Posts tagged ‘EHS’
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.
Transparency Begins with Data Management
Connie Prostko-Bell
Meeting the demands of new product regulations requires better data management solutions. We sat down this week with 3E Company’s Connie Prostko-Bell to learn more about this emerging issue and to find out what companies are doing to provide greater supply chain transparency.
GT: Why do companies collect MSDSs and other product data from their suppliers? What is this information used for?
CPB: Operational risk and compliance management is increasingly focused on environmental issues across the supply chain. As companies strive to deliver sustainable ongoing improvements in compliance and risk management, they are closely scrutinizing the management of products in the enterprise, especially chemicals and other hazardous materials, with a special emphasis on fulfilling requirements in environmental, health and safety (EHS) regulatory compliance. A comprehensive view of compliance performance and risk management throughout the supply chain and product life cycle is necessary to promote and sustain ongoing improvement.
This vision is fueled by accurate and comprehensive content, including environmental, health and safety (EHS) product data, such as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), which can be leveraged to ensure that the products that are incorporated into finished goods meet legal, regulatory, industry and self-imposed standards. Leveraging this type of data helps communicate to a company’s stakeholders that externally sourced processes and materials do not introduce legal, financial, ethical or market access risks to the company. Furthermore, it gives organizations an opportunity to advance their own value-based agendas by leveraging buying power to enforce desired practices.
GT: What trends are driving the management of supplier-sourced product data?
CPB: Manufacturers with complex supply chains are struggling under the burden of spiraling global EHS regulations. More often than not, they possess neither the requisite internal methodologies nor the necessary personnel to collect, analyze, share, and distribute key information related to supplier compliance and corporate risk across the various functional groups within the organization. Compliance issues such as GHS, REACh, RoHS and Frank-Dodd are driving the need for a common source of product data.
The shifting regulatory landscape also burdens suppliers, who often need help gaining access from suppliers and understanding the global EHS laws with which they must comply. Companies are increasingly recognizing supplier compliance as a critical component of business continuity efforts.
GT: A company’s efforts are only as strong as the quality of its data. How can companies ensure data quality, especially when they are dealing with a multitude of suppliers?
CPB: The number of suppliers can vary wildly from company to company. Generally speaking, it is safe to say that the larger the organization, the more suppliers it will have. Many factors influence this number such as geographical diversity of operations and customers, the complexity of the product line, and availability of the required raw materials. It is certainly not uncommon for a large company to have tens of thousands of suppliers. However, regardless of whether the company has hundreds or thousands of suppliers, managing supplier data can be a very challenging task. Finding, maintaining and acting on data is difficult and painstakingly time-consuming.
It is important that companies use documented, best practice methodologies and direct relationships to gather, refine and maintain data.
When it comes to sharing the information, you should choose an easy-to-use and practical system that meet each customer’s specific needs. The data should be broad, dynamically updated, and of the highest quality and accuracy. Substance- level regulatory data and product level MSDS data should be integrated together to provide a view into the impact of regulatory changes across inventories in the enterprise.
At the product level, from its inception to the present day, the vendor supplied product MSDS has evolved into a document that goes far beyond its original purpose, now serving as a source, foundation and clearinghouse for a range of safety and regulatory compliance data, including classification, transportation, environmental, ecological and disposal considerations. MSDS product-level data should be continuously updated with information and search technologies, documented best practice methodologies and through direct data obtainment relationships with raw material and other chemical product manufacturers.
Connie Prostko-Bell is a Senior Solutions Manager with 3E Company. She has 16 years of EH&S and chemical industry experience, spanning the project management, product safety and product stewardship sectors. She will share strategies for getting accurate supplier data during NAEM’s webinar on the topic Feb. 16.
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.
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/
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.
Small Companies Can Make a Big Difference
Mark Posson
I recently had the pleasure to speak with Larry O’Connor , the CEO of Other World Computing and I came away with a stronger realization that leadership is arguably the largest factor in an organization’s environmental performance.
