Archive for August, 2010
Calling all Social Media Ambassadors
Stephen Evanoff
My favorite NAEM initiative for 2010 is the effort underway to move our Web communication tools into the emerging world of social networking media. You’ve undoubtedly seen these efforts reflected in the changes to the Green Tie and other forms of membership communication. We are planning several activities for the upcoming Forum intended to further advance this cultural change within NAEM. As 2010 NAEM Forum Chairman, I’ve decided to use this blog space to outline these ideas and to ask you to consider becoming an NAEM Social Media Ambassador.
Why consider becoming an NAEM Social Media Ambassador? For you personally, there’s inherent value. It’ll put you at the forefront of social media savvy people, which, in and of itself, is good for your professional development and your ability to relate to the new generation entering the work force; we must embrace social media tools to attract and train the next generation of EHS and Sustainability leaders. We rely on active members like you to build the future NAEM.
So, fellow Ambassadors, here are three things you can do:
First, NAEM is hosting a graduate student blog contest, targeting those who are interested in a career in corporate sustainability. The two students whose blogs get the most comments will receive a free registration to the 2010 NAEM Forum. NAEM’s Facebook page (yes, we have a Facebook page) has an announcement on the contest. Please go to Facebook, read the blogs and cast your vote.
Second, we are cogitating on concepts for the Forum like exhibitor giveaways through Twitter and a photo contest through Facebook. Bring your iPhone, PDA, and digital camera to the Forum and join the fun.
Third, we would very much appreciate your feedback on these ideas, and, more importantly, we would like you to offer your own ideas to engage NAEM membership in social media. You can offer your idea by entering a comment to this blog.
See you in October in Indy!
I eat sustainably because I care
Kelvin Roth
Some people have asked why I’m writing about food on a blog ostensibly dedicated to EHS and Sustainability business matters. Well here’s my short answer – because I care.
As Joe Fiksel so nicely pointed out in his recent post, there are several approaches to sustainability from a corporate perspective. But I firmly believe that sustainability is a ground-up grassroots individual-driven issue. No company is “sustainable” because of government regulations, shareholder referendums or board resolutions. Those may all eventually happen, but sparks of “sustainability” occur when someone in the organization cares and they are able to express it’s importance and get others involved.
Although people often equate sustainability with sacrifice and compromise, food is the one area where it’s relatively easy to do the right thing. A friend of mine once said that if he started on a quest to find the most sustainably-raised shrimp and I started on a quest to find the tastiest shrimp, we would end up in the same place with the same shrimp. This is true about so many items within our food chain. The Slow Food movement has summed up this experience in a common saying – “Eat it to save it!” – and I like to modify that a little bit to “Eat the best to save the best.”
Food sustainability is something that we can all participate in every day. This has never been truer than for the Gulf fishers and foragers who have survived this summer’s catastrophic spill. Shrimp season is now open and Gulf shrimp are not only some of the tastiest shrimp you can get, but also some of the most sustainably raised/harvested shrimp. Gulf shrimp fisheries have been effective in maintaining stocks, researching habitat effects, and addressing by-catch issues.
This presents us with a true “eat it to save it” opportunity: The largest potential damage to the Gulf fishing/food community may, like the oil spill itself, be man-made – a marketplace that is hollowed out by fear of contaminated food, even if it’s actually safe to eat.
Although many fishers and foragers were (are still) directly affected by the Gulf oil spill, the Gulf food community is not dead. Shrimp, shellfish, and other seafood from the Gulf that have been green-lighted by the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program are still making their way to market and to restaurants near you.
There are many safeguards in place, not the least of which is a community of proud artisans who care not only about the profits, but the craft of their labors. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also been sampling seafood both in closed and open waters, and sending it off for chemical testing. There are even “seafood sniffers” – state and local inspectors who have been trained to literally sniff out traces of oil contamination on seafood.
“There’s nothing wrong with Gulf seafood, because it’s tested probably more than any seafood that’s being removed right now,” retired Coast Guard admiral Thad Allen told reporters during a press briefing last week (August 18).
So if you can find Gulf-area food at a market or restaurant near you, buy it and feel good about supporting fishers, foragers and a food community in dire straits. There may be no better time for eaters, foodies and chefs to support an important economic backbone of the Gulf and country – and you can do it all by eating something tasty… how easy is that?
What’s good for you is good for your career
Alex Pollock
A few years ago I attended a workshop designed to equip employees to perform as “corporate athletes.” It was a powerful few days that centered on the idea that human beings need four sources of energy to operate at their best: physical (sustainability), emotional (security), mental (self-expression) and spiritual (significance).
The workshop replaced the old concept of work as a “marathon,” with the image of work as a series of “short sprints.” I left this workshop with the information necessary to improve my performance and resilience on the “sprints,” and the resolve to make some lifestyle changes.
