Archive for September, 2010
What color is your career?
By Luigi Pecoraro
Green careers are “in,” plentiful and there are more to come. This is about more than just a whole new set of possibilities and opportunities that haven’t existed before; it’s about the transformation of current organizations, functions and jobs to a greener focus, process and outcome.
As the Director of Career Management for The Stuart School of Business at IIT, I regularly coach students about their career options. What I like to remind those who are committed to a green career but still uncertain about where to focus their effort, is to line it up with their interests.
Another thing I try to reinforce is that starting a “green revolution” takes more than just inspiration. It takes perspiration too. I recently invited mechanical engineer Aaron LeMiuex to speak to my class about his passion and perseverance in developing the nPowerPEG. This is a system that transforms kinetic movement into a source of power and energy, also known as kinetic energy harvesting.
An avid hiker, Aaron came up with the idea while backpacking in the woods, when he realized his own body movement was creating energy. He then worked for the next 10 years to create a marketable personal energy generation (PEG) device that can power personal devices when we are far from an outlet.
While a Master’s in Environmental Management or Sciences can give you a leg up in your field, the green jobs of the future are as diverse as the fields that exist.
A recent article in E-magazine identified the following as the top 10 areas where green opportunities abound:
- Travel and tourism where we could be “greener globetrotters”
- Planning and land use where we need to become “sustainability stewards”
- Health and medicine, where “complementary care” could become more mainstream
- Energy and renewable for all of our “power pushers” to look at alternatives to fossil fuel
- Legal careers as better “planet protectors”
- Information technology where regular geeks can take their skill and become “green geeks” applying technology solution to green efforts
- Green learning where we need more “eco educators”
- Design and construction becoming “better builders” and LEED-ing the way to more sustainable structures.
- Corporate social responsibility as a strategy to “improve industry”
- Food and farming for growth in “organic occupations”
As you think about the current career landscape, what areas do you think are most in need of a green makeover? How could you transform your own career into a green job? What skills or training do you think the workforce of tomorrow needs to create a sustainable future?
Guest blogger Luigi Pecoraro is the Director of the Career Management Center at IIT’s Stuart School of Business.
Valuing ecosystems services
Andrew Mangan
Ecological balance is one of the three pillars of sustainable development and without it, business cannot function. All companies affect ecosystems and benefit from the services they provide, such as fresh water, fiber, and food. They also rely on regulatory services, like climate regulation, flood control and waste treatment.
Over the past 50 years, human activity has altered ecosystems faster and more extensively than ever before. That finding was supported by the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – a four-year, international, scientific appraisal that was completed in 2005. It concluded that most of the critical ecosystem services assessed are being degraded or used at unsustainable levels and that this will accelerate, diminishing sustainable development options and business opportunities.
Both the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development (US BCSD) have been working on ecosystems issues for 10 years. The overarching goal is that all stakeholders – including business – recognize the real benefits of ecosystems and that the true value of ecosystem services be accounted for. We’ve used gaming theory, collaborative projects and measuring tools to move toward this goal. The value and sustainable management of ecosystems must become a more integral part of economic planning and decision-making; otherwise nature will always play second fiddle to social and economic development.
With today’s communication tools, we have a unique opportunity to help business leaders understand the value of ecosystem services and their local opportunities. The current efforts of the WBCSD are focused on identifying risks and opportunities (using the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review) and quantifying the economic value of ecosystem services and strategies to businesses. The US BCSD was one of 16 WBCSD companies and regional councils that participated in a “road test” of the WBCSD Ecosystem Valuation Initiative in 2010. A guide based on that initiative describes the effectiveness of various ecosystem valuation models and tools. The final guide is expected to be published in 2011. Details will be laid out at the fall meeting of the US BCSD in Indianapolis on October 12 and presented at the 18th annual EHS Management Forum on October 14.
The US BCSD plans to establish working groups with volunteers from interested companies to help identify projects, set implementation plans, evaluate potential funders and reach out to relevant university programs. Using a project-based focus that builds on its ecosystem experience, including the US BCSD’s green brownfields project and its afforestation efforts in the Lower Mississippi River valley, the council plans to play a role in supporting healthy ecosystems for a long time to come. After many years, it appears that today, the business community, NGOs and academics are gradually realizing they share the same concerns, but simply approach them in different ways.
