Posts filed under ‘Business Ethics’
Busting Through the Fear Barrier
Alex Pollock
The innate human drive to defend our territory can make us do strange things. At work, this instinct may compel us to protect the things we feel we’re entitled to, such as salary, headcount, budget, responsibilities, etc.
But imagine what it would be like to belong to an organization where people worked seamlessly together; where leaders collaborated, rather than competed, with one another to achieve their individual agendas?
In his book, “Breaking the Fear Barrier: How Fear Destroys Companies from the Inside Out and What to Do About It,” author Tom Rieger explains that the impediments to this kind of organizational utopia are rooted in fear. Fear creates barriers, he says, which manifest themselves inside companies as bureaucracy, organizational inefficiency and inertia. The top three barriers Rieger says we must overcome are:
- Parochialism: This is the domination of local needs. Standards within a function take precedence over creating engaged customers and business success.
- Territorialism: Some examples of territorialism in the workplace are hoarding headcounts, resources or decision-making authority.
- Empire Building: Assertion of control over other functions and resources to gain enhanced influence are symptoms of empire building.
The following is a list of the advice he offered that I found particularly useful for busting through these barriers.
- Eliminate rules that prevent more than they protect
- Purge administrative tasks that prevent employees from tackling mission-critical work
- Give people the freedom to make decisions, access information and resources, and encourage them to innovate and demonstrate moral courage
- The decision of whom to grant ownership or control should be based upon improving financial performance, improving the workplace, strengthening customer relationships, limiting liability and avoiding catastrophic failure
What forms of parochialism, territorialism and empire building have frustrated you in your work? What barrier busters have you effectively deployed? Any you need help with?
The Cost of Incivility
Alex Pollock
The world of college football recently reminded us of the impact an individual’s behavior can have on the health and culture of an entire organization.
In their book, “The Cost of Bad Behavior,” authors Christine Pearson and Christine Porath highlight how destructive a particular type of bad behavior, “incivility,” is to American business. As many as 48 percent of employees experience incivility at work at least once per week, the authors say, arguing that the problem is more than just a minor inconvenience: it’s a “largely preventable ill that begs to be addressed.” Employees who experience incivility intentionally lowered their productivity, cut back work hours, lost respect for their bosses, put in minimal acceptable effort and sometimes even left their jobs- all because of disrespectful words and deeds, according to the authors. Workplace incivility comes in many forms and includes:
- Shutting someone out of a network or team
- Setting others up to look bad
- Spreading rumors about colleagues
- Leaving snippy voice mail messages
- Talking down to others
- Taking credit for the work of others
- Making demeaning or derogatory remarks
- Being aloof
- Belittling the work of others
- Using emails to send personal information instead of spending face-to-face time
- Failing to return messages
Civility takes time and effort. It’s not just about being “nice” but it’s about mutual respect. Some of the desired behaviors include:
- Assume positive regard
- Listen eagerly without interrupting
- Seek out and integrate diverse perspectives when making a decision
- Never act in a way that could be perceived as threatening or intolerant
- Maintain objectivity when conflict arises
- Be approachable to all people
- “Serve” rather than waiting to be “served”
How is all of this making you feel? Not sure? What can you add from your experiences? Do you need to add more civility to your mix? Begin by asking those around you a few questions like:
- Do I behave respectfully to all around me?
- Do I treat those on whom I closely rely better than I treat others?
- Do I keep control of my emotions regardless of the pressures I’m facing?
- Do I take out my frustrations on those who have less “power” than me?
I’m humbled by the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Do not believe that you can possibly escape the reward of your action.” Let’s make sure we’re excited about getting our reward.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Is it measurable?
Lisa Barnes
Those of us who have grown up in the environment, health and safety (EHS) arena are very comfortable with quantitative metrics. We are comfortable measuring and reporting in terms such as metric tons, millions of gallons and parts per billion. However, we are increasingly being called upon to report on our company’s social responsibility performance. This is a bit trickier and we need to work with different types of metrics that aren’t as easy to quantify. Metrics for social issues such as ethics, labor relations and community support are not as easily quantified as waste disposal, water use, greenhouse gas emissions and injuries and illnesses.
