Archive for ‘Organizational Strategy’

January 24, 2014

Carbon Neutral

by Scott Lewis, Brightworks Sustainability founder and CEO
Those of us who spends our days (and nights and weekends…) advising others on how to improve their ecological imprint and the associated social and economic imprints that go along with it, have a mandate to walk our talk.  Our credibility and our ability to understand our clients’ perspective depend on it.

So, we here at Brightworks made a commitment to operate as a Climate Neutral business – to offset the CO2 emissions associated with our commuting, office energy use, workday travel (to and from meetings, etc.) and procurement, to the best of our ability.  We do this by (1) trying to track and measure our CO2 impacts, and (2) buying 2x offsets for that CO2 impact.

Why 2x?  Two reasons.  First, we have to assume that the offset system probably isn’t perfect, and second, we assume our tracking and measuring system for our carbon impact is probably imperfect as well, so we err on the side of conservative, and buy 2x.

So, how does this work?

First, we track our Air Travel, Commute to and from work, Work Car Travel, Office Energy Use and Procurement.  We convert all those numbers to CO2 using industry references.  Then we buy (2x) offsets from the most credible offset source we can find, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation.

Below is the summary of our carbon footprint. If you are curious about the underlying data that supports this analysis, it is all here.

Brightworks’ Carbon Footprint-2013
Source Metric Tons
Commuting 6.39
Air Travel 128.39
Work Car Travel 5.33
Office Energy Use 77.64
Procurement 6.99
Total Metric Tons 217.75
January 10, 2014

Brightworks By The Numbers | 2014 Update

by Scott Lewis, Brightworks Sustainability founder and CEO

Thanks to our ex-staffer,  great friend and lampmaker Billy Ulmer, we have updated our famous Brightworks Metrics with end-of-year 2013 data.

The results are as follows:

Metrics_01.2014

Numbers Behind the Numbers
Total Built Environment (Buildings, Campus, Master Plan, Infrastructure) Projects Completed: > 325
LEED Projects Certified >175
Total Square Footage >35 million
Total Cost $9.26 billion
Projected Impacts
Energy Cost Savings $26,056,579 per year
People We Touched in 2013 64,583 people
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission Savings 134,341 metric tons per year
Water (H2O) Savings 104,455,041 gallons per year
Waste Diverted from Landfills 797,325 tons

As always, our data as of December 2013 largely reflects our LEED® projects in the rating systems of New Construction, Core & Shell, Commercial Interiors and Schools. To learn more about how we think about the people we touch, read our post on the subject.

May 3, 2013

Spare Change

by Scott Lewis | Brightworks CEO

In an era of superstorms, and garbage gyres the size of Texas, where 1.2 people lack safe drinking water and, those of us working for change at scale feel a heightened sense of urgency around the issue of scale and impact.  According to a new report by the UN, climate change if not averted could push up to 3 billion people into extreme poverty by the middle of this century.  This is the Go Big or Go Home moment.

I’ve written elsewhere about the importance of having an aspirational vision – that incremental change is both uninspiring and insufficient.  But after 12 years in practice using sustainability strategies to help our clients address their most pressing issues and greatest opportunities around cost, risk, brand, talent and aligning their values with their work, we are finally gaining real proficiency in what I feel is the most powerful lever for helping our clients secure enduring competitive advantage.

Turbulent water overflow

Greenland Ice Sheet Melt – an impact of climate change.  Over the course of several years, turbulent water overflow from a large melt lake carved this 60-foot-deep (18.3 meter-deep) canyon (note people near left edge for scale).  A complete melt of the Greenland Ice Sheet would raise sea levals by over 20 feet.  Image credit: Ian Joughin, University of Washington; NASA

In the world of sustainability practice, the biggest barriers, challenges and opportunities are often perceived to be either technical or financial.  And while it is true that financial and technical innovations are urgent and important, we have found through our work on hundreds of projects with dozens of clients large and small, that the greatest challenges and opportunities are in fact neither technical nor financial.  Yes, we have to figure out non-toxic product strategies using renewable  inputs and closed loop recycling.  We have to figure out how to make buildings and communities that can run on renewable energy and function with a net-zero (or positive) environmental footprint.  And we have to figure out how to pay for these things.  But as Lester Brown observed in his inspiring exploration of possibility, Plan B, everything we need to do to achieve real sustainability, we are already doing, in places.  It’s a question of scale, resolve, fixing market failures like externalities, and overcoming huge issues like the corrupting influence of money in politics.  But the barriers are not technical, nor financial.  They are personal.

