Posts tagged ‘Corporate Sustainability’
Communication Lessons from a Global EHS Manager
By Jim Spahr
Global Environmental Manager
Solae LLC
As a college student in the early 90’s I thought I was in good shape as a communicator. I was pretty social for an engineer (nerd) and I wasn’t afraid to get up and speak in front of a large group. So, when I started my first job as an environmental engineer at a paper mill in the Deep South, I never expected communicating would be a problem. I was wrong. And I would learn some valuable lessons about cross-cultural communications.
First of all there was the language barrier. Yes they were speaking English but with that wonderful southern drawl. I love a southern accent but there’s a big difference between talking football and discussing a complex manufacturing process. I had to keep asking people to repeat themselves. Add to that the cultural differences and I was quickly developing a reputation as “that rude Yankee who don’t hear so well”. Luckily I gained a mentor who was both an engineer and a fellow northern transplant. Through him I learned the importance of learning the local culture, utilizing local resources and adapting for success.
My mentor explained the importance of small talk in the South. When you need data or information from someone you don’t dash off an email with: “Please provide x, y and z, by next Friday”. You walk down the hall to their office and you start off by asking them about their kid’s Little League team or how they hit the ball on the golf course last weekend. I was accustomed to the norms of the metro northeast; “Tell me what you need, tell me when you need it and I’ll get to you.” I could imagine how this new approach would have gone over when I was a co-op working in Pittsburgh.
Me: “Hi Bill, how’s your day going.”
Bill: “Peachy.”
Me: “How’s your son’s baseball team doing? Did they win on Saturday?”
Bill: “Why are you here and what the heck do you want?!?”
Yet it worked like a charm at the paper mill and although, as a Yankee, you can never be accepted as a true Southerner, at least I was considered a nice Yankee. I even starting using “y’all” every once in while.
Later in my career when I was tasked with supporting the construction and startup of a manufacturing plant in India this lesson in learning the culture would pay dividends. Before the project got underway I used the Internet to research Indian history, culture and business etiquette. I spoke with my Indian colleagues about the similarities and differences. I even boned up on the national sport, Cricket, and followed the performance of the local team. All of this paid off as I was able to develop good working relationships with the local staff and I avoided most of the pitfalls that tripped up some of my American colleagues on the project.
Now, as a Global Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) leader, I’m tasked with implementing corporate policies across multiple cultures. The lessons that I learned through my earlier experiences led me to three keys for success in working across cultures.
- Good translations: Google Translate might work well when you’re trying to decipher an email but don’t count on it for important documents. If you’re lucky, you may have an internal resource who is fluent in English and the local language but even this is risky. For important documents, always use a reputable translation service. They have multiple layers of verification to ensure your translations are accurate and complete. As an additional safeguard, even when I use a translation service, I always have an internal native speaker of the target language review the translated materials.
- Use local resources: While it’s important to do your homework, no amount of internet research can replace the insight to be gained from developing relationships within your business. Regions within a country and even business cultures from plant to plant can vary widely. Having a network of trusted colleagues across all locations will help you avoid mistakes. A good network can help you test ideas, develop local plans and facilitate projects.
- Adapt to the local culture: Different does not mean wrong. When working across cultures, a one-size-fits-all approach is a recipe for failure. Balancing the need for a consistent approach to EHS programs with the realities of local differences is critical to the success of your program. When developing global polices, standards and initiatives, I always try to leave as much flexibility as possible without compromising the imperatives of employee safety and environmental stewardship.
Utilizing these three keys to success is not always easy. This approach requires that you work with each region or site to develop their site-specific implementation plans. It also places greater importance on verification through internal auditing. But if you put in the effort the rewards will be many. Sites will take owner ship of their EHS systems. You will see faster adaptation to revised or new initiatives. Flexibility allows sites to develop creative best practices that can be shared across the organization. And in the long run you will see continuous improvement in your EHS performance.
At times it’s been difficult, but as I’ve gained experience and learned from my mistakes I‘ve come to treasure working in different cultures. It has enriched my personal life and has made me more effective as an EHS professional. I hope that when you encounter similar opportunities you will embrace them with open arms and an open mind.
