Open Vodafone’s 2014 sustainability report and you’ll find two distinct sections. One is arguably more exciting than the other: Transformational Solutions and Operating Responsibly. As the titles suggest, the former focusses on Vodafone’s initiatives to make a positive difference to the world through deploying its technology, in seven areas from smart working to agriculture, ‘unleashing the power of Vodafone to contribute to sustainable living for all.’ Vodafone’s mobile money transfer product, M-Pesa was launched in 2007 and supports millions of low-income customers without access to banking services.  The company sees much opportunity to play a role in women’s economic empowerment and low-carbon solutions such as smart metering and M2M technology.  By contrast, the Operating Responsibly section is focussed on preserving Vodafone’s licence to operate, majoring on the issues you’d expect such as mobile masts and health, and minimising the company’s environmental footprint.

Unilever takes a similar approach. The company’s Sustainable Living Plan sets out goals under three overarching themes; pledging to help more than a billion people improve their health and hygiene by 2020 whilst enhancing livelihoods and halving the company’s environmental footprint. The Plan focusses on how Unilever can use their scale and reach to effect systemic change, and the level of ambition is high. The company states:

“We have set a bold ambition to achieve change within our own company – through our brands, innovation, sourcing and operations. But we are only one company among many and the change needed to tackle the world’s major social, environmental and economic issues is big - and urgent. What’s really needed are changes to the broader systems of which we are a part – whether that is in food, energy or health. We have decided to deepen our efforts in three areas where we have the scale, influence and resources to create ‘transformational change’. By that we mean fundamental change to whole systems, not simply incremental improvements.”

For companies where sustainability has become a central strategic driver, there has been a palpable shift away from incremental improvements in favour of audacious goals.  IKEA’s Steve Howard is a strong proponent of this view, claiming ‘the only target worth setting is 100% change.’ The Guardian’s Jo Confino reinforces this: “The truth is that resource efficiency is only going to get us so far, and it's hardly the stuff of excitement that is going to get people leaping out of bed in the morning.”

This is not to say that companies should not use resources wisely, set targets for cutting carbon emissions and water usage, source responsibly, everything that falls within their traditional boundaries. Many of these initiatives save money and reduce exposure to risk. These activities make sense from an efficiency standpoint and from a purely ethical point of view- but they are quite simply the very minimum society and a prudent shareholder should expect.

Increasingly, the more progressive companies recognise that by harnessing commercial nous and capacity for innovation to tackle social and environmental challenges, they can open up new revenue streams and help to trigger systemic change, thus safeguarding their organisation’s long-term prospects. Unilever is amongst the private sector leaders which has also recognised the need to work more collaboratively with governments, NGOs and other players within its own sector to speed up progress- ‘by working together, we believe that fundamental change is possible in the near term.’  Regular readers will not be at all surprised to hear how much I am in favour of this partnership approach when executed well, for reasons I explain Here and Here. It’s also something the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda looks set to endorse.

This shift from corporate responsibility to a more deliberate social innovation strategy is also visible in the rise of corporate venture capital (CVC) investing, in which large companies take an equity stake in a business to which it also provides expertise and guidance. Crucially, CVC investors increasingly look for a positive social and/or environmental impact as well as a strategic match with their core business and a sound financial return. The Volans report ‘Investing in Breakthrough’ provides an interesting study of this trend, featuring case studies from Intel, GE, Patagonia and Pearson and highlighting the potential of corporate venture capital as a driver in the social economy.

