Archive for August, 2011
A Pragmatic Approach to Green Product Development
Balaji Jayaseelan
Why do companies talk about and pursue ‘green’ products when there is often very little resonance among consumers? Is it because it is the right thing to do? Does it offer a competitive advantage to their brands? Or is it a strategy to achieve cost savings through energy and waste reduction?
It depends upon who you talk to.
There are some companies that get it right with the consumers and become successful, while others are constantly looking at ways to get it right. For the latter companies, here is my advice for a possible approach towards greener product development.
At Newell Rubbermaid, our first step is to understand that there is no such thing as a ‘green product’. Every product has potential trade-offs and we need to understand what ‘green’ attributes can be a good incremental value or a game changer. Some of the methods in understanding consumer relevance are through market research, either by primary or secondary insights and/or benchmarking with your peers and competitors.
Questions we need to answer to influence green product development in early stage gate processes are:
- To what extent are your consumers interested in ‘green’ products?
- To what extent are your consumers demanding ‘green’ for your product categories in particular?
- To what extent are consumer ‘needs’ related to environmental issues being met in the marketplace?
- To what extent are market trends forming that might drive greater desire for green solutions among consumers, retailers, and governments?
- Are there certifications/Eco labels available in the market that resonate with the core consumer of this product? To what extent is certification required to make a credible claim for this product category or market segment?
It is important that we understand these answers before we influence green product development. In the case of existing products, we should map out the green benefits using product mapping exercise like Value Analysis and Value Engineering. For those of you in pursuit of the green products,
- What kind of roadblocks have you found in innovating green products?
- Are we constantly looking out metrics to measure the green attributes to our revenue growth in our brands?
- What kinds of Green platforms do the consumer really care?
- What are the other effective methods to map out green attributes in our products?
Balaji Jayaseelan is Program Manager of the Global Environment and Sustainability group at Newell Rubbermaid. He is in charge of providing strategic advice to business units on a wide range of sustainability issues including energy/climate change, waste management, product claims, green product innovations and Life cycle management. He is a Chemical Engineer and holds a Masters in Environmental management concentrating on Sustainability. His professional interests and research focus on designing different models on socio-economics towards sustainable development and innovating green products. You can reach him at saravana.balaji@newellco.com.
More Pay is Not the Way
Alex Pollock
As I write, the storm clouds are gathering around the already sputtering national and global economies. Companies are reacting to this stiffening headwind by toying with the idea of re-engineering initiatives, requiring even more effort from employees while reducing spending, including employee compensation packages.
With employee engagement levels still stalled in many organizations from the 2008-2009 recession, how can we best motivate employees, who are, after all, our greatest resource?
“Current research seems to suggest a mismatch between what science knows and what business does,” Daniel Pink writes in his book, ‘Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us’. What do we know for sure?
- We are internally motivated to learn, create and better our world
- Coaxing us with external rewards and threatening us with punishment demotivates
- Goals we set for ourselves are positive, while those that are thrust upon us can have negative effects
- Higher pay does not guarantee greater engagement
- We yearn to be treated ‘fairly’
- Extrinsic rewards should be unexpected and offered after the task is complete
- Praise and useful feedback are much less damaging than cash and trophies
- People who are intrinsically motivated are better coworkers
I’m challenged by Pink’s thought that “effective organizations compensate people in amounts and in ways that allow individuals to mostly forget about compensation and instead focus on the work itself.”
What has been your experience with finding ways to keep yourself and coworkers motivated and committed to your organization? Do you agree that “more pay is not the way”?
Confronting Conflict Minerals
Gary Niekerk
Most environmental professionals don’t hang out with the Wall Street crowd. We don’t typically have a lot of designer suits and six figure bonuses (although I do own a pair of wing-tipped safety shoes). However, Wall Street and environmental, health and safety (EHS) are a little more connected these days than you think. What I’m referring to is a piece of legislation buried in the 800-plus-pages of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, called “SEC 1502 – Conflict Minerals”.
The intention of SEC 1502 is to increase transparency in the minerals supply chain, with the hopes of reducing the terrible violence in parts of Central Africa related to the minerals trade. This somewhat controversial regulation is garnering a lot of attention as the final rulemaking is expected in the next few months.
