Whether you’ve learned it from Mark Twain, Zig Ziglar or Anthony Robbins, it rings true that “If you do what you have always done, you‘ll get what you‘ve always got.” If we apply this thought to the manner in which we have conducted business since the Industrial Revolution, we may realize that, despite breakthrough technological and scientific advances, not much has changed about the ways in which we approach production.
Since the mid 18th century in the UK and the mid 19th century in the US, our production processes have faithfully followed a linear system by which we extract resources, transform them into products, and distribute them to consumers. Once the product is obsolete, it is disposed of in our landfills, as are the resources (to which we tend to refer to as “waste”) lost in the production process. This is the way we have “always” done things, but it is certainly not an indefinitely sustainable system.
The linear system faces a range of obstacles, such as exponential population growth and resource depletion and it adds complexities, including waste disposal, pollution and ethical dilemmas on multiple levels. Most importantly, it is a finite system, unable to conceal its limitations after only 160 years in practice. Compare that to the model of our eco-system, which has employed System Dynamics for over 4.5 billion years.
From Henry David Thoreau and Aldo Leopold to Rachel Carson and Janine Benyus, great minds have taken notice, but for various reasons, the profit motive certainly among them, corporate America has failed to innovate in this crucial and complex area of concern on a large scale. The idea is not to throw out all our linear systems at once, but to utilize an adaptive approach going forward and replace linear thinking with cyclical thinking. Considering the magnitude of the resulting changes, it is only natural to be fearful, but isn’t going forward in spite of such fears the very essence of courage, the heart of innovation?
You may be familiar with the myth of Alexander The Great’s approach to the “Gordian Knot”. The Macedonian General encountered this mystically complex knot at the Asian city of Gordium, the throne to which was promised to the one who could unfasten it. Many had tried and failed and after being unable to locate the knot’s ends, Alexander pulled out his sword and sliced the knot in two. The kingdom was his.
Challenging the rules is often the defining step towards finding the solution. Only if we modify our decision rules and our mental models of the real world as we go along, can we hope to create sustainable processes. We will explore some examples of linear and systems thinking in an upcoming post. For an interesting and fun take on linear thinking, please watch Annie Leonard’s “The Story of Stuff”.
A third of our diet is predominantly dependent on honeybee pollination.
The recent decline of our honeybee population has been of great concern to farmers and beekeepers. You, too, may be familiar with the issue; maybe you came across a Häagen-Dazs ad, watched M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Happening” or read a related academic journal article. We can easily imagine how insects may affect us when they are out of control (think crop ravaging grasshopper swarms!), but it is difficult to grasp the impact a group of insects can have on the human population by disappearing.
According to an article in Discover Magazine (October 2009), honeybees in North America pollinate more than 90 crops with an annual value totaling almost $15 billion. A third of the human diet depends on plants pollinated by insects, the honeybee first and foremost. Yet since 2006, one third of all commercial honeybees have disappeared each year. The disappearance is not a new phenomenon. A 10-year bee survey published in 1995 showed a drastic decline in the bee population due to mites and pesticide use, 23 percent annually, in fact.
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is most likely not a single-source occurrence, but a complex issue arising from a range of practices with unfavorable cumulative effects. Scientists have attributed bee deaths to bacterial and viral infections, pesticide poisoning and mite infestation, none of which are particularly novel, so why haven’t bees, like many other insects, adapted to these external disease factors?
The Discover article mentioned above introduces a very probable underlying cause: inbreeding. Bees have been bred for years to maximize pollination and such breeding practices inevitably reduce genetic diversity. Coupled with the growth of monocultures bound to limit nutritional variety, and considering the ongoing use of toxic pesticides, one can imagine how acutely the honeybees’ immune system must be compromised. The bees themselves have been turned into a sort of monoculture, genetically weak workers, no longer capable of maintaining their own well-being. These weak and sometimes disoriented bees often end up lost in neighboring colonies, spreading diseases that wipe out entire populations.
