Archive for the ‘Oomph Seminars’ Category
Oomph does Behaviour Change
Yesterday’s Oomph Seminars at Kyocera’s excellent facility in the heart of London was one of the most stimulating yet and provided us all with some key insights from our own personal experiences. I think the point about our behaviours is just that, they are our’s. Not anyone else’s. Our rag-tag set of quirks and idiosyncrasies form who we are and if we want to change – it is really only ever going to be through our own desire to change that change will come. Unless we become a totalitarian state where choice is removed, we still have the freedom to choose and we must respect everyone’s freedom to choose.
Hermione Taylor the founder of The Do Nation was our guest keynote and she provided us with a passionate and compassionate view of the what, how and why. Some of the statistics from the programmes that The Do Nation runs are really interesting. Perhaps most notable is that only 2% didn’t know that some small changes in their lifestyle could have a positive effect. The decades of education seem to have had a positive effect. But and it is a big but, that education has failed to create the desire or need to change our behaviour to more sustainable alternatives. Focus on education without providing simple and effective means of changing just doesn’t cut it. Reflecting on the day, I think that as “professional sustainists” we lose sight of this and we forget the emotional connection that is needed to encourage and maintain these changes. As Hermione said, for her the light bulb moment came when she realised that preaching wasn’t the way to achieve behaviour change.
This Oomph was slightly different in two ways – first, having an external speaker is unusual (but extremely valuable) and secondly, because for part of the session there was (planned) complete silence in the room. We wanted people to ponder and reflect on changes they had made personally. What emerged was an excellent spectrum of activity and achievement. There were a number of key lessons that are worth sharing and of further consideration.
1. Individual behaviour change is where we need to start and when others are involved (colleagues or family members) things get more complex. Many felt that this was an inevitable consequence and one that had to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
2. For individuals, it became apparent that financial considerations were very definitely low on the list of priorities for most (not all obviously). So it is vital not to oversell the financial benefits – others such as emotional well-being, physical fitness and health are very often more important to individuals than money.
3. Modern technology and convenience can be a great benefit in making change easy – but it can also get in the way of establishing behaviours by encouraging laziness.
4. One key to success is the need to make time and space for the choice to work. It takes longer to use public transport but there are many benefits that this space can create and this should be demonstrated.
5. Taking personal responsibility is the key step that is needed, simply continuing in the old way will not achieve a sustainable outcome. Change for many is a conscious process.
Finally, we get on to a big and complex topic which can help and/or hinder both the establishment of new, more sustainable behaviours and thus affects how behaviours become habitual – measurement and feedback. For many of us with geek-like inclinations data, information and trends can become seductive and can take over the process. After all we are oft reminded that you can’t manage it if you don’t measure it. This is potentially dangerous. It is important to remember that measurement of benefit or impact doesn’t have to be a number, it can, and in terms of individual behaviour changes is often a feeling or an emotional response. Measuring well-being is challenging but how we feel when we successfully change behaviour is crucial to it becoming habitual. And if others are to learn from the experience then what is it we might teach them?
This is a complicated area and our lack of adoption of more sustainable behaviours, which we actually know are better alternatives demonstrates how hard this is. There remain significant hurdles to overcome if we are to turn the actions of “early-adopters” into the actions of the mainstream. As with much in our world – one size doesn’t fit all.
