Category: sustainability

  • Attributes of Successful Sustainable Leaders

    Great article on Sustainable Leaders: The 8 Attributes of Successful Sustainable Leaders by Bob Langert over at GreenBiz.org.
    In our experience and prior research, communications is key to success for the sustainability professional. Yes, communications is a tool, but the first skills needed are communications: both internal, external and collaborative. Marketing internally is simply rallying the troupes, and demonstrating the case, including the value proposition. Externally, it is some combination of public relations, promotion, marketing and sales in order to demonstrate the value to customers business partners and the public.
    Getting the government to work with, not against, sustainability is often very tricky since there are often many players with very short term interests that run against sustainability (real estate developers, coal and oil, for example).
    So let’s gauge the 8 attributes (although I don’t think they were in any particular order) by Langert toward the level of communications involved:

    • Courage. Courage to speak up for what is the right thing to do.
    • Conviction. 
    • Cleverness. 
    • Contrariness. 
    • Collaboration. This is the one factor that fully requires communications at all levels. Plus it is one of the main attributes of traditional leadership: collaborative vs. authoritative. 
    • Cheerfulness. Funny, but true.
    • Charisma. A traditional leadership approach/style that has been demonstrated to work in getting people to follow a leader.
    • Humility. Being humble does require a special kind of communications. 

    We are all in the world of sustainability together. The trick is to get people to think long(er) term and then back up to best decisions for everyone in the present. Although you can’t argue with Langert’s list of 7 Cs and and H, you have to admit that it doesn’t really capture the full nature of a successful leader in the world of sustainability.
    It does give those of us who are trying to be successful in sustainability efforts, something to think about.

  • Babcock Ranch aims to be first solar-powered town in US | USA News | Al Jazeera

    Babcock Ranch aims to be first solar-powered town in US | USA News | Al Jazeera:

    This is in partnership with FPL (Nextera) for the power. The powerplant is already up and running that will support an almost 200,000 home community.  FPL has extended the solar to include 10 megawatts of battery, thus allowing the solar power plant to offer more flexibility to the power grid and on-demand peaking power.

    The 440 acres for the power plant (now with about 350,000 PV panels) were donated to FPL at the Babcock Ranch. The whole town is 100% electric with electric trolley and charging stations. They even have SolarTrees(tm) for you to charge your phone or laptop in the park and demonstrate how solar works.

    This city is west of LaBelle on the way toward Ft Meyers. Very sustainable. Now has several developers building and each home has the “option” to have solar installed.

    Here’s another take with a human touch from FoxNews. Talking about the first people to move into the “city” and the first baby to be born in Babcock Ranch.

    This is a very cool example of how a city can be built from the ground up as sustainable — zero carbon footprint, as it pertains to electricity. There is the obvious question, however, of urban sprawl to suburbia, that has had suburban sprawl.

    In a city, with lots and lots of impermeable surfaces (roofs and parking lots), it would be very possible to retrofit the sustainability solutions.

    Way to go FPL. Within five years (2023), FPL plans to produce more from solar than from coal+NatGas combined. Additionally, FPL’s sister company FPL Energy is the largest wind producer in the US, and 2nd largest in the world. !:-)  … NextEra is the publicly ~$75B market cap holding company (NEE).

    FPL does have some nuclear, with plans and approval for expansion. The Turkey Point plant has been problematic and has its own set of issues. Leaks in the cooling canals, and no real plan for ways to store nuclear waste, has the Sierra Club (a group that should generally be friendly to nuclear) up in arms.  They also don’t like some of the sweet-heart deals for FPL that have been approved (rubber-stamped) by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). The sneaky and deceptive amendment on the Florida ballet last year — a move designed to kill solar — by the southern power companies (in which FPL donated $8m) is still fresh in the minds of Floridians.

