How to Drive Change Within Your Company

Don't ask people what they can do for you, ask what you can do for them.

This blog was originally published on the Net Impact Blog as part of its Voices series, featuring Net Impact leaders around the world who are making a difference on their campuses and in their careers.

At the 2014 Net Impact Conference, students and professionals from a variety of organizations (and at very different stages of their careers) gathered together. What united us all was and is a strong desire for change: a passion for making our organizations, lives, and the world better. This uniting factor is also one of the biggest challenges when it comes to breaking boundaries.

Affecting change within an organization is an art, not a science; there is no one way to shift attitudes, change behaviors, or reverse bad practices. However, during Friday’s session "Leader of the Pack: What's the Future of CSR Leadership?” the panel shared their experiences of breaking boundaries in their organizations. and there was one insight that seemed to resonate above all others:

Ask people what you can do to help them.

It sounds simple but, in our excitement and sometimes impatience, it is easily forgotten. As Leo Tolstoy put it, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

When Tim Mohin joined AMD as Director Corporate Responsibility, he intentionally took time to understand and respond to the passions and pain points of different people across the organization. This approach got a positive response and, to this day, he continues to actively listen and work out how key Corporate Responsibility strategies and activities can support and enhance his colleagues’ priorities.

His fellow panelist, Dave Stangis, Vice President, Public Affairs and Corporate Responsibility Campbell Soup Company, agreed with this advice and encouraged all of us to get curious and take the time to meet with as many people across our organizations as possible. He added that knowledge is also crucial and coached us all to keep learning and evolving our ideas because when the people you need to work with to affect change become more engaged, you need to be prepared.

As a consultant in the CSR/sustainability world, I have always been able to add more value through listening, adapting, and being flexible rather than approaching an assignment with fixed ideas or opinions. The session with Tim Mohin and Dave Stangis confirmed this approach, as well as the importance of building relationships and gaining trust. At the end of the day, you can have a robust business case and brilliant ideas, but they will never fly if you do not have the right relationships to advance them.

Send them to the Amazon

It’s the age-old question - is it possible for a business to transform itself for the benefit of society and the planet without a visionary, forward-thinking leadership team?

Patagonia's Founder Yvon Chouinard
gets it - how can we help other leaders
see the light?

I recently listened to a Shared Value Initiative webinar, which featured representatives from Kemira and Barclays Bank talking about how their companies are Innovating for Shared Value. Kemira spotted the risks and opportunities inherent in the global water crisis and changed its competitive positioning from chemicals to water quality management, a move that seems to have been beneficial to its bottom line. Barclays Bank is taking a slightly less dramatic and more experimental, though still innovative, approach to shared value, investing £25 million in its Social Innovation Facility, through which it is developing commercial products that deliver social impact.

What do both these examples have in common? New leadership taking the reins and moving the companies in the direction of Shared Value.

Of course, there were other factors that inspired the smarter approach to business – for example, consumer trust in Barclays Bank was at an all-time low following Libor Gate – however, the change of leadership seems to have been the engine behind the transformation. As Valerie Bockstette, Managing Director, FSG, noted at the end of the Shared Value Initiative webinar, “visionary leadership is a key ingredient for creating shared value.”

In some cases, it is not so much a change of leadership, as a mind-set change among the existing leadership. Take former Walmart CEO, Lee Scott, whose trip to see the aftermath of Katrina led to “Walmart mobilizing its tremendous logistics infrastructure to aid disaster victims.” It also inspired him to launch “one of the biggest corporate sustainability initiatives in history.” Coca Cola’s CEO Muhtar Kent was also inspired to take a more sustainable approach to doing business after visiting the Arctic and seeing Polar Bears struggling to find food.

So should all CEOs be sent to the Amazon? Or to the slums in Mumbai? Or anywhere in the world where they can see first-hand the material impacts of the company they lead?

The answer is yes, according to Harvard Psychology Professor, Daniel Gilbert, “when we only learn from the experience of others, this is often insufficient to drive action and behavior change.” 

To add another layer of complexity to the challenge, however visionary and forward-thinking a CEO is, if his shareholders and investors don’t play ball then he’s not going to be able to radically transform the business anyway. Particularly, as many shareholders and investors are still blinded by short term wins. A 2013 McKinsey and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) study of more than 1,000 board members and C-suite executives around the world, found that “79% felt especially pressured to demonstrate strong financial performance over a period of just two years or less.”

So it seems true purpose-driven companies must have all its leaders, shareholders, investors, employees and stakeholders unified behind a shared mission to deliver long-lasting, sustainable value to the business, society and the world.

But, in the absence of visionary leaders, there’s still progress that can be made. Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, spent 5 years studying companies that made the leap from good to great and then stayed there. He found that “the real path to greatness…requires simplicity and diligence. It requires clarity, not instant illumination. It demands each of us to focus on what is vital—and to eliminate all of the extraneous distractions.”

So his response, in answer to the question “But how do I persuade my CEO to get it?” is “don't worry about that. Focus instead on results…within your own span of responsibility.”

And this is the message we need to remember. The circumstances won’t always be perfect but those of us who get it need to keep educating and raising awareness of the long-term, global, shared benefits that can be achieved.

It's Complicated But It Doesn't Have to Be

Consumers need clarity to help them make the right choices and live more sustainable lifestyles

Bike schemes are now a common feature of most major cities. The front runner was Paris with its Velib; London has its Boris Bikes; Boston has its Hubway; and now New York City has Citi Bikes. The Citi Bikes first appeared in May and since then ‘NYC bikers have collectively pedaled 9.4M miles and taken over 4.7M trips’ – the scheme has been a great success. What I was interested to read is that the launch of the bike scheme coincides with a ‘12-point increase’ in the number of consumers who believe that Citi Bank is a ‘socially responsible company’. This is a huge jump considering the high level of consumer mistrust in the banking sector - poor Barclays must be kicking themselves for letting Boris Johnson get all the credit for the London scheme!