Measuring corporate performance in the social arena is getting increasing attention in recent years and is a continually evolving area. Most corporations have moved beyond traditional environmental sustainability reporting. There are guidelines available with social responsibility metrics. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Reporting guidelines include 40 Social Performance Indicators, which it groups into four categories:
- Labor Practices and Decent Work
- Human Rights
- Society
- Product Responsibility
There are also industry-specific guidelines such as the International Council of Metals and Mining (ICMM) and American Petroleum Institute (API) guidelines, that include social parameters. For specific aspects within the broad area of social responsibility there are guidelines that companies can formally agree to follow, including the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights.
Sustainability ratings that compare the performance of corporations usually focus on the full spectrum of corporate responsibility issues and social performance is often an important element in how companies are ranked. The SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire, used during the assessment of companies for the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI), includes a series of questions in the “social dimension.” In 2010, these questions were categorized as:
- Labor Practice Indicators
- Human Capital Development
- Talent Attraction & Retention
- Corporate Citizenship and Philanthropy
- Standards for Suppliers
- Stakeholder Engagement
Corporate Responsibility’s methodology for ranking The 100 Best Corporate Citizens includes seven categories that are each weighted based on their relative values. The “Employee Relations” accounts for 19.5 percent and Human Rights accounts for 16 percent of the score highlighting the importance of these social issues.
The crucial part of social responsibility measurement is focusing on the most appropriate and relevant metrics for your company. Going back to the basics of materiality – deciding what is most important – helps companies decide where to focus their resources for measuring and reporting in the social arena. Once the material issues are identified, you need to find metrics that are measurable in a meaningful way. What are the material social issues for your company and how do you measure your performance in those areas?
During the Social Metrics session at the upcoming EHS Management Forum in Tucson, we will hear how three global companies have incorporated social metrics into their CSR strategy. For those of you who have social metrics of your own, how did you identify which ones to track? Did you use an existing protocol or develop a unique set for your company?
Lisa Barnes is Technical Director of Climate Change Services for Bureau Veritas North America. She is a registered professional engineer, certified industrial hygienist, Lead Verifier for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Lead Assuror for Sustainability Reporting and Lead Verifier for ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems. Ms. Barnes’ education includes a bachelor of science in engineering from University of Vermont, master of health sciences from Harvard University and a master of business administration from St. Mary’s College. She has more than 25 years of experience in environmental, health and safety.
What is the relevance of ISO 26000?
Lina Azuero
The concept of social responsibility is not new. It has been around since the 70s, when early discussions on the role of organizations in society began. What is emergent, is the momentum social responsibility has gained and the shape it has taken.
The momentum is everywhere, evidenced through the different principles, conventions and guidelines now available on the topic or its elements, and their level of adoption. Some examples are the United Nations’ International Labor Organization Conventions, the United Nations Global Compact and Social Life Cycle Guidelines; Equator Principles; Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); Social Accountability 8000; AA1000 Series and more recently the ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility.
So I’m not going to spend time on the momentum, but rather attempt to discuss the shape social responsibility has taken… And yes, this is where ISO 26000 comes in handy.
ISO 26000 is a voluntary, non-certifiable standard, whose value lies in the attempt to compile all of the different elements of social responsibility in one place, define its evolved concept and provide ways to integrate it into the organization. In the past, social responsibility would be seen as purely philanthropic and/or volunteering efforts. While these are important, we now acknowledge that social responsibility requires understanding society’s expectations and evaluating the organization’s capacity to respond them, so that no false expectations are created. In addition, ISO 26000 also defines the seven core subjects that (at a minimum) need to be considered when thinking about social responsibility: governance, human rights, labor practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues and community involvement and development.
Thus said, I’d like to make a point clear: The appearance of ISO 26000 doesn’t mean other guideline documents on social responsibility or related aspects are no longer valuable or needed. Contrary to that, they are complementary. The challenge becomes understanding how they interact and at which stage of the process to use them. ISO 26000 is filling a gap between high-level aspirations and reporting by providing a good basis for the “how”.
As with everything, social responsibility has its passionate supporters and detractors. However, if organizations are interested in staying in business for the long-term, social responsibility has to be part of the agenda. So, I’d like to end with a quote from Marc Epstein’s book, “Making Sustainability Work” that really helps getting this point across:
“The issue of whether companies should consider their social responsibility or the impact on their activities … is no longer up for discussion…The challenge has moved from “whether” to “how” to integrate corporate social, environmental and economic impacts—corporate sustainability—into day-to-day management decisions.”
