P&G, Microsoft & Sustainability

P&G and Microsoft have both recently strongly committed themselves to “sustainability.” P&G’s Lafley saying:

P&G’s commitment to sustainability is strategic. It is how our company conducts business. [Specifically]

• Develop and market at least $50 billion in innovative and sustainable products, up from a goal of $20 billion.
• Reduce carbon dioxide emissions, energy consumption, water usage and disposed waste by 20 percent, leading to a 50 percent reduction over the last 10 years.
• Increase use of rail transportation from 10 percent now to 30 percent by 2015.
• Increase the number of children benefiting from P&G’s Safe Drinking Water Program to 300 million, up from the original goal of 250 million.

 

and Microsoft’s saying:

Recently our CEO, Steve Ballmer, sent out an e-mail to all 90,000 Microsoft employees. He made clear that environmental sustainability is a core value for the company that is embedded in all we do,” Robert Bernard said in an interview with CNET News. He added that Ballmer talked about the topic as a corporate belief, “as opposed to a green campaign or a marketing campaign or a marketing issue.

P&G’s commitment is wide ranging and touches on a number of nodes of the value web, including resources and trade, atmosphere, energy, water, transportation, and family and community. They seem to be systematically working sustainability into their value chain.

Microsoft’s statement, though bold, is a little more confused, referring to “environmental sustainability.” Not quite sure how Microsoft is sustaining the environment. Rather than “environmental sustainability” I would recommend something like “environmental awareness is a core value”. 

Sustainability is bigger than you, me, the environment, climate change and renewable energy. It’s what links all of the essential nodes of the value web together. 

I applaud both companies for their concern and commitment. However, I believe both have a way to go before they fully embrace and embed sustainability in their organizations. They need to take the lead by leaping from focussing on discrete parts to developing strategies that link these parts holistically to what they do. 

Sustainability is about relationships and connections and not disconnected metrics. The sooner we see this the sooner we can start doing to get sustainable results.

Tags: A. J. Lafley, carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, core value, Microsoft, P&G, renewable energy, safe drinking water, Steve Balmer, sustainability, sustainable products, value web, waste reduction

Extreme Eco-conciousness

Or, more appropriately, it seems extreme now. The trailer below from The Clean Bin Project site challenges the waste-generating status quo. As it says on their site:

The goal is zero landfill waste. For one year we will not buy any material goods. We will buy only consumables, and everything we buy must come in recyclable or compostable packaging.

 In our current economic incarnation waste is a built-in function of consumption. We accept that “taking out the trash” is as much a part of our lives as going to school or going to work.

What if we didn’t?

Taking out the Trash- The Clean Bin project (trailer1) from Grant Baldwin Videography on Vimeo.

Tags: the clean bin project, trash, zero waste

The Discipline of Leadership

Interesting article in Business Week on measuring body language:

Using high-tech badges that transmit data on an individual’s gestures, eye movements, voice levels, and even proximity to other people, MIT is parsing the physical traits of leadership. Along with highlighting effective managers, researchers hope the data will help train workers to be more effective at everything from networking to dealing with customers.

Intriguing idea but it seems to me it could easily become one more way to distance our selves from the hard work of becoming our selves. Becoming an effective leader or a manager is about learning how to engage with the people around you. Accreting a few non-verbal tricks is no substitute for developing your own capacity for leadership.

I remember a discussion with one potential coaching client where he told me he wanted me to teach him techniques to “make people like him.” Our relationship ended shortly after I told him there were no techniques for this.

If you want to be a leader you need to spend the time and energy and develop the discipline to become a leader. If you want to engage more fully with people or the world in general you have to deepen your capacity to engage.

There are no shortcuts, secret techniques or weekend courses that are going to do this for you.

Tags: body language, Business Week, discipline, leadership, MIT, non-verbal communication

Taking it to the Streets: Aikido & Urban Planning

Over on David Byrne’s blog he’s got an interesting ditty about his recent trip to Vancouver. After what sounds like a great show:

I noticed a little old lady, in an usherette/security uniform, trying to get people to stop dancing — or at least stay in their seats — but after the 4th song she gave up. After that there was no stopping the crowd — they were dancing almost the entire rest of the set.

(Actually reminds me of a fantastic Chili Peppers show when we were dancing in the aisles next to our 12th row seats and an usher came down to us. We thought we were going to get hassled but instead he smiled and said he was there to make sure the other, roughly, 2000 people behind us stayed behind us.)