Andrew Mangan is the Executive Director of the U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development. He will be speaking about ecosystems services at the 18th annual EHS Management Forum, October 13-15 in Indianapolis.
What are the green metrics that really matter?
Carol Singer Neuvelt
The world of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance analytics is exploding at a breakneck speed. What once was a niche field of socially responsible investing (SRI), is transforming into a vast marketplace of financial ESG-oriented indices, ratings firms, carbon reporting and mass-market editorials like Newsweek’s Green 100 ranking. Today the trend toward broader ESG and sustainability reporting is beginning to expand into auxiliary areas such as supplier questionnaires and product labeling.
With all this activity, it seems like everyone has an opinion about which metrics determine a company’s “greenness.” What remains unclear, however, is whether these types of ratings schemes can truly illustrate competitive eco-advantage in today’s complex global marketplace, or even reliably reflect strong EHS and sustainability management within a company.
When this movement took hold a decade ago, many corporate environmental leaders were excited that the external world was finally paying attention to the value their efforts contributed to the bottom line. Indeed, the establishment of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the growth of financial firms such as KLD and even the creation of the Carbon Disclosure Project were viewed as affirmations of their professional focus.
But recently, my conversations with corporate EHS leaders seem to reflect a frustration with the ever-growing number of requests. As environmental managers spend more and more time crunching data, they do so with little insight into who the requesting firm is, what their business interests are or how the mountains of data will eventually be used. What we do know is that some of this information is being used to make material judgments about a company’s long-term prospects. Yet does any of this data really indicate true progress?
I believe there is a need for a clear, thoughtful approach to ESG and Sustainability reporting that reflects the performance metrics that are both meaningful to a company and useful to its C-suite leadership, and relevant to external stakeholders.
To address this issue, NAEM has launched its ‘Green Metrics that Matter’ program, an audit of the field of ESG and Sustainability analytics. Our final report will identify the key players, the proprietary benefits of participating with them and the core metrics EHS leaders send to their C-suite. We believe this insight will help promote better decision-making by both corporate users and the broader ESG community.
As we continue our research, we would like to invite you to share your key metrics with us through our confidential online survey. We’d also love to hear your thoughts on this project. How are sustainability analytics changing how you manage? Are the questions you’re being asked the right ones for determining the extent of your environmental stewardship? Is this information truly helping the public better understand whether your products are sustainable? Or is it just an additional paperwork burden?
Why is the EPA ending the Climate Leaders program?
Bruce Klafter
In announcement that surprised me, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced this week that it plans to end its Climate Leaders program. As a partner in the program, I received a letter explaining the rationale for this move:
“EPA has determined that climate programs operated by the states and NGOs are now robust enough to service our Partners and other entities that wish to continue to advance their climate leadership through comprehensive reporting (that exceed mandatory reporting requirements) and/or the establishment of facility or corporate-level GHG reduction goals. For this reason, over the coming year, EPA will phase down services the Agency provides under the federal Climate Leaders program and encourage and assist the transition of our Partners into non-federal programs that our Partners choose to join.” (Click here to read the complete letter to the Partners)
I felt compelled to respond and sent the following note to Assistant EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, outlining my concerns.
Dear Assistant Administrator,
This is response to the email I just received announcing that EPA is winding down its Climate Leaders program. I felt strongly enough about this action that I wanted to share my reaction immediately. In my own opinion is EPA is making a mistake in closing down such an important and successful leadership program.
With the demise of Performance Track, many of us in the sustainability community thought other voluntary programs might well be endangered and now the other shoe has indeed dropped. Climate Leaders has been a very valuable source of accounting expertise and the community of practice and sharing has been similarly of value to my company. We are members of many state, local and international leadership programs, but ones that carry the USEPA “stamp” are prestigious and recognizable and thus desirable.
