Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category
ISO 14001 auditing and compliance evaluation
As some of you will be aware Dan and I were a part of the Planet and Prosperity team, led by Lucy Candlin, behind the recently published Sniffer project entitled: Improved Alignment of UKAS-Accredited Certification Bodies’ Activities with UK Environment Agencies’ Regulatory Processes. The report of this piece of research was published last week and can be found here.
It was a fascinating project to be a part of, which I hope will help to direct future policy and action in this area. The thirty-five recommendations should help to begin a process of greater collaboration and improved understanding. As we move closer to the due date for the update of ISO 14001, many of the issues raised in the report may come into stark relief. So this is very timely research.
The commitment to legal compliance is fundamental to ISO 14001 and indeed to any company that considers itself socially responsible. Yet the concept and evaluation of compliance is complex and misunderstood. For many the challenge is keeping up to date with the rapidly changing legislative landscape, determining the impact of the devolved legislature or the range of interpretation and advice available. Business is constantly demanding consistency of approach in order to plan properly.
All of these issues are addressed in the report and the recommendations provide a framework for the environmental agencies to develop communication with key certification bodies. Although the main audience is the regulatory community, those in business should take the time to read the report (or the summary) and also to keep an eye on progress in the Environment Agency’s EMS+ project which has been running over the past year in England and Wales.
In a climate of government looking at deregulation, this type of project should provide valuable evidence to support the process of change.
Collaboration, Nature or Nurture?
“Collaboration, collaboration, collaboration…” was the title from our latest Oomph Seminar. Apologies to Tony Blair for our rather clumsy adaptation of his education rallying cry.
Our 8th (yes 8th) Oomph Seminar investigated how collaboration between different parties can achieve mutually successful outcomes. In particular we wanted to look at how relationships between businesses and organisations in the third sector can be as productive as possible. To that end, we invited Simon Bentley, Director of Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust (LRWT) to open the seminar with a presentation on some of the collaborations the trust has developed over the years.
LRWT has been involved with Anglian Water at Rutland Water for nearly 40 years to great effect; creating an important amenity for wildlife, community and visitors that has a national, if not global reputation. Simon explained that one of the keys to this was the point at which the trust is invited to be involved. This is normally right at the concept stage of any planning and in this way their expertise could be leveraged as fully as possible. An important lesson for successful collaboration, but one that takes confidence, trust and honesty between the collaborators.
As Simon was speaking it struck me that Rutland Water in particular is a great example of the interconnection of nature and human progress. If it is done sympathetically and considerately then the benefits are huge and long lasting – a lesson that many businesses have yet to learn as we move into a resource constrained world.
Many more examples of positive collaboration were shared and led into some searching questions, many of them focussed on the relationship between the land, nature and the demands for new housing and how developers and housebuilders can deliver to homeowners and shareholders alike. The greening of development is a considerable challenge, particularly given the tighter and tighter margins and who should “pay” for green? Natural collaborations in this area are not particularly evident which leads me back to the title of this blog. Will collaborations naturally emerge from the evolving marketplace or do individuals and organisations have to learn how to develop effective collaborations?
A number of examples of good collaborations between as many as 16 different parties were aired and discussed. What was highlighted in particular was the need to talk (openly) between the disparate parties and that this often needs the drive of leadership particularly at the beginning of a collaboration. I was very impressed by the galvanising power of these multifaceted relationships but had to question whether many individuals or organisations have the capacity to develop these effectively.
One example of a powerful collective had at its heart a definition that the relationsip had to have:
- a joint vision
- a shared passion
- a long-term view
To really work, the people involved in bilateral or multilateral collaborations must be as adept at listening, as well as talking; be adaptable to the methods of achieving the collective goal and recognise that not all relationships will have immediate positive outcomes. But that there may be some unforeseen outcomes of the process that could have real value to some of the participants.
It is also important to recognise the impact of the personalities involved and that they can make or break any collaboration.
By the end of the discussion (which could have have continued all afternoon) we tried to conclude with some key lessons, or ideas, to take into collaborations:
- Utilise the power of social media and digital communication
- Talk and listen – share mutual benefits
- Recognise the difference between collaboration and competition: collaboration needs openness, while competition seeks advantage of one party.
- Identify a catalyst to get things started and then build momentum
- Define value not price/cost
- Ensure that the relationship’s vows are regularly renewed (these can evolve over time)
- Terminate ineffective collaborations, don’t flog dead horses
- Encourage and drive creativity through the relationship’s dynamic parties.
