Sustainable Business Network of Washington (SB NOW)

SB NOW profiled in Washington Business Journal

2009-11-06T07:03:00.001-08:00

Green guru shows firms way to help environment Washington Business Journal - November 5, 2009

John Friedman was walking the talk on environmentally friendly business practices long before he became chairman of the Sustainable Business Network of Washington (SB NOW). Friedman heads a coalition of volunteers, staff and corporate members that is striving to make "green" a common concern throughout the local business community.

Has the push for sustainable business practices been effected by the recession?
The concept of sustainability is based the inter-dependent relationship between an organization's environmental, social and economic performance. The recession has proved the point that focusing on sustainability encourages a more strategic focus and better decision-making for the long-term health of any enterprise. Many organizations have been looking at ways to improve their efficiency and reduce costs. One of the best examples is when fuel prices were high, companies found ways to cut back on transportation-related costs (such as reducing delivery frequency). That, of course, had a positive impact on the environment as well, reducing emissions and the consumption of fossil fuels.

How does the Washington area stack up when it comes to corporate social responsibility?
Thanks to the leadership of Mayor Adrian Fenty and the D.C. Council, Washington was the first major city to require private developers to adhere to the standards of the U.S. Green Building Council. In addition to new construction, there is a long list of organizations with existing buildings lined up to get LEED certified. Our waterways (the Potomac and Anacostia rivers) are cleaner than they have been in years past, but they still have a long way to go. Bethesda Green is developing a living example of a model green city, and Montgomery County is putting in programs as well, such as the concept of requiring nutrition information on restaurant menus. And Alexandria was recognized last year by Popular Science as one of the top (No. 30) "greenest" cities in the country.

What are D.C. businesses doing right on sustainability?
There are a lot of examples, from Community IT Innovators that reduced its energy usage nearly in half in one year through in-house green IT initiatives that it now makes available to clients, to environmentally friendly Eco-Print, to Calvert Investments that literally pioneered the concept of socially responsible investing. The headquarters of Washington Gas received the highest score on SB NOW's Green Business Certification by adopting innovative practices that include being among the first publicly traded companies in the nation to adopt e-delivery of annual meeting materials which, to date, has saved over 50 tons of paper. AARP also earned "four stars" from us. The Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District was the first to go through, late last year, and they have been a wonderful partner in helping not only promote but to develop the program.

What could the local business community do better?
As we rebuild our local economy, I hope businesses will look at making decisions that make sense for the long term. Options like working from home not only reduce commuting time, they help alleviate traffic congestion and reduce the need for office space (and the associated heating/cooling, etc.) costs. It actually improves worker productivity. Companies can look for ways to facilitate commuting by public transportation. And companies should look for ways to reduce costs through energy reduction, waste reduction and the use of renewable materials. One way to do this is to look at the list of SB NOW members on our Web site when they're looking for business partners and services.

What's SB NOW up to now?
SB NOW has spent the last three years developing our Green Business Certification that not only is compatible with programs such as LEED and EnergyStar, it uniquely evaluates how well organizations are mobilizing their employees in their efforts to reduce negative environmental impacts. Together with our partner Eco-Coach, we are teaching companies how to be greener and to give the public a way to assess how well they're doing. We're also continuing our "MasterMind" series of events bringing world-renowned speakers on sustainability to share their expertise. We'll continue to host our networking events that have resulted in over $2 million worth of business transactions between SB NOW members.

What do you think about the effort to bring trolley cars to the District?
Personally I think it is an idea whose time has come again. The U.S. cities that are consistently pointed to as being the most sustainable -- Portland, San Francisco, Seattle -- all have extensive and popular light-rail systems.

You are also senior director of public relations for Sodexo. Can you tell us a little about what Sodexo is doing that is sustainable?
Sodexo's commitments focus on three key areas where we can have an impact and our stakeholders expect us to act: community development, the environment, and health and well-being. Sodexo is known for our efforts in the areas of diversity and inclusion and fighting hunger and malnutrition. We were the first in our industry to go to zero trans fats in our food preparations. We have installed new dish washing systems in thousands of client sites around the country that reduce energy and water consumption. We most recently announced a partnership with the Marine Stewardship Council as part of our commitment to provide sustainable seafood.

http://washington.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2009/11/09/focus3.html?jst=pn_pn_lk

Join Our Facebook and/or LinkedIn Groups

2009-09-02T08:40:00.000-07:00

The world appears to be migrating to those social media platforms, and SB NOW has gone with them.

SB NOW Mastermind Series - How Green Are Consumers Really Willing to Be?

2009-07-27T07:47:00.000-07:00

Suzanne Shelton, of the Shelton Group, was presenting, discussing the results of the recent EcoPulse survey, the premier survey for green consumerism in the US.

The Shelton Group also runs UtilityPulse, EnergyPulse, and GreenLiving Pulse.

As Suzanne (the self-described "fastest talking Southern woman you'll ever meet") said herself, there was a lot of information packed into that one hour seminar (full of graphs and focus groups), so I am going to highlight here what I found most shocking or interesting.

1) American consumers say one thing an do another. The best way to put this one is the fact that Americans are fantastic at being "armchair environmentalists." We like the government and corporate America to take action (and think that they should be the ones to make the changes), but when it comes to taking actions ourselves, we fall short.

Concerning this point, consumers were asked whether or not a company's environmental practices affect their purchases.

