We're using up our Earth!

Humanity's Ecological Footprint is over 23% larger than what the planet can regenerate. In other words, it now takes more than one year and two months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in a single year. We maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet's ecological resources. This is a vastly underestimated threat and one that is not adequately addressed.

It is fascinating stuff, showing that around 1988 we started using up more resources that the Earth generates each year and that North America uses up 8 times more resources, per person, than Asia Pacific. The UK's footprint (in hectares per person) has gone from 4 to 5 in the last 40 years; even though its capacity has stayed almost constant around 2. China's footprint has doubled from 0.8 to 1.6, whilst its capacity has been getting smaller relatively quickly (down from 1 to 0.8).

The good news is that technology can save our problems; but due to market imperfections, it is unlikely to -will we, since it is the only other option, be able to reduce our global footprint instead, to solve the problem? It seems unlikely, bearing in mind the impact of fast growing developing countries -though if the developed countries could halve their ecological footprint it would make a massive difference. Anyone for behaviour and lifestyle change?

Compromise

-or Balance, either are key elements in Sustainable Development. 1 interesting example is about energy, since around 20-30% of energy is lost in transmission; hence the interest in personal energy sources.

This is especially useful in developing countries where there is no infrastructure to distribute energy, but, for example, also relevant for developing countries. Since we will (eventually) roll out hydrogen powered cars, we will need to roll out a network of hydrogen providers (i.e. filling stations). What if each individual could make their own hydrogen, with a system that came with their car, when they bought it? It would save on time and money and resources to install these distribution systems. However, it might be much more efficient to make the hydrogen in a big facility, rather than in many many (individually owned) smaller ones. I guess the solution varies for each product or service, but it is an interesting conundrum.

The owner is not the user

This is a major problem that society is still trying to overcome. A typical example is that when a building company builds a house it wants to build the house that it can make the most profit on, through selling it. It has an incentive to source cheap materials, if this does not effect the value of the house -or it might want to source energy inefficient materials, because there is no incentive for it to use energy efficient materials. Why? Because the person who buys the house will be the one who will be paying the energy costs!

A possible solution to this is PSS -Product Service Systems, which sounds complicated, but is really just the idea of not selling someone a product that, once sold, no longer is related to the seller; but instead, selling a service which includes that product plus extra services. The seller can make more money on an ongoing basis from the extra services related to the product and, as will be attached to the product for longer will have an incentive to ensure its performance is, well in this case, environmentally friendly, as this will affect its service revenue/contract. It also means that the seller can easily retrieve the product afterwards and re-use it in some way; and the seller is motivated to do this, and can easily do this.

PSS seems to be a win-win, but is not as easy as it sounds; leading to extra complexity, extra costs (although potentially, extra value) and greater risk (for the seller to have to support an ongoing commitment) but it can really motivate the seller to be more sustainable!

Own but don't possess

What if you wanted to own something but did not need to actually have it in your possession? Maybe you can save energy and resources by not having it in your permission. The best example is of a bank that needs to have gold reserves in order to have assets and protect its currency, but actually it probably never needs that gold.

It could buy the land the gold is in, but save on actually extracting the gold. Just by knowing it owns the gold (which could be extracted if required) could be enough. An interesting idea indeed, that is applicable elsewhere.

Leverage points

Another aspect of Systems theory centres on identifying key aspects of a system which not only allow you to be able to make a difference to this aspect, but subsequently have an impact on other elements in the system.

Of course, this means you need to be careful about how changing 1 aspect of the system impacts upon other elements; but if you can identify an early aspect of the system and change that, great leverage can be achieved. It is risky, but it could be rewarding. Seek out those leverage points and apply some leverage, but be careful about what happens!

Fixes that fail

1 of the learning points of Systems theory is that often, in response to a problem a 'fix' is undertaken that is not actually the right 'fix' -it has been created without enough attention (or knowledge) to other elements in the system. Thus the 'fix' does not solve the actual problem, but often makes the problem worse by accidentally increasing the impact of another aspect of the system which continues to work restricting the attempted solution. The solution failed, because it was just a fix and not a real solution.

Real solutions need careful analysis of the problem; causes and effects; consequences of the actions involved in the system and an understanding of knock-on effects. This is a crucial aspect of poverty reduction when programs are not integrated or fail to make a difference because it was the wrong solution in some way. Take your time, analyse the problem, test the solution. Don't be left embarrassed by creating a 'fix that fails' -create a real solution!

Are Leadership skills transferable?

Maybe not. Apparently there are 3 aspects of leadership: personal leadership skills, relational leadership skills and contextual leadership skills. The point being that personal leadership can be transferred along with the leader, but the relational skills the leader has will depend on those who the leader must related with or to -with different people, the leader may not be effective. Similarly, the ability to lead varies in contexts especially different cultures. Cultures may or may not be country based, but of course, can vary between organisations too -and that could be the big killer and the major hindrance of leaders successfully leading other organisations, other than their current one.

Spread good ideas

The biggest problem about poverty reduction is a lack of knowlege about how to reduce poverty and a lack of education about aspects of poverty -hence the poor often lack health knowledge or education or ideas to improve their economic efficiency (i.e. knowledge to improve crop yields etc). Many NGOs work in concentrated areas to make a difference through an integrated, long-term approach.

This is great, but maybe it would be more efficient to work in disparate villagers and trust (or facilitate) other villages to learn from the NGO's actions in 1 village, in order to replicate it. This does of course require a visible improvement in poverty and a clear link with the cause; which the nearby villagers can learn from. Peer education on a village/geographic level could be a great way of quickly and efficiently spread education about how to individually act to reduce your own poverty. The Millennium villages concept has adopted this idea.

