The social construction of climate change

This week has seen the thin veneer of rational discourse about carbon reduction targets and financial implications of climate change responses truly blown apart as the so-called ‘climate change debate’ moves out of the realm of scientific peer-reviewed research and into brazen name-calling. Near libellous assaults are volleyed from all sides as the language of science drowns in the cacophony of pseudo-religious idiom – ‘denier’, ‘evangelist’, ‘convert’.

This week’s Spectator makes the audacious claim that it is the ’still, small voice of calm’ amidst the madness, and yet liberally sprinkles it’s varied contributions with lines like ‘climate change has mutated from a debate into a catechism’, and ‘the climate change debate in Britain exhibits the hallmarks of a collective craze. Asking dispassionate questions is not sacrilegious’. I find this use of language fascinating. Particularly in Western democracies, and even more so in the Boardroom, the moral ground is won by appearing to offer the most rational argument, delivered unemotionally and with reference to ‘objective evidence’. This, after all, is the foundation of scientific discourse.  But clearly we cannot step outside of, or ‘bystand’ such a discourse, whilst we comment upon it. Whatever language we choose to use – bitter recrimination, zealous advocate, logical dispassionate – we are taking a position and constructing an argument.

Our choices – about how we analyse and interpret the scientific data, how we choose to act upon what we learn – however objective they may seem, are still founded upon deep-rooted and socially constructed belief systems. And it’s only when we are willing to question our own assumptions publicly that we can honestly participate in this debate.

Ashridge makes contribution to Copenhagen climate negotiations

Ashridge has made its own small but direct contribution to the COP15 Copenhagen climate negotiations beginning today. Two weeks ago, Ashridge was invited to participate in a United Nations forum convened at Copenhagen Business School on climate change and the implications for management education, as a feed-in event to the Copenhagen negotiations. Ashridge Chief Executive Kai Peters was invited to speak on a panel with peers from Bentley College in the US, China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), St Gallen and others, and I was also delighted to be invited to introduce a corporate panel with representatives from Novo Nordisk and Vattenfall, and summarise recent Ashridge research about CEO expectations regarding leadership development, management education and the role of business schools. (you can read more about this at http://www.ashridge.org.uk/globalleaders)

Manuel Escudero, speaking on behalf of the United Nations, said that business schools had not kept up with the pace of change as companies refocus on the commercial opportunities that will be at stake in the third industrial revolution – the transition to a low carbon economy. Business schools, he said, have a tremendous opportunity to create inspiring learning opportunities by focusing the creative energies of the next generation of business leaders on the commercial opportunities of the great challenges of our time. 

To achieve this, Kai Peters commented, business schools must look at four issues around curriculum content: issues of sustainability must be substantial, universal to all participants on programmes rather than “elective”, applied and discussion-based rather than only theoretical and, finally, integrated into all subject areas. 

The two day conference, which also featured contributions from McKinsey, KPMG and IBM, was convened to draft a declaration that is going to be presented to the conference chair at the start of the United Nations COP15 climate negotiations. The declaration states that “business schools around the world call upon political leaders to agree to an ambitious global climate treaty at COP15.” The declaration states that, to effectively support an ambitious climate framework, business schools agree they should integrate climate-related topics into the heart of the management education curriculum, lead research into the changing role of business in a low carbon economy, and lead by example by greening their own campuses, with an aim to reduce green house gas emissions by 40% by 2020 and reach carbon neutrality by 2030. 

You can read the full declaration here: 

The Copenhagen Conference Declaration: A Call to Action for Management Education

1010 Campaign Admits Bomb Maker

Apparently the 1010 climate change campaign has caused controversy by allowing a missile maker to join ….

I don’t mind much…. But it does reminds me of “Analyse This” in which Billy Crystal is a therapist called in to treat mob boss Robert de Niro …. Crystal asks, “so what’s the outcome from these sessions? That you end up being a happy well adjusted gangster?” ….

Personally I can see why 10:10 can sign up the missile maker and not the airport – that makes sense within their measurement system ….

But this just reminds us of the dangers of target setting and the problem of focusing on false proxies … We measure what we can measure whether it matters or not… And when we set measures to focus on, we know that we then fail to spot gorillas.   Let’s not forget that CO2 is a symptom …. and all of the work around climate (important though it is) is about symptom fixing ….

We have the “us and them / binary / axis of evil” mentality in which we believe that bombs can “work” in addressing world issues. With this mental map we won’t have a chance of addressing the fragmentation at the root of the split between humanity and the rest of the natural world …. 

So ultimately I don’t care much who 10:10 lets in or keeps out.

