Recently we had two very interesting lectures from guest speakers. First was Dr Mick Blowfield from the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University. His main specialism is Corporate Responsibility.
He gave an excellent overview on looking at which companies do CR well and those that don't. BAT (that's British American Tobacco) are one of the leaders and they are genuinely making serious attempts at CR. I just find it hard to take CR seriously from a company that, ultimately, promotes death!
However, we were then treated to a sucker punch from Dr Blowfield who applied the same critical approaches to the Fairtrade standard. And, do you know what? If you do apply the same standards of openess and transparancy you won't find answers on the FairTrade Foundation web site, nor will you find third party verification or criticisms. A superb lecture that challenged a sacred cow, but ultimately is right in its approach: you can't have one standard of reporting for Big Business and a different one for NGOs or social enterprises.
This week we were treated to lecture from Dr Tauni Lanier, who was the first Managing Director of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index was senior project manager at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, where her responsibility was to construct the business case for Corporate Social Responsibility reporting. Another very good lecture looking at venture philanthropy and CR.
What struck me was her opinion on WalMart's Sustainability Index - something I had blogged about a few weeks back - in which she argued that it was greenwash to avoid making any progress on their labour rights. Yet today, we had someone from the Carbon Trust who was extolling WalMart's decision.
It's about pragmatism in the end. Am I going to stop buying FairTrade coffee because it doesn't have the same transparancy as BAT? No, but my eyes are open and they need to make sure they don't get caught out on this. Is WalMart's decision greenwash or not? I want to believe that it's not and that by taking this decision it may start to encourage them to think about the benefits (ultimately to the bottom line, in the end) of better labour rights.
Naive? Maybe. What do you think?
Thursday 29 October 2009
Wednesday 21 October 2009
400 complaints made about Climate Change Ad
It didn't take long, but I did wonder if anyone would complain. See Richard's news...
Sunday 18 October 2009
Is there a happy ending?
I have mixed feelings about this advert by Act on CO2 - the government's consumer campaign on climate change. I am haunted by my children's future questions of: "daddy, what did you do to stop climate change?" Indeed, what am I doing?
But, on the other hand, I also know that the majority of the population will turn away. Adverts are tricky to get right for one segment. To get right for all segments with one message is virtually impossible. Besides, TV ads are a risk now aren't they? Who watches TV? There needs to be an understanding that it's the middle classes that have to be targeted (they generate most of the emissions) and they tend to watch TV the least. The message needs to be less overt and more covert. How? Don't sell stuff (stop climate change) sell a lifestyle. Sell Southwold and fish (pollock, remember!) and chips rather than Australia. Sell working from home once a week rather than a commute for five days. Sell a banter in a shared car journey rather than a depressed M6 traffic jam solo journey. Better still, sell fitness for free by cycling rather than a drive...
But, on the other hand, I also know that the majority of the population will turn away. Adverts are tricky to get right for one segment. To get right for all segments with one message is virtually impossible. Besides, TV ads are a risk now aren't they? Who watches TV? There needs to be an understanding that it's the middle classes that have to be targeted (they generate most of the emissions) and they tend to watch TV the least. The message needs to be less overt and more covert. How? Don't sell stuff (stop climate change) sell a lifestyle. Sell Southwold and fish (pollock, remember!) and chips rather than Australia. Sell working from home once a week rather than a commute for five days. Sell a banter in a shared car journey rather than a depressed M6 traffic jam solo journey. Better still, sell fitness for free by cycling rather than a drive...
Book Review on Powerdown by Richard Heinberg
I am doing a book review on Powerdown by Richard Heinberg. Now, before I chose this book, I didn't know that it was one of the bibles of the Transition Town Movement. Essentially, Powerdown makes the case for peak oil and suggests we have four alternatives for the energy descent that looms. These are: energy resource wars, technological fixes, powerdown - we cut energy use - and lifeboats where we create refuges where we can. Peak oil is a given. There may be debates on whether you include tar sands and the like, but economic if not physical peak oil is accepted even by the oil industry.
