The debate is over. Evidence abounds that companies can improve their financial bottom line by looking out for the other two-thirds of their triple bottom line. So if sustainability makes so much sense, why isn't everyone doing it?
The hurdle is not the hard facts so much as the soft ones. Companies, like people, have personalities. Some are progressive, but most are conservative. When it comes to sustainability, the progressives get a lot of press, but in reality, they are the exceptions to the rule.
I'm no stranger to working in a conservative culture. Before launching a sustainability consulting practice, I was a management consultant with PricewaterhouseCoopers and IBM, working within industries like oil and gas and accounting. As a sustainability consultant, my first clients included law firms, also conservative by nature. Ready to barrel down the green superhighway at top speed, I created green plans that would take them from zero to 60, only to find out they were more content to creep along in the slow lane.
The issue wasn't in figuring out what to do. There are a number of well-documented third-party certification programs that can deliver demonstrable value through cost-savings measures that reduce environmental impact and increase brand awareness. The real challenge in greening a conservative culture lies in bridging the chasm between "progressives" and "conservatives."
| The Six Keys to Driving Change in a Conservative Corporate Culture |
| 1. Top-level support. 2. Management-level and administrative support. 3. Minimal risk. 4. A clear path. 5. Bottom-line value. 6. Political awareness. Read the whole story to find out how these six keys can make all the difference when trying to drive sustainability at work. |
So how do we chart a course for change within a conservative culture without being labeled as progressive -- and potentially disregarded as a result? That question was on my mind when I met Dan Northcut.
Dan is the Director of Environmental Studies at St. Mark's School of Texas, a private preparatory school for boys founded in Dallas in 1906. Dan has been with the school for over 20 years. In fact, if you count the six years he spent there as a student, you could say he's been there for nearly 30 years.
During that time Dan has seen a lot. He remembers the late seventies when conserving energy was considered patriotic. To do its part, the school removed every other bulb from the light fixtures in its hallways and classrooms. Then came the 1980s. The solar panels were removed from the White House and the zeal for energy conservation in America was on the wane. Nearly two decades of relatively cheap energy followed.
Fast forward to 2008. Conservation has once again become a hot topic in the national discourse, prompting companies to take a fresh look at conservation practices. But while the words "going green" roll of the tongue with ease, rolling out green initiatives that reduce greenhouse gases is not so easy. Many organizations today pay lip service to sustainability while only a few are making genuine investments to make facilities and operations more efficient.
So what sets St. Mark's School of Texas apart? A proactive, comprehensive approach to the 21st century realities of energy insecurity and climate change, driven by broad support from stakeholder groups, a spirit of leadership among its students, and the personal commitment of people like Dan Northcut, who also serves as the school's environmental director.
During the past two years, St. Mark's has implemented a single-stream recycling program and has switched its power source to a blend of 30-percent renewable energy, setting a goal to increase that amount by 10 percent each year. Dan's AP Environmental Science elective course is so popular that the school added a second section. An environmental component is also being integrated into the curriculum of the lower school, giving younger students exposure to sustainability concepts at an early age. Even the teachers' lounge reflects eco-consciousness, now that Styrofoam cups have been replaced with ceramic mugs bearing St. Mark's special green branding.
The most significant reflection of St. Mark's commitment is the Board of Trustees' approval of LEED certification for the two new buildings undergoing construction. This decision added just two percent more to the construction cost. St. Mark's will recover this within approximately 10 years -- less if the cost of energy rises -- with the added benefits of a healthier indoor environment.
The school's eco-improvements, which began two decades ago with Dan, now have the support of teachers, administration, students, parents, and the board. How one person helped drive change at St. Mark's presents a roadmap any change agent can follow in a conservative culture.
![Ending the alphabet soup in the [insert word here] field](http://www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/wide_small/130516-voien1-w.jpg "Ending the alphabet soup in the [insert word here] field")
How to Create Change in a Conservative Culture
Excellent article! I work with manufacturing companies to design, adopt and implement a continuous improvement process which focuses on energy efficiency focusing on the the food processing sector in the northwest. This is a slow and steady adoption. Originally the funding plan was to extend five years, new funding management decided to reduce this time to three years, 0 to sustainability in three years! Change takes time and as you note much time is spent up front building awareness, integrity, leadership commitment and decision safety in a conservative culture. I predict that it will take five solid years of mentoring to make it stick.
Ed Birch
Bottom-Line Value
While I liked the article overall, the key element missing is the idea of sustainability linked to ROI. Simply having a short turn ROI is not enough for a key project such as envisioned by the writer. What she is looking for is a long term investment of personnel and perhaps money for her idea.