While it is easy to argue that States and NGOs can offer the same sort of services, there is indeed unique value in national level leadership initiatives. I did not find EPA’s logic in terminating Performance Track compelling and I am failing to see the logic with this action either. I anticipate that many Climate Leader Partners share my dismay at this turn of events and I hope we can engage EPA in a dialogue on the subject.
Thanks for your consideration.
What do you think about the EPA’s decision? Can NGO’s fill the void occupied by a federal agency? What accountability is possible without government direction? I look forward to hearing from you.
“In God we trust; all others must bring data”
By Vickie Mecsey
Manager of Global Environmental Programs, General Motors Co.
A quick poll –
- How many requests have you received about chemical use in your supply chain over the past year?
- How many data systems does your company use to track chemical use, from purchasing through disposal?
If you answered “a lot” to either of the above, you’re not alone. Data management is a hot topic for EHS professionals and I bet most have heard the above mantra from W. Edwards Deming.
From my vantage point in the Energy and Environment department at General Motors Co., I’ve certainly seen the good, the bad and the ugly in data management. We’ve been working on our data management strategy for 12 years now to move toward operating in a proactive rather than reactive mode, to improve the efficiency of our risk assessment process and to prepare for compliance each time a new regulation comes out.
Collecting data is very different from managing it and I’ve seen how a thoughtfully implemented and proactively maintained data management strategy can serve a department well when the appropriate level of planning and due diligence is applied.
What did we learn?
- There are no data fairies: Before embarking on any kind of data management strategy, it’s important not to underestimate the necessary time, manpower and leadership buy-in required to carry it out.
- Recruit your allies: We began our data management effort around the same time we introduced chemical management service (CMS) programs into our facilities. The service providers were a critical component to the overall success of the strategy. Using a standardized process that defined the format and content, we began receiving automated inputs from CMS providers who were already tracking and consolidating chemical purchasing, use and process related information.
The most important lesson we learned, though, was to find the point of diminishing returns (i.e. When is the next piece of data no longer adding value?) – and that this is different for every business.
Anyone else have a lesson to share?
Vickie Mecsey is the Manager of Global Environmental Programs at General Motors Co. She will be speaking about GM’s innovative chemical and resource management programs at the annual Chemical Management Services (CMS) Workshop on Oct. 12, 2010, co-located with NAEM’s EHS Management Forum in Indianapolis. For more details or to register, visit: http://chemicalstrategies.org/workevents_conf10.html.
Engineering ergonomics
Most safety professionals believe that occupational ergonomics is a safety discipline because organizations have traditionally looked to them to address “ergonomic issues.” Many safety professionals, however, have limited or no formal education or experience in ergonomics, so they are uncomfortable managing something they don’t know. I pose to you a different paradigm — that occupational ergonomics is an engineering discipline.
A current trend is to hold engineers and operations accountable for the quality of the workplace and tools they put in place. One element of measuring quality is how well the workplace fits people, the lack of MSD risk factors and the efficiency of the process (i.e. Lean).
In a recent benchmarking study of 13 companies with effective ergonomic processes, we found that:
- 31 percent measure the level of MSD risks and the reduction in risk level as a result of workplace change (This is a leading measure of results.)
- 62 percent utilize engineering or operations people (not safety) to lead their ergonomics process
- 46 percent hold engineers responsibile for making workplace improvements in exisiting workplaces and process to reduce MSD risks (i.e. engineering controls)
- 77 percent provide engineers with Ergonomic Design Criteria to assist with engineering controls
- 77 percent of participants created a new equipment review process for ergonomics. Typically this is tied to the existing Phase Gate Review or New Equipment Review Process.
- 54 percent hold engineering responsible for MSD risk factors
These are indicators of a paradigm shift of how companies manage workplace ergonomics. But the transition still has its challenges:
- Transitioning from safety to engineering is not easy. Two of the benchmarking companies stated they are struggling to get engineering to take on a “new responsibility.”
- 85 percent of participants indicate the new equipment review and approval process need to be improved. Reasons include:
- It is not formal
- Not always used by engineers
- Not effective
- Not followed
- Engineers are not held accountable
So where does your organization stand?
