Posts filed under ‘EHS Skills’
Emerging Leaders Series: Numbers Talk. But what are they saying?
Kimberly Wallis
It turns out that how you present a number is often as important as what that number actually is. Executives and investors tend to focus on numbers because they are quantitative, readily-comparable and solid. Or are they?
A given piece of information, such as the amount of energy a new light bulb uses, can be presented in a variety of ways. For example, it can be stated as watts-per-bulb, dollars-per-year, kilowatts-hours saved compared to the old bulb, net present value, or lifetime costs, to name a few. Each measurement brings to mind different considerations and highlights different comparisons. This can sway the reaction of the audience.
Rick Larrick, a professor of management at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, studies how a single piece of information can garner multiple responses, depending on how it is presented. After attending one of his lectures, I read a paper he wrote with Jack Soll. They found that people respond differently to MPG and GPM (gallons per hundred miles), even though the two ratios nominally convey the same information.
People tend to favor switching from a 30-mpg car to a 40-mpg car over switching from an 8-mpg car to a 10-mpg car. The first option seems to be a better deal. However, assuming the distance you travel remains constant, you actually save more gas (and therefore more money) with the second option.
In GPM terms, the first option involves going from 3.3-gpm to 2.5-gpm, while the second option involves going from 12.5-gpm to 10-gpm. Obviously, saving 2.5 gallons per hundred miles is better than saving less than one gallon.
This is why the new labels for cars require GPM as well as MPG. By presenting the information this way, people are encouraged to minimize their need for fuel. The facts don’t change, but policy and policy goals affect how the facts are presented, which demonstrably impacts how people react to the information. Here’s a quick example, expressed in numbers:
|
First Option |
Second Option |
|
30 mpg > 40 mpg (3.3 gpm > 2.5 gpm) |
8 mpg > 10 mpg (12.5 gpm > 10 gpm) |
Though it may seem that choosing to present facts in a certain way, such as GPM instead of MPG, is a form of manipulation, consider the fact that each choice is a manipulation. Every time you present a number, you are making decisions: which units to use, what to compare it to, what scale to use — and, of course, what to measure in the first place.
In business, numbers are presented all the time. The health of a company is often represented by a single number, as is the measure of sustainability. The context in which you place a number can emphasize certain things and downplay others – in fact, it always does, whether we intend it to or not.
Are your numbers saying what you want them to? What tactics do you use to convey important numbers?
Kimberly Wallis is a graduate student in environmental management at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, where she focuses on energy issues and effective communication. She is particularly interested in how individuals and organizations change.
NAEM Forum 2011: Lessons of an Emerging Leader
Kealy Devoy
I recently had the opportunity to attend the NAEM Forum in Tucson, Ariz. My primary motivation for going was to learn about trends in corporate sustainability and start feeling out the job market. As a member of NAEM’s new Emerging Leaders program and a masters student at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, the Forum was a great way to learn about what sustainability professionals do, and to network with some folks. I heard a lot of bright, innovative people speak throughout the event, and each session was nothing short of inspiring.
With the increased interest in sustainability, companies are faced with tough decisions about how to be competitive. Many companies are improving operational efficiency. Other companies are taking innovation to the next level by making significant and sometimes controversial changes to their operations. Why risk, for example, telling consumers to use less of your product to reduce the lifecycle carbon footprint of the product? One speaker summed it up like this: “If not us, then who? If not now, then when?” If there are unaddressed inefficiencies in the way a company operates, they are essentially creating opportunities for other firms to win out.
As a future EHS and sustainability professional, I believe my generation has a lot to offer in the way of innovation and creativity. We are young, enthusiastic and have a fresh perspective — a combination of traits that can help us see a business differently. But even experienced professionals sometimes have difficulty convincing upper-level management to try something new. So what can newcomers do to get taken seriously without stepping on toes?
I asked this very question during one of the keynote sessions at the Forum. The three-member panel had a lot to say on this topic. After listening to them discuss solutions to my dilemma, I came away with several great ideas that all Emerging Leaders should know:
- Don’t be afraid to step on toes. Just because you don’t have as much experience as your supervisor doesn’t mean that he or she will be offended if you bring new ideas to the table. And if someone does get miffed that the new kid is trying to make a meaningful contribution, don’t let it get to you. Firms these days need new ideas to stay competitive. Don’t shy away from your desire to be heard.
