It's Too Late to Be a Pessimist

This week I jumped into the 2nd year of my MBA with a weeklong, intensive course called "Global Sustainability". A relatively new offering at Boston University, the course promised to cover a broad spectrum of ideas and questions relating to sustainability:

"Global Sustainability" explores the underpinnings of today’s global sustainability challenges and how entrepreneurial thinking can be applied to government, NGOs, multinational corporations, small startups and the capital markets to address these challenges...Students will gain deeper understanding of both root cause, the interconnected and interdependencies across sectors such as energy, the environment and the global food and water supplies along with entrepreneurial thinking, methods, models and practices being employed by innovative individuals and organizations at the forefront in the search for solutions.

While that description does scratch the surface, over the last week my class covered an incredible amount of content:

• History's impact on today's world, including the Industrial Revolution and classic economic theory (ala Adam Smith)
• Population growth over time, the expected explosion, and the effect population has on every other aspect of our lives (with an amazing look at the World3/Limits to Growth Simulator)
• Water usage, future concerns over supply, and the conflict that has arisen (even in the U.S.) over who controls precious water supplies
• Agricultural practices and policies around the world, as well as the issue of famine in developing countries and obesity here in the U.S.
• Environmental Policy, specifically the Kyoto Protocol and the Waxman-Markey Bill currently being debated in Congress
• Current uses of Energy and the technological innovations taking place in renewable sources like wind, solar, and biofuels (hint: this is a great business to get in to!)
• Migration into urban areas due to climate change and the resulting tensions that arise when too many people live one space
• Corporate involvement in sustainability, including the cases of WalMart and Millipore
• Exploration of the economies of BRIC countries - Brazil, Russia, India and China - and how they are addressing sustainability issues
• The paper and pulp industries, including a look at International Paper
• Public Policy strategies for creating change, including the importance of stakeholder analysis
• Social entrepreneurship as a means for grass-roots change, with an inspiring look at one entrepreneur who's seeing an opportunity, not a problem in Peru.

It was an amazing week of learning, and while I can't possibly reproduce it here on The Changebase, I did want to address one major takeaway from my time in class. And, oddly enough, it starts with a confession:

Until this week, I tried to pretend that sustainability wasn't "my" problem.

Now, let me explain. It wasn't that I didn't know our water resources were scarce, our livestock was factory farmed, or our environmental resources were being depleted. I did. And, when I had the courage, I tried to inform myself and be a conscious and responsible consumer. But that's just it: when I had the courage. 

Case in point: this summer, convinced I needed more information, I bought "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" by Thomas Friedman and began the arduous task of reading about how our world is on the wrong track. Over 6 weeks or so, I slogged through the first half of the book, absorbing information but feeling more and more depressed as I turned the pages. After a while, things got so heavy I just had to put it down. I know that at some point he starts talking about solutions, but I found myself so overwrought with concern and dread that I couldn't continue reading it. I still don't know what he proposes as our way out of this mess.

But this week in class, things changed. I couldn't get away from learning about where our planet and our people are headed. I couldn't escape the inevitable worry and fear that comes through being informed. And believe me, it's scary stuff. Just a few statistics:

• The International Panel on Climate Change predicts that by 2080, 33% of the world's coastal wetlands will be eroded and become open water. What happens to the millions of people who benefit from the water, food, and livelihood these coasts provide? Where will they go (hint: urban areas) and what strain will that put on our world's cities? 2080 may seem far away, but believe me, this is our problem to address now.
• I learned this week that water, food, and energy are inextricably linked. For example: While globalization has led to an increase in standard of living for many people worldwide, it also accounts for an increase in meat consumption in people's diets. Amazingly, it takes 7 times more water to produce 1lb of meat than 1lb of grain, and yet, demand for meat in countries like China and India is expected to rise by 25% by 2015. If we look at the U.S. alone, it's not surprising that Confined Animal Feedlot Operations (CAFO's) are so prevalent, especially given how cheaply we want to buy our meat. But at what cost? 
• Population growth and the strain it puts on our natural resources is perhaps our greatest concern: in the 1950's, there were 3 billion people worldwide. Today, there are roughly 6 billion. By 2050, world population is expected to grow to 9 billion. Just think of how these 9 billion people will use and deplete our planet's resources.