Lina Azuero is a management consultant with CDM, in Cambridge, Mass. She has a graduate degree in Business and Management from Harvard University, and a B.A. in Business and Management from the University of La Sabana in Bogota, Colombia. She is a candidate for a master’s degree in sustainability and environmental management from Harvard University, where her research has centered on social and environmental life cycle assessment in supply chains. She will be presenting during NAEM’s Sept. 8 webinar “New ISO Standards and the Impact on EHS and Sustainability”.
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.
Going Beyond: Shell Oil’s systemic take on sustainability
Nancy Roberts
It is heartening to come across companies and leaders that are actively engaged in applying systems thinking; it is even more heartening to hear both positive results and frank observations. A recent interview with Marvin Odum, the president of Shell Oil Co. (the US subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell) in MIT’s Sloan Management Review demonstrated an applied systemic view of the company and the industry and the landscape in which it must operate.
Royal Dutch Shell has long been famous for its use of scenario planning, a process that helps the company consider how different variables will affect possible futures, and how it can reduce risk and increase resilience. Here are some of the actions Odum says the company is taking to incorporate sustainability into its decision-making processes:
- Going beyond technical challenges: Focusing on solutions for the technical and operational aspects of a project is no longer enough. Odum describes the effect of the “non-technical” aspects of an energy project – essentially the needs of the affected communities and stakeholders:
“The timelines of these projects now is largely driven by those social performance and sustainable development issues, as opposed to the technical and other commercial issues.”
Stakeholder engagement is essential to a successful new energy project, but it has the consequence of extending the
timelines – inclusion, collaboration and compromise take time and effort.
- Going beyond the company walls: Preparing for the future might mean advocating for sustainability across your entire sector because an event that happens to one company affects the public’s perception of the entire industry.
“As Shell starts to take a very large position in natural gas in North America, the question I ask myself leading this business is not what is Shell going to do in terms of our own performance, but how do we set baseline performance and regulatory standards in this business so it becomes attractive to everybody involved and we secure that critical license to operate?”
- Going beyond the experts in the room: In the past, businesses have quantified their benefit to the community in terms of economic impact, such as job and infrastructure creation. More businesses now realize that the involvement of all stakeholders in a potential project is not just a nice thing to do, it is the best way to generate the most effective options for action. Odum mentions the advantages of working with Alaskan natives, particularly indigenous peoples, who have long-term memory of their environment:
“We’ve studied Arctic ice for years. But what we hadn’t done as much as we do now is work with indigenous people who have lived in that ice for millennia. They have what they would call traditional knowledge about how this ice changes over decades and centuries, and they have deep knowledge about what you have to really be prepared for.”
Engaging all internal stakeholders is also key. According to Odum, sustainability was a major driver in Shell’s 2009 reorganization, to get sustainability out into the project teams across the company. Employees are “beginning to understand that this [sustainability] is not an add-on that strips away profitability because it lengthens timeline and adds cost, but that it’s simply not possible to have a successful project if you don’t do this right.”
- Moving sustainability to the core: Shell’s management seems to understand that sustainability is not an afterthought or a public relations campaign. As Odum says, it’s not even enough for sustainability to be a priority; it must become a core value:
“Priorities change with conditions, they change with financial performance and maybe the economy. Core values don’t.”
How does your company’s performance affect your customers, stakeholders and industry peers? What methods are most effective for promoting sustainability internally and externally?
Nancy Roberts is a partner and co-founder of The Idea Hive, a group of GreenMBAs offering research, consulting and facilitation services that combine triple-bottom-line values with cutting edge thinking tools. You can follow her on Twitter at @leapingotter.
Cultivating a culture of green: An interview with Andrew Winston
Each year the keynote speakers at the NAEM Forum inspire attendees with their mix of practical insights and leading-edge thinking. This week Forum committee chairman Steve Walker spoke to Andrew Winston, author of “Green Recovery” and the opening keynote at this year’s conference, about how companies can cultivate a culture of green.
Andrew Winston
SW: What does this recession mean for the greening movement? Do companies still need to think about going green?