I do care that we don’t end up fantasising we can continue to operate an insane “take,make, trash” system so long as we control carbon

We can’t, we haven’t got enough planet to do it on. 

All that will lead to is killing ourselves and lots of our fellow “other than human” co-dwellers, in a frenzy to control the very last drops and grains of earth “resources”  …. all using carbon free bombs of course….

Chris Nichols

December 2009

Delusion is the solution, apparently ….

 Political speeches at the CBI conference break free of reality ….

 I have a problem with what Gordon Brown and David Cameron have been saying recently. Keen to compete on “fiscal reality” they have both offered budgetary toughness and plans for debt repayment. The trouble is the debt repayment plan requires a return to “growth”.

 I don’t like to be the messenger of doom, but we need old style “growth” like we need a return to business as usual. We can afford neither.

 All governments of the post-war era have colluded to build a society where we measure our well-being by what we buy, consume and earn. We have replaced community and family with ASBOs and ISAs. It hasn’t worked yet and it can’t work in the future.

 We have just one planet and it is plain stupid to place all our chips on a strategy for survival that depends on infinite energy and infinite mineral resources. We have neither. We need a more resilient way. Certainly not one based on ever more extraction, production, consumption and waste, with all the biosphere carnage and social injustice that goes with it.

 George Osborne ⁽¹⁾ writes that a Conservative Treasury “will be a green ally, not a foe”. Good. Start by measuring national wellbeing by something less addictively illusory than economic growth.

 Whoever rules, there are hellishly tough questions to be addressed. Let’s start by ending the delusion that we can grow our way out of this crisis. It is our addiction to growth that got us here in the first place.

Chris Nichols

December 2009

 (1)     Source: The Independent, Tuesday 24^th November 2009

“The Name is Bond, High Income Bond”:

Credit Agricole is right, it is time for Green Banking. But let’s be sure what we mean ….

 Credit Agricole, the major global bank has signed Sean Connery to front its drive into “Green Banking”. Claiming a “new business model” focused on “responsible growth, with a reduced risk profile”, the campaign launch is accompanied by an apocalyptic video (see

http://www.credit-agricole.com/greenbanking/english/)

 The movie is high on special effects, light on plot. What is Credit Agricole actually planning to do here?

 They are certainly right that the world needs green banking. But I worry that the business model of major banks may fall somewhat short of the respect for life and the biosphere that we desperately need.

 The current fashion rush to get active around climate change does not address the depth of crises we are facing. Banking that invests in the continued stoking of consumer led growth can only ever be part of the problem, no matter how green it gets painted.

 We are enmeshed in crises of habitat loss, species extinction and food supply that raise policy challenges to make the current financial and fiscal crises look trivial. All of us, business and wider society alike need to learn how to become resilient in the face of multiple threats caused by our current activities of resource use and wastage. Climate change is an important symptom and must be addressed. But addressing climate change alone is to misunderstand the issue. A more difficult systemic assessment is necessary.

 If green banking is to be worth the name, it needs to be banking that breaks with our global addiction to growth as a solution for all ills, to break our addiction to the production and consumption as the source of wellbeing.

 Is Credit Agricole part of the solution? I really do hope so. But it will take more than a movie and the signing of “Bond, corporate Bond” to convince me.

 Chris Nichols

December 2009

Swedish State Secretary for Energy, Enterprise and Communications presents Ashridge Sustainable Innovation Award

The winners of the 2009 Ashridge Sustainable Innovation award have just been announced. The award is an essay competition run in association with the European Academy of Business in Society (EABIS), Hewlett-Packard (HP) and WWF.  Jonathan Alexander, a Masters student from the University of Bath, was awarded first place, with Luc Petit from Ashridge Business School placing second and Srikanth Madani from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland coming third.

The award seeks the best ideas from MBA and other post-graduate students on sustainable innovation and creating value from the shift to a low carbon economy. Jonathan received the top prize for his entry: €7,000, a six-month mentorship with HP and career advice from Spencer Stuart. Luc and Srikanth also receive career advice from Spencer Stuart as well as €5000 and €3000 respectively. All three winners were presented with their awards by Jöran Hägglund, Swedish State Secretary for Enterprise, Energy and Communications, on behalf of the Swedish Presidency of the European Union at the EU Presidency conference ‘Eco-efficient Economy – Towards Innovative and Sustainable Competitiveness’ held in Linköping, Sweden on 2 November 2009.