I want to end with an related example from personal experience – which wasn’t shared at the seminar – but which Dan and I feel demonstrates some of the issues at stake. Some of you may be familiar with the Strava apps and phenomenon. Strava is an online platform for recording and sharing your bike rides and runs. Total users are not available but estimates are 100,000 new users sign up each month and in 2014 2.7 billion km were travelled by bike by users. I have used it for about 2 years, recording bike rides and walks/hikes. It is GPS based – and what really allowed its establishment was the app is used on your smart phone, which meant you could use it without first buying (expensive) GPS devices. The community has established and provides both a place to record, compare and share with followers and others from all over the world. How individuals use it is personal and there are many options. It is essentially both competitive and comparative. What has this to do with behaviour change I hear you ask? I have always been active and reasonably fit but for me having this platform presented me with a tool which I found easy, useful and very motivational. Last year I rode my bikes (yes, I have more than one) over 10,000km (6,250 miles in old money) – something I’ve never done before and I will hopefully ride even more this year. I’ve reduced my commuting by car to almost zero and have improved my fitness and health, and lost weight. Riding 18 km to work (when in the office) is now habitual and I have two clients that I have ridden (in one case more than 100km) to and from meetings with.
Good for me – but this technology has really helped me and yet it doesn’t do it for me – I still have to get out and ride or walk. And that’s the key point – behaviour change is more than mere intention or technology – there must be action.
Water – The Goldilocks of Sustainability, Oomph Seminar Report
Oomph Seminars are certainly living up to their billing of generating ideas that excite.
Yesterday’s event was held at the excellent LCB Depot in Leicester, right next to Vivian Partnership Towers. We were very privileged to have an true expert in his field address us; James Dodds of Envireau Water. He gave us a really succinct and thought-provoking introduction to how we should consider water as a resource.
His presentation is at the end of this blog if you would like to view it. Of particular note was the finding from the World Economic Forum that water crises are the greatest risk to the world, so we all need to take note.
Water is understood to be essential to life but in the fickle world of sustainability it is often considered a poor relation to carbon in how much it is discussed and the focus for management. James pointed out that water is very different from carbon in how we should consider it. While carbon is merely considered in the quantity that is emitted, water must be considered both quantitatively and qualitatively. Water quality is an essential consideration in the water cycles that affect all of us on a micro and a global scale.
Therefore just as the young lady from the fairy tale was rather picky about her porridge, so should we be in a consideration of the use of water at our disposal. In general terms there is often either too much of the stuff or too little, rarely is it just right – just ask any farmer.
Much discussion in the Oomph Seminar focussed on whether this knowledge is of use in behaviour change campaigns encouraging the more responsible use of water in organisations; or domestically. It is interesting that a common response to water saving messages is that water is endlessly recycled in the water cycle. Therefore why should individuals bother to be careful with its use?
The consideration of water cycles is vital to an understanding of it, but we must all remember that its recyclability is not necessarily on an annual or predictable timescale. Sometimes it is locked away in ground water or in abundance on fertile, populated lands. Just think about last year’s disastrous flooding of the Somerset Levels – where is that water now in its endless cycle?
The consideration of water is complex as it brings life but can also undermine the development of communities. An essential learning to take from this session was to try and consider water from all the points at which it is used. Businesses, organisations and communities should try and integrate their approaches to managing water; so that, for example, high quality drinking water is used only where it is demanded.
James’s passing remark was describing fine single malt whiskey rather prosaically as Barley Juice. His consideration of the water footprint of a whiskey distilling client was that 96% of its water use was not in the distilling, nor the malting processes but in the fields where the barley is grown. It is therefore the greatest risk to the organisation that its supply of barley has the optimum supply of water. A very pointed reminder to all business to look to its supply chains to how they are managing the most essential of resources.
The “so what” factor
Yesterday’s third Oomph Seminar of 2014, entitled how to make sustainability reporting matter was a great success and prompted much discussion and a flood of ideas to excite. Hosted in the ‘penthouse’ of Grant Thornton’s Finsbury Square headquarters, the Indian Summer sunshine clearly stimulated the grey matter of everyone. As is the modus operandi of Oomph, everyone contributed and the brown paper covering the walls was crammed with thoughts on what makes sustainability reporting matter from one of two perspectives – the writer and the reader. By taking opposing perspectives we explored the key areas of overlap.
There were some great challenging ideas presented to set the scene, the one that seemed to hit home hardest was some research from the US that Dan Vivian had uncovered which showed that CSR reporting (as it is more commonly called over there) shows the lowest return on investment (ROI) of any marketing collateral.