The extent to which positive perceptions of Citi Bank as a responsible citizen can be attributed to the company’s support for the bike scheme is unclear; however, it does raise questions about how consumers judge companies and brands.

Almost every week there are new survey results claiming that consumers increasingly believe that it’s important to factor social and environmental factors into their purchase decisions. Last month, BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility released the 2013 Aspirational Consumer Index. According to the results, 92% of ‘aspirational’ consumers (36.4% of consumers globally) ‘desire for responsible consumption’ and 58% ‘trust in brands to act in the best interest of society’. What’s more, a staggering 90% ‘of them are even willing to pay more for products produced in a socially and environmentally responsible way’. Bear in mind that it is very easy to make these claims in a survey without actually doing the action in real life. This aside, the question for me is how consumers feel able to make these decisions when they are surrounded by so many conflicting messages.

A recent interview with Mark Crumpacker, Chief Marketing Officer at Chipotle, highlights the predicament of the consumer trying to make informed decisions. He cites the example of a competitor restaurant that lists grilled chicken that is ‘cage-free, skinless with no hormones added’ on its menu. Sold? The reality is that boiler chickens are never raised in cages and there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved hormones for use in chickens. The important consideration when it comes to chicken is whether or not antibiotics are used but this gets no mention. The restaurant in question seems to be intentionally misleading its customers.

It is not always so intentional. Just the other week Good Morning America featured a story about a woman in the UK who claimed that drinking 6 bottles of water a day had made her look 10 years younger. I’m not going to go into the validity of the claim – let’s just say that the light was significantly more flattering in the after image! What worried me was that the presenters were telling viewers how important it was to drink plenty of water, while sipping from plastic bottles. Not once did anyone think to refer to drinking from re-usable water bottles or glasses. Why should they? The story was not about recycling or sustainability right?

My instinct is to call on companies and brands to make it easy for consumers; reward consumer trust in brands to act in the best interests of society by actually acting in the best interests of society. After all, the task of educating consumers to make the right decisions feels like a daunting prospect.

However, as Tim Brown, CEO of IDEO, writes in his book Change by Design, in reality it has to be a ‘two-way process’. ‘If people do not wish companies to treat them like passive consumers, they must step up to the controls and assume their fair share of responsibility. This means that we cannot sit back and wait for new choices to emerge from the inner sanctum of corporate marketing departments, R&D labs, and design studios.’

In order to help consumers live up to their side of the contract, at the very least, there needs to be transparency so that consumers who want it, have the necessary information to make informed decisions. This is vital to help us all, as a global society, move further along the path to more sustainable consumption.

The Way We Think About Charities and Companies is Dead Wrong

How out-of-date perceptions and expectations of NGOs and Companies are preventing progress

The title for this blog comes courtesy of Dan Pallotta and his thought-provoking Ted talk The way we think about charity is dead wrong from earlier this year. I finally got round to watching it the other week and it didn’t disappoint. Dan presents a very compelling argument, highlighting the fundamental contradiction between what we expect NGOs to achieve and what we allow them to achieve.  

In the same sitting, I watched Michael Porter’s recent Ted talk Why business can be good at solving social problems. This is a great introduction to the key principles and arguments of ‘Shared Valued’ and, again, it is a very compelling argument for changing our preconceptions of what companies are here to do.

The word that comes up again and again in these talks is scale, both in terms of the enormity of the social and environmental challenges we face, and the resources and capabilities required to solve them.

The problems we face in the world today, such as climate change, poverty, disease, are huge. Some of these challenges have been around for a number of years – in fact, as Michael Porter points out in his talk, it’s a bit embarrassing how little progress has been made considering how long we have been ‘tackling’ the problems.

And this is not going to change unless we rethink our approach.

Now you’ll have to forgive me, but to make my point, I’m going to turn to the wonders of PowerPoint shapes. In its simplest form (disclaimer), this is what is needed to get to transformative change:

When we think about solving social challenges, we commonly turn to NGOs but, in the way that they are set up today, they will struggle to move beyond incremental change:

As Dan Pallotta points out, whilst NGOs have specialist knowledge, expertise and a huge amount of passion, they lack resources – charitable giving has remained stuck at 2% of the GDP since the U.S. started measuring it in the 1970s (and, remember, this is the U.S. where philanthropy is big!). They also struggle to attract the best talent because they can’t compete with the remuneration packages offered by the corporate world, and the result is that they are unable to achieve the scale or reach that they really need to successfully tackle the social problems.

Think about the last time you gave money to charity? I imagine that you wanted every penny to go towards the beneficiaries, not to cover overheads. This is a real issue for NGOs – the expectation is that they are there to solve the world’s problems but without, God forbid, spending money on marketing, fundraising or salaries. Would you expect the same of a business?

The answer to that last question is no, however our expectation of companies is equally strange. A company has resources, talent, scale and reach but, in the majority of cases, these inputs are focused on generating profits rather than, and in some cases to the detriment of, solving social and environmental problems.

 What if…

·         Companies focused their energy on finding ways to sustain growth and profits through playing a role in helping solve some of the world’s big problems?

·         NGOs could invest in talent, fundraising and marketing and scale to the size where they could really make a different to the world’s big problems?

·         Companies and NGOs collaborated – bringing together different strengths and skills – to tackle the world’s big problems?