47% of respondents said it did.Now the question got more specific. Consumers were asked if they have actually made such a choice based on environmental practices.14% actually did.Then, they were asked to name the product.

7.5% could.

Basically, consumers are, as Suzanne put it, "terrified of getting screwed."

With all of the greenwashing going on, consumers don't know what to do, and the default ends up being to do nothing. Another highlight from this first section of the presentation was the question about motivation, i.e. what is the best motivation for energy efficiency. Saving money was, not shockingly, the top motivation this year; however back in 2005, "promoting energy independence and protecting the domestic economy" was number one. This motivator went from 35.7% to 4% over the past few years.

2) Consumers know less about green than you think. Just as we had our armchair environmentalists before, we now have our "cocktail green" here; in other words, most consumers only know enough about sustainability issues to get by a cocktail party conversation.

Only about 53 percent of consumers could provide a feature of a green home. (The vast majority named solar panels as a characteristic.)

When asked what label was the best to read (100% natural, natural, organic, bio-engineered, etc.), 100% natural (which has no regulation at all to it) beat organic.

61.3 percent of consumers did not think that they used more electricity than they did five years ago.d) 40 percent can't name an example of renewable energy.

3) Skepticism

8.9 % Skeptics: Those that react adversely to any mention of green, environment, sustainability, etc and that tend to deny climate change has any correlation to man's behavior.

24.5% Activists: Obviously, this section has its fair share of tree huggers, but it also has more mainstream consumers--often well-educated people who know the issues and act upon them.

33.1% Distracteds: These are the people who tend to see themselves as too busy to focus on the issue; they may be confused or apathetic.

33.6 % Wannabes: These are the people who like the idea of green behavior and may have the thoughts, but when it comes to the actions, they aren't there.

What Makes A Leader

2009-07-20T11:25:00.000-07:00

Reprinted from Sustainabe Life Media

A lot has been written about what it means to be a leader. Certainly the area of sustainability and all the sub-categories under that umbrella offer a myriad of opportunities for organizations, companies and individuals to carve out a niche as a leader in a specialty or sub-specialty.

At the same time, however, I continue to be amazed at groups and organizations that refer to themselves as 'a' leader or 'the' leader without being questioned by their stakeholders or the community. I once worked for a very intelligent person who decried those who declared leadership based on size alone; "just because we're the biggest, that does not make us the best." In fact, he went on to point out that the larger a company or organization, the more important it was to be a leader lest it "lose more money" or "destroy more of the environment" based on its size alone.

Wise words from a savvy leader who understood that while size matters, excellence matters more. Excellence is a constantly moving target. And there are different ways by which a person, an organization or a business can seek to be one that sets and then continually seeks to improve upon, the standard of behavior. True excellence can be achieved through leadership, or closely following the leaders in a given area or field. Remember Avis Car Rental's theme "we try harder"? it was based on being smaller than their largest competitor and therefore sought to position the company as more service oriented (a leadership position).

Leadership by Action
The first way that organizations should consider is leadership by actions. This can be hard for larger organizations that may have entrenched methods of doing things, because to lead by actions requires that one's actions continually evolve, but that the underlying basis for those actions - the values that define the organization - remain rock solid and consistent. Companies that lead by actions are not afraid to experiment with new ideas and are willing (if not eager) to challenge their existing perceptions on a regular basis. Leaders in sustainability are not looking for ways to hang on to existing practices; they are investing in new programs and models that reduce the use of energy and natural resources. They are experimenting with technologies that not only reduce carbon output, some may be looking at ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere and capture it. And at the forefront are those organizations that are basing their business model on turning one industry's waste into the raw ingredients needed for completely different industries. Examples of this include companies that are extracting the petroleum out of discarded plastic bottles and using it to create the polyester fibers that they turn into sportswear, to producing synthetic gypsum (roughly 20% of U.S. raw gypsum use) from the by-product of manufacturing and energy-generating processes, primarily from desulfurization of coal power plant exhaust gases.

Leadership by Expertise
Another way in which companies can demonstrate leadership is through their expertise. The new focus on a 'sustainable' economy is paving the way for companies that offer products or services that help other companies reduce their environmental impacts. A great example is in the area of information technology which not only can be used to help improve efficiencies in manufacturing, it can be used to look at entire systems and provide vital information. Computer models alerted the world to the 'hole' in the ozone layer, satellites reveal changes in the polar ice caps, etc. In day to day application, measurement devices that monitor traffic flow could be used to automatically adjust traffic lights to facilitate safety and efficiency of transportation. Buildings that install monitors of electric power use help manage the peaks and valleys in consumption, reducing energy costs and helping utilities determine where electricity is needed and when. Devices measure the depth and speed of rivers can be used to feed real-time data that can protect lives and property from natural disasters such as floods.

Moving beyond the environmental pillar, on the social side, experts in issues like global development, fair trade, workers' rights, and labor relations will also continue to be in demand because companies are increasingly going to be asked (required) to measure and report on their footprints in these areas as well.

Leadership by Influence
The last area where leadership can be demonstrated is one that has not fully been explored by many. Leaders know that they need to look beyond their own actions and expertise, and use their values not only on those portions of the supply chain under their direct control, but to look beyond to those things over which they can have an influence. This includes holding suppliers - and even customers - to adhere to values.