- Do your homework. Have an idea? Get out there and find out as much about it as you can. Are other companies doing it? Will it help your firm gain competitive advantage? What do experts have to say about the issue? Whether it is a simple efficiency improvement, a new product, or a drastic change to the business model, you should have as many details about it as you can. If you can get in front of upper-level management to pitch the idea, they are going to have a lot of questions, and you need to be prepared.
- If at first you don’t succeed: try, try again. You may have heard this a lot growing up, and it is no less applicable now. When you’re new to an organization it might take time for those around you to realize the value of a fresh pair of eyes. Don’t let one (or two or three) “no’s” get you down. If your idea is sound and makes good business sense, you can make it happen. Try finding someone else in the organization that has been there for a few years. Ask them about how different managers like to get information, what questions they might ask, and what their primary concerns are. A more seasoned professional can guide you to the right person and help you collect the information they will want.
With these tactics, any young professional can pioneer a new process or project. I continue to be amazed by some of the initiatives being announced by NAEM member companies, all due to creative problem-solving on the part of their internal environmental leaders. The private sector has the opportunity to make serious changes in the way that they operate with no losses in the quality of their products and services. All it takes is the courage to be unconventional. What other advice might you have for Emerging Leaders?
Kealy Devoy is a second-year at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment pursuing a Master of Environmental Management in the Energy and Environment concentration. She is originally from St. Louis, Missouri and received a B.A. in Environmental Studies at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Davidson College. After earning her degree, she worked as the first Sustainability Coordinator at Davidson. Most recently, Kealy was a Climate Corps Public Sector Fellow with the Environmental Defense Fund, where she helped the Town of Cary, NC identify energy efficiency upgrades in fire stations, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and municipal buildings. At the Nicholas School, she is an Energy Improvement Management Intern with the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative.
Sustaining a Safe Workplace through Design
Walt Rostykus
As safety practitioners, we know that engineering controls (elimination, isolation or substitution) are the first and preferred levels in the Hierarchy of Controls. By eliminating or reducing the exposure to a hazard through the design of a job or workstation, we establish a level of safety for all people working there. Engineering controls, also called Prevention through Design (PtD), also reduce the need for administrative (behavioral) controls and use of personal protective equipment. PtD is not a new concept, but is a recent initiative that is taking hold again.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is leading a national initiative to promote this concept and highlight its importance in all business decisions. The concept continues to focus on planning and design of new workstations and process through two steps:
- Identifying hazards and
- Designing out the hazards through engineering controls.
It sounds easy. But if it is, why do environment, health and safety (EHS) programs struggle to control hazards after the fact? Why do safety professionals and management still rely heavily on behavioral and administrative controls instead of engineering controls? In my experience and through Humantech benchmarking studies, we’ve identified the three key elements for successful PtD processes as “At the right time, by the people (in the right role), and with the right criteria.”
- Right time: Prevention starts at the design phase when layout and tool design are concepts. This is where chemical, musculoskeletal disorders (MSD), and pinch-point hazards (to name a few) are easily identified by reviewing drawings and mock-ups. Changes made during the design phase to add capture ventilation, reduce reach distances, and add guarding cost 1/10 to 1/100 of what they would cost if made retroactively.
- Right people (role): The person(s) who designs the workplace or tool or specifies equipment is the best person to find and fix unacceptable exposures. Typically, these people are in an engineering role (process, production, mechanical, facilities or new product design engineers). Benchmarking studies continue to show that a common characteristic of companies with effective ergonomic improvement processes is that engineers, not solely the safety staff, are responsible and accountable for low-hazard design of the workplace.
- Right criteria: For engineers to be successful in designing jobs and workstations with low risk/hazard, they need the right tools. I am not referring to a shelf of engineering textbooks, but a limited and focused set of design guidelines, specific to that product or industry, that quickly provides the acceptable limits for design. Examples of ergonomic design guidelines include standing workstation height; reach distance; force limits for reaching, pulling or pressing; and viewing distance and placement. From this, engineers can quickly design the physical parameters of the workplace to fit the capability of the working population.
