Tagged with sustainable development

My Two Decades of Professional Life Was a Fraud

The following article was kindly written and contributed by Mr Gilbert Guaring, Head of Marketing and Communications, UAP (Urban Art Projects | uapcompany.com) and Founder and Chief Executive at Be Extraordinary! (be-extraordinary.co)

At the end of last year, I was fortunate to be a finalist at Griffith University and Queensland Business Monthly’s Responsible Leadership MBA Scholarship. Even though I didn’t get the main prize, I was awarded a scholarship to the value of three courses enabling me to set in motion my dreams of graduate school. I said to myself, “what can go wrong?”

11th of February 2019 – my first day at grad school, I had a feeling that I will be the oldest person in the class, but I was still very confident and in my usual stubbornly optimistic spirits. I have to tell you; I was a geek back in secondary school and at university. My favourite subject includes Arts, Mathematics, Physics and Sports. With this understanding, I’m pretty sure I will be fine and I question myself again, “what can go wrong?” I feel my confidence building up.

Not until Professor Nick Barter entered the room, the course he teaches – Sustainability and Systems Thinking. And to be clear, our definition of sustainability isn’t only about the environment but everything under United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals. And on the other hand, systems thinking is our awareness to see the connections and relationships between parts and wholes rather than looking at discrete and isolated parts. The course profile is pretty straight-forward; it teaches students sustainable business practices and why it is an integral element in creating organisations that will not only succeed but thrive in the 21st century. Very unambiguous, simple, and I assume with my work background and professional experience with top multinational companies, how and where can I possibly go wrong? Well, I think my professional experience is the crux of my problem.

If you haven’t done this course or something similar, I encourage you to do it. Sustainability and Systems Thinking course is confronting, challenging, inspiring and empowering. The learning you get and apply can make or break companies of all sizes. Sustainability and Systems Thinking challenges convention and encourage critical thinking. Now, I have to be very clear; I wasn’t told by Griffith Business School to talk about their sustainability class or their MBA. After every session with Professor Barter, I’m reminded that the business strategies of the past were fundamentally flawed, and marketing and communication was the “propaganda” enabling businesses to misuse our resources, resulting in our current environmental and societal issues.

Yes, I am upset.

Here I am, managing influential brands that connect with people. Here I am, developing brand strategies to deliver world-class creative output for brand engagement and progress. Here I am, mentoring young and driven “executives” concepts of business, marketing and communications that were all derived from thinking without any connection to sustainability or most importantly systems approach.

Barry Commoner’s Law of Ecology says it all:

  • Everything is connected to everything else. There is one ecosphere for all living organisms and what affects one, affects all.
  • Everything must go somewhere. There is no “waste” in nature, and there is no “away” to which things can be thrown.
  • Nature knows best. Humankind has fashioned technology to improve upon nature, but such change in a natural system is, says Commoner, “likely to be detrimental to that system.”
  • There is no such thing as a free lunch. The exploitation of nature will inevitably involve the conversion of resources from useful to useless forms.

In 1971, Commoner suggested that the American economy should be reconstructed to the unbending laws of ecology. You can read more about it and either you believe these laws or not, but with what’s happening to our planet now I am pretty sure Commoner is looking at us and chuckling, “I told you so!”

Now you can see why I am agitated.

If we stop treating these sciences – marketing, ecology, sustainability, accounting, economics and business, in silos and make them “talk to one another”; treat them like one living, symbiotic organisation then there will be no wrong and misleading concepts that we have now been teaching countless generations of students and professionals.

For example, Compounded Annual Growth Rate (my clients love concepts of double-digit CAGR!) is a lie because our resources are not limitless. Earth is a tiny blue dot, a closed system. There are limits, so it isn’t sustainable or sensible to grow your business year on year. The antiquated concepts of business growth, market share, stakeholder, effectiveness and even supply and demand (and more) should be removed from our lexicon.

How about brand performance metrics? The last I checked, most of our influential and profitable brands do not have sustainability and systems thinking as part of their success criteria. Most of them self-regulates via other CSR programs hoping it “cancels” out the negative impact that they do. The success of businesses are still heavily measured on financial achievements, and without any weight on sustainability. These are businesses we put on a pedestal. They are supposed to be business leaders some of them are even treated as heroes by small and medium-sized enterprises. But how are we also defining heroes and leaders nowadays?

