Psychological Traps in Sustainable Thinking

I am going to build on Matt Wilson’s excellent post about cynicism. I agree that overcoming cynicism is the first step – but what a big step it is! In this post I’ll talk a bit about leaving cynicism behind, about the psychological traps that are inherent in this decision, and how I personally experienced this at Net Impact in Portland.

My communications background spawned my interest in how people organize themselves and work with information technologies to make good decisions. I picked workshops at Net Impact that related to my areas of greatest interest – how to measure the impact of business decisions and how to share impact information with stakeholders to best support the common good. I went to workshops on integrated reporting, employee engagement, impact investing, organizational learning, innovative balanced scorecards, and other things on that theme. The results were mixed.

I’ll start with my cynic hat on: the workshop on employee engagement featured a rep from Southwest Airlines, whose much-studied rise to success was based on the competitive niche of getting people out of cars and into planes, massively increasing the carbon footprint of intercity travel in the US. The most sustainable thing Southwest could do is get people out of planes and back into cars again, but they don’t engage employees who think that way… I disappointedly snuck out of that session before it finished. I also left part-way through the workshop on creating a personal portfolio of “social impact investments” when I realized the gaping disconnect between the workshop content about evaluating the impact of the investments themselves from the systemic impacts of the personal investment goals brainstormed by the audience: fly to the tropics every winter, buy that second vacation home, the fancier car, and other first-world consumer fantasies. Investing money “in an impactful way” does not validate your wasteful lifestyle choices, people! There was a broader understanding of systemic issues decidedly missing here.

I don’t want to be a cynic or contribute to the cynicism of others – I agree with Matt Wilson (and Lord Hastings) that it is a huge barrier to progressive action. But my experience of Net Impact was that a relentless tide of positive optimism competed for attention with critical, realist discussion, and from my examples above I think there are legitimate reasons to be critical. Without a real, critical discussion of Southwest’s role in the carbon economy, or of the lifecycle costs of our investment/consumption habits, we ignore “the elephant in the room” and it becomes easy for people with dissenting views (like me) to feel isolated and cynical. Substituting “everything is great” for “everything is hopeless” hardly strikes the balance that is required to tackle the complexity of sustainability problems.

The important point I want to make is that giving up cynicism doesn’t have to force a personal choice between full blown cynical gloom and an obstinately positive attitude. Blind positivity is the first psychological trap when you try to get over your cynicism. For a really excellent summary of the trap that positive thinking sets for us, see Barbara Ehrenreich’s (brilliantly animated) talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo. In this respect I think Net Impact could offer more value to participants by offering structured “360° feedback” sessions to companies, organizations, or individuals to help them broaden their understanding of how to improve, rather than the panel discussions where everyone is applauded for making an upbeat presentation about whatever positive work they want to highlight.

On the bright side, my best experience at Net Impact was attending a workshop on organizational learning hosted by Libbie Landles-Dowling of Bridgespan consulting group. The focus was on how to systematize the incremental learning and critical feedback process in every project and consulting engagement, and make this information available to an organization in an accessible, searchable way. It was the most useful angle for tackling the psychological traps I have described here – it allows a whole organization to make critical reflection a core part of project work, and help make decisions based not just on our belief that we are doing the right thing, but on the best data that we can muster about what has worked well in the past. This workshop, and other sessions that focused on how to engage with stakeholder groups in ways that allow you to get at the root of problems, made the conference worthwhile for me.

However, once you start down the critical appraisal road, the complexity of issues can become overwhelming, and we fall into the next psychological trap: “analysis paralysis”. An MBA-friendly analogy is the case competition – you have to start with research and get all your issues sorted out before making a plan of action. Experienced case crackers warn about “analysis paralysis” – getting stuck on trying to find the “perfect”, mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive set of issues that describe the problem at hand. Cynicism in daily life comes from a sort of “analysis paralysis” – it is very easy to dwell on all the reasons why different ideas haven’t worked in the past, and to wait around for the “perfect big idea” to come along. To get past this stage you have to hold your nose and take the best course of action you can with the information that you have available. Be prepared to work iteratively, fail many times successively, and keep learning on the way (this is what Design Thinking is supposed to help with). This trap gets me the most, and I blame that on an undergrad steeped in marxist economic critiques and post-modernist cultural studies: heavy on the criticism, but light on decisive plans of action!