Presenting the prizes, Mr Hägglund said “To successfully transition to a low carbon economy, we need to harness and focus the creative and entrepreneurial energies of today’s and tomorrow’s leaders. The focus is frequently on the importance of technological innovation, but a necessary precondition for this innovation to occur is that we change the way we think, and see not problems but opportunities, and focus our creative energies in this direction. Europe’s business schools have a crucial role to play in making this happen. This is why the European Union is supporting organisations like EABIS and why I’m delighted to present this award on behalf of the Swedish Presidency of the European Union.”

Matthew Gitsham, Director of Ashridge’s Centre for Business and Sustainability, added “As we’ve celebrated our 50th anniversary at Ashridge this year and look to the future, we believe the role of a business school in the 21st Century is to be an incubator of creativity and innovation, and to be focusing the entrepreneurial energies of today’s and tomorrow’s leaders on the challenges and opportunities of sustainable development. We are therefore delighted to have been able to work in a unique partnership with HP, WWF and EABIS to create the Ashridge Sustainable Innovation Award.

“HP is delighted to support the Ashridge Sustainable Innovation Award,” said Gabriele Zedlmayer, Vice President, HP Global Citizenship and Social Innovation, speaking to coincide with the ceremony. “We believe it is very important for students not just to think about the sustainability challenges that await them when they enter their professions, but also to recognise the opportunities that they have to actively contribute to a low carbon economy.”

The winners were chosen by an independent panel of judges including Sir Paul Judge, Benefactor of Judge Business School, Viscount Etienne Davignon, Vice-Chair, Suez-Tractebel, Eric Cornuel, Director General, EFMD, Jeanette Purcell, Chief Executive, Association of MBAs, Della Bradshaw, Executive Education Editor, Financial Times, Kai Peters, Chief Executive, Ashridge, Dennis Pamlin, Policy Advisor, WWF, Tom Dodd, Policy Advisor, European Commission, Gabriele Zedlmayer, Vice President, HP Global Citizenship and Social Innovation, Anthony J Vardy, Spencer Stuart, and Rachel Jackson, ACCA.

As part of this award WWF visited key partner universities of HP and EABIS in the Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom in winter 2008 and in 2009  to engage tomorrow’s leaders in discussions about innovation for a sustainable future. Around 500 students participated in the workshops that have taken place to date.

The winning and shortlisted entries have been published by ACCA, and can be downloaded from www.ashridge.org.uk/SustainableInnovation

Negotiating by numbers – Far from certainty and agreement in Copenhagen

“Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted” – Albert Einstein

 

With the current climate negotiations about to open formally in Copenhagen next week, we at Ashridge are looking on with interest, excitement and some trepidation. In particular at how 15,000 delegates can be successfully brought into effective dialogue and participation, to get their diverse voices and needs heard.

 

We frequently use a model here at Ashridge, derived from the work of Ralph Stacey and Bill Critchley, that considers what happens in social interactions when we are far from certainty and far from agreement. It’s a model that draws on complexity thinking and I find it an invaluable framework for understanding what is going on in Copenhagen right now.

 

We are far from certainty about the impacts of climate change: Whilst there is overwhelming consensus among the scientific community now that climate change is happening, that extreme weather events will become more frequent, and that rapid global de-carbonising of society is necessary, exactly how specific locations will be affected can only be considered in terms of probabilities.

 

We are far from agreement about how to respond: As Mike Hulme has pointed out, even if we can agree on how to interpret the science (and that’s a matter of much debate), we still have the issue of response, and how our framing of that response is constructed through our local cultural norms and social interactions. The ‘essential’ questions that need answers in Copenhagen look seductively rational at first glance…

 

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?

2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?

3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?

4. How is that money going to be managed?   (Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC).

 

…. but the answers hinge upon some deeply entrenched and often unquestioned assumptions about some very non-rational and potentially emotive issues: about social responsibility across human-constructed borders and across generations; about blame, shame and justice; about ownership, property and individual identity; and about our attitudes to risk, probability and leadership. I could go on.

 

However, as Fred Pearce is keen to point out this week, ‘there is good news too’. We have demonstrated historically our human capacity for pretty rapid societal change – just consider the technological and social changes of the last 50 years.

 

And as Stacey and Critchley have discussed (link?), systems that are far from certainty and far from agreement – that are at the ‘edge of chaos’ – have an incredible capacity for creativity and the flourishing of innovation. As we move out towards the far reaches away from certainty and agreement, and just before we tip into complete chaos, radical change is possible.  But it’s possible if we are willing to surface and question our own assumptions about how the world is and should be, experiment with new thinking and engage in novel ways, and yet with some clarity of purpose. There has never been such an urgent need to do so, and such opportunity to fundamentally shift our global political, economic and social paradigm.

