The internal combustion engines of vehicles have drastically improved their fuel efficiency, to the count of 60% between 1980 and 2006, yet overall vehicle efficiency has rose from 23 miles per gallon to only 27 miles per gallon over the same period. Similarly for houses in Australia, where energy efficiency has dramatically improved over the past 50 years, yet energy consumption remained stable. This paradox arose due to the increased size and consumption of cars and houses. Read more

By Ronald Bailey for Reason.com (17 July 2012):

Automobile manufacturers have been hard at work, figuring out new technologies to improve fuel efficiency. So why aren’t the cars we drive today getting dramatically improved gas mileage? Fuel economy actually increased by 60 percent between 1980 and 2006, but at the same time the average curb weight of vehicles increased 26 percent, while their horsepower rose 107 percent.

Consequently, most of the gains in fuel economy have gone into compensating for weight and horsepower. A recent study from Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Christopher Knittel found that average fuel economy actually rose since 1980 from 23 miles per gallon to only 27 miles per gallon.

And cars aren’t the only place where greater efficiency has failed to translate to reduced consumption. Looking at even longer time scales, lighting efficiency has improved by more than many thousand-fold from sputtering candles to modern LEDs over the past three centuries. The result of this vast improvement in lighting technologies, writes Jeffery Tsao from the Sandia National Laboratory and his colleagues, “has been an increase in demand for energy used for lighting that nearly exactly offsets the efficiency gains.” They note, “When lighting become cheaper, economic agents become very creative in devising new ways to use it.” In fact, they predict that as lighting efficiency improves, say, with LED lighting, over the coming decades that the increased demand for lighting will again likely swamp any gains in energy efficiency.

Another study looked at trends in space heating efficiency over the past 50 years in Melbourne, Australia. Modern houses are up to 10 times more energy efficient, yet the study found that modern Australians are collectively using just as much energy to heat their houses. Why? Modern houses are much bigger, people heat larger areas for longer, and fewer people live in each dwelling. The study notes, “The result that per-capita heating consumption has remained remarkably stable over the last 50 years.” However, modern Australians are much more comfortable in the winter than their grandparents were.

Similar results were reported in a 2006 study done for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that found that Energy Star homes in Phoenix, Arizona use 12 percent more energy than homes without an Energy Star label. The Energy Star houses actually use 16 percent less energy per square to heat and cool, but on average they are larger than non-Energy Star houses. In other words, people consumed their savings from energy efficiency by buying bigger houses.

These are all examples of the energy rebound effect where increased energy efficiency is offset by increases in energy use because increased fuel efficiency lowers the relative cost of consumption. The magnitude of energy rebound effects has important implications for strategies aimed at restraining climate change through energy conservation requirements. For example, a variety of studies suggest that improvements in energy efficiency could reduce energy consumption enough to cut global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 by as much as 25 percent.

In a 2007 article in Science, two Princeton University researchers, Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala, calculated that seven “stabilization wedges” could prevent global carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration from rising to more than twice its pre-industrial level by 2050. “Improvements in efficiency and conservation probably offer the greatest potential to provide wedges,” they argued. One wedge (a seventh of necessary reduction) could be achieved by doubling the miles per gallon from 30 to 60 of a fleet of two billion automobiles, or by cutting half the number of miles they travel annually. Another wedge could be achieved by boosting the efficiency of coal-burning electric generation plants from 40 to 60 percent.

Wouldn’t such energy efficiency improvements result in rebounds in which consumers demand more energy, perhaps more than the amounts “saved” by increased energy efficiency? This is a highly controversial area of scholarship. Proponents of energy efficiency regulations argue that rebounds are trivial in comparison to the overall reductions in both energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, rebound theorists believe that economy-wide demand for relatively cheaper energy can “backfire,” ultimately outstripping the efficiency gains.

A new report, The Rebound Dilemma, for the Institute for Energy Research (IER) by California State University, Fullerton economist Robert Michaels analyzes the implications of depending on energy efficiency improvements to reduce carbon dioxide emissions as a way to mitigate future climate change. Michaels looks at studies of direct, indirect, embedded energy, and economy-wide rebounds. The Melbourne heating case is largely an example of direct rebound effect in which better insulation and more efficient heaters apparently resulted in no reduction of energy use. An indirect rebound occurs when efficiency improvements raise the productivity of other goods and inputs that, in turn, boost the demand for relatively cheaper energy. Embedded energy is the energy used to produce, distribute, and maintain more energy-efficient capital goods. And economy-wide rebounds result from the ways in which people use their savings on energy to purchase other goods and services that also consume energy to produce. For example, cheap gasoline enabled suburban living.