Jim Spahr is an Operations EHS leader with 19 years of experience working across borders and across cultures to improve safety, health and environmental outcomes. His main areas of interest and expertise are Management Systems, Sustainability and International EHS Management. His passions are skiing, backpacking and spending time with his family (not necessarily in that order). You can reach him at jspahr@solae.com and connect with him at http://www.linkedin.com/in/jspahr
For more of Jim’s cross-cultural communication resources, please visit the Emerging Leaders group in NAEM’s online community.
Seeing Beyond the Sustainability Horizon: From Best Practices to Next Practices
Samantha Putt del Pino
As we turn our sights toward our upcoming sustainability conference in Atlanta, we sat down this week with keynote speaker Samantha Putt del Pino, Co-Director of Business Engagement in Climate and Technology at the World Resources Institute, to discuss her perspective on where sustainable business is heading.
GT: How would you describe the state of corporate sustainability, worldwide?
SPP: It’s hard to think about global business homogeneously. There is a wide range of environmental performance, even among those companies that ascribe to sustainability principles. On one hand, sustainability isn’t nearly as engrained into core business practice as we would like it to be. Some companies have not set themselves a very high bar for what it means to be sustainable. These are the companies that see sustainability as more of a niche issue, something that can help with public relations or to engage select customers.
But on the other hand, I think we are starting to see something interesting among leading companies, and that is the shift from using sustainability as short-term defense to using it for long-term offense. These companies see sustainability as essential to their long-term competitiveness. For example, some companies are aggressively investing in sustainable products and services and are seeing their revenues grow. Many have set revenue targets reflecting expectations of future growth. We also are seeing some companies factor sustainability into their mergers and acquisitions strategy, making decisions that can improve the company’s capacity to fulfill its sustainability objectives over the longer term.
GT: The World Resources Institute (WRI) is working on a new research project focused on the “Next Practices” in sustainability management. Why are best practices no longer the gold standard?
SPP: In today’s fast-changing, competitive landscape, we see an urgent need to innovate beyond best practices. Best practices are still important: Companies have made, and can continue to make, significant improvements in their environmental performance by pursuing best practices. However, companies can do more to understand how big trends, such as climate change or water scarcity create new risks and opportunities, and will shape the markets of tomorrow. Companies that proactively implement smart strategies today can gain an edge, both in terms of preparedness and in terms of accelerating progress, towards a sustainable future.
GT: What are some of the future forward issues U.S. companies should begin learning about (if not planning for) today?
SPP: There are several challenges companies face when looking for the next big sustainability issue. First, there’s no crystal ball. So, how do you anticipate future needs without trying to predict the future? Second, too often the “hot topic” of the day will shift with the political winds. How can you make a case for long-term sustainability issues if your colleagues are scrambling to address issues that come and go on a quarterly basis? And third, issues must be understood in terms very specific to each company. How do you engage your colleagues to understand big changes in the context of your company’s specific strengths and weaknesses?
These are the types of questions we are working to answer with partner companies in WRI’s Next Practice Collaborative. Many partners have told us they want to understand what other sustainability leaders see as issues of rising priority, such as water risk, life-cycle sustainability impacts, or ecosystem degradation. Oftentimes, the issue itself (like climate change) may not be new, but a new, more transformative approach is required.
WRI and its partners are working on a tool kit to help companies sort through the possibilities and connect these opportunities and threats with their core competencies. That can go a long way to making the case for action on issues on the horizon, or for tackling an existing issue with renewed innovation.
GT: Based on your knowledge of how corporate sustainability comes to fruition, what role do you think the individual leader can play in driving progress within an organization?
SPP: The most successful corporate sustainability professionals act as catalysts. They facilitate collaboration and generate excitement inside and outside the organization. They are the ones who can make a really good case to the company’s leadership for investments in bold sustainability strategies. This means making a solid business case and showing how investments create big opportunities or address big risks to the company.
Samantha Putt del Pino is co-director of Business Engagement in Climate and Technology at the World Resources Institute. As part of the Next Practice Collaborative, she works with companies to foster the transformative approaches needed to quickly close the gap between today’s best practice and the pace and scale of the climate challenge. She previously led WRI’s U.S. Climate Business Group, a cross-sector network of 36 Fortune 500 companies that developed strategies for companies to thrive in a carbon-constrained economy including building internal support for corporate climate change strategies, exploring emission reduction opportunities and technologies, and navigating the dynamic climate policy landscape. She will share insights on the state of sustainable business at NAEM’s 2012 Sustainability Management Conference on March 7-8 in Atlanta.