Resource wars are not a great idea, obviously, but there is a new "carve up" of resources (by this I include food and water as well as oil and minerals) already going on. What's interesting is the rejection of the technological fix and the focus on powerdown or creating refuges. Essentially, Heinberg argues that it's too late for technological fixes. So we have to powerdown, or at least some of us will do this with others following after the oil has run out. Powerdown is reducing dependency on oil by producing and consuming local food and energy sources, for example, to create resilient communities. It is the ultimate no growth strategy.
Transition Towns looks to be a genuine social movement that is rapidly growing. It's democratic, open and consenual with groups in the country and in the city. Although not mentioned in any of their literature it's very much following Gramsci's 'praxis' - doing stuff rather than just a campaign group.
I have a few questions: first - how large and diverse is this movement in terms of numbers? Is it predominantly a liberal white middle class movement? At what point does this become a national powerdown (where you have convinced the majority of the population) rather than lifeboats? And, will this more likely and happen more quickly than the technological approach?
Second, where does business fit in this. If energy descent IS the only option, then Tescos and, perhaps, many more need to change their business model fast - very fast. Perhaps there is no room for Tesco! Is there room for Waitrose and the Co-op perhaps?
Third, what happens to tax revenues - presumably they decline in line with the descent and therefore education, health and so on decline too. I am assuming that defence cuts are one-off savings. Where does government fit into this?
Fourth, why is it energy descent as there is an abundance of energy out there: solar, wind, biochar, waste and, dare I say it, nuclear?
Anyone have any answers or comments?
Resource wars are not a great idea, obviously, but there is a new "carve up" of resources (by this I include food and water as well as oil and minerals) already going on. What's interesting is the rejection of the technological fix and the focus on powerdown or creating refuges. Essentially, Heinberg argues that it's too late for technological fixes. So we have to powerdown, or at least some of us will do this with others following after the oil has run out. Powerdown is reducing dependency on oil by producing and consuming local food and energy sources, for example, to create resilient communities. It is the ultimate no growth strategy.
Transition Towns looks to be a genuine social movement that is rapidly growing. It's democratic, open and consenual with groups in the country and in the city. Although not mentioned in any of their literature it's very much following Gramsci's 'praxis' - doing stuff rather than just a campaign group.
I have a few questions: first - how large and diverse is this movement in terms of numbers? Is it predominantly a liberal white middle class movement? At what point does this become a national powerdown (where you have convinced the majority of the population) rather than lifeboats? And, will this more likely and happen more quickly than the technological approach?
Second, where does business fit in this. If energy descent IS the only option, then Tescos and, perhaps, many more need to change their business model fast - very fast. Perhaps there is no room for Tesco! Is there room for Waitrose and the Co-op perhaps?
Third, what happens to tax revenues - presumably they decline in line with the descent and therefore education, health and so on decline too. I am assuming that defence cuts are one-off savings. Where does government fit into this?
Fourth, why is it energy descent as there is an abundance of energy out there: solar, wind, biochar, waste and, dare I say it, nuclear?
Anyone have any answers or comments?
Thursday 15 October 2009
The End of the Line
Last night I went to a viewing of The End of the Line sponsored by Adnams. It's a disturbing film made by the same director of Black Gold that highlights the problem of over fishing. Using figures from the Charles Glover's book, the film has a dramatic conclusion: all the fish we consume on a regular basis will disappear by 2050.
The science is there and pretty robust - there's a debate about exactly when the fish will run out, but everyone agrees that fish stocks are declining at a rapid rate. The solution is obvious, we need to consume fish more sustainably. This is one of the questions in this week's lesson in Sustainability. How DO we get people to consume more sustainably?
The film promoted the idea of sustainable consumerism. If we buy fish from sustainable sources, then businesses will match demand. At the same time businesses may stop selling fish from depleted stocks. Since the film, Marks and Spencers, Pret a Manger and Waitrose have all agreed to stop selling fish that are endangered. How can we help? We buy fish that is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. Like Fair Trade, it has sustainability standards, a logo and is growing fast. But we need to be more proactive and demand sustainable fish at our restaurants, shops and even our chippies.