None of these ‘what ifs’ are impossible, in fact, some of them are starting to happen already. Look at the Gates Foundation, which is investing in talent, research and innovation. What is crucial is that we rethink our age-old perceptions and expectations of companies and NGOs. As a society, we need to allow these institutions the permission to evolve and change to meet the challenges of our world today. That is when we will see transformative change.

More than a Sport?

I was in San Francisco recently and was lucky enough to catch the first day of racing for the America’s Cup.
In recent years, the America’s Cup has been transformed into the Formula 1 of the ocean. Teams now compete on multi-hull, high-tech vessels that literally fly across the water – it’s amazing to watch.

As you can imagine, these flying machines don’t come cheap and you’d be forgiven for questioning whether the money could be spent on something more meaningful.

The first point to make is that the design and creation of these boats is driving engineering and technological innovation, which has the potential to benefit social and environmental causes in the future. Just think of the advances made by Formula 1, which was recently praised for ‘reaching beyond the racing circuit and providing sustainable solutions to "real" life challenges’ in an article by Mike Scott for the Guardian.

Secondly, there is evidence of efforts by the America’s Cup to use the reach and popularity of its brand to raise awareness about key social and environmental issues. In their words, it's 'more than a sport'.

Beer-swilling Kiwi

Walking into the America’s Cup Village - once I’d made it through the swarms of beer-swilling Team NZ fans - I came to an area dedicated to the America’s Cup Healthy Oceans Project. This is a campaign in to raise awareness about the problems threatening the world’s oceans, namely marine protected areas, sustainable seafood, and marine debris/plastics. In the Village, there were people on hand to talk about the campaign, petitions to sign and videos and photographs showing both the wonders of and challenges facing our oceans. In addition, throughout and outside of the weeks of the competition, there have been a number of Healthy Oceans Project events taking place in San Francisco and around the world.

Walking a bit further into the village, I was asked if I wanted to sign the Clean Boater Pledge. This is an initiative run by California’s Boating Clean and Green program, which aims to protect San Francisco’s waterways by encouraging responsible boat ownership.  

Go to the America's Cup website and there's an easy-to-find sustainability section. There is also a Sustainability Plan, however, it’s a pretty dense read!

I do question whether the emphasis on delivering a ‘model sustainable event’ would have been quite so strong had the competition not taken place in a ‘world-leading sustainable city’. Motivations aside, it is refreshing to see a sporting event the size and scale of the America’s Cup, taking sustainability seriously, and using its brand influence to raise awareness about important global issues. It’s not the overriding message – nor should it be – but, it’s a start and maybe it will grow into something bigger over time.

The Power of a Shower

I was lucky enough to take a vacation in California last week. My last stop was San Francisco, which is a place I love. The steep streets, the trams, the ocean, the Golden Gate Bridge; it's a beautiful city! However, there's another side to it, which people don't often think about; the 6,500 homeless people living on the streets. As I explored Downtown San Francisco, I have to admit that I was shocked by the number of homeless people I saw and the stark reality of the conditions that many of these people are forced to endure.

Upon returning to Boston, you can imagine my interest when my colleague emailed me today with this video made by a new organization in San Francisco called Lava Mae.

Lava Mae (the name comes from the Spanish for 'wash me', 'lavame'') is a nonprofit organization, which aims to provide showers for the homeless community in San Francisco. Most of us take our daily showers for granted, but the basic act of washing and keeping clean is a real issue for the homeless. For example, in San Francisco, there are only 8 facilities with 1 or 2 stalls each, where people living on the streets can go to take a shower. That's a total of only 16 showers! And you thought you had a long wait for the bathroom in the morning...

I'll never take you for granted again!

Lava Mae is working to tackle the problem by providing mobile shower units, which can travel round the city and reach the homeless where they are. They are working in collaboration with a number of other organizations already supporting and providing services for the homeless population in the city, leveraging existing knowledge and expertise to make the initiative a success.

You'd be forgiven for questioning whether homeless people really need showers? Of course, ultimately, they need shelter, regular meals, employment, access to education, medical help, counselling, the list is long. However, the reality is there is no quick fix and the act of providing regular showers does so much more than simply enabling them to keep clean. It restores a sense of dignity, confidence and self worth, all of which are a vital for anyone trying to survive and escape life on the streets.

Changing Philanthropy As We Know It

Since writing my last blog Challenging the Status Quo, an op-ed in the New York Times by Peter Buffett,

better known as ‘the son of Warren Buffett’, was bought to my attention. The article, published at the end of July, is a provocative piece which calls for a ‘new operating system’ for philanthropy and criticizes the current system or, as he describes it, the ‘perpetual poverty machine’.

Strangely appropriate (just imagine the extra 't')

According to Peter Buffett, who heads us the billion dollar NoVo Foundation, which he set up with support from his father, despite the fact that inequality is still on the rise, philanthropy has burgeoned into a ‘massive business’ and has become the ‘it vehicle to level the playing field’. He laments the prevalence of ‘"conscience laundering" — feeling better about accumulating more than any one person could possibly need to live on by sprinkling a little around as an act of charity’.

Whilst, as Ruth McCambridge puts it in her recent article for Non Profit Quarterly, ‘his strokes are so broad that they are nothing short of flat-footed’, he does raise some really important questions about whether philanthropy is as effective as it can be in tackling key social issues; whether it is really solving problems or simply propping itself up to maintain the status quo.

The end of philanthropic giving as we know it?