Proponents of energy efficiency point to studies of direct rebound effects that often find that they are rather small in comparison to the energy saved by increased efficiency. One classic 1992 study reported a 5 to 15 percent rebound effect for increased automobile fuel efficiency, i.e., people boosted their annual mileage only by that percentage in response to their lower fuel bills with the result that they burned a lot less gasoline. Maybe people aren’t driving all that much more, but the new MIT study finds that most of the rebound came from consumer preferences for bigger and more powerful cars.

So what did the IER report find? There are lots of studies of direct rebound effects that look at the effect of more energy efficient appliances on household energy use. The results of the studies vary considerably, but eyeballing the reported results the rebound appears to hover around 30 percent. Assuming an appliance that uses 100 kilowatt hours (kwh) per month to operate is replaced by one that uses just 50 kwh, a 30 percent rebound implies that the actual reduction in energy consumed would be 35 kwh per month. Still not bad at all since the consumer gets the extra services from the new appliance while saving cost of energy.

Indirect rebounds are much harder to calculate. One way to think of them is that whatever a consumer saves from using less energy at home can now be spent on other products and services that themselves consume energy. The money saved from driving a fuel-efficient car may now be spent on flying to a Caribbean beach vacation. Compounding these indirect rebounds throughout the economy can lead to even more energy consumption than that initially saved by introducing energy efficiency measures. The IER study cites the results of 11 econometric models that find economy-wide rebounds ranging from a low of 23 percent to a high 177 percent. Five of the studies report economy-wide rebounds of more than 100 percent. The implication of these studies is that “if energy becomes more productive, history often shows that new energy-using technologies and business models will follow.” In other words, the long-run net result is that eventually more energy is consumed than is saved.

The upshot is that energy efficiency mandates advocated by environmental activists with the aim of mitigating future man-made global warming will likely fall far short of their goals. As Michaels concludes, “Instead of imposing energy efficiency mandates, energy policy should embrace market prices and disruptive innovations to guide energy to its most valuable uses.” After all, the point of improved energy efficiency is not to forgo its use but to boost its productivity as a way to provide people with more of the goods and services they want.

Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey is the author of Liberation Biology (Prometheus).

Source: www.reason.com

Expandable polystyrene are ubiquitous in modern life, finding applications from protecting your newly purchased television to disposable plates and cups. It is composed of 98% air, making it very bulky compared to its weight and filling dumpsters quickly – leading to high disposal fees. Also, due to the low cost of manufacturing, rate of recycling of this material is low. Now, a recycling company in China has turned this waste into resource by turning discarded polystyrene into synthetic wood. Read more

From LinkedIn Think Green, Daniel Wang:

How to Reduce “Waste” Costs and profit by recycling Styrofoam!

Expandable polystyrene (EPS) and other foam plastics are 98% air making them very bulky in comparison to their weight. The high volume fills dumpsters quickly, leading to higher waste disposal costs. Foam Compactors reduce the volume of expanded foam products, and in turn, less fees are incurred through reduction. Also a benefit, compacted foam products can be shipped economically to a recycling location. Compacting foam plastics can save thousands in unnecessary waste costs!

Polystyrene, abbreviated following ISO Standard PS, is an aromatic polymer made from the aromatic monomer styrene, a liquid hydrocarbon that is commercially manufactured from petroleum by the chemical industry. Polystyrene is one of the most widely used kinds of plastic.

Polystyrene is a thermoplastic substance, which is in solid (glassy) state at room temperature, but flows if heated above its glass transition temperature (for moulding or extrusion), and becomes solid again when cooled. Pure solid polystyrene is a colourless, hard plastic with limited flexibility. It can be cast into moulds with fine detail. Polystyrene can be transparent or can be made to take on various colours.

