Built-in Behaviour Change & Better Communication for Sustainability

How to produce sustainable behaviour?  Brands could build in behaviour change so there is no choice but to use a product in a lower impact way. Innovations that push people towards sustainable living without preaching can range from large-scale infrastructure such as cycle hire schemes, to hair-cleaning products. What about social media’s role? The new SMI-Wizness Social Media Sustainability Index identified at least 250 major corporates that are engaged in some form of social media sustainability communications. Read More

Why behaviour change is at the heart of sustainable business

Brands must find ways to be innovative in order to push people towards sustainable living without preaching to them

Sylvia Rowley for the Guardian Professional Network (23 January 2012):

Removing bins to force staff to use recycling points is a small change that may have a big impact on a firm’s sustainability goals.

Research shows that changing people’s habits through sheer force of persuasion is hard, especially if their surroundings stay the same.

Marketing campaigns can try to encourage people to live more sustainably, but “it’s entirely in the hands of the consumer whether they do or not”, says Lucy Shea, CEO of sustainable communications agency Futerra. “It rests entirely on the efficacy of that campaign, and often behaviour change doesn’t result.”

An alternative is for brands to “build in behaviour change so there is no choice but to use a product in a lower impact way”, says Shea. Innovations that push people towards sustainable living without preaching can range from large-scale infrastructure such as cycle hire schemes, to hair-cleaning products.

“Dry shampoo is one of my favourite examples. It was never made to be environmental, it was made basically for ease” says Shea. “But the result of being able to spray your hair between washes, and therefore wash it less, is actually the same as all of these worthy environmental campaigns asking you to spend less time in the shower.”

Smart technology has great potential for designing sustainability into everyday life. Parcel carrier UPS, for example, has programmed its truck drivers’ navigation systems to minimise the amount of fuel they use for each journey. On American roads, turning left at a junction leads to higher fuel consumption because drivers have to wait to cross an extra lane of traffic before they can turn. By programming their drivers’ route maps to avoid left turns, UPS makes sure they drive more efficiently.

Smart thermostats in homes go further still, not just guiding consumers but acting sustainably on their behalf. The “learning thermostat” designed by the former head of iPods at Apple, for example, can sense whether anyone is at home, or what the weather is like, and adjust the house’s temperature accordingly. According to the BBC, its makers claim it can cut household heating bills by 20-30%.

Jon Fletcher, sustainable behaviours lead at accountancy firm PWC, says that the buildings we inhabit can mould our actions in many ways. When PWC moved into a new office in the spring of 2011 the company tried to embed sustainable living into the fabric of the site.

This included making sure the new location had good public transport links (they chose London Bridge), minimising car parking to five or six spaces, offering about 250 bike stands, building “far more” video conferencing units than in previous buildings, removing personal bins to force people to use the recycling bins on each floor, setting all printers to print double-sided and even programming lifts so that staff choose their floor before getting into the lift, and people who are going to the same floor are sent to the same lift.

“People have responded positively to the whole building,” Fletcher says. “The changes might sound small and simple but they can have quite a significant impact.” Paper usage went down by 15% in 2010, for example.

But nudging staff and consumers towards sustainable living is not enough on its own, Fletcher warns. “Changing defaults and decision-making structures so that people behave differently is hugely important. But it’s also important for us to talk to them about sustainability.” Bike racks might be a prerequisite and a prompt for cycling to work, for example, but without well-designed communications to encourage and equip people to get on their bikes, takeup would be lower.

Fletcher believes that big changes will only come about through a mixture of built-in behaviour change and communication. “We’ll never make a big impact unless we can get culture change as well, and in order to do that you have to be part of the conversation with people.”

Sylvia Rowley is an award-winning freelance journalist who writes about the environment and social issues. She is also a part-time policy adviser at the thinktank Green Alliance, where she edits a blog on green living.

Matthew Yeomans for the Guardian Professional Network  (24 January 2012) says:

Communicating sustainability via social media has become mainstream.

• More companies are using Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs to talk about sustainability than ever before

• Social Media Sustainability Index puts GE, IBM, Sony and Levi in the top ten

Companies are increasingly making use of social media to facilitate discussion about sustainability.