It has been interesting to see the response to the op-ed remarks, which, as you can imagine, came in thick and fast. The majority have picked up on his inaccurate assertions about the growth of philanthropy in the U.S. According to Tom Watson, Journalist and Contributor to the Forbes Site, ‘philanthropy today represents roughly two percent of GDP – and has been stagnant at that level since roughly 1970’. Phil Bucanan, President for the Center of Effective Philanthropy, also questions his ‘sweeping generalizations’ about the motivations of philanthropists; in other words, that they ‘give back’ in order to be able to ‘sleep better at night’.

However, most of the responses have seen some value in Buffett's challenge. There is recognition that the current system could be improved - simultaneously making sure that those who depend on nonprofit social services are not abandoned - and a clear aspiration to explore new, more creative ways to achieve ‘greater prosperity for all’.

Whether provocative or refreshing, the op-ed from Peter Buffett is important insofar as it has re-stoked the debate. What is most important is that individuals and organizations continue to innovate, challenge and disrupt so perhaps the more provocative the better!

Challenging the Status Quo

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend the Conference Board’s Corporate Social Impact Conference. This annual conference brings together a varied audience comprising philanthropists, non-profits, foundations, companies, local government and consultants from around the U.S. It was a great chance for me to meet people and step outside my usual sphere of corporate work to understand and listen to the trends and challenges faced by different organizations across the social impact/sustainability community.

There were many interesting presentations and panel discussions but I’m going to single out a couple of speakers, who inspired me with what they said about the importance of focusing on solving problems – despite the discomfort and potential disruption - over maintaining the status quo.

The Heat and Warmth Fund (THAW Fund) helps Michigan residents who are struggling to pay their energy bills. Those who receive support include the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled and, according the organization’s website, "70% of the households assisted have a child or senior in the home". THAW Fund receives support from a multiple utility companies in the Michigan area – it’s a partnership that works insofar as both parties are able to achieve their existing aims; however, when you think about it, in many ways both organizations are merely circling the problem. THAW Fund CEO, Susan Sherer, wants to change this. Her team is now working with the regional utility companies to find ways to stop people getting behind in their energy payments in the first place. It’s early days and we’re talking about a complex problem that won’t be solved overnight, but at least both organizations are taking the first step towards tackling the root problem, rather than doggedly maintaining the status quo.

The other speaker I want to mention is Yasmina Zaidman, Director of Communications & Strategic Partnerships at Acumen Fund. Acumen invests in social enterprises, emerging leaders and breakthrough ideas to tackle poverty. Its model empowers local people to find ways to solve challenges facing themselves, their families and their communities, giving them the dignity to make decisions and take responsibility for their futures. Yasmina spoke about the opportunity for large corporations to learn from the innovative solutions developed by social entrepreneurs and their approach to finding solutions. Corporations will never have the agility of small enterprises; however, they can play an important role in supporting, mentoring and investing in social entrepreneurs and their ideas. Through doing this, they will have access to cutting edge innovation and, potentially, solutions to challenges that may threaten the long-term viability and sustainability of their business and the world in which it operates. Recently, the Acumen Fund convened a meeting between large corporations and social entrepreneurs in Nairobi to explore potential ways to bring social entrepreneurs and corporations closer together. There were a number of challenges raised by both sides – both real and perceived – but, the very act of being there shows a willingness to explore new paths and move away from simply maintaining the status quo.

What I admire is the courage of these different organizations – from THAW Fund to the corporations involved in the summit convened by Acumen – to look at things through a fresh lens. After all, as George Bernard Shaw put it, “progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything”.

It's been emotional!

Don't worry about the tennis; it's the tears that count!

When Andy Murray broke down in tears during his runner up speech at Wimbledon in 2012, it was a turning point in his career. Not only in his tennis career – he then went on to win an Olympic Gold Medal and the U.S. Open – but in his ‘public’ career. It was the moment that he was accepted and started to be cherished by the British media and the British Public. Andy Murray has always been a fantastic tennis player, but it wasn't until he showed his human and slightly more fallible side that people started to believe in him. Emotion is very powerful.

Recently I've been thinking quite a bit about emotion and the role it plays in inspiring change. My instinct when it comes to selling in sustainable business practices has always been to move away from emotion and stick to rational arguments; after all, the struggle has always been to get leaders to see sustainability as core to the business so how would bringing emotion into it help? Of course communications to engage employees and consumers could depict human stories in a conversational and approachable way, but not the communications to Senior Leaders or Management. My view on this is starting to change.

In his book, Start With Why, Simon Sinek makes the compelling argument that “people don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it” – you might remember this from my blog on 21st April. Simon argues that inspiring people with why you do what you do, appeals to the Limbic part of the brain, which is separate to the area of the brain which processes rational, analytical thought and language. The Limbic brain is “responsible for all our feelings, such as trust and loyalty…It is also responsible for all human behavior and all our decision making” (Ch.4). Based on this, the easiest way to persuade or convince your audience to make a decision or take action, is to appeal first to the heart and then to the mind. As Simon points out in his book “I can’t help but wonder if the order of the expression ‘hearts and minds’ is a coincidence…Why does no one set out to win ‘minds and hearts’?” (Ch.4)

So, we need to bring more emotion to the table. The increasing focus on a company’s purpose – the why – enables us to do this whilst remaining within the comfort zone of most business leaders. Over the past few months, I have been working with a U.S.company to help it articulate its core purpose. Last week, the purpose was unveiled to the wider leadership of the organization and, considering that the audience was predominantly made up of middle class men, it was a surprisingly emotional event; there were tears! On reflection, it isn't that surprising – a purpose makes the connection to the broader ‘why’ of the business; it demonstrates the human/social impact of the business beyond generating profits and, inevitably, provokes people to question their own values and motivations. However, it was incredible to see the energy, enthusiasm and inspiration as every member of the company’s leadership team understood the positive, human impact of what they do every day.