Solid polystyrene is used, for example, in disposable cutlery, plastic models, CD and DVD cases, and smoke detector housings. Products made from foamed polystyrene are nearly ubiquitous, for example packing materials, insulation, and foam drink cups.

Polystyrene can be recycled, and has the number “6″ as its recycling symbol although the low cost of virgin polystyrene keeps recycling rates low. No known microorganism has yet been shown to biodegrade polystyrene, and it is often abundant as a form of pollution in the outdoor environment, particularly along shores and waterways especially in its low density cellular form.

Chinese company Intco Framing is committed to promote the life philosophy of environment protection, health and safety.

“We recycle 50,000 tons of waste polystyrene foam every year with advanced recycle and plastic regenerate technique”.

Intco Environmental Framing reuse resource, produce Hi-tech wood-like decoration moulding and successfully replacing the wood with recycled plastic while transfer waste into treasure. 1 million cartons of moulding can be produced every year with the recycled waste polystyrene foam, which means 2 million trees are protected.

Various sizes and designs of photo frame, framed art, mirror frame, base moulding, crown moulding and outdoor floor are produced. Intco has been collecting, recycling and reusing of EPS waste foam for over 10 years. All these waste materials are successfully reused to produce polystyrene moulding and framing products, such as photo frame, picture frame, mirror frame, skirting moulding, crown moulding and outdoor flooring. Based on the uniqueness of the wood-like looking and the competitive cost, it is growing to be a best replacement material of traditional wood moulding and frame, widely applied and welcomed in home decoration industry of the worldwide.

Since Intco Recycling Resources came to China, it has been committed to promoting environmental protection, health and safety concept of life. Every year, Intco collect, recycle and reuse huge amount of EPS foam waste and successfully make them into PS moulding by its advanced equipment and technology, which equals to saving lots of trees a year. The innovation and the concept of transforming the “White Pollution” into wall decor products have been awarded by many national government and environmental associations in China.

Intco Recycling Resources has four manufacturing bases and one trading company:

Zibo factory, established in 2005, located on NO.18, Qingtian Road of Qi Lu Industrial Park, Linzi District, Zibo City of Shandong Province.It covers an area of 158 Mu, including the 50,000㎡ Workshop, 6,000㎡ Office and Exhibition Hall, 2,000㎡ Dining Hall and 10,000㎡Employee Dormitory, It is the major production base for PS moulding and framing products.

Shanghai factory, established in 2002, located in No.1299, Hu Qiao Industries Park of Fengxian District, Shanghai. It covers the area of 35mu.It is the 2nd production base for PS moulding and framing products.

Lu’an factory, established in 2010, located in Lu’an City, Anhui Province. It covers an area of 99 Mu. It is specialized in production of PS moulding for China domestic market.

Zhenjiang factory, established in 2010, located in Da Gang City, Zhenjiang New District, Jiangsu province. It is engaged in the R&D, production and sales of compacting and recycling machinery.

Intco International (HK) Co., limited was registered in HK in 2010. It is the wholly owned subsidiary of Shandong Intco Recycling Resources Co., Ltd., and focuses on the import and export trade of company’s products.

Currently four factories totally carry over 100 PS extrusion lines and over 40 assembly lines with yearly capacity of collecting, recycling and reusing about 50000 tons of EPS waste foam and 1 million boxes of PS moulding, exporting and domestic selling over 5000 containers of PS framing products to over 80 countries and areas.

Source: www.intco.cn

The threats of climate change has been widely publicised and awareness of the problem is generally high among the public. However, this does not translate into real action aimed at mitigating the problem. The reason may lie within the way our brain works – the mental habits that help us in encountering daily challenges make it difficult to engage with the more abstract dangers posed by climate change; this according to the up-and-coming field of climate psychology. Read more

We’re All Climate-Change Idiots

By Beth Gardiner for New York Times (21 July 2012):

CLIMATE CHANGE is staring us in the face. The science is clear, and the need to reduce planet- warming emissions has grown urgent. So why, collectively, are we doing so little about it?

Yes, there are political and economic barriers, as well as some strong ideological opposition, to going green. But researchers in the burgeoning field of climate psychology have identified another obstacle, one rooted in the very ways our brains work. The mental habits that help us navigate the local, practical demands of day-to-day life, they say, make it difficult to engage with the more abstract, global dangers posed by climate change.