33 percent of commercial honeybees have disappeared each year since 2006.
In light of these findings, it is safe to say that the decline of the honeybee population is the result of a repeated mistake in agricultural practices. After many lessons in the pitfalls of monoculture farming, ranging from loss of crop species, proliferation of pests and soil depletion to compromised nutritional value, taste, and increased cost and environmental impact of distributing specialized crops, we have yet to adopt widespread sustainable practices.
The honeybee decline should be an eye-opener, and while a handful of beekeepers and scientists have dedicated themselves to breeding genetic diversity back into the bee population, the lesson, like so many, is likely to get lost, because the consumer has not experienced a direct and measurable loss. Businesses like Häagen-Dazs, who rely on honeybee by-products, do well to invest funds into ads that raise awareness among consumers. In turn, consumers would do well to support businesses that demonstrate environmental responsibility, in this case polyculture and organic farms. It is our hope that the lessons of recent years, including that of the honeybee, will lead this and coming generations into an era of awareness, cooperation and, once again, diversity.
The Walker Brands LEED Gold certified building in Tampa, Florida.
When I first met Nancy Walker, President of the branding company Walker Brands in Tampa, FL, I believed her to be somewhat of a “green guru”. After all, her building had received the first LEED Gold certification in the city and she kindly offers tours of her facility to educate the public. However, as it turns out, Nancy did not initially intend to build green, nor was her motivation to save on utility bills in the long-run. Nancy’s company is built on innovation, on “connecting people to places”, so it only made sense for her to construct a building to reflect this philosophy and it just so happened that her vision of a beautiful, original and inspiring building was in line with the USGBC’s LEED standard. For Nancy, the design of the building was all about how it makes people feel, while the features themselves are distinctly green.
90% of the building is lit by natural light and I noticed that only task lights were utilized in work areas. If lights are needed, they are controlled by motion sensors. The buildings HVAC system is particularly creative. Instead of using commercial units, the designers placed six individual residential units into various locations. This allows for the cooling of only those areas in use and reduces total energy consumption. Walker Brands is paying 38% less in utility costs per square foot now than it did in its last building. The facility is equipped with coated windows for heat control and a high-albedo roof, the parking area is paved with porous materials for storm water absorption and to prevent run-off and the one-of-a-kind “destination bathrooms” feature employee showers, dual-flush toilets and low-flow faucets. The showers encourage employees to commute by bicycle and the location of the building close to dozens of amenities is an added bonus. This may not seem innovative to those living in New York City or Boston, but Tampa is not exactly a leader in public transport, bicycle or pedestrian-friendly features.
As Nancy gave me the tour, it became evident that, even though she can explain the technical aspects of the LEED features quite well, she is most passionate about the stories behind them. I was fascinated by the unique flooring, constructed from over 200-year old and now extinct wood recovered from local rivers. Equally interesting is her conference table, a tail wing of an airplane found in an Arizona desert. And as if all that wasn’t enough, I’ll never forget the warm welcome I received from Nancy’s beautiful black Labrador as I walked in the door.
The Walker Brands building is an excellent example of green construction,
Nancy Walker, President of Walker Brands, and her loveable Lab Ruby.
but also of what it takes to create a work environment that makes employees feel comfortable, while fostering innovative thought and productivity. The compatibility of creativity and environmental sustainability in such buildings is indisputable and the range of benefits to people, profits and our planet finally inject meaning and value into our built environment.
For more information about this building, please visit www.walkerbrands.com. To view a video tour of the building, please click on the Play icon below.
Reusables are among the more environmentally friendly options, particularly when combined with energy and water conservation initiatives.
We’ve recently encountered an academic facility that tried to determine whether reusable, compostable or recyclable lunchware was the most practical and environmentally friendly option for use in its cafeteria. The issue of recyclable versus reusable has multiple variables that make conclusive studies challenging to conduct and constant emergence of environmentally sustainable products and processes may cause frequent shifts towards one or the other. For example, the few available studies produced in the early 1990s did not consider alternative energy sources or graywater recycling options, the composition of several plastic materials has changed since then and biodegradable corn, wheat and rice based products have entered the market.
