futurechat

I just read this post on Gender Bias in CSR . After reading the article and comments I have come to the conclusion that ‘Men are in Finance and Women in CSR’. While writing this, I must add that I absolutely detest stereotypes and I hate to add another element in the climate /sustainability / integrated reporting / CSR debate.

It is largely true that most senior positions and financial departments are staffed with men while the mentioned post and comments highlight that women are a majority in CSR departments.

I also did a google search and came up with this article based on the book, Men are From Mars Women are From Venus. I have added some comments to this ageless debate. Dear readers, tell me what you think?

1. It is said, the differences between Men and Women are universal. Women all over the world complain that “He doesn’t understand”. “He doesn’t listen”.

- Finance departments are notorious when it comes to funding CSR / Sustainability projects. Many times these projects don’t fit into the quarterly or annual time frame for determining ROI. While CSR departments feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall, despite the fact that they are talking about something that will have a long term positive impact.

2. It is said, Men like to be logical. Women like to share and talk

- Most conferences around integrated reporting (GRI) talk about fundamentally changing the way accounting departments function. Interestingly almost all conferences on this subject have large attendance from CSR departments while CFO’s and accounting departments are noticeable due to their small numbers.

I could go on and on. But would love to hear your views……..

Organic cotton is generally understood as cotton, from non genetically modified plants, that is certified to be grown without the use of any synthetic agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides. Its production also promotes and enhances biodiversity and biological cycles. In the United States cotton plantations must also meet the requirements enforced by the National Organic Program (NOP), from the USDA, in order to be considered organic. This institution determines the allowed practices for pest control, growing, fertilizing, and handling of organic crops. As of 2007, 265,517 bales of organic cotton were produced in 24 countries and worldwide production was growing at a rate of more than 50% per year. (Wikipedia)

India is the world leader producer of organic cotton. It’s the second largest producer of cotton and second largest exporter. The demand for organic cotton over the world increases every year, especially in US, Europe.

The organic cotton industry in India has been growing since past five years and has caught the attention mostly of farmers and manufacturers. What is interesting is that the domestic market for organic cotton is virtually untapped due to low domestic demand. Most Indian customers don’t buy organic cotton clothes or organic food. While the West shows an increasing trend towards moving away from fertilizers and chemicals, the Indian consumer is largely unaware of the many benefits of organic products. Awareness and purchase of organic products is a limited trend only amongst high net worth customers in Delhi, Bangalore and Mumbai.

While branded organic food stores exist (in a small way) branded organic clothes are not readily available. Products from international apparel brands that retail in India are a blend of pure organic cotton along with other fabric like polyester, etc. Usually the percentage of organic cotton ranges from 50 to 80 percent mixed with other fabrics. To develop the domestic market for organic cotton targeted marketing activities that drive both, awareness and behavior change are necessary.

The first barrier that needs to be overcome is that of explaining the concept of ‘Organic Cotton’ to the average Indian consumer and how it differs from the ubiquitous cotton that we are all used to.

While Organic Cotton and Fair Trade products are a fantastic example of buying for a cause. the larger challenge is one of behavior change. The fashion industry survives on the philosophy of ‘Change’. New trends for every season and new clothes for every social event are the norm. Even if we move towards these more sustainable fabrics, we will not be able to make a significant dent unless we impact fashion mindsets that dictate over consumption and excess at every point.

The big question then is – Do we sell Sustainability to the Indian consumer ? or Do we talk about Organic Cotton as a new fashion trend?

Life has changed – the climate change, the environment issues, the rapidly increasing pollution every thing points towards changing the way we live. But is this pointer to everyone – maybe not – the people in more remote areas aren’t touched by the city life – the way of living there is still as simple as it used to be. We all did migrate in some decade for a need to make a ‘ better living’.

What happened to better living as it evolved to living in such polluted times. Should we go back– we cannot – we don’t know how to but at least lets encourage living the way people have been since centuries – recycling – creating – innovating – living simply….

In search of Navalgund durries

Located in Dharwad District of Karnataka, Navalgund village is popular for its durrees (also known as Jamkhans) that are highly patterned. Navalagunda Jain Temple, a famous Jain heritage center, is another prime attraction of the place.

We sped into the dusty bylanes of Dharwad and reached the small village of Navalgund by late noon. Most homes had the vertical looms, that were lying empty, built in the front courtyard of their small houses. The home we went to a vibrant durrie was being woven and was near finishing.

The durry was woven using vibrant recycled yarns purchased from the nearby industrial city of Hubli. The waste yarn was easily available and very cheap.

With the popular temple in the village and Hubli being a major Industrial town we learnt that the art of weaving the Navalgund durries was dying slowly. There were only 12 families still weaving this durry. Most of the families involved had found lucrative business by selling flowers. Durries were only made to order.

We bought this durry which was ceremoniously cut off the loom and handed over to us. Armed with my new durry and determined to revive the navalgund durry one day I left for the Jesuit hostel I was staying in.

We were only an hour away from our destination when out dilapidated, overworked jeep broke down. It was already twilight and there were no villages in sight – we took a lift from the first vehicle that passed us – a milk van!

