|
[ -- put your header graphic and content here -- ]
|
|
|
|
|
<< back
Archive for 'triple bottom line'
|
|
Sustainability and Social Benefit Companies
Posted on March 23, 2012 by Kathryn Alexander
 How do entrepreneurs see sustainability and social benefit? What kinds of companies are being created in these areas?
|
|
Brave New World
Posted on February 29, 2012 by Kathryn Alexander
 I’ve always paid reasonable attention to what I put in my mouth and since my dance with liver cancer (no chemo, no radiation) in 2005-2006 I’m mostly organic. I cook – so there are no processed foods to speak of. I live in Boulder...
|
|
Our Thinking Shapes Our Reality
Posted on February 26, 2012 by Kathryn Alexander
 I often talk about ‘thinking differently’ and people sagely nod their heads, but I always leave feeling that no one understood. ‘Thinking differently’ is a little like pulling one’s self up by the proverbial bootstraps. How do you do it and were do you stand?
|
|
What can Business Learn from the New Cities?
Posted on February 24, 2012 by Kathryn Alexander
 The wise use of technology, sustainable values and common sense can resurrect cities and with them give the human species a new chance at Life.
|
|
The Heartland Institute’s Climate Change Debacle
Posted on February 21, 2012 by Kathryn Alexander
 Chicanery in the name of free speech to undermine science is dangerous, corruptive and confusing. Why would people play games with other people's lives in such a fashion?
|
|
Limits to Charity
Posted on February 18, 2012 by Kathryn Alexander
 Which will save the world: charity or capitalism? Neville Isdell, former CEO of Coke a Cola, says it's going to be "Connected Capitalism."
|
|
Triple Bottom Line – CSR & Greenwashing
Posted on February 17, 2012 by Kathryn Alexander
The Triple Bottom Line and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are pieces and parts - when will we begin to see the whole so we can keep our integrity intact?
|
|
Sustainable Economy - Oxymoron?
Posted on August 4, 2011 by Kathryn Alexander
After the debacle this week is thinking about a sustainable economy an oxymoron? We have a situation where institutions are rewarded for not adding value, where financial illiteracy runs the nation and belief trumps fact.
|
|
Ecologically Sustainable - Is It Really Urgent?
Posted on July 12, 2011 by Kathryn Alexander
I'm passionate about sustainability for many reasons. First and foremost I LOVE the planet = nature is a source of life to me. Secondly I've more than excited about what rethinking business can do for business while doing good things for nature. Third, I like change. I really do! I see change as a creative edge that brings forth new possibilities and since I'm a variety junkie, change rocks!
For all of the reasons listed above I've had my antennae up around the issue of climate change for some time. Talk about depressing! Really looking at this and knowing what's coming is enough to drive anyone to drink.
I don't talk much about climate change, and that's why. I'm not about putting my head in the sand, but you can only take so much, you know? That being said, today I DO want to sound the alarm! View this video and get ready to recommit to the fight!
She's Alive...Beautiful...Finite..Hurting...and Worth Dying for!
The planet IS worth saving! My home IS worth saving! People I love and care for have died in this fight and many more will die before it's over, but this fight IS worth it! We have to remember, though that it is not just about fighting! This change IS about possibilities! It IS about a new way to live in harmony and have the time and sensitivity to enjoy nature and her bounty!
Harmony...Walter J. Stahel wrote a paper called the "Five Pillars of Sustainability" in the early 90s. He saw sustainability in this way:
- Pillar of nature conservation
- Pillar of limited toxicity
These form the domain of environmental protection
3. Pillar of Resource Productivity
These three form the basis of a sustainable economy
4. Pillar of Social Ecology
5. Pillar of Cultural Ecology
The last two, however is really what is meant by the People piece of the triple bottom line. Without peace we will continue to devastate the natural world and our own history and legacy as well. War is destructive - it destroys everything in its path. It is not sustainable. It never was, but now we destroy on such a scale and with such thoroughness that damage is immense and it must be stopped.
We will only stop our squabbling when we learn to respect others and allow others to make decisions about their own future, with or without our input. We must evoke the inherent dignity and worth of every person, valuing their contributions and being willing to learn from them when we differ. This includes repairing the rift between genders. Ethical Impact L3C supports the Satyana Institute for just that reason. Until we respect and honor the feminine we will not be able to respect and honor nature.