- Who is ultimately accountable for ensuring your workplace and tools are designed to best fit people and reduce exposure to MSD risk factors?
- Is it working? How do you know?
- Are you best leveraging your engineering resources?
- If you could change your current approach to managing workplace ergonomics, what would you do?
We look forward to hearing from NAEM members on what works for them.
Meetings that make it
Alex Pollock
Few activities in the working world generate as much emotion as meetings. We go from loving them to loathing them. We can all relate to the frustration of being given a front row seat at a meeting gone wrong.
It is estimated that 25 million meetings take place in corporate America daily. Surveys have revealed that roughly half of that time is wasted. A very poor ROI by any measure. A very visible example of a failed meeting occurred last spring at the White House, where healthcare reform was on the agenda. You may even recall the television footage of 40 dignitaries assembled in a grand setting for a crucial conversation. A piece in the Wall Street Journal cited the following reasons for failure:
- Too many people in the room
- No neutral facilitator to run the meeting
- Letting “outsiders” in the room (in this case, the news media)
- No small group discussions
- No collaborative tools (flip charts, white boards)
- No ban on cell phones and Blackberries
- The meeting room was too small
- Inappropriate seating arrangement
- Allies grouped together
You may well be thinking that common sense should have eliminated these circumstances. Unfortunately in meeting planning and execution, common sense is not all that common.
What have been your meeting planning watch outs? Mine include:
- Wrong people in the room
- Lack of meeting objectives
- Lack of clearly defined roles for participants
- Trying to accomplish too much
Please take a few moments to reflect on your experiences with meetings and share them with us. Since meetings are so much part of our culture lets commit to helping each other make them more effective.
Finding time for a crisis
Jessica Berk Ross
“There cannot be a crisis today; my schedule is already full…” So said Henry Kissinger — who saw his share of turmoil as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State.
If only it were true that we could choose the timing for adverse events. Crises happen to every organization and can take many forms. Leadership changes, litigation, adverse regulatory action, as well as an operational crisis such as a spill, pollution, fire, accident or deaths are not only an immediate threat, but they also pose the broader long term-threat of tarnishing a company’s reputation. Or as one of my clients said, “It takes a long while for a community to forgive a company for covering the sky with plumes of orange smoke.”
Complicating the crisis landscape is the immediacy of information distribution. Within moments of an adverse event, information gets Tweeted or posted to Facebook, and often video of an accident is uploaded onto YouTube before the crisis management team has even had a chance to schedule a conference call, much less, meet. With the Internet and Social Media making it difficult to contain negative stories, communications planning becomes all the more important.
As an EHS manager, there are already a number of things that that keep you up at night. The best hedge against a crisis is to ensure that an up-to-date crisis plan is in place for your company.
Some simple steps…
- Have a crisis management team in place.
- Ensure there are clearly articulated roles and responsibilities: Who speaks to the media, employees, families?
- Understand who your key stakeholders are: Don’t forget to communicate with employees, customers, the community, the media and other important audiences.
- Materials: Be sure you are not scrambling on the day of a crisis for materials about the company. Have draft talking points, Q&As, fact sheets prepared and accessible.
- Invest in media training for designated spokespeople: A little practice can go a long way. Especially in a high pressure situation.
- Keep it fresh: Once a year, brainstorm with your colleagues to anticipate problems that could arise. Use this annual meeting as a chance to update materials and to ensure that designated persons are still with the company, trained, and up-to-date on messaging.
Remember that during a crisis, the world is watching. This is not only a time to respond to the crisis at hand, but also to be seen in a leadership role and to disseminate key messaging about the organization. Additionally, after the crisis has concluded, be sure to initiate a proactive communications plan to advance the company’s next positive development. Don’t leave the turmoil as the last communication you’ve had with key stakeholders—especially government and media.
So check that already full calendar, and even though you can’t control the schedule around a crisis, you can control your planning. It will help with those sleepless nights.
Guest blogger Jessica Berk Ross is a Managing Director with Ruder Finn Public Relations in Washington, D.C. She has more than 20 years of experience with crisis management, brand management and helping clients navigate the political, policy, regulatory and business landscapes.