How a New Design Revolution will Change Supply Chain Management
Howard Brown
Stories about Henry Ford’s genius with manufacturing abound, though it’s rarely clear which ones are actually true. One of my favorites is his insisting that parts manufacturers deliver their products to his plants in wooden crates of his design, which he then dismantled and used as floorboards in his cars.
Supply chain management has grown in sophistication and importance since Ford’s time. The quality movement, just-in-time manufacturing, corporate responsibility initiatives, enterprise-wide information systems, environmental impact analyses like life-cycle assessments, and growth in transparency and public access to information have all brought about major changes in supply change management. Now a new design revolution is about to create an even bigger change in supply chain thinking. The change will come both from new materials and products and from new manufacturing technologies.
Radical new materials and products (such as the ones we feature in the dMASS Insights newsletter) will themselves disrupt traditional supply chain relationships. For example, there are composite materials that exhibit behaviors with the potential to replace mechanical appliances, tools, and other machinery – even entire factories. There are materials that can be used to generate electricity by movement, temperature differences and solar energy conversion. Others have the ability to interfere with the growth of harmful bacteria, actively transfer heat or emit light with minimal energy subsidy. The cumulative effect of new materials and products will be shorter and simpler supply chains.
New manufacturing technologies will be at least as disruptive as the products themselves. Nano-scale manufacturing technologies such as Additive Layer Manufacturing (including 3D printing) and bio-manufacturing (the growing of products) stem from recent advances in the scientific understanding of how nature organizes itself at the most fundamental levels of matter and energy. Similarly, biomanufacturing stems from new discoveries in the fields of genetics and micro-organisms. The common thread among each of these technologies is a growing knowledge of nature’s tendency to self-organize, and an ability to leverage this knowledge.
Three-dimensional (3D)printing, in particular, has the potential to drastically cut resource demands, costs and dependence on resource-intensive supply chains, as well as pollution and waste. Advanced computer-aided design (CAD) systems bring design down to the level of individual molecules. The entire downstream supply chain for a 3D-printed product can be a set of printer cartridges containing different chemical elements. When laid down in precise proportions, the atoms arrange themselves into material structures with the desired characteristics. Printing can often be done in small shops, portable facilities, or even in the home. There is little or no need for high-temperature smelting in parts manufacturing, high-speed grinding or stamping that produces manufacturing scrap, or glues, adhesives, staples, rivets and other parts to hold separate pieces together.
Henry Ford’s tactic saved resources a century ago by creatively taking advantage of existing supply chain resources and harvesting value from waste. Nano- and bio-technologies will radically transform supply chain management in a new way. Business success will increasingly require understanding these technologies and taking advantage of the changes they will bring about.
What are your thoughts? Have you begun to experience supply chain changes due to commodity prices or supply problems, or due to the availability of new materials, products, or technologies?
Howard Brown is a noted entrepreneur and the founder of dMASS.net, an organization focused on helping businesses improve resource performance. For more than 20 years, he was CEO of the consultancy RPM Systems, Inc. (Resource Planning and Management), where he worked with companies such as International Paper, Mobil, BP, Duracell, Avery- Dennison, Whirlpool, SaraLee, and Wrigley, earning a worldwide reputation for developing practical strategies that merge environmental and business goals. To learn more about dMass, visit: http://www.dmass.net/wordpress/
Meet the NAEM Board of Directors: What are the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012?
As part of NAEM’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week celebration, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to talk about the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012. Featuring Michael Miller of Dean Foods; David Newman; Mark Hause of DuPont; and Verne Shortel of NRG Energy.
NAEM Board of Directors: What project are you most excited about working on this year?
As part of NAEM’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to chat about trends in environment, health and safety (EHS) and sustainability management. Featuring Kelvin Roth of AMCOL International Corp.; Sandy Nessing of American Electric Power Co. Inc.; Pat Perry of CVS Caremark; and John Reichling of CDM Smith.
Emerging Leaders Series: How WESCO Turned on the Savings with LEDs
Billy Grayson
For the past few months, I’ve had LEDs (light-emitting diodes) on the brain.
At WESCO, we sell a LOT of lighting, and have seen tremendous sales growth in more energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, ballasts and fixtures.