Sustainability = Change

We hear a lot of talk in sustainability circles of the Triple Bottom Line – people, planet, prosperity.  And while the ecological and financial dimensions of the equation are regularly addressed, and the social equity component is gaining some momentum in some circles, when I talk here about the social dimension of sustainability, I’m not referring to the “sustainability has to reach all groups” aspect.  While that factor, the Sustainability For All angle, is certainly true, urgent and important, that’s not what I’m talking about here, now.  What I’m talking about is this: sustainability is about change.  It means doing things differently in the future than today.  And if we don’t think about that fact, get inquisitive and ask about its implications, we’ll be stuck writing inspiring sustainability plans that gather dust on the shelf while the ice sheets melt and species continue to vanish.  If we aspire to accelerate the transformation of an economic, social and political system that depletes the planet’s natural capital into a system capable of providing lasting prosperity for the majority of humanity, we must focus heightened attention, and we have to do this quickly and well, on the implications of the simple observation that sustainability means change.  Not doing so would be akin to trying to lose weight without eating less or exercising more.

ChangeOrDie

Understanding what motivates people to change behavior is the most powerful lever to successful sustainability uotcomes.

The logic is somewhat straightforward:

Is our current system sustainable?  Answer: obviously not.

Do we wish to have a sustainable future?  Clearly.

Will we get there by continuing to do the things that created the situation we are in today?  No chance.

Therefore, we have to do things in the future differently than we are today.  Hence: Sustainability = Change.

This may seem obvious beyond words, but by not focusing on the implications of this simple truth, which we have found in our work to be the rule more than the exception, we allow tremendous amounts of energy to leak out the sides of our efforts, instead of moving us forward as quickly as we can go.

So what does this really mean?  What do we do about it?  How do we “operationalize” change effectively?  Believe it or not, there are good answers to all those questions.

Stay tuned and we’ll offer some thoughts, now that we’ve framed the question, in our next installment…

June 11, 2012

What is Sustainability ROI?

Scott Lewis, Brightworks CEOBy Scott Lewis

 Brightworks CEO

Sustainability provides a rich investment opportunity for any organization – business, NGO or public agency. However, conventional approaches to comparing investment options may under-represent the value of sustainability efforts, and therefore lead to underinvestment, missed value creation opportunity and increased risk. By expanding outdated notions and definitions of the “returns” from investment options, CFOs, business leaders and managers of public or non-profit organizations can make more prudent and strategic decisions regarding sustainability opportunities.

The standard measure for the risk-adjusted opportunity of an investment is a simple equation: the benefit or “gain” of the investment divided by the initial cost – referred to as “return on investment.” Put $100 into a project, get $140 back, divide the gain ($40) by the initial investment, and voila – a 40 percent ROI.

While expected ROI is widely used by investors, our focus here is on investment decisions made by CFOs and business managers inside organizations about where to allocate their internal resources to achieve their goals.

From Conventional ROI to SROI

To illustrate the problem with the standard ROI analysis, consider the following example: You’re deciding whether to invest in an energy upgrade project that includes switching out inefficient incandescent lights with more energy efficient T-5 fluorescent lamps, replacing some overhead lighting with task lighting at workstations, and adding natural ventilation and daylighting to the space to save air conditioning and lighting costs.  Suppose the initial or “first cost” of the upgrade is $100,000, and you get $15,000 annual energy savings: a 15 percent ROI.  If that payback seems low or there is a competing use for those funds that would have an 18 percent ROI, the energy upgrade wouldn’t be worth the investment.  But is that really the whole picture?

Fluorescent Lights in an Office

Image via Renewable Energy News


The problem with the standard ROI analysis is that it overlooks some of the potential benefits of the sustainability investment, and therefore undervalues the possible outcome. The first question in doing a Sustainability ROI analysis is, “Did we really look at all the financial costs and benefits of the project?”  The first place to look for additional financial benefits is in the area of Life Cycle Cost Analysis, or LCCA.  Did your analysis take into account the fact that the new T5 lights last for 5 years, yet the incandescent lamps they were replacing only last for a year?  Did it measure the dollars spent paying maintenance staff to climb a ladder and replace each incandescent bulb each year?  Did the analysis uncover the fact that the T5’s produce considerably less heat than the incandescents?  In a building where you run air conditioning for 68 percent of the year, the cooler T5’s save you money again.

read more »

June 1, 2012

The Human Investment

Nate Young, Education Coordinator, Brightworksby Nate Young

Education Coordinator

The most valuable assets of a 20th-century company were its production equipment. The most valuable asset of a 21st-century institution, whether business or non-business, will be its knowledge workers and their productivity.

