As we kick off our second quarter at BGI, I am struck with a
renewed sense of purpose for becoming a thought leader for sustainable
business. We are surrounded by examples of “the status quo” and the inability
to make decisions about the future. We cannot keep delaying action and pushing
off decisions to the next leaders, generations, congress, CEOs etc. We must
find people who are passionate NOW, and who are willing to make the tough
decisions and stand up to lead our way forward to a more positive future.
My background is environmental science, with an emphasis on
the science. I have never taken business classes before, and so all my
experience stems from what I have experienced firsthand in organizations I have
worked for. It has been fascinating, even just within this first week, to start
unpacking the meaning of strategy and organizational structure…and where sustainability
fits in to all of this.
The core of my current job is helping organizations start
the visioning and planning process to make change; change towards lower
emissions, integrated communication, general sustainability, new building
designs. I work with a workflow very similar to what was presented in class
this week, a process that starts with a vision, ends with action, and
emphasizes reiterations and revisiting original goals to track progress. No
rocket science here, and it felt like I was just hearing about my daily job. I
then heard one sentence that really hit me hard. It was a subtle, slight twist
on the traditional vision/goal setting process that made so much sense I have
used it in practice three times this week. It is a new way to look at your
goal, and it offers much more opportunity for change than “what do you want to
be”.
“What would a truly {sustainable, integrated, successful, etc} version
of us look like? (from the perspective of what is NECESSARY not what is FEASIBLE).
Wow. This is a conversation framing changer. I am currently
working with a school district to define what a new school would look like, and
how the facility can help accomplish it. Only when we started talking about
what was necessary did we really start to unpack the true vision (and
challenges!) of our task.
That brings me back to the role of sustainability in
business. Clearly the organization must hold a vision or nothing will happen.
But whose role it is to formulate that vision, and carry it out? We hear so
much about the Sustainability Manager or Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO), or
the grassroots green team that is making waves in an organization. I would
argue that all these models are a great start, but are not the end answer. To
me, they do not represent a sustainable organization.
How many businesses have one specific department that is
concerned with revenue? Or public perception? Sure, there is the accounting
department and public relations, but ultimately a successful business has every
P&L on the lookout for revenue, and each project manager or staff member is
personally aware and vested in this goal. It is the collective effort of all
the individuals that drive revenue, and ultimately the success of the company.
Sustainability must be viewed in the same way. It has to be
everyone’s interest, not just the responsibility of one department or
individual. The vision and plan must be
integrated throughout the organization, and there must be accountability for
progress throughout all levels. If all efforts are directed by a single
upper-management role, this could also hinder creativity, and force out great
ideas from individuals because it is “not their job”. Sustainable innovation
must be part of everyone’s job for the organization to truly move towards a
more sustainable future.
The GreenBiz Group just published their third annual “State
of the Profession” report, investigating the unique role of the sustainability
executive in industry. This immediately caught my eye, as I expect many of my
classmates (myself included) see this as a possible career path after BGI. After reading this report, I am inclined to think that the market may be looking for something else by the time my class graduates.
There were many interesting trends and insights into the sustainability profession. Two key metrics that intrigued me were the fact that more and more total companies now have a full time sustainability manager position, but the number being added each year has been decreasing since 2008.
There were many interesting trends and insights into the sustainability profession. Two key metrics that intrigued me were the fact that more and more total companies now have a full time sustainability manager position, but the number being added each year has been decreasing since 2008.
The report goes on to investigate what this means for the future of sustainability
positions, and relates it to the experience of current executives and the
challenges they face.
If you are interested in what GreenBiz found, check out the report here. And if you just want to know the main takeaway, here is summary
excerpt of the three main challenges they found to be facing sustainability managers
and executives.
- There is no natural home for the function. There is no one department that most companies call out as the logical place for sustainability to reside.
- There is no professional accreditation or degree. Certificate programs and sustainability-themed MBAs have sprouted and are effective in providing context for sustainability executives, but they are not necessarily the end-all of what future sustainability leaders will need to succeed.
- There is no authority. The most effective sustainability programs h a v e u n equivocal support from the company’s CEO, who holds the entire company accountable. (In optimal circumstances, the CEO’s interest is driven by a mandate from the board of directors.) But most sustainability executives must operate in an environment of consensus building along with a wide range of both qualitative and quantitative measures of success, and even these metrics can shift unexpectedly based on changes in budget, leadership, or organizational priorities.
There is some energy in this post! I love your commitment to a higher level of sustainability as well as one that is fully integrated within the business. I don't think you'd settle for anything less than Bob Willard's level 4 or 5. Go get it!
ReplyDeleteYour post was so interesting to read!I was wondering what school district you are working with?
ReplyDeleteLauren, thanks for the reference to the new State of the Profession report (somehow I missed that one and I look forward to reading it).
ReplyDeleteThere are many functions that have a history similar to the sustainability function: international, marketing, IT, etc. In all cases, the function needs to be incorporated throughout the organization in order for it to be effective -- and yet it has to reside somewhere. The alternatives for these functions have been interesting:
* International is frequently a separate sales organization in early stage organizations -- where products are developed for the home market and then "thrown over the wall" for sale in other markets (decentralized). Over time, as international sales account for a greater proportion of the whole, the organization tends to want to build products for all markets (not just the home market) and tries to integrate international considerations throughout the operation (centralized). Later still, operations in international markets become so large that the company can establish a full operation in each country it serves and it becomes decentralized again with more autonomy.
* Marketing is sometimes described as being "too important to be left to the marketing department." Thus, for example, we now have engineers going out and talking directly to customers rather than having their wishes relayed through marketing and sales folks. And everyone on a product team is concerned about building products that will satisfy the needs of the market. In many cases, this relegates the marketing function to simple marketing communications: sending messages TO the market rather than working in both directions.
* In IT, there is a different solution. This department is usually operated as a service center, being pulled in multiple directions according to multiple priorities of different internal customers. Over time, this centralized function becomes too overburdened and the function is decentralized out to the individual units. After a while, that results in a bunch of inefficiencies and incompatibilities that lead to re-centralization.
Note in all these cases: there is sometimes a companywide "CTO" or "CMO" or VP of Global Operations that keeps the issues represented by the discipline alive in the "C-Suite." You can expect similar evolutions over time in the role of the "CSO."