It's hard, isn't it, to change habits? Is Mary Janes at Cromer really going to offer sustainable fish and chips? Should I tell my kids that we won't be having cod anymore and their monthly treat is over? Sustainable fish is also more expensive. It's a hard sell.
There is also a strong argument that advertising and awareness doesn't work for sustainability campaigns: for every successful fair trade logo there are others that fail. Anyone using the carbon footprint logo, for example? We don't buy stuff according to neo-classical rationality. Behavourial economics suggests we buy depending on what others do - we are tribal.
So what do we do? For me, awareness, eco-labelling and campaigns are not enough - our consultancy project with Adnams was clear: people responded tribally, not because of climate change. We need to change businesses. Sometimes businesses change because people at the top want change. Cadburys is moving to fair trade chocolate not because of pressure from consumers, but because the board thought it was the right thing to do. But because not all businesses change we also need strong government legislation. Change the structures and attitudes will follow. However, structural changes that, for example, ban types of fish, require pressure from people lobbying politicians. Social movements get more access, and, ultimately, more success if they can show evidence of sustainable consumption.
We need consumers to lead change to get government to introduce policies to make businesses who haven't changed, change. In the meantime, ask for pollock at your chippy.
The science is there and pretty robust - there's a debate about exactly when the fish will run out, but everyone agrees that fish stocks are declining at a rapid rate. The solution is obvious, we need to consume fish more sustainably. This is one of the questions in this week's lesson in Sustainability. How DO we get people to consume more sustainably?
The film promoted the idea of sustainable consumerism. If we buy fish from sustainable sources, then businesses will match demand. At the same time businesses may stop selling fish from depleted stocks. Since the film, Marks and Spencers, Pret a Manger and Waitrose have all agreed to stop selling fish that are endangered. How can we help? We buy fish that is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. Like Fair Trade, it has sustainability standards, a logo and is growing fast. But we need to be more proactive and demand sustainable fish at our restaurants, shops and even our chippies.
It's hard, isn't it, to change habits? Is Mary Janes at Cromer really going to offer sustainable fish and chips? Should I tell my kids that we won't be having cod anymore and their monthly treat is over? Sustainable fish is also more expensive. It's a hard sell.
There is also a strong argument that advertising and awareness doesn't work for sustainability campaigns: for every successful fair trade logo there are others that fail. Anyone using the carbon footprint logo, for example? We don't buy stuff according to neo-classical rationality. Behavourial economics suggests we buy depending on what others do - we are tribal.
So what do we do? For me, awareness, eco-labelling and campaigns are not enough - our consultancy project with Adnams was clear: people responded tribally, not because of climate change. We need to change businesses. Sometimes businesses change because people at the top want change. Cadburys is moving to fair trade chocolate not because of pressure from consumers, but because the board thought it was the right thing to do. But because not all businesses change we also need strong government legislation. Change the structures and attitudes will follow. However, structural changes that, for example, ban types of fish, require pressure from people lobbying politicians. Social movements get more access, and, ultimately, more success if they can show evidence of sustainable consumption.
We need consumers to lead change to get government to introduce policies to make businesses who haven't changed, change. In the meantime, ask for pollock at your chippy.
Sunday 11 October 2009
Prosperity without growth?
Professor Tim Jackson of the Sustainable Development Commission has made the case that we have been living the myth of economic growth. This myth has led to widening income inequality, stagnated our wellbeing and is leading us to environmental catastrophe. He suggests that we need to recalibrate - perhaps revolutionise is a better word for it - the economy to restrict economic growth to ensure a more even distribution of wealth and to avert climate change: Prosperity without growth.
How? Jackson groups his 12 solutions into three key areas: building a sustainable macroeconomy; protecting capabilities for flourishing and respecting ecological limits.