Ultimately, in order to influence change within the corporate world, we need to tailor the message to suit whatever type of organization or people we are dealing with. However, emotion and business, particularly as we move towards business as a force for social, environmental and economic good, are not as far apart as they first seem.

Because there’s no... urm plan B

So Branson is back! Last week Richard Branson launched his B Team, a group of global business leaders
who have joined forces “to create a future where the purpose of business is to be a driving force for social, environmental and economic benefit”. In typical Branson style, the project was launched with a big media splash and, rather infuriatingly for people who work in this sector, he talks as though he invented sustainability. However, I digress…

Superhero?

For those of you in the UK, the irony of the name, considering M&S’s Plan A (“…because there is no plan B”), won’t be lost on you. The name has caused a stir in the US for different reasons given the recent moves by the Government, and associated media attention, to prevent teens from obtaining the morning after pill, Plan B, without a prescription.

What the B Team is actually going to do is still somewhat vague. The group is committed to tackling three initial challenges “to help focus business away from short-term gain and to balance the long-term benefits for people and planet”:

• The future bottom line: to include people and planet in business’ bottom line.
• The future of incentives: to catalyze incentives that benefit people and planet alongside profit.
• The future of leadership: to ignite a movement of leaders committed equally to people, planet and profit.

The details of how these challenges are tackled is still to be fully disclosed – and perhaps worked out – but,  crucially, the B Team will play a convening role, bringing together influential figures and decision makers from Governments, non-profits and the corporate sector.

Although Branson’s style is a little difficult to swallow, it’s early days for the B Team so we should give it the benefit of the doubt. However, for me, there are two key questions:

• Are we just preaching to the converted? As Toby Webb pointed out in his recent blog, our sector is becoming more like a ‘cocktail party’; people circulating and telling each other what they want to hear. Richard Branson has bought together ‘believers’; it’s a great line-up of sustainability greats, such as former Chairman and CEO of PUMA, Jochen Zeitz and Unilever’s CEO, Paul Polman. The question is, are these people going to be able to influence the non-believers? Or will they just be the same voices, preaching the same messages? They've been ignored in the past so what are they going to do differently to engage the skeptics going forward?
• What is Team B’s special sauce; what is it that will enable them to succeed where others have struggled? It’s not so long since everyone was talking about the revolution of Shared Value, and now it’s gone rather quiet. That’s not to say that Porter and Co. are not making progress but it’s not changing the world over night. Is the same thing going to be true of the B Team?

Just in case, is there a Plan C?

We need a Captain Planet to get rid of our Eco-Villans once and for all!

I went to my first Green Drinks Happy Hour the other week… no, not an event for people that like green cocktails, although that could be fun! It’s a monthly event that brings together sustainability professionals in the Boston area. It was fun evening and great to meet some fellow sustainability enthusiasts; however I had two conversations that really stood out and, if I'm honest, despair of humanity.

Number 1: it didn't take me long to track down the fellow Brit in the room, who was an academic from the UK, currently doing research at Harvard University. He is looking at the public policy implications and barriers linked to the climate change mitigation strategy of blocking the sun. My initial reaction was a mixture of incredulity and horror; for starters, ‘blocking the sun’ sounds like a plan from Captain Planet and, secondly, why would anyone want to make the world colder and darker? But immediate reactions aside, it is actually a very interesting idea. Some advocate the use of a giant mirror positioned hundred of km above the Earth’s surface to deflect some of the sun’s rays away from the Earth. However, the same effect could be achieved by shooting sun-reflecting sulfates into the lower stratosphere to create a barrier, which is, apparently, not very costly or difficult to do. Temperatures would be reduced by 1-2 degrees so we wouldn't be walking around in the cold and dark (or so I am led to believe) and, in only a couple of years, it could significantly slow down the rate of climate change.

The real barrier is not the science or individuals, like me, who like the sunshine; it is getting global consensus. In order to go ahead, the plan would need to be agreed by leaders all around the world, which is the final nail in the coffin as that is unlikely to happen. This is nothing new – Climate Change would have been addressed long ago if we weren't all so busy protecting our own interests. Maybe blocking the sun is not the answer but it still makes me sad that, in an ever more global world, we are still so far from being able to make rational, considered decisions for the greater good.

Number 2: I got talking to a lawyer, who had come to the event to find out more about ‘this sustainability stuff’ and, particularly, the business case as it relates to shareholders. I began my usual spiel about how, if done strategically, corporate responsibility is good for business and benefits all stakeholders. However, he stopped me and pointed out that many shareholders still think in the short term. If, as a result of running the business in a more sustainable way, there was any affect on the dividends they would receive for that year, even if the longer-term profit forecasts were bright, they would never agree and may even sue the company. Again, this is not news. I am aware of huge mindset shift that needs to happen worldwide to get more companies to adopt a more sustainable approach to business. Nevertheless, it still astounds me at the ability of people in the world to blindly act according to their own interests rather the interests of their communities, countries, or even the planet.

Maybe we need Captain Planet after all!

Method in the madness - brand confusion in Boston

Making the move to the States felt like it should be an easy transition to make – same language, similar
culture and standard of living…right? However, there are a couple of things that I didn’t anticipate. One, technically we speak the language but the reality is that we really don’t – trying to order tomatoes at the deli is a nightmare! Second, the disorientation from not recognizing brands. My first few trips to the supermarket were fairly time consuming outings as I tried to work out what was good/bad. Particularly as a ‘concerned consumer' who would prefer to pick products that are sustainably sourced, produced and packaged; it bought it home to me just how much you rely on brand recognition as you make your day-to-day choices.