Cynicism is rooted in fear that leaders of social change or sustainability movements are inappropriately positive about their missions – perhaps naively, for lack of experience; perhaps deliberately, to hide a personal interest in attracting funds and followers; or perhaps because they are blinded by their own ideological beliefs. Ideology is the most common, and most insidious cause for cynicism – the most passionate, zealous leaders, no matter how well intentioned, seem more prone to be fundamentally misguided or blind to the shortcomings of their vision. Cynics think that uncritically taking direction from these leaders will lead to a disappointing or destructive outcome, far from the ideal of “doing good by doing well” or whatever other catchy phrase Porter and Kramer have coined that motivates us to get on the sustainability train.

It’s difficult to keep far enough ahead of the torrent of writing on the subject to critically appraise anyone’s claims to being progressive or sustainable. Sometimes you have to go with your gut and hope for the best. As a result of attending Net Impact and reflecting on my experience there, I now feel much more focused on what I am looking for in a potential employer, and how to ask them about it. I know not ask really soft-ball questions like “what do you do about sustainability”, because most companies now have a well-rehearsed ‘elevator pitch’ about how green they are (I guess I remain cynical about these elevator pitches). I will ask “how will you get me involved, as an employee, in finding out where the problems are in the sustainability of your strategy? How will the company incorporate this learning at every level into its strategy? What sustainability problem are you facing now that you expect to still be working on in twenty years?” These are the questions that will get a bit more real information about their future vision. Overall I would recommend Net Impact to anyone who is ready to roll up their sleeves and take action, and perhaps even inspire some die-hard cynics to do the same.

Energy Independence in the Pacific Northwest

On Friday afternoon I decided to attend a panel discussion on Clean Energy Innovation in the Pacific Northwest. This topic is particularly interesting to me as I live in Vancouver and was exposed to numerous innovations this summer working in cleantech venture capital. What some people don’t realize is that there is more diversity of energy resources in this region than any other region in North America. Shepherds Flat wind farm in Oregon will be the largest wind farm in the world, when completed in 2012, with a capacity of 845 MW. Despite the reputation of rain, solar is actually quite popular in the eastern areas of these western states. Washington and Oregon are also known to have significant geothermal capacity. Combined with legacy hydro power, as well as tidal and wave energy from the coast, it is clear to see how this region could be a mecca for clean energy in the future.

The panel was hosted by the First Lady of Oregon, Cylvia Hayes, who shared some interesting (and frustrating) stories of meetings between governors in the Pacific Northwest region. In one such meeting, the Governor of Utah demanded that the word “climate” be stricken from all of the white papers that were being reviewed. Miss Hayes (who has been a sustainability advocate for years) said she was about to burst while sitting beside her partner, Governor Kitzhaber. Instead she kicked his legs under the table as if to say ‘there is no way that we are going to let that happen!’ Thankfully it didn’t. But there you have it -a meeting between the Governors of Washington, Oregon, California, Utah and Idaho, as well as the Premier of British Columbia, discussing the future of clean energy – and they spend the entire time debating whether to use the word climate. Ah, sweet progress….

Washington and Oregon face many of the same challenges that British Columbia does when it comes to developing and implementing renewable energy projects. Energy in this region is very cheap, which makes the business case for wind or solar more difficult. Energy conservation is also a high priority. BC Hydro is working to meet at least 66 per cent of new demand through conservation and efficiency by 2020. In the States, similar goals have been set. After all, the cheapest electron is the one that isn’t used. Furthermore, both regions are faced with difficult and controversial projects. In BC, the Enbridge Gateway Pipelines (if completed) will transport petroleum from the oil sands to Kitimat, where it will be exported to Asia. Similarly, there is a real possibility that Oregon could build a terminal dedicated to shipping coal to China. These projects present an interesting dichotomy for the Pacific Northwest. Can a state claim to use 100% renewable energy if it mines, transports and ships coal to Asia?