Back at the end of 2010 we published the first ever review of how major companies were using social media to communicate sustainability. The reason for our research was fairly straightforward: social media had been fully embraced by the marketing, PR and internal communication profession. At the same time every company was looking to show its commitment to full sustainability or at least to corporate and social responsibility programs. How we wondered, were the two strands of building a better business being pieced together?

The inaugural Social Media Sustainability Index found 120 companies that were using social media for sustainability comms. Yet, when we dug deeper, just 60 of those were devoting any dedicated resources to that mission.

Fast-forward to the end of 2011 and a new landscape of social media sustainability is emerging. In researching the new SMI-Wizness Social Media Sustainability Index we identified at least 250 major corporates that are engaged in some form of social media sustainability comms. Of those more than 100 have a blog, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter channel dedicated to talking about sustainability.

What changed? Well, first, companies have come to realise that embracing social media has made them all media companies and that means they have to publish regularly and with reliable content. Next, take your pick from the Pepsi Refresh Project, GE’s Ecomagination Challenge or IBM’s Smarter Cities and you’ll find big budget and big ideas that made CMOs sit up and say: “We want our good deeds to go viral…”.

The grand ideas of these projects really made sustainability/CSR communications a sexy proposition for many in the world of marketing and corporate communications who, up until that point, had felt the do-gooder stuff was best left buried somewhere at the back of the annual report.

Of course this mainstream marketing embrace of sustainability didn’t simply emerge because of competitive jealousy. In a number of high-profile cases it has been driven by a real commitment with companies to become more sustainable operations. And the companies that truly are making their business more sustainable – be it through improved energy efficiency, lowering emissions, policing their supply chains, pioneering ethical sourcing and promoting equitable working environments – have a distinct advantage in social media communications. That’s because they have a good and believable story to tell and, good storytelling remains the most valuable currency in social media.

The stand out leaders in this year’s Social Media Sustainability Index all have a few things in common: they fully embrace their new-found power to publish and provide useful, regular, transparent and creative content for their social media communities.

Some like Levis, IBM, Sony, Kimberly-Clark and PepsiCo seek to mobilise sustainability and cause-related awareness through heavy marketing-led digital programmes like Levis’ Pioneers, Sony’s Open Planet Ideas, Huggies’ Moms Inspired, PepsiCo’s Womens’ Inspiration Network and, yes, Pepsi Refresh (still going strong).

Others, like GE, Ford, Allianz and VF Corporation’s Timberland have structured their sustainability communications around a very professional editorial operation, supplying information and content through a variety of social media platforms. Companies like Renault and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentario (BBVA), meanwhile, seek to build a cohesive community around social media projects like Sustainable-Mobility, Friends & Family and Open Mind.

One hundred companies blogging, tweeting, Facebooking and YouTubing adds up to a lot of social media sustainability activity. In this second annual Index, we’ve tried to sift through the new noise of all that new people, planet, profit social media commentary to identify the best practice trends. By doing so we hope to provide a social media roadmap for communicators throughout the sustainability and CSR community.

How has social media and sustainability progressed since the first index? What do you think of the projects and initiatives companies in the top ten are working on?

Matthew Yeomans is the lead author of the SMI-Wizness Social Media Sustainability Index, and the co-founder of Social Media Influence. The full 49-page index is free to download here.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

In for the Kill: Revenge Film Supports Electric Cars

“Revenge of the Electric Car” has its Australian Premiere in Brisbane this month, after getting rave reviews  elsewhere. Five years ago, the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” took the auto industry by storm. Now the sequel, “Revenge of the Electric Car”, is being embraced by the industry,  as the new film follows four companies’ executives and the development of their electric cars. Read More

‘Revenge of the Electric Car’ goes corporate

Richard Cassels of Climate Leadership brings us news from Brisbane of an upcoming free community screening of the new documentary “Revenge of the Electric Car” hosted by Local Power and QUT Science and Engineering Faculty at 7pm on Monday 13 February  in Z-411 at Gardens Point.