I was reminded of this workshop recently while reading, “The Way We’re Working Isn’t Working” by Tony Schwartz, who wrote that “organizations undermine high performance by forever seeking to get more out of their people” instead of implementing ways to get them “freed, fueled and inspired to bring the best of themselves to work every day.”
The research by Schwartz and his colleagues at the Energy Project affirmed and advanced the actions for sustainable high performance I had been introduced to years earlier. These actions included:
- Adequate sleep: We require 7-8 hours of sleep each night to be fully rested.
- Take regular vacations: We are healthier and more productive when we get a break.
- Regular exercise: A daily mix of aerobic and strength training is desirable.
- Eat regularly: Never skip breakfast or lunch, and eat a diet of low-fat proteins and complex carbohydrates.
- Take regular breaks: After 120 minutes of effort, take a break.
- Focus on one thing at a time: Multi-tasking is ineffective
In reviewing these recommendations, I was saddened to acknowledge that some of my good intentions have evaporated over time…but it’s not too late. Any advice for me on things you are doing to be better equipped for success on the corporate track and what makes them stick?
Certifiably Sustainable?
Celia Spence
Measuring sustainability is something companies have been struggling with for several years, especially in the area of supply chain management. On August 2, UL Environment and Greener World Media announced a draft standard for manufacturing companies to measure and certify their sustainability.
The standard has been released for a 45-day comment period and the public is encouraged to review and provide comments in an open, transparent process. “ULE 880 – Sustainability for Manufacturing Organizations” spans 102 indicators in five areas of sustainability, that include:
- Sustainability governance: How an organization leads and manages itself in relation to its stakeholders, including employees, investors, regulatory authorities, customers and the communities in which it operates.
- Environment: How an organization manages its environmental footprint across its policies, operations, products and services, including its resource use and emissions.
- Workforce: Issues related to employee working conditions, organization culture, benefits and retention.
- Customers and suppliers: Issues related to an organization’s policies and practices on product safety, quality, pricing and marketing as well as its supply chain policies and practices.
- Social and community engagement: An organization’s impacts on the communities in which it operates in the areas of social equity, ethical conduct and human rights.
Having a tool that will actually result in a score and allow companies to obtain certification could be extremely useful for those companies wishing to demonstrate that their supply chains or operations are sustainable. But the challenges we have faced with measuring sustainability have resulted from the enormous diversity of manufacturing processes, raw materials and cultural practices we encounter in global corporations.
It will be interesting to see how this has been addressed in this new standard. Is it actually possible to agree on the metrics that should be used to determine which of the companies among us is operating in a sustainable fashion? Are there too many subjective choices in deciding what is sustainable and what is not, or do we have enough of a consensus to move forward with a standard at this point?
It will be important to get involved in this and to provide our feedback on the draft. If such a standard is finalized and becomes widely used, it is something that will affect us all and shape the work that EHS managers do on a daily basis. What are your thoughts? Is a standard a welcome development? Will consensus be possible?
Defining the S-word
Dr. Joseph Fiksel
If ever there were a word that was used loosely in the business community, it is “sustainability”. This label has been applied to almost any corporate activity that shows sensitivity to human values, from charitable donations to “green” chemistry research. Traditional environmental health and safety programs are lumped in along with energy efficiency, waste recycling, labor practices, business ethics, and diversity. For this reason, many companies have chosen to avoid the S-word, and use other terms such as “corporate responsibility” and “citizenship.”
Of course, different definitions of sustainability abound. Here’s my preferred definition: “A sustainable enterprise is a company that achieves enduring growth and superior long-term financial performance by addressing the social, economic, and environmental needs of present and future generations of stakeholders.”What’s yours?To go further, I would argue that in practice there are three levels of corporate sustainability:
Passive sustainability – This is an extension of the old compliance mentality. Companies try to respond to stakeholder expectations by adopting “best practices”such as commissioning LEED buildings and purchasing carbon credits. Essentially, this is a way to stay even with competitors and does not employ sustainability as a source of competitive advantage.
Adaptive sustainability – This is a more active approach in which companies try to be alert to changes in the business environment that could represent risks or opportunities. For example, anticipated regulations or projected shortages of critical raw materials might lead a company to redesign its products or manufacturing processes in order to remain cost-competitive. This requires frequent reexamination of sustainability goals and company practices.
Resilience - This is an emerging approach that has been adopted by a few companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and Cisco Systems Inc. Resilience can be defined as “the capacity to survive, adapt and grow in the face of turbulent change.”In a complex and tightly connected global economy, with supply chains extending around the world, it is impossible to predict future changes in technologies, markets, and political conditions. Instead, resilient companies deliberately design their products and supply chain processes to overcome unforeseen disruptions and to rapidly seize opportunities. This strengthens both short-term business continuity and long-term sustainability. Of course, corporate responsibility is an essential component of enterprise resilience.
