April 14th, 2008

irrational fear

Why aren’t people taking drastic action in the face of an impending disaster? I’ve been deeply troubled by this question since climate change started gaining traction as a serious issue in society. I’ve always imagined people running helter-skelter trying to stop the worst from happening. Instead, most people are doing nothing about this issue. In the face of almost certain death, we continue in oblivion by driving around in our gas-guzzling “fuck-you mobiles” (SUVs/ cars, as described by Bill Maher), pushing Coca Cola down peoples throats and building a world based on financial gain instead of value creation.

Oddly enough, I was startled to find the answer to my question in an article in the Scientific American Mind entitled “The Powers and Perils of Intuition” by David G. Myers. Here’s an excerpt to the section that answered my question:

Why do we so often fear the wrong things? Why do so many smokers (whose habits shorten their lives, on average, by about five years) worry before flying (which shortens life on average by one day)? Why do we fear violent crime more than obesity and clogged arteries? Why do we fear tragic but isolated terrorist acts more than the future’s omnipresent weapon of mass destruction: global climate change? In a nutshell, why do we fret about remote possibilities while ignoring higher probabilities?

Psychological science has identified four factors that feed our risk intuitions:

We fear what our ancestral history has prepared us to fear.

With our old brain living in a new world, we are disposed to fear confinement and height, snakes and spiders, and humans outside our tribe.

We fear what we cannot control.

Behind the wheel of our car, but not in an airplane, we feel control.

We fear what is immediate.

Smoking’s lethality and the threats of rising seas and extreme weather are in the distant future. The airplane take-off in now.

We fear threats readily available in memory.
If a surface-to-air missile brings down a single airliner, the result - thanks to the availabililty of heuristics (rule of thumb) - will be traumatic for the airline industry. Given the difficulty of grasping the infinitesimal odds of its being (among 11 million annual airline flights) the plane that we are on, the probabilities will not persuade us. Intuitive fears will hijack the rational mind.

For these reasons, we fear too little those things that claim lives undramatically (smoking quietly kills 400,000 Americans annually) and too much those things that kill in spectacular bunches. By checking our intuitive fears against the facts, with mindfulness of the realities of how humans die, we can prepare for tomorrow’s biggest dangers.

posted by admin

climate change, green, psychology | No Comments »

April 14th, 2008

visualize your ideas

Several months back, I wrote an article about the benefits of visualising your ideas - Design thinking for Development (it received the highest number of views!!!).

Today, companies like Wal-Mart, Microsoft and others are using the power of visualisation to communicate and digest complex ideas.

Continue reading this article from Fast Company>>>

A leader in the field of idea visualisation is X-plane.

posted by admin

design, visualisation | No Comments »

April 12th, 2008

Business & Sustainability Talk at the American Chamber of Commerce, Bangkok

I just gave a short talk on the future of business at the American Chamber of Commerce’s CSR Committee year-opening meeting here in Bangkok, Thailand. The session was pretty engaging and it stirred up some thoughts on how our economy/ business continues to evolve.

posted by admin

green, sustainability, talks | No Comments »

April 12th, 2008

has the tipping point finally tipped over?

Duncan Watts’s research tells advertising execs precisely what they don’t want to hear: All their clever (and lucrative!) targeted viral campaigning may ultimately be less effective than good old mass marketing.

Influentials

In the “two step” model of marketing, well-connected Influentials amplify a trend by relaying media messages out to the social periphery. Marketers can therefore focus on the few as a way of reaching the many.

Accidental Influentials

Watts’s theory says the emergence of a trend depends not on Influentials, but on the susceptibility of the public to the “virus.” Social-network effects are so complex, he says, that trends are basically random.

Click here to continue reading the article from Fast Company>>>

posted by admin

marketing, tipping point | No Comments »

April 7th, 2008

opportunity is green

Update: Andy Savitz commented on my article on my previous blog:

Click here to access my article which was published in the Bangkok Post (4th Nov 2007), or simply continue reading below:

In The Corporation, what is now a monumental documentary, Ray Anderson, founder of carpet tile company Interface, confesses to his plundering past, “One day early in this journey it dawned on me that the way I’d been running Interface is the way of the plunderer; plundering something that’s not mine, something that belongs to every creature on earth. And I said to myself, my goodness, the day must come when this is illegal, when plundering is not allowed. It must come. So, I said to myself, my goodness, some day people like me will end up in jail”. Ray’s ‘confession’ marks a tipping point in the world of business and economics.

For a long time, we have taken for granted that business can rape and pillage the planet in search of profits while handing out small amounts of philanthropy to non-profits to clean up the mess that is left behind. Capitalism, as practiced today, might be financially profitable, but it is definitely unsustainable for human development. We have failed to attach values to our largest and fast depleting stocks of capital - natural resources, living systems and the environment. We extract raw materials at really low costs, use labour and technologies to transform these resources into products which are ultimately sold for profits, and then somehow discard the waste created somewhere.