Robert Gifford, a psychologist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who studies the behavioral barriers to combating climate change, calls these habits of mind “dragons of inaction.” We have trouble imagining a future drastically different from the present. We block out complex problems that lack simple solutions. We dislike delayed benefits and so are reluctant to sacrifice today for future gains. And we find it harder to confront problems that creep up on us than emergencies that hit quickly.

“You almost couldn’t design a problem that is a worse fit with our underlying psychology,” says Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.

Sometimes, when forming our opinions, we grasp at whatever information presents itself, no matter how irrelevant. A new study by the psychologist Nicolas Guéguen, published in last month’s Journal of Environmental Psychology, found that participants seated in a room with a ficus tree lacking foliage were considerably more likely to say that global warming was real than were those in a room with a ficus tree that had foliage.

We also tend to pay attention to information that reinforces what we already believe and dismiss evidence that would require us to change our minds, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. Dan M. Kahan, a Yale Law School professor who studies risk and science communication, says this is crucial to understanding the intense political polarization on climate change. He and his research colleagues have found that people with more hierarchical, individualistic worldviews (generally conservatives) sense that accepting climate science would lead to restraints on commerce, something they highly value, so they often dismiss evidence of the risk. Those with a more egalitarian, community-oriented mind-set (generally liberals) are likely to be suspicious of industry and very ready to credit the idea that it is harming the environment.

There are ways to overcome such prejudices. Professor Kahan has shown that how climate change solutions are framed can affect our views of the problem. In one study, not yet published, he and his colleagues asked people to assess a scientific paper reporting that the climate was changing faster than expected. Beforehand, one group was asked to read an article calling for tighter carbon caps (i.e., a regulatory solution); a second group read an article urging work on geoengineering, the manipulation of atmospheric conditions (i.e., a technological solution); and a control group read an unrelated story on traffic lights. All three groups included hierarchical individualists and egalitarian communitarians.

In all cases, the individualists were, as expected, less likely than the communitarians to say the scientific paper seemed valid. But the gap was 29 percent smaller among those who had first been exposed to the geoengineering idea than among those who had been prompted to think about regulating carbon, and 14 percent smaller than in the traffic light group. Thinking about climate change as a technological challenge rather than as a regulatory problem, it seems, made individualists more ready to credit the scientific claim about the climate.

Research also suggests public health is an effective frame: few people care passionately about polar bears, but if you argue that closing coal-burning plants will reduce problems like asthma, you’re more likely to find a receptive audience, says the American University communications professor Matthew Nisbet.

Smaller “nudges,” similarly sensitive to our psychological quirks, can also spur change. Taking advantage of our preference for immediate gratification, energy monitors that displayed consumption levels in real-time cut energy use by an average of 7 percent, according to a study in the journal Energy in 2010. Telling heavy energy users how much less power their neighbors consumed prompted them to cut their own use, according to a 2007 study in Psychological Science. And trading on our innate laziness, default settings have also conserved resources: when Rutgers University changed its printers’ settings to double-sided, it saved more than seven million sheets of paper in one semester in 2007.

Simply presenting climate science more clearly is unlikely to change attitudes. But a better understanding of our minds’ strange workings may help save us from ourselves.

Beth Gardiner is a freelance journalist.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com

The field of corporate responsibility is experiencing a boom, with graduates programs offering training in sustainable business and corporate responsibility. However, very few people in this field actually have these degrees; instead following their passion to get these positions. Of those who are successful, it is found that there are traits and core skills that are shared amongst them that form important elements to that success. We couldn’t agree more with this assessment. People like us at Sustain Ability Showcase Asia (SASA) know this is true. Show by example how it works and provide case studies where the business case for sustainability is obvious. Read more

Situations Vacant: 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders Wanted

On the subject of sustainability leadership, time is running out for nominations/recommendations for the 2012 Global 100 Sustain Ability Leaders, organised by SASA. So email your name – or who you recommend/nominate – no later than 10 August 2012 to kenhickson@abccarbon.com. See last year’s list of the noteworthy 100 – www.sustain-ability-showcase.com – and remember we’re looking for people who have made their mark and been influential  – in words and deeds – in at least one country. For more on the credentials we are looking for, read the profile article in the last issue, 170 – or go to this link:  http://abccarbon.com/profile-position-vacant/

Nine skills for success in corporate sustainability leadership

By Tim Mohin (16 July 2012):

The following is adapted from the book Changing Business from the Inside Out: A Treehugger’s Guide to Working in Corporations, by Timothy J. Mohin, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2012. Reprinted with permission.