 

Happy? “I have FOUR colour Tv’s!!”

CSR 09 Romania, appears, when you speak with many of the attendees, to have been a great success, yet the conference organisers seem to think otherwise. “Why is it these people keep coming to present to us, ignore our request for practical tools and methodologies on specific topics, and simply give us a 101 in CSR and tell us how great they are?”

I would add to this, many of the presentations were generally one way generic communications, made worse by the invasive use of MP4s. For example; the internal communications (and crisis) manager for DuPont Eastern Europe preceded her homemade video presentation (accompanied by the mandatory rock muzak) showing various internally referenced motivational messages and pictures of community volunteering by saying “you will enjoy this”!

What foreign presenters, to my mind, seem to fail to realise (again and again) is that a great number of Romanians are (and for generations have been) incredibly well educated, and they are also quick to grasp new ideas, highly sceptical, and require a great deal more meaningful engagement and debate around the CSR agenda in order to judge its appropriateness for their national cultural and political context. Alexandra and I have agreed to provide the organisers with some Ashridge Consulting style design ideas for next year’s event to help support such conditions.

One of the highlights of the day was a presentation from presidential candidate Mircea Geoană, a very polished Obama-esque, ex Romanian Ambassador, and a friend of Joe Stiglitz, with four years in the US under his belt. His per-election arguments and rhetoric appeared eminently sensible as did his calls for more transparency in Government in response to a question from the money channel news anchor Eli Roman around the social responsibility of central government. At this point faint sniggers could be heard though from an all Romanian table close by. They evidently didn’t believe a word of what he is saying. The word “transparency” in Romania cuts little sway nowadays it seems, standing for more corruption, more exploitation and more self-serving. The presentation ends with a crowd pleasing plea for us help him to develop a framework for CSR for Romanian operating companies if he gets elected (highly likely from what I understand). I worry the word “CSR” is going the same way as “transparency” before it.

I continue to be curious about happiness and included elements of positive psychology in my own presentation on social innovation and business model intimacy (let me know if you would like a copy!). In the cab to the airport, I asked the taxi driver:

“Are you happier now under capitalism than you were under communism?”

He replies “Back then if I wanted a colour tv I had to wait for six months. I got my first colour tv in 1988 and it was made in Romania. If I wanted a car I had to wait two years. Now I have four tvs and a foreign car”.

I repeat “You didn’t answer my question. Are you happier?”

He changes his tone “Nicolae Ceauşescu was a great man, he did everything for the people, he paid off the country’s debts completely so we could become the World Bank to the Arab Nations. In those days I had no debt; I worked less, had long holidays and went to lots of parties. Now we are stressed and struggling to pay our personal debts and have no time. This morning I awoke at two o’clock worrying and stressed before starting my work at four.”

“Would you prefer to turn the clock back?” I ask

“No, not really, but capitalism is not working for us. Something in the middle is what we need.” He said. “I think China have a far better model”

“Funny” I say, “Your presidential candidate said that too!”

CSR Catholicism and the Legacy of Communism – Romania CSR 09

Dear Ashridge,

Hello from CSR 09 Bucharest

I am here for day two of the event which appears to me to be leagues ahead of the similar event held this time last year. Bucharest itself is having a tough time having gone through a hugely dramatic boom and bust cycle over the last two years with little Government stewardship to provide confidence for further inward investment. Despite this the stunning SAS Radisson shelters all signs of the struggle and we begin day two with a discussion around “Ecological Intelligence”.

The title for this post relates to a dinner conversation I had last night with two local Romanian’s, both highly educated, and both hugely sceptical of CSR and more than that human nature itself.  “Fundamentally we are weak and selfish and CSR is something large companies need do in order to continue to pursue these selfish ends”.

As you might imagine the conversation was quite challenging. If you assume that all people are inherently selfish and individualistic (reinforced here by religious and communist influences) any argument for CSR or sustainable business, unless clearly delivering to this selfish need is a little futile. Yet despite this we continue to find great examples of companies that are doing otherwise. Not in Romania perhaps!

Fortunately a meeting with the Head of Sustainability for Acciona provided a little salvation. In just 15 years (partly driven by the need to diversify into counter cyclical markets) Acciona has structurally transformed itself from a road building construction company to the second biggest producer of wind turbines in the world. Of course, whilst this could also be seen as selfish I would imagine that in 1994, betting this much on renewable energy was a somewhat corageous move!

I look forward to Juan describing this in more detail later today. Perhaps a case for the Leading Organisations of Tomorrow Research Matt??

