IKEA was recently in the news regarding its famous meatballs. In 2015, they plan to offer lower carbon alternatives – chicken and vegetarian varieties . At the same time, they were also in the news for having their FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification in Karelia, Russia temporarily suspended because its subsidiary Swedwood was cutting down 600-year-old trees.  We’ll continue to hear more news about IKEA’s sustainability credentials from both supporters and detractors. It’s a global retail powerhouse, and it has taken a very public, proactive commitment to sustainable business.

In fact, each year it shares a very thorough Sustainability Report, which details its strategy, activities and results. In reading their latest report, one thing that stands out is its Sustainability Product Scorecard, which provides 11 criteria relating to how new products are designed and produced (see box).

That it has a Sustainability Product Scorecard is noteworthy in and of itself. However, delving beyond it, there are a number of best practices for marrying sustainability, innovation and growth.

Enabling customers to lead more sustainable lives

Picking up on the last point, enabling customers to live a more sustainable life at home opens up a number of opportunities to create new product categories and differentiate existing ones. For example, IKEA has teamed up with Hanergy to offer solar panel packages in its UK market and is in the process of updating its lighting range to LED light bulbs as standard. It has also developed products such as white goods, space saving solutions and food storage containers to help customers use less energy and water, and to reduce waste. Enabling customers to have an impact on sustainability not only opens up growth opportunities, it also communicates real reasons to believe that a company is committed to sustainability. It demonstrates a value chain perspective on sustainability rather than a supply chain viewpoint. A value chain takes into account the customer, and by doing so a company can expand its sustainability impact beyond the point of sale.

“We will do our best to use sustainability as a driver of innovation and transformational change - from factory and farm, to store, to customers’ homes and all the way to our products’ end of life - and strive towards having a positive impact on people and the planet.” 
(IKEA Group Sustainability for 2020)

Understanding the bigger picture on customers’ needs

It’s tempting to focus solely on the sustainability aspects of a product in the design phase. However, doing so at the expense of customers’ wider needs will most likely result in low take-up and miss the mark in the impact on their behaviours, and ultimately on the positive impact on the environment. Customers still have a wide set of needs regarding products, and except for the most diehard green advocates, they are unwilling to sacrifice them. IKEA recognises this, which is why it still addresses customers' needs for style and design, ease of purchase and use, and very importantly affordability. Affordability is one of the main needs that remains unaddressed, and creates an obstacle to helping customers take action – just look at households’ low take-up of renewable energy solutions in the UK, despite periodic incentives such feed-in-tariffs. For example, IKEA sold over 22m LED products, including 12.3m LED bulbs. In addition to designing LED lighting solutions that deliver on performance, IKEA took steps to make them affordable, and therefore accessible, to its customers.

Alignment and integration of sustainability strategy with corporate strategy

If sustainability efforts are isolated to one part of the business, such as product design or production, they’re unlikely to survive against other corporate priorities, particularly short-term sales and cost targets. In addition, the market and customers are increasingly sceptical about companies' sustainability credentials – they sense when sustainability is an add-on or PR attempt. A clear sustainability strategy that is seamless with corporate and brand strategies is essential to avoid a greenwashing tag, and to embed sustainability in the innovation process. IKEA’s approach reflects this understanding – the Sustainability Product Scorecard stems from the wider corporate, brand and sustainability strategies. In fact, IKEA has 11 guiding group strategies and sustainability is one of them, and it runs throughout all of the others.

Making a public commitment to sustainability, as IKEA has, will attract assessment and commentary from the public – from customers, non-customers, and other stakeholders. It will create reasons to believe for some audiences, while others will challenge a company’s real motivations and performance. Putting aside which audience you fall into regarding IKEA, their approach demonstrates valuable best practices on how to align commercial and sustainability objectives. It also demonstrates that these objectives are not inconsistent. Rather, sustainability can drive innovation and provide real opportunities for growth.

by Dennis Pannozzo

With the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings approaching, I was reminded of the famous Kohima memorial inscription. Commemorating the thousands of Indian, African and Commonwealth soldiers who fought in the Burma campaign, it reads:

“When you go home, tell them of us and say: ‘For your tomorrow, we gave our today’” 

In the context of climate change and, in particular, international governments’ inability to respond decisively- it strikes me that a more appropriate and rather less heroic epitaph for our generation may be “For our today, we gave your tomorrow.’ For whatever reason, our society seems less able, or less willing, to act in the best interests of its descendants.