At the same time, we have ingrained ourselves in a mindset that has long become obsolete. We continue to delineate for-profit entities as creators of economic value and non-profit organizations as creators of social value. There are many inherent problems with this mindset. We can clearly see that the creation of value in either the for-profit or non-profit sector is not created in isolation. Businesses do create a great deal of social value as well as economic value. By creating jobs, paying taxes and providing products and services to people, they are intrinsically creating social value. Non-profits also create economic as well as social value; in many countries, NGOs represent a significant part of the national GDP.

The other problem with this mindset is that it sanctions companies to engage in social programs (corporate social responsibility) which are external and at most irrelevant to the core of it’s business model. It also advocates many non-profits to rely on the ‘chump change’ in terms of charity or grants from companies. Although it does sound charming for a car company to engage an NGO to raise awareness on saving turtles, it doesn’t help it become ‘sustainable’ in the long-run. Such practices have become public relations exercises aimed at creating the illusion that corporations are concerned citizens like the rest of us.

Over the past few years, a small, but growing group of business leaders is beginning to acknowledge the need for traditional business thinking and practices to be reformulated to accommodate a more sustainable model that creates and maximizes not only on economic value but also social and environmental values at the same time. This new philosophy is based on emerging evidence that business performance correlates highly with social and environmental conditions. Like a plant, it’s growth will be stunted if it isn’t in an ecosystem that provides access to supportive elements such as sunlight, water, fertile soil, and proper care. In short, it has become profitable to be sustainable.

The debate whether business should become more accountable to society and the environment can be traced back to era of Milton Friedman. He was a strong advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. In his book, Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman, wrote, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits…” To burden business with wider goals, he argued, was “pure and unadulterated socialism”.

The opposing views of Ray Anderson and Milton Friedman show us how polarized the world is. On one side we have traditional business leaders and intellectuals who believe that the current form of capitalism is a social good by itself and that markets should not be burdened with responsibilities outside the core of business. And on the opposing side are the new business and nonprofit leaders and intellectuals who believe business is accountable for more than the creation of pure economic value because decisions made in the business sphere do create social and environmental repercussions, and vice versa.

The signs that we’re living in a post Friedmanesque world are fast emerging. You wouldn’t have to look far to see how radically the climate is fluctuating, the widening gap between the rich and the poor in a period of tremendous wealth, and the sharply declining supplies of our most basic commodities such as clean air, potable water, arable land, fossil fuels, as well as vital industrial commodities such as aluminum, steel and silicon. If business doesn’t change its ways soon, we’re screwed.

In their book, The Triple Bottom Line, Andrew Savitz and Karl Weber claim that “… the truly sustainable company would have no need to write checks to charity or ‘give back’ to the local community, because the company’s daily operations wouldn’t deprive the community, but would enrich it”. They continue to add that “sustainable companies find areas of mutual interest and ways to make ‘doing good’ and ‘doing well’ synonymous, thus avoiding the implied conflict between society and shareholders”. In other words, a sustainable company is one that creates profit for its shareholders while protecting the environment and improving the lives of those with whom it interacts.

Companies should think of sustainability as more of an opportunity than a challenge that drives them away from their core. Opportunity in this sense can present itself in many ways such as, an entry into new markets through the development of new products and services, reduced energy costs, improved customer relationships and a happier workforce. Ultimately, companies that embrace sustainability can actually help drive innovation and boost profits.

Traditionally, carpet tile manufacturers like Interface are responsible for using immense amounts of energy and creating lots of waste during its production processes. It’s more distressing to know that once the carpets have worn out, they’re simply discarded into landfills and remain there for thousands of years. Today, under the leadership of Ray Anderson, Interface intends to become one of the most sustainable companies by 2020.

The company is experimenting with a new business model where, instead of selling carpets to its customers, it has begun leasing floor-covering services to them. At a small monthly fee, Interface will maintain and replace the carpets whenever necessary. This has helped reduce overall manufacturing, energy usage and waste created. It has also helped create more jobs that cater to the maintenance of the carpets. Additionally, the company’s customers are happy that a once capital investment can now be treated as a lease expense. All in all, Interface has been able to strengthen its relationships with its customers.

Addressing climate change presents a huge opportunity for many existing and emerging companies. In 2005 General Electric (GE) launched a new initiative called Ecomagination which aims to develop clean technology to help its customers reduce their environmental impact. Suzlon Energy, a new kid on the block, is reported to be one of the world’s top players in alternative energy, with a global market share of six percent. Located in India and headed by Tulsi Tanti, this eight billion dollar venture not only manufactures wind turbines for global demand, but also develops and manages wind farms. Tanti first became interested in wind-power when he was trying to look for ways to lower energy costs of his original business, a textile mill.