Consumers drive responsibility

Is it consumers that are driving responsibility, through requiring safe products made in a responsible way? This does play a significant role, in which case are B2C (Business-to-Consumer) companies more responsible than B2B (Business-to-Business) companies?

I understand that eventually B2Bs sell to consumers, and that consumer's requirements will work themselves up the supply chain to force B2Bs to be responsible, but in reality this is doubtful. However, if CSR is just commonsense, then maybe there is no difference, as any buyer of a product (be it a consumer or a business) will demand the same from the seller. However I would be interested in comparing how responsible B2B companies are compared to B2C companies.

A company's 'community'

It is often hard to define the community around the company -yes a company should be a good neighbour to its community, but a better word than community is influence. A company should do good within its sphere of influence which is wider than 'community' and therefore better for society, but it is also easier to identify a company's sphere of influence (through mapping) and where the leverage points are to make a difference in that sphere.

Market Intelligence

Fundamental to R&D, marketing, sales and more; yet how good is our market intelligence? CSR helps with principles to listen more, speak less; talk, understand, question, analyse and then it is possible to get useful market intelligence. Understand the current market, understand new (potential) markets, understand the trends affecting all markets; all of this helps to improve product and service identification and sale but also helps give the market what it wants, which is a key responsibility of business!

The most improtant stakeholder cannot speak

The natural environment is what all of us rely on for our existence, so it is quite important to know what it thinks, what it is up to, what's affecting it, how it relates to us. But, it cannot speak, and environmental NGOs/Charities may be able to stand up for the environment, but they do not really know what it needs, what its state is and what it wants to say. Of course, they should continue to try to communicate with the environment through research as much as possible, and to try to listen to the signals the environment gives off. This way, they can do their job as best as possible -and they need to, we are really not listening to the environment; instead we are suffocating it!

Risk and Opportunity

I fundamentally believe that CSR is about companies behaving responsibly; why would they do this? Simple: to reduce risk and find new opportunities. Those risks and opportunities can be related to PR, employees, sales etc etc. Though many companies like the word 'opportunity', others might not really understand the word 'risk', a good way of expressing this is to explain that it is all about trying to "pre-empt potential blindsides". In business, there is always something that will unexpectedly come up and affect you. It is necessary to try to anticipate these and act to mitigate their impacts.

Hence the importance of stakeholder dialogue so a company is more in touch with its stakeholders and able to better predict future 'blindsides'. It is crucial -start engaging today!

Transparency is...

...a swimming pool with clean water, where you can see the ends, see the floor, see who else is in it.

...not a muddy lake where you do not know how deep it is, what attackers lurk within in etc.

A great mental picture which has many lessons for the real world. think them through in more detail.

Another urban way!

Urban areas can be green, they can include biodiversity, they can involve circular, planned systems which are designed to increase the quality of life for all living things in the city. Urban development is not just roadworks, slums, pollution, overcrowding or high prices.

But, which is more common? Why -is it because of a lack of knowledge, a lack of ability, a lack of money, or (as i suspect) just because of a lack of will. It is time for people to stand up and make the changes we need to see in our society. Those building and selling such properties must be pressurised to take action, and must be willing to take action.

Business's convening power

A NGO with x million approaches the government for a partnership and is rebuked, but if they partner with a company who foots the x million they will be accepted, due to the clout that the company has. Why? Well it is not just brand or connections, but because governments recognise how important companies are through their FDI investments, job creations, technology transfers and so on.

It is clear business has this important convening role and this should be utilised as much as possible.

The purpose of business...

(not an easy answer, but here is one answer:)
Make sustainable profits in sustainable ways.

How? Need to define 'sustainable ways', which is different for each company, and translate that for each individual's job role and evaluation criteria.

But is 'profits' necessary? In today's society with the current ownership structure, yes. Since pension funds, and the whole banking system is dependent on generating dividends to then give back to society, indirectly, or to re-invest. However, potentially profits are not necessary, when a company is privately owned, collaboratively owned and so on. There is a trend for this, but how important will it become?

Culture vs Human Rights

What do you do when cultural sensitivity is in contrast with human rights? do you abide by the local culture (i.e. not promote women) or do you support women's rights?

It seems that there are many examples of 'international human rights' being in contrast to local traditional norms and cultures. Similarly, since values are so crucial to people and to organisations, how do you deal with contrasting and conflicting values? Do you impose values on others (surely not!) or what?

Migration

Migration is often unplanned, but actually it is also, often planned, or at least encouraged. Since the importance of remittances has now been well recognised in contributing to a developing country's economic growth, international migration is often encouraged, despite the brain-drain consequences.

Internal migration is also often encouraged as a solution for those whose geographical location restricts their ability to escape poverty. But, of course, migrants are often mistreated and exploited. Furthermore, how is migration related to outsourcing and the whole freedom of work/movement issue? It seems that migration is actually the opposite of outsourcing. Instead of sending work to poor people to do it, the poor people come to the rich countries to do it (or replace 'countries' with 'cities' for internal migration). Is there a correlation of any kind? Which is better -migration or outsourcing? How are the drivers different and what is a more successful way of reducing poverty?

Urbanisation -good or bad for SD?

Urbanisation is traditionally seen as a disaster for SD. Unplanned urban expansion causes diverse environmental and social problems which previously did not exist -and the problems are exacerbated due to their ability to spread quickly or just become more significant due to the numbers of those affected.

But, maybe urbanisation can be an opportunity? It is easy to reach out, within a city, to those in need, quickly. It should be easier to plan and control development. It should be easier to solve problems in an urban environment. Evidently it is not, and there needs to be more work at a city and government level to see urbanisation as an SD solution and to plan it thus.