The small village too had several power looms weaving beautiful ilkal sarees. There was a loom in every corner – sarees being woven for mostly local retail.

The jeep was back soon (about a couple of hours after seeing the looms we spent waiting in front of the local akhada!)

We were approaching our centre (about 20 km. we were stranded again – our jeep just gave up) Under the moonless sky with ancient tree looming in on us it wasn’t the best nights to be stranded out in the wild.

A truck finally stopped and took us closer to our destination. I was staying in one of the Jesuit hostels was relived to be back now closer to midnight thanking that we were still alive to narrate our story.

Having had the opportunity to go to various remote areas in India I feel fortunate to have living history around to see and understand the traditional systems. Unfortunately some traditions have already become stories only found in history books While some like the Navalgund durries would soon be a thing of the past unless we do something about it.

Why don’t we make it our responsibility to take areas like these and make a small change that would effect lives of many and sustain a culture that is decades old. An art of living we can all believe in!

The Age of Meaning more...

Is it a movement for Meaning in Business ? more...

Is it a quest for Power and Market Domination or a quest for Meaning?

Will companies address cynicism within and outside and reach out with genuine behaviour?

Analysis of Mobile Banking Service, M-Pesa experiences in Kenya and Tanzania more... and more...

The answer, perhaps, lies in studying the origins of the Kenyan project and its team which included CSR and Technology Heads. On the other hand, the Tanzanian experience may just have become a marketing project and some context was lost.

Have you ever asked yourself this question? If so, what was the answer?

Did you justify to yourself, one way or the other, why you owned so much stuff? Or did you decide you had too much stuff and gave or worse, threw them away?

There is another way to look at it… a way which would lead to radical change in our economies and possibly change our current course toward some, not so distant, abyss.

What if we did not buy the stuff itself, but rather the services it provides? How would that look like and what would be the consequences.

Let’s take the example of a common product: a mobile phone. Mobile phones have evolved to become much more than telecommunication equipment but the product features, apart from the addition of camera lens, have barely changed over the past 10 years and yet we keep buying new phones, why? Why do we keep buying new phone when essentially they are providing the same service. Simple, we want to look after our status, our image, be en vogue etc… not really take full advantage of the new features or services provided by the phone.

So what happened to the old phone, which by the way still works very well thank you very much? We have a few options depending where we are in the world. We can just throw it away, even if we don’t generally know where ‘away’ is (this is another thing we need to talk about); give it to someone who does not mind having a second hand phone which, as I said before, works very well; give it to the retailer who did a great job at convincing us that we made the right decision or recycle it somehow if we are lucky which, by the way, is what the retailer should be doing.

So let’s look at it closely… you bought a phone 6 months ago, at a premium price because it is the latest model and you wanted it badly, it took you about a month to understand how all these funky features worked and then you used only for what you really need it for at the first place: to make calls, check your email, use the diary and take the occasional picture or video. Of course, not everyone has the same ‘needs’ (I’ll come back to that crucial word later), some will play games, others listen to music, watch movies, use the currency exchange function, calculator or other capabilities which I generally do not know because I don’t use them, and yet we all have the same phone. I mean the electronic stuff inside which makes it work, not the outside which makes us look and feel good.
The thing is that now, there is another new phone on the market, it’s got more memory, more functions that we don’t need, but if we don’t buy it we will look odd. So basically, whilst satisfying our basic need for communication, the phone has created a craving…

So what is the point of all this? Well, the system in which we are is such that we need to consume to keep the economy going because we consume perishable products, which perceived life is way shorter that it’s actual useful life. This is called planned obsolescence, a very well know marketing and engineering strategy. Does this mean we are all (willing) victims of marketers? Yep!

Let’s consider an alternative to this system, a system based on ever increasing consumption of high value added product at an ever increasing rate, leaving us unsatisfied and poorer.

Let us consider for few minute, longer might be too painful for some, that we actually do not buy the phone at all. We don’t own it, it is not ours, it is still the property of the manufacturer or retailer. Still with me? We have a phone of our choice, latest stuff which makes us look and feel good, but it’s empty. By that I mean that there is no software inside, we have to decide what we want and pay for each function a small sum of money on a monthly basis and according to our usage. We can obviously change our mind and decide to activate certain functions only when we need them… sounds familiar? That’s right, it’s starts to feel a bit like the iPhone but better, because we don’t own it. We use it only so that, when a new model comes around that would make us look and feel good again, or when our current phone is faulty, we can return our ‘old phone’ to the retailer and get the new one.

So what’s different from the current system? What’s different is what we don’t see but which is crucially important. The phone that we don’t own is being dismantled, cleaned, re-configured, given a new casing making it look brand new and shiny, ready to make another user look and feel good again. The difference is we don’t throw it away, and the manufacturer has an incentive to make those phone more durable, designed for remanufacturing, energy efficient, etc… because the manufacturer would own the phone, not us! We would only pay for the services you have chosen from the telecommunication provider.

What’s different is that we move away from a take-make-waste linear cycle to a rent-use-return closed cycle.