Increasingly companies are requiring suppliers to do more than guarantee a level of quality for the products that they supply, some are requiring that suppliers maintain a chain of custody to ensure that the products that they are using confirm to environmental and social values. Large power-purchasers have been exploring the extent of the influence that they can have on their suppliers' behavior by implementing requirements beyond prices. Examples include Wal-Mart's efforts to reduce packaging and marketing materials and to sell sustainable seafood. In order to be a supplier to Wal-Mart, the giant retailer must be convinced - often using third party validation - that the seafood products that they are selling to customers are, in fact, sourced from sustainable species.

Changing consumer behavior is naturally harder. Programs such as charging and refunding deposits on glass and plastic bottles and aluminum cans provide direct financial incentives and are successful. But often, when there is not visible 'return' companies can do little more than 'suggest' the way in which their products are used and ultimately disposed of (or recycled). Manufacturers of computers, cell phones and a host of electronic devices offer power (and energy) saving tips for consumers, but over 90 percent of the electricity used today for computers is not in the 'server' room, it is at individual desktop stations that are left on at night and monitors that are left on when laptops are disconnected. In homes, chargers that live their lives in the socket are drawing power even when the portable device is not attached. TV sets that have not been turned on in weeks are drawing current to diligently keep track of the date and time and which channels to 'skip.'

When Home Depot creates a mechanism for people to bring back used compact fluorescent light bulbs (to prevent them from going into landfills), or when auto repair facilities take back worn out car batteries, those are attempts to influence consumer behavior. In these cases there is little financial incentive - and in the later case sometimes companies charge to dispose of battery 'cores' - that probably limit the programs' effectiveness.

For individuals the same three categories apply. It is not enough to walk the talk. True leaders also are willing to share their knowledge, ideas and expertise. And they rarely miss an opportunity to help encourage others to follow their lead. After all the mark of a leader is not how well they lead - it is whether or not they are successful in getting others to follow.

Capitalism's Gettysburg

2009-03-30T08:14:00.000-07:00

The Gettysburg Address invoked a call to action and a recommitment to founding principles in the revival of America. We could benefit from applying the same principles to rebuild our capitalist system after the fall of global financial markets. By John Friedman

Standing on the battlefield of the definitive battle in the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln gave what is perhaps the most famous Presidential speech. Many have remarked how he was able, in a few short lines to make three main points. First, he harkened back to the lofty goals on which the nation was founded. Next, with humility and restraint, he recalled the sacrifice of all who had fought – on both sides. And he concluded by invoking that sacrifice as a call to action engage in a ‘new birth’ and commitment to the founding principles.

It is important to note that the Gettysburg Address was given in November, with over four months remove from the carnage that left an estimated 46,000 to 51,000 casualties. Today we are still surrounded be the devastation of the collapse of global financial markets. It is easy – and tempting - to fixate on sadness, destruction and gloom. But perhaps we can take a lesson from Lincoln, during this the 200th anniversary of his birth, and instead look to the future where the capitalist system is revised (as America was revised) by returning to its core principles.

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are owned and controlled by individuals rather than by groups (usually the state or other government entity). Today the two sides that have battled for the ‘heart’ of capitalism might be defined as Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ of the market through which individual interest unintentionally produces collective good against the more Social Darwinist approach most famously expounded by the character Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street; “greed is good.”
And the result has left people questioning the future capitalism as a system – much as America’s future was doubt in 1863.

Let us recall that America before the Civil War was rife with social ills, the most obvious of which was slavery. While the Civil War did not end the practice, and true equality has yet to be achieved, Lincoln’s message of assuming individual responsibility and moving the nation forward based on its aspirations and goals, not on how it had been before set a vision that continues to guide the nation.

With apologies to Lincoln, then, let us commit ourselves now to learn the lessons from history. We must turn the imperative to rebuild into a commitment to improve on the past by this time to build an economic system that not only generates wealth, but is protective of the environment and advances the human condition.

It is the only way to honor the sacrifice and suffering that people are still feeling.

originally posted http://www.sustainablelifemedia.com/content/column/strategy/capitalisms_gettysburg

Responsible Investing: Crash or Correction?

2009-02-02T09:53:00.000-08:00

With the Dow down in the dumps, will socially responsible investments continue to outperform the wider market? Yes - and potentially now more than ever.

It has been said that many investors who put their financial backing behind socially responsible investments (SRI) are willing to forgo potentially profitable investments in companies and industries that they find morally objectionable. But investors have embraced sustainable investing because it is not only good for the planet and society – it has been good investment in its own right.

On average, the performance of SRI has been close to that of regular mutual funds. There are several indexes that track the performance of stocks considered socially responsible investments. According to KLD Indexes, the total returns for the Domini Social 400 Index between 1990 (its inception) and September 2007 was 12%. Over the same period, the S&P 500 returned 11.49%.

Additional research from Cary Krosinsky, co-author with Nick Robins of Sustainable Investing: The Art of Long-Term Performance, points out that sustainable funds outperformed mainstream indices between December 2002 and December 2007, with sustainably invested funds showing 18.7% return on average compared to S&P return of 13.2%, and MSCI World's return of 17% during the same time period. Easy to say when the Dow was topping 14,000, but what about now? There is good evidence that what we have experienced was a true collapse and not a correction. The massive losses in value not only brought down companies with inflated values, the momentum also carried down well-run, fiscally sound ones.