The concept of PtD sounds simple. And, in fact, it is simple. As simple as patching a leaky boat so you can paddle, not bail. Is PtD working in your organization? Is it practiced at all levels of the organization, or does EHS have to be the cheerleader and driver of the process? If success relies on EHS, what are the barriers you’ve encountered and how have you overcome them?
Past Presidents Series: Has Science Lost its Power of Persuasion?
Craig Liska
I am not a curmudgeon, but since Andy Rooney is no longer with us to continue his long-time “60 Minutes” tradition, I thought I would take a crack at being one…
During the 32 years I’ve worked in the EHS/Sustainability field, I’ve noticed that many EHS professionals inherently want to do “the right thing,” and are much more comfortable than most people using science as a means to help decide what is right. Traditionally, one of our profession’s biggest challenges has been convincing senior management that what is scientifically the “the right thing” to do can also be good for the business. And using a scientific rationale has typically been more appealing to the public as well. Customers and end users are more likely to rally around an idea based on good science rather than one motivated by political ideals, and I think trust has much to do with this.
Have you noticed, though, that recently there seems to be a growing tendency to defer to the short and simple solution regardless of what may be scientifically correct?
One example of this that you might have encountered is the use of recycled paper. Everyone agrees that using recycled paper is good for the environment because it keeps paper out of the landfill and reduces carbon emissions. So, the simple solution has been to use as much recycled paper as possible in every type of paper. But what if good science (Life Cycle Assessment) tells you that it is not that simple and finds that it actually depends on which type of paper you are reusing it in?
Using recycled paper in magazines can require significant processing to remove the inks before it is bright enough for use, while using recycled paper in cardboard boxes would require less de-inking with their lower brightness requirements. This extra processing usually involves fossil fuel-based electricity along with higher CO2 emissions. Most of the energy used to make virgin magazine paper, on the other hand, comes from renewable energy. Although it requires more energy to make than recycled paper, virgin paper may wind up having lower carbon emissions (thanks to the use of renewables).
So, which is better to use: recycled paper or virgin paper? The answer is, “It depends.” Unfortunately, many people don’t like that answer or want to spend the time to understand the issue more clearly. I find one of the biggest challenges in our profession is being able to communicate that complex, scientific “right thing to do” in simple terms that are persuasive. I am sure you all have similar stories on digging too deep into the weeds.
What have been your successes in communicating complex solutions in simple terms?
Craig Liska is Vice President of Sustainability for Verso Paper Corp., where he is responsible for integrating Verso’s sustainability philosophy of balancing environmental, social and economic values into decisions affecting all aspects of the business. This involves decisions from wood/fiber procurement and manufacturing to product development and final disposition of products. Prior to joining Verso, Mr. Liska worked for Motorola, where he was Corporate Director for International EHS and had a history of increased EHS responsibilities both at the manufacturing plant and corporate management level. He also has experience at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, holding various positions of increasing responsibility. He was the President of NAEM in 2005.
What do you call your EMS?
Megan Lum
It’s cliché, I know, to say that change is constant. But it’s so true and I try to remind myself to remain open and flexible. At Pacific Gas & Electric, we continue to make significant changes to our business to better serve our customers. One of the changes we are currently trying to implement in our environmental organization is a re-imagining of our environmental management system (EMS) – leveraging the strengths of some elements, while boosting the effectiveness of others. We’re using a cross-functional team to work on this, including having frequent meetings with various stakeholders.
During one of those stakeholder meetings, we had a brainstorming session on “What do we do to ensure a successful, sustainable EMS?” The conversation was quite animated, and one comment struck me: “If you want this to be sustainable, don’t call it an EMS when you roll it out to people.”
This brought a lot of head nodding. If EMS was introduced as a grand new program, it may come across as yet another corporate initiative, which could be an impediment to making it a truly sustainable program.