- Embrace the bi-products of the collaboration ie new relationships and ideas and celebrate them as much as the achievement of the main goal.
… go forth and collaborate. But remember it may not all come completely naturally and many of the skills need to be learned and worked on for the relationships to be productive and thrive. Collaboration needs a lot of nurture.
Sustainability – Let’s get involved
Yesterday was a first for me. I was in the audience at an internal company conference while Dan took the platform and introduced our project to them as a part of a planned ‘engagement’ exercise around their company strategy. I’ve not heard him speak in this type of arena, to this style and size of audience – and he didn’t disappoint. Listening to him and then a couple of other speakers that followed got me to think about this word – engagement.
Most of the speakers yesterday afternoon used it, some even defined it. But I thought as I listened that they’re using the wrong word. Engagement might be all the rage but it is too formal, it is too structured in the way that its meaning is interpreted. We should be talking about involvement and how to get people involved in the process of becoming more sustainable. Engagement implies that we need to set a formal date, agenda and then have some minutes with actions. Or it implies, as in a military engagement, that we must take up arms and beat the **** out of the other guys. Neither of these implied interpretations is correct. We need to find a way to involve people in sustainability. Get them involved.
Engaged also has connotations of marriage and this doesn’t help either. All-in-all engagement is the wrong word. We need people to get involved, get their hands dirty and make mistakes. The idea of making mistakes and having fun has been a theme of previous blogs. I think starting to use the terms involved and involvement would start to make it seem more personal, more informal and yet more effective.
Part of the definition of in-volv’ is to make (oneself) emotionally concerned in, with …. Surely this is the very thing we need people to become. So, please, let’s stop using the words engagement or engage when what we actually want to do is to get people involved in sustainability. Rather than being satisfied with a few presentations and an intranet/internet portal where people can go to find out for themselves about sustainability, we need to get people involved, little by little over a long period of time. This is where passion and persistence become important characteristics of the sustainability professional. But so too is the capacity to listen and to empathise.
This well-known Chinese proverb nails it well – Tell me and I’ll forget; Show me and I may remember; Involve me and I’ll understand. This is why interactive training courses are so much more effective than lectures. And where does engagement fit into this proverb? Is engagement the whole thing? I’m not sure, but I am sure that simply telling and showing doesn’t get the job done.
One other thought, which is related, from yesterday. One speaker – not on sustainability – talked about a steering group and suggested that if you wanted to get your ideas heard you should find you departmental champion and make your point. Surely the ‘champion’ has to get off his or her backside and go out and find the ideas, dig and encourage, ask and listen. Being called a champion is not the end of the process. The champions need to get involved just as much as expecting everyone else to get involved.
Green Deal or No Deal?
Updating the energy efficiency of the UK’s aged housing stock is a no brainer. It will possibly have more of an impact than any other action to push us to hit our ambitious carbon emissions targets as a nation. The question is how.
Building sexy new homes and imposing zero carbon requirements will only scrape the surface, as the existing housing stock is like an anchor dragging us down.
The Government’s flagship “Green Deal” policy was proposed to boldly take this on. The boldness is to be admired but I’m afraid that launching a new “green” policy to tackle this is misguided but not necessarily for all the critisms expressed in other articles, blogs and social media. My fear for Green Deal is more fundamental – its the name.
Green Deal may be snappy but its marginalising. ”Green” is not a benefit in its own right to the mainstream. It talks to the deep green minority who have probably already insulated their homes to within an inch of their lives and who proudly have super efficient boilers that hardly run because the thermostat is turned down so low.
Green is actually a turn off (sorry) to most consumers and so a complex and untried green finance package based on possible savings and which might make houses more difficult to sell is not going to ignite the mainstream. While ‘Feed In Tariff” was less snappy it did describe the mechanism, which was simple and profitable. Its success is evident on the roofs of houses across the UK but I fear that the same will not be true of Green Deal.
Instead of saying “we are doing this because we think it is the right thing to do and we are putting our money where our mouth is” (as in FIT) the Government is saying “we are doing this because you should think it is the right thing to do and should put your money where our mouth is”. Not a terribly compelling proposition in an age of austerity.
Radio 4′s Moneybox Live discussed this very issue recently. It struck me how the benefits of Green Deal were buried by the concerns of callers over its complexity, loan repayments costs and the potential legacy left with a property. The probable savings from effective insulation, efficient boiler and controls are completely lost.