Sony does not go as far as this with their PSP in Europe but they are getting there. Sony has a warranty system which allows PSP users to call and get a replacement within 24 hours. You call, a courier comes with what looks like a brand new PSP, you give your faulty one and that is the last you hear of it but it is not the end of the story. The faulty PSP is sent to a remanufacturing plant where it is repaired, reconfigured, given a new shiny casing, a new lease of life… and re-introduced to the market for exchange.
The advantage for Sony is that it keeps the users going and buying more games, which is really what brings the money in. Is that radical? Not really; does it make business sense? Sure does!

Now stretch your imagination a little more and instead of a phone or a video game, think of most of the things you own: TV, DVD player, Washing machine, Dishwasher, Computer, etc… even your car; all these services for which we have to buy these products and then dispose of them once they are damaged or non-performing (not just in the material and practical sense). Imagine a world where we did not have to own any of these items; we could just enjoy the services they provide, for a fee. Scary? Not really, but it would make such a difference.

How are you feeling at this very moment? Happy, Sad, Stressed……Our emotions reflect who we are and our circumstances at that point in time. Can emotions actually be measured? Is the talk of a Happy Planet Index ridiculous?

This is what I think…

1. If GDP was the best measure of success then climate change would not have happened. Our measures would have shown that economic growth is impacting the world around us and will have a long term negative impact on the planet and therefore our very existence.

2. Conventional western ideas of development and progress to a large extent are based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. This view, assumes that human beings are driven by a limitless craving for material possessions. However, there is a new way of looking at human needs. According to Manfred Max-Neef a Chilean economist and environmentalist, fundamental human needs are: subsistence protection, affection, understanding, participation, recreation, creation, identity and freedom. According to him anyone who cannot satisfy these needs is poor. Income, according to this methodology is not a criteria for Poverty.
If decision-makers operated according to his assumptions rather than those of most economists, then the choices they made would change radically.

Can GDP factor in the new concepts of Human Needs and Sustainability? Perhaps not.

We need a new way of thinking. An approach that does not assume that Happiness is Directly correlated to Economics and that Air, Water and the Earth are neither abundant nor free.

Perhaps measuring Happiness is a better way of making a better world! (Happy Planet Index)

Keeping busy, not to give in to panic

A world in crisis, everyone counts

I’ve changed my light bulbs, surely that counts

Is it really true what they say?

I won’t be here so come what may!

Technology will sort this out

Have you seen the latest phone that came out?

Why should I change my lifestyle?

When all is fine, at least for a while…

Ice melting, sea level rising

It’s okay as long as the sun’s shining

They say water is scarce, the world is hungry

Can I have ice and strawberries with my Martini?

The world may end tomorrow, they say

Tomorrow’s another day, let’s enjoy today!

So far so good!

An increasing number of businesses around the world, particularly in Asia, seem to think that being certified under the most popular environmental labels scheme actually make them green businesses?

Well, it might give them a green image and win them business deals that they would actually not qualify for if they were not certified BUT, that does not make them green at all or radically improve their performance. It actually can increase their cost base with little benefits.The cost of implementing an ISO 14000 systems or any environmental management system can outweigh the benefits. Don’t get me wrong, being ISO 14000 certified is a good thing, but it is does not provide a competitive advantage but it is a good thing. ISO 14000 is an environmental management systems, in other words it helps organisations to measure, monitor, report and gradually improve their environmental impact. It is necessary but far from sufficient.

An organisation can be ISO14000 certified, still be a major polluter, breach labour laws, practice corruption, evade taxes, etc… That is exactly where certification falls short dramatically! Many businesses have understood that and are taking advantage of the goodwill of the ISO brand to enhance their brand, without real commitment to change. They are just trying to be less bad, not good!

Again, don’t get me wrong, it is very useful to be ISO certified, but it is little or no use without a vision and strategy. An Environment Management System is just a tool, like a hammer in a toolbox… and, as the saying goes: ‘when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail’.

Imagine, you are trying to build a boat, and you only have a toolbox, no plans describing how the boat might look like, its dimensions, attributes etc… What are the chances that you are going to succeed building anything resembling a boat? Remote at best!

Imagine again, you end up in a jungle and you need to reach a destination. All you have is good clothes, good shoes, etc… but you have neither map nor compass. How do you expect to get to your destination? Again, quite remote!

I think you get the point…

Whether an organisation uses ISO 14000, LEED, FactorX, GRI, Triple Bottom Line or any other such system which provide certification, it is likely to only do ‘less bad’ than what it is doing today.

We all know that what we need is much more than that if we are to give today and tomorrow’s children a decent planet to live in.

To be able to do much more than ‘less bad’ ie: ‘Good’; organisations need

• a principles based VISION of what a sustainable organisation might look like,
• a STRATEGY on how to get there,
• an ACTION PLAN to implement this strategy and finally
• the right TOOLS, in that order.

For all this to work, organisations require the COMMITMENT of their leaders of course, but also of their staff and stakeholders.

The final point to make is that Vision, Strategy, Action Plan and Tools complement each other, and Commitment is what makes it all work. If one of these elements is missing, organisations won’t get very far, and certainly not as far as they and we need them to.

We can’t predict the future, but we can think more about the sort of future we want, and how it could be achieved.