Educating for the future

Today, a child of 5, entering our education system will be working until 2070, at least; but we cannot predict the future in 5 years, let alone 65, so how do we know how we should be educating our children? Ken Robinson believes we need to focus on nurturing creativity in our children, instead of educating them out of creativity, as we are doing at the moment. We've decided what the World of Work needs at the moment, and this is what we are preparing our children for -but the World of Work maybe be incredibly different in the future.

If there is on1 think I am sure about, it is we need more creativity to solve the mess we have put this planet, and this society, in. There are many problems that need to be solved -and that can be solved, but only through creativity.

We should focus on developing our children, and helping them be the best they can be -without defining what the 'best' is (i.e. academically intelligent). Apparently Picasso said every child is born in artist, but only a few are allowed to keep the skill into adulthood. Why should sport, art, music, theatre and other non-academic subjects take up so little of our childhood (especially at school), and even at High School, University and beyond, our we still undertaking enough of these activities to develop ourselves -or are we too focused on developing the tiny per cent of our brain that deals with marketing, finance etc?

In fact, we need to not just nurture creativity in our children, we need to nurture it in everyone, and in the World of work, this means nurturing it in our employees. When I heard google allow all employees 10-20% of their time to do whatever they want to to, whilst at work, i became inspired (i hope this is still true, at google!). Of course nurturing creativity in employees will help them be better at their jobs, but it will also, more importantly, help them be better for the whole of society. This is something responsible leaders need to think about.

Overcoming differences is neccessary -and maybe even possible

There might still be hope! When I consider nationalism and countries that make progress in extraordinary times; both point to hope in our fight against massive problems like Climate Change. Why? Because when we fight against a common enemy, we bring everyone together and achieve something that otherwise we cannot do.

The world has not worked together to really tackle a common enemy ever before, and this is a big test. However many regions or countries or groups of people have done just this before. By overcoming our differences we can understand that we are, fundamentally, all after the same, and when something threatens that, we can work together. It is not easy, and it is rare that a challenge is so great that it can bring us all together. For the moment, Climate Change is certainly not bringing us all together, in the way that, say World War 2 brought the entire UK (and many of its colonies) together to fight a common enemy.

Many in the World do not care about climate change, because they are not affected by it, or do not think they will be affected by it… and this is a huge issue. This is what must change; otherwise we are accepting that, until the whole World is affected by the issue, we will not tackle the issue. Of course, by that time, it will be SO much harder to deal with the issue. But I suppose this is normal, looking at how much easier it might have been to stop Hitler before 1939, when Chamberlain refused to deal with the issue head-on; instead Britain waited until the problem was so much bigger before actually trying to tackle it.

So, can we learn from these (and other) lessons and get together to fight the common enemy now, when the battle can still be won, and can be won with less disruption, loss of live, damage etc than if we continue to wait? We are evidently starting to find out.

Stability and responsive competition

Business needs certain things, and what seems to be mentioned most often is the need for stability, so business can research, plan, execute, invest and so on. But today’s society is becoming increasingly unstable affecting the stability of society, but also the stability of consumers –and, on the flip side providing immense opportunities to new market entrants who can take advantage of the instability.

It is therefore imperative that current businesses seek to restore stability to society, to prevent climate change flooding cities or causing the biggest migration in history. It is selfish that big business wants to preserve the status quo and ensure the future that it is planning for in its strategic plans can be realized. This is a good thing; this encourages the current players who normally get complacent to take action to ensure stability.

As the world becomes more unstable we need to support social entrepreneurs who will create new solutions and put the current solution providers out of business. Look at the pharmaceutical industry which is struggling, look at the auto industry which is struggling, look at countless other industries that are struggling –and anticipate more disturbances to their market and within their market. It seems a win-win solution.

More new entrants will both create new solutions to current problems and incentivize current market leaders to fight back to keep their market share. One will be fighting for more stability, and one for less –but, ultimately this competition will be good for us all… in the hope that both ‘attacks’ can succeed. With a more competitive market, with more problems that need profitable solutions, there is cause to be optimistic that businesses will, for their own survival and sake of their own future, rise to the challenge.