The new documentary is by the director of popular 2006 doco “Who Killed the Electric Car?” Just released on DVD in the US, “Revenge” will tell the stories behind the development on recent Electric Vehicles (EVs) from major manufacturers like the Nissan LEAF, GM Volt, Tesla as well as a small US EV conversion company.

Interest in EVs is growing and several models are being released in Australia in 2012.   Local Power believes that EVs, powered by our rooftop Solar PVs, will form a large part of a 100% renewable energy transport system.

It’s quite likely that this screening of Revenge of the Electric Car will be the Australian Premiere of this movie!

If you feel that an Electric Vehicle (EV) could be part of your future, or you’re just curious about them, we would be delighted if you could join us for this special screening of this outstanding new 90 minute documentary.

Spaces are limited so please RSVP below to ensure we can fit everyone in.  As this is a free screening, the RSVP does not guarantee you a seat.  Attendance on the night will be “first in, best dressed”.

Local Power will be accepting donations on the night to help defray the costs for this special screening.

Local Power is passionate about Solar Power and has been delivering PV Solar to Brisbane households, community buildings and business for over 4 years.

We believe that along with more walking, cycling and better public transport options, EVs powered by renewable energy, including our own rooftop solar, are an important part of our future sustainable transport needs.

For more information or to book, contact: www.localpower.net.au

Two reviews on the “Revenge“  film follow.

By Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY:

Five years ago, the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” took the auto industry by storm. Now comes the sequel, “Revenge of the Electric Car”, and it is being embraced by the industry. The new film follows four companies’ executives and the development of their electric cars. They include General Motors’ Bob Lutz and the Chevrolet Volt; Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn and the electric Leaf; Tesla’s Elon Musk and the creation of the electric roadster; and a start-up firm headed by Greg Abbott in Culver City, Calif.

Who Killed and Revenge, the original and sequel, are polar opposites, yet done by the same true believer, director Chris Paine. The contrast:

The first movie had a fresh, brash, anti-corporate theme, with protesters being dragged away and automakers who clammed up about what came across as a conspiracy to bury a promising technology. The new movie opening today is actually a salute to the efforts by automakers to create electric cars. Several of them sponsored screenings leading up to today’s release. It takes viewers into the boardrooms and humanizes the executives who came across as greedy robber-barons the first time.

The first movie seemed brazen and unpolished, guerrilla filmmaking at its best. This new effort is slick and beautifully photographed, the product of what seems like a much-larger budget.

The first film was a personal crusade, rich with rebels who are true believers in the electric-car cause. The second is dispassionate with an unemotional narration and style that will remind you of the journalism practiced on PBS’ Frontline.

Still, Revenge is a must-see movie for anyone interested in cars. With automakers now quaking in fear that they know how badly Paine could make them look, they grant him full access. Yet given the Occupy Wall Street protests and backlash against corporations, the new film seems out of touch with the anger of the times.

Source: www.content.usatoday.com

The last movie about the electric car asked who killed it. Apparently it’s back from the dead.

You can’t help but notice that despite all the conspiracy theories, electric cars are in the news, in the reviews and soon to be in the showrooms. But they’re still considered something of an oddity. And there’s still debate about their future.

This film follows four people who could be said to each hold a compass point in the debate. GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz is signature Detroit industry. Elon Musk is the dot-com whizzkid who wants to show Detroit how it should be done – with his Tesla brand. Nissan-Renault boss Carlos Ghosn wants to put an affordable electric in every household. “Gadget” Abbott is a home inventor and one of the multitude who are converting cars to electric.

Filming for Chris Paine’s follow-up movie started very soon after he finished Who Killed The Electric Car, but a great deal of the footage – including the carmakers’ strategy and planning meetings – was under embargo until this year. That date alone suggests the automotive industry thinks we’re in a change phase.

But we still have to wait for the movie theatre industry to catch up. At the moment you’ve only been able to see the doco in selected screenings as it does the festival rounds.

