A good strategic plan for long-term business sustainability assigns equal value to economic, social and environmental factors.
We’ve heard a lot about greening businesses this year, particularly in light of the Waxman-Markey bill, carbon tax versus cap-and-trade debates, the Smart Grid, and the climate summit this month. A number of companies have taken advantage of the publicity and spent far more effort on communicating their “green strategy” than on following one. While aggravating to customers and frustrating to competitors who end up having to defend their own green efforts against accusations of greenwashing, this is more likely than not a temporary problem. Business leaders who choose to focus on environmental sustainability alone risk losing their niche when their competitors do the same. A non-toxic product isn’t exactly novel when no one manufactures toxic products.
Seventh Generation, the household products company, expresses an essential strategic message in its core belief, which is that businesses can change other businesses, as well as consumer behavior, by deploying a successful sustainability strategy. Considering that the majority of the world’s largest economic entities are in fact businesses, not countries, this view emphasizes the power of corporations in driving ethical business practices – or unethical ones. Seventh Generation refused to sell its products to Walmart, unless Walmart committed to socio-environmentally sustainable development, a costly move that eventually paid off on many levels, including customer loyalty, company reputation, and integrity. Seventh Generation doesn’t solely rely on the green factor, but rather embraces a systems approach to evaluate what the world needs most and the world needs more than a green product.
If your business is to change anything, it needs to be profitable, which is why economic sustainability is essential. Social sustainability encompasses the treatment of your employees, your local communities and our global community, preferably exceeding the provision of basic human rights on all levels. Environmental sustainability addresses resources, waste, air and water quality; in short, it ensures the continuous functioning and even thriving of our eco-system. These are equally important components of your overall strategy. They rely on one another for long-term success within any ethical organization.
You must wonder why all companies are not operating according to such a long-term sustainable strategy and the explanation has various facets. Many companies are still not willing to assign the same value to social and environmental factors as they do to profitability. Others may lack the visionary leadership, the cross-departmental communication, solid metrics, alignment of values and processes, employee cooperation, quality control or a good strategic plan all together. While leadership issues are difficult, if not impossible, to resolve, all others can be addressed and improved to achieve a corporate vision and strategic direction that includes each factor – economic, social and environmental – equally. Any company that succeeds utilizing these principles will undoubtedly influence the inner workings of its competitors and customers, and making that impact a positive one should be the ultimate goal of any ethical corporation.
In light of the disappointing outcome of the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen and the ongoing Climate Gate investigation, one has to wonder to what extent political interests present an obstacle to the resolution of environmental issues. Having the majority of the (non-scientific) community equate socio-environmental challenges to political division is extremely counterproductive and it speaks poorly of human reason to squeeze such universal problems into restrained political loyalties. Copenhagen was not only dissatisfactory for its chaotic nature and inability to produce a legally binding treaty, but also for the disenchanting realization that the very leaders we expect to champion change are no more capable of reaching agreements than the rest of us – possibly worse.
Global warming is most certainly not our only problem, although it may be the focus of mainstream media outlets and the center of publicized political discussions concerning the environment. We have to break the habit of considering components of problems and rather look at a problem in its entirety. Peter Senge uses an interesting analogy in The Fifth Discipline. To paraphrase, we break a mirror to examine its components and when we glue it back together, expect to get the same image we got before we broke it. We cannot break down socio-environmental issues in this manner. We cannot effectively prioritize clean air, clean water, usable soil, preservation of forests, habitats and species, decontamination of toxic build-up, sustainable food production systems and biodiversity. Separating social from environmental problems is also a mistake, because we cannot possibly expect environmental stewardship from someone whose basic needs for food, shelter and security have not been met. We live in a single eco-system, not in individual bio-domes.
It is tiring to hear the quarrels over global warming, discouraging to see violations of the scientific method for personal or political gain, disillusioning to see failures like the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Climate Conference and disheartening to witness political division to the point of paralysis. None of this, however, takes away from our individual ability or responsibility to influence innovation and change. It is precisely in light of mounting political failures and media quarrels that we have to become the driving force of socio-environmental progress. This appeal applies particularly to businesses, which have the capacity to fuel competition in innovative systems and technologies and model ethical practices. Business leaders often underestimate the degree to which they can influence their stakeholders, including entire communities, although it should become quite obvious when focus shifts from profits alone to planet, people and profits.
Let’s not look to our neighbors, competitors or politicians to drive change. Perhaps they will, perhaps not. Instead, let’s consider practical, relevant solutions we can implement now, as consumers who drive demand, as employees who influence corporate culture, as members of communities who shape municipalities, as business leaders who drive change and as human beings, who can inspire one another in the pursuit of a common goal.