Natural gas was also a hotly contested topic, with some on the panel arguing it is an appropriate bridge fuel and others questioning the immense investment required and the ability of America to treat it as a short term solution. Joshua Skov, founder of Good Company and one of the speakers on the panel had some funny one liners with regards to this debate including – “saying that natural gas is the cleanest hydrocarbon fuel is like saying pork is the other white meat”. There was one idea that I did take away from this discussion and I think it can be applied to any region struggling to implement renewable energy: As Joshua says, for real progress to take hold, “the political world needs to become much more business savvy, and the business world needs to become more politically savvy.” Agreed. Or maybe we just shouldn’t invite the Governor of Utah to the next meeting.

The End of Cynicism

After spending the day with other Net Impact chapter leaders, I met some of my fellow students for the Welcome Keynote Address on Thursday night. Generally I find keynote speakers to be most effective when they do not try to appeal to the masses, but instead stick to their beliefs – however controversial they may be. Often times keynote addresses are watered down, express middle of the road opinions, or are unrealistically optimistic. Thankfully, this was not the case.

First, some background. Lord Michael Hastings is KPMG’s Global Head of Citizenship and Diversity. He was previously head of Corporate Social Responsibility at BBC and is currently a Vice President of UNICEF. Michael was awarded a CBE (Commander of the British Empire) in recognition of his services to crime reduction, and is listed as one of the most influential black people in Britain.

After poking fun of at America and it’s politics, Lord Hastings began by referencing Michael Finkel’s article about Daniel Kish, a blind man who uses echolocation to “see” what he hears. (http://www.bookofjoe.com/2011/05/the-blind-man-who-taught-himself-to-see.html) Similar to bats and whales, Daniel uses sound to visualize his surroundings. He even drives and rides his bike. Listening, Lord Hastings contends, is precisely what our society is lacking. The Occupy Wall Street protests, the riots earlier this year in London, the Arab spring, devastating floods in Pakistan – we all see these events in the news. But are we actually listening to what these events are telling us? Did we listen after the events of 9/11? After the financial crisis? Are we listening as the polar ice caps melt? I agree with Lord Hastings that this generation needs to turn off Jersey Shore and become more aware of its surroundings.

The theme of Lord Hasting’s talk was: “The greatest way to change the world is…” He left this sentence incomplete until the end, when he simply stated – the greatest way to change the world is to overcome cynicism. Not buying CFC lightbulbs; not driving a hybrid; not volunteering; not donating to UNICEF – just simply overcoming cynicism. Lord Hastings contends that “cynicism is what corrodes our capacity to enact change”. Which made me think – what if all of us believed that our small changes made a difference? What if instead of complaining about financial inequities we ran for office and changed the system? What if individualism didn’t exist? Maybe he is on to something. The fact of the matter is simple – society is broken. And nothing will change if cynicism prevails.

I realized shortly after the talk that I am more cynical than I thought. Sure I vote, but I never really believe anything major will change because I distrust the political system. Yeah I try to minimize my footprint, but sometimes I wonder if it really makes a difference. The more I thought about Lord Hasting’s challenge, the more I understood it. No matter what your passion is, or what you think society needs to do to save the world, overcoming cynicism is the first step.

Speaking about religion, 9/11, and morals to an audience of 2000 people (mostly Americans) is no easy task and as expected there were some uncomfortable groans from the audience. In the end, I did not agree with everything that Lord Hastings said on Thursday night, but I was happy he didn’t sugar coat his message for anyone.