Anyway, after the show, the mayor, Gregor Robertson, is there and a group of Byrne’s folk and the mayors folk go out for a drink. They get on the subject of urban planning and:

Robertson said that there has been a radical transformation of the land and cityscape in a generation. Vancouver is no longer a small city, and having seen all the new condos and office buildings here, I wondered aloud if developers were simply unstoppable; if the city might lose some of its charm and character; that the human scale of the city will be lost if profit is left as the prime force determining urban texture. In Peñalosa’s terms this means that people with lots of money determine how everyone else lives, and what kind of city we all live in — which, he feels, is undemocratic.

Robertson responded,

“I don’t really see them as unstoppable. I’m doing the aikido thing, moving that drive for building and profit into the most positive outcome possible for the community. Not a simple thing. But my hopes are high.”

Love it. My take on it is change is going to happen. Development is going to develop. This is neither good nor bad. It’s the movement of universe. We don’t want to fight it; we want to embrace it. Embrace it and encourage this energy to transform things in a way that provides “the most positive outcome possible for the community.” That is sustainable development. 

Keep up the good work.

Tags: aikido, David Byrne, Gregor Robertson, Red Hot Chili Peppers, sustainable development, Vancouver

Beyond CSR: Being Sustainable

There is growing evidence that CSR as commonly practiced is not an effective use of corporate resources.

In a recent McKinsey poll of 391 CEO’s whose companies participate in the UN Global Compact, the CEO’s listed “competing strategic priorities” as the most significant barrier to implementing an integrated strategic approach to CSR. This was followed by:

• complexity of implementing their strategies across diverse business functions and divisions
• lack of recognition by financial markets
• differing definitions of CSR across regions and cultures

…companies aren’t using that tool [CSR] as well as they could. Executives doubt that their philanthropy programs fully meet their social goals or stakeholders’ expectations for them.

their corporate philanthropy programs are very or extremely effective at meeting social goals and stakeholder expectations. Their companies take a somewhat different approach than others do: their programs are more likely to address social and political trends relevant to the business and to be influenced by community and business needs. Executives…say that efforts are already more likely to involve collaboration with other companies. Finally, these companies are much likelier than others to say they are achieving any business goals they have set for their philanthropy programs in addition to social goals.

So, what’s happening here?

We are seeing a clear difference between companies that see CSR as a “tool” or one of many competing strategies and those that are embedding CSR priorities into the business. It is a story of commitment. Or, as Charlie Parker said, “If you don’t live it, it won’t come out your horn.”

Companies that aren’t “living it” are doing CSR for other reasons. Generally they fall into one of three categories: Compliance, Conformity or Cooperation. What these categories have in common is fragmented, frequently externally driven, adoption of CSR behavior. 

Organizations that are “living it” have found a way to integrate CSR and their business. They usually show up in the categories of Collaboration, Coherence and Constellation.

Further, organizations that are “living it” frequently aren’t doing CSR at all. They are being sustainable and, at best, targeting abundance. By “being sustainable” I mean generating value for a wide range of stakeholders within the company and in the communities, regions and countries in which they operate.

This is a big difference. What the McKinsey polls point to is this: being the change you want to see in the world is good business. Doing CSR, while not a bad thing, as a strategy (competing with other strategies) is ineffective, inefficient and, basically, not good business. 

Don’t get me wrong. Giving and philanthropy are good. These acts help people, communities and the environment, a lot. Doing philanthropy and CSR as a strategy is good. Being sustainable is better. Better return on investment, better use of resources, better, bigger impact.

Beyond strategy, being sustainable is a way of thinking, seeing and doing business. Being sustainable is living it and enjoying the value we create. Being sustainable is, simply, better business.

Tags: CEO's, Charlie Parker, Co-operation, Coherence, collaboration, Compliance, Conformity, Constellation, corporate philanthropy, csr, McKinsey, stakeholders, strategy, sustainability, UN Global Compact

Six Levels of Sustainability: What You Be is What You Get (6)

“Sustainability” is not always sustainable. Simply, doing and describing what you do as sustainable does not make it so. For organizations (and us, personally!) to be sustainable in what we do, we have to be sustainable in who we are and how we see the world. This gives us our best shot at doing something that is actually going to get or generate sustainable results. In the following series of six posts I will introduce the six levels of engaging in sustainability:  Compliance,  Conformity, Cooperation, Collaboration, Coherence and Constellation.  We use these at Interkannections to help our clients clarify their current goals around sustainability and map out their paths for deepening their practice and impact.

Constellation is characterized by reaching across industry, sector and national boundaries to create “constellations” of organizations capable of making systemic level change that benefits a multitude of stakeholders including, of course, the constellation members. These constellations are characterized by high degrees of transparency and innovation in a rich learning, rich opportunity environment. They are driven by a strong sense of purpose to build systemic capacity wherever they may be operating.