– Peter Drucker 1999

No company can succeed without investing in its most important assets. Yet the challenge, as Peter Drucker points out, is recognizing what’s most important. Many modern organizations hold a vast network of “human resources” that are in essence dying on the vine due to a lack of ongoing investment, especially in the area of sustainability training and development. Fortunately, as leading companies are demonstrating, engaging and investing in employees isn’t a charitable effort – it pays dividends of higher company profits and more effective sustainability programs.

Accounting for human resources

To hear Paul Herman of HIP Investor tell it, many companies avoid investing in their employees on a regular basis – possibly due, in part, to a limitation in U.S. accounting standards. You see, employees are not considered an asset, according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the standards by which American corporations develop their financial statements. Employees only show up as salary costs (Expenses on the Income Statement) and possibly as pension costs (Liabilities on the Balance Sheet).

The GAAP requirements can be overcome (Infosys, for instance reports their human resource valuation each year), but these structures tend to reinforce management’s 20th Century views of what are “investments or assets” versus “expenses or liabilities.” Like me, you’ve probably heard the phrase “our employees are our greatest asset” more than a few times. Even if we can’t show it properly on financial statements, why don’t we act like we mean it? Clearly, investing in infrastructure is believed to pay benefits, so why don’t we feel the same about our employees?

Our employees are our greatest asset

The people have spoken…via google search.

read more »

May 24, 2012

Silence on Sustainability: Not as golden as it used to be

Dave Newman, Senior Strategist, Brightworks Enterprise Solutions GroupBy Dave Newman, Enterprise Solutions Group

A sustainability thought leader shared a cautionary tale with me recently. His former company had received a sustainability questionnaire from a non-governmental organization (NGO). The CEO told him not to respond. The firm’s responses wouldn’t be ideal, and they weren’t sure how much to disclose. When the report came out, the cost of that decision became clear: The company received an “F” ranking. When the survey arrived the following year, the CEO instructed him to respond with whatever information the company had. Anything would be better than their current grade!

Companies are being publicly rated on sustainability criteria – whether they know it or not and whether they participate in the process or not. The newly updated Ceres report on corporate sustainability progress among 600 top U.S. companies is just the latest publicized ratings example. No doubt the results caught at least a few businesses off guard.

The challenge for businesses is that these inquiries from industry watchdogs, NGOs or clients call for complicated responses and are probably not on your ideal timeline (of, say, “later, maybe never”). As my acquaintance’s experience illustrates, sharing your progress is better saying nothing, even if you don’t have all the answers. And just asking the questions will give you a sense of what some of your next moves should be.

Why are large companies falling short of Ceres’ expectations?

read more »

March 7, 2012

Is Your Supply Chain Prepared for the Future?

Dave Newman, Senior Strategist, Brightworks Enterprise Solutions GroupBy Dave Newman, Senior Strategist

The humble supply chain will undergo a dramatic change as our energy network and systems transition from oil (fossil fuel) to renewable energy. Which begs the question: Is your company ready?

A business’ success or failure always depends on its ability to source and deliver products and services to the marketplace. Let’s look at how that delivery has historically taken place, how it will change as our energy network changes and how smart companies are preparing themselves.

Supply Chain Evolution

A supply chain is a system of organizations, people, technology, activities, information and resources that move a product from a company or supplier to the customer.  Picture a relay race of many runners: Each participant moves the relay baton until it reaches the finish line or, in this case, the marketplace where the product can be purchased.

Reviewing the evolution of the supply chain gives us a valuable foundation to discover what it may look like in the future.

Pre-Industrial Supply Chain

Before the industrial revolution, most people grew, raised or hunted for their food. All basic needs were available in the nearby town mercantile. In early America, some products were imported from European nations, but they tended to be expensive and were available only to the more affluent and urban populations. Goods traveled by truly sustainable supply chains – across oceans via sailing vessels powered by winds and currents, and locally via horse-drawn wagons.