I’ve seen success on both sides of that coin. I’ve implemented EMS programs where all the elements of an ISO 14001 program were present, but it wasn’t officially called an EMS. Everything was introduced as part of the environmental program, and employees incorporated environmental practices into work processes and job descriptions as part of the slowly changing culture. Everything was there, but it just didn’t have a specific name.
On the other hand, sometimes rolling out an EMS as a specific program can be a benefit – particularly if a company is working toward it as a stated goal. Having a goal of getting an EMS ISO 14001-certified can bring employees together, encourage teamwork, and drive culture change faster than a more subtle approach.
We’re still in the re-imagining process, so it will be interesting to see which path we choose.
What do you call your EMS?
Megan Lum, P.E. is the Manager for Shared Facilities and Environmental Operations, at Pacific Gas & Electric Co. In this capacity she is privileged to lead a team of about 30 professionals, who provide environmental compliance support for the company’s gas and electric distribution, fleet, materials management and real estate operations. She is a member of NAEM’s Board of Regents and will be participating in NAEM’s EHS Management Forum as a speaker in the Management of Change session.
Increasing EHS Value in Tough Economic Times
Mark Posson
Can we do more with less? Absolutely! This tough economy is affecting all aspects of an organization and environmental management is not immune. Today’s reality in most organizations is stagnant or declining resources and a continuing mandate to increase environmental performance. We need to resist the tendency to pull back in tough economic times and instead be introspective and improve the way we execute. We can free up the resources to meet the demands of expanding requirements by continually improving our business processes. The increased efficiency will free up resources and the increased effectiveness will boost performance and stakeholder value.
Strategically, what processes provide the greatest value to our stakeholders? Where can we get our biggest return for the time invested? These basic questions will help prioritize your improvement targets and possibly identify processes that can be eliminated. A ranked list of processes for improvement will guide your pace of change and tactical execution.
Tactically, the simplest path to improve a process is to follow the elements of lean:
- Identify the value to the stakeholder (your customers)
- Determine the sequence of activities (current process flow)
- Identify the activities that create value
- Eliminate activities that do not add value
- Identify process inefficiencies and their cause(s)
- Eliminate the cause(s) of inefficiencies
- Create the new process (future process flow)
- Implement the new process
- Measure results
The steps are simple but often challenging to implement in light of day-to-day execution pressures. We can’t expect different outcomes by following the same processes. The investment in process improvement will provide the payback in better results with fewer resources.
What strategies do you use to do more with less?
Mark Posson is the former Director of Environment, Safety and Health at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. and the current Chair of the city of Pleasanton’s Energy and Environment Committee. He recently began offering consulting services to help organizations improve their environment, safety and health performance.
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.
Bad Hiring Decisions Haunt Good People
Alex Pollock
Why do bad hiring decisions haunt good people? I’m involved in making an important leadership staffing decision as I write and I’ve researched some of the latest thinking to help minimize the potential for a poor staffing decision and thus prevent the long term damage that it causes.
I’ve been guided in the past by the timeless “3 C’s” of character, competency and chemistry, but I wonder if I can embellish this based on recent research. I found the work of Jeffrey Cohn and Jay Moran in the book, “Why are we Bad at Picking Good Leaders” (2011) most useful. They described what they feel are the essential attributes of effective leadership under the headings of:
- Integrity: the foundational attribute, honest, ethical
- Empathy: feel with people, social savvy, combined with integrity drives trust
- Emotional Intelligence: evident self mastery skills: “know yourself, control yourself, and improve yourself.”
- Vision: forward-thinking with a sense of possibility and wonder, innovative
- Judgment: focus on the important while seeing the “big picture”, take decisive action
- Courage: the ability to “act with grace under pressure”
- Passion: the drive to achieve, learn and master
In hiring decisions I’ve been encouraged to do my homework by the axiom “ You will get what someone has already gotten… no excuse for surprises.” I found the techniques that Cohn and Moran suggest, such as scenario discussions to be most useful for determining whether a candidate does indeed possess the desired attributes or not.
Help me out please. Have you ever made a poor hiring decision? What lessons can you share from the experience? What attributes do you view as important for leaders to possess and what techniques to you use to assess competency during the recruiting process?