There are a lot of factors driving this growth in fluorescent sales: Companies are looking to cut energy costs, and even without incentives an upgrade to T5 or T8 lighting from T12 or metal halide [1] often has a payback of three years or less. Companies are also looking to take advantage of state and federal incentives. In some areas, this can reduce the payback on a lighting upgrade from three to five years to 18 months.
Federal regulation is driving investment as well. In July 2012, most T12 technology will no longer be available (even if Congress does stop the 100-watt incandescent phaseout). Companies that do not upgrade their lighting may not be able to buy new bulbs by the end of the year.
So the business case for a fluorescent lighting upgrade is compelling, but with stories like Wired’s August 2011 cover feature on LED bulbs, stories like Wal-Mart, Denny’s and Starbucks investment in LEDs, and even some recent big WESCO LED projects (including streetlighting with Pacific Gas & Electric Co.), there are many wondering if they should make the jump to LEDs now, rather than make a short-term investment in a better fluorescent technology.
There really is no “right” answer in the debate over LEDs vs. high-efficiency fluorescents: The choice depends on a number of factors. Below are some of the things that are making LEDs look more and more attractive:
- The price of LEDs is coming down: Over the past two years, the price of many types of LEDs has come down significantly, more than 50 percent in many applications.
- LEDs are becoming more flexible: New entries to the market include LEDs that plug into existing ballasts, LEDs that provide easy upgrades as chip technology matures and LEDs that are “smarter,” with dimming and occupancy capabilities well beyond the traditional electronic ballast fluorescent.
- The price of fluorescents is going up: With recent spikes in the price of rare earth metals, the price of fluorescent bulbs rose more than 30 percent in 2011. Although the price has recently come down a little, it is possible that challenges in obtaining these materials could spike the price again.
- LEDs save a LOT: LED’s use less energy, last longer and require less maintenance than fluorescents.
- LEDs have a lighter footprint: Even outside of energy savings, LEDs are arguably better for the environment, as they require less materials to manufacture, ship and install, and they do not have the challenges associated with mercury disposal that fluorescents do.
- LEDs are much “cooler”: There’s a lot of new lighting options available with LEDs, and many of them are arguably more aesthetically pleasing than traditional fluorescents.
With all the arguments for LEDs, why would anyone make the shift from T12 to T8?
For WESCO’s internal lighting upgrades, it all came down to dollars and cents. For our portfolio, a switch to 25 and 28-watt T8s had an average payback after incentives of 1.9 years and a five-year return on investment (ROI) of 225 percent. For warehouse lighting, LED payback was slightly longer than five years.
What’s right for WESCO is not necessarily what’s best for other companies. We’ve recently completed LED lighting upgrades for companies ranging from utilities to food distributors to retail food chains. For these customers, the payback on LEDs was more compelling than a short-term move to fluorescents. Some of the factors for these customers included:
- Running their lights all the time: For companies ranging from food distributors to 24-hour mini-marts, LED investments can pay back faster than flourescents. Where a 40-hour-a-week facility may save $1,000 a year with fluorescents and $2,000 a year with LEDs, a 24/7 facility would save more than four times as much in annual electricity costs.
- Pricey power: WESCO’s LED business is strongest across the board in Hawaii. Why? $.25-$.40/kWh. When you pay that much for power, the deeper the energy savings the more compelling the business case.
- Long-term commitment: The federal government has become a strong customer for LEDs. With a 10-20-year investment horizon, LEDs make great business sense – even now most LED investments will outperform efficient fluorescents over periods longer than 10 years.
- Companies for whom image means a lot: A number of companies are willing to forego the short-term ROI of a fluorescent upgrade for the aesthetic and reputational benefits from a big LED investment. As I mentioned before, positive public relations and prettier store and restaurant lighting may trump straight payback and ROI calculations for some companies.
At WESCO, we’ve decided for the time being to put most of our investment in a fluorescent upgrade. But even in our portfolio there are places where LEDs make sense. We are upgrading parking lot lighting in a number of facilities to LED this year (the lifetime ROI on these investments beat our metal halide and HPS). We are also setting up some conference room and warehouse LED demonstration projects in Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago; Los Angeles and Pittsburgh, Pa., artly to provide a showroom for our customers, and partly to act as “guinea pigs” for some of the cutting-edge technology being brought to market by Philips, CREE, and others.