“Despite the considerable efforts that corporations put into reporting their social and environmental performance, readership is low and believability is even lower.” from the article. The fact that many organisations do not consider their sustainability report as a part of their marketing portfolio may be the root cause behind this finding.
The “so what?” factor came out as a common issue for both readers and writers. This is a key part of making reporting matter for both sides. “So what?” becomes a key question. Employees often say “so what?” as their everyday experiences are not reflected in the language and stories in their employers’ reporting. The salesforce have not had a role in determining the “so what?” and how it might contribute positively to their conversations with customers / consumers.
Often external stakeholders ask “so what?” because the reporting is so remote from their interests in the company. Local residents of an industrial plant are not really interested in the total emissions from a global multinational, and trying to impress them with carbon reduction success when their experience is at odds leads to a disconnect from which it takes time to recover. Answering the “So what?” question can be crucial in setting the value the report and it seems this value is rather low (or more likely it is unknown) at the moment.
As many consumer facing companies have learned through the growth of websites like TripAdvisor, it can be much more powerful for those outside the company to have their say. Many sustainability reports contain comments and quotes from others outside the corporate clique, some even have a formal external panel which has some sway in the direction. Both are good moves but there is still a reluctance to let go of the reins.
Please don’t misinterpret this as meaning we do not need data or assurance. We do and it is the basis of the process, for without it basic credibility is impossible to achieve. But sustainability reporting shouldn’t be all about the data – otherwise the “so what?” factor will remain and trust will continue to decline.
The fundamental issue in making sustainability reporting matter – both internally and externally – is to address the “so what?” factor. Addressing this will identify what people want and need to know and how this experience will affect their perception of the company, its products and overall brand promise. In turn this will begin to bring about change through the combination of stories and data. But fundamental to successful reporting would then be to take all your corporate courage in your hands and get your employees or other stakeholders to prepare their own for you. Oh and please (and this is a personal plea I shared at the end of the session) stop calling it a report or using the term reporting. Give it an identity with which the readership can truly engage.
The Green Deal seems to be turning into the epitaph for our “Greenest Ever Government”.
It has hit another major snag. Its latest set of ads, promoting the new structure of the deal, has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority as containing misleading claims. This is normally the territory of payday lenders and budget airlines not flagship government policies. In claiming that the investment in renewables or energy saving a household can easily cover its cost through cost savings and that such an investment will increase the value of the property the DECC came a cropper.
Back in the days when selling off the family silver was in vogue I ran some notable Government privatisation campaigns. The massed ranks of lawyers, bankers and advisors would never have allowed us, a mere advertising agency, to have made any claims that could not be completely supported. How is it that now an important Government campaign can flout the rules so flagrantly… or is it mere ignorance?
My belief is that those constructing the campaign have not immersed themselves in the available data. For it is here that the compelling stories lie. Not in its regurgitation but in its insight and interpretation, using it to demonstrate benefits through drama, wit and style – three things the Green Deal campaign has lacked.
My greatest example of this is from my old chairman, the legendary adman Robin Wight. Many of the most celebrated ads for long time client BMW were created after an interrogation of BMW’s engineers in Munich. For example when we asked them to demonstrate the value of a 6 cylinder engine over a four cylinder one resourceful technician simply placed a beaker of water on the engine block and revved it to 3000rpm. The meniscus of the water barely stirred. He said that compared to a four cylinder engine the beaker would be shaken up quite violently. And so the classic ad “shaken. not stirred” for the BMW 3 series was created.
Even though today’s media mix is vast and ads do not necessarily work in the same way, some rules haven’t changed. For instance the importance of verifying the details of supporting evidence for advertising claims and the requirement to turn this information into compelling stories not just factual regurgitation.