The Lotus Leaf is a stunning example of adaptation and served as the inspiration for a new surface coating that allows buildings to self-clean.
In a previous post, we had alluded to the environmentally sustainable ideal of systems thinking versus the reality of linear thinking, particularly in manufacturing processes, and promised to provide examples of each to better explain these concepts.
Systems thinking has multiple applications, from problem-solving to enterprise philosophy, but it is most evidently contained within our existing ecosystem. The concept is simply based on the holistic view that the components of a system are best understood in context to each other and their environment. Although our ecosystem was readily available for copying at the start of the industrial revolution, we chose to go with linear thinking instead, where one step follows another in a cradle-to-grave approach, if you will. Today, 150 years later, we have realized that this is not an indefinitely sustainable production strategy and are consequently evaluating concepts like cradle-to-cradle and biomimicry.
There are millions of products designed by linear thinking. Any single item that faces an end-of-life stage at which it has no further use falls into this category. Look around your home or office and you will see them, from sofas and rugs to computers and televisions, even the materials that comprise the building itself, to name just a few. Do you have a gadget on your desk that consists of several materials fused together, maybe a picture frame or business card holder? Most lamps consist of multiple materials, too, as do most shoes. All these items are bound to end up in landfills one day, because they cannot be broken down into useful materials.
Although cradle-to-grave products are abundant, there are good examples of products or systems that were designed from a holistic perspective. Industrial parks, which reuse waste for energy, or self-sufficient communities model the concept. This year, our company sent out Christmas cards that have been designed to be recycled into carpet backing, so that neither the card nor the envelope has to be discarded. Interface is developing eco-carpeting and other flooring solutions that follow systems thinking. William McDonough’s book “Cradle-to-Cradle” was printed on reusable material, rather than paper, with ink that can be washed off and reused as well. gDiapers makes compostable baby diapers, Pangea’s soaps are packaged in compostable material with the added bonus of built-in seeds. Some of these products need to be refined, but they are certainly moving into the right direction. Their designers created them with the consideration of how they can be absorbed back into the manufacturing or eco-cycle, not in a down-graded state, as recycled paper or plastic, for example, but as intact materials that contribute value indefinitely.
It is impossible to argue the superiority of systems thinking over linear thinking in long-term sustainability and the single most important driver is innovative design. We have looked at production from a similar angle for generations and are in dyer need of creativity. Scientists are taking a closer look at the composition of our natural environment to mimic what comes so easily to nature. From underwater adhesives and no-heat ceramics to self-cleaning mechanisms and silk with tensile strength exceeding that of steel, we are looking to blue mussels, seashells, lotus leafs and spiders to help us create better production processes and more durable, non-toxic products. What better guide than a system that has survived and thrived for over 4 billion years before we came along?
Optimization of the indoor environment can drastically improve employee health and productivity.
Common sense tells us that indoor environmental quality issues come at a cost, but how high a cost exactly is difficult to determine when we attempt to estimate intangible losses. Nevertheless, in an era of emerging green building standards and increased knowledge and awareness of air quality related illness, estimates are becoming available and we are beginning to grasp the full impact of indoor conditions on our corporate budgets.
A study by Fisk and Rosenfeld, initially conducted in 1998 and updated in 2002 places the cost of indoor air quality issues at $100 billion annually and estimates potential productivity gains from improvements to the indoor environment at anywhere from $37-$318 billion. The U.S. EPA estimates that the we spend in excess of $140 billion in direct medical costs attributable to indoor air quality problems and a study by Greg Kats of Capital E indicates that a LEED-certified Silver building yields 20-year health and productivity savings of $36.89 per square foot, while a LEED-certified Gold or Platinum building saves $55.33 per square foot.
Indoor environmental issues are most often associated with toxic particulates in the air and the resulting sick building or tight building syndrome, but it encompasses, in fact, everything from ventilation and noise transmission to lighting quality and thermal conditions. Diseases related to indoor environmental problems include everything from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), Pontiac Fever and allergic reactions to asthma, Legionnaire’s Disease and radon poisoning, the second leading cause of lung cancer in the US.
Green building programs, including the USGBC’s LEED certification and Green Globes stipulate clearly for the use of low or no VOC materials, proper ventilation, an IAQ management plan, acoustic and thermal comfort and even lighting design. Whether or not your company is pursuing a green building certification, material toxicity should be considered in purchasing decisions and optimization of airflow, occupant controlled thermal conditions, and pollutant control must be prioritized to ensure the health and comfort of your most important asset: your employees.
Relevancy and transparency are critical components in communicating corporate socio-environmental programs and objectives.