If your company manufactures products where, “conflict minerals (tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold ) are necessary to the functionality or production” of the product, you could be one of the 5,000 or more public companies the SEC estimates may be impacted by this legislation.
NAEM will be covering the topic at the upcoming EHS Management Forum on Oct. 19-20, where I’ll talk about Intel’s approach to this complex issue. For more information, please contact our Corporate Social Responsibility team or read the white paper we wrote about trying to achieve a ‘conflict-free’ supply chain.
In the meantime, I’d love to hear from you. What are you doing to address this important issue? What are some of the unique challenges this legislation will present for your company?
Gary Niekerk is the Director of Global Citizenship for Intel Corp., where he works on corporate strategy related to sustainability, corporate reputation and stakeholder management. He has spent 25 years working with employees, customers, and stakeholders to protect and build the brands and reputation of some of the world’s leading high-tech companies, including Hewlett-Packard Co., Apple Inc. and Intel Corp.
What’s the Prognosis for Hydrofracking?
Dania Nasser
Today we are kicking off a new series on the Green Tie, featuring the ‘Emerging Leaders’ within our membership. Dania Nasser is a student member of NAEM, pursuing a master’s degree in Environmental Management at Yale University.
In the wake of New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision to consider lifting the ban on hydrofracking, it seems like the term and the debate have gone mainstream.
As you probably know, hydrofracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method by which natural gas stored in layers of rock is extracted through the use of chemicals, water and pressure to break through the rock and recover natural gas.
While several states allow the practice, it has become a lightning rod issue for many communities. There is serious concern that disturbing the layers of rock and sediment to recover natural gas can result in drinking water contamination. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency is studying the general impacts of hydrofracking and looking to release a Federal report and possible guidelines in 2012.
Few things worth doing, however, pose zero risk. Risk should be monitored and tracked closely, but not automatically used as criteria for eliminating viable options.
I was recently discussing the issue of risk surrounding hydrofracking with a neurosurgeon friend, and it occurred to me the extent to which the practice might be compared with brain surgery. Take for example, a brain surgeon undertaking a patient suffering from an aneurysm. The source of the aneurysm is not always clear, and sometimes exploration for the source of the bleeding can cause more harm than good—but this is a major risk that doctors take. Doctors are able to take this risk because of all the risk mitigation that doctors take, such as years of practice and study, the latest equipment and time-tested procedures.
Hydrofracking poses a similar set of risks and obstacles. Just as with surgery, the risks must continue to be vetted and addressed. The same process is necessary to ensure proper practices and procedures set in place for hydrofracking.
If hydrofracking is increasingly seen as a viable option for recovering additional domestic energy, the concerns that have caused the controversy surrounding hydrofracking must be addressed. Areas that must be further addressed to ease anxiety surrounding hydrofracking include readying infrastructure and monitoring technologies, developing best practices, as well as working to carefully plan and manage the impacts of hydrofracking.
How do you weigh the risks of practices such as hydrofracking? How do you address the concerns internally as well as externally?
Dania Nasser is a student member of NAEM, completing a master’s degree in Environmental Management at Yale University. She is currently Director of Environmental Affairs at a New York law firm specializing in environmental and construction law. She is a member of NAEM’s Emerging Leaders group and the Board of the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce Green Finance Committee.
Are You a Victim of Network Inbreeding?
Pat Perry
Are you a victim of inbreeding…network inbreeding, that is?
Herminia Ibarra, a blogger for Harvard Business Review, describes an inbred network like this:
“For the past fifteen years, I have asked the executives I teach to list the people with whom they have discussed important work matters over the past few months. Then, I ask them to fill out a grid in which they identify who knows whom among the people on that list. Invariably, most of the people they talk to also know and talk to each other. This kind of network, while cozy and cohesive, is, simply put, inbred. It also tends to be internal, operational (not strategic), and historical, an artifact of the executive’s past work history and not his or her future possibilities. It turns out that this kind of network is also deadly for collaboration.”