The savings angle has been taken by the press advertising campaign that has appeared in a limited number of papers since the official launch of the scheme at the start of the month. These take the problem… solution approach (a la Cillit Bang) and all carry the headline Green Deal With it. I’m afraid that unlike one squirt from good old Barry Scott (Cillit Bang spokesman) the Green Deal won’t deal with it and a much more sophisticated and sensitive approach should be taken.
It isn’t a great start for Green Deal, poor product, poor name, poor understanding of the audience’s needs, that will inevitably lead to poor uptake. When will we realise that “green” alone is not seen as a benefit and doesn’t sell to the mainstream?
Bolting the stable door!
Much has been reported about the horse meat scandal in the food supply chain, much angst and much anger, and many perfectly edible food products have been removed from shop shelves and presumably destroyed. Rather than exploring the rights and wrongs of the situation, I want to open out and think about the broader impact on reputation. Who is losing out most and what are the options?
Most businesses and their trade bodies will expend much time and money lobbying for relaxed regulation. Regulation is often cited as a barrier to profit and growth, it is often blamed for the continued recession in Europe. But then a controversy, like the one over past few weeks, hits the headlines and people question corporate reputations and processes. But at the same time questions are asked of the regulatory process. In fact, in many cases it is the reputation of the regulatory authority that is more exposed than the corporates. Why should this be the case? There are a number of possible answers to this question. In perhaps very simplistic terms in the case of the horse meat scandal, it might be because of those pesky foreign companies acting illegally and a failure to regulate their activities in the locality or a failure to prevent imports. But how are we going to ensure the stable door remains bolted in the future and what form should the bolt take?
Responsible sourcing is now a part of the licence to operate for many companies. It is necessary because of the complexity of the global supply chain and multiple players are involved. Gradual increased scarcity in raw materials and the environmental and social impact of their extraction, has created a further dimension. The complexity is not helped by the plethora of national, thematic or in-house supply chain and responsible sourcing schemes that are seemingly in competition. The resulting mosaic of standards, labels and certifications is confusing to all concerned.
A bit like the stable door, the perpetual debate between regulation and deregulation swings back and forth depending on our ability to remember the last transgression. Earned autonomy is a phrase that has recently emerged as a concept. It basically states that companies can earn a level of increased autonomy through good performance. The short-term business benefit is fewer regulatory visits and thus autonomy is earned.
I hope that no one would argue that we should have zero regulation – that business should be free to do exactly as it pleases, that it can push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour until something bad happens. It is equally the case that regulators can’t and shouldn’t run businesses. Finding a position between these two extremes and perhaps as importantly rewarding good behaviour with relaxed regulation, is what most politicians and responsible businesses want.
Put into this mix third-party certification against accepted standards creates a further level of complexity. Independent certification to standards is often, wrongly, equated with regulatory inspection. The two processes provide a complementary value to organisations and both come with a cost.
Ultimately when things go wrong we look for someone to blame. The complexity of the global economy and the supply chain, the complexity of certification and legislation and the desire to be competitive will always make the identification of fault very difficult. In some ways, it is the very dense nature of the undergrowth that means that the regulator with their apparently simple duty becomes the most exposed. Are they not, after all, the bolt?
From business’s perceptive is earned autonomy actually a poisoned challis? If business wants to be autonomous and work without inspection by a regulatory body then any disasters fall very clearly at the feet of the company whose brand is exposed. So it could be argued that the complexity of global trade provides a level of security for company reputations. Earned autonomy therefore might neither secure the door nor provide suitable cover for business when the horse is flying out the door – or as recently, off the shelves.
The Blessing of No Budget – Oomph Seminar, London 17th January 2013
Our successful series, Oomph Seminars, moved to London yesterday. The theme was “Sustainability on a Shoestring – is it possible?” We wanted to investigate whether the case for change and the establishment of more sustainable operations was best enabled through the value argument of delivering improving commercial returns or whether small incremental, no cost options can start to create a sustainability snowball.
We set our new oomphers two key questions
1. If you could spend your budget on only one thing in 2013 what would it be? – if you don’t have a budget, consider the most important thing you can invest your time on.
2. What has been your best zero cash cost action?
On a bitterly cold January day the turnout was fantastic and many thanks to KYOCERA for the use of their fabulous Technology Suite on Mortimer St, W1. This is a great facility and offered free of charge to anyone looking to promote the sustainability cause.