I am encouraged by Vodafone and Unilever’s attempts to use their considerable resources for good. The execution may not be perfect- but their programmes share a willingness to go beyond operating responsibly, to think creatively about the transformational change they can effect using their organisation’s unique access to technology, skills, scale and influence. It is something Walmart CEO Doug McMillan and SVP Sustainability Kathleen McLaughlin call long-term capitalism. In a recent essay for McKinsey they observe:

“If in the past 20 years the discussion has been about the need for business to serve stakeholders beyond just the customer and the shareholder, the next 20 years will be about the need for companies to improve the networks and systems they depend on. Leading businesses are actively using their scale and their particular assets to accelerate progress on tough social and environmental issues”

Are there any downsides? There are vocal detractors, such as George Monbiot who forcefully question the right, and desirability of corporations to assume the role of societal do-gooders- attempting to tackle social ills that, in his view, should remain the domain of government and NGOs. Perhaps, also, you might reasonably argue that this focus on transformational solutions encourages a bias towards product and service innovation, feeding an obsession with growth at all costs when we are in need of innovative ideas to cement responsible operations, rein in consumption and bring resource use safely within planetary boundaries. This may be true, but handled right, and with sensitive leadership, I think the transformational trend could have many other benefits.

Harnessing the power, ingenuity and influence of the private sector for good has enormous potential. Not least- people will get this. Employees will feel galvanised by it in a way that they quite frankly don’t by a plea to put their recycling in the right box. Do it right, resource it well, and this is as exciting for employee engagement for sustainability as it is for the potential impact it could have on the wider world. This new appetite to tackle systemic change opens up all sorts of possibilities for cross-functional, cross-organisational and cross-sectoral project teams. It has always nagged at me that perhaps we have been trying to engage people on the wrong things- because tinkering is dull. It is still hugely important to manage operational impacts- but they should not spearhead our employee engagement efforts. Where the exciting stuff happens- the new business models, ideas, services, circular economy thinking- that’s where people will want to get involved- and where they will be able to use their existing skills most effectively.

There is an excellent organisation called the League of Intrapreneurs dedicated to supporting employees in large organisations to innovate for good, 'transforming business from the inside out'. If companies do more to legitimise this sort of intrapreneurial spirit, to encourage work on ‘transformational solutions’ such as those attempted by Vodafone and Unilever,  I think we would find employees coming to work with a renewed sense of purpose.

And how powerful would that be?

by Jenny Ekelund

I have seen many articles and found myself in several Twitter conversations recently debating the relative merits of consumer behaviour change programmes and to what extent we can 'tell' customers that green is better. The consensus seems to be that we have failed miserably so far as witnessed by the most recent Greendex survey by National Geographic or Trewin Restorick's (founder of Global Action Plan and now Hubbub) eloquent summary of how poor the green movement's communications have been to date. 

Too often I find that many in the green movement are both too closed a shop (see Gareth Kane's excellent commentary) or too optimistic: ignoring the fundamental truth that many simply don't care no matter how loudly we shout - paying the mortgage, making sure the kids are happy, a holiday in the sun etc. are always going to take precedent for the majority. Sorting today's issues will usually seem more important than addressing our future sustainability.

Coupled with this is my fundamental belief that the basic premise of capitalism and democracy (free markets, consumer choice etc.) must be preserved - I think most people, no matter how dyed in the wool green they are, would admit that they wouldn't like to be dictated to on what they can and cannot buy or do. This doesn't mean that we can continue with our current 'take - make - dispose' economy. Nor does it mean that we can continue with the great inequality that today's capitalism is increasingly creating. But using longer term thinking and concepts such as circular business models we can preserve the freedom and choice we are afforded today.

So how do we take the majority on this journey?  By making sustainable choices the default choice - not because 'it is the right thing to do' but because they are better, cheaper, 'cooler', more desirable and efficient. In other words, innovating to meet sustainability and customer needs.  

We do however need to be mindful that much 'green innovation' to date has been focussed on the select few who can afford a new Tesla or the latest Nest thermostat. But the likes of Ikea and H&M (Swedish focus purely coincidental...!) are showing that you can make desirable products at low costs through an end-to-end approach innovating their business models.

I'm not for one second suggesting it will be easy (how do we address meat consumption in the West for example? Synthetic meats are probably the answer).  But we stand a much greater chance of creating positive change by working  to meet customer needs than by offering dull, less functional or expensive options 'because they are the right choice' or shouting from the roof tops that 'green choices' are better for the environment. The customer's choice is the right choice - so build it and they will come.

by Jesper Ekelund

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