Yes, these statistics (and the questions they raise) are scary - and like me, I'm guessing a lot of people would rather pretend that these issues are not their problem. After all, it's easy to go about our daily lives, using all the water and energy we want and not really thinking about the consequences. Plus, I thought to myself, "if the world is on such a depressing and irreversible track, how can I really do anything to have an impact on the problem?".

Thankfully, my professors (Paul McManus and Kristen McCormack) knew that by the end of the week, we'd be looking for answers to this question. And so they left us with a clip from this video, entitled "Home", that I'd like to share with you too.

(Ashley's note: unfortunately it's not currently possible to embed the movie so I've instead embedded the trailer. If you visit here, you can see the entire video. Also, while the whole movie is worth watching, I suggest you fast-forward to around 1:16:00 - in the final 15 minutes of the movie they really do a terrific job of summarizing the issues and inspiring us to make change. Sorry for the technical difficulties - but trust me, it's worth the effort.)

As the narrator in the movie suggests, in fact "it is too late to be a pessimist". We must act, and we must act now.

It is everyone's responsibility to make changes in our behavior, in our lifestyles, and in our beliefs about the world and how we use it. Yes, it's scary. Yes, it's easier to pretend it's not my problem. But it is my problem, and yours too. I encourage you to also have the courage to inform yourself, and then ask: "What can I do to inform others?".

In addition to the links above, here are a few other terrific resources to learn more about global sustainability issues:

• Gapminder.org: Wondering how countries stack up according to themes like population, energy, disease, education or transportation? This is a fascinating site and definitely worth checking out (After checking out the homepage, click on Gapminder World to get started).
• Worldmapper.org: Like Gapminder, this site is an amazing illustration of the disparities and differences that exist between countries.
• Limits to Growth: A 30-year Update: Learn more about how three scientists staked their reputations on an unpopular and pessimistic (but increasingly realistic) view of our world's future.
• Monsanto: Whether you're for or against genetically modified crops, Monsanto is a powerful force in agriculture today that everyone should know about.

A Little Less Conversation, A Little More Action Please

This time around I want to share some thoughts and ideas that came up for me this week about CSR and the conversations we have about it (and as a preview, if you keep reading, you'll get to hear what Elvis Presley thinks of sustainability). The other day I had the chance to sit in on a conference call and presentation hosted by the Stanford Graduate School of Business Office of Executive Education and their Business Strategies for Environmental Sustainability (BSES) program. Part presentation and part sales pitch for the upcoming BSES in October, the webinar entitled "Sustainability Matters" was hosted by Professor William Barnett, Senior Fellow at the Woods Institute at Stanford and Director of the BSES program.

Professor Barnett started out with a discussion of the Kuna Indian Nation living off the coast of Panama. According to Barnett, the Kuna demonstrate the harmony that can exist between indigenous people and their natural environment. They've lived a seemingly isolated existence in which they've developed incredibly sustainable farming practices without influence from the outside world.

Over time, the Kuna Indians that used to live in the interior country have started moving towards the coast, and although we might assume they continued with their sustainable ways, that turns out to not be the case. Instead, it appears the Kuna have been using the water along the coast as a virtual dumping ground, badly damaging the coral reefs and coastline. Barnett made the point that the Kuna serve as a perfect example that sustainability is not "one size fits all" - that is, what works in one place, or organization, or Indian Nation, might not work in another.

He then went on to give a quick overview of 3 important constituencies - businesses, environmental NGO's, and governments - and the role that each plays in the sustainability conversation:

Business: Traditionally, sustainability (and CSR in general) in business has taken on a compliance function: making sure we stay out of trouble - a view that Barnett said ignores "potential for Triple Bottom Line opportunities". While it doesn't always directly pay to be green (that is, moving beyond the "low-hanging fruit" cost cutting measures that help the environment and save money), there are indirect benefits to these types of behaviors (ie: responding to consumer demand for environmental and social responsibility on the part of business). What's really interesting here, Barnett pointed out, is that "it would be a disservice to assume that they [business and environmental goals] go hand-in-hand". They are not always complimentary and trade-offs are common and inevitable.

Environmental NGO's: Barnett said these types of organizations (including Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund) have gone through a "pragmatic shift" over the last decade - moving from aggressive activist to partner with business. Traditionally some of these organizations worked as antagonizers, but they are now learning when to fight and when to cooperate. Barnett said these organizations serve four main purposes: 1) helping consumers distinguish between "greening" and "greenwashing"; 2) creating and supporting certification programs and standards that showcase real environmental change; 3) educating business and consumers and raising awareness; and 4) working with government and regulators to develop solutions, identify constraints, and create change. In essence, these NGO's are the middlemen that bridge the gap between business and government in sustainability.