In the world of sustainability we are overtaken by numbers and data and these are reported in voluminous sustainability reports. What we often seem to fail to do is recognise that the process should not end here but be translated into stories with a compelling idea at their heart in order to touch the hearts and minds of our audience – even when that audience might have a high level of technical knowledge. Scientists, engineers and financiers are after all mere humans, like the rest of us.
As chance will have it we will be considering some of these areas in our latest Oomph Seminar on “Making Your Sustainability report Matter” in early October. As DECC have found out it is crucial to check and understand your data, but it is also crucial to translate it so it will have meaning for your audience. And only by doing both will your messages really hit home and mere information become differentiating inspiration.
Five attributes of engaging leadership
The latest Oomph Seminar was a thoroughly excellent demonstration of how to generate ideas that excite. Stuart Pickles of LSP Leadership presented a personal view of modern engaged leadership based on a simple five-point model. The short presentation and following conversation certainly made one think about what it is that we need to improve in ourselves as leaders in sustainability. What today really brought home was the value of having really simple ideas, with a receptive and responsive audience who really got into the spirit of self-inquiry and evaluation.
The engaged leader exhibits five characteristics: Humility, Clarity, Courage, Empathy and Energy. All of these are important if, as a leader, you want to engage with those around you. And for leader, we need to recognise we all have the opportunity to lead. Many in the corporate world would recognise the traditional traits of courage and energy, but equally would be surprised or struggle to find many examples of those with empathy and humility. But the ability to listen and understand how others feel is a key to getting people to work with you rather than for you. The days of simply barking out orders are, hopefully, long gone. Organisations where this remains the culture, will probably be finding their best performing people voting with their feet and finding an alternative employer.
Stuart asked us to picture our worst boss. We could all do this very easily and it was an excellent way to see who we didn’t want to be and something we could measure our own attempts at leadership against. The conversation which followed developed our understanding of our own capabilities as leaders. Leadership isn’t just for the Justin Kings and Paul Polmans of the world. We all seek to effect change in some way – from the basic to the comprehensive.
Demonstrating the success of this Oomph Seminar Dan and I continued the thinking on the journey home. We thought that Stuart’s five attributes could be subdivided and some classified as being more masculine – courage and energy – and some more feminine – empathy and humility. What then struck us was that this balance of masculine and feminine leadership attributes seems to sit on a fulcrum of clarity (gender neutral). In our discussions in the seminar, it soon became apparent that in the world of sustainability leadership, clarity is often a weak point. Our failure to agree on a common definition of sustainability and the likelihood that for each organisation sustainability means something different has meant that clarity (or lack of it) has resulted in poor or ineffectual leadership. Getting the right mixture of all five attributes is key – simply having clarity of vision, without empathy or humility won’t get the job done.
What this image of a set of scales in balance fails to show is that these different attributes need to be used carefully and sometimes one may dominate. As a leader we must be aware of when to switch and change the emphasis. The traditional vision of a sustainability leader – whether corporate or NGO, government or educationalist – is someone with clarity of what is needed from their perspective and passion (please note that passion was never once mentioned during over 2 hours of conversation in the seminar). This passion can often be a negative in that it sometimes translates into an over-developed ego which as Stuart had explained is the enemy of both humility and empathy.
So the trick for the successful leaders in sustainability is performing a very delicate balancing act which allows clarity to come through while remaining connected and engaged with those around them. A trick few have successfully performed.
Oomph Seminar Untangles Sustainable Supply Chains
Ok, well that’s all sorted then – we have untangled supply chains and come up with what really matters. I might be rather exaggerating the point but there was general agreement that the most recent Oomph Seminar did have a quite a lot of oomph.
This session on Supply Chains has been a while in the making and has been through a number of revisions to get the topic and structure to work. In the end the discussion and format of this session is one that perhaps sets a new benchmark for what can be achieved – while at the same time there is room for improvement.
