Centralized or Decentralized?

Does it make more sense to run EHS and sustainabity from a centralized corporate setting in a large business, or from the business/plant level?

There are at least two key parts of the EHS and Sustainability Program: strategy, vision and goals; and Executing projects. Ok, they're not mutually exclusive but it helps to have roles defined for each group.

A central or corporate group has to look across the enterprise, see what can be accomplished and then establish an overall roadmap to getting there. They're a fresh set of eyes, people who can bring resources and novel practices.

The plants need to provide input on what can be done, what personnel are available and then only they can work to meet the targets. It's critical to involve both; corporate staff setting targets without the plant won't work. Corporate staff have to be willing to work in a plant or on a project to help out. Each plant establishing its own goals and even capital leads to inconsistent execution. For example, one plant Controller I worked with approved energy efficiency capital as long as it was P&L neutral; savings>depreciation. But, that capital could have been put to better use in another facility. Thus the value of a strong, interactive, central group.

One without the other never works. It's the hard work and eyes at the plant level that can make things happen, identify gaps and find opportunity.

Working together--no matter who reports to whom--is the best way.

No Left Turns, and Other Heresies

I recently had the pleasure of meeting and speaking with Andrew Winston, co-author of Green to Gold, and a new book, Green Recovery.  He spoke at the NAEM Annual Forum in Tucson.

Andrew is a guy who really does seem to walk the talk.  He requested a vegetarian meal at dinner, and was familiar off the top of his head with which fish were harvested the most sustainably.  Much of his talk was on how to sell senior executives on the bottom line value of waste reduction, which parallels resource conservation. 

But, one part that struck me was Andrew's interest in innovation around sustainable resource management, and in particular the concept of a heretical idea.  An idea that is totally crazy, different, and has the opportunity to really make a major change in your company.  A couple examples that were cited were (of course) the Toyota Prius, and UPS' "no left turn" concept.  I can't imagine how fast the guy who suggested this got laughed out of the room!   But, UPS claims that the policy cut "28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas and has reduced CO2 emissions by 31,000 metric tons".   Not bad.

What's your heresy?

Ughh...How to Handle Product Stewardship.

Why is there a connection between the word "Sustainability" and Innovation?  To me, it's pretty simple.  Most of the really cool stuff in the field of sustainability hasn't been figured out yet.  It's going to take some pretty creative ideas and people to tackle the challenges we have ahead.

For example, consider product stewardship: managing the impacts of your products during and after their use.  There just aren't that many companies that have figured out how to manage products in a way that is BOTH environmentally preferable (as shown by lifecycle analysis), and financially viable.  If a product stewardship program doesn't meet these two criteria, it won't be a long-lived program; it will be a marketing campaign.

But, take Patagonia's Common Threads program.  Patagonia has changed the old adage to: "Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle".  What a great way to change its customers behaviors.  This seems to make good sense for both the company and the consumer. 

On the reduce side, a comprehensive guide on its website describes how to care for its garments (Wash lambswool garments by hand in cool water with a bit of dishwashing liquid. Let the garment soak in the basin...) Patagonia says it repaired 12,000 garments last year. Consumers can either send or drop off garments, and Patagonia will fix them (presumably for a small price).  Take a look at the website for the other elements.

I highlight this effort as an innovative way for Patagonia to address one of the toughest challenges that I've seen: managing product impacts in a way that makes good business sense.