    Nuclear in general has issues in the future energy mix. Nuclear is wonderful for base load, but not great as a peaking power source. If/when we move seriously and definitively toward solar in Florida, there should be high renewable energy at various times throughout the day, and none during rain or at night, so nuclear continues to be less effective. See how California is planning the retirement of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and looking for other forms of peaking power as more and more power comes from renewables. Nuclear plants seem to have no plan, of any kind, as to what to do with nuclear wast; the only plan seems to be to hold on-site forever.

    At some point the power monopolies need to deal with the reality that every home and every business can and will generate part or all of their electricity. This means that the future of the grid is connecting power creators with power consumers using a smart grid and dynamic pricing. Part of the day I may be a net producer, part of the night I may be a net consumer. One analogy of this type of Smart Grid is to think of it like the Internet. Sometimes I’m uploading content, sometimes I’m downloading. The Internet directs from where power is produced, to where it is needed. The Smart Grid power company will be more like the Internet Service Provider (ISP) of old by providing power as needed, where needed. The internet of things (IoT), but with power, is essentially what we’re talking about. Maybe the Energy of Everything (EoE)?:-)

    Power companies need a new business model (currently the model is based on ROE with the PSC assuring prices that justify a good return on investment). Producing and selling more and more electricity to make more and more money is a broken model. Building bigger and grander centralized power plants is horribly inefficient; about 60% of energy is lost in the production (steam) and distribution.

    We are really glad to see FPL’s effort into solar. Florida, and NextEra, could do more. Time for the power monopolies to make the change before they get overrun. The power model is changing… Trying to block this massive change is a little like stacking rocks in front of a glacier …

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Mind that matters, misleading AARP… take it or leave it list