As a result, SRI was not exempt - nor did those funds fare better – as one might have expected (or hoped) – during the decline. The same Domini Social 400 Index cited earlier has returned a -11.22% through June 2008, compared with a -10.49% for the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index during the same period. The Ariel Fund (ARGFX), one of the largest U.S. socially responsible funds with more than $2 billion in assets, dropped 20.2% though May.

There is some encouraging news; however, the median performance of socially responsible funds compiled by Morningstar performed better just 6.76% compared to 9.59% for the S&P. When we’re looking at trillions of dollars this translates to billions of dollars that could have been, but were not, lost.

Strong Medicine for an Ailing Economy
As we sit in the doldrums of this recession it is important to note that the economy will recover. What makes the distinction between a correction and a collapse significant is the later indicates the need to rebuild the economic model rather than an attempt by governments (and industries) to try to patch the holes that deflated a bubble. This awareness makes the task more daunting because they must work to build something truly sustainable.

As investors, the question before us now then goes beyond whether or not sustainable investment will continue to outperform traditional indices. Rather, if these investments and companies will have an even greater advantage going forward?

Robins believes that the answer is unequivocally yes, pointing out that SRI businesses are poised to take a leadership role in a new, revitalized economy:

"As the world seeks to stimulate an economic recovery, sustainable investing in clean technologies, microfinance and social enterprise offer proven routes to generating wealth and resolving pressing problems such as climate change and global poverty."

The new Obama Administration has indicated its priorities include rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure and focusing on alternative energy sources. Certainly alternative energy companies would then be poised to benefit not only from Federal emphasis, but also tax and other incentives (and possibly an infusion of capital). Those companies, and the funds that contain those companies, are therefore poised to do even better as part of the recovery.
The bottom line? An investment strategy that benefits people, protects the planet, and generates profits is still a winning strategy, especially in this global economy.

originally posted on Sustainable Life Media.

In case you missed - or want to see again - John Petersen

2009-02-02T07:10:00.000-08:00

SB NOW's Special Presentation of January's Guest Speaker, Futurist John Petersen, is now posted for viewing on YouTube in an 11-part series at the below links. After being posted for only a few hours, the video has been viewed by interested parties all over the world. Please feel free to share the links with colleagues and friends interested in transforming our world into a sustainable future.

Many thanks to Tayna Spann Roche and J. Michael Roche of SB NOW Member Company - Think, Speak, Act Media Productions - for making this video possible (http://www.thinkspeakact.com/).

If you are not able to open these link, please visit, http://www.youtube.com/ and enter in "SBNOW.org Presents: A New World: What Emerges After the Collapse?" .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gQ1WuI04dU, Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPw0Q-SWcqE&feature=related, Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPw0Q-SWcqE&feature=related, Part III
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vblkFQ3udBM&feature=related, Part IV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt7Deqg_SqM&feature=related, Part V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Luki5mSHhaA&feature=related, Part VI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_T-XXrzTFM&feature=related, Part VII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqa8L08SbeE&feature=related, Part VIII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXInA6HVQQk&feature=related, Part IX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xzfg8AuH48&feature=related, Part X
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R5W0-79kCg&feature=related, Part XI

New Research: Economy, Jobs Trump All Other Policy Priorities In 2009

2009-01-23T10:00:00.000-08:00

Environment, Immigration, Health Care Slip Down the List

As Barack Obama takes office, the public’s focus is overwhelmingly on domestic policy concerns – particularly the economy. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation stand at the top of the public’s list of domestic priorities for 2009. Meanwhile, the priority placed on issues such as the environment, crime, illegal immigration and even reducing health care costs has fallen off from a year ago.

While it is not unusual for the public to prioritize domestic over foreign policy, the balance of opinion today is particularly one-sided. Roughly seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that President Obama should focus on domestic policy, while just 11% prioritize foreign policy. By comparison, last January, 56% cited domestic policy as most important while 31% said Bush should focus on foreign policy.

Environment a Lower Priority
The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities. Between January 2001 and January 2002, the proportion rating environmental protection as a top priority fell by a similar amount (from 63% to 44%); a number of domestic priorities declined in importance following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By January 2003, just 39% called environmental protection a top priority – comparable to today’s 41% – before resurging as a priority from 2006 to 2008, only to fall again this year.

The decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority crosses partisan and demographic lines. For instance, only about four-in-ten women (43%) and men (39%) now say that protecting the environment should be a top priority; last January, 57% of women and 55% of men rated environmental protection as a top priority.

Futurist John Petersen Presents to SB NOW

2009-01-19T08:40:00.000-08:00

The Sustainable Business Network of Washington was proud to present leading futurist and author John Petersen in Washington, DC. For those who missed this remarkable presentation you can read a summary here.

Building a Sustainable Economy - the Wikipedia Model

2009-01-06T06:48:00.001-08:00

Recently I traded some emails on whether the Internet is a device that gives more power to the rational mind, or is its democratic nature destined to "stampede us further into the world of delusion"?

Moving beyond the suggestion that there are those who will deliberately seek to use any communication vehicle for their own nefarious ends, I think it is fair to say that overall the digital revolution is a recipe for unparalleled chaos, creativity and dialogue.