I believe it is a common trap many, if not all, of us fall into quite unconsciously. We are comfortable with our own, we want to relate with others who share the same challenges. But what we are inadvertently doing is narrowing our perspective and the ability to gather different thoughts to forge truly new ideas. According to Ibarra, it’s especially beneficial for us to diversify our thinking by interacting with professional from all levels of experience.
“The research is clear,” she writes. “For a more innovative and profitable result over time you are better off with a mix of newcomers and old-timers.”
I particularly liked her suggestion to spend time with younger professionals because I think we often overlook the value of the emerging leaders among us. Changing our habits could do more than help us become more comfortable with social media; it might help us better prepare our companies for the leaders of tomorrow.
Think about it. What does your network look like? Do you have a well-diversified network, or not? What are some of the surprising professional insights you’ve gained from those outside your usual network?
Pat Perry is President of the NAEM Board of Directors. Follow her on Twitter at @pitterpatperry.
Community Engagement is Key in Climate Action
Mark Posson
In helping my local municipality develop a Climate Action Plan, I reviewed several articles discussing the barriers to individuals and households making behavioral changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An estimated 38 percent of the United States’ overall carbon emissions comes from household energy usage, which means significant changes in household behavior are necessary for our country to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
Government regulations are driving technology changes, such as higher appliance-efficiency standards, but efficiency improvements alone are not going to do it. Individuals must make better energy usage choices in their daily activities to achieve needed usage reductions. Passing regulations is easy; changing decision-making and behavior is not.
Do I carpool or drive alone? Do I weatherize my home? Do I replace my incandescent bulbs—with CFL or LED? Do I need that light on? How and where do I set my thermostat?
There are multiple barriers to behavioral change and there is no silver bullet. The specific methods of intervention are best tailored to the specific change and outcome desired. There are, however, some common elements to making lasting change:
- Make it easy: Free community programs for energy audits and retrofits both educate and make immediate changes with only a phone call.
- Make it financially attractive: Show people the payback so they see what’s in it for them. Communicate the cost of leaving a light, power strips and electronics on when not in use; and the ease of turning them off. Rebates and credits may be needed to get some to act or to balance the financial equation.
- Make sure it works: Poor quality of a service or product will create only headwinds for implementation. Go with what works and shoot for the best.
- Provide timely gratification: A lower utility bill next month or an instant rebate is superior to a tax credit next April.
- Take a multi-pronged approach: Don’t rely on just one method. Easy, financially attractive, well-understood changes have a better chance of being adopted and maintained.
Reduction of greenhouse gases is only one of the many environmental improvements we are trying to tackle. As environmental leaders, we need to further integrate social science with the environmental science to achieve better use of our natural resources. The next increments of improvement will be the hardest as we are will need to address the individual behavior of the earth’s residents.
What methods are you using to change the behavior of your organization and community to make better environmentally-sensitive decisions?
Mark Posson is the former Director of Environment, Safety and Health at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company and the current Chair of the city of Pleasanton’s Energy and Environment Committee. Mark enjoys fishing, hiking, biking, racquetball, time with the family and public service.
Unraveling Software Configuration vs Customization
Laura Murphy
One of the common themes I heard during NAEM’s EHS MIS Workshop last March was the question, “Was this configured or customized?”
While presenting to her peers, Patty Miceli used an analogy to describe the philosophy on software customization that her team practiced during the implementation:
“Customization is like shopping at Niemen Marcus. It’s fun to walk by and look in the windows and maybe even go inside and look around. But my experience (and my husband) always tells me to put that credit card away and keep walking.”
Following this anecdote, along with the chuckling, I noticed a lot of head nodding around the room. In presentations thereafter, someone in the crowd invariably raised their hand and asked if the system (or a specific feature) was configured or customized. It was clear the general audience accepted this as an important question, and it also seemed generally accepted that “configuration” was the right answer.
But I had to wonder, does everyone truly understand this technical distinction?
I was surprised that this question was never raised or discussed. If that is because everyone understands this distinction, do we all accept the same definitions and differentiators? Is there a common understanding of the specific pros and cons of each approach? Is everyone who asks this basic question able to drill down to specific questions that reveal to what extent a system would need to be configured and customized to meet their objectives? Because without this understanding, the basic question is arguably a vague one open to much interpretation.
