Winning is a Habit

This month, Jamie Qualk shares some of his thoughts on the LEED rating system. Jamie Qualk is a vice president at SSRCx, LLC and team leader of the Sustainable Solutions Group. He lectures in the Civil Engineering department of Vanderbilt University regarding sustainability and construction and also at Lipscomb University in the Institute for Sustainable Practice regarding renewable energy.  He also blogs on ED+C’s Enviro-Blog and under Green Voices at TennesseeGreen.com

The U. S. Green Building Council and its LEED® green building rating system’s influence continues to grow and excel despite a less than ideal construction and building operations market.  This ongoing success also accelerates despite a growing list of critics from within and outside the industry.  While LEED is certainly not perfect, this market based tool of best practices is the finest we have to begin reducing and eventually overcoming the impacts our buildings have on the environment and the individuals that live and work in them.  

As a leader in a firm that is currently working on over 100 LEED projects, my team and I regularly encounter areas where LEED could be improved.   While we have our occasional frustrations, every day we see the benefits that a third party verification tool like LEED can deliver.  Our portfolio of projects includes existing buildings where we’ve measured water and energy reductions of 20% and 30% respectively.   Some of our new construction projects are diverting nearly all construction and demolition debris from landfills.   We’ve helped clients eliminate the majority of chemicals used by cleaning teams by implementing effective green cleaning programs.  While these and other wins are exciting for us and our clients, we recognize that these projects are still only onetime or one-project events.

As we apply our knowledge to more projects these wins tend to come easier or with even better results.  Our team as well as our clients learn a great deal from each project as we work to overcome the unique situations that can arise through the design and construction of so many buildings. As a result, our capability to reduce building impacts only improves with time.  Maybe this is one of the best things about LEED, the fact that our team and our clients are growing through the application of better habits to all projects, including those that are not pursuing LEED certification.

Vince Lombardy said, “You don’t win once in a while, you don’t do things right once in a while, you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing….” I couldn’t agree more and what I think we are seeing in the design, construction and operations marketplace is the continued application of better habits.  When we get in to the habit of applying the best practices available to us, relating to our particular role in buildings, everyone wins.

Build2Sustain is dedicated to sharing information about sustainable renovation and retrofit, particularly in commercial spaces.  We look to foster conversation and appeal to business owners with transparent processes and a realistic focus on ROI.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Communication Bridging the Business Sustainability Gap

The business community and the general public are quickly realizing that greenwash goes beyond just making false or misleading claims about products.  The fact is that greenwash is far more prevalent away from the store shelves than one might believe.  A growing risk is for many organizations is the widening gap between company stated goals and their actual business sustainability actions.

A recent BSR report, Communicating on Climate Policy Engagement: A Guide to Sustainability Reporting, finds that a more educated public is, for one, aware of inconsistencies between corporate stated climate goals and business action.  Companies are either inconsistent in their own reduction programs or are misaligned with supportive policy or legislative efforts.

According to BSR, reviewing and reflecting on business sustainability strategies is especially important for companies with investors who care about why and how they expect to create value with their efforts.  Companies, now more than ever, need to be very clear with their communications. 

A framework for companies to better communicate their environmental message must remain aligned with their true business sustainability practices and/or products.  Our sustainability consulting stresses the importance of providing effective and valuable information to key company stakeholders.  A few stress tests of business sustainability claims might include:

•    Is the topic of your message a significant environmental achievement?
•    Have you already achieved the results in your claim?
•    Are other activities in your company consistent with this message?
•    Have you engaged stakeholders and incorporated their feedback?
•    Could your claim be supported by a credible third party?
•    Is it easy for people to understand your claim and its significance?
•    Do you have data to back up your claim?
•    Is the message honest and not self-glorifying?

  Our sustainability consulting focuses on the propagation of clear information and reporting  on sustainable actions.  We encourage business to recognize the value in providing transparency into the implementation of sustainability concepts into their core business functions.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Raising the CSR Bar

The June issue of Maclean’s magazine feartures the Top 50 Socially Responsible Corporations in Canada. I went through the list to find the most innovative best practices among the top 20. I looked for initiatives that are unusually innovative, notable because of their scale and impact, or remarkable because of the industry sector. Here’s what I found:

Ballard Power Systems: During the 2010 Winter Olympics, Ballard was part of a consortium that provided zero-emission fuel-cell buses in Whistler, B.C., the world’s largest deployment of green buses

BMO: Introduced BMO SmartSteps, a program designed to teach customers to save, and a support program to help those most severely affected by the economic downturn.

Cascades Inc.: To enhance transparency and sustainability, the company launched an online public survey and direct consultations with employees, managers, communities, investors, suppliers and NGOs on issues such as responsible procurement, governance and impact on communities and the environment.

Catalyst Paper: The first company to manufacture mass-market carbon-neutral paper—Catalyst Cooled papers are produced with no net greenhouse gas emissions.

CIBC: Members of CIBC’s senior executive team have a target in their performance scorecard to maintain or improve diversity representation at the bank.

Dell: The first major computer manufacturer to ban the export of any e-waste to developing countries.

Enbridge Inc.:Generates power for 1,750 homes from an innovative hybrid fuel cell that converts otherwise wasted pipeline energy into electricity.