The stopping of war speaks to the fifth pillar - culture; ethics and values. We are an amazing species - so willing to destroy that which we love. We rationalize it in all kinds of ways, but I have marvel at how often and how thoroughly we do that. Our rape of nature and women is testimony to that. Our destruction of the buildings and monuments that form our human legacy on this planet rationalized by war is testament to that. That 20% of Colorado children do not know where their next meal is coming from is testament to that. I could go on. We pay CEO's enormous sums and fuss about raising teachers salaries. We do NOT honor what we say we love.
Sign up for the Meet the Reality Project on September 14 at 8 pm MST (check for other times in other areas) as Al Gore makes the case, one more time, for urgency.
Sign up for the Webinar, Our Values Our Choices if you want to explore Pillar number five. 
>
|
|
July 4th Independence - is YOUR Company a Democracy?
Posted on July 2, 2011 by Kathryn Alexander
Posted by Kathryn Alexander on Sat, July 2, 2011 @ 03:16 PM
I often talk about how leading a green business is different from leading any other type. The very act of becoming sustainable make a whole new list of requirements on leaders, if the initiative is to be successful. If you want to go deeper than the triple bottom line, then you need to rethink your company from the bottom up. No leader does this alone, you need the entire company to weigh in and contribute, and that's where democracy comes in.
I want to make a distinction here. Normally when we talk about democracy we are really talking about voting. I'm not because voting is a dicey way to make decisions. If there is not a clear and very large majority, then the vote is divisive and that is both dangerous and counter productive. The second reason is that the 'winning' vote makes all of the other viewpoints irrelevant which take good information out of the systems and makes that aspect of truth unavailable for any further use. This is not good either and leads to weak decisions. No, when I talk about democracy I'm talking about involvement, contribution, communication, collaboration and shared meaning. These are at the heart of democracy, but we were unsophisticated when the idea was first proposed, so our application of those ideals was a good start, but is not now adequate to the needs of a huge, educated (?) and technologically smart population.
There are so many changes, both big and small, that need to happen to enable a company to achieve sustainability and carbon neutrality that leaders need to develop new skill sets and then infuse them into the organization itself. Involvement and contribution have been issues for leadership for centuries. Now we need to get a handle on them and learn how to ensure that every employee and stakeholder takes part. No longer can this be a dream or on the wish list this kind of deep interactivity has to become commonplace.
One of the wonderful aspects of sustainability is that it comes imbued with shared meaning. A commitment from the top that is accompanied by resources and personal involvement creates a very clear vision that is easily grasped and immediately important to all concerned. The education to bring this about is fairly easy and is the bright beginning spot to achieving all of the others.
The rub comes with collaboration. Since both questions and answers about how to achieve true sustainability cross boundaries the ability to collaborate becomes key. An organization is a true system, so solutions are non-linear and require a dedication to find root cause to achieve success. Here is where thinking differently is extremely important, so systems thinking and ecological thinking come into play, and here is where the organization has to begin to do work differently. Here is where democracy, and a stated commitment to democracy, comes to the forefront. Democracy provides a framework for testing the how of work to encourage people to rethink autocratic and top-down approaches to problem solving. Democracy is not about voting on every decision. It is about learning how to work in such a way that everyone participates and contributes to all relevant decisions. This is an exciting way to work and the results can be spectacular!
Check out our Webinars - Sustainable Leadership Addresses these Issues!
|
|
Ethics for a Green Company - Are They Different?
Posted on February 24, 2011 by Kathryn Alexander
Posted by Kathryn Alexander on Thu, Feb 24, 2011 @ 03:36 PM
 Ethics for a green company are often stated as People, Planet, Profit as a way of framing ethical concerns using the triple bottom line. This us usually measured by contributions to charity, reduction in energy use and an increase in profit. If a company is good to its people is that a part of the triple bottom line? If the company invents a way to produce its product with less pollution is that part of the triple bottom line? If the company chose to invest a system that will reduce its water use so it didn't show a profit this year is that part of the triple bottom line? More importantly, how would you know about these things?
Ethics
The point of the triple bottom line is to provide a framework for thinking about sustainability. Is sustainability inherently ethical? I do believe we think so, at least to some degree, or the FTC wouldn't be so concerned about greenwashing. When a company claims it is green, then we make an assessment of its ethics - intentional or not.
I believe that there is much more to this. At Ethical Impact L3C we see sustainability as following the Earth's Prime Directive - always create the conditions that support Life. For us this is a moral imperative. Framed in this way the ethical considerations become more clear - and so do the management issues.
|
|
Corporate Social Responsibility & GMO
Posted on January 28, 2011 by Kathryn Alexander
Posted by Kathryn Alexander on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 @ 03:30 PM
Corporate social responsibility and GMO's, perhaps you are wondering about the connection. That very question signifies how disconnected we are from nature and from the planet. In my local paper it didn't even make the headlines, but the news electrified the agriculture community. Yesterday the ability to plant GMO alfalfa was given the go ahead. And.... you say?