Substituting the very bad for the bad

Sometimes it is just not possible, or too hard to actually solve a social problem, in which case it might be easier to try to just reduce the problem. 1 example would be to decide to use biofuels instead of oil for energy, in that using biofuels is better than oil, in terms of the impact on climate change (though still debatable), but it still has many other negative impacts (food prices increase being one of them).

Another example, rather more interesting, is the issue of alcoholism which leads to health problems (such as harming the liver) and social problems (such as abusing others or not working). This article talks about a solution in Africa where local alcohol is highly alcoholic and dangerous, but extremely cheap. So if something less alcoholic (and thus less dangerous) can be provided for the same price, people might switch. It is an interesting solution; and what i like about it is that it still tries to create local economic benefit (which presumably, the local dangerous alcohol does) in order to keep costs down.

A parallel can be drawn with cigarettes and providing low-tar cigarettes (or 'light' cigarettes) instead of regulars. Though, is this the best solution compared to promoting nicotine patches or just by trying to stop smoking altogether? It depends on the problem, since now the problem is seen less as the health impacts on the smoker and more on the health impacts of others (and the nuisance factor). Presumably promoting such low-tar options, though helping reduce the harm on the smoker, does not really reduce the nuisance factor and still harms (though maybe somewhat less) other passive smokers.

I wonder what the side-effects of the above mentioned experiment is Africa are -would the local alcohol growers/sellers start campaigns against the cheap beer?, and whether there has been any studies on them. Well, if DfID get involved, I am sure there will be plenty of studies!

How to reach fulfillment

Tony Robbins suggests we need to be fulfilled, to do this we need to meet our needs. To do this we need to accept that our decisions affect our destiny and we need to thus understand our decision making process in order to make the right decisions for ourselves.

To do this first we need to decide what we want to focus on, in order to generate feeling. Then, we need to decide what this means to us and finally we need to decide what we are then going to do.

Once we have this then we need to pay attention not on the resources needed, but how we can be resourceful in meeting our needs. Ultimately to be fulfilled we need to go beyond meeting our basic needs (certainty, variety, significance, connection of love) to those needs of the spirit: growth and contribution beyond ourselves.

Watch this 20 minute video, if there is nothing else you do this year, and be inspired!

Responsible leaders need to appreciate others

Tony Robins suggests we need to not just understand what drives others, but we need to appreciate what drives others. Ultimately what drives someone can change; but first we need to appreciate others and what influences them, before anyone can change.

Responsible leaders need to influence others

Tony Robbins suggests you can only move yourself and others to action once you understand the invisible forces that shape ourselves and others. To do this we need to understand what influences people in the short-term (their state) and in the long-term: their NEEDS, their BELIEFS, and their EMOTIONS.

He suggests everyone has the same needs, but prioritizes them differently and this thus shapes who we are, along with our beliefs which shape how we will try to meet those needs.

Is being a charity, charitable?

I’m the first to admit most charities become so focused on what they are trying to change and who they are trying to help that they forget, as an organization, as a collective of individuals and as individuals, they also have responsibilities to society beyond their core activities, just like every other organization, business, government or otherwise.

Thus the need for social charities to consider their economic and environmental impact, for environmental conservationists to consider their social impact and so on. But, further to this, there is the issue of what is the charity’s contribution to society? Yes, it aims to contribute something by achieving its mission, but can it achieve more?

Without straying from its mission, can it utilize or leverage what it has to help society in other ways? Can it lend its office space, its staff skills, its communication channels etc to other organizations or individuals in society? It is about going beyond the ‘practice what you preach’ debate into the realm of ‘contribute all you can to improve society’

The role of arts in education for Sustainable Development

It is now best practice for workshops and lessons to be interactive and learner-centred; indeed occasionally role-plays and the like are utilized to increase the ‘learning by doing’ element of such a workshop.

The next step is to go beyond ‘learning by doing’ and ‘learning by expressing’ but to recognize the power for the arts (music, art, theatre etc) to connect to people emotionally and sensually; to not just support co0ncepts of discovery, creativity and innovation, but to inspire. The arts can transcend gaps (in student abilities, in time, in cultures) that other forms of communication cannot and can play a key role in not just improving the educational experience, but in relating education to sustainable development.

Through arts individuals can feel a part of something bigger, can connect to other people and to society and can better value intangible elements in life. They can of course also develop key skills required for a sustainable society such as creativity and communication; but more importantly they can be inspired, inspire others and envision a sustainable World.