Billy Grayson is the Director of Corporate Sustainability for WESCO Distribution, where works with both the marketing and operations teams to help the company “Go Green” – a program to reduce energy consumption and improve environmental performance and communicating WESCO’s energy and environmental achievements to customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. Before joining WESCO, Mr. Grayson was a Senior Associate at ICF International, working with public and private sector clients on greenhouse gas mitigation, energy efficiency, and other environmental mitigation projects.
[1] For those not familiar with common lighting types, Philips has a good calculator to help you get started at http://applications.nam.lighting.philips.com/ecocalculator/
A Peek Underneath the Hood of CR Magazine’s “100 Best Corporate Citizens List”
Elizabeth Boudrie
Recognized by PR Week as one of America’s top three most-important business rankings, Corporate Responsibility Magazine’s “100 Best Corporate Citizens List” evaluates companies on 325 corporate social responsibility data points. This week we caught up with Elizabeth Boudrie, Vice President of Research for SharedXpertise (parent company of CR Magazine) to learn more about the methodology behind the ranking.
GT: With all the rankings out there, why should companies pay attention to this one? What makes this ranking unique?
EB: From a methodological standpoint, this is an audit versus a survey. One of the frustrations that I think a lot of people have in the corporate responsibility (CR) space is that “We get so many surveys, we have to pick and choose which one we’re going to do and we’re not going to do yours.”
We have to explain to people that it’s an involuntary audit—you don’t have to fill anything out. What we do is the IW Financial folks go and look for essential 325 data elements that are publicly disclosed for all Russell 1000 companies. There are a few data elements that are performance -based, but for the most part they’re disclosure-based. I think that the biggest way [the ranking is different] is that it’s very broad. We’re looking really across a broad spectrum of issues as opposed to others that are very specifically oriented to environment, social and governance (ESG), human rights or specific issues, versus our seven different categories.
GT: How did you come up with those categories?
EB: We have a methodology committee comprised of industry folks and academics and folks who together help us oversee the direction of the data elements and the whole process. And back when they originally started the process – I think this is the 13th year — they looked and said, “Ok, what are the main categories that we think make sense, that we think should be important?” And these are the categories that they came up with.
And over time, we continue to review them. They’re weighted differently based on how important the collective group thinks they are and over time we continue to review them and believe that these are the categories that do capture a broad picture of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
GT: And 2012 is the 13th year for the ranking?
EB: Yes. 2012 will be the 13th annual list.
GT: In the absence of widely agreed-upon performance metrics, I understand that many rankings currently rely on transparency as a proxy for progress. Is this the best way to evaluate companies?
EB: I think all of us would love to get past disclosure as the main determinant of ranks– and we do have some elements within our 300-some-odd data elements that are performance-based — but it’s predominantly disclosure-based. There aren’t enough people who are disclosing enough as it is. We have lots and lots of companies who disclose next to nothing out of the Russell 1000. We think of disclosure as the low bar, but if it’s the low bar there are a lot of people who aren’t stepping over it yet. So from that perspective, there’s still a long way to go.
The other issue is that with so many different companies doing so many different things, it’s very difficult to find a reasonable performance standard that you can apply across company size, across company industry, across company type. And I think everybody is still struggling to find out what that is in every ranking. So I think it’s a reasonable proxy for now because it’s the best we can do but I don’t think anybody’s happy with that forever. And I think everybody’s looking for a better way.
GT: What does transparency tell you about a company?
EB: Transparency maybe doesn’t tell you everything, but a company certainly doesn’t talk about things it’s doing poorly, typically. To us the willingness of a company to be transparent indicates strong management, a willingness to be self-reflective, to understand what’s going on within their environment—both within their own environment internally as well as externally– and it just demonstrates connection to what’s happening in the world right now. I think they’re recognizing over time that people are more interested in exactly what’s happening and that means being transparent about what’s happening with your organization, whether that’s your human rights record, whether that’s your impact on the environment, your philanthropic giving, all the categories we might address.
GT: How many of your top 100 companies are ‘repeat achievers’? How much turnover do you see year over year?
EB: It changes a fair amount. The turnover changes over time, which sort of depends on the changes in the methodology, the data set. We try to limit that so there isn’t so much impact, but there can be an impact. One of our data categories is financial performance and with the recent economic downturn that really impacted some folks. So there can be some churn.