In the UK, my go-to brand for washing detergent or cleaning products was Ecover. Not only does the brand have great sustainability credentials – it creates plastic packaging from raw sugar cane, has green roofs on its factories and introduced the first phosphate-free washing powder – but the products also work really well without the need for potentially harmful chemicals. So, on arriving in Boston, I was on the hunt for the American equivalent.

Meet Method. It first came to my attention when I read about an amazing company that was making packaging from ‘ocean plastic’, the several million tons of plastic that ends up in the oceans every year. Then I saw a video of Eric Ryan talking at the Conscious Capitalism Conference – dressed as a crazy scientist he stood out a bit – and now I find out that Method and Ecover have just merged to form the World’s largest ‘green cleaning company’.  It’s rapidly gone from being a brand I’d never heard of, to one that seems to appear everywhere!

What’s interesting is the impact that brands such as Method are having on the cleaning industry. Other companies and brands in the sector are starting to think about the impact of their products on the environment – just look at Clorox Green Works, which launched a huge new campaign this year, injecting some rare humor and attitude into its communications.

It will be interesting to see what happens following the Ecover-Method merger. In contrast to lots of the ‘good’ brands that have been bought by larger conglomerates e.g. Kraft + Green & Blacks, and Innocent + Coca Cola) this is a ‘marriage’ of equals. The merger will give both brands additional leverage in their existing and new markets and it’s unlikely that their sustainability credentials will only become more impressive.

In the meantime, I have solved my brand confusion and my house is clean – still looking for a reliable brand of chocolate though. Might take some time!

Would you buy a cup of coffee for a stranger?

A couple of blog posts ago I talked about the 'pay what you can' model that was being rolled out by Panera. Then today I came across a video on the BBC about the concept of Suspended Coffees. First started in Naples, the idea is that consumers can buy an extra or 'suspended' coffee for someone in need. Just like the 'pay what you can' model, it's a simple way to enable consumers to do something good as part of their everyday routine. It has certainly inspired Starbucks, which recently announced that it will shortly be rolling out a version of the Suspended Coffee scheme in the UK. However, whilst the original scheme was based entirely on trust - recipients of Suspended Coffees didn't need to prove that they justified the gift - Starbucks is retaining some control through partnering with the charity Oasis. For each Suspended Coffee purchased, Starbucks will make a donation to Oasis and coffees to the value donated will be distributed through the charity's community hubs around the country.

It's great that Starbucks is taking the Suspended coffee idea and using its size, scale and influence to take it to  huge numbers of people around the world. My only question is whether, by formalizing the model through a more conventional charity partnership, the idea loses some of its magic? We shall see... In the meantime, look out for Suspended Coffees in a Starbucks near you.

Empowering consumers to do good

Back in 2007, the band Radiohead released its album In Rainbows without a price tag. This was a deliberate ploy to give fans the freedom to pay what they thought it was worth. When you went to the website to download the album, instead of a price, the words 'it's up to you' appeared in the check out box. Although, it's difficult to get a clear answer on the success of this initiative - the band's Publisher did reveal that "Radiohead made more money before In Rainbows was physically released than they made in total on the previous album Hail To the Thief". Perhaps, though, this says more about the quality of the previous album!

Nevertheless, the concept of letting the consumer decide the price is a really interesting idea, particularly when you link it to a social cause. Back in 2003, Denise Cerreta pioneered her 'pay what you can' model, setting up the One World Cafe in Salt Lake City, Utah. Her vision was "to help people see the value of food as more than a mere consumable but rather, as a glue and a catalyst for healthy people, relationships and communities". It seems to have been very successful. The idea of paying what you can to support others who are less able to pay appealed to consumers' social conscience and generosity and what's more, as Denise puts it, "because customers choose their own prices, their portions tend to be more mindful and reflect that they will actually want to eat, with the result being little or no food waste". Denise now advises cafe owners all over the world on how to put the 'pay what you can' model in place, including a recent high profile adopter, the nationwide bakery chain, Panera.

For non-U.S. readers, Panera claims to stand for so much more than simply being a place to get great soups, salads and sandwiches. You can find out more by watching its recently launched Live Consciously, Eat Deliciously commercial:

Back in 2010, Panera trialed the 'pay what can model' at a new Panera Cares Community Cafe in St Louis. It went so well that now you'll find Community Cafes in Michigan, Oregon, Chicago and Boston. Just like the One World Cafe, the company plans to cover the cost of meals for those who can't afford to pay with money collected by those who overcompensate by paying more. According to an article in the International Business Times, the cafes bring in "an estimated 70-80% of the revenue compared to stores that stick to the traditional menu prices" but Ron Shaich, founder and CEO, claims "that's still enough to make a profit". If it continues to go well, the plan is to open other community cafes, as well as to roll out a 'pay what you can' promotions across selected menu items in over 1,500 of the company's locations across North America.

Of course there will always be consumers who take advantage - a number of Radiohead's so-called fans didn't pay a cent to download the album - however, putting a social cause at the heart of it does help reduce this risk. A 2010 study conducted by Leif Nelson of the University of California supports this - it found that customers at pay-what-you-want establishments are more likely to donate when charity is involved. What I like about the initiative is its simplicity - it's such a great way for a company to 'team up' and connect with its consumers to have a meaningful social impact in a really straightforward way. It also, crucially, maintains an element of choice. Let's be honest, for most of us, it's not really a choice because our social conscience tells us what we should do, however, the appeal feels much more positive; Panera is empowering us to be generous, not appealing to us, as many organizations do, through guilt.