While numerous graduate programs are popping up that offer training in sustainable business and corporate responsibility, very few people in the corporate responsibility (CR) field have these degrees. Most people working in CR positions have education and experience in some other area and have followed their passion to get to one of these jobs. After talking to several of my colleagues and thinking through my own experiences, I identified nine core skills that are important elements to success in corporate responsibility:

1. Be flexible like Gumby and curious like George

Working in CR is a lifelong learning experience that rewards the flexible and curious. Corporate responsibility touches just about every issue within the company. On a single day, you may have to field questions on your company’s human rights policy, the independence of the directors on your board, your water conservation measures, and the diversity of your workforce.

The breadth of this role can be both terrifying and exhilarating. The terrifying part is being asked to represent areas you know very little about. The exhilarating aspect is learning about all of these areas. People who are naturally curious, have a high tolerance for ambiguity, and are eager to take on new tasks tend to thrive in corporate responsibility roles. While you may have to spend significant time operating outside of your “comfort zone,” the upside is learning about other functions within the company and building relationships with managers across the enterprise.

If being curious does not come naturally, practice by seeking out colleagues from other organizations that have a stake in your CR program. Set up one-on-one meetings to understand their scope of responsibilities, their views about your company’s CR programs, and any areas of mutual interest.

2. Hold on to your core competency while learning new skills

Just about everyone in corporate responsibility started their careers in another field. Whether you come from a marketing background or environmental science, corporate responsibility is a big tent and there is always a way to apply your skills. The key to success is to walk the line between contributing knowledge from your core competencies, and being pigeonholed into a narrow role defined by these competencies.

Look for ways to leverage your existing skills to help the organization while simultaneously taking on other responsibilities that demand skill development. My view is that people with a technical background can learn some of the “softer” skills (e.g., communications and influencing) needed for success in CR more easily than non-technical people can come up to speed on the intricacies of fields such as environmental engineering. The flip side is that many of the people who gravitate toward technical fields may be less comfortable with the ambiguity in a CR role, and fewer of them may possess the communication and influencing skills needed for success in this profession.

While mastering new skills and behaviors in the workplace can be incredibly difficult, it can be accomplished with the appropriate time and attention. You have to be willing to take risks by working in new areas and be willing to feel vulnerable, or even fail. The keys are to have the desire to learn and grow, the humility to be less informed than others, and above all the passion for your cause.

3. Communicate, communicate, communicate

There is no other single skill as important as communication for success in corporate responsibility. Whether in written communications, in speaking to large groups, or in persuading a small group of internal stakeholders, communications skills are essential. The corporate responsibility professional is often in the position of communicating a fairly complex set of facts — for example, climate protection strategies — to emotionally charged, less-technical audiences. The ability to condense complicated topics into a relevant and cogent set of messages and present them skillfully can be the differentiator for your success in corporate responsibility.

At some point, most people working in CR will work on a corporate responsibility report. If you have ever had this experience, you know that the incoming data is from every corner of the company and authored by staff that are not necessarily creative writers. The ability to take this information and weave it into a compelling, readable report is the hallmark of a good corporate responsibility program.

If you were not born with these skills, do not despair. Communications is a trainable skill if you apply the proper focus. Personally, I dreaded speaking in public at the beginning of my career. When I recognized that this deficit was a barrier to advancement, I got some training and over time went from avoiding speeches to seeking them. Years later, I even served as an instructor for a public speaking course. Like playing the piano, you can build your communication skills through instruction and practice. Seek feedback and, combined with your own self-assessment, define the areas where you will take tangible actions to improve and practice, practice, practice!

4. Lead through influence

Since the corporate responsibility professional has responsibility to communicate about numerous programs that he or she has little authority to control, it is essential to lead through influence. To effectively influence others, the ability to grow productive professional relationships is essential. In practice, this means that the corporate responsibility manager must build relationships with staff from departments across the corporation in order to align their actions with the strategies, goals, and metrics that make up a credible, consistent program. Like communications, not everyone is born with this skill, but it can be learned.