Money can be an issue
"I recently read about someone renovating apartments and struggling with green. The increased cost to build and upgrade can not be passed on in rent. That market is not willing to pay more for green. The financial benefit of green is to the occupant, not the landlord."
You are correct that the occupant is unwilling to pay a higher rent. However, couldn't we use some non-traditional paths to collect more from the occupant. For example, let's look at lighting. If I installed energy efficient lighting along with occupancy sensors there is no question that this will result in a reduction in electricity usage. There are a few ways to get a return on the investment. I can ask the tenant to pay me a percentage of the electricity savings each month. Suppose I believe that the investment will save 200 kWh per month, based upon 6 hours per day of lighting. The tenant needs to pay me the cost of 150 kWh per month. I see 75% of the savings and the tenant benefits by having a reduced utility bill. A different approach would be for me to pay the utility bill. Using the old utility bills, I could 75% of this to the tenant's rent. In order to prevent them from wasting energy, I can put a limit on their electricity usage, with a surcharge for any use over a predetermined baseline.
Perhaps there are other, better models for recovering the investment. I would just encourage people to think in an unconventional manner.
Picture of USA-Palau Compact Road of Palau
The picture used in this article without a caption appears to be that of portion of the newly completed (Oct. 2007) $149m US Funded/Foreign company built so-called Compact Road. The road, which was constructed on the virtually inhabited and "green" Babeldaob, the big island of the island nation of Palau, (by the construction giant Daewoo C&E Ltd Co.,) they say will bring big development to Babeldaob. Thus the road is now often referred to as "Road to the Future" massive economic development of the small island nation, known worldwide for its environmental beauty and its ocean water and reefs, as one the seven wonders of underwater world.
It is up to us, the people of this small island nation with population of just 20,000 people, now to ensure that the ensuing development that will come to the big island of Palau is "sustainable".
Look Beyond Change
In my experience, change is not the key deterrent, money is the issue. While I agree that the savings for green are well document, especially as they refer to energy savings, there are many other costs associated with the process of going green not always considered. Look at capital investment. This can reach 6 and 7 figure dollar amounts depending on the size of your organization. In today's economy, few companies can justify that large of a capital expenditure when they are just trying to keep the doors open. Most consumers are still not willing to pay a higher cost for "better quality" green items. So, either the organization absorbs the costs or they do not sell (homebuilding is a prime example). Who receives the savings? I recently read about someone renovating apartments and struggling with green. The increased cost to build and upgrade can not be passed on in rent. That market is not willing to pay more for green. The financial benefit of green is to the occupant, not the landlord.
Many organizations, even conservative ones, have already begun to take the small steps: recycling, better electronics, more efficient lighting, etc. The big changes are what everyone notices and harder to swallow.
Steve Bertasso
The Green Decoder
Change
Here I give you two universal constants:
1. PI
2. A Program Manager.
Employee involvement
Thanks for your thoughts, Bob -- very true about finding new low-hnging fruit when the employees are consulted!
Employee involvement: yes. AND employee activity needs to be aligned. Random acts of greenness are good, but not as good as coordinated movement toward a shared corporate vision.
So I'd say both top-down and bottom-up energy is required.
What about a bottom-up approach to change?
When framing change as a top down inititive, workers are often seen as a "problem." Many employees have great ideas for change, but the change managers are not effective as interviewers. They just do not know how to listen effectively when employees are talking. There is a saying, "An employee never resists their own ideas!" When I have confronted change in my consulting practice (even where management swears that it has already picked all of the low hanging fruit), I have started by turning to the employees. By using process maps, the employees are able to "see" where the resource productivity is wanting. By using root cause analysis and other tools in the Systems Approach (US EPA publication, "An Organizational Guide to Pollution Prevention"), employees are able to prepare a draft action plan and present it to management. The training employees should receive involves the development of skills to manage the project and report on the result. They arleady know about sustainability within the four walls of their facility. Effective employee involvement is best defined by one of the "Eight Quality Management Principles" that are a part of ISO 9001 quality management system and the worker criterion in a business excellence framework such as the Baldrige model. The consultant can be helpful as a facilitator - not a dictator of the road map or the best practices that the employees will be required to adopt. I agree with Anna Clark that sustainability is getting back to basics. We may disagree on whether the basics are for management and their consultants or for the workers who are ready and willing to take on the challenge. There is some research on employee involvement going on at Harvard University right now that should shed some interesting light on this perspective. I will be reporting on that work and the basics of sustainability in my blog on Greenbiz.com. It will be great to hear what others think about the effectiveness of employee involvement where they must be involved both in the planning and implementation of sustainability projects - not just being told what to do. Will this help move sustainability forward in organizations that have not been "progressive?"
Bob Pojasek
First Environment