AW: Many companies slowed their green initiatives in the downturn; this was a big mistake. It’s a common misperception that green equals cost. Combine that with a recession that has slashed everyone’s spending and budgets, and you get a seeming logic to stop all environmental activities. But going green doesn’t raise costs, it lowers them. Seeing your business through an environmental lens drives innovation as well. But on top of that, nearly all of the driving forces behind the green wave of pressure on companies have not slowed down. The greening of the supply chain has accelerated, with companies like Wal-Mart taking the lead. Consumers have continued to evolve and grow more ‘conflicted’ about purchases. Weather/climate-related events have exacerbated an already short supply of almost all basic commodities. The cost of doing business is rising. In short, this is an amazing opportunity to go green NOW: It will save money (if done right) and prepare a company for a much more resource-constrained, environmentally concerned future.
SW: What are the five areas where a business can get lean and save money fast?
AW: In recent years, it’s become the norm for companies to deal with tight times by laying off people first. In the fourth quarter of 2008, before the recession hit a lot of companies directly, we saw massive layoffs, nearly guaranteeing the recession. But in most industries, we’re discovering that we have enormous opportunities to get lean on energy, waste and water. In a shrinking economy, you can’t save every job, but some people could be re-purposed to pursue sustainability goals and find ways to get leaner.
In Green Recovery, I focus on five areas of the business where companies find very quick paybacks:
- Facilities (heating, cooling, lighting)
- Information Technology (IT) systems
- Distribution and
- Fleet, waste, and telework/communications (the upside of more IT)
The examples in each are rampant:
- Hotel chain IHG changed 250,000 bulbs and saved $1.2MM in energy, a 4 month payback.
- Many of the big IT companies are tackling the heat buildup in data centers by simply venting hot air instead of expensive energy-intensive cooling schemes.
- Trucking and shipping companies like Conway or Maersk have discovered that slowing down a bit can save big on fuel.
In all these areas, companies can meet internal hurdle rates easily. These quick wins can help drive buy-in by showing that green pays, and they can help fund the larger, longer-term investments in innovation and green energy that we need.
SW: How can businesses systematize their green innovation?
AW: Innovation can come in many forms, the most radical of which is what I call ‘heretical innovation’. This is a way of thinking that challenges the fundamental nature of the business or process. Imagine asking whether you can operate without fossil fuels, or in the case of car companies, whether cars can be sold as a service rather than a product only.
In terms of creating a culture of green innovation, there are a number of approaches companies can take to make it a normal part of the business process. First, making it someone’s job and sole focus can help (and ideally this is someone in research and development, not sustainability). Companies also can set aside time for green innovation, much like 3M and Google do, when they ask employees to spend about 20 percent of their time on whatever they want. Additionally, setting big goals for innovation or revenue from green products can help. GE’s ecomagination targets are a good example.
Andrew Winston advises some of the world’s leading companies on how to profit from environmental thinking. He is a globally recognized expert and speaker on the business benefits of going green. Andrew is the author of “Green Recovery“ and co-author of the international best-selling “Green to Gold”. He will be the opening keynote presenter at this fall’s 19th annual EHS Management Forum in Tucson, Ariz.
Steve Walker is the Manager of Environmental Sustainability at Burt’s Bees Inc. and chair of the 19th annual EHS Management Forum. For more information about the Forum or to register, please visit http://ehsforum2011.naem.org/.
It’s never been easy being green
Stephen Evanoff
Conventional wisdom laments that today’s political atmosphere has become so polarized that the nation isn’t able to establish consensus-based national policy on contemporary environmental and conservation issues like we did in the good old days when both major political parties and the public saw eye-to-eye.
My recent reading of Timothy Egan’s, “The Big Burn – Teddy Roosevelt and the Fire That Saved America” reminded me that it has never been easy being green.
Egan, a Seattle-based, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, outdoorsman, and columnist for the New York Times, tells the story of the August 1910 wildfire that consumed an area the size of Connecticut. The fire swept through parts of Montana, Idaho, Washington and British Columbia in a matter of days, wiping out entire towns, and killing more than a hundred people.
Woven into the narrative of the events around the fire is the story of how President Theodore Roosevelt and Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot were able to establish vast national forests. As they put it, these forests should be for the use and enjoyment of all the people, rather than for exploitation by wealthy individuals and corporations, which had been the case until then. Most of us take the concept of the National Forests for granted. Yet Egan explains how radical the concept was at the time, and points out that there were many powerful forces aligned against Roosevelt and Pinchot.