Let’s be under no illusion this is a complex topic and with a couple of centuries of experience present in the room, we all knew that much has been talked about and much done to try to get things better in a global supply chain. To get things moving I talked in summary about the work Vivian Partnership had done with BSI on Responsible Sourcing Standardisation, but this perhaps only served to direct the conversation away from standards onto deeper topics.
As always there was a very high level of interaction from the start. We asked everyone what their number one issue was in terms of supply chain management and received a varied set of topics, from which we crafted three for further debate in order to find some solutions. What was noteworthy about the issues was that, while varied, there was common ground. As is so often the case communication (or the lack of effective and meaningful communication) was a recurring theme.
Without going into details, these are the highlights. All agreed that increased collaboration and transparency are essential if we are to untangle the supply chain. The group of Oomphers was very varied, from large multi-nationals, smaller companies and 2degrees network, as well as a scattering of consultants. The group had a myriad of supply chain issues from subcontractor performance issues to global suppliers. Sometimes we might be guilty of pigeonholing supply chain issues as the preserve of supermarkets and major brands – but all organisations, large and small, buy stuff.
What was fascinating and so emblematic of the Oomph approach was significant shift in position occurred as the conversation progressed. We started the conversation agreeing that shared values were one of the keys to success. But we finished the conversation focusing on shared behaviours rather than values. Values should be specific to an organisation while the behaviours are what tend to be common. By agreeing and aligning behaviours throughout a supply chain, it was felt that greater change and improvement, and greater trust and transparency would result. This might appear a rather fine distinction, but we felt that focussing on values resulted in suppliers and customers simply employing a tick-box approach to supply chain management. This would not shift the status quo from the traditional supplier, customer relationship to the more sophisticated and necessary partnership approach.
By engaging properly you release mutual and wider benefit. One example which resonated with many was a leading supermarket supplier wanted to install ground source heat pumps to improve productivity of its herbs, but couldn’t afford the capital investment. The supermarket then changed the contract period from one to three years which enabled the grower to secure a bank loan. All were winners and the overall impact of the production of the herbs was reduced. A win-win-win situation.
Internal culture change is as important as the relationship between customer and supplier and is as hard to achieve. Rather than focussing on the process of how to achieve it we asked what success might look like. We really like the simplicity of this answer: internally people are asking for more information, wanting to learn and wanting to lead. Bear that in mind.
So, to summarise – it’s about behaviours and not values. Decide on the behaviours that are acceptable, communicate and engage (not the same thing), monitor it on both sides (the customer’s behaviours are as critical as the suppliers) and share. We think that companies should start using a different term – stop talking about contracts between supplier and customer and start talking about agreements. This shift would have a part to play in building the level of trust between the parties involved.
The session was also an endorsement of the Oomph approach. Only a couple of people who attended had been to an Oomph before. I think what both Dan and I really enjoyed was how after an initial understandable degree of uncertainty and caution, this soon disappeared and everyone (and I mean everyone) really got stuck in. Thank you to everyone who came and as one comment on the feedback put it – “very enjoyable – good job”.
#responsiblerenewables Oomph Seminar
We’ve just finished the latest Oomph Seminar and it was a rip roaring success (and I’m exhausted). There will be much more from this particular seminar as we have now started the process of creating a Manifesto for #responsiblerenewables. Not a boring, snoring manifesto a la all political parties, but a really cool and engaging one that uses all the senses in getting its message over (well, maybe not smell).
Having decorated the walls in brown paper, people started to get a sense of what would unfold as soon as they entered the room. By the end we had an avant garde expression in lurid and fluorescent colours (post-it notes to you and me). The carousel technique in workshops is nothing new but when one has the right combination of people, topic and preparation, the results dazzled even the workshop weary.
Creating a manifesto by committee is always going to be messy but having an unusual structure really got this going very quickly and in the right direction. We had found a template by Alexandra Franzen – a blow-your-mind manifesto. Although I think the structure was originally designed for those who want a personal manifesto – its application in this workshop proved its versatility. The first four parts: “I believe…”, “I want to live in a world where…”, “Here’s what I know for sure…” and “Always wear sunscreen” (hints and tips) when used as a carousel really provided an excellent framework which allowed everyone to explore and uncover what we meant by #responsiblerenewables. We didn’t really know how it would turn out, but our expectations certainly were exceeded.