Not only does this help us rise to our fullest potential, it also creates a mechanism for least-common-denominator discourse as well. The same Internet that gives the world access to highly credible information such as Wikipedia (which effectively uses community-policing to ensure or encourage accuracy) provides web sites designed to amuse, prevent the flow of information and, in some cases, control and encourage hate and anger. These range from those offering ridiculous conspiracy theories to those that espouse dangerous and deliberately misleading information.
At the same time, for every intelligent, thoughtful and important web page, there is (at least) one dedicated to the latest celebrity who somehow didn't manage to get fully dressed before going out. While not deliberately designed to pursue a negative agenda, those web sites at best lower the level of the dialogue and at worst reduce the credibility of everything on the Internet - including the credible sources.

As we move forward in the digital age, I hope and think that we will see a 'split' between those who use it for the former and those who use it for the later. I believe that the future is brighter that many people think. Never before in history have so many people had access to information. We are increasingly exposed to new thoughts, ideas and cultures with a freedom that would astound people only a generation ago.

From the freedom of ideas comes the natural tendency toward the desire to do more and the unfettering of restraints (despite the efforts of some to hold back the tide). I see the 'people power' revolutions in East Germany and the Philippines as a model for continued social advancement and self-determination. There will be some 'messiness' that comes from all this. But in the chaos of personal, intellectual and artistic expression - the world moves forward. It is notable that more of us are moving forward - together - than before. We must do our best to ensure that more and more people have the opportunities that the future offers.

How does this apply to sustainability? If one accepts the fundamental premise that any system will produce the outcome(s) that it was designed to produce (no matter what the intention) then we must take heed that the economic systems in place are creating "bubbles" of increasingly alarming size at an increasingly alarming rate - from the tech boom to the escalation of real estate prices and, apparently stock markets around the world.
Economic systems that create "bubbles" rather than real value are not sustainable. When trillions of dollars in value evaporate overnight, it is fair to say that the value didn't exist to begin with. Clearly the system needs to be adjusted if we are to change the outcome. We cannot be satisfied if we continue to patch the holes in the levees and hope that we get out before the next flood.

Sadly it gets wrapped up in political agendas so that when one talks about reinventing markets it gets translated as anti-American, anti-Capitalist or anti-Freedom.
As we move forward, then, we must follow the model of Wikipedia (and other sites, but that is the most well known) to develop the forum, mechanisms, tools and discipline necessary to leverage the power of the Internet for idea-sharing and provide the people-powered economic revolution that focuses on social and environmental as well as economic recovery in 2009 and beyond.

Reprinted from JustMeans.com

BID gets SB NOW green operations seal of approval

2008-12-12T07:01:00.000-08:00

by Vandana Sinha Staff Reporter

The Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District is now certifiably green — and it has the stamp to prove it.

The BID is the first organization to win a green seal from the Sustainable Business Network of Washington, a D.C. nonprofit that has been developing a new certification process for green operations for the past two years.

SB NOW is signing up nine more test subjects for its certification program, which focuses on everyday business practices. It plans to launch the program across the region next spring and, ultimately, take it national.

The group is creating scorecards, point systems and on-site inspections — a la the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards for buildings — to quantify and verify companies’ claims of “going green,” certifying those that make the mark and differentiating them from mere “greenwashers.”

SB NOW celebrates growth ... and looks forward to 2009

2008-12-11T13:39:00.000-08:00

Business representatives at SB NOW's Holiday event at Haworth
(left to right) David Michaelson, LEED Principal, Marion Construction; Marion Stecklow, Executive Vice President, Penguin Care; Chris Dyson, Facilities and Purchasing Management, Calvert Group; John Friedman, Senior Director, Public Relations for Sodexo and SB NOW board chair; Nathalie Abutaha, Business Development Manager, AtSite; Anca Novacovici, founder of Eco-Coach and Douglas LaBier, Director of the Center for Adult Development.

Celebrating our 2008 results:

Making Washington DC a better place to live, work and visit - by generating $2 million in buiness between and with companies and organizations that are socially responsible.
A 600 percent increase in network membership - making SB NOW the largest business network in the Washington, DC-area dedicated to the triple bottom line.
The certification of the Downtown Business Improvement District - kicking off SB NOW's certification program and 'Certifiably Green' guide.

CSR, Environmental Programs Good for the Bottom Line, Report Finds

2008-11-21T08:03:00.001-08:00

GreenBiz.com, 19 November 2008 - With the global financial meltdown sending every company "back to the blackboard," a new report from the Economist Intelligence Unit finds that almost three-quarters of businesses with CSR programs in place are seeing financial benefits as a result of achieving environmental goals.

The report was released at the start of the Economist's "Corporate Citizenship" conference yesterday in San Francisco. Kicking off the conference, Matthew Bishop from the Economist news magazine and Nigel Holloway of the Economist Intelligence Unit's North American division looked at the report from the perspective of the current economic situation.

SB NOW referenced on someone else's blog

2008-11-19T08:19:00.000-08:00

Can this mean that the dialogue is starting? I'd like to think so ... because the sustainability community is growing and flourishing and we need to share best ideas and practices.

Economic Woes Reinforce Triple Bottom Line

2008-11-11T05:54:00.000-08:00

While some may feel that economic arguments in favor of increasing energy efficiency and reducing production and transportation costs are somehow less ‘worthy’ reasons for America’s sustainability efforts, the fact remains that the current economic downturn is reinforcing the triple bottom line model (people, planet, profit) as business leaders acknowledge the inter-dependence of all three elements.