Visiting Bainbridge Graduate Institute

I hastily grabbed another cup of coffee and made my way in the direction of the meeting room. As an invited guest, I did not want to be late. When I got there a few minutes late, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it was not what I expected from an early morning planning and administrative meeting.

The setting was 8 am on Saturday morning and it was an intensive weekend for the students of the Bainbridge Graduate Institute (BGI). All of the students were pursuing their MBAs in sustainable business. For almost 10 years now, BGI has run an alternative green MBA program out of the shared facilities at Islandwood on Bainbridge Island. The full program has both an online component and one weekend intensive a month. Because of this structure, it can draw residents from across North America to the tiny island campus across the sound from Seattle, Washington.

The meeting that I was rushing to was better known as “morning circle” and it is just one aspect of what makes BGI special. In a large open room, about 70 students, faculty, staff and guests gathered in a circle. The format was simple. Anyone with something to say took turns and shared in brief one to two minute contributions. Roughly speaking the contributions followed the order of introductions, announcements, appreciations, puzzles (or puzzles with solutions), and hopes and dreams, although great latitude was allowed in what was offered when.

It was the appreciations section that made the most lasting impression on me. Here was the time when individuals (mostly students but some staff and faculty) spoke up about someone who they wanted to thank. It could be a simple ‘thanks’ to another student for help on their quantitative analysis (“quant”) homework or it could be a much broader heart-felt sentiment of appreciation for the way the whole community has acted. Many of these appreciations were emotional and personal. The overriding effect was to create an atmosphere of mutual support and community. I had to remind myself that this was a business school and these were aspiring managers and business leaders. Further, it was 8 o’clock in the morning and most of the people in the room had been up very late the night before.

Beyond the morning circle, the other aspect of the BGI experience that surprised me the most was the quality of the contributions in the classroom. My point of comparison was my own recent experience in completing the MBA at Sauder. I sat in on a strategy class on Sunday morning. To give a little context, this class came after three, intensive, 14-hour days and just before many would make a mad dash to the ferry to Seattle. Yet given the obvious challenges and distractions, the students remained focused on the sometimes quite abstract material.

When the professor asked questions, the students shared with very little hesitation. They offered concise, relevant contributions that often built on what was said before. It showed that they were engaged and listening to their peers. In fairness, though, the participants were well aware that they had limited time together and that this format was infinitely better than participating in an online virtual classroom. Still, in my experience, this type of discipline is rare in a class full of overachievers who often are far from brief.

The quality of an education is often determined not by its content, but the learning environment in which that content is delivered. Nestled in the quiet forests of Bainbridge Island, Washington, the students of BGI are taking full advantage of that beautiful setting by creating an extraordinary learning community.

Slowing down money so we can savor it

I just finished Woody Tasch’s book Slow Money. While I was muddling through it, I kept thinking that I am not getting his main idea. What was he trying to say? Tasch’s style is to quote his favorite authors at length. Add to this his preference for poetic metaphors and analogies and I found myself getting lost. Was he trying to say that we should just agree to make a little less money (or ‘return’ from an investor’s perspective)?

Having just finished my MBA, I imagined myself trying to explain the book to my more traditional business classmates who see the world through the lens of economic incentives. They might say back to me, ‘Well, Miguel, that’s a nice idea, but why would anyone do it? Where’s the return?’ I actually tried this line of reasoning on a friend and classmate from my program and his response was as expected. So what was I missing or was Tasch just calling for charity in another form?

Tasch builds his movement on the rather successful social movement known as Slow Food. The Slow Food community may be about finding ways to enjoy good food, but on a deeper level, it’s more about community—coming together to enjoy a meal. Tasch feels that that’s where the connection can be made to alternative finance. Slow Money is also about community. It is about choosing to switch some of your money from a far away fund to a closer-to-home friend or friend of friend with a food business. Tasch roots his ideas in sustainable food and farming, which is another connection between the slow food and slow money movements.