The topic of intergenerational justice and environmental protection is not a new concept. The Stuttgart based think-tank Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations seeks to ensure that “today’s youth and future generations…have at least the same opportunities to meet their own needs as the generation governing today.” An echo of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, it is familiar to everyone working in the field. So what are we missing? Where is the willingness to make changes for the sake of our great-great-grandchildren?

My hunch is that we lack the imagination, or the advanced empathy skills to feel sufficiently responsible for future generations. We are too far removed temporally and emotionally, and we lack the urgency, courage and immediate mortal danger felt by soldiers fighting in the world wars. This may be why the case for sustainability has taken several decades to gain traction. The philosopher Roman Krznaric outlines some creative strategies for closing the empathy gap across generations, including the establishment of experiential 'climate futures museums.' In the meantime, perhaps we need to emphasise the opportunity to improve well-being and prosperity for today’s global citizens. By maximising environmental, financial and social justice in our own lifetimes, we may leave better systems in place for future generations. 

By Jenny Ekelund

I consider myself very fortunate to be working in sustainability. Fortunate because I am able to make a living doing something I consider worthwhile which aligns with my own values. This is true for many of my colleagues, regardless of sector. This doesn’t mean, however, that we are immune to professional highs and lows. In fact, for those of us working in an area we feel personally invested in, the lows can feel all the more crushing. So what can we do to put a spring back in our professional step? Here are a few self-preservation tips:

1.  Make time to build a supportive network
For some progressive organisations, sustainability has become an accepted driver of business strategy and you will find allies everywhere from the Finance Director to the maintenance team. For others at an earlier point in the journey, even the most resilient Sustainability Manager can feel isolated and worn down by the naysayers from time to time- especially if they do not have a team of their own. In this situation, it helps to build a supportive network of peers working in your field. Not everyone has the time or the budget to attend conferences and make these connections, but there are other routes available. Happily, sustainability is the subject of many free lectures, 'Green Drinks' and evening events. Many universities run public lectures such as the University of Oxford’s ONE series- and there are now several thriving online communities such as 2degrees where members can trade experiences and advice. Once you have a few trusted professional friends you can bounce ideas off, or simply have a good rant with, you will feel more energised and reminded that others face similar challenges.

2.  Consider being a mentor or a mentee- and they don’t have to be a sustainability professional!
Alex Swallow wrote an excellent blog recently about the benefits of being a mentor and a mentee. Whilst excellent structured schemes exist (such as the IEMA programme), he makes the point that some of the best mentoring isn’t formal. Why not approach somebody whose work you admire and ask if they would mind having a coffee and a chat? Think laterally in your choice. Perhaps consider somebody in a governance position if you are experiencing political headaches- or a more senior sustainability professional in another industry if you want a new perspective. Equally, you may find that acting as a mentor allows you to step back from your own work for a moment. Mentoring an enthusiastic graduate, for example, may reinvigorate your own sense of purpose and remind you why you wanted to work in the field.

3.  Make a conscious effort to separate your personal and professional sense of worth
I have seen many friends and colleagues over the years become disheartened or embittered because an initiative they strongly believed in was rejected. Whilst it is a strength of our profession that many sustainability practitioners feel personally connected to their work, we need to know when to step back. Much like a compassionate medic, empathising with the patient is very important, but an overly high level of involvement may jeopardise clear-thinking and take its emotional toll. As Sustainability professionals, we need to go easy on ourselves when we’ve invested in something that doesn’t work out- and if necessary, ask someone detached from the situation to help us see the positives and the next steps.

4.  If none of the above appeals, be honest about the source of your dissatisfaction
For some, this will be obvious. Perhaps your organisation has cut long-term budgets for social programmes, or you are finding a team member or boss difficult to work with. Alternatively, you may have worked for the same organisation for many years and feel it is time for a change, but be fearful of making the leap. Other practitioners feel trapped in a charity desk job, secretly hankering after a fieldwork or community role. In this situation, a more radical change might be needed- and a change of scenery, or even industry, may be required. One colleague I know moved on from her Sustainability Director position in retail after the CEO admitted  ‘we are really only interested in compliance.’ She has not looked back.

The skills required to work in sustainability are eminently transferable, and it is perfectly possible for an individual working in the private sector to transition to the charity sector, or vice versa. Others have struck out to set up their own social enterprises. If this resonates, you probably already know what you need to do.

by Jenny Ekelund

BMW may have taken its time entering the electric vehicle (EV) market, but its latest offering, the carbon-fiber i3, is creating a stir in the motor industry.

What makes the i3 interesting is the thinking that went into its design. Jacob Harb, Head of Operations and Strategy explains: [the project]..started a decade ago, looking at how to ‘future-proof’ our business…it sounds a cliché, but we really started with a blank slate, we re-examined the design process from the ground up. Sustainability and innovation are embodied in the i3.”