We roped in the inspirational Simon Graham from Commercial Group to set up the conversations to follow. Simon is an oompher of old and his company is one of the leaders in creating value from a sustainable business model. He took us through its story, dating back to 2006 when Simone (a founding director not a typo) was Al Gored at an event set up by James Murdoch. She came back with a completely new vision for the business and set about establishing it.
One of her first moves was the appointment of Simon as the Environmental Strategist and he has been at the forefront of its powerful Green Angels environmental champion’s programme and the setting of a series of very ambitious targets and aims for the business. His financial director is now smiling with the upward curve of all financial indicators and can see the real value and contribution the sustainability programmes have made to the bottom line. Initially this was made with little investment. However as the momentum built the budgets increased. Commercial’s latest move is an investment in Hydrogen vehicles which involves a substantial capital investment.
The astute timing of initiatives and actions was a very important insight to come from Simon’s presentation. Another was the careful management of “green teams”. Where “volunteers” are selected so that the make up of the team is as powerful as possible and its members are respected, action orientated, leaders in action not necessarily title and with strong opinions to match.
The break out sessions produced much debate but interestingly and quite surprisingly there were a limited number of concrete actions to come from the group that considered the singular budget investment. No mention of the role out of LED or PV to save money or generate income. The majority of the responses and discussion was around overarching approaches. It was recognised that sustainability is not seen as sexy and needed to be repositioned in many businesses. Language is often a major barrier as is the very different agendas of executives in UK and in the US.
One concrete area of focus for budget was the establishment of more coordinated travel planning. Travel is a huge cost for many businesses and so can be a very futile ground to establish more sustainable practices and their visible commercial benefits. One very exciting but simple idea to drive such behaviours is the understanding of individual barriers to activities such as car sharing or cycling. These barriers can be removed with investment in things as simple as free car valets for car sharers, or free taxi hame if car sharing buddy is called away. The provision of showers, hairdriers and straighteners can make cycling a much more viable option. Small, simple, personal incentives communicated with a bit of wit can go a long way.
This led us to the recognition of a recurring theme that behaviour should be driven first and attitudes follow as opposed to the attempts to change opinions to drive behaviour. Whether this will go all the way to the board room was questioned and the vital requirement of leaders to demonstrate the behaviour change for it to be established. In organisations without clear sustainability strategies the majority of initiatives will be short lived and seen as a “nice to do”, reinforcing the marginal position of the sustainability professional. So however significant the budget the key is to engage the board, to set the example and demonstrate the change.
This picked up on an interesting finding from the no budget group that the lack of budget was almost liberating, not frustrating. It allows more freedom , less scrutiny and potentially encouraged more integration and collaboration. Potentially it should drive greater conversation and engagement. Sustainability can be seen as an enabler in the actions of other departments, to provide creativity and ideas and to be used to solve individual problems.
Local, national and international issues and events such as Earth Hour, Climate Week or community green initiatives can be used to stimulate action by mobilising established awareness with no cost. Is it therefore heretical to suggest that sustainability might be best served by the department or individuals not holding substantial budgets but using its knowledge, experience and expertise to aid others? In this way activities could become integrated not peripheral and sustainability viewed as a source of huge benefit not eccentric ideas.
If this counter intuitive approach is to be feasible it demands real openness from sustainability individuals; reaching out to contact, listen, inspire and act and drive the establishment of change right at the heart of organisations not from the sidelines.
Welcome to the world of the new ‘normal’.
There are times when events converge to stimulate some new thinking – for me, this might be one of those times. 2012 was apparently the second wettest year on average in the UK, since records began. In this wet year, we had parts of the country which were flooded multiple times, each time with an event which would have been described as a one in fifty or one hundred year event. Also during the year, I remember reading somewhere that a person aged 27 or under had not yet experienced a year when the average global temperature was less than the long term average.
What do these three examples share? What is common is that each uses terms of probability or statistical description which might need to be changed as we appear to be living in a world where comparing events against ‘normal’ is becoming inappropriate. We seek averages to describe things and to help us understand the world. Our historical experiences and thus our statistical databases might not help us to understand and to predict the future. If it is true and we are moving into a period of extreme weather and an ever warming world then uncertainty is much more important to understand than comparing against normality.