Research from BSR/Cone confirms research by Shelton Group and others that companies are increasingly finding that they can improve their financial performance by taking environmentally responsible actions. And that realization – especially in light of the continued belief by some companies that environmental efforts de facto cost more – may be just the thing that sustains sustainability programs through the current economic downturn.

What is driving CR today?
84 % Reputational benefits are increasingly important
80 % Stakeholder demands are increasing
76 % Increased pressure to show a return on investment
75 % Long-term cost savings or efficiencies are major drivers
59 % Corporate responsibility initiatives are driving more by company values and mission than by bottom-line impacts or other factors
57 % Corporate responsibility is increasingly seen as a driver of innovation
12 % Corporate responsibility initiatives are less of a priority today
source: BSR/Cone

Other drivers for business include the vast majority (94 percent) that anticipate increased government regulation of issues related to corporate responsibility, including climate change (86 percent) and corporate governance and financial transparency (83 percent).

For those who might find this unseemly – somehow less ‘pure’ than if companies were to be embracing CR for more ‘altruistic’ reasons – the Shelton Group research shows that not only are people struggling with the concept of ‘green’, they often have misconceptions about what really has a positive impact on the environment. While half (49 percent) of respondents said a company's environmental record is important in their purchasing decisions, the number drops by half (21 percent) when consumers were asked if this had actually driven them to choose one product over another. And only 7 percent could name the product they purchased.

So if, as Milton Friedman famously said, the business of business is business, and consumers are not yet using their purchasing power to help reward environmentally responsible companies, then companies that wish to do well must look for other ways to live their values – and reducing costs by saving the environment remains a preferable option.

Brilliant thoughts

2008-11-10T10:14:00.000-08:00

The following piece is part of a larger article in the Washington Post on Sunday letting several key thinkers describe what they feel President Obama's first priority should be when he takes office.

The world's richest nation dare not forget the world's poorest people. Obama's top priority should be adopting a strategy of what I call sustainable development -- a strategy that combines economic development with environmental sustainability, for the United States and for the world. Such an approach merges science and policy, thinks in terms of decades rather than years, and recognizes that solutions must be cooperative and global rather than unilateral and national.

Currently, we lurch from crisis to crisis, from food to energy to natural disaster to finance, without recognizing that these cascading shocks are interconnected. Darfur, Somalia and Afghanistan are at least as much about water scarcity, climate and population as they are about politics; even the global financial crisis was triggered, in part, by the contemporaneous energy crisis. As president, Obama will need to lead the U.S. government to address these problems holistically. As thankless as government reorganization can be, he should create a new Department of International Sustainable Development to work together with the rest of the world on the Millennium Development Goals and the interconnected long-term challenges of poverty, disease, energy, climate, water and population -- all of which are key to sustainable growth, prosperity and security.

-- Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute and special adviser to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

To Walk the Talk You Need to Know Where You're Going

2008-11-03T08:21:00.000-08:00

Chip and Dan Heath wrote of the ‘curse of knowledge' in their book Made to Stick. The fundamental idea is that once you know something well enough, it becomes very difficult to imagine what it was like not to know. I often say that if you know and understand every acronym in your company you probably risk this syndrome.

It's no difference for those of us in the sustainability space. Many of us, myself included, have been doing this long enough that we find it hard to imagine that millions of people do not take for granted some of the principles that we believe - such as whether or not global warming is caused by human activity.

Believe it or not, people are still not sure. And there are some good reasons for this, aside from the politics that have clouded the issue, there are a number of key challenges communicating scientific research to the public.

Read the whole post on JustMeans-->

SBNOW names Board Chair (Washington Business Journal)

2008-11-03T08:18:00.000-08:00

The Sustainable Business Network of Washington has named John Friedman, senior director of public relations for Sodexo Inc., the new chair of the board of directors.

Friedman succeeds Lee Boyle, vice president of Cardinal Bank. His one-year term had ended.
Friedman has experience managing the public relations activities for the Gaithersburg-based Sodexo Foundation. The Annandale resident has more than 10 years of experience under his belt in the area of corporate responsibility.

“John combines a thorough knowledge and commitment to corporate responsibility with a business background,” said Pamela Skarda, executive director, in a statement. “John’s experienced leadership as Board Chair will be instrumental as SB NOW begins the roll out of our international green business certification program.”

The D.C.-based network, made up of 300 businesses, works with companies to help them integrate environmental and social responsibility principles into their operations and strategy.

See the original article

Lesson From Wall Street

2008-10-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

The famous phrase 'Greed is good' from the movie Wall Street has been quoted time and time again as a sign of what's wrong with America. But let's look at the entire speech and see if, in fact, the character famously played by Michael Douglas was onto something. In fact, in some ways the speech was downright prescient.

One of the fundamental rules of management it to align incentives with desired behaviors and base rewards on measurable and accountable results. One of the main criticisms of Wall Street today is that senior managers were making huge salaries and bonuses that were divorced from company performance. In fact, there is a popular uprising against using funds from the 'rescue package' to pay for these golden parachutes for people who did nothing more than run companies into the ground.

Gecko: "Now, in the days of the free market, when our country was a top industrial power, there was accountability to the stockholder. The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management has no stake in the company! All together, these men sitting up here [Teldar management] own less than 3 percent of the company. And where does Mr. Cromwell put his million-dollar salary? Not in Teldar stock; he owns less than 1 percent.