Once such a world is envisioned, the arts can be used to inspire action, as communication tools and as enablers. They can be used not just to help people think but to help people feel and to influence how they behave. There is a whole new world out there and the arts need to play a greater role in that World, starting with education.

6 practices of high impact nonprofits

From an excellent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall 07 edition:

1. Serve and Advocate in order to achieve large-scale social change. It does not matter which angle you start with but to have a high impact you need both [my note: agree, but advocacy is much harder, costlier, unmeasurable etc than serving as well as less attractive to funders -unfortunately]
2. Make markets work: tap into the power of self-interest and laws of economics. Understand how to influence the market through working with different partners e.g. changing business behaviours, earning income.
3. Inspire supporters to help in whatever ways they can and nurture supporters' groups to maximum benefit.
4. Nurture networks; share ideas and information and harness the power of partnerships.
5. Be adaptive by responding to external changes; make sure you listen to others and understand the changes as well as evaluating activities and incorporating learnings.
6. Share leadership within the organisation and with other organisations by building strong leaders internally, building strong executive teams and powerful boards. This is crucial for sustainability.

Other important management principles:
-diversified, sustainable, financial support
-invest in HR and build reliable infrastructure (even if this means higher admin costs)

One area the article touches upon but I believe is the most crucial practice of all, is the use and leverage of other organsiations and other resources through the use of mutually beneficial (or 'strategic') partnerships. Finally an excellent point is made about the need to focus less on process and more on impact!

Myths of Nonprofit management

From an excellent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall 07 edition:

Myth 1: Adequate management is necessary but perfect management is not and has little improvement on social impact [my note: agree, but it depends how you define this as financial management is crucial as is HR management; the latter terribly neglected in all organisations, especially nonprofits]
Myth 2: Brand name awareness is not always important and does not have to be a critical part of strategy [my note: agree, but it depends on if the brand is also a message/'voice' that is crucial to the organisation's mission]
Myth 3: Breakthrough ideas are not always necessary; what is better is to tweak existing ideas to make them more successful [my note: the problem with nonprofits is most of them do not know what other ideas are out there, working and why and there is little genuine sharing or knowledge transfer in the industry globally -maybe higher staff turnover would be a good thing?]
Myth 4: Missions drive an organisation but there is not much need to specify what it is, fine-tune it and write it down [my note: surely this requires a nonprofit whose mission is already well understood by existing staff, easily understood by new staff and brings staff together rather than causing rifts, which also seems common]
Myth 5: Measuring nonprofits' impacts does not work as something like 'overhead ratio' has little direct bearing on impact [my note: agree, especially as most nonprofits need to spend more on HR to ensure effective programs and more on advocacy to ensure sustainable programs]
Myth 6: Large budgets does not mean high impact; organisations of large and small budgets can have high impact [my note: yes, but larger organisations should be able to better pool resources , partners and knowledge to make a greater impact. Unfortunately they should also be more flexible and innovative and work more with the low budget nonprofits to provide them these capacities]

CSR’s challenge in China

As Rich and others well know, business in China is moving rather fast. For most Multinationals they are under pressure to make profits in China, gain market share, open new branches or R & D Centres, recruit more (quality) staff and so on. The Olympics are around the corner which is adding extra pressure along with increasing numbers of high profile CEO and political visits because of China's growing importance in the World -environmentally, socially and economically.

What this means is that things like risk management tend to get pushed down the agenda (which is a big, big mistake), volunteering gets sidelined unless HQ orders everyone to do something on 'company's volunteering day' (as employees are too busy to take time off of work and companies unwilling to spend too much time organising anything) and community partnerships or other elements of CSR (like HR diversity programs or governance) tends to be dealt with rather hurriedly.

This is a missed opportunity for all concerned. Working on CSR is by necessity a long-term strategy. There is now a slow trend of companies in China to start to engage in more meaningful community partnerships, but only a slow trend. Most companies still lack the time, the ability, the people or the will to really engage meaningfully, even though the more meaningful the engagement the greater the benefits. Yes, more and more organisations are offering consultancy related to CSR in China, more and more are also providing outsourcing services (such as PR or legal companies, let alone those in supply chain areas); but the major issue is still there. Consultants or other agencies rarely train staff. They make suggestions that are accepted or otherwise or they implement directly and what is really needed is training (not just conferences) of staff dealing with these issues accompanied with high level support providing the time and will power to make something meaningful happen.