It makes the reader wonder, how on earth Roosevelt and Pinchot did it. But, Egan shows us that Roosevelt and Pinchot had powerful forces of their own: their vision of what was best for the long-term, well-being of the nation, their energy and personal commitment, and their trust in the American people. The battle of conservation of our National Forests versus consumption by private industry continued throughout the twentieth century. As the twenty-first century emerged, conservation had ultimately prevailed due to reasons both economic and ideological.
I found the story inspiring and relevant to today’s environmental challenges, be they global, national, or organizational. When applied wisely, the combination of a clear and unselfish vision, hard work, and belief in the decency and wisdom of others can overcome significant resistance.
We’ve all fought uphill battles, albeit not on the epic scale of Roosevelt and Pinchot. I’d like to hear your inspiring stories. How have you overcome resistance within your organization to proposed EHS policies? How have you persuaded entrenched interests to support EHS initiatives with long-term benefit to your organization?
Toward sustainability: Interface Inc.’s ‘Mission Zero’ journey
In 1994, Ray Anderson, founder of Interface, Inc., outlined an ambitious new vision for his company: to achieve sustainability by 2020. Lindsay Stoda, a Senior Business Analyst with the company, spoke at the recent EHS Management Forum about the metrics Interface uses to measure its sustainability progress. This week, we caught up with Lindsay to learn more about the company’s Mission Zero goals.
Lindsay Stoda
Q: Where did the Mission Zero goal come from?
LS: Sparked by questions from customers and the ideas he encountered in Paul Hawken’s book, “The Ecology of Commerce,” our founder Ray Anderson realized that business and industry were part of the larger system that was damaging the environment and that it was not going to be a sustainable future if business continued in that direction. And realizing that it was someone’s job to lead industry down that path, he decided to ask his company and his employees to be that leader.
Q: How do you measure success against your Mission Zero Goals?
LS: We’ve always followed the “What gets measured gets managed” philosophy, so our way of being able to track and ensure that we’re making progress is through four different measurement platforms:
- Eco Metrics: Measure environmental impact
- Socio Metrics: Measure social impacts
- Quest program: Measures waste elimination
- Ecosense: Measures the activities on a plant-level that contribute to our sustainability goals
Q: How did Mission Zero change the work of Interface’s EHS department?
LS: Prior to Ray’s epiphany, we had a more traditional manufacturing environment, health and safety (EHS) department focusing on safety and compliance. Today, it’s typically the same folks because the tracking of that kind of information all kind of overlaps with the sustainability roles, except that people’s EHS roles developed a sustainability-minded focus.
Q: Can you tell me about some of your efforts toward creating closed loop products?
LS: We have a strong push to create closed loop products using recycled and bio-based raw materials. This process basically involves returning the materials in used finished product back to raw materials.
For carpet tile, there are two main components: There’s the face fiber and the fluff — the surface that you walk on — and then there’s the backing, which is different from residential carpet in that it’s a vinyl backing and it’s heavier, to hold the tiles to the floor and give them dimensional stability.
We had previously been able to cut the fibers off the front, take the backing, crumble it up, melt it down and return it to backing. But now we’re able to take the nylon fibers from the face of the products, shave them off and return them to our fiber suppliers to create new face fiber with post consumer recycled content.
We bring back both our carpet as well as competitors’ products through ‘ReEntry’—our recycling program. We collect used product back from the marketplace, run it through our process, and return backing to backing and fiber to fiber. Since the program began, we have diverted more than 100,000 tons of material from landfills.
Q: One of the goals you’ve identified is providing Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for all of your InterfaceFLOR products by 2012. What does that entail?
LS: We have used life cycle assessment (LCA) for several years now as we’ve tried to evaluate different materials and processes for manufacturing our products. The Environmental Product Declaration is a 10-15 page summary of the life cycle assessment results, everything from global warming potential to toxicity to resource use throughout the entire life cycle of the product. There is a lot of different environmental information out there and we thought the most useful thing for our customers would just be to give them the facts they need to make the decisions about what type of products they’d like to purchase. So it’s really the good and the bad. It’s just the facts. We collect the data and have it third-party verified to ensure it is complete and accurate.
You can hear Lindsay talk more about using metrics during “Defining the Metrics that Matter,” part of NAEM’s Best of the 2010 Forum webinar series, on Tuesday, Nov. 16. To register, visit www.naem.org.