    The quick lists of 5 things to do and 5 things not to do
    often provide inaccurate or even misleading information. AARP usually provides
    a nice sound bite of information about various things. Mental health comes up
    every year with a interesting brain
    health infographic
    in October 2016 (discover, connect, move, nourish, and
    relax). The December 2017 edition of AARP had a big section on brain health and
    avoiding Alzheimer’s disease. (Also see risk
    factors related to Alzheimer’s
    .) The Guard
    Your Mental Health section by Marty Munson
    offered a “take it” or “leave
    it” for several items. The thumbs up items were exercise, friends+family, manage
    blood pressure, and nutrition (Mediterranean diet as an example). Evidence
    shows that stimulating your brain met with mixed results; the way how you stimulate
    your brain is important so some things – even listening to music – work better
    than others.
    The last three items really were surprising, and
    questionable.  Don’t sweat the aluminum
    in your antiperspirant since there is no evidence to link the trace aluminum from deodorants to mental health issues. (The lack of friends because
    you don’t use deodorants might also be a factor in the use-vs-don’t-use
    antiperspirant decision.) This is interesting, and it appears to be accurate.
    Trace amounts of aluminum should not be a big issue; aluminum is a very common element
    and we are continually exposed to it.
    The idea to leave Ginseng was intriguing. It does not appear
    to help significantly with brain function; and, as with many supplements, there
    could be side-effects, especially for people with other health factors like
    diabetes. This sent me to look at the Shaklee product, MindWorks®, and the
    active ingredients that are rather strongly promoted with positive research. The ingredients in MindWorks all show pretty strong evidence to
    support a healthier body and brain: chardonnay
    grape seed extract
    , Guarana extract,
    blueberries,
    and green
    coffee bean extract
    . These ingredients have been shown to reduce
    cholesterol, improve blood flow, offer anti-oxidation, and improve cognitive
    function.
    True, Ginseng has very little evidence to contribute to brain
    health (and reduced Alzheimer’s), but many other supplements do. Shaklee
    provides one of the best overviews on the subject of
    Alzheimer’s
    . Of course, general health, is critical. Anti-oxidants like B,
    E, and C are critical. There is a lot of support showing benefits from Gingko. So
    “leave it” related to Ginseng, seems accurate, but highly misleading, because
    it implies that there are no natural health remedies.
    The really big erroneous and misleading factor; however, is the
    “leave it” for supplements. Not to fault Munson, specifically, there are
    several studies that show that people who take supplements are no more healthy
    than those who don’t take any supplements. However, the biggest landmark study on the issue compared
    people who took multiple Shaklee supplements (not just a multivitamin) with
    those who did not take any supplements at all. This landmark study (Block, et al., 2007) was
    conducted in 2007, but ongoing research continues to support its accuracy. The
    people who took the multiple vitamins were far healthier, even compared to
    people taking only a single multivitamin. Being general healthier is also
    directly correlated to brain health.
    Shaklee recommends that people have an active and healthy
    lifestyle. If you don’t consistently eat well, then you should take supplements. For people worried about aging well, Shaklee offers a trifecta of
    products: MindWorks® as discussed above; Vivix® which is a patented resveratrol
    blend that is 13x more effective than resveratrol alone (vs gallons of red wine
    daily); and OmegaGuard® which provides a pharmaceutical grade omega-3 that helps
    to improve heart health. 
    You will notice that many of the labels on Shaklee
    supplements are unique. The DTX
    Liver Health
    ® does not say “active ingredient” it actually says “medicinal” information!
    They can only say that with actual clinical support. MindWorks™ says “Helps
    improve mental sharpness & focus and protect against age-related mental
    decline.**”.
    Resveratrol (Shaklee’s Vivix®) is the one
    supplement you should take for age-related protection. There are literally
    thousands of studies showing the health and age-protection associated with
    resveratrol. You could drink a dozen or so glasses of Muscatine wine (or juice)
    each day which, arguably, might have its own set of side-effects; or you could
    take Vivix. With Vivix being magnitudes (13x) more effective than the available
    resveratrol alternatives, it seems like the best available alternative, even if
    it is a little pricy.
    While we are on the miracle of Vivix,
    there are two new categories of products from Shaklee: Youth™ for
    rejuvenation of skin care which actually rebuilds the collagen layer of the
    skin (without Botox surgery); and treatment for eye health where age-related macular
    degeneration is actually reversed/improved.
    Of 
    course, changes in unhealthy lifestyle should come first, and foremost.
    Quitting smoking, for example, will start saving money instantly, and extend
    your life dramatically.
    Okay, okay. This looks like it is an
    advert for Shaklee. A place that is usually great for unbiased information is
    Wikipedia. But several entries on the Great Wiki in the sky are not only
    misleading, they are inaccurate. Look at the health benefit for resveratrol. Cancer is one sentence that says that resveratrol won’t cure cancer.
    HUH!?? That may, or may not be true, but what about the hundreds of studies
    that show it will lower the risks of you getting cancer in the first place…
    One sentence that misrepresents a single study in 2011 (Fernandez & Fraga)
    to say there is no evidence in any way related to longevity in humans. There is
    evidence in mammals, according to their review of available research, and further research in humans
    will likely find similar support (which this study didn’t find because they apparently
    weren’t looking very hard).
    [At some point, I expect to come back to
    Wikipedia to fix some of these entries, it is in everyone’s best interest to
    have accurate and factual info there; unfortunately, the resveratrol “article”
    requires a total rewrite.]
    So, yes, I trust the Shaklee information
    as a great place to start, and a trustworthy source of nutritional information.
    They are in the business of selling products too, but a well-educated, health
    and wellness conscious consumer/distributor is critical to Shaklee’s mission
    and ongoing success. Shaklee has been producing vitamins/supplement organically
    for decades, environmentally friendly household products for about a century
    and has operated at a zero carbon footprint since Y2K.
    Shaklee is a nice picture of sustainability.
    Living healthier and longer, sounds good too.
    We at SustainZine would like to
    wish you a healthy, wealthy and happy 2018.
    References
    Agustín F. Fernández & Mario F. Fraga (2011) The effects of the dietary polyphenol
    resveratrol on human healthy aging and lifespan
    , Epigenetics, 6:7, 870-874,
    doi: 10.4161/epi.6.7.16499

    Block, G., Jensen, C. D., Norkus, E. P., Dalvi, T. B., Wong,
    L. G., McManus, J. F., & Hudes, M. L. (2007). Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple
    dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study
    . Nutrition Journal, 6(1).
    doi:10.1186/1475-2891-6-30
  • Sustainable Long-term good for R&D, Patents and Profits

    Here’s exerts from the blog over at IPzine, a sister blog spot.