For commercial facilities, cost remains a primary consideration in most cases. From an environmental perspective, concerns range from waste generation and energy consumption to water usage, cleaning product toxicity and hazardous emissions. We’ll exclude disposable paper products from this discussion, because their environmental impact has already shown to be greater than existing alternatives. We’ll also exclude glass, porcelain and ceramic ware, because they are impractical due to the high probability of breakage, as well as risk of injury and related liability, which would render them cost-ineffective. Foam ware does not offer landfill alternatives and is therefore not considered to be an eco-friendly alternative.
What remains are the following options: non-breakable reusable ware, food-material (corn, wheat, rice) based compostable products, leaf and bamboo ware, recyclable plastic ware and degradable bioplastic ware. Non-breakables, by the way, can break on occasion, but the probability of that happening is far lower than with ceramics or glass. This option includes Corelle or Fiestaware, as well as stainless steel plates. The latter are popular in countries like India, but have not really caught on beyond camping use in the U.S. If manufactured from recycled steel, they would offer a very viable option, although steel is becoming an increasingly expensive resource. These dishes last for decades, even in commercial environments and would be cost-effective in the long-run. The ideal situation would be to use energy from renewable resources in the manufacture of these items, wash them with non-toxic biodegradable detergent and recycle the graywater for other uses in the building, such as irrigation or toilet flushing. Compostable disposables are practical when composting is facilitated, however, when disposed of in non-degradable garbage bags, the waste generation problem remains an issue. Depending on the amount of disposables used, transport to a composting facility may impose additional fees and increase the overall carbon footprint of using this method. The use of food materials in non-food applications is still controversial and of course this method remains a repeat expense. Leaf and bamboo ware has the disadvantage of being expensive, but small organizations may consider it for durability, reusability and compostability at the end of its useful life. It is an excellent solution for those companies pursuing a cradle-to-cradle philosophy. As mentioned with reusable ware, non-toxic detergent and graywater recycling can further minimize environmental impact. Recyclable plastic is an inexpensive option with high environmental impact. While producing plastic products is far less energy intensive than producing reusable items, the recycling process adds to this amount. The greatest concern, however, is that plastic can only be downcycled before it ends up in a landfill anyway and may have additional ecotoxicological effects through leaching and runoff. Bioplastics, which have greatly improved, are recommended as an alternative to traditional plastic and comparable in price and performance. As with the food-based compostables discussed above, proper disposal has to be ensured by the organization. With all disposables, the amount used and the location of the facility in relation to the composting/recycling site must be taken into consideration.
Every method of production and disposal clearly has an effect on the environment. The goal is to minimize this impact and balance cost with environmental considerations. Long-term cost comparisons still favor reusable ware overall and the fact that this option barely contributes to the waste stream is a major advantage in itself. Knowing that the method can be further improved by the use of alternative energy sources on the supplier’s end and water conservation strategies on the part of the organization demonstrates the importance of a holistic approach to environmental issues.
Recycling is a temporary solution in a system that needs to shift from linear to cyclical thinking.
Recycling continues to be advocated as a key component in managing waste responsibly and it remains one of the first initiatives corporations and individual households implement in the move towards environmentally sustainable practices. As compared to disposing of waste in landfills, recycling is, in fact, the better alternative, but in the creation of long-term waste solutions, it is merely a stepping stone. Consumers often don’t realize that recycled products are primarily down-cycled, which means that they end up in a landfill sooner or later. Many of the plastics in production today, for example, can only be converted to lower grade plastics in the recycling process, and paper quality is reduced in such a process as well. Materials like glass or steel can be indefinitely recycled without losing quality, if separation from other materials restores their purity and that is exactly the ideal we should strive for. Combining materials in production processes without the cyclical approach in mind will compromise their re-entry into the manufacturing cycle. Therefore, any materials that are combined during production, must allow separation and preferably by safe processes.