The result is a carbon fiber chassis, 50% lighter than steel. Amongst other efficiencies, production uses 50% less water and 70% of the energy used in conventional processes.

Designed with disassembly in mind, the i3 is an impressive 95% recyclable. Perhaps just as importantly, it is the sort of car you can imagine people aspiring to. It’s not a half-baked nod to sustainability, it’s a car that expects to capture a good portion of the market on its own merits. The i3 may well shake up the burgeoning EV market and push its competitors (the hitherto dominant Chevy, Nissan, Tesla and Prius) to go one better.  This can only be a good thing- for consumers and for the environment. It’s a good example of a competitive marketplace driving a ‘race to the top’, stimulating more creative thinking to solve our sustainable transportation challenges faster.

Delve a little deeper into BMW’s story, however, and you’ll discover that supply-chain and community collaboration also played a key part in creating the world’s first mass produced carbon fiber vehicle. Carbon fiber is pricey. Very pricey. So in order to make the production process cost effective and reliable, BMW formed a partnership with SGL Carbon SE and opened a hydro-powered carbon fiber plant in Moses Lake, Washington. The two firms worked with a local community college to train employees for the plant, which created 80 new jobs, and according to SGL’s Managing Director, Dr Joerg Pohlman aided in “starting the production at a high level of quality and efficiency.” Without the bold $100m invested in the Moses Lake joint venture, BMW’s vision may have stalled.

The i3 is an interesting example of an innovative, more sustainable product created for a highly competitive market. Yet it is also a useful case study in collaboration and the value of well-managed partnerships in creating social and environmental value.

It’s a conclusion Darwin arrived at more than a decade after the publication of On The Origin of Species. In the Descent of Man (1871) he outlined his conviction that cooperation and reciprocity were as essential as competition to the evolutionary process. According to philosopher Roman Krznaric, Darwin’s new thinking was “largely neglected at the time, and we are only beginning to recover it now.”

Perhaps what businesses really need to help solve the knottier social and environmental challenges of our time is more of this kind of thinking- a philosophy that balances intelligent and well executed collaboration with an ability to compete (and fight fairly!) in the evolution of ever more effective and sustainable products and services. Perhaps then we might realise the true power of the emerging social economy.

by Jenny Ekelund

Watching Channel 4's recent 'Scandimania' series I learned a fact about Sweden that I had never been aware of:  Volvo invented the three point seat belt in 1959, but instead of filing for a regular patent, they filed for an open one, meaning it would be free for anyone to use. In fact, the company went further than this - they sent Nils Bohlin, the inventor, out on a global mission to convince competitors, consumers and governments alike that this technology had to be adopted to save lives.

There had been versions of seatbelts before this, but Bohlin's was the first three point model. Crucially, he realised the importance of consumer behaviour and adoption - customers want a 'no-brainer' solution.  So his design ensured it could be buckled quickly, with just one hand.

And it certainly worked - it is estimated that over 1 million lives have been saved to date and it is considered one of the most important safety inventions of all time.  The West German Patent office in 1985 voted it in the top eight patents it had handed out in its first 100 years.

This case raises many interesting questions: 

1. Why would a company spend significant money on R&D only to give the invention away and not earn any licencing fees? 
   
2. Was it completely altruistic or was it actually a long term strategic decision by Volvo?
   
3. Would Volvo make the same decision today in the cut throat market that is the 21st century automotive industry?

Having done some internet searches, I'm surprised how little debate there seems to be about Volvo's decision and the questions above. 

Volvo maintains that the reason it gave the technology away was that it was simply too important an invention to profit from - increased revenues just didn't stack up against the lives that could be saved.  Volvo realised that consumers would be slower to adopt the technology if it was an expensive optional extra in other cars.  I also wonder if the Swedish social welfare model and culture of equality contributed to the decision; had Volvo been in a more Anglo-Saxon country one wonders if the same attitude would have been taken.

On the other hand, was it actually a very shrewd business decision? If you asked 100 people to name the first word that comes to mind when you say 'Volvo', 80-90 would probably say 'safe' (unfortunately for Volvo, the rest would probably say 'boring' or 'box' despite neither really holding true any more!). But this is the point - Volvo's differentiator has always been safety and reliability in the first instance.   One of Volvo’s managing directors, Alan Dessell, is quoted as saying: “The decision to release the three-point seat belt patent was visionary and in line with Volvo’s guiding principle of safety.” Judging by the fanfare and PR around the 50th anniversary of the three-point seatbelt, perhaps Volvo realised that releasing the technology would help reinforce and build the brand for years to come. How would people have perceived them if they kept the technology to themselves and squandered the opportunity to save so many lives?