So, rather than go on and on with my meltdown, I want to end this rant with three things:

  1. To my ex-colleagues, whom I have mentored, and they are too many to mention – I am sorry. I taught you the wrong approach to business. I ask you to wake-up, remove antiquated business concepts and be responsible business leaders. You must consider sustainability the next time you author your future marketing and communications strategy, talk to your Managing Director or present to your Board of Directors. As business leaders of the 21st century, we must have systematic thinking to problem-solving so that we create strong links between marketing, accounting, economics, sustainability, ethics and governance.
  2. A call to all marketers – we need to change this. We were part of the problem, and this is now our issue to solve. There’s no need for consumers to buy more or spend more. There’s no
    need to create artificial psychological value to products to confuse buyers. Businesses need to work together and stop treating each other as competitors. Remember, there are limited
    resources so everyone will need to learn to share, collaborate and exist harmoniously.
  3. Lastly, a call to the scholars and academics – can we move past the theories of yesteryear and create a new truth that celebrates and embeds sustainability in contemporary business practices. Moreover, if we are teaching old methods, we must frame them within the context of that time. Professor Barter would say, “Treat these concepts as stories… treat it as versions of truth at that time… understand the context…”

 

The Road Ahead to Building a More Sustainable World

“The Garden of Eden is no more”, Sir David Attenborough told Davos 2019 as he delivered his verdict on the destruction that humanity has inflicted on the natural world. Sir David also offered hope, noting that we humans are a “problem-solving species”, but he reiterated that we have just a decade to solve climate change.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres mirrored these sentiments in his “State of the World” address. Megatrends such as climate change are more and more interlinked, he said, but responses are fragmented. He warned that not tackling this was “a recipe for disaster”.

While few of us should need reminding on how pressing the issue of fighting climate change is, what surprised me was how this concern permeated all aspects of the conversation on sustainable development at Davos. And much was up for discussion, from inequality, biodiversity loss and the challenges of reskilling in the face of automation, to global governance, cyber security, food systems and the future of the financial system, to name but a few.

New ways to realise the Sustainable Development Goals

Technology and finance – the main enablers of the advancement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the coming years – were centre-stage. Even the most technologically challenged of us would be awed by the discussions outlining the potential of artificial intelligence, big data and blockchain to make the world a better place. The variety of game-changing ideas in this area opened eyes – and mouths. They ranged from a project to protect airports and critical infrastructure from cyberattacks to encouraging businesses to play their part in realizing the SDGs by incorporating the goals into their business model.

The Road Ahead to Building a More Sustainable World

Image courtesy of the World Economic Forum

Of course, disruptive technology is not a silver bullet for achieving the SDGs, and its associated risks, as well as its benefits, were prominently featured. But the Fourth Industrial Revolution can help accelerate progress towards the SDGs. At the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), we are working to ensure that economies in developing countries can harness innovation to eliminate extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity.

In concrete terms, we have just launched Accelerator Labs in 60 developing countries to identify and connect problem-solvers across the world, using both local networks and data from novel sources, ranging from social media to satellite imagery. We want to support innovators such as Dana Lewis, who created open-source tools to manage Type 1 diabetes, or people like the entrepreneurs who built floating farms in flood-prone Bangladesh.

The Accelerator Labs will become integral to UNDP’s existing country-based teams and infrastructure. They will enable UNDP to connect its global network and development expertise that spans 170 countries with a more agile innovation capacity, to support countries in their national development priorities, ultimately working towards a wide range of SDGs.

Innovative finance

The topic of finance was rarely absent from my exchanges with government representatives and corporate leaders. “Innovative finance” in particular dominated conversations, from its ability to support migrants and refugees to the potential of so-called “initial coin offerings” to fund the next generation of high-growth companies.

We explored ways to attract finance to the SDGs, as well as the need to set up robust impact management processes and tools to identify companies that make economic, social and governance practices part of their DNA. Those sorts of changes could influence companies’ investment flows so they, in turn, are more likely to align with the SDGs.