Governments: Like compliance in business or activism in NGO's, the traditional role of governments in sustainability was all about regulation. Today, Barnett said, governments are looking for ways to "harness markets to solve social problems". In many ways, environmental solutions (like cap and trade, solar power, ecotourism, and others) have become the source of new markets by providing incentives for technological innovation that's good for the environment.

After a couple of questions from the audience, the call ended - and while it was an interesting overview of the topic, I was left, truthfully, feeling a little deflated. Sure - what Barnett said made sense, and for folks looking for a primer on sustainability, it wasn't a bad intro.

But I couldn't help but channel a little Elvis Presley and think to myself:

I know it's a little off-base but my point for bringing Elvis into this whole thing (beyond listening to some fun music) is this:

I've attended a lot of these sustainability events, and sat in on a lot of these calls, and finally gotten to the point where I'm hearing the same thing over and over again. After talking to a few of my friends in CSR and sustainability, they agreed with me. Together, we wondered: at what point does the conversation around sustainability strategy and execution actually become an action plan? How can we dive below the 30,000 foot view, to stop just talking about it and start doing it?

What's interesting about this is that in some ways it showcases the problem that everyone's having with sustainability. Sure, some people have been working in CSR for decades so they're already "in the know". And while I haven't been involved myself for too long, I've taken proactive steps to immerse myself in these issues and drill down quickly. But in many cases and for many people, the conversation is so new, and the territory in some ways is so uncharted, that people and organizations aren't acting as boldy as they should because they're waiting for everyone to get on board. The priority right now is conversation and making sure we're all on the same page. Thus, conversations like the one Barnett led are important first steps in engaging a wide and broad audience.

And yes, we do want this wide and broad audience to be involved and engaged - so I guess I can be a little more patient while the conversation slowly progresses forward. Change is slow, and talking about why we should change is even slower.

In the meantime, though, I don't think I'll be signing up for another webinar any time soon.

Sustainable Dining at its Finest

Last weekend my husband and I went to Craigie on Main, a Cambridge, MA restaurant that has been on the top of our list for over a year. We were celebrating our first wedding anniversary, and as self-proclaimed “foodies", Craigie seemed like the perfect spot.  (For a review of our evening and the amazing meal we enjoyed, you can visit my husband’s blog See Dan Cook - yes, it’s a little shameless family plug but if you like cooking, Dan’s site is a must-read.)   Anyway, after four hours and 10+ courses, we were ready to head home. The check came, and tucked in the little pocket of the bill folder were two interesting pieces of paper. The first: a detailed survey for us to complete (the MBA in me loves surveys and the instant feedback they provide!). The second: a thin, double-sided slip of paper entitled, “Don’t just eat right with us…feel right about us”. As you can see below, the flier lists a number of ways that Craigie on Main is a committed and sustainable partner in the Cambridge food community.

 

Reading through the list of their “good deeds,” I couldn’t help but feel even more attached and loyal to my new favorite restaurant. So many companies shy away from telling their consumers what they’re doing for the community or for the environment because they worry they’ll expose themselves to criticism. After all, if you can openly claim that you reduced your paper usage by 5% this year (for example), what’s stopping someone from calling you up next year and saying, “Did you make it to 6%?”. It’s the old adage: no good deed goes unpunished.   Yet here this kind of transparency was welcome and refreshing. I felt good not just about the meal I’d enjoyed, but about supporting a restaurant that gives back in so many ways. My only critique? I wish Craigie had somehow educated me about their sustainability and responsibility practices before I actually set foot in the restaurant so that I could have made an informed decision to patronize the restaurant instead of some sort of happy accident (although in fairness this information is also listed on their website).   I know that transparency can make a company (and a person!) feel vulnerable. But, as I learned firsthand with Craigie, the relationship between that company and its customers will be so much stronger in the end. I wonder how long it'll be before we see disclaimers and pamphlets like this in other restaurants and businesses? In my opinion, it's only a matter of time until we see companies moving beyond simple eco-labelling or certification and into a more well-developed and deeper dialogue with their consumers. What do you think?