To better understand the direction towards which we have to move in order to efficiently use our resources, we have to think of two separate nutrient cycles within manufacturing processes: the organic nutrient cycle and the technical nutrient cycle. As a matter of common sense, all nutrients should be disposed of in a manner that allows them to continuously fulfill their purpose. Disposing of food scraps in plastic bags that may persist for centuries in landfills is an extremely nonsensical practice, because it removes perfectly useful nutrients from their natural cycle. Equally unfavorable are composite materials that render precious technical nutrients inadequate for reuse at their original level of quality. Elimination of such harmful processes is a matter of foresight and innovation.
Let’s look at an example of foresight: businesses are responsible for their supply chains and if they are practicing environmental stewardship on even the most basic of levels, they have given thought to their waste management strategy as well. These two departments are not typically working in close cooperation, but they should, not only as a matter of fostering cyclical thinking, but as a long-term strategy in the maximization of efficiency. Now let’s consider an example of innovation: ReProduct creates annual reports that companies send to their stockholders. Once read, recipients wrap the cover panel around the report (think of the Netflix envelope concept) and drop it into any mailbox, postage already paid. The annual reports are delivered to Shaw Industries, who use the material in their carpet backing applications.
The concept of these nutrient cycles is based on William McDonough’s and Michael Braungart’s cradle-to-cradle design strategies and their vision includes everything from deconstructable building components to indefinitely reusable auto parts and even entire passively designed communities consisting of constant nutrient flow (in our current system, we refer to waste equaling nutrient, but the point is to eliminate the concept of waste entirely). The beauty of this approach is that it realistically considers that technical nutrients are not an enemy to environmental sustainability, but a manageable aspect of our time. Making the shift then remains a matter of changing thoughts and behaviors, a difficult but worthwhile and necessary endeavor for those of us who remain passionate about the possibilities.
SMBs who implement renewable energy and carbon reduction projects now may be able to offset a portion of capital expenditures through tax credits.
Since the conception of the Clean Energy and Security Act, the intricacies of carbon trading are becoming of interest to those who have not previously participated in the voluntary market. Following is a very basic overview of what carbon credits are and where they come from.
The point of the cap-and-trade program is greenhouse gas reduction. This method can be used for various gases, however, we’ll stick with CO2 to simplify. The first step is to devise a carbon reduction project and measure the resulting amount of carbon saved. For example, installing a photovoltaic system will generate a specific amount of energy that will replace an equal amount of energy previously derived from the coal powered electricity grid. In a regulated market, third-party verifiers will make sure that the project lives up to its objectives. Carbon credits can represent renewable energy produced (one megawatt hour of electricity produced = one carbon credit) or CO2 saved (one ton saved = one carbon credit). The credits are either sold to carbon offset brokers or placed into a carbon exchange market, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) or the upcoming New York Mercantile Exchange’s Green Exchange (NYSE’s BlueNext is also keeping an eye on the U.S. carbon market). Here, carbon credits can be traded through brokers or trading platforms like a commodity. Those who have “extra credit” can sell certificates and those who are short or have not yet managed to meet standards, buy them.
CCX CFI Vintage 2009
(Quoted in mt CO2)
In 2008, the voluntary trading market for carbon offsets in the U.S. exceeded $700 million. At that time, the world-wide market was estimated to have reached $118 billion. Once emission limits are mandated, the price of carbon credits in the U.S. is expected to rise with demand. Any corporation, but particularly small and mid-sized businesses (SMBs), would be well-advised to begin renewable energy projects now and take advantage of existing tax credits at the same time, while they are still available.
A recent Aberdeen Group study revealed the top drivers for corporate sustainability initiatives. 56% of the 200 participating organizations quote internal motivation, the company’s own desire for corporate social responsibility (CSR). 48% felt that CSR initiatives were necessary in order to maintain or improve brand reputation and 46% recognized the potential for a competitive advantage. Stakeholder pressure, rising energy costs and compliance mandates were given significantly less consideration.