These uncertainties led me to a discussion with our Chief Architect, Jack Jones, and some of our customers who were in attendance at the workshop. We decided to write a white paper to outline the facts as well as our perspective on the subject.
In a nutshell, yes, the generally accepted rule is to avoid customization. This will keep your implementation simple, your costs down, and your upgrade path unconstrained. However, there are certain circumstances in which some level of customization may not necessarily be the wrong answer. If customization is determined to be necessary or add sufficient value, the key is to understand how it is managed within the infrastructure of the core system, and exactly what the implications and risks are for implementation, maintenance and support.
What are your experiences with customizing or configuring software to fit your needs? Any lessons you think could be valuable to those going through the selection or implementation process today?
Laura Murphy is the Director of Product Development at KMI with more than a dozen years in the EMIS industry. She is a passionate believer in user‐centered design and data visualization best practices, and specializes in system design in Incident Management, Audit, Compliance, Training and Sustainability.
Dow Chemical Co.’s Strategy for Addressing Product Stewardship Issues
With the growth in product stewardship regulations in Europe and beyond, chemical makers are facing unprecedented demand for transparency. In this video at our recent EHS Compliance Excellence Conference, Connie Deford, Director of U.S. Chemical Management Policy for Dow Chemical Co., discusses the impact these regulations are having and how the company is addressing them.
Past presidents’ series: My How Time Changes Things
Dick Pastor
Starting this month, we’re kicking off a new series on the Green Tie, featuring blog posts by the former presidents of NAEM. First up? Dick Pastor, Vice President of Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure Group.
During his term as president of the Board from 2002-2004, Mr. Pastor oversaw the implementation of the Association’s Management Excellence Certificate at Carnegie Mellon University.
Recently I had a chance to reflect on how time changes things. With the arrival of my first granddaughter, I thought about the differences that I have seen since my kids were born.
I started my career in the environmental field in 1969. The same year the Cuyahoga River actually caught fire in my hometown of Cleveland, and just a few years after an inversion caused a four day air pollution incident in which 80 people died in New York.
So what has time changed since then?
- Size and Concentration: Back then regulators were striving to reduce the amount of pollutants being discharged. Primary wastewater treatment was state-of-the-art, but direct untreated discharge was the norm. Today we are fighting to get to part per billion in discharges and have elaborate treatment technologies to ensure the water is of a better quality than drinking water standards. Exotic scrubbers, injection technologies, and continuous monitoring have replaced the smokestack, and modeling now takes into account not only local impacts but regional transport and soon global impacts as well.
- Workforce Composition: In the early days, if there was a woman involved in the environmental field most people thought that she was there to take notes or get coffee. Today some of our most respected professionals are women heading environmental or sustainability departments for major, worldwide corporations.
- Skills Required: It was understood in the early environmental days that you just had to be an engineer to be able to do anything meaningful in environmental work. Most thought that a bachelor’s of science was not enough but you really needed at least a Masters in a specific engineering discipline to lead and make decisions regarding the environment. If you were not an engineer then you were relegated to a sample taker. Today the skills required to be proficient in environmental work not only require technical skills but also business acumen and interpersonal skills. You now not only understand BOD but also the social impacts of your operations.
So time changes things, but does it change everything? I would say that throughout my career, the one most prevalent thing that has not changed has been the dedication and enthusiasm of the professionals in the field. And for my granddaughter’s sake I hope that it never changes. What have you seen change in your career?
Dick Pastor has more than 42 years of experience in the environmental field, including 18 years of government service with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and 15 years with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Before joining Shaw he was Director, Environmental Services for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., where he developed the environmental management and services program for the company, going from a staff of 1 to a staff of 27 professionals. He also played a significant role in the early development of the company’s sustainability program.
During the course of Dick’s career he has taken a personal interest in assisting others in the field with their personal and professional growth. Dick has served as President of the National Association for Environmental Management where he was instrumental in developing an executive training program for EHS professions that helped bring the profession into the Board room. Dick also served as Chairman of the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, a Board of Director of the National Solid Waste Management Association and a Trustee of the Institute for Professional Environmental Practice.
