a greener competitor. So they have to keep raising the bar - and so do their competitors.

And if you can bring a bit of the foolish into it, why not?


Tags: ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

20 February 2014

How high do you set the bar?

Athlete compete in paul vault

Sustainability is by definition the biggest challenge facing mankind and, by extension, business. In trying to meet that challenge, one of the greatest dilemmas is how high to set the bar - what targets should you set for yourself? I spend a lot of time with businesses working on targets and the inclination is either to set very vanilla targets in the near future or extremely ambitious targets so far ahead that they can be abandoned to the next generation of employees. The key of course is to find the right trade off between ambition and timeframe to push the organisation to meaningful step changes in real time.

Another strategy is to let someone else to set the targets by using external standards, whether environmental management standards like ISO14001, product standards like the EU eco-label or  reporting standards. While these have many advantages - they are set by third parties, they strive to include all material issues, and they are a useful badge - they do tend to be lowest common denominator as they have to be universal. More worryingly, sometimes organisations hide behind such standards - mining company Glencore once refused to release figures on a certain type of injury because "it wasn't required by the Global Reporting Initiative" - hardly the kind of transparency that the GRI was set up to promote.

There is no easy answer to the target setting challenge and experience is the only effective guide. For large, capital intensive businesses, I prefer to see stretch targets which challenge the status quo set in the 10 year timeframe. But that is simply a matter of judgement - you'll have to rely on your own!


Tags: , ,

Posted by Gareth Kane no responses

10 January 2014

More Strategy Secrets of the Sustainability Masterminds

undercroft sustainability mastermind group

On Tuesday we had the sixth meeting of the Corporate Sustainability Mastermind Group (CoSM) - the small group of senior sustainability executives from large organisations which I facilitate on a quarterly basis.

We returned to a venue for the first time, the fantastic Undercroft at the Live Theatre, Newcastle. Most of this room is mediaeval, but those timbers in the background were recycled from Elizabethan ships, and it has functioned as everything from a prison to a wine cellar and, most recently, for exploring sustainability strategy in detail!

The Mastermind Group operates under the Chatham House Rule, so I can't reveal who said what, or give the specific examples we were discussing, but here is a selection of the generic conclusions we reached:

  • Business meets societal needs. No value => no profit and no profit => no value;
  • Defining societal need in large companies can be difficult as they are often multi-faceted;
  • Fundamental question: does growth => more harm? Depends on business model;
  • Ethical dilemma – whose ethics are ethical? The definition may be out of your hands;
  • Another ethical dilemma – where does responsibility end? Again, the definition may be out of your hands;
  • Fundamentally need to do what’s right for your business;
  • One effective tactic is to drive sustainability goals by piggybacking on other business goals;
  • Need to decide on granularity of the strategy eg simple energy efficiency measures vs reconfiguring whole business;
  • Sometimes you arrive at sustainability objectives from a different direction, but this is not a problem;
  • Asset intensive industries typically use 5 year rolling planning cycle – too short for sustainability planning;
  • Ten year stretch targets for sustainability are compatible with such a cycle;
  • An alternative is to use iconic dates eg corporate centenaries – something for the organisation to rally around;
  • People can obsess about the little stuff ,eg disposable coffee cups, and ignore the big picture;
  • Emotions beat arguments, so show don’t tell – “facts” are never enough;
  • ‘Behind the label’ – provide the detail for those who want to dive into it;
  • Need to complete the whole product sustainability jigsaw;
  • A full product life cycle assessment can be a real eye opener, however care must be taken with life cycle assumptions (eg use patterns, life span);
  • Product stories are an increasingly effective way to market green performance;
  • Independent substantiation of all claims is vital.

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

The CoSM Group is for senior sustainability managers in large organisations. It meets quarterly in great locations for open and frank discussion - and NO Powerpoint. If you'd like to learn more, please drop me a line.


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