Ruggie's Rules - The End of the Beginning

Ask the CEO of a multinational corporation “does your company respect and protect human rights?” and the answer is unlikely to be negative. But go on to ask another question “how do you know?” and you’ll probably get a much less confident response. The truth is that, until very recently, they didn't have to know. What’s more, if a problem or an accusation was filed against them, there was no international legal framework against which they could be brought to justice - existing national frameworks were inadequate or simply not relevant.

This was the challenge given to John Ruggie, Berthold Beitz Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government and an Affiliated Professor in International Legal Studies at Harvard Law School, by the United Nations Human Rights Council – to bridge the gap between national public governance frameworks and the governance of global businesses.

Last night, I went to a talk by John Ruggie at the Harvard Bookstore, to mark the launch of his book Just Business. He talked about his approach to the challenge and his experiences of working with governments and corporations all over the world to agree a set of guiding principles, perhaps better known as Ruggie’s Rules. It became clear to him very early on that there was no silver bullet - it wasn't about creating a legal instrument and expecting everyone to adhere to it because, as we saw with the Kyoto Protocol, this would be far too easy to ignore. What was required was a ‘building block approach’, establishing a common platform (i.e. the guiding principles) and then gradually bringing organisations on-board. For example, having agreed the guiding principles, John Ruggie and his team approached national export agencies and persuaded them that, when promoting companies overseas, there should be some due diligence built into the process to ensure that they are not promoting companies who do not respect or protect human rights. This has proved to be a clever and successful means of pushing the guiding principles out into the global corporate network and a start towards changing the status quo.

As you’d expect, the guidelines have received mixed reactions. Activist organisations don’t think they go far enough with the organization Human Rights Watch saying that the UN Human Rights Council “squandered an opportunity to take meaningful action to curtail business-related human rights abuses.” Other commentators, such as John Braithwaite, Corporate Criminologist at the Australian National University, are more encouraged by the steps taken: “I’m a strong supporter of progressive UN framework agreements that seem pretty wishy-washy at first…“ in the long run they can make a huge contribution from limited beginnings.”

Whilst, I don’t believe that extensive regulation is the answer to making companies more sustainable, it is helpful to have some frameworks in place to ensure a minimum standard of practice. As John Ruggie put it last night “it’s the end of the beginning”; in other words, Ruggie’s Rules are not going to eliminate abuses of human rights by global companies over-night but they create a baseline to support companies to start answering the question “how do you know?” with confidence.

Embrace change - it leads to success

Nike has made huge leaps forward in addressing the social and environmental impacts of its business. Not so long ago, the company was mired in controversy over allegations of human rights abuses in the factories making its shoes and clothing around the world – there were large protests, boycotts and widespread criticism from the media. Today, it's considered a sustainability leader.

The company’s vision is to deliver innovation and inspiration to every athlete and sustainability is central to how they do that. Hannah Jones, VP of Sustainable Business and Innovation at Nike Inc., summed up the approach in a recent tweet:

The key word is ‘innovation’ and ‘opportunity’. In order to become more sustainable, businesses need to see it as an opportunity and it means change, not a few tweaks here and there, but real change. The good news, to steal Hannah Jones’s tweet style, is that change = profit.

A recent report by MIT Sloane Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group, The Innovation Bottom Line, demonstrates the link between business model change and profiting from sustainability. 50% of survey respondents (executives and managers from commercial enterprises) who had changed 3 or 4 elements of their business strategy said that they had profited from sustainability activities:

And more change = more likely profit because, as you can see, only 37% of the respondents who had changed one element of the business model said that sustainability adds profits.

The change doesn't end with the business model, as report outlines, to “hit the sustainability bull’s-eye”, there needs to be:

• Support from the top and full integration across the business
• Clear goals and effective measurement - get the numbers that people can’t ignore
• Understand what your customers think and want in terms of sustainability
• Collaborate with individuals, customers, businesses and groups outside the business

Check out the report for more details - there are some interesting statistics. 

In the words of Charles Darwin “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” 

A Brief Coffee Update

The values are on the wall - literally!

One of my first blog posts after moving to Boston was about my frustration at being given disposal coffee cups, regardless of whether I was drinking in or taking away. I'm happy to say that I have since been shown that there are exceptions! The Thinking Cup serves you great coffee in a non-disposable cup, as does Render Coffee Bar, which also has yummy chocolate and macadamia cookies. However, en route to explore Charleston today, I discovered the Equal Exchange Cafe. This sells products from Equal Exchange, a co-op founded in New England, which has an inspiring vision: "We invite you to share in our vision of a better world — a vision that connects us more closely to the food we eat and to the farmers who grow it". Over its 20-year lifespan, the co-operative has worked tirelessly to bring consumers fairly traded coffee as well as other products such as tea, sugar, chocolate and bananas. In the beginning, the idea of more equitable relationships with farmers was written off by the specialty coffee industry as absurd; however today, Equal Exchange believes there are "400 coffee companies purchasing at least a small portion of their coffee under Fair Trade terms". A great success story, although the co-op is clear that it still has a long way to go.

The cafe near the Charleston Bridge in Boston is a place where Equal Exchange can engage consumers in the importance of fair trade and the great tasting results - and the results are good! What's more, they give you a discount if you use your own cup:

Sustainable Soda Stream Commercial Causes Controversy

So just in case you hadn't noticed (ahem), yesterday was Super Bowl Sunday; not only the climax of the football season, but apparently also the second largest day for food consumption in the USA after Thanksgiving, and the day when companies are prepared to fork out as much as $4 million for a 30 second advertising spot. With viewing figures of over 110 million in recent years, it's not surprising that the Super Bowl commercial spots command such a premium price. Getting it right can give a huge boost to a brand - think of the 'Wassup' Budweiser frogs - and getting it wrong means weeks and weeks of re-runs, media commentary and social media mentions; not ideal but not always a bad thing either...