Which business model best describes your company?
Dr. Joseph Fiksel is the Executive Director of the Center for Resilience at The Ohio State University and co-founder of the consulting firm Eco-Nomics LLC, an internationally recognized authority on sustainable business practices. His latest book, Design for Environment: A Guide to Sustainable Product Development, was published by McGraw-Hill in 2009.
Are the Canadian tar sands really the solution?
Margery Moore
In his recent keynote speech to the ‘Greening the Oil Sands’ conference, John D. Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress highlighted a point that often gets overlooked whenever we start talking about development of Canada’s vast Oil Sands reserves.
As you may know, the tar sands are the second largest recoverable sources of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia, and the Alberta government proclaims that through responsible development, technology improvements and significant investment, it can help amplify Alberta’s role as a leading world energy supplier.
Even in Washington, D.C. one is hard pressed to hear anyone speak out against this development. “Hey, Canadian oil is better than foreign oil from ‘unfriendlies’?” I hear that a lot. And, “What is the matter with you, isn’t this a matter of energy security?”
Mr. Podesta’s speech answered these arguments by pointing out that continued development of unconventional energy sources like this, is stopping us from fully addressing the real issue of climate change.
“We all recognize we have to keep global temperatures under 2 degrees Celsius to avoid catastrophic climate change,” he said. “But our reliance on oil continues unchecked.”
I agree.
There are significant environmental and social costs to this development, including the clear impact of this development on wildlife and human life. To me, who has been there, and seen this development with my own eyes, the scale and impact is sobering. The development could eventually impact an area of land comparable in size to the entire state of Florida! $125 billion has been earmarked for tar sand developments within the next few years, and industry is calling for this to be increased to $379 billion by 2025. Projects totaling more than 7 million barrels of oil production have been disclosed, and current approved production exceeds 3 million barrels per day.
As one of the largest contributors to global warming in North America, I agree with Mr. Podesta that the tar sands are not the answer to our energy security crisis. Instead, we must reinforce our much talked about commitment to alternative energy and simply put more investment into renewable sources.
What do you think about the development of the Canadian tar sands? How do you think this should fit in within U.S. energy strategy?
EHS: Breath Mint or Candy, Support Function or Integral to the Business?
Bruce Klafter
As we embark upon our semi-regular, three-year strategic plan update here, I have been reflecting upon the above question. I strongly suspect it is a familiar question for many of you. Notwithstanding a strong commitment to environment, safety and sustainability in general, many EHS executives and managers struggle with other indicators that the commitment is thinner or more precarious than we would like.
As they say on television, do you suffer from these telltale signs?
- Is your budget shrinking? Despite some surveys that suggest EHS growth is occurring in some sectors, I rarely encounter colleagues who are boasting of budget increases.
- Is your headcount increasing? Any increases generally have to be offset somewhere for a net decrease.
- Are your executives and senior managers consistently active participants in your EHS management system (EHSMS, i.e. do they participate in inspections, do they cover EHS in all-hands meetings, etc.)? The trouble sign here is that participation can wax and wane dramatically as other business conditions intrude.
- Is EHS built into the key plans for the company, operating plans, personal performance plans, etc.? Many executives expect or demand EHS performance, but they may also resist being measured and rewarded (or penalized) for it.
- Does EHS have a seat at the table when strategic planning is taking place? There is often a perception that EHS and sustainability are no broader than compliance or that EHS programs are largely tactical in nature as opposed to strategic.
- Where does EHS report in to and does that structure meet EHS’ needs (i.e. is EHS highly placed and placed in such a way as to create synergy)? The EHS organization can be grafted on to many organizations (e.g. security, legal, government affairs, operations, HR) and runs the risk of being misunderstood or neglected.
I could probably go on, but I think the idea should be clear enough – a compelling business case for EHS and a commitment to strong performance and continuous improvement are still subject to other business conditions and constraints. Is this an inevitable and unending challenge for EHS professionals? What are you experiencing in your companies? Are you viewed as core or context, support function or key business partner, candy or breath mint?
Bruce Klafter is senior director for Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) at Applied Materials, Inc., where he is responsible for assisting business units worldwide with compliance, industrial hygiene, product safety and various strategic initiatives. Additionally, Mr. Klafter is head of Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability for the company, where he manages a wide variety of reporting, employee engagement and other projects aimed at enhancing the company’s global citizenship programs. He also serves as an Advisory Council member for Sustainable Silicon Valley, the Association of Climate Change Officers and Next Ten’s Green Innovation Index.