I expect that, for Foreign companies, their 'Global CSR people' will start playing a more important role in the future, as they recognise the limitations their China staff have and the environment these local staff operate in. It also means we will see more high level Global CSR meetings in China, attended by Global staff. By this i do not just mean the UN GC or those events, i mean meetings by WBCSD or BSR as well as smaller meetings. I also expect companies to start having their internal Global /Asia CSR meetings here more often. Unfortunately those people will still struggle to find a 'green' venue for their meetings too!

Speaking Different Languages

In all the literature about cross-sector partnerships there is always two key problems that are identified. The first is the lack of communication and poor expectation setting between different partners, and indeed different people within each organization. The second is the different perspectives the different organizations are coming from. I’d like to focus somewhat on the second problem for a moment.

What do companies think of NGOs? There are some good terms that come to mind, such as ‘dedicated’ and ‘worthwhile’ but more often there are rather less-favorable terms used such as ‘unprofessional’, ‘a nuisance’, ‘money hungry’ and ‘unreasonable’. In return, what would NGOs think of companies? Thinking of the whole range of NGOs here, though in public most are very positive if it helps them get money (except for the combative anti-corporate NGOs), in truth most NGOs do not look too highly upon companies either.

This misunderstanding between both groups leads to a lack of trust and without that no partnership can be a success. 1 way of avoiding a lack of trust developing is to try to bridge the gap between companies and NGOs. If NGOs knew what it was like to have to reach ambitious targets or get fired, what it is like to deal with internal politics, what it is like to deal with finance departments or sales departments, they might understand companies better. Similarly if companies understood the lack of trained staff in NGOs, the lack of consistent funding and how that affects an NGO’s operations; and what an NGO is actually doing, they could recognize the different pressures NGOs come under.

In addition to all this, there is often a real language barrier. Companies talk about sales, profits, margins, adding value, supply chains, distribution, brands and franchises. NGOs tend to talk about communities, vulnerable groups, sustainability, empowerment, IEC (Information, Education and Communication) and more. If it happens to be an International NGO and a Multinational company then there will also be all kinds of internal words and acronyms that add even more to the confusion.

Despite all the literature and examples of how these issues affect partnerships, there are very few proposed solutions. The best solution is for an NGO to recruit staff from a business background and for a business to recruit staff from an NGO background. The former can be tough though, since not too many staff are willing to move to the countryside or take massive salary/benefit cuts (which is often the case in Asia) whilst the latter is just as hard since not too many NGO staff have the relevant experience or skills to cut their teeth in the business world.

Thankfully some certification schemes are being developed (such as that by the IBLF), some masters, MBA or short-term programs exist that can bridge some of these gaps (such as those provided by Ashridge), providing relevant training to either party; yet neither of these solutions are likely to have a massive impact. Hence both parties continue to be communicating and getting increasingly frustrated.

Companies are looking for quick results, but NGOs realize that reducing poverty or solving massive environmental problems will not happen quickly. Companies expect a measurable outcome, yet many development programs require sophisticated assessments or evaluations in order to understand what impact the program had, if any, and these impacts are often spread over a wide group of beneficiaries over a long period of time with other forces playing a part. There is definitely still a need for greater understanding between the NGO and corporate sectors.

Partly this can be solved through recognition and acceptance of this language and experience barrier and then both parties can be more patience, explain themselves and their concepts better. For those involved in partnerships it really helps to try to meet as many staff as possible in the other organisation to find out what they do and how the organization works as well as talking to friends in the same sector and researching the company or NGO endlessly (NGO folk, try going online and downloading a presentation the company gave to investors and trying to understand it!).

Since business is everywhere and generally goes along similar lines it can often be easier for an NGO to understand a business, even if there are still communication problems. In my experience though, the more significant issue is for business to understand development. The ‘base of the pyramid’ area is really just smart marketing –but marketing that requires some understanding of a new market segment and it is clear that business currently lacks any understanding of the ‘poor’ or ‘disadvantaged’ market. Well, apart from needing this to succeed in the BoP world, they need this to develop successful community partnerships.