The trick with making a carousel work in a workshop situation is to generate the energy and belief that this rather random and slightly eccentric model would work. We had a great crowd who truly believed and leapt in with both feet. This type of event also works when you have a diverse group, who collectively bring many perspectives and much varied knowledge to the discussion. I thought they might struggle and need a little gentle prompting. Not a bit of it.
So watch this space for more once we have digested, segmented and condensed, literally, metres of great stuff into a manifesto for #responsiblerenewables. So keep watching this space for further progress on the creation of a manifesto.
No More NIMBY’s
Well, what a fascinating few weeks. Has Cuadrilla and the shale gas explorers become the new focus of Daily Mail vitriol? Have the sharp eyes and quill pens of fleet street’s finest now altered their gaze from beastly wind farms to dirty frackers (sorry couldn’t resist it)? And more importantly will this help us to develop our low carbon economy and secure a low cost energy supply for the medium term?
It is interesting that two such opposite technologies will now potentially have to adopt similar tactics. Communities must be won over in order to be able to provide the infrastructure we need for a secure energy future. Will this simply be a seduction of the vocal minority opposition; a persuasion of the NIMBYs that their local selfishness will not serve the greater good. Or would it be better to focus on the silent majority and support the community with conspicuous investment to garner support behind the particular development being suggested. Alternatively just carry on regardless and hope for the best.
What is clear is that there is not a catch-all engagement approach. We have been discussing this with the fascinating Dr Chris Jones of Sheffield University’s Psychology Department as part of our #responsiblerenewables campaign. Chris and his researchers have found that often objections to developments by local communities are not a rejection of the technology but of the process. Planning appears to operate with little connection to the community as demonstrated by the recent exposure of Cuadrilla’s Lord Browne’s connection to government. Dr. Jones’s advice is to engage earlier, better and deeper – or not at all. Developers must try to understand the requirements and sensibilities of the communities and not assume it is filled with rabid NIMBYs.
In fact Chris contends that the term NIMBY is simplistic and this attitude does not really exist. Individuals are probably working to deeper subconscious stimuli that are being expressed in many ways both for and against developments. The difficulty is that however good the engagement of a community is, it is very difficult to predict the outcome. Attitudes and reactions change with circumstances. Policies, strategies and decisions are complex and certainly neither binary nor linear.
We have found with our engagement work in the extractive sector that if companies open communications channels and listen to communities, then the results can be very positive. This now seems to be supported by a growing weight of evidence from psychology and neuroscience. We will be discussing this in more detail with Chris and fellow Oomphers at our next Oomph Seminar . It should prove a fascinating discussion.
Maybe we should all adapt some advice from the Prime Minister’s book – instead of hugging a hoodie we should look to hug a NIMBY, NIMBYs want love too.
Mandatory GHG Reporting, Burden or Benefit?
The question at our latest Oomph Seminar was are you ready for mandatory reporting? I think that the overriding answer from our very well informed audience was… yes and no…
From 1 October 2013 the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors’ Report) Regulations 2013 will require all UK quoted companies to report on their greenhouse gas emissions as part of their annual Directors’ Report. – so says the latest Government guidance.
This is landmark legislation and most commentators have applauded the Government for its introduction. The requirement will be upon us very fast (ie the 2014 reporting period, of 2013 data) and will be far reaching. Those organisations that have environmental reporting structures in place will be in good positions. It is shocking however that it is estimated that 30% of those quoted companies who are required to report in this area have made no provision so far. They may struggle.
