Mixed Greens: Green Giants, Green Shoots, Green Lions and Green Whisperers

Two different views of corporate sustainability collided in my inbox last week.

One email said that Freya Williams will speak at the US BCSD/WBCSD/Yale meeting next month. Freya Williams’ Green Giants book argues persuasively that business sustainability and business strategy have to be one and the same, not two competing directions.  She details seven businesses which have created great “win-win” outcomes, companies growing their business by integrating sustainability issues into core business strategy. She offers great examples and lessons, describing these leaders’ “epiphanies” and how those translated into business strategy and process.

A second email came from a friend and former client who now works for a regional service company nearing $1b in annual revenue. The email said:

I am trying to locate an article … directed at the executive level, indicating why they should care about sustainability.  This should probably be old news but in [this] sector that is where we are.  We use a lot of water but are recycling and the conversation about climate change doesn’t have a day-to-day impact (at least not yet)…. [T]he Harvard Business stuff and other articles would almost certainly leave our executives shaking their heads.

That friend is a Green Whisperer, helping to nudge business leaders toward awareness and progress.  That company’s leaders are unlikely to be Green Giants in any foreseeable future.  They are not likely to make game-changing transformational leaps requiring career-threatening courage, unyielding commitment and contrarian tendencies (characteristics Williams cites).

Green Giants are great exceptions but not the norm.  Let’s use reporting as an example.  I certainly don’t think reporting is the definition of sustainability progress but it is an indicator of effort.  Freya Williams points out that “95 percent of the largest 250 companies in the world now [produce] a sustainability report,” but:

Beyond that group, though, the news is less good. First-generation sustainability reporting— the process of reporting on employee turnover, energy, greenhouse gases, lost-time injury rate, payroll, waste, and water is still limited to just 3 percent of the world’s largest 3,972 listed companies and 0.04 percent of the world’s small listed companies.

Thyme_and_Goat_Cheese_Tart_With_Mixed_Tender_Greens_in_Champagne_VinaigretteThe reality of corporate sustainability is that we have to have a lot of different types of “greens”.  We certainly need the leaders, the disrupters, the Green Giants. Let’s recognize, applaud and learn from them. We also need the Green Whisperers. They are not blessed with Green Giants as bosses. They toil in the trenches, trying to move the majority of companies in the right direction.  They deal with the hard truth that epiphany is not an easily-reproducible management process.

We also need Green Lions, who take the lead and charge ahead, leading from the middle.  GM’s John Bradburn is a great example, leading his company’s zero waste effort, driving innovation and material reuse and cost savings all at once.

And we need to nurture the Green Shoots, the game-changing ideas that may take years of hard work, nurturing and perseverance before they start to sprout.  The US BCSD’s Materials Marketplace is a great example. After more than a decade of small experiments in making the circular economy real, the Materials Marketplace is now sprouting in Austin and other locations around the US and winning international attention.

We’re bringing a lot of these different greens together in one big salad bowl, a hands-on session in New Haven next month (June 14-15 2016). We’ll have the perspectives of Green Giants and Green Lions, Green Whisperers and Green Shoots.  We’ll see what they can learn from each other, and what they can create together.  Come join us there, and see what you can get from – and add to – the mix.

[Opinions on this site are solely those of Scott Nadler and do not necessarily represent views of Nadler Strategy’s clients or partners, or those cited in blogs. To share this post, see additional posts on Scott’s blog or subscribe please go to nadlerstrategy.com.]

The better-than-Circular Economy: The Spiraling Economy

The circular economy is all the rage. It’s a great concept that’s been evolving for years. It even got a shout-out last week in the Pope’s encyclical letter on climate change and the environment, which noted the need for “a circular model of production capable of preserving resources for present and future generations.”

Ironically, the powerful “circular economy” label obscures one of the most crucial potential benefits of the concept: you don’t have to end up back where you started.

From an environmental perspective, a circle is a powerful metaphor: a closed loop, in which resources are not spewed out as waste or pollution, and new resources don’t need to be dragged in. The notion that one company’s waste can be another’s feedstock is hard to argue with. It’s a great way to reduce waste, and hopefully energy, toxics and water use as well.

From an economic perspective, though, a closed loop is a stagnant mess, unlikely to survive for long. And from a social perspective, a closed loop is a disaster, a fixed-sum game which creates only the dismal choices of either retaining locked-in inequities between the rich and poor, or seeing disruptive redistribution of that fixed sum.

Fortunately, the circular economy is really a misnomer – a great concept “brand” but inaccurate. Much of the work on circular economy shows the potential to generate more economic value and growth without increasing environmental burden (hopefully even reducing environmental burden). Reuse is spawning innovation in both materials and design. More value is generated from a given unit of mass.

From an environmental perspective, the flow is circular. From an economic and potentially social perspective, the flow is upward. The result? You have a spiral, not a circle. Each time you close the loop, the accumulated net value has gone up.

That’s what we really want: an upward spiral, where each environmental cycle creates more value.

How do you create a spiraling economy? By encouraging:

  • Efficient markets that can quickly match generators of “available materials” (formerly known as waste) and potential productive users of those materials
  • Broader markets that can draw in a much wider range of both generators and users, creating more opportunities for higher-value reuse, even when partners are physically distant
  • Colocation of generators and users, creating both environmental and economic leverage through reduced transportation and increased local economic multiplier effects

That all takes hard work. Fortunately, a lot of people are doing that hard work. It’s happening at the local level, in projects like the Austin Materials Marketplace and ROC Detroit. It’s being scaled up to the national level through the National Materials Marketplace jointly sponsored by the US Business Council for Sustainable Development (US BCSD), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the Corporate Eco Forum.

Want to know more, share what you know, catch up with latest and help figure out next steps? Join the US BCSD, WBCSD and the Yale Center for Business and the Environment for a unique working meeting in New Haven July 16-17.

[Scott Nadler is a Senior Partner at ERM and Program Director at US BCSD. To share this post, see additional posts on Scott’s blog or subscribe please go to snadler.com. Opinions on this site are solely those of Scott Nadler and do not necessarily represent views of those quoted or cited, ERM or its partners or clients, or US BCSD, its members or partners.]