Leading through influence means building relationships with internal stakeholders, which can be tricky. For example, if your company’s procurement vice president sees no value in auditing the supply chain for compliance to the company code of conduct, your job is to help him or her to understand why this is important and valuable. The discussion could include everything from reducing reputational risk to your company’s brand, to improving product quality, to just doing the right thing. By taking the time to understand the organization’s issues and priorities, you can adjust and tailor your proposal to fit their paradigm. Most functional group leaders are not keen on “outsiders” coming in and telling them what to do. Accept that you will not successfully influence internal stakeholders in every case, but never give up. The key to success is to demonstrate mutual value in the relationship.

The most important thing to remember is that the relationship is more important than any short-term victory. When confronted with resistance, look for incremental steps toward your goals. Solidify the relationship with recognition of your partner’s achievements in your company’s corporate responsibility communications and more progress will likely follow.

5. Read the system

An important skill is to understand the overarching paradigm of the business and culture you work in and how it shapes corporate behavior.

The skill here is harder to define because it refers to understanding what is not being said. For example, you might have a meeting where you come away feeling fantastic about the commitment to corporate responsibility goals, but a few months later you realize that nothing has been accomplished to implement these goals. In some corporate cultures, people would rather appear to agree, when there is some unsaid reason why they do not agree. Another common example is when people sign up for one of your regular meetings on corporate responsibility, but rarely attend or appear to be checked out throughout the session.

After a few of these experiences you need to ask yourself what is really going on. While there may be no single answer, success lies in asking the question and analyzing the situation. Depending on the circumstances and the relationships, you might directly ask the person or group why they are not attending, but often you might be better served by approaching the issue through a confidant who can help you understand the situation.

Once you do understand the “system” — or the reasons behind the observed behavior — there is a range of ways to respond. Of course, all of the possible solutions (ranging from doing nothing to escalating to your management chain) depend on the situation and the relationships.

While this skill area may seem like the least defined, doing this poorly can be the most deadly to your career. If you are not able to discern the paradigm of the group or individual you are trying to influence, or if you are unable to recognize the roots of your own behavior, the outcome can be disastrous. Doing this well, on the other hand, is a catalyst for success.

6. Learn and practice “corporate jujutsu”

A common mistake that many corporate treehuggers make is to be a bit too passionate about their cause to protect people and the planet. This can come across as overzealous and might communicate a lack of understanding or commitment to other corporate imperatives. Working on social and environmental causes within a big company is a bit like corporate jujutsu. Jujutsu is a “Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon, or only a short weapon.” While the martial arts metaphor might seem confrontational, jujutsu is an apt metaphor for this career path. It is defined as being “gentle, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding” (Ju) and “manipulating the opponent’s force against himself rather than confronting it with one’s own force” (Jutsu).

Working in the field of corporate responsibility, you will often find that the best pathway to achieving your results is a circuitous one. There will be numerous times when you are told “no” and given a ton of reasons why your ideas or programs won’t work. A defining characteristic of corporate responsibility is working in areas where you have no authority. In this situation, you will frequently encounter resistance to your CR programs and initiatives. The essential skill here is to absorb the force of the resistance with grace (gentle, supple, flexible, pliable, or yielding) but stick with your values and find creative alternatives to continue to work with your business partners to achieve success (manipulating the opponent’s force against himself rather than confronting it with one’s own force).

7. Be entrepreneurial

Success in corporate responsibility often means finding hidden value. The notion that a company can simply contribute to charity, volunteer in the community, or reduce its environmental footprint and expect to be a leader in corporate responsibility is long dead. These days, successful corporate responsibility programs are integrated into the business, which means that corporate treehuggers must be entrepreneurial and find the most efficient and effective ways to return value to the company. While CR programs are often given a pass on the company’s ROI test, the pressure is mounting for these programs to add more value to the business.

The need to tie corporate responsibility to business value is an essential skill. Don’t assume that, because you have a job in the CR department, your company’s leaders accept the value of your role. Success depends on being able to find, assess, and prioritize initiatives that can add value to the company. This can be done from any level in the company, but requires an entrepreneurial mindset.