Building a sustainable macroeconomy
First, we need to reconfigure how we measure growth. Not as radical as it sounds. The Stern Report was essentially a new way of looking at long term growth taking into account externalities. Jackson argues that we need to consider caps or rationing and to embed them into our economic modelling. Second, he argues for a Green New Deal. Third, financial capital needs to be reined in using a tobin tax or tighter regulations. Fourth, a new model of economic accounting is required to take into account economic wellbeing. President Sarkozy of France has argued for this following Joseph Stiglitz and Amarta Sen as well as other eminent economists.
Protecting capabilities for flourishing
Fifth, we need to move towards a much better work life balance - perhaps following France's 35 hour maximum working week. I'm not quite sure how that fits in with Sarkozy's current thinking as he got rid of this on an election platform! Sixth, Jackson argues for a redistribution of wealth on a large scale. His seventh suggestion is a reiteration of measuring wellbeing - he quite likes this one. The eighth suggestion is interesting as it argues for strengthening human and social capital creating resilient communities. This could involve increased participation to protecting our libraries to making sure we fund our museums. Nine is to restrict and reverse consumerist culture. This could mean more funding to the BBC and restrictions on advertising especially for children.
Respecting ecological limits
The tenth suggestion is a cap on on emissions or resources. Nothing too radical here, the EU-ETS and CRC are essentially emissions caps and more are being planned. Perhaps he refering to emissions caps for individuals that Milliband suggested a few years back. Jackson doesn't sell this one very well by referring to war-time rationing or cuban-style living! Suggestion 11 argues for the greening of the taxation system - something that is slowly happening. There is no mention of what happens to tax revenues when people stop using carbon or resources. Finally, suggestion 12 argues for technological transfer and for the protection of biodiversity.
Remember this is a government commission which highlights how mainstream these ideas are becoming and businesses need to be aware that some of these ideas may be policy in the next few years. What I think is interesting is the language or "discourse" of the argument. It doesn't engage business, if anything business causes the problem. The market is a problem and government is the solution. There are three key issues, though.
First, governments have to be elected. David Cameron gets all touchy feely about wellbeing indicators and at the same time suggests that his government will slash spending on, well, museums, the BBC and other things that arguably enhance our wellbeing. Governments, however, do want to make radical changes - they know the seriousness of climate change, but try to tax more on cars or petrol and you have a revolt. They back down. They back down as the public don't want to be told by the "nanny state" what to do.
The second point is that businesses and markets can work more quickly within a boundary dictated by the government. The EU-ETS and the CRC are examples of this. The government basically got businesses on board by saying: "we're going to cap your emissions, but you can do what you like to reduce them or to buy carbon credits". Very little fuss. Personal Carbon Credits could do just that. Let the market dictate within a boundary dictated by the government. Who has a smaller carbon footprint? The less well off. Who has the largest footprint. The middle classes. Let them trade - it sounds nicer than redistribution of wealth. People who consume less are now rewarded. Of course, it's not as simple as that - there are a whole host of questions on how to decide the cap and whether it should be household based or individual based and so on.
The final point goes back to a theme I keep refering to. Get business on board with these ideas and you will have much greater change. It's easier to change 10 multi-nationals corporations than to change the citizens of ten countries.
How? Jackson groups his 12 solutions into three key areas: building a sustainable macroeconomy; protecting capabilities for flourishing and respecting ecological limits.
Building a sustainable macroeconomy
First, we need to reconfigure how we measure growth. Not as radical as it sounds. The Stern Report was essentially a new way of looking at long term growth taking into account externalities. Jackson argues that we need to consider caps or rationing and to embed them into our economic modelling. Second, he argues for a Green New Deal. Third, financial capital needs to be reined in using a tobin tax or tighter regulations. Fourth, a new model of economic accounting is required to take into account economic wellbeing. President Sarkozy of France has argued for this following Joseph Stiglitz and Amarta Sen as well as other eminent economists.