The shift towards sustainability as an opportunity is undoubtedly emerging in Thailand too. A local silk-fabric manufacturing plant, Green Ville Trading, is clearly reaping the benefits of using cleaner manufacturing technology and alternative energy sources. Led by Pilan Dhammonkol, the plant has developed an innovative fabric dying technique that uses fewer environmentally dangerous chemicals and is less energy intensive. This new technique has cut the production process from previously four hours to just three minutes and has reduced the plant’s energy consumption by about eighty percent. Recently, the plant received the EU Flower environmental certification, making it the world’s first silk-fabric maker that is able to fulfill the European Union’s environmental preservation standards.

Opportunity is not just limited to the realm of energy and climate change. Thailand-based Swift addresses both health foods and poverty reduction at the same time. Located in Kampaengsen, it is one of the country’s leading suppliers of organic fruits and vegetables. The company’s most popular produce include organic asparagus, corn, mango and mangosteen, which it exports mainly to markets in Japan and Europe. With sales of up to one billion baht annually, Swift contracts more than ten thousand family farms in the region while helping the farmers attain fairer prices for their produce and meet the food safety standards set by the countries it supplies to.

Even the way we design and manufacture products is subtly changing. In today’s industrial model, almost all of the products we manufacture are simply discarded in landfills once they are of no value to us. This ‘cradle to grave’ model is clearly wasteful and unsustainable. The ‘cradle to cradle’ design concept, developed and popularized by Michael Braungart and William McDonough, calls for the creation of sustainable products through the adoption of ecologically friendly design. The idea is simply to create products in a waste-free manufacturing process, using only reusable, biodegradable, or consumable materials.

These are interesting times to be living in. We’re witnessing the slow collapse of the old structures of business and economics and the inevitable transformation to a more sustainable form of capitalism. It cannot be highlighted enough that the adoption of sustainability holds more opportunities than challenges ahead. So the question remains, how do we move forward from here?

If you’re looking for a one-size-fits-all solution for business to become more sustainable, there just isn’t one, at least as of yet. Instead, a good starting point for companies to get onto the path towards sustainability, is to measure their performance not just in terms of the traditional financial bottom line, but also by their impact on the environment and the community in which they operate. The triple bottom line approach, originally proposed by John Elkington, is meant to help companies measure, document and report on all three of its bottom lines - economic, social and environmental.

In fact, companies that measure their performance on the sustainability yardstick would be able to unlock more opportunities. They can develop tailor-made strategies and solutions that can open up further opportunities beyond economic values, a more holistic approach that can include the social and environmental components as well. It is hoped that in the new model capitalism, companies that aim to do well financially, would only be able to do so by taking into account how its business affects the community and environment too. The day may soon arrive when a company can claim to be profitable only when it reports positive returns on all three of its bottom lines.

S. Dev Appanah runs a social venture program that supports young social entrepreneurs in the region. Visit his blog at www.deviantsadvantage.com

posted by admin

blended value, green, sustainability, triple bottomline | No Comments »

April 3rd, 2008

workshop for early-stage social entrepreneurs

After a very energising i-genius event (which I’ll cover in another post) in Phuket a couple of weeks back, I managed to gather some students from the Kaospilots business school in the Netherlands and 2 filmmakers (Mark Chaplin & Sara Haq from Business Unusual) who were attending the igenius event to participate in a workshop or bootcamp of sorts with the local social entrepreneurs whom we’re working with. The workshop was held at the World Bank office in Bangkok.

The event went extraordinarily well as all groups benefited from participating in the workshop. Both the students from Kaospilots and the filmmakers managed to learn more about the efforts in social entrepreneurship and the social entrepreneurs themselves learnt more about how to communicate their ideas and ventures with more clarity.

I discovered something quite interesting during the whole process. Having our local entrepreneurs engage with a 3rd party group like the students and the filmmakers endorsed our teachings which were usually not consumed as quickly as compared to having a 3rd party group present during these interactions. In essence, if you want to convince someone, you need the presence of a so-called independent 3rd party person/ group that can endorse what you’re trying to communicate.

posted by admin

business development, social business, social entrepreneurship, social innovation | 3 Comments »

April 3rd, 2008

new social problems for developed countries?

Traditional development initiatives and policies often deal with poverty eradication in developing countries. They usually deal with the poorest of the poor, people living below USD2 per day or those at the bottom of the pyramid.

Is this new social problem (teenage delinquency) in the UK the result of being a developed country? Although most people at the bottom of the pyramid can derive welfare allowances, there still seems to be an increase in social problems. So, even as overall wealth increases and income inequality drops, there seems to be a point of diminishing returns where social problems to tend to increase or stay in a steady state.

Click here to learn more on UK’s growing teenage problems>>>

posted by admin

development, social problems | No Comments »

March 25th, 2008

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

posted by admin

Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Archives

Cats

Links