You own the company. That's right -- you, the stockholder. And you are all being royally screwed over by these bureaucrats, with their steak lunches, their hunting and fishing trips, their corporate jets and golden parachutes."

Another criticism being leveled today is that of wasteful spending with needless layers of bureaucracy that add complexity and no real value - building houses of cards using fancy accounting loopholes and principles that mask the real picture.
Gecko: I have spent the last two months analyzing what all these guys do, and I still can't figure it out.
And the actual quote about greed makes it clear that what he's really talking about in enlightened self-interest (and not limited to fiscal gain).
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.
And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

He's linking that desire with evolution - combining capitalism with social Darwinism and the idea that survival of the fittest applies to companies, economies and countries and not just individuals.
While I object to the principle that often grows from this combination - that those who are on the lower end economically are somehow inferior or undeserving - there are a few basic truths that this speech does address:

Stakeholders (shareholders) are not just there when it is time to reap the benefits of financial gain; they also assume the risk and have to face the losses when and if things go wrong. Therefore they need to be ENGAGED and ACTIVE.
As any parent knows, you need to reward behaviors you wish to see repeated, and address those that you do not. Corporate incentives must be aligned with desired outcomes. And there must be consequence for failing to meet those outcomes. They don't have to be draconian, but they certainly should be proportional and FAIR.
Inefficiency, obfuscation and esoteric rules cloud the picture. TRANSPARENCY allows for informed decision making (including whether or not to invest). People must insist that they know what they are buying.
The idea that shareholders can cut and run when things go badly doesn't work when company values drop as precipitously as they have recently. Or when they are prevented from selling stock due to the restrictions within their employee stock purchasing plans. Therefore they also must be and make efforts to keep themselves INFORMED
Long term thinking is necessary for long-term sustainable growth and value creation.

Business Benefits to CSR

2008-10-29T08:51:00.000-07:00

I am still amazed at the number of people who cling to the notion that sustainability is optional. Despite the strong evidence that companies are maintaining their long-term focus during the current economic crisis, critics still question whether or not sustainability is a 'fad' that will be abandoned at the first sign of tight budgets.

I understand that for anyone to accept the premise that social responsibility is a business strategy we must be able to define and quantify the business benefits that can be derived from adopting this model. This is so that success can be measured, just as with any other business strategy.

That's Doctor Green to you

2008-10-15T11:33:00.001-07:00

The Rochester Institute of Technology has received New York state approval for its doctoral degree in sustainability, the program first of its kind in the world.

The Ph.D. program focuses on sustainable production and seeks to advance research and education in alternative energy development, sustainable design, green product development, industrial ecology and pollution prevention. It is being offered through RIT’s Golisano Institute for Sustainability, an academic, research and technology transfer center devoted to enhancing the development of sustainable systems in all aspects of society.

A Matter of Trust

2008-10-07T09:21:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about trust lately because I recently faced a situation where someone I trusted was revealed to be unworthy - and when something that I had done (unintentionally) had caused someone else to question whether they could trust me. I realize how fragile a commodity trust is … and how easily it can be lost.

Obviously we all realize that engaging in deliberate deceptions or lies are quick and easy ways that both individuals and companies lose the trust of colleagues, stakeholders and the public. But there are other, more subtle ways that people and companies can and do lose the trust of their stakeholders, often without realizing that what they’re doing puts it at risk. And in light of the current loss of faith in global financial markets, this seems an appropriate time to shed some light on the subject.

Inconsistency - In the fields of science and medicine things that are known and accepted as fact are often revised as additional information is discovered. We live in an age when science is advancing in ‘real time’ and so information sometimes contradicts or supplants established ‘truths.’ It may seem laughable that people would feel betrayed when understanding and knowledge evolve. At the very least, people are confused when this happens (quick – are eggs part of a low cholesterol diet?) and often cling to previously held knowledge.

Challenging the status quo - Sometimes, such as when knowledge is seen as a threat to the world order, the consequences have been swift and severe. Galileo was excommunicated when he continued to believe – and state – that the Earth was not the physical center of the Universe and was confined to house arrest for the rest of his life. It was only in 1992, some 350 years after his death, that the Pope reversed this. This can have a ‘ricochet’ effect, causing the status quo to lose credibility. In this case, the Catholic Church’s credibility ended up being hurt more (in the long run) as the evidence for the heliocentric model of the solar system became incontrovertible.

Failure to communicate – this one is a bit tricky. Communication hates a vacuum. When people are hungry for information withholding it can be seen as disingenuous or deceitful. This most often comes in the form of the question ‘why didn’t you tell me?’ which causes people to wonder why the person with the information may feel that they cannot be trusted.

Betraying a confidence – when you tell someone something private and they repeat it to others, you lose trust in them. The same thing happens when confidential information is stolen or lost by a company, despite the lack that the company may be a victim in the circumstance as well.

Assumption of Intent – Fundamental to all of these reason why people lose trust is that despite the fact that when things change, it is reasonable for opinions to change and shift along with the added information. Yet people often suspect that the other person or company must have privy to the information in advance. Because intentionality is assumed, credibility is sacrificed. This is the case with President Bush’s assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Short of those in the inner circle of the White House, it is impossible to say with certainty that President Bush deliberately lied to the nation in order to justify going to war under false pretenses. It is possible that he – and his advisors – honestly believed that WMDs would be found and that the threat was real.