We seem to take some form of emotional security in normality or being average. Maybe not as individuals, but certainly when we think about the world around us we seem to be comfortable with normal. Marketers and behavioural scientists might tell us that we are comfortable with normal, we want to feel part of the herd so we do not seem to others as freakish. If this is true then how are we going feel in the future as the world, its climate and weather become ever more unpredictable? How are we going to feel when this place where we live becomes both a physical and emotional danger to us?
If we can’t find an appropriate description of average or normal – is the new normal really abnormal? Going back to the wet 2012 in the UK, this is a really interesting example of what I’m talking about in terms of the statistical descriptions applied to our everyday experiences. Across the country the rainfall was not constant, and never will be, and through the year some months were much drier than ‘normal’ and other months wetter. When we talk about historical time-series or about trying to find a single measure to describe a range of variables maybe we are trying to achieve the impossible. And yet we feel the need to try. As a result, we may be creating a situation where confusion is created.
Uncertainty is a critically important statistical concept that is the enemy of every policy maker and newspaper editor. We desire certainty to plan and set policy. In the future we will, I hope, look back and laugh at how naive we were in seeking certainty. Normality is a concept we need to get used to being without. We need to become more comfortable with the unusual, the extreme and this is all about how resilient we can be. And it will determine how successful we are at adapting to this future vision of the world.
Can You Do Good Badly?
I don’t think I’m one to scare easily but the headline in last weekend’s Sunday Times cut me down: “Councils in War Against Wind Farms”. Sounds like a standard NIMBY view, but the article states that if a judicial review between RWE npower renewables and Milton Keynes Council fails it will close all but 1% of the UK to wind farm development. It will allow councils to impose a 2km exclusion zone from housing because of the visual blight of wind turbines.
Now I’ve never quite understood the visual argument against wind farms. I find them rather majestic and beautiful; an Antony Gormley for every man – and with a useful purpose. But many have significant objections to them, including one Donald Trump; which kills the argument stone dead in my eyes. It is the aesthetic argument of a visual blight that appears to be the principle reason why communities do not want wind farms in their back yards.
If one is passionate about a sustainable future and find windmills attractive, their development is a no-brainer. One must accept that all that is sustainable is not necessarily green, see blog from August 2011. It seems however that many people don’t share this view. Large parts of the community feel that the sight of rotating windmills on the horizon is too big a price to pay. One could simply dismiss this as short-sighted and misguided, but if we are to hand over a half decent future to our children we need to listen to the objections – that means properly listen.
The UK renewables sector is now emerging out of a niche and into the mainstream. If the ambitions of the players in the sector are fulfilled it could have a significant impact on our green and pleasant land. This change is scary and confusing for many. Arguments over 6 degree global average temperature increases and 30% renewable energy targets will have little or no resonance, but arguments over £170 increase in electricity bills and ugly wind turbines will. Short term beating long term, again.
It seems therefore that our opportunity to establish a significant renewables sector may be disappearing at the planning committee’s table. If sector leaders like RWE are threatening withdrawal from the UK, we have to be concerned. I believe that the whole sector has felt it could operate under the “Green Halo” with impunity; with almost a moral right to build and develop, because what it is developing is for the good of all, in delivering low carbon energy. Little has been done to operate with full responsibility in this rush for wind gold and this could be the downfall of the sector.
The time has now come for the wind and renewables to recognise its own responsibilities and start to really connect with the stakeholders and communities in which it wishes to operate. We at Vivian Partnership have worked extensively with UK Coal and it has recognised that it needs to engage with its community, not superficially but deep down. To listen and respond and most of all to keep its promises and not hide its head in the sand hoping that the planning process will come out on its side.
Ironically the renewables sector needs to follow this lead. It needs more humility, to learn to recognise the right to object and to go out of the way to listen to objections and to accept that alternative views to its own are valid. In this way a sensible dialogue can start and during which understanding will develop. With understanding will come a level of acceptance and with acceptance will come some approval. Wishful thinking perhaps, but without one of the parties making the effort, we may never achieve our carbon targets.
At present much of the renewables sector is only considering two sides to the sustainability trinity. The deep social aspects of wind farm developments now need to be considered alongside the clearer environmental and economic benefits. Only then will it gain more widespread acceptance and a little bit of all of our futures can be a little bit more secure with responsible renewables.
This post is going to short and sweet.