42% of the organizations stated difficulty in making the business case for socio-environmental projects, however, those corporations identified as best-in-class demonstrated a 6% decrease in energy costs, as compared to the average 4% increase, and reported reduction in paper cost (10%), carbon footprint (9%), transportation (7%) and facilities (7%). Equally important, best-in-class companies reported client retention rate increases of 16% compared to the average 8% decrease. A notable difference was that best-in-class companies were 52% more likely to assign metrics to sustainability initiatives. Additionally, 74% of them had implemented organization-wide CSR policies.
Translating intangible environmental benefits into concrete currency remains a major hurdle that most companies have not yet dared to tackle. How does one establish metrics for clean air and water quality? How does a company measure the benefits of improved indoor environmental quality from non-toxic furniture upholstery, no-VOC paints and improved daylighting strategies? The problem is that we cannot put a price on the proper maintenance of our eco-system, because it is, of course, priceless. This is not reason enough to throw in the towel on CSR. Corporations can start by measuring that which is measurable, such as energy and water consumption, life-cycle cost of products, process design for efficiency, equipment costs, employee retention and productivity rates in light of telecommuting initiatives or by involving them in green projects. Several new studies on productivity as related to indoor air quality, thermal conditions and natural lighting are also emerging.
Consideration of working conditions along the product or service life cycle is an essential component of the triple bottom line calculation.
Approaching sustainability from a pure profit motive is a strategic failure in the making and one that is certain to result in greenwashing practices. Corporate social responsibility, like the term itself implies, contains an ethical aspect that must be understood in order to be realized. The triple-bottom-line method provides a starting point for corporations who are considering the value of human and environmental factors in their operations.
In this week’s White House releases, President Obama addresses the passage of the Clean Energy and Security Act. While this bill is far from perfect, it is a landmark achievement for our country nevertheless and an acceptable first attempt to match some of the developments that have put Europe ahead of us in terms of emissions control. Of course, this is one area, where competition is highly encouraged.
E-learning offers a viable training solution, providing the flexibility, cost-effectiveness and reach that are hard to match in a traditional classroom setting.
We have previously discussed the benefits of teleconferencing systems and software in general, but as more organizations are adopting learning models, we want to emphasize e-learning specifically, and while our focus revolves around corporate social responsibility (CSR), the advantages we’ll mention certainly apply to a wide range of company training needs.
Fortunately, a growing number of colleges and universities are recognizing the need for a socio-environmental education, offering degree tracks that present a practical alternative to the Environmental Sciences degree. For example, St. Petersburg College in Florida will begin offering a BAS degree in Sustainability Management this fall, including courses like “Sustainable Enterprise Planning”, “Triple Bottom Line Management” and “Legal Aspects of Sustainability”. Most of these courses are available in an online format, thereby providing a great degree of flexibility to those who have the proper self-motivation and time-management skills.
In the same manner as colleges are now offering degrees to those who want to pursue a career in socio-environmental sustainability, companies must equip their workforce with adequate training after implementing a CSR strategy in order for it to be effective. Businesses could hire corporate trainers to educate their staff in a classroom or workshop setting, a method that is often effective when intensive or hands-on training is required. Alternatively, they can choose the more flexible e-learning option, utilizing one of several Software as a Service (SaaS) applications now on the market. This method is not only cost-effective and interactive, but it also provides a minimally disruptive learning solution. Some of the advantages include:
Address a large audience without losing control
Screen sharing on various levels
Whiteboard
Track learners’ progress
Registration log
On-demand playback
Perform assessments
Customize training to specific employees/departments
Learning Management System (LMS) compatibility
Real-time Q & A
Breakout sessions
Scalability (which implies that you pay less when you need to accommodate fewer learners)
Live training for global workforce and field employees
The e-learning option can facilitate communication of your newly implemented sustainability vision and policies, engage your workforce, teach them what they need to know in order to adhere to and enhance the new system and to promote interaction and innovation. E-learning does require a bit more self-discipline than traditional classroom sessions, however, sticking to relevant material with practical applications, scheduling e-sessions early in the day and breaking sessions down into multiple easy-to-digest segments will eliminate most potential downsides. While some employees may appreciate the opportunity to learn on their own time, companies should make a point of holding training during working hours or compensate workers for training conducted outside of such hours, if agreed upon. All in all, e-learning is a worthy alternative to consider, one that saves time, cuts down training-related expenditures, prevents major disruptions and gives your staff a lot more flexibility.