Source: www.carsguide.com.au

Ecologically, it’s a Green Label for GM Cars

In an industry first, General Motors’ Chevy brand has created a green label for its cars and will roll out the sticker bearing environmental data this month starting with the 2012 Chevy Sonic. The Ecologic sticker is the first voluntary and third-party certified label of its kind for autos, although environmental product labelling is becoming more prevalent in the US for building materials. Read More

By Leslie Guevarra in Green Biz.com (26 January 2012):

In an industry first, General Motors’ Chevy brand has created a green label for its cars and will roll out the sticker bearing environmental data February starting with the 2012 Chevy Sonic.

The Ecologic label will be affixed to the driver’s side rear window of Sonic sedans and hatchbacks in the U.S. market by the end of February, GM and Chevy announced today. The automaker also said it will place Ecologic stickers on all cars under the Chevrolet nameplate for the 2013 model year.

“We’ve taken an environment leadership role (with the Chevy Volt electric car) and we thought this was the next evolutionary step,” said Chevy Brand Marketing Manager Bill Devine.

“From a sustainability point of view what this signals, I think, is that we’re trying to provide consumers with relevant information that we know they’re very interested in,” said Mike Robinson, General Motor’s vice president of sustainability and regulatory affairs.

Devine and Robinson talked to me this morning about the auto company’s latest green initiative, which it undertook with the Two Tomorrows group as the validator of environmental claims.

The Ecologic sticker is the first voluntary and third-party certified label of its kind for autos, although environmental product labeling is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. for building materials.

Federal regulators, which require car companies to disclose fuel consumption data and other vehicle information on new cars sold in the United States, revamped their labeling last year to make it even more explicit. And in California and New York, new cars also must display a global warming scorecard.

Supplementing the mandated information, the sticker devised by Chevy tells prospective buyers about the environmental measures taken at manufacturing and assembly facilites, fuel-saving technology in the car, and the percentage by weight of material in the car that can be recycled.

The idea is to convey what Chevy has done to ease the environmental impacts of its cars during its lifecycle — or “before the road, on the road and after the road,” as Devine put it.

Although the sticker is about 7 by 14 inches, there’s not enough room to display other key environmental information about the cars, Devine said, so Chevy is launching a microsite that will provide further details: www.chevrolet.com/ecologic.

The site is expected to have expanded green data on the Sonics by the end of February and for now lays out why Chevy developed the label.

GM uses recycled content in car parts and interiors, but that info, as yet, isn’t included. Robinson said the Ecologic label will develop further as the firm collects and verifies more environmental data and refines how to communicate the information. “We view this as we view the larger sustainability efforts in the company, this is a journey, it never ends and it will evolve over time,” he said. “This is not a static, once-and-done type of thing.”

The company focused on Sonic for the green sticker in part because it is still a new addition in the Chevy line, and because it is the only car of its class made in the U.S. — a factor that resonates among car shoppers who want to buy American and makes it easier for the company to track the attributes included on the Ecologic label.

The initiative is part of a broader effort by GM to reduce the environmental impacts of its operations and products, curb energy consumption and carbon emissions, and save money.

GM’s green commitments include a goal to achieve zero-waste-to-landfill status at its facilities worldwide and a pledge to invest some $40 million projects that will reduce the company’s carbon emissions by 8 million metric tons.

The company also is increasing its public profile in emergency environmental efforts. GM made news when it promised to recycle the booms used to clean up the BP oil spill for making parts for the Volt. Then GM captured headlines again when the project turned out to be more successful than expected, diverting more than 212,000 pounds of waste from landfill.

The announcement of the Ecologic label came on the eve the Washington Auto Show and follows two earlier green developments by the company this month — the release of its latest sustainability report and plans for a special California edition of the Volt that will qualify for a $1,500 state rebate and a carpool lane sticker.

Asked if there are further projects in the offing, Robinson said: “You can expect a pretty consistent drumbeat of things coming from GM on the sustainability front.”

Leslie Guevarra is an editor at GreenBiz.com.

She has been a reporter and editor online and in print, an associate producer and public affairs program host on television, and a podcaster.

Source: www.greenbiz.com

How Smart are Energy Meters in UK Homes?