Companies need to understand how development works, what terms like ‘training of trainers’ or ‘peer education’ might mean and how they fit into program designs. Granted they cannot become experts over night, but an openness to trying to learn this, to visit NGOs, spend some time with them, at their work and taking some time to actually read some of their (often lengthy) reports can work wonders. Of course, for those who do not understand the 3^rd sector, they are just happy to give away some cash based on some simple criteria and get some PR out of it. An actual partnership though can be so much more. Companies can really help NGOs, giving them advice to improve their programs, helping them develop their brand and raise awareness of issues, helping them develop professional budget or accounting procedures and so on.

Yes, true partnerships require much more work than just giving out money and more often than not neither companies nor NGOs have the time, skills or genuine interest in such a partnership. But, it is clear that when these kinds of partnerships develop they really make a difference and often in many unexpected ways. There is no need to go through the ‘benefits to a company from engaging with the community’ here, but this is the time for both sectors to spend more time trying to understand the other and trying to work with the other, rather than against them.

In recognition of these kinds of language problems that exist, Plan China (some shameless self-promotion here) is organizing a study trip for corporate staff involved in working with the community to some of our program areas to understand the bigger picture and rather than just talk about the problems, the focus will be on solutions. The idea being that afterwards, staff can return to their companies better able to understand NGOs, poverty and how their company could play a role.

An inspiration, a hero, a role model.... Anita Roddick died yesterday

Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop is one of the few people I could call either a hero, a role model or an inspiration to me. Way before people were talking about CSR she was doing it (1976) because it needed to be done for business reasons and for social and environmental reasons.

Her whole life has been devoted to issues she truly believes in and issues her company truly believes in. Lets just have hope in others like her and hope that there are many many more people like her still to come.

For Dame Anita, the truly exceptional entrepreneur, business and ethics came together. "Businesses have the power to do good," she wrote. "That's why The Body Shop's Mission Statement opens with the overriding commitment, 'To dedicate our business to the pursuit of social and environmental change.'" Capitalist with a Conscience

Smoking in China

It is interesting to hear that 18 months after China ratified the WHO’s framework convention on tobacco control, China has now finally announced it is going to do something to meet its commitments. This is not just a ’smoke-free Beijing’ slogan which in effect means nothing; it is potentially a new law that can be relatively easily enforced. The government can stop companies from advertising and it can stop advertisers from accepting advertising; by enforcing the law from both directions it might actually be enforced -at least in the big cities. It will be interesting to see what happens in the countryside and what what strategy the tobacco companies come up with (maybe just focusing on promoting the brand of the company rather than its products, like Western tobacco companies; or maybe resorting to more underhand tactics and increasing promotion online, ‘on-the street’ or through other less regulated channels).
It is about time that China accepted that the profits the government makes from tobacco (taxes as well as from the State Owned Enterprises in the industry) and the number of people employed in the industry (including many poor urban residents selling cigarettes in tiny shops or from make-shift stands on the sidewalk) is not a reason to continue to support an industry which such devastating impacts on people’s lives, their productivity and their household economy (it is no wonder that most NGOs prefer to support women more than men when so many men spend their pocket money on cigarettes when women spend pocket money on food, education or clothes for the family).

I wonder, though, how the tobacco lobby in China (and though Western companies are a part of this lobby, evidently the major players are all Chinese) let this happen? China is a huge market for the tobacco industry and one of the few countries where (I believe) the number of smokers is growing. I also wonder how high up this decision goes and whether the decision was purely an economical one (i.e. taxes received =lower than cost to health system for dealing with impacts) or also motivated by other reasons.

Smoking itself is one of those industries CSR people love to talk about with the question: Can tobacco companies be responsible? In one way, the answer is no, since the companies’ product kills people that consume the product, and those who do not and particularly harms the vulnerable in a household (i.e. the women and children who suffer from second-hand smoke but do not smoke). In another way, the answer is yes, since the companies’ product is not illegal, employs millions of poor people (especially farmers and those involved in distribution) and contributes high taxes to the governments that need money for health sectors. Does anyone know of any Chinese Tobacco companies that have ever said anything about CSR (not just charity)?

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!