It is a rallying cry to all sustainability professionals out there. Do the unthinkable and embrace marketing and recognise that science doesn’t sell (someone will have to tell L’Oreal that). To really be heard you must engage on an emotional level. I could bang on about how this is one of the key premises of our strategic model, Sustainability Pathfinder™ but ll we really need to do is look to one global and one national event of the last couple of weeks.
The Red Bull Stratos project was a completely bonkers idea of man travelling at the speed of sound. Felix Baumgartner must have lower regions made of a mix of asbestos and steel, but his “stunt” captivated the world. The event was completely owned by Red Bull, blowing You Tube records and creating massive coverage worldwide. One fantastic tweet commented “That awkward moment when you realise an energy drink has a better space programme than your nation”. It shows that brands cannot only communicate their values but must live them. Its impact will live long in the memory and give Red Bull totally authentic ownership of extreme “sports” – CSR from space you could say.
The second notable event was a little more subdued. In the whirlwind of advertising industry backslapping awards shows one stands out – the IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising) Effectiveness Awards. The awards are unusual as entries are judged on effectiveness ie how much tin has been shifted not just how creative or beautiful the ads or campaigns were. Sometimes this is seen as measuring the impossible, but the submissions are incredibly compelling (I know as I was part of a Grand Prix winning entry for BMW back in the 1990′s). The winner this year was John Lewis Partnership, with its fantastically consistent emotional message, connecting shoppers with the values of the store – and not a BOGOF in sight – and opening the nation’s hearts and wallets at the same time.
So come on all you susty practitioners let’s learn from these fantastic and uplifting campaigns and grab our marketing departments by the Baumgartners and start selling how simple/vital/inspiring/rewarding what we do is.
EMS The Dark Arts – or Matrix Uploaded!
Following on from last week’s blog after the Oomph Seminar which explored the processes of evaluating legal compliance we have been working on a model discussed then.
One of the challenges of evaluating legal compliance is that different techniques are required for different pieces of legislation. And as was most pointedly commented on: just having a tick-list with a mark beside each legal instrument is not an evaluation of compliance.Outline Matrix to assist in the Evaluation of Legal Compliance is a simple approach that we have constructed and which is relevant to UK legislation that could help. There is a health warning we need to attach – this is not comprehensive but indicative and designed to show how differences in evaluation are necessary. But all comments gratefully received and all present felt it was a useful way to think about what is needed.
As some of you will be aware Dan and I were a part of the Planet and Prosperity team, led
“Collaboration, collaboration, collaboration…” was the title from our latest Oomph Seminar. Apologies to Tony Blair for our rather clumsy adaptation
Yesterday was a first for me. I was in the audience at an internal company conference while Dan took the
Updating the energy efficiency of the UK’s aged housing stock is a no brainer. It will possibly have more of an impact
Much has been reported about the horse meat scandal in the food supply chain, much angst and much anger, and
Our successful series, Oomph Seminars, moved to London yesterday. The theme was “Sustainability on a Shoestring – is it possible?”
There are times when events converge to stimulate some new thinking – for me, this might be one of those
I don’t think I’m one to scare easily but the headline in last weekend’s Sunday Times cut me
This post is going to short and sweet. It is a rallying cry to all sustainability professionals out there. Do
Following on from last week’s blog after the Oomph Seminar which explored the processes of evaluating legal compliance we
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- Carbon Labelling
- Climate Change
- Communications blog
- Emotional selling
- Environmental management system
- Oomph Seminars
- Renewable Energy communication
- Sustainability Pathfinder model
It is fantastic to leave a seminar feeling inspired and full of practical ideas. Thursday’s oomph seminar did exactly that, Ben and Dan are naturals at putting an audience at ease which meant real participation from the group. As environmental professionals often form a one person team, it is fantastic to share a room with like minded individuals from local businesses who have faced and tackled similar challenges and can offer insight and advice. Eagerly anticipating the next installment of Oomph!
Nicola Duffy, Environmental Co-ordinator at Highcross, Leicester
Thank you both for inviting us to today’s Oomph seminar. From our point of view, we found the stimulus material and subsequent debate insightful from a sustainability perspective, but also in a wider context applicable to the successful deployment of general business initiatives.
Participant at Oomph Seminar 30 June 2011
Really enjoyed this morning. I have attended very few seminars over the past two years simple because they are all too similar, often the the same speakers and follow the same theme. Today was most importantly enjoyable, interesting and got the brain cells working. I like small groups with variety of people and backgrounds.
Participant at first Oomph Seminar 30 June 2011