Central to the idea of modern investing is the idea that you should be compensated for a risky investment with a higher rate of return. Similarly, lower risk investments offer lower rates. Think bonds versus stocks. So, perhaps the investments we make in community-based, sustainable food enterprises are not as risky as bankers and investors believe they are. If this is the case, these lower rates of return might be a better deal then they appear. But how could bankers and investors have so systemically overestimated the risk for this class of businesses? Isn’t that their job? To assess and properly price risk?

I struggled with that one for a while. I did not have an answer, just a hunch. Not a lot to go on, but the idea that a banker might miss something important is not unheard of in the wake of the financial crisis. Putting my observer hat on, I would guess that there is a relationship to the social-psychological factors that help underpin the success of the microfinance movement. Making loans within a geographically-bounded social network to startups whose business models are based on something we all understand—food—might actually lower risk. The network takes care of itself. Neighbors help neighbors in a system of mutual aid. Also, in these communities, I would argue that trust and credibility are established the hard way—through time—instead of through looking solely at financial statements and recovery rates.

Borrowing from one of the lessons from Freakonomics, incentives are everywhere and have many different forms. In other words, financial incentives are just one of several types. Another powerful set of incentives are social incentives. Peer pressure and social norms. I wondered whether this was the idea that Woody Tasch was trying to get across. Slow food is not just a good idea to preserve what little topsoil we have left, but also because it represents a fair return on a lower risk investment with great collateral benefits like beauty, community and resiliency.

Here’s a video from the folks at Slow Money Alliance.

YouTube Preview Image

Get out of Sauder for your eco-MBA

The other night at the MBA Gala, I found myself talking to a first year about how I wanted to get more environmental courses during my MBA. Perhaps because I did not get out of Sauder to take courses before completing my MBA, I wanted to provide this somewhat incomplete guide to some of my ideas for getting more environmental rigor and knowledge into your MBA. If you are interested in getting a more sustainable education experience from your MBA, you might consider taking courses outside of the business school.

Here are three ways to start to explore options outside of Sauder:

  1. Contact Bill Rees and get his thoughts on how to make the most of your MBA experience at UBC. He is facility at SCARP—the school of community planning at UBC. He is a bit of a celebrity. He has a particularly challenging way of seeing the world. Just having a conversation with him and truly trying to understand what he is saying is a learning opportunity. But he might also have a suggestion or two for you on how to make your own degree while also fulfilling your MBA requirements.
  2. Perhaps the most relevant school at UBC for interdisciplinary environmental studies is the Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability (IRES). Their graduate program is very well regarded. You should talk to some of the professors, like Kai Chan for example, and see whether there is an appropriate course or two. These will be more difficult classes than your MBA courses. They are a full semester instead of six weeks, so one course is the equivalent of two MBA modules. The MBA office recognizes this and will allow you up to 3 credits for one course instead of the usual 1.5 credits.
  3. Check out the UBC Organic Farm. This is not a course, but is a great way to get relief from some stress while you reconnect with nature. You can buy produce at the farm stand on Wednesdays at the bookstore during the summer and early fall. Also, you can always volunteer at the farm. I helped out with a friend who had a job picking up and cleaning the eggs from the hens once a week. There are dozens of other volunteer opportunities on the farm too.

Remember to check in with the appropriate person in the MBA Office and make sure to clear whatever requirements they have for courses taken outside of Sauder.

Hhhmmm… I think I’m in the wrong room!

One of the things that I loved about the Net Impact Conference this year was that I didn’t have a real ‘strategy’ per se in my approach to choosing which panel discussions I’d attend. Instead of only seeking out Green Marketing or Sustainable Supply Chain Management I took a peek at the program and went to discussions on whatever happened to interest me most. One of the ones that caught my eye was a case study on blending environmental, social and business sustainability in a Mexican Indian Reserve. Now, the ironic thing is that I thought this was about First Nations, presuming that ‘Indians’ was just our friendly neighbours’ way of being colloquial… so I was kind of surprised when the moderator started introducing three latin panelists.