Corporate social responsibility becomes even more of an issue when superfluous products are manufactured along a linear system, negatively impacting the environment and human health in the process.
When I first read William McDonough’s and Michael Braungart’s “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things” back in 2003, it occurred to me that responsible product design had to be one of the most daunting tasks imaginable to the world of manufacturing. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the late 18th century, we have designed and produced with the primary goal of profitability in mind and the linear system along which such manufacture transpired never received too much consideration from industries, governments or consumers at large. Bill McDonough suggests that we make our products with the end in mind, creating them to be fit for continual reuse in a circular system, obviously an ideal solution to resource preservation, creating a zero-waste environment and living sustainable, healthy lives. Is this idea of intelligent production an obtainable goal?
We have taken a look at some of the products currently on the market that meet or are close to meeting the cradle-to-cradle philosophy. We have found office chairs and workstations, baby diapers, surfboard wax, wall cover, detergents, packaging material, personal care products, whiteboards and building supplies. This is an impressive range of products that have only recently surfaced and several dozens of patents for cradle-to-cradle innovations are pending. The idea behind the concept is to think about every aspect of the product, including source materials, production processes, reusability and value. We now have access to soap that is produced without toxins, hardly uses any energy during manufacture and is packaged in fully-compostable packaging with built-in seeds. Of course, soap is easy, as compared to cars and computers, for example. The point is not to redesign everything we make to be indefinitely reusable and non-toxic by next Friday, the point is to really start thinking about what we make, how we make it and why.
Without a doubt, certain products are completely superfluous. Rubber ducks are pretty cute, but most contain harmful toxins, such as endocrine disrupting phthalates. We have to wonder if “pretty cute” is reason enough to produce large amounts of waste, release harmful toxins into the atmosphere during production and put our health at risk to boot. If a manufacturer wants to produce something that has only perceived value, corporate social responsibility has to be at the forefront of systems and process design. There are millions of products on the market that fit into this category. To make things worse, we now find ourselves in a global marketplace, where standards vary from one country to the next and this renders control over manufacturing processes and ingredients, as well as full-cycle waste management, extremely difficult. If a business assembles a product in an evolved system that uses few resources, but imports parts from China, where tons of waste were created in the process of making them and toxic processes dominated manufacture, the circular system no longer applies.
The point of this post is not to discourage responsible product design. The most innovative solutions are results of thought revolutions in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. In order to rethink, companies must educate or reeducate their workforce, their management team, their shareholders, suppliers and clients. This is the first step and it is an urgent one. Employee surveys repeatedly reveal that they want to learn more about responsible corporate practices, that they would like to see some metrics to gauge socio-environmental progress, and that they wish their companies were greener. Intelligent product design is a daunting task, indeed, one that requires attention from corporations, researchers, media, and regulators to become the reality that is sure to make our current linear systems completely obsolete – and maybe somewhat embarrassing. Let’s begin by acknowledging the design issue, communicate, educate and remember these wise words of William McDonough on the road ahead: “Sustainability takes forever. And that’s the point.”
Whether you’ve learned it from Mark Twain, Zig Ziglar or Anthony Robbins, it rings true that “If you do what you have always done, you‘ll get what you‘ve always got.” If we apply this thought to the manner in which we have conducted business since the Industrial Revolution, we may realize that, despite breakthrough technological and scientific advances, not much has changed about the ways in which we approach production.