GT: How often do you update your methodology?
EB: We try to take an evolutionary versus revolutionary approach. You’d hate to see 80 percent of the list change because it wouldn’t be meaningful…Ultimately what we’re trying to do is drive people to be as transparent as they can be. So ultimately if a company is being even more transparent in 2012 than 2011 we don’t want to penalize them randomly because the methodology has changed. So we’ll try to be very careful in doing that. What you’ll find is because it’s a comparative methodology a company can do exactly what they were doing the prior year and still fall in the ranking if other companies are doing better.
GT: How does the audit process work?
EB: IW Financial, as part of their process, sends out a correspondence file, which is an opportunity for a company that they’ve audited to review the file and make sure that everything is accurate. We’ve added a separate, additional review for companies that are potentially going to be ranked so they can have a second review.
GT: When does the ranking come out?
EB: In the Spring. This year it will come out in early April.
GT: What is the circulation of Corporate Responsibility Magazine?
EB: 19,000
GT: Is the ranking publicly available information? Or is it sold?
EB:The ranking is public. And free.
Elizabeth Boudrie is Vice President of Research at SharedXpertise, where she oversees all global research efforts addressing topics such as corporate responsibility, and transformation and outsourcing of business processes. She will share more information and answer more questions about CR Magazine’s “100 Best Corporate Citizens List” during the NAEM webinar on Jan. 24.
Sustainability Strategy and Long-term Performance
Kimberly Gladman
At the NAEM conference in Fort Lauderdale last May, I spoke about recent academic research on the link between corporate responsibility—in particular, positive environmental policies—and stock price performance. (For a review of the studies I talked about, see my paper, “Ten Things to Know about Responsible Investing.” ) I promised NAEM staff that I’d stay in touch and keep them updated when I heard of additional research that might be of interest to the membership. A paper just out from Harvard Business School definitely fits the bill.
In “The Impact of a Corporate Culture of Sustainability on Corporate Behavior and Performance,” Professors Bob Eccles, Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim began by identifying companies that disclosed a set of environmental and social policies in 2003-2005. They then conducted over 200 interviews with corporate executives to ascertain which companies had already begun to implement these policies internally in 1993.
Once they had a set of 90 early adopters, they created a matched sample of companies that had few sustainability policies, but were otherwise similar to the first group in terms of size, sector, growth stage and capital structure. Comparing shareholder returns for the two groups, they found that the high-sustainability group outperformed its low-sustainability peers by an annualized 2.3 percent on an equal-weighted basis,between 1993 and 2011.
The authors also demonstrated, based on a statistical analysis of keywords in analyst calls, that high-sustainability companies are more likely to discuss long-term trends and non-financial matters with investors. They study ownership and show that high-sustainability companies attract longer-term investors with more concentrated holdings. They also show that high sustainability companies also are more likely to have a board oversight of sustainability, to incorporate sustainability metrics into executive compensation, and to disclose non-financial performance. (The full study can be found at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1964011).
While the study’s performance numbers may be welcomed by corporate environment, health and safety (EHS) managers as evidence that sustainability pays, it would be interesting to know the relationship between a company’s survival rate and its sustainability activities. For example, does management of social and environmental issues acts as a kind of insurance policy, making a company more likely to be around long-term?
NAEM members would probably have valuable opinions on this question. They would also be able to offer useful perspectives on one of the study’s key follow-up questions: What ensures that companies stay the long-term course in terms of sustainability culture? Why do some companies’ programs fall apart if a key manager leaves, while other firms seem to have environmental consciousness baked into their “DNA”? These questions are just part of the lively discussion this paper is provoking.
What do you think?
Dr. Kimberly Gladman is the Director of Research and Risk Analytics at GMI, a leading provider of corporate governance, accounting, environmental and social research and ratings. Before joining GMI’s predecessor, The Corporate Library, in 2008, Dr. Gladman managed a team of associates researching global corporations at Domini Social Investments, a prominent socially responsible investment fund manager. She also served as Lead SRI Analyst for Domini’s European equity fund, and spent several years participating in the firm’s shareholder advocacy on social, environmental, and governance issues.
She began her career in academia, focused on interdisciplinary research and teaching. She earned a B.A. from Yale University in 1990, and a Ph.D. from New York University in 2001. Dr. Gladman also holds the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.
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.
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.