After all the build up last week - and yes I'm still talking about the commercials rather than the football, they even air commercials for the commercials - I was expecting to see some creative advertising. Unfortunately I'd have to agree with Stuart Elliott from the New York Times that "the commercials that CBS broadcast nationally during the game were, by and large, disappointing". And, disappointingly, from a sustainability perspective, the only advert that even touched on the subject was the controversial Soda Stream creation from ad man turned consumer and social advocate Alex Bogusky. 

It was touch and go as to whether or not the Soda Stream advert would even be aired as it showed "denigration of the bottled drinks market" and would upset Pepsi and Coca Cola who are major sponsors of the game. In the end, it was agreed that a 'gentler ad' that doesn't mention any specific soft drink brands.  This is not the first time that this advert has caused controversy, in fact, it has even been banned in the UK. However, as we've seen, trying to prevent these adverts being seen can actually do more harm than good - the unaired version of the commercial has already clocked up nearly 4 million views on You Tube and counting...

I would like to say that Soda Stream's commercial is a sign of things to come - Super Bowl Commercials will start to portray meaningful, values-led messages, rather than meaningless stunts and celebrity appearances; however, I don't think we're there yet. Nevertheless, it is good to see a brand using a sustainability message to differentiate itself from its competitors.

Management consultants - it's time to be proactive!

I participated in a webinar given by Verdantix this morning. It was entitled Secrets of Success for Sustainability Consulting and was focused around the current and future challenges facing sustainability consultancies and what is required for them to continue providing successful services to existing and future clients. Included in the presentation was data from their Global Sustainability Leaders Survey, which has been well publicized in recent weeks, showing that the Big Four accountancy firms - KPMG, Ernst & Young, Deloitte and PwC - "have the strongest brand preference in both the sustainability consulting and sustainability assurance markets, according to...heads of sustainability".

It's not hugely surprising that the Big Four scored so highly; they're well-known brands and have been advising businesses for a number of years - when faced with a choice, it's easy to understand why companies would opt for names that are familiar and/or that they've worked with before. There are of course other reasons but that's for another blog; what I want to explore is the potential for large management consultancy firms to use their experience, influence and brand recognition to accelerate the move towards a more sustainable way of doing business.

None of the big management consultancies are ignoring the importance of sustainability - both social and environmental - on the business world. McKinsey & Company advises clients on 'Sustainability and Resource Productivity', The Boston Consulting Group produces research and commentary around issues and challenges related to sustainable business, PwC lists sustainability as one of the key issues affecting the business community; this is all positive, except could it be more pro-active?

At the moment, it still feels as though 'sustainability' is somewhat sidelined by these firms - if a company asks for advice about sustainability, it's provided; if a company is looking for the latest research on sustainable business, they'll probably be able to find it; but how often are principles of sustainable business present in cases where the client doesn't ask for it?

Don't get me wrong, we're talking about consultants here and not activists, and, ultimately, management consultancies are there to help their clients with specific problems. But, having said that, wouldn't it be more 'helpful' for them to encourage their clients to think about the long term implications of their activities; to help them adapt their business models to withstand future challenges; and to persuade them to think beyond the next quick win? By adapting their approach in this way, the high profile management consultancy firms could play a very positive role in creating a more sustainable commercial sector.

And don't worry (just to preempt the inevitable backlash from management consultants that I know), you don't have to hug any trees! If it helps, don't even think about it as 'sustainability'; just think of it as good business. 

Completing the circle: a new vision for the economy

It's a hard life!

I recently spent 3 months travelling round South America and, whilst on a pretty tight budget, there was always just enough in the kitty for a beer at the end of the day. However, when we got to Argentina, it wasn't a lack of funds that was the problem – it was their bottle collection schemes that put a spanner in the works. We first encountered this in Cafayate, a small town just south of Salta – having found a hostel we went off in search of groceries and, of course, some beer. However, for every beer you buy, you have to bring back an empty beer bottle – slightly tricky if you've just arrived and don’t have any empties. Frustrating on the one hand but very advanced on the other…

Last Friday, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation launched its second report Towards the Circular Economy Vol.2: opportunities for the consumer goods sector, at the World Economic Forum in Davos. According to the report, “a cost reduction of 20 per cent from USD 29 to USD 24 per hectolitre of beer consumed would be possible in the U.K. by shifting from disposable to reusable glass beer bottles”. The report points out that there would be an additional cost due to the additional material required to create more durable bottles (“34% increase in the amount of glass used per bottle); however, the cost savings from reusing bottles would far outweigh this.

Reusing beer bottles is just one of a number of examples in the report of how the consumer goods sector can benefit from making the shift to a more circular business model. Through its research, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates “the full potential of the circular economy to be as much as USD 700 billion in global consumer goods materials savings alone”.

Theoretically it makes perfect sense; however, the tricky bit is getting businesses to make the shift and providing the right support and incentives to help them through the transition. To support this, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation is launching the Circular Economy 100, a alliance of 100 pioneering businesses to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. But it’s going to take a lot more innovation and collaboration to make this fly.

The encouraging news is that we’re not starting from scratch. Companies have already started to embrace the principles of the circular economy. Just yesterday, CSR Wire, as part of its Noble Profit series, posted an interview with Ford’s Global Director of Sustainability, John Viera, in which he talks about how Ford is re-using waste materials – from old carpet to unwanted jeans – in the production of its cars. 

Now the challenge is to take these ideas to scale. Watch this space...