The Ministry says customers will save in two ways. First, by seeing their energy usage they should be able to alter it to lower their bills. Second, accurate billing will save us a lot of time and money dealing with customers who have a wrongly estimated bill. In a competitive energy market this should be passed on in the form of lower bills. But not everyone is happy about the introduction of smart energy meters for UK Homes. Read More

Julian Knight   in The Independent  (29 January 2012):

Eleven billion pounds, millions of households and a decade to finish the job. No it’s not high speed rail two but the roll-out of smart energy meters in every home across the UK.

The meters will allow consumers to see precisely how much energy they are using minute by minute and end the much disliked practice of estimated billing. Seeing how much energy is being using and its cost is meant to prompt us to go easier on the gas and electric. Do your bit to save the planet and cut your bills at the same time, that’s the big idea.

But the scheme, which has already started to a limited extent – over half a million homes have had the meters installed in the past year according to our research – is under fire, with a leading consumer group calling for at least a major rethink or for it to be strangled at birth.

Meanwhile, a recent Public Accounts Committee report sounded alarm over the high costs and uncertain benefits of a scheme likely to disrupt the lives of millions.

“This scheme is a recipe for expensive chaos,” says Richard Lloyd, the executive director of consumer group Which?. “We will have representatives of energy firms – which are less trusted than even the banks – visiting every home in the land to rip out the existing meter to install a smart one. Apart from the practical and security difficulties who will pay for this? The answer: the consumer.”

But, according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), costs won’t be passed on to the consumer because of competition between providers, a point echoed by Elliot Grady, from British Gas.

“Customers will save in two ways. First, by seeing their energy usage they should be able to alter it to lower their bills. Second, accurate billing will save us a lot of time and money dealing with customers who have a wrongly estimated bill. In a competitive energy market this should be passed on in the form of lower bills.”

However, with Ofgem, the energy regulator, currently investigating providers for potential price fixing and criticism over higher bills, can consumers really rely on competition to fix it for them? “The officials at DECC must be the only people in the country who believe the market is in any way competitive,” says Mr Lloyd.

He also has serious doubts over the theory that smart meters will even lead to reduced energy usage.

“Remember that the people who have been trailed are the most interested in the area of energy saving and are bound to react proactively to the information they get from the smart meter readers,” says Mr Lloyd. “However, who is to say that most households will not either ignore the information or perhaps just make usage cuts for a couple of weeks and then return to their old ways?

“And will providers not increase per unit pricing if they find that usage falls? It could be £11bn wasted.”

Yet providers say that the evidence supports the idea that smart meters change behaviour: “Of the customers we’ve surveyed that have smart meters installed, 80 per cent say it has changed the way they use energy, and 64 per cent said it prompts them to make energy efficiency measures,” Mr Grady says. Official estimates put bill savings through smart metering at between 5 and 10 per cent.

Likewise, First Utility, a smaller provider which since it was founded in 2008 by Mark Daeche, has specialised in smart meter technology says 56 per cent of its customers have changed how they use energy after installation and, crucially, the technology can be built upon.

“By providing the right tools, such as an online portal where customers can see in more detail when they are using energy, it can empower them to make changes and therefore reduce their costs,” says Jonathan McGregor, First Utility’s head of marketing. “The UK’s energy infrastructure is badly outdated – many people have meters which have not been changed for decades and updates are needed. A lot of the anger regarding the cost of the roll-out is arguably because consumers don’t feel they are getting a good deal from the Big Six firms here in the UK,” Mr McGregor adds.

There are also gathering concerns that utility firms will use installations to push other products and services while in consumers’ homes. Last year, The Independent on Sunday highlighted how British Gas was advertising for installers partly paid through sales commission. To date only a few providers have signed up to the Which? “Don’t sell just install” code of conduct.

Above and beyond this, the consumer group says customers with smart meters have reported being unable to switch between providers: “They are being told that the provider they wish to move too cannot effectively read their meter remotely, therefore they can’t switch.

“This sort of technological hitch has to be sorted quickly if the scheme isn’t going to fall into disrepute as it has in Australia, where the state government of Victoria has halted the scheme.”