    A recent study shows how long-term focus pays off. This study concentrated on switching the CEO compensation to longer-term. From that point forward, what happened, on average to several things related to the performance over time.

    Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it here.

    The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.

    There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.

    [Methodology and results related to patents is discussed here in the IPzine blog. There are lots of assumptions made about the close vote by the board to align compensation with long-term results in conjunction with the subsequent financial performance of these publicly traded firms. Patents were monitored to see how they cited past patents and the citations of the companies patents in the future. This gives a good proxy of the value of the patents and how revolutionary they are (to the firm).]

    Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.

    There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.
    Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.

    They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.
    We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)…
    Anything else is, well, short-sighted!

    References
    Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.

    Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2016). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2629

  • Long-term good for R&D, Patents and Profits

    A recent study shows how long-term focus pays off. This study concentrated on switching the CEO compensation to longer-term. From that point forward, what happened, on average to several things related to the performance over time.

    Great study was by Flammer and Bansal (2016) and summarized in the WSJ, CEOs should focus on the long term, a study says. Although the study is coming out soon in the Strategic Management Journal, you can find it here.

    The researchers selected companies that were long-term focused based on those companies that had a long-term compensation package presented to the board that was narrowly approved. The narrowly approved implies that this was a bit of a surprise to the executives resulting, potentially, in a paradigm shift toward longer-term focus. The board voting was reviewed from 2005 through 2012 so that there would be room for performance analysis.

    There are many positives related to long-term focus all around. Companies with a long-term focus do better all around (profits, net profit margin, sales, stock price, etc.). Those long-term focus had a statistically significant improvement over the longer term (2 years and longer). Interestingly, they had a small dip insignificant dip in the short term.

    Longer term companies spend more money on R&D, got more patents, had more patents that “flopped” and had more patents that were “hits”. Flops and hits were based on the citations of their issued patents. Lots of citations means hit, not very many means flop. That has issues, but seems acceptable (unless you want to do a market analysis of the patented technologies).
    They also did a analysis of exploratory vs. exploitive. This was based on 80% vs 20% of the patents citations being internal to the company. So if lots of citations in my current patent refer to my own prior technology then it is a incremental, exploitive patent. They used a log scale on the number of patents, so a 0.568 correlation could be extrapolated on a logarithmic scale! A 57% correlation meaning that the decision to go long-term-centric resulted in a 57% positive change in the patents. Because they argue a cause-and-effect, they are an argument for causal correlation.

    Hits and flops of patents is interesting. First, the patent needs to be more disruptive (exploratory) and new to the company. Then the number of references to the patent were reviewed to see if it gets an abnormal amount of citation activity citing it. Flops would be exploratory that get very low citations. They first combined both hits and flops and indicate that total as a share of all (exploratory?) patents. This is statistically correlated at R-squared of 0.571. Trying a lot results in lots of failures and hits.
    Note that the number of flops and the number of hits were statistically correlated: 0.457 and 0.427. This is very interesting, if you aren’t trying, then you aren’t innovating. In this case, long-term focus means that you are trying and getting a good splattering of both. (They use the methodology here of Azoulay et al., 2011)

    Verdict. Boards should focus on long-term for compensation. This means that they have to be willing to take lesser profits in the short term.

    There are also very strong correlations to the KLD factors, collectively and all four components: employees, environment, consumers and society.
    Verdict. Corporations should focus on sustainable, long-term targets for goals and for compensation.

    They have some limitations to this study, but they also combine it with good literature support for long-term-centric management practices. And minimizing the principle-agent problem common to executive compensation.
    We want everyone highly motivated by the long-term, sustainable success of businesses (& not-for-profits & Gov)…
    Anything else is, well, short-sighted!

    References
    Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2011). Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics 42(3): 527–554.

    Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2016). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2629