The information is required to be included in the Directors’ Report by a company and so should compel even the most sceptical director to start to consider the area and try to understand the impact on the organisation. The language of environmental and sustainability reporting should then start to enter the discussion around the boardroom table. The conclusion in the seminar was in the main that this should be positive. It was pointed out that it was important to speak in a language that would be understood.
It was very interesting to hear from Alliance Boots that it has been using its established financial reporting process to capture and publish environmental data for some time. This has some resourcing issues around year end and so very practically Boots have moved the environmental reporting cycle to lag 3 months behind the financial one.
The link into the financial reporting process highlights another opportunity for organisations and in particular the environmental professionals within them. As custodians of this data, sustainability and environment managers must engage outside their niche. It should bring them into the spotlight and provide access to major decision makers across the business. This may be an uncomfortable place for many, but should be grasped and exploited. The natural owner of this reporting mechanism and information should be the Financial Director, who normally sits on the right hand of the CEO.
This new legislation presents a great opportunity to press the case for the adoption of more sustainable policies and procedures and to make the business case arguments. Potentially, therefore, mandatory reporting will have significant impact, but only if this is recognised, embraced and communicated persuasively. Data can tell some of the story but only if it is successfully translated into the language of the board.
The negative outcome of this process could be where the reporting is only viewed for reportings sake and not with a broader commercial or financial context; then almost certainly it will be considered a burden to the business.
Finally as this is such a new area for legislation the impact of auditor interpretation will be interesting and could be very influential. How closely will auditors work with the businesses and how much will they interrogate the data to ensure its validity? This will only be revealed after the first reporting round.
One area that was pointed out as lacking in the legislation is the comparability of the data (this is not mandatory but voluntary). This is not surprising given some of the complexities, but will limit the ability of investors and shareholders to examine the relative performances of companies and so may not serve to inform good decision making.
Ultimately the sanctions of inaccurate or unreliable GHG reporting are minimal but this does not mean that the legislation will not achieve some of its aims? The majority of directors undertake their responsibilities very professionally and if carbon reporting can sit alongside their lexicon of balance sheets and EBITDA figures, then organisations will start to recognise the necessity and opportunity of incorporating sustainability into commercial strategies.
In this Oomph Seminar we were very lucky to have two very knowledgeable speakers sharing their extensive knowledge of the subject. Jae Mather from our hosts, HW Fisher & Company introduced the legislation and its commercial context and Lucy Candlin from Planet and Prosperity shared her deep knowledge, of some of the pitfalls awaiting the unsuspecting, that she has encountered in carbon accounting and reporting around the world.
Many thanks to them both and to all who made it along. Jae’s slides are available below – worth looking at as there was some very persuasive information in them.
And if you haven’t starting planning how your company should organise its GHG reporting requirements then give us a shout, I’m sure we can help.
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.
Blaming all the world’s ills on climate change is a very counterproductive thing to do. While it might be that […]
It has been a while since my last blog. Work has been frenetic and it has got in the way. […]
Well it’s been a hell of a rollercoaster for the grocery sector. Its leader and “bellwether” announced enormous corporate losses, […]
Yesterday’s Oomph Seminars at Kyocera’s excellent facility in the heart of London was one of the most stimulating yet and […]
When I was in the big bad world of advertising I produced some successful commercials and some not so successful. […]
OK I might have got you here under false pretences – there is no competition really, but please do read […]
… developing trust in corporate communications We recently came up with what we think is a nice image to conjure […]
Oomph Seminars are certainly living up to their billing of generating ideas that excite. Yesterday’s event was held at the […]
A recent stakeholder dialogue event for a client has helped to reveal and to cement in my mind what is […]
There has recently been considerable and growing noise about Canadian extractive corporation Barrick Gold. I thought I would see what […]
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- 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
- behaviour change
- Built Environment
- Carbon Labelling
- Climate Change
- Communications blog
- community energy
- Creative business
- Emotional selling
- Environmental management system
- Oomph Seminars
- Renewable Energy communication
- Social media
- Supply Chain
- Sustainability 3.0
- 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