Recently, I had the opportunity to speak to a diverse group of industry professionals on "Sustainability 101." Starting the meeting with a show of hands, I asked, "Who can define sustainability?"
No reaction. Hmmm …
Realizing that most of the time, I tend to preach to the converted, I readied myself for some tough sledding. (My follow up question got only slightly more response. It was "Who thinks sustainability is a political correctness campaign cooked up in California?")
After the event, it was illuminating to talk with some of the participants to understand why this concept is initially difficult but ultimately very simple. We have developed a "word soup" around sustainability. It is more of stew than a soup in that every ingredient in the kitchen can be added.
As I started my talk, it was clear that a vague definition that can mean all things to all people wouldn't cut it. The official definition from 25 years ago "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation's to meet their own needs" sounds terrific but is not easily translated into an operational strategy.
The halfway point from this (Bruntland Commission) definition to an operational strategy is the term Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Trying to define CSR with a skeptical audience of neophytes was more chunky stew.
I droned: The basic elements are:
More blank stares … Crickets chirping …A. CSR is voluntary but your actions (or lack thereof) will be judged and your reputation is at stake;
B. To be effective CSR must be part of your business strategy;
C. Decreasing your impact throughout the value chain, while necessary, is not sufficient;
D. Real CSR in achieved when companies apply their core competencies to help solve society's problems;
E. There are three interlocking dimensions of CSR: Social, Environmental and Economic.
OK, it distills to simply this: It is an expectation that you treat people and our planet with respect. That's it.
This was the connection point -- the common language that led us out of the chunky stew and into a meaningful dialogue.
What this experience taught me is that there are some basic truths that are obvious to everyone but the practitioners of sustainability. Rather than struggling with definitions and standards, people intrinsically understand that we all have to account for our impact and, if possible, lend a hand to make things better. This change did not happen because everyone woke up one day with a desire to save the planet. The trend toward sustainability stems from a common realization of scarcity and the instinctive imperative to husband our resources.
Perhaps it is the "Tragedy of the Commons" on a grand scale. Increasingly, the public consciousness is demanding accountability and action not only to protect, but to enhance our common good and our shared resources.
Private sector companies are in the vanguard of this change because historically they have been the most identifiable consumers of shared resources and easily vilified. Going forward, companies may be the most identifiable sources of shared value.
The trade-offs inherent in the sustainability debate are difficult. Balancing the needs of people, impact on the planet and making a profit is not easy (it reminds me of the trade-off between quality, speed and price -- you can only have two out of three). Perhaps I am an optimist, but as companies are increasingly held accountable for their impacts and their behavior -- both negative and positive -- there will be a steady stream of innovation leading us toward sustainability. If the past is prologue, the private sector will be the engine of change by actively selecting and deselecting winners and losers in the new paradigm.
OK … this blog is in danger of rhetorical relapse. If my little lesson is correct, those of us in the sustainability field should start taking night classes to learn other skills. In the future we won't need sustainability gurus … treating people and our planet with respect will be business as usual.
Tim Mohin is a principal consultant and team leader for EORM's growing sustainability and corporate social responsibility practice. Formerly, Tim was Apple's senior manager for supplier responsibility and led Intel's environmental and sustainability efforts. He also led the development of national environmental strategy at the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Senate, including the development of the National Environmental Technology Act. Email him by clicking here.
Defining Sustainability
>It is an expectation that you treat people and our planet with respect.
This is a way of communicating part of the sustainability ethos, but I think its a bit vague and not a useful definition of sustainability.
The phrase 'quality of life for all, within the means of nature' encapsulates it better - the minimum condition for sustainability is: are we using less of nature's regenerative capacity than the available supply (as measured by tools like the Ecological Footprint)? If we can't meet this minimum condition, then by definition we are not living sustainably. In addition to meeting the minimum condition, are we ensuring quality of life (material and non material) for everyone? Sustainability is about the recognition that we only have so much 'budget' - how can we best spend it so that everyone has a great life? Then there are all the other plant and animal species we share the planet with...
Language matters
Interesting post. People whose work is focused on sustainability are in as much danger as anyone else of falling into the professional lingo trap--a quicksand of jargon and assumptions that prevents us from communicating our message to the people we really need to reach.
As Tim found, boiling your key point down to a statement that's direct, simple, and connects in some emotional way (we all want respect) is key.
Sandra Stewart, www.thinkshiftcom.com
Definition of Sustainability
Sustainability suggests that we can keep something in the same state.
We think about keeping nature in it's pristine state.
We like to keep our companies sustainable because it's reassuring to shareholders and employees that tomorrow will as good if not better than today.
Of course, nothing ever stays the same. Nature changes over time. Companies rise and fall according to the importance of their mission and their ability to execute.
So probably a better definition of sustainability is:
Management of change over time in a way that maximizes stakeholder satisfaction while minimizing stakeholder harm.
We could view people, animals, insects, trees, plants, etc as stakeholders and ascribe a level of importance to each.
For instance, if we decided to build a national smart grid but pledged that "not one blade of grass would be harmed" would probably be an exercise in futility while minimizing stakeholder satisfaction.
However, another statement like "we will build an energy smart grid that affects no more than 3 percent of the nation's wetlands and parks and preserves" may be considered a reasonable tradeoff that maximizes stakeholder satisfaction.
One might consider rezone ocean shipping lanes, for instance, if it meant we could save an endangered whale species with minimum affect to shipping concerns.
We simply have to do a better job of managing the requirements of our time, and future requirements, to the benefit of all stakeholders.