To give you a quick rundown of what the session was actually about…

The man describing the case study, Fredo Arias-King, is the President of T & R Chemicals, a company that manufactures pine oil from pine resin. The pine resin from the particular pine tree that the company uses is grown in only a couple of areas of the world, one of which is in a relatively remote part of Mexico. Pine resin is an incredibly common component in a variety of products, the breadth of which we take for granted. While it’s a very lucrative industry for the major chemical companies that process it, it can also be very lucrative for the native population if they harvest it efficiently. This last caveat is particularly poignant in Mexico because the system just doesn’t work well. Much like in the rest of North America, the First Nations population has been marginalized to the point of abject poverty. Mr. Arias-King has started a social initiative designed to help alleviate this poverty by monetizing pine resin harvesting for the Indian population. The initiative, called ‘Resinas Sinteticas’, is a major reforestation project in Mexico that aims to plant 1 million trees per year for a decade, in the process providing the local population a source of sustainable income. T & R Chemicals, Inc. is financing the entire project…

Throughout the entire session social innovation and community development were the main focus of the discussion. It only came out at the end that there’s an underlying reason for T &R Chemicals’ vested interest in their supply of pine resin. It seems that the largest producer of pine resin in the world is also its greatest consumer. China’s consumption of pine resin is set to exceed its supply in 2020; this project, it would seem, is a subtle form of risk management. What better way to ensure your input supply than by ingratiating yourself to its growers. Pretty slick, if you ask me, and at first glance it appears contrary to the point of the Net Impact Conference.

But this is where I find myself realizing that I may be thinking a little too hard. I mean, really, who cares what the company’s motivation is? T & R’s risk management strategy is turning a reforestation project into a social innovation success story. What’s more, it’s accomplishing it sustainably, which is more than anyone could really ask for considering that industry practice suggests otherwise. If you’ve read my other posts you’ll know that it seemed to be a common theme for me this year; having one epiphany per session, realizing that the destination can be more valuable than the means by which a company gets there… within reason, of course!

Rent from rays

An excellent discussion on distributed solar energy by leading players of the solar industry from California. It was attended by various players in the solar supply chain: Dow Chemicals (manufacturer), Solar city (installers and financiers), 1BOG (certifying agency for installers) and PG&E (California utility company). Together they talked about new evolving business model for distributed solar energy and how is it attracting more and more customers.

Traditionally, the utilities have good expertise in providing reliable power supply to customers, but they are not good at launching new business models or innovative technologies. Against the popular notion, PG&E has taken revolutionary steps to promote solar energy among its customers. Apart from Feed-In-Tariff, they have also launched Virtual Net Metering system to increase the solar adoption among the customers. While Feed-In-Tariff serves only customers who own a house, Virtual Net Metering is designed to help tenants staying on rent. With solar adoption increasing, PG&E will soon face voltage fluctuation issues in the future. Currently, the grid is equipped with transformers to handle voltage fluctuation. The Holy Grail for PG&E, or for any utility for that matter, is to design a cost effective energy storage mechanism to handle the solar feeding systems more efficiently.

According to the McKinsey cost abatement curve, switching to green energy at home is a cost effective way to reduce emissions and is captured in the lowest part of the abatement curve. Still the customers are hesitant to adopt green technologies, as the initial costs are too high. It was claimed that distributed solar energy is good for the society as 1KWH of solar energy produced at home is cheaper than industrially produced solar energy, after including all costs and transmission leakage. Companies such as SolarCity provide financial and technical services for solar installations and make solar more attractive to uninitiated customers. Where as, 1BOG have come up with an innovative business model to group purchase solar and pass on value to customers.

Another good news from solar industry is that Dow Chemicals is scheduled to release their solar shingles in 2011. This will cater to the customers who care about their home aesthetics while switching to solar.