Most companies recognize environmentally sustainable practices as a competitive edge and market them accordingly. Others are keeping their efforts under wraps, perhaps because they were green before it became a trend or possibly because it is in the nature of their business. Finally, there are those who simply market their intentions of being environmentally responsible. One day. Maybe.
When should you communicate eco-friendly efforts? Quite simply, whenever they are relevant and genuine. Sustainability in the corporate environment is still considered to be an emerging trend and consumers rely on what little information has been publicized, so don’t frustrate your market by withholding pertinent facts. At the same time, it is not advisable to market illegitimate or indistinct claims. I recently read about the sustainability program of a major hotel group on its website, but when I visited the hotel, I was astounded by the dishonesty of their statements as the toilets seemed to flush incessantly, thermal control was non-existent, as patrons wrapped themselves in sweaters on an eighty degree Florida day, recycling containers were nowhere to be found, virgin paper products were used throughout the facility, lights were left on in areas brightly lit by the sun and the list goes on and on. From an ethical perspective, this is absolutely unacceptable. The message you convey must align with the manner in which you practice it. (Please see yesterday’s post on greenwashing for more on this subject.)
Your audience should consist of all stakeholders, though the degree of detail may vary. Your workforce plays a significant role in communicating with suppliers and clients and should therefore be well informed. Stockholders ought to know about socio-environmental programs as they pertain to earnings and company reputation, while the community should understand your impact and goals. Suppliers must be made aware of requirements and policies, in order to adhere. Structuring the message to encompass the interests of each group is an essential component of effective communication, avoiding both overload and misunderstandings.
Internally, communication channels may include e-mail, memos or face-to-face meetings. Workshops and seminars can be utilized to generate enthusiasm and promote team work. Consumers have been found to prefer third party ratings, the news and company websites to obtain sustainability information. If you are marketing a product, eco-friendly messages on packaging have been proven critical to point-of-sale persuasion. If the resolution of socio-environmental challenges is part of your business philosophy, its promotion should be similar to that of other values, such as integrity, quality or service.
Finally, transparency is, in fact, the best policy. Acknowledging and pragmatically addressing your limitations, rather than trying to conceal them, conveys maturity and realism and demonstrates a proactive attitude to stakeholders. Had the aforementioned hotel chain illustrated their efforts as a work in progress, I would obviously not have been so disillusioned by the enormous amounts of water wasted away in their restrooms, knowing that change was underway, as is my detailed report and expression of disdain to said hotel group’s director.
The GRI framework for sustainability reporting can help during the planning process as well.
According to a 2008 KPMG report, 80% of the Global Fortune 250 companies now release corporate responsibility data with the majority stating ethics as the primary driver. Sustainability reports demonstrate effort, satisfy stakeholder demand for information and provide future performance benchmarks by applying metrics to social, economical and environmental factors. Reporting formats vary widely, however, the guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have been voluntarily adopted by over 1500 organizations of all sizes in 60 countries and that number is bound to grow.
The GRI framework has been a global joint effort, an ongoing quest for contributions and consensus from leaders in business, government, civil service, education and communities worldwide, and it continues to be a work in progress, in order to accommodate evolving and emerging challenges. G3 guidelines, the third generation of guidelines issued in late 2006, are available in 23 languages for all available indicator protocols, including economic, environment, human rights, labor, product responsibility and society. Preparers have the option of self-declaring final reports or utilizing external assurance. This decision will vary based on company size, status (publicly traded or privately held) and stakeholder demands. The GRI does request registration upon report completion.
In order to issue a sustainability report, corporations must meet the prerequisites of planning and implementation; while future initiatives may certainly be addressed in the final report, it is not simply an action plan, but a demonstration of ongoing and genuine endeavors. If your company would like to communicate sustainability ideas or upcoming projects, dedicating a portion of your website or marketing material to the cause would be more appropriate. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting, in essence, is a component of an overall strategy, rather than a standalone tactic.
G3 guidelines can serve as a powerful tool during the sustainability planning process as well, helping corporations avoid oversights of important issues. For example, performance indicators in the “environment” segment focus on materials, energy, water, biodiversity, waste, products and services, compliance, and transport. Each of these aspects is then further divided into core issues and added considerations. While neither all performance indicators nor all aspects apply to every business, their inclusion ensures relevancy to a wide variety of industries and that is the point. Your sustainability report will be much more powerful, focused, and able to direct future efforts, if it aligns with your initial objectives, most of which can be found within the G3 framework. As usual, reinventing the wheel is not necessary; jumping on the sustainability bandwagon, however, is highly recommended.
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.
To view the complete G3 guidelines, 