Pre-Industrial Supply Chain: Companies, Manufacturing and the Marketplace in One Location

Pre-Industrial Supply Chain: Companies, Manufacturing and the Marketplace in One Location

January 23, 2012

Three Strategies to Achieve Corporate Sustainability

Dave Newman, Senior Strategist, Brightworks Enterprise Solutions GroupBy Dave Newman, Senior Strategist, Enterprise Solutions Group

After spotting the trends that corporate sustainability practitioners see in their daily work (Read: Four Trends in Corporate Sustainability), I looked deeper to figure out which strategies were getting leaders ahead. My conversations with some 20 leaders in Fortune 500 companies revealed three key strategies:

  1. Changing how the business views sustainability benefits – from cost reduction to revenue growth
  2. Moving sustainability out of departmental silos into shared business goals
  3. Reporting and sharing the things that matter with the people who care

In this follow-on post, I’ll highlight some of the common obstacles to implementing sustainability within companies, how leaders are overcoming them to achieve true sustainability leadership, and what laggards can start doing now to catch up.

 Efficiency is not innovation

read more »

December 14, 2011

Developing Your Talent for the Business of the Future

Nate Young Backpacking on Washington's Olympic PenninsulaBy Nate Young, Brightworks Education Coordinator

It goes without saying that conducting business “sustainably” requires a new paradigm of operations. Given that, it should also go without saying that businesses will need a different employee skill set as well. Unfortunately, companies that pursue sustainability are often hesitant to equip their employees with the necessary knowledge and tools to realign their operations.

Gap in Corporate Sustainability Initiatives and Staff TrainingA recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted this disparity. “American companies don’t seem to do training anymore,” it declared. While the U.S. unemployment rate is almost 9 percent, 52 percent of employers reported having difficulty filling positions because of talent shortages, according to Manpower. By offering “just a bit” of employee training, these companies could develop the talent they need.

Instead, in-house training opportunities have all but dried up, the article reported. “Data are hard to come by, but we know that apprenticeship programs have largely disappeared, along with management-training programs. And the amount of training that the average new hire gets in the first year or so could be measured in hours and counted on the fingers of one hand.”

And yet, opportunities abound for professionals to develop the skills that make sense for progressive companies: from ongoing workforce education programs (like we offer at Brightworks) up to a graduate business degree with a sustainability focus.

To get a better idea of the benefits of burnished sustainability skill sets, I chatted with Scott Marshall and Alison Dennis of the Portland State University (PSU) MBA program. Given that PSU’s MBA program was recently ranked by the Aspen Institute’s Beyond Grey Pinstripes as the best small business school in the world, I figured they understood what skills companies should and would look for in new and existing employees.

read more »

December 13, 2011

Clear is the New Black

Scott Lewis, Brightworks CEOby Scott Lewis, Brightworks CEO

A couple of weeks before the 35th celebration of Earth Day in April 2006, the New York Times declared “Green Is The New Black.” The article reported on how environmental friendliness had reached into consumer trends, business and fashion, and stated, “Eco-awareness is becoming a hot topic and a growing business.”

Five years later, an Obama has replaced a Bush in the White House (and finally done something for the planet); the economy is showing tentative signs of life after suffering a meltdown; and green has gone from trendy to what the MIT Management Review calls “table stakes” for doing business. As companies and industries move from compliance to strategic investment in sustainability throughout their value chain, the new watchwords are disclosure and reporting.

We’re now in the age of transparency: Clear is the New Black. Hiding sustainability exposures behind the veil of corporate secrecy is shifting from common practice to a sign of weakness. Today, leading companies – in sectors ranging from consumer goods to major extractive industries – are producing public reports with greater detail and transparency than ever thought possible.

Public Reporting Requirements Grow

In the U.S., two recent developments have hastened the shift toward greater public reporting of sustainability risk, opportunity and progress:

  • Under a federal rule (referred to as “Part 98”) published in October 2009, all “large source” greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in the U.S. are required to track and report their emissions. The rule, under what is also called the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), covers more than 10,000 facilities in the U.S. and accounts for more than 85 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
  • In January 2010, the Securities Exchange Commission – the federal agency charged with determining what business risks publicly traded companies must document in their quarterly or annual reports – for the first time included climate change on the list of required disclosures.

read more »