GMO's are the perfect storm that puts in one place all of the issues that impact our ability to live on a healthy planet. The Precautionary Principle (don't do it if there is the possibility of harm) is a short-term application of the Prime Directive - life always creates the conditions that support Life. In nature experiments happen all of the time. Mutations are commonplace. The profound difference is that she does things in small ways, to test the vitality and consequences, while we do things whole hog. She creates ripples in the ecosystem, we create tsunamis.
One of the benefits of trial and error is that nature thrives on diversity. In fact diversity is one of the key components of resilience a chief characteristic of life on Earth. GMO's are all about homogeneity. Plants designed to fit a narrow band of circumstances, plants with fortitude, but no resilience and very little flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. This is genetic suicide - and potential crop devastation.
There is a civil rights issue here too that is not getting much media play: choice. Monsanto has worked hard to not have to label its GMO products, so you do not know what you are eating. In essence, you have NO choice to eat them or not.
 [More >>]
|
|
Corporate Sustainability
Posted on January 24, 2011 by Kathryn Alexander
Posted by Kathryn Alexander on Mon, Jan 24, 2011 @ 10:52 PM
As an act of corporate sustainability Dow Chemical is committing to work with the Nature Conservancy to get a handle on the values of an ecosystem. It's exciting that there is a recognition of the value that ecosystems provide, but one wonders if this effort misses the mark.
Our fixation on monetary value makes it difficult to support the value created by the peace and sense of restoration you get in nature. How much is that worth? Is the fact that crime goes down when trees are planted some thing that can be definitely monetized? Conversely, if we can't monetize it, is it worthless?
Presideo Project
|
|
Triple Bottom Line: Unintended Consequences?
Posted on January 19, 2011 by Kathryn Alexander
Posted by Kathryn Alexander on Wed, Jan 19, 2011 @ 09:33 PM
People, planet, profit is the way the triple bottom line is usually phrased. The difficulty in implementing a three-pronged approach is that we usually do two out of three. The problem with that is the whole point is all about the necessity doing all three all of the time.
What is often not considered, however are the implications one aspect may have for the others. I was struck by this as I was reading an article about Masdar City, an 'adjunct' to Abdu Dhabi, but a city designed to be green. What they are doing there is exciting and their experiments will become models for other cities, I have no doubt, but some of what they are doing is thought provoking in an unexpected way. Consider this:
"There is a human experiment underway, too. It's testing the willingness of the students who reside in Masdar City to change their attitudes and lifestyles to fulfill the city's aspiration for carbon neutrality. Running up the slide of the courtyard cooling tower is a strip of LED lights that change colors to alert everyone when energy is being wasted somewhere. Water and energy meters tattle on exactly where, and perhaps who, is being wasteful. Some would call this Orwellian. Others would call it the Prius effect at city scale ? instant feedback designed to modify behavior."
The colored lights are cool. Ho
|
|
Give a Hand to P&G - A Green Business Company?
Posted on September 27, 2010 by Kathryn Alexander
Posted by Kathryn Alexander on Mon, Sep 27, 2010 @ 08:18 PM
I was on a call/press release today by Proctor and Gamble (P&G). They were sharing their 20/20 goals for sustainability. They should be applauded for they commitment to energy reduction: 30% reduction in energy use using renewables, 20% reduction in packaging and 20% decrease in water use. Great reductions given that they just started on this journey last year!
As the biggest consumer products company in the world this is no small change.
They also have a plan to gain 1 billion, yes billion new customers in that time ? mostly in the third world. Humm.
Does a strong commitment to energy and waste reduction make them a green company? Are they really green washing? What is the criteria by which we can begin to discern the wannabe's from those authentically on the journey? They have mentioned triple bottom line reporting and I can see where being active in the developing world might be counted as part of the triple bottom line. Not mentioned at all was their commitment to reducing the toxins in their products. In developing countries this would be crucial!
I'm very happy and excited that P&G has started on their journey, and given the current level of commitment I expect great things!
They are off to a great start and we can only hope that as they get more experience they will address some of these other issues too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ -- put your footer content here -- ]
|
|
|
Marketing and Design Delivered with Intention by SYNDUIT
|