Leadership for tomorrow’s organisation

 

Leadership for tomorrow’s organisation

I am preparing the literature search element of a research project on “leadership and tomorrow’s organisations”. This research will be particularly related to sustainability. At this stage I am looking at writings which seek to define leadership from a wide range of perspectives, including

• Henry Mintzberg’s new book “Management” says that managers lead some of the time and leaders manage some of the time. Leading is a relatively small part of how they spend their time, not the whole of the job for anyone.
• Ron Heifetz of Harvard, Kennedy School of Government, writes or co-writes three books, which, with another by Sharon Parks illustrating his approach of creating situations where participants experience what is involved in leadership, discovering what it means in terms of attitudes relationships and activities. He distinguishes between the purely technical means of management and the adaptive leadership which has to deal with situations in areas where there is no ready answer. Leaders should not impose their own solutions but enable people to own the problems and develop their own solutions.
• The University of Hertfordshire under the “leadership” of Ralph Stacey, denies that an organisation has any kind of living existence, such as that propounded by Arie de Geus in “The Living Company”. Organisations are not run by leaders top down, but develop out of local conversations by all employees at all levels, so that the organisation is self developed at the edge of chaos, as nature is said to be by complexity theory. Individuals on their own don’t change things – it is the power of these conversations and relationships; they are somehow the energy for change. The question remains whether some individual leaders are needed to avoid descent into chaos. I have been unable to understand why Stacey et al are so hostile to systems thinking as presented by Michael C Jackson, Russell Ackoff and Peter Senge.
• Bill Tate in “the Search for leadership”, just out, says, in effect that we don’t need leaders, but leadership, which can emerge in all sorts of situations at all kinds of level in an organisation. This could fit with the Stacey view, except that Tate roots it in systems thinking, which Stacey belittles. I haven’t finished Tate yet. It promises to be a good book, which I will review on the VLRC (Some of the Stacey stable is being reviewed and Mintzberg’s latest. Heifetz has already been reviewed.)

Other books and articles being considered include those by Adair, such as “Leaders not bosses”,  Kotter’s best book in my view is his parable of the Penguins whose iceberg was melting and whose problem was solved by one who was seen as a non leader, with the blessing of one of the formal leaders. This could be quite relevant. Some of Kotter’s books are somewhat mechanistic revolving around his seven or eight points.

 

One question that frequently emerges is the doubt whether one can put manager and leader into different categories.  Organisational learning expounded by Senge and others is not favoured by Stacey, because as organisations don’t exist as entities they can’t learn, according to him, though individuals don’t learn either, other than in relationship.

 

Also relevant to everyone being involved in leadership is the approach of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Environmentalists tend to seek to influence organisations to change course or persuade people to take small carbon reduction steps which will make them feel good. The best way according to the WWF is to work on changing people’s central values, so that they in turn will insist on action being taken by government. Hearts and minds being involved are stronger than mere checklists. They are working on changing the quality of the thinking of the population, so that they will insist that Governments act. Thus the whole population has a share in leading governments to do something. Leadership is enshrined in the people, which is the essence of democracy. Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

 

This has certain similarities with Stacey’s leadership stemming from the relationship between the mass of people almost mystically having an effect. But probably the media has a greater effect, and the basis of its work is not the instilling of the highest values, but the supporting of a favoured party to win elections. Perhaps the WWF is being highly idealistic and has a high view of human identity that is not generally borne out in practice. However  perhaps the only answer to environmental concerns is when we, the people, are led to lead our government to take uncomfortable but needed action  

 

Most of the authors agree that we can’t predict the future; a mistake that market systems often make is to think they can. And one of the qualities expected by those who look for it in hero leaders is such a capacity for foretelling the future. Is the distributed leadership we have been considering with some of the writings, capable of learning that if we continue as at present then disaster is certain? We can’t go on as we are. Thus we do know something about the future, sufficient to create scenarios about possible situations and how to handle them if they arise. If we actively lead our fellow citizens into Stacey like conversations about the future needed for a life of reasonable quality, we can start together in that direction, even if where we arrive is not quite what we expected.

 

When we, the people, provide such leadership and force the government people who think they are the leaders, to face up to realities, which are more significant than election winning, we may arrive at Robert Greenleaf’s, “Servant Leadership”.

 

Is it too much to expect research to be taken seriously if it considers such issues and possibilities, so far removed from current cynicism and starts talking about trust and courage, giving and not just taking, and seeing business as having a responsibility to Society, in spite of denials from the Friedman school. Positive results can stem from a different perspective on leadership.

 

Comment, including rigorous opposition, is welcome. My thoughts are only partly formed as yet.

 

Edgar Wille

20 October 2009