Eco-Labels, Greenwashing and You

Last week I attended an interesting dinner hosted by the Boston chapter of Net Impact. The event was called "Eco-labelling: From Certification to Greenwashing" and it featured Stas Antons, Principal at Jump To Green, Inc., a new start-up that uses interactive labelling technology to create personalized, green labels for products and companies. I've been thinking a lot lately about certification systems and labelling programs, so I was excited to attend. Before I go any further, it's probably a good idea to lay out exactly what I mean by labels. The way I see it, green or "eco" labels include any icon or graphic found on a packaged product or used in the rating of a product/company that somehow distinguishes that entity as environmentally or socially sustainable. Some examples include Energy Star (appliances), Fair Trade Certified (agriculture), LEED (buildings), and B Labs (companies).

Stas opened his remarks with a couple of interesting ideas. First, he said there are three essential problems with the green labelling movement (and trust me, it is quite the movement - a recent Detroit News article claimed there are over 300 organizations now offering their own form of certification for green products and companies):

1) There are no standards in labelling, so there is no way to tell what one label means as compared to another.

2) It's hard to tell the real story behind the product because labels will mean different things to different people. Take the USDA Organic label: not only is the word "organic" interpreted differently, but the USDA's website doesn't offer much clarity either!

3) Because there are so many certification and labelling programs out there, the level of trust on the part of consumers is very low. Add to that the fact that articulating a product or company's entire backstory or mission through a small label is practically impossible, and you've got a recipe for confusion.

The second point that Stas made, that I thought was particularly telling, was that he is considering removing the word "Green" from the name of his company. As we all can attest, these days the word green is so overused that it's practically meaningless. In fact, some would argue (myself included) that particularly savvy consumers now see the word Green and run in the opposite direction, thinking it's simply a marketing ploy to get people to open up their wallets.

This point led to a particularly interesting discussion on the role that consumers play in all of this. In general the consensus of those folks in attendance (a group of about 20 sustainability and CSR professionals) was that consumers don't quite understand the "language" of sustainability. While many consumers are interested in supporting green products and companies, their attempts to do so are often misguided. Instead of making smart choices based on education and facts, consumers often flock to words they know and understand, like "recycled content". This makes it challenging for consumers to separate "real" sustainability leaders from other half-hearted campaigns that just throw in this sort of lingo. In turn, it makes it difficult for companies genuinely focused on sustainability to stand out in a crowded field of green competitors.

It's true that our marketplace is saturated with green labels, and consumers must take responsibility for educating themselves and learning how to distinguish between real sustainability campaigns and imposters. But truly responsible companies must also engage their consumers in a candid and honest dialogue about what they're doing to make their products and services more environmentally sustainable.

While the conversation at dinner continued, I couldn't help but think of my own work at ABC. All day long I consider ways that the company can include and involve its employees in its philanthropic efforts, and one of the big reasons is so that each employee is educated enough to go out in the community and act as a company ambassador. When you think about it, each ABC employee is also a consumer - of ABC products and others - so the more educated the employees are about the environment, about philanthropy, and about sustainability in general, the better consumers they become.

Sure, companies must do better at engaging external audiences in this sustainability conversation. But I wondered, "What are they doing at home?".

I tried asking this of the group, and unfortunately (and perhaps tellingly), I couldn't really get a clear answer. The moment passed, and the conversation quickly turned to other issues like the premium price tag often attached to green products. All in all, it was a thought-provoking evening - but I just couldn't shake the feeling that we were missing a key point: if companies can't talk to their own employees about why their products are good for the Earth, how can they possibly tell a compelling story to their customers?

This is where the "You" part in this post's title comes in: have you worked for a company that's done a good job of communicating both externally and internally what it's doing for environmental or social responsibility? How did they do it? I'd really love to hear your examples/anecdotes/personal experiences. And I'm going to keep working on it on my end - both during my time at ABC as an intern and also as I head back to school and keep learning. I really do think that these initiatives - whether environmental, social, or philanthropic - must start at home (or in this case the office), and the more companies involve their employees in this conversation, the more loyal consumers they will eventually attract.

**Coincidentally, my dear friend Alexandra Michalko just published an article on The EcoInnovator entitled "Untangling the Web of Green Product Credentials". Another great perspective on eco-labelling and greenwashing issues. Thanks for sharing Alex!