Constellation

• Sustainability is internally driven and collaboratively realized in multi-stakeholder interventions
• Example sustainability activities: Kalundborg, a workable, meaningful approach to changing climate change, expanding Burgerville’s quality of supplier relationships throughout Cascadia, the “Integral Cities” movement.
• Being at Constellation innovating and organizing from an abundance mindset.
• What we see at this level is our capacity to effect systems level benefit and change with an array of other capable stakeholders.
• What we are doing is creating long-term value and resilience in the systems in which we do business thus making them and us more sustainable.
• What we get from Constellation is a strong, healthy, positive-value, business opportunity generating Value Web.
• Operating at Constellation is our best bet at sustaining the systems that sustain us and allow us to economically innovate and ecologically flourish.

We are just beginning to see Constellation level work emerge. The simplest way to imagine it is collaboration at a systems level. The project, instead of being clean tech. development project would entail a focus on a node or multiple nodes of the value web. Again, if the way Burgerville develops and maintains relationships with suppliers was expanded and implemented with a number of restaurants and suppliers across Cascadia we would be looking at a constellation-like scope and impact.

Tags: abundance, Burgerville, Cascadia, Coherence, collaboration, Compliance, Conformity, Constellation, cooperation, Country Natural Beef, integral cities, Interkannections, Kalundborg, resilience, sustainability, systems level change, systems thinking, transparency

Six Levels of Sustainability: What You Be is What You Get (5)

“Sustainability” is not always sustainable. Simply, doing and describing what you do as sustainable does not make it so. For organizations (and us, personally!) to be sustainable in what we do, we have to be sustainable in who we are and how we see the world. This gives us our best shot at doing something that is actually going to get or generate sustainable results.  In the following series of six posts I will introduce the six levels of engaging in sustainability:  Compliance,  Conformity,  Cooperation, Collaboration, Coherence and Constellation.  We use these at Interkannections to help our clients clarify their current goals around sustainability and map out their paths for deepening their practice and impact..  We use these at Interkannections to help our clients clarify their current goals around sustainability and map out their paths for deepening their practice and impact.

Coherence is signified by an organization or reorganization around a clear sense of purpose and deeply embedded principles that promote sustainability beyond the scope of simply doing business in the conventional sense. The organization and its people begin to fulfill an intentionally larger role in the communities and ecosystems in which they operate.

Coherence

• Sustainability is generated from clearly articulated and realized principles and purpose.
• Example sustainability activities: Intentional long-term and multi-win relationships with suppliers that connect with developing and implementing community enhancement programs internally and with community stakeholders while creating and enacting related business practices that create zero waste and actually restore land and stream quality that significantly lowers risk and increases revenue and value for the business, suppliers and local communities.
• Being at Coherence is striving to be the change you want to see in the world while being successful.
• What we see at this level is a multitude of business opportunities and potential through engagement with the value web.
• What we are doing is “walking” our sustainable “talk” by leveraging value web relationships to generate multi-win, interconnected value as the example activities cited above demonstrates.
• What we get from Coherence is excellent risk management, long-term stability through a healthier, more robust relationship with the world.
• Remaining at Coherence has little in the way of negative consequences unless the culture becomes stagnant, insular or arrogant.. As the company evolves it is highly likely that opportunities to begin doing Constellation level business will appear. To seize these opportunities the role of proactive leadership throughout the organization, high levels of awareness, communication, innovation and resilience are necessary.

When we think of companies at this level, Burgerville, a Portland, Oregon area quick service restaurant chain comes to mind. Their mission is simple: To serve with love.  Their inter-relationship with the communities and market in which they operate is complex. In terms of engagement with the value web they are actively generating positive, clearly visible interconnected returns in nearly all of the nodes. They don’t so much have suppliers as they have deep, mutually enriching, value generating relationships. More on Burgerville coming soon.

Tags: Burgerville, Coherence, collaboration, Compliance, Conformity, Constellation, cooperation, innovation, Interkannections, Oregon, Portland, principles, purpose, resilience, risk management, sustainability, walking the talk, zero waste

Six Levels of Sustainability: What You Be is What You Get (4)

“Sustainability” is not always sustainable. Simply, doing and describing what you do as sustainable does not make it so. For organizations (and us, personally!) to be sustainable in what we do, we have to be sustainable in who we are and how we see the world. This gives us our best shot at doing something that is actually going to get or generate sustainable results. In the following series of six posts I will introduce the six levels of engaging in sustainability:  Compliance,  Conformity,  Cooperation, Collaboration, Coherence and Constellation.  We use these at Interkannections to help our clients clarify their current goals around sustainability and map out their paths for deepening their practice and impact.

Tags: Coherence, collaboration, Compliance, Conformity, Constellation, cooperation, NGO's, organizational learning, philanthropy, self-organizing systems, stakeholder engagement, supply chain, sustainability, systems thinking, value stream