Connecting the dots between technology and finance, the UN Secretary-General’s Task Force on Digital Financing for the SDGs had its first face-to-face meeting. The role of the Task Force, which I co-chair with Maria Ramos, the CEO of Absa Group in South Africa, is to recommend strategies to harness the potential of financial technology to advance the SDGs.

This article was originally published by the World Economic Forum. Click here to continue reading entire article.

SECURE YOUR PLACE AT THE 2019 NATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY CONFERENCE THIS APRIL!

Hear from experts in all facets of sustainability as they discuss the challenges, opportunities, advancements and progress for sustainability in Australia.
View the 2019 program here. 

If We Can’t Recycle It, Why Not Turn Our Waste Plastic Into Fuel?

Australia’s recycling crisis needs us to look into waste management options beyond just recycling and landfilling. Some of our waste, like paper or organic matter, can be composted. Some, like glass, metal and rigid plastics, can be recycled. But we have no immediate solution for non-recyclable plastic waste except landfill.

At a meeting last month, federal and state environment ministers endorsed an ambitious target to make all Australian packaging recyclable, compostable or reusable by 2025. But the ministers also showed support for processes to turn our waste into energy, although they did not specifically discuss plastic waste as an energy source.

The 100% goal could easily be achieved if all packaging were made of paper or wood-based materials. But realistically, plastic will continue to dominate our packaging, especially for food, because it is moisture-proof, airtight, and hygienic.

Most rigid plastic products can only be recycled a few times before they lose their original properties and become non-recyclable. Even in European countries with strict waste management strategies, only 31% of plastic waste is recycled.

Worldwide plastic production is predicted to increase by 3.8% every year until 2030. Flexible, non-recyclable plastic materials are used in an increasing range of applications like packaging, 3D printing, and construction.

We need to expand our range of options for keeping this plastic waste out of landfill. One potential approach is “plastic to energy”, which unlocks the chemical energy stored in waste plastic and uses it to create fuel.

How plastic to energy works

Plastic is made from refined crude oil. Its price and production are dictated by the petrochemical industry and the availability of oil. As oil is a finite natural resource, the most sustainable option would be to reduce crude-oil consumption by recycling the plastic and recovering as much of the raw material as possible.

There are two types of recycling: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical recycling involves sorting, cleaning and shredding plastic to make pellets, which can then be fashioned into other products. This approach works very well if plastic wastes are sorted according to their chemical composition.

Chemical recycling, in contrast, turns the plastic into an energy carrier or feedstock for fuels. There are two different processes by which this can be done: gasification and pyrolysis.

Gasification involves heating the waste plastic with air or steam, to produce a valuable industrial gas mixtures called “synthesis gas”, or syngas. This can then be used to produce diesel and petrol, or burned directly in boilers to generate electricity.

In pyrolysis, plastic waste is heated in the absence of oxygen, which produces mixture of oil similar to crude oil. This can be further refined into transportation fuels.

Gasification and pyrolysis are completely different processes to simply incinerating the plastic. The main goal of incineration is simply to destroy the waste, thus keeping it out of landfill. The heat released from incineration might be used to produce steam to drive a turbine and generate electricity, but this is only a by-product.

Gasification and pyrolysis can produce electricity or fuels, and provide more flexible ways of storing energy than incineration. They also have much lower emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides than incineration.

Currently, incineration plants are viewed as an alternative energy supply source and a modern way of driving a circular economy, particularly in Japan, South Korea and China, where land is valuable and energy resources are scarce. In other countries, although waste incineration is common practice, the debate around human health impacts, supply issues and fuel trade incentives remains unresolved.

This article was originally published by The Conversation. Click here to read the entire piece.

Interested in the future sustainability practices of our cities?

The 2018 Liveable Cities Conference heads to Melbourne this July for two days of inspiring speakers, captivating presentations and a variety of networking activities.

Now in its eleventh year, this Conference will continue to explore the livability of our metropolitan and regional urban centres.

Find out more about this year’s program here.