Profitable social ventures- The future of social entrepreneurship

What does the future of social entrepreneurship looks like? The era of non-profit ventures is soon going to end. Only economically and socially profitable organizations are going to stay around and make a significant impact in the society. That was the message given out by the panel on The Future of Social Entrepreneurship, attended by representatives from leading impact investors: Skoll Foundation, Ashoka and New Profit Inc.

All these investors maintain an impressive portfolio of investments around the world in areas of education, public health, environment and workforce development. They shared insights on the criteria they use to choose social ventures. Only those ventures that have a validated business model – in contemporary business terms, the ventures that crossed the chasm – are selected for investment. Just like any other early stage start-up venture, social ventures too have to bootstrap themselves until they demonstrate profitability.

Why is profitability so important? Profitability is necessary for the organization to make a significant impact on the society, by sustaining itself on the long run and spreading its reach to a wider population base. Most often, the organizations fail to become economically profitable because they don’t know how to monetize the social value that they create. Monetization and securitization of social value are the vital steps towards profitability. This is where most of the social ventures lack expertise and where business professionals can fit in.

Conscious Capitalism in Business: Rethinking the Way We Do Business

If there was one session that entertained, humbled and inspired this was the one.

I have a bit of a podcast fetish and sometimes I come across a podcast that is so riveting and thought provoking I get goose bumps. This session was one of those moments when I had goose bumps the whole time. When you get the feeling that all the pieces are there to move the world radically towards sustainability and social justice all we just need to start to connect the pieces.

The organization was moderated by Shubhro Sen the Executive Director of the Conscious Capitalism Institute. The CCI is very cool institute that looks at how business is more than just an institution for generating economic profits. The 3 speakers were Rajendra Sisodia, Thomas Gladwin and Mark Albion.

Rajendra Sisodia

Rajendra is one of the authors of the book Firms of Endearment. His talk centred on many of the themes of his book how companies profit more from pursuing passion and purpose than pursuing profit alone.

He outlined the disillusionment with the current capitalist system. In 2007, more money was spent on marketing than 85% of the incomes of the world’s population and only 16% of people trust large businesses. He then presented the idea of conscious capitalism, which is:

  • Aspiring to a higher purpose
  • Stakeholder orientation
  • Conscious leadership
  • Conscious culture

Companies that embody these characteristics outperform the market 9:1.

Whole Foods is one example of a conscious company. The gap between CEO and the lowest paid employee is capped at 19:1. Executives only receive 7% of the stock options made available while it is typically 75% with fortune 500 companies.

The biggest takeaway for me from his talk was his statement that “it matters what we call great, it is what people aspire to.”

Thomas Gladwin

Tom did not share the optimism of Raj. As a socialist he outlined how the capitalist system is an interconnected web and therefore is extremely difficult to overhaul. He outlined how capitalism almost dehumanizes us.

Stocks are predominantly owned by financial institutions not people. I think this statement deserves some reflection. I think one of the main problems of managing for shareholders is that usually they are so disconnected from the business that they “own” as it operates outside of where they live but this is one step further detached. When I think of mutual funds I am likely part owner of several companies. Do I own Lockeed Martin? Philip Morris? BP? How detached have we become from capitalism where we can condemn the actions of these companies without even realising that we own them.

Tom said that by the time a student reaches one of his courses he or she has been subjected to 11 months of 24 hour-a-day advertising where the message is buy. Buy to be happy, buy to be cool, or buy to define you.

Mark Albion

Mark was the final speaker. He is a former professor at Harvard Business School and one of the founders of Net Impact. To close off I wanted to leave you with a few quotes that I think are worthwhile to ponder.

  • “Focus on the actions not the outcomes”
  • “Companies should look at stake options and not stock options”
  • “If you want to be taken seriously, you must perform and add value”
  • “You cannot pursue a life of happiness; happiness ensues from a life of higher purpose”

When looking at the environmental and social problems facing us, it is clear to see that it time for new models and new perspectives. We are interconnected to each other and our environment. The sooner we can recognize that the better.