Case Study

Claire Stone, Shopworker from Aberdare, Mid Glamorgan

Ms Stone had a smart meter installed by First Utility last July

“It’s a great aid. I am able to keep an eye on what I am using and spending, plus which household items cost more,” she says.

Claire also likes that smart metering means an end to estimated bills. “I’d always find myself overpaying and having to go back to the energy companies for a refund time and again.” She even uses the smart meter as an educational tool for eight-year old Joseph: “I have been showing him how much power we’re using and the need to turn things off at the wall rather than leave it on standby.”

Claire has noticed a small reduction in bills but is concerned about how the costs of installation will be passed on: “I have been lucky with First Utility but you can imagine the providers will pass on the cost to customers and if usage falls the unit price will no doubt rise .”

Source:  www.independent.co.uk

Four Degrees of Separation:  Mapping the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

A global average temperature rise of 4 degC could have a severe impact on Singapore, including flooding, coastal land loss and heat-related deaths. That is according to a new map launched by the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom’s Met Office, one of the leading centres for climate prediction. The map shows the potential impact of climate change in South-east Asia. Read More

By Jessica Cheam in The Straits Times (31 January 2012):

A global average temperature rise of 4 degC could have a severe impact on Singapore, including flooding, coastal land loss and heat-related deaths.

That is according to a new map launched here yesterday by the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom’s Met Office, one of the leading centres for climate prediction. The map shows the potential impact of climate change in South-east Asia.

Under the scenario, global average sea levels could rise by up to 80cm by the end of the century, translating to a local sea-level rise of about 65cm.

‘For a small country with a high population density and surrounded by sea, this could have implications for flooding, coastal land loss and salt water intrusion of groundwater aquifers,’ said the centre.

Water supplies could also be affected, as parts of South-east Asia could see droughts occurring more than twice as frequently, it found.

Singapore’s unique geography makes rising temperatures a further health concern, as they could lead to an ‘urban heat island’ effect, which makes a built-up area significantly warmer than its surroundings. Increased temperatures are a major factor in heat-related mortalities, the Hadley Centre said.

Singapore could also be affected by more haze pollution, as higher temperatures would increase the risk of forest fires across Indonesia.

Presenting the map to reporters at the Hilton Hotel yesterday, Dr Chris Gordon, the centre’s head of science partnerships, said this scenario was considered ‘moderate’. In a worse scenario, temperatures could go up by 6 deg C, he said.

The objective of the map is ‘an attempt to bring climate change home to people, to help people relate to it in different areas of the world’.

In preparing the map, the Hadley Centre used its in-house climate model, which was run as many as 34 times on scenarios developed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The map predicts that a 4 deg C temperature rise would have a negative impact on Indonesia’s fishing industry, and could lead to a drop in rice production in Thailand, and more cyclones in the Philippines.

Dr Gordon said the timescale for this depends on the rate of increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

‘If we carry on at the rate we are now, it could happen perhaps by the 2060s… if action is taken, it could be delayed,’ he said.

Dr Gordon added that the Hadley Centre was collaborating with Singapore’s Meteorological Services Division on climate data and research.

The interactive map is now on Google Earth, and can be accessed at www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/impacts/high-end

Source: www.eco-business.com

Ken Hickson has the Last Word on Communication and Leadership:

Challenges Mount in the Unpredictable World of Social Media

This all started because Adrian Monck, Managing Director, Head of Communications at the World Economic Forum sent me an email with some comments from a forum at the Davos meeting.

In it he reported that:  Social networking and communications tools such as Facebook and Twitter are putting new pressures on business and government leaders and the deficit in global leadership is impeding agreement on pressing global issues such as climate change.

It got me thinking about all the businesses, groups and individuals I know which are doing their best. But we need to do a better job of “shouting from the rooftops”. Don’t be shy. Communicate effectively. Step up to the plate or platform. Speak up. Lead. Read More

Ken Hickson has the Last Word on Communication and Leadership:

Challenges Mount in the Unpredictable World of Social Media

This all started because Adrian Monck, Managing Director, Head of Communications at the World Economic Forum sent me an email with some comments from a forum at the Davos meeting.