This leads us to the question: would they have done the same today?  I'd love to think so but fear they wouldn't. The car industry is much more cut-throat today than it was in the early 60s.  Volvo has perpetually lagged behind its main German competitors and a breakthrough invention like this could be a brilliant competition killer in the short term. That leaves an uncomfortable question - why, in the economic system we have, would any CEO sanction giving a major patent away?

I would suggest there are three very good reasons.  Firstly, trust in big corporations is at an all time low and a gesture like Volvo's could go some way to restoring confidence - after all, I can think of few more trusted brands than Volvo.  Secondly, there is long term brand and ultimately bottom line benefit to be had - especially in today's world of social media and marketing campaigns that can go viral.  Finally, as the backlash against short-termism and bonus cultures in big corporations continue, managers are likely to be given longer term targets. Decisions like this, which forfeit short term gain for longer term benefit, will work greatly in favour of managers willing to make them - wider societal benefit will increasingly become part of remuneration.

And a final thought: companies are made up of human beings.  Perhaps it was simply a case of the board looking at each other and saying - 'what if it was your kids and spouse in an accident without a 3-point belt?'

by Jesper Ekelund

Those who work in sustainability and related fields are prone to fret about language. A lot. In many ways they are right to do so. It is certainly true that the variety of terms in use to describe conducting business responsibly can be baffling to the uninitiated. “What does Sustainability really mean?” we ask ourselves. What does it mean to the (wo)man in the street? What is the difference between corporate responsibility and sustainable development? Is natural capital the same as biodiversity? If I say “responsible business” in my report will shareholders understand? 

The sustainability comms specialist Sustainly recently analysed the terms used by the top 100 companies in their Social Media Sustainability Index. They found 36 used “sustainability”, 16 used “corporate responsibility”, and 8 used “citizenship”. Other terms included “sustainable development” and the now decidedly less fashionable “CSR.”  Sustainly, who emphasise the “storytelling of sustainability” quite sensibly question how effective communications to the public can be if “the very advocates of good business can’t work out a common term for the values they want to uphold.”

Whilst I agree that it might be more convenient if every organisation used the same, neat all-encapsulating term, I don’t think it’s realistic, nor may it be desirable for three main reasons. Let me explain. 

Firstly, we need to accept that the field of sustainability is still young (relatively-speaking) and developing fast. Social media is changing perceptions and accelerating discussions. Isn’t it only natural that the language should evolve alongside the ideas? There is nothing wrong with that, and the range of terms used by the organisations in Sustainly’s survey is evidence that society is trying on the available words for size. Perhaps in five years time 90% of companies will revert to using “Sustainability” – or perhaps it will be an entirely new term yet to be coined. My point is- does it matter, since the language is necessarily a dynamic system? Shouldn’t we embrace it as part of the debate?

Secondly, I feel that the diversity of terms available allows organisations to pick the word that best describes their approach- and in so doing, they tell the reader something about them. This is no bad thing- after all, homogeneity is rather dull and undoubtedly the best sustainability programmes are customised to the organisation rather than copied from a textbook. Assuming one common term works across all organisations assumes they are speaking to an identical set of stakeholders- which is of course not true. Since arguably the company is best placed to decide what resonates with their customers, shareholders and interested parties, isn’t it positive that they can pick how to frame their sustainability efforts? Of course, you might say that the diversity of terms make comparison difficult, but since the majority of benchmarking is carried out by experts very capable of comparing one firm’s ‘responsible business’ efforts with another firm’s  ‘social & environmental capital’ programme I hardly think it’s worth sweating over.

Lastly, in response to the argument that all this is confusing to Joe Public- I would argue that semantics mean very little.  To the public, actions on social and environmental causes are far more meaningful than words. Whilst reporting has its place,  I have seen many hours sweated over a report (to the practitioner’s frustration) at the expense of the real stuff- and lets be honest, how many of your friends and family debate corporate sustainability reports over breakfast, or have the time or inclination to search for the information online?  In fact, I would go further and say that it is crucial for companies communicating with the public on specific sustainability programmes to tailor their message and use language that is relevant to that audience- whether it fits with the latest “buzzword” or not. The recipients of a youth community football programme do not need to know that this is considered part of the supporting organisation’s CR efforts- they simply want to know how to sign up. 

If the good work is being done, and the benefit is felt by society at large- do semantics really matter all that much? 

by Jenny Ekelund