Protecting capabilities for flourishing
Fifth, we need to move towards a much better work life balance - perhaps following France's 35 hour maximum working week. I'm not quite sure how that fits in with Sarkozy's current thinking as he got rid of this on an election platform! Sixth, Jackson argues for a redistribution of wealth on a large scale. His seventh suggestion is a reiteration of measuring wellbeing - he quite likes this one. The eighth suggestion is interesting as it argues for strengthening human and social capital creating resilient communities. This could involve increased participation to protecting our libraries to making sure we fund our museums. Nine is to restrict and reverse consumerist culture. This could mean more funding to the BBC and restrictions on advertising especially for children.
Respecting ecological limits
The tenth suggestion is a cap on on emissions or resources. Nothing too radical here, the EU-ETS and CRC are essentially emissions caps and more are being planned. Perhaps he refering to emissions caps for individuals that Milliband suggested a few years back. Jackson doesn't sell this one very well by referring to war-time rationing or cuban-style living! Suggestion 11 argues for the greening of the taxation system - something that is slowly happening. There is no mention of what happens to tax revenues when people stop using carbon or resources. Finally, suggestion 12 argues for technological transfer and for the protection of biodiversity.
Remember this is a government commission which highlights how mainstream these ideas are becoming and businesses need to be aware that some of these ideas may be policy in the next few years. What I think is interesting is the language or "discourse" of the argument. It doesn't engage business, if anything business causes the problem. The market is a problem and government is the solution. There are three key issues, though.
First, governments have to be elected. David Cameron gets all touchy feely about wellbeing indicators and at the same time suggests that his government will slash spending on, well, museums, the BBC and other things that arguably enhance our wellbeing. Governments, however, do want to make radical changes - they know the seriousness of climate change, but try to tax more on cars or petrol and you have a revolt. They back down. They back down as the public don't want to be told by the "nanny state" what to do.
The second point is that businesses and markets can work more quickly within a boundary dictated by the government. The EU-ETS and the CRC are examples of this. The government basically got businesses on board by saying: "we're going to cap your emissions, but you can do what you like to reduce them or to buy carbon credits". Very little fuss. Personal Carbon Credits could do just that. Let the market dictate within a boundary dictated by the government. Who has a smaller carbon footprint? The less well off. Who has the largest footprint. The middle classes. Let them trade - it sounds nicer than redistribution of wealth. People who consume less are now rewarded. Of course, it's not as simple as that - there are a whole host of questions on how to decide the cap and whether it should be household based or individual based and so on.
The final point goes back to a theme I keep refering to. Get business on board with these ideas and you will have much greater change. It's easier to change 10 multi-nationals corporations than to change the citizens of ten countries.
Tuesday 6 October 2009
Green Metrics
Following on from recent posts about greenwash and whether big businesses are doing enough, the Harvard Business Review has posted a blog about green metrics. They ask the question:
Who's greener: a computer manufacturer with revenues of $61 billion planting a tree for every computer sold, or the world's largest retailer with revenues of $380 billion demanding environmental transparency and performance improvements from all of its suppliers?
The authors - Nicholas Eisenberger and Mateo Bueno - think it's clear: it's the second one which, in fact, is WalMart. The first company - Dell - is making emissions offsets yet it pales into insignificance to the impact WalMart will have. Yet, Newsweek argued Dell was ahead of WalMart. Why? According to the authors it was because Newsweek were using a flawed metric on measuring on who was doing less bad.
Who's greener: a computer manufacturer with revenues of $61 billion planting a tree for every computer sold, or the world's largest retailer with revenues of $380 billion demanding environmental transparency and performance improvements from all of its suppliers?
The authors - Nicholas Eisenberger and Mateo Bueno - think it's clear: it's the second one which, in fact, is WalMart. The first company - Dell - is making emissions offsets yet it pales into insignificance to the impact WalMart will have. Yet, Newsweek argued Dell was ahead of WalMart. Why? According to the authors it was because Newsweek were using a flawed metric on measuring on who was doing less bad.
Sunday 4 October 2009
How to spot Greenwash
I got a very nice email from Kim Hallwood at Futerra who forwarded the Greenwash guide. It's great reading, and if you're really busy they have a quick read section! There's also a Greenwash USA guide too.