And this is exactly what we face with today’s financial markets. People are assuming that the leaders of the companies that wrote unrealistic loans and found themselves carrying unsustainable mountains of debt did so deliberately and with intention. The fact is, they may have simply been – as many people were – reluctant to believe that the party would ever end. There is some evidence that people were overzealous, overly optimistic and, in some cases, unscrupulous.

Therefore reform and regulatory oversight are necessary. And, because it is a fundamental truth that rewards must align with desired behaviors and outcomes – the exorbitant salaries and golden parachutes must be eliminated from those who drove company after company into financial ruin. What about the old standby – incentives based on performance, as measured by actual results? Otherwise, the whole system is a lie.

Economic Woes Put Green Commitment to Test

2008-09-22T06:02:00.000-07:00

Half of Americans may still be hot for green products, but consumers' willingness to pay more for green alternatives has decreased since last year, according to a new survey. Going Green, an annual report examining how much consumers actually care about green issues, indicates that Echo Boomers (ages 16-29) and GenXers (ages 30-43) are more concerned about the environment compared to a year ago. But while interest in green issues continues to grow, consumers' willingness to pay more for green alternatives has decreased, according to the report.
"There is a looming challenge for marketers of green products and services," says Dr. David Bersoff, the author of the report. "Consumers will be pushing for stricter governmental and institutional green policies, and they'll be choosing brands to a greater extent based on green considerations. But at the same time, they are becoming less willing to help marketers pay for the greening of their business and products."

It seems the marketing industry has also picked up on consumers' hesitation in spending more green for green products. Duke University just released a study of top CMOs which shows marketers will be shifting away from their cause-related messages over the next year reflecting 77% of respondents' "pessimistic view" of the economy.

“Déjà goo” – the uncomfortable feeling that we’re stuck in the same sticky situation again

2008-09-19T07:57:00.000-07:00

In too many uncomfortable ways, the current ‘mortgage meltdown’ we're experiencing in the United States is eerily familiar to the dot-com bubble a few years ago. In both cases voices of moderation (i.e. Alan Greenspan’s famous ‘irrational exuberance’ comment) were overwhelmed by those Scarlet O’Haras who encouraged us to worry about it tomorrow, even as the signs of the impending disaster became clearer and clearer.

In both cases, unrealistic (and unsustainable) growth became the expected norm. In the case of the technology sector, stocks soared despite non-existent earnings. Unethical business executives took advantage of regulatory and clever accounting loopholes to exploit the momentum and the result was that it crippled (and in many cases destroyed) powerful companies in a spectacular fashion (i.e. Enron, WorldComm, etc.). Overnight thousands lost their employment and savings. Shareholder value evaporated and pensions that were tried to company stock ceased to exist.

In the case of our current housing ‘crisis’ - home values rose at an unreasonable rate, often buoyed by low introductory mortgage ‘teaser’ rates that homeowners grabbed up in record numbers.

It's hard to resist the temptation. In both cases, as millionaires were minted overnight and people ‘flipped’ homes earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of weeks or months, consumers didn’t want to miss the opportunity. And, in the case of homeownership, people were afraid of being locked out of their desired neighborhoods.

problem is now a crisis of confidence (again). As Noel Purcell, Group General Manager of Stakeholder Communications for Wespac Banking Corporation told the 7th National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development in May 2006 is that “when self-interest and personal advantage are elevated to the status of core values as a result public trust in corporations goes out the window.”

Critics of sustainability often cite Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman’s famous maxim that “the social responsibility of business is to make money.” Friedman’s full quote, taken from “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970 actually offers some parameters that are worth noting: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

Critics have latched onto the notion that Friedman was only referring to the “rules” in a legal sense when he wrote this. Over the last three decades, however, history offers example after example of companies that obeyed the legal parameters but neglected the rules of the marketplace and have ceased to be viable. As the market expectations change, companies must be prepared to respond. And expectations of what it means to be a “good” corporate citizen have changed so that companies must do more than simply meet existing customers’ immediate gratification with a product or service without regard to the long term implications.

In fact, Friedman’s encouragement for companies “to engage in activities designed to increase its profits” can be viewed as a case for sustainability. A paper company that denudes all of the forests in proximity to its processing facility, for example, will not be profitable over the long term, especially if it must incur additional expenses associated with transporting heavy raw materials a long distance to its plant. However, by engaging in environmental stewardship activities such as replanting and working to ensure a continuous viable supply of raw materials, the company is actually maximizing its long-term profits. A similar argument can be made for investment house Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, as it succumbed to the subprime mortgage crisis that it helped create.

Quite simply, companies must avoid the temptation to fall into the arrogance that success sometimes breeds and never forget that they must come to the market, and not the reverse.
Otherwise, in the absence of corporate responsibility, the only answer is government bailouts followed by government action that all too often punishes the innocent (like the taxpayers who are now paying for the bailouts of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae) and saddles those businesses that survived – often by virtue of their financial acumen and responsibility - with increased regulations.

You've Got the CEO's Ear, What are You Going to Say?

2008-09-04T14:32:00.000-07:00

We explore one area that is not as simple as it intially seems:

It is happening more and more. CEOs and strategic leaders in companies are becoming more and more committed to sustainability as a business strategy. After years of ‘banging our heads against the wall’ suddenly our advice and counsel is in demand – high demand. And that brings a whole host of other questions to the fore.

You've Got the CEO's Ear, What are You Going to Say?