The company, which was started by Larry at age 14, has been providing quality hardware products and support to the computer industry since 1988. It provides peripherals for Macs and PCs with a focus on higher performance, energy efficient solid state drives to give computer users faster, more responsive systems with battery life approaching that of today’s increasingly popular tablet computers. Since its beginning, OWC has focused on developing innovative products that also meet the organization’s environmental concerns.
Under Larry’s leadership, OWC also has achieved sustained business growth, profitability and environmental excellence. The company’s environmental philosophyis elegantly simple: doing the right thing for the most effective utilization of natural resources makes for good business. And for a small firm, OWC has made a big environmental difference.
How has this enlightened leadership philosophy translated into specific actions? Here are just a few examples:
- When designing a new 37,000-square-foot headquarters and warehouse building in 1998, OWC chose to followed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria. This included the use of porous pavers led to smaller storm water retention basins, allowing for more space for future development. The company also used natural light to lower energy use and boost employee morale. The headquarters building houses the product development and customer s support teams, keeping the jobs in the United States. The attractive work environment has undoubtedly allowed OWC to attract top talent.
- A geothermal heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which produced lower long-term operating costs
- The company installed a 500-kilowatt wind turbine to meet all of their present and planned power needs. Long-term thinking? Absolutely. It’s expected to pay back in 10 to 14 years, a hedge against escalating energy costs, energy self-sufficiency and alternative technology, all of which are good long-term sustainable business strategies.
- OWC also doesn’t rest on their laurels, but rather looks for ways to continually improve its environmental performance. As an example, OWC is in the process of upgrading the efficiency of its conveyor system, its largest production power user. The upgrade is projected to yield a 70 percent reduction in energy usage and increase product through-put.
During my conversation with Larry, I kept coming back to ‘Why? What was driving this desirable business behavior?’ He summed it up for me like this:
“At the end of the day, we work to do as much right as we can for all concerns. By being long-term, we can look at the long-term win-wins for both conserving our resources and with a competitive long-term cost benefit as well. As I had said – very arguably, if there isn’t a long term cost-benefit to a technology in the current time, there is likely something to question about the real net conservation benefit of the technology as well.”
Enlightened leadership: it’s a beautiful thing.
Mark Posson is the former Director of Environment, Safety and Health at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company and the current Chair of the city of Pleasanton’s Energy and Environment Committee. He will be teaching environmental and sustainability management at University of California, Davis in the Spring. He recently began offering consulting services to help organizations improve their environment, safety and health performance.
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.
Can engaged employees transform the U.S. economy?
Alex Pollock
Now that the world population has surpassed the seven billion marker, the “sustainability” word is getting lots of play once again. The call-to-action bugles are again warning us of a pending global catastrophe. What could suddenly create “worldwide peace, global well-being and extraordinary advancement in human development?”
In a new book, “The Coming Jobs War,” author Jim Clifton says a solution is the appearance of a whopping 1.8 billion “good” jobs. These are jobs that provide at least 30 hours of work per week and a steady pay check. Clifton believes that the country that can best achieve job growth coupled with GDP growth will be the dominant world force.
Can the United States be this global force?
Clifton believes the explosion of entrepreneurship that GDP growth requires won’t happen here until the country doubles its number of “engaged” employees: those who are using their talents every day, yielding great results, emotionally committed and are working consistently with high energy and enthusiasm.
This number currently stands at 28 percent nationally. Going from 30 million to 60 million engaged workers will “change the face of America more than any leadership institution, trillions of stimulus dollars, or any law or policy imaginable,” Clifton argues.
But as long as “one in five U.S. managers are “dangerously lousy,” these “high-energy workplaces” will elude us, Clifton says. “Fire all lousy managers today” is an imperative, he argues, because nothing fixes bad managers: not coaching, competency training, incentives or warnings. In his experience “bad managers never get better.”
What’s your reaction to his analysis? Clearly there is an opportunity for each of us is to contribute to the creation of these attractive “high energy workplaces” where we willingly give our best every day. We just can’t just afford to be a passive observer on this one.