Marrying corporate responsibility with the profit motive is the Holy Grail for the corporate treehugger. If you can be the connector that brings the people together to develop new programs that benefit the company and the environment, you will become a superstar. The key to success in this area is to be an idea generator. Look for ways to connect the dots within a company. Look at social/environmental problems as potential business opportunities. Ask yourself, “How could we apply my company’s core competencies to help solve a social/environmental problem?” Apply business acumen to these problems and you may discover the program that differentiates your company, and you, as a leader.

Doing this well requires comprehending a couple of basic truths: First, you need to understand that ideas are cheap and implementation is expensive (another way to say this is that all ideas are great ideas until you have to pay for them). Not all ideas are winners and you need to have a thick skin to pitch ideas to decision-makers, who will often reject them out of hand. Look for the ideas with the best return on investment and, above all, keep innovating until you find the best approach.

Second, it is important to understand that strategic ideas are not the sole province of the executive suite. In fact, in many cases, good ideas bubble up from within the organization. Any person at any level can be the spark that ignites the next great corporate responsibility program. Often good ideas incubate in a “skunk works” of co-collaborators who work under the radar to flesh out the concept before going through the normal management approvals (where most ideas go to die).

8. Pay attention to detail, discipline, quality, and results

While this topic may seem like the basis of any successful program, I am continually amazed by how often these basic building blocks are ignored, especially in corporate responsibility programs. It is fun to focus on the “shiny and new” topics that are part of any corporate responsibility program. For example, it is easy to get drawn into the latest NGO “name and shame” campaign, the latest government regulation, the newest responsibility ranking list, or the flashy design of your competition’s new corporate responsibility website. But in overreacting to the hot issues of the moment, there is an opportunity cost: losing focus on the sustaining elements of your program.

An important attribute to any successful corporate responsibility program is a disciplined management system. This means that you need to understand and clearly communicate the measurable goals that your program will deliver each year and develop the business processes that will produce these results. For example, producing an annual corporate responsibility report requires that you establish public-facing goals for each program (e.g., water use reduction, workforce diversity, supply chain audits, etc.), collect the data needed from each department, and create a compelling story for the report. To succeed at this year after year, you need to be able to establish the basics: who is providing the data, who will write the story, who will review, who is providing all of the graphics and images, as well as manage the schedule and budget for the entire endeavor.

These tasks are not sexy, but doing them well is essential to running a successful corporate responsibility program. Many people underestimate the amount of tactical work involved in managing a corporate responsibility program. Like any other corporate endeavor, the people who work in these departments often have too much to do at any given time and can be stressed. Having a disciplined program, with well-understood goals, clear roles and responsibilities, and reliable business processes will reduce this stress and produce better results. A proven success strategy is to develop a “dashboard” of key performance indicators to track the performance of your program.

Again, don’t assume that, because you may be new to the company or the job, someone else must have thought through all of these processes before. Corporate responsibility is often so new that the basic management systems are not yet in place. By organizing the programs, processes, and data in a disciplined way, you can add a lot of value.

9. Above all, passion for the cause

Whether you add value by developing detailed management systems or by running an entrepreneurial skunk works, the common element for most people in corporate responsibility jobs is passion for the cause. If you look at your profession as a cause rather than a job, you will find the energy to persevere through almost any situation. Regardless of your background or skills, the common denominator for most CR professionals is a passion to do something wonderful: to help people and the planet and to leave a legacy of a career dedicated to making the world better. This may sound trite, but it is an essential element of this career path.

There are many hurdles to being a treehugger in the corporate world, and there will be many days when you might question this career choice. But ultimately, when you can connect your time and talent to something bigger than yourself, you can achieve deep and profound satisfaction in your career. The key to success as a corporate treehugger is to nurture the flames of your passion even when the inertia of company bureaucracy douses it with cold water.

Ultimately the skills and attributes described above can be applied to add value to many career paths within a company. This is a good sign, because it speaks to the integration of the corporate responsibility function into business. Rather than being a career cul-de-sac, a position in corporate responsibility cultivates skills that are applicable to a broad spectrum of career paths.

Tim Mohin is director of corporate responsibility at AMD, a board member of Net Impact and The Green Grid.

Source: www.greenbiz.com