3D Modelling for Communicating Urban Revitalisation

3D Modelling for Communicating Urban Revitalisation – A Local Government Experience

Two years have now passed since City of Launceston finished constructing and began working with the 3D virtual model of Launceston running in Urban Engine software.  The final product has lived up to expectations as a tool for communicating urban revitalisation and more.  Since that time, the model has grown in detail with the addition of Aero3DPro building model data, street scape design concepts, building proposals, future development buildings and massing models.

Beyond the initial scope of supporting the Launceston City Heart project, the model has proven to be a practical tool for evaluating designs during planning meetings, allowing exploration of designs issues and scenarios in an iterative manner. It has been useful for exploring massing models of the proposed new University of Tasmania campus buildings, surrounding access roads and the impact on the landscape.   All this is often created on-the-fly in a short space of time, even during a meeting, and this is where the model really proves its worth in galvanising consensus and understanding in a short space of time, often solving perceived problems very quickly.

Alexander Crothers

It the coming weeks, the model will be transitioning from its current hardware platform – a high end gaming Laptop –  to a hosted cloud platform to enable greater access from any computer or meeting room with a good internet connection, thus improving access to the model and simplifying updates and maintenance.

The paper ‘3D Modelling for Communicating Urban Revitalisation – A Local Government Experience’ which was submitted for the 2016 Liveable Cities Conference sets out to clarify that project managing the creating a 3D model is not a simple matter and relies heavily on a small team of people with specialist skills and knowledge as well as coordinating specialist consultancies.

Additionally the ongoing maintenance and return on the considerable investment in the model relies on ongoing development and support by these skilled staff.  The author of the paper hopes to present enough detail to assist others, especially in local government, to understand the pitfalls and focus areas to build similar successful 3D model systems.

Article provided by Alexander Crothers, Spatial & Investigations Manager for the City of Launceston

Bringing Venture Capitalism to Sustainable Development

Reforestation of Field of Trees in Clearing

It’s no secret that people are generous. They give their time, talent and treasure to support a wide range of philanthropic efforts. But in many cases NGOs are not achieving the speed and scale necessary to address the key issues of our time. Just like in business, pilots are often created but private and public sector organizations often struggle to go beyond the pilot stage as reported by John Friedman.

Today some NGOs are asking if they can create a new model, based on the success of venture capital, which drives innovations to scale? And what would that look like?

Some businesses and NGOs set goals, define strategies and tactics and measure their success against those implementation targets rather than the desired results or outcomes. But venture capitalists focus on “the freedom to succeed.” They define and agree on desired results but allow some flexibility on strategy and how those goals are to be achieved.

By setting milestones for outcomes, they shift thinking from the processes, practices or tools to whether or not achieving the desired results is happening at scale.

Earlier this year World Wildlife Fund (WWF) launched a new effort, the Markets Institute. This is a new platform that convenes stakeholders from across the food sector to explore market-based, results-oriented strategies to “optimize global food sector sustainability.” This ‘freedom to succeed,’ informs the model of the Institute.

Sounding like an entrepreneur, Jason Clay, Ph.D, Executive Director, of WWF’s Markets Institute explains; “you should pursue multiple strategies in the first year; then double-down on what works, abandon what doesn’t, and come up with new ideas.”

As an example he talks about the issue of deforestation which, despite decades of awareness, activism and efforts remains an ongoing problem around the world. Clay looks at it from a Venture Capital (VC) perspective. As the originator of ‘rainforest marketing’ in the late 1980s, he wanted to prove that the value of forests when generating income from the sale of Brazil nuts and other forest products was higher than from the same land converted to pasture. In fact, as a source of Brazil nuts, an acre of forest generates six times more income than an acre of pasture.

According to Clay, this effort which would have been considered a success because it generated more income and preserved forests actually “failed because it didn’t transform the larger paradigm of converting forests to pasture which still dominates thinking 25 years later.”

Today, some banks are starting to put environmental, social and governance criteria on their loans. And they are also looking for those ‘strategic intervention points’ where the actions of one person – or one company – saying/doing something causes a cascade, such as the cocoa traders offering a single place or way to reach a larger group of producers. If one identifies those places in the value chain, it offers a greater potential for change rather than individual entities. To read more click here.