In it he reported that:  Social networking and communications tools such as Facebook and Twitter are putting new pressures on business and government leaders and the deficit in global leadership is impeding agreement on pressing global issues such as climate change.

It got me thinking about all the businesses, groups and individuals I know which are doing their best. But we need to do a better job of “shouting from the rooftops”. Don’t be shy. Communicate effectively. Step up to the plate or platform. Speak up. Lead.

Technology and social media are significantly changing the way leaders in business and government make decisions, global opinion-shapers told participants in a session predicting scenarios for 2012 at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting.

Some well-known journalists and commentators had their w say:

“The days of the one-way conversation are over whether you are the prime minister or the CEO,” said New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas L. Friedman. “We are all in a two-way conversation. The challenge for political and corporate leaders is to understand the power of what can be generated from below. The sweet spot for innovation is moving down. The sweet spot in policy and politics is moving down.”

Gideon Rachman, Associate Editor and Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator at the Financial Times, agreed. “Both democratic and authoritarian governments are struggling with this.” But he warned against exaggerating the impact of social media. “You wonder how they managed to storm the gates of the Bastille without Twitter,” he remarked.

Also creating governance challenges in the new hyperconnected world is the lack of global leadership, argued Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics and International Business at the Leonard N. Stern School of Business of New York University.

“This doesn’t look like a G20 world; it looks like a G-Zero world. There is disagreement. There is no leadership. In a world where we have the rise of many powers, the US cannot impose its will.”

On important global issues from climate change to dealing with the impact of the global recession, disagreements have prevented the shaping of effective solutions, reckoned Roubini.

Leaders too are hampered in their decision-making by the mounting complexity of problems and the fast pace of developments. In addition, politicians often have to think about getting re-elected as soon as they take office. There is no time to think, Robert J. Shiller, Arthur M. Okun Professor of Economics at Yale University, observed. “You can’t be a leader unless you have time to think and develop yourself.”

In Asia, including the large, fast-growing economies of China and India, political leaders have also had to cope with the pressures from the emergence of social media and the “two-way conversations” with their people.

Asian leaders are listening and responding, noted Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. “It’s about how you respond to the wake-up calls,” Mahbubani explained.

“Things are happening in Asia under the radar screen because of the quiet and unpretentious nature of the leadership. Within the Asian cultural fabric, there is awareness that the role of government is important. People are not trying to overthrow their government. They want to get better government.”

And what do I think about all this? And does it matter?

Yes, as those who know me well and those who hear me sounding off occasionally can confirm.

Leadership is important. Effective communication is essential.

Nowhere is this more important than in the whole global space of climate change action and awareness. Many have tried and given up.

Many are still going strong in spite of insults, rejections, threats, lack of funds and diversion of Government support.

We cannot afford to be demoralised or disheartened when we hear that the very wealthy heads of mining companies in Australia listen to the likes of “Lord” Monckton when he tells then they must get control of media to win the battle for the minds of politicians and influential business people to advance the cause of those who deny that humans had anything to do with climate change.

We cannot afford not be impressed when global businesses like GE, Kraft, Walmart, Marks & Spencers make serious and genuine commitments to make their businesses more sustainable and acknowledge that they, their suppliers and customers must work towards a low carbon future with less reliance on fossil fuels.

We must acknowledge that what starts small and in one place, or one country, can lead to a movement. It can grow and take hold.

We see some great examples of sustainability in business being set in Asia by YTL and CDL. Give them credit. Give them encouragement. They are on the right track.

We cannot afford not to use all the media at our disposal – social media, new media, old media and face-to-face communication – to get key messages across and to get people on board.

We can all start some where. Energy efficiency in the home saves money too. Reducing waste. Using public transport. Designing and operating our buildings more efficiently.

Of course we need a revolution – in thinking and acting for the good of the planet and its people. That includes us.  Maybe we’ve been too polite and too quiet for too long.

We must make our voices heard. We must speak up for action on climate change. We must encourage a sense of urgency. We must get everyone on board the sustainability band wagon – at home, in the community, at schools, and in business and industry.

And we can no longer wait for others to do something about it.

Your country needs you. Your world needs you.

Source: www.weforum.org and www.abccarbon.com