It's a superb overview on how to spot Greenwash and the signs to look for. Thanks Futerra.
It's a superb overview on how to spot Greenwash and the signs to look for. Thanks Futerra.
Friday 2 October 2009
Corporate Responsibility OR Greenwash?
In the Carbon MBA we share one or two modules with other masters courses and Sustainable Consumption is one of them. It's a great module as business approaches engage with more community and grassroots approaches. The majority on the course from other masters appear, at first glance, anti-big business. Perhaps they see me as anti-grassroots!
This week, businesses, particularly multi-national companies, were under scrutiny for not caring about the environment, labour rights and ethics. We were treated to the story of stuff which reaffirms all the stereotypical negative stuff about businesses. You know the sort of thing: they slash and burn forests, make workers work too hard and pollute the environment.
It's good to be challenged, but we mustn't get lazy and just be anti-business. What struck me in the class debate was the poverty of clarity in criticisms of business practices, yet at the same time people demanded that there should be high levels of transparency from MNCs. MNCs should be transparent, but lets argue on what we know not what we think we know. For example, some argued that marketing and advertising were evils that created unsustainable consumption. If it's that easy then a few marketing campaigns will change the behaviour of individuals and reduce emissions - bingo - we have solved climate change. Hmmm...It's not as simple as that is it?
Wal-Mart - the largest supermarket in the world with over $400billion in revenues - has launched a supply chain sustainability index. It's not perfect and there are critics, but it's an enormous job and pushes those in the supply chain to do the same. VW-Audi are pursuing their PowerTrain Strategy to make all their models electric or bio-fuel. What's interesting is that Wal-Mart's customer base are not the organic/muesli/liberal type, more the Joe the plumber. Equally, not all car manufacturers are adopting VW-Audis strategy. With both companies, there's an element of saving money, gaining a competitive advantage and more profit or simply doing the right thing.
So, some businesses are ahead of the customer and government. Some need to do more - a lot more. But all businesses whether they are limiteds, plc's, co-ops or public sector have to run so that they pay their way and balance the books or make a surplus. It's not profit that is differentiating which businesses follow sustainable practices. It's the people running them. If we can influence them, then changing a billion dollar industry is going to have a big impact.
This week, businesses, particularly multi-national companies, were under scrutiny for not caring about the environment, labour rights and ethics. We were treated to the story of stuff which reaffirms all the stereotypical negative stuff about businesses. You know the sort of thing: they slash and burn forests, make workers work too hard and pollute the environment.
It's good to be challenged, but we mustn't get lazy and just be anti-business. What struck me in the class debate was the poverty of clarity in criticisms of business practices, yet at the same time people demanded that there should be high levels of transparency from MNCs. MNCs should be transparent, but lets argue on what we know not what we think we know. For example, some argued that marketing and advertising were evils that created unsustainable consumption. If it's that easy then a few marketing campaigns will change the behaviour of individuals and reduce emissions - bingo - we have solved climate change. Hmmm...It's not as simple as that is it?
Wal-Mart - the largest supermarket in the world with over $400billion in revenues - has launched a supply chain sustainability index. It's not perfect and there are critics, but it's an enormous job and pushes those in the supply chain to do the same. VW-Audi are pursuing their PowerTrain Strategy to make all their models electric or bio-fuel. What's interesting is that Wal-Mart's customer base are not the organic/muesli/liberal type, more the Joe the plumber. Equally, not all car manufacturers are adopting VW-Audis strategy. With both companies, there's an element of saving money, gaining a competitive advantage and more profit or simply doing the right thing.
So, some businesses are ahead of the customer and government. Some need to do more - a lot more. But all businesses whether they are limiteds, plc's, co-ops or public sector have to run so that they pay their way and balance the books or make a surplus. It's not profit that is differentiating which businesses follow sustainable practices. It's the people running them. If we can influence them, then changing a billion dollar industry is going to have a big impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