Hewlett-Packard Company: The company’s Central Nervous System for the Earth (CeNSE) initiative gathers real-time data on environmental, biological and structural shifts, which allows for improved infrastructure planning and advanced warning of natural disasters.

IBM Corp: IBM’s “World Community Grid” connects people who donate their idle computer time to create a global research grid. The network is used to compute biological, environmental and health-related data on behalf of organizations that are unable to access large-scale research infrastructure.

ING Group: As of 2010, executive compensation will be explicitly tied to environmental, social and governance performance targets.

Loblaw Companies Ltd: Four stores are involved in a solar-panel pilot project. If successful, the company will increase rooftop installations at stores across Ontario. Energy generated will power surrounding communities, as part of the province’s Feed-in Tariff Program of the Green Energy Act.

McDonald’s Corp: Published a “2010 Best of Sustainable Supply” compendium featuring 50 case studies highlighting best practices across its supply chain. By featuring the most innovative solutions to environmental, labour and animal welfare issues among its suppliers, McDonald’s hopes to drive progress within its industry.

Nike Inc: At the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Nike teams will be wearing jerseys made from 100 per cent discarded bottles sourced from landfills. Each recycled polyester jersey is produced from up to eight recycled plastic bottles.

Noika: “Nokia Life Tools,” developed with the Indian government and local enterprises, uses mobile phones to facilitate access to information and education for Indians without Internet access.

Oracle Corp: The Oracle Education Foundation sponsors ThinkQuest, a free, online, multi-subject learning platform that reaches more than 400,000 students in 43 countries every year.

RBC: Actively recruits new immigrants, Aboriginals, gays and lesbians, and people with disabilities. Has clear goals for increasing workforce diversity, especially among senior executives

Starbucks Corporation: In partnership with Conservation International, Starbucks piloted a forest conservation program where it engaged with 29 coffee-growing communities in Indonesia and Mexico to promote farming practices that reduce carbon emissions.

Suncor: Has developed a process to accelerate the reclamation of its unsightly oil sands tailings ponds, and is expected to be the only oil sands mining company to meet Alberta’s new requirements for the regulation of tailings operations.

Xerox Corp: A life-cycle assessment of the new ColorQube high-speed solid ink printer shows that the device generates 90 per cent less waste, uses nine per cent less energy and produces 10 per cent fewer greenhouse gases than comparable laser devices.

Impakt was founded in 2001 by Paul Klein, an authority on corporate responsibility and community investment who is a guest lecturer of marketing at York University, writes a blog about corporate responsibility for Canadian Business Magazine, sits on the Advisory Board of the Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility at the Queen’s School of Business, and has written numerous articles on the subject for publications in Canada and the United States.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Cell Phones: Proceed at your Own Risk

Ethical Action

Reported by Staffan Engström  

Interphone, the long awaited study by the World Health Organization investigating the relationship between cell phone usage and increased risk for brain tumors, was finally released last month.
 
The $25 million dollar study was financed by the United Nations, the European Union and the mobile phone industry making it the largest study ever conducted on this topic. Five thousand (5,000) individuals diagnosed with Meningioma and Glioma brain tumors were interviewed on their mobile usage over a ten year period.
 
The study results were delayed by four years as the fifty research scientists could not agree on the interpretation of data. However, despite that real problem the official conclusion was that “no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones.” The data revealed that “an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels,” was possible. However, “biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.”
 
The final suggestion after ten years, $25 million dollars and thirteen participating country’s top scientists was that the “effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”
 
Rather then just starting of with new research, maybe there is a point in reading their results a little closer. According to the study, ninety percent of respondents used their mobile phone 2.5 hours per month—an uncommonly low amount for cell phone users. Ten percent of study participants were termed “heavy users” referring to those participants who used their cell phones thirty minutes per day over ten years. The evidence showed a 40% increase in the brain tumor Glioma among these users. This is a rather serious finding as most of us use our mobile phones at least 30 minutes a day.
 
But not to panic! The researchers claim that we are saved by “biases and errors”—meaning they are not sure of the validity of the respondents claims.
 
Sketchy Memories
 
The study concluded that, “A brain tumor, particularly in the frontal or temporal lobes, may adversely affect cognition and memory.”
 
The researchers claim that people with brain tumors have weak memories and, therefore, are not reliable witnesses for their own cell phone usage. Yet the testimony of these 5,000 impaired memory individuals is precisely the evidence the study is based on.
 
Dr.Maria Feychting, a Swedish researcher from the Karolinska Institute, claimed that it is not easy to remember phone habits from fifteen years ago, “especially not if one has a brain tumor.” Another member of the research team, Dr Daniel Kewski of the Center for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa in Canada, added that “the group was unable to prove that heavy mobile phone use increased the risk of cancer because the findings were based on the sketchy memories of some participants.”
 
It seems more than a coincidence that Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), a lobbyist group for the mobile phone industry, gave one million dollars to fund the Interphone study and also pays the salary of Dr. Daniel Krewski who happens to be the head scientist of the report.
 
Upon closer scrutiny, the “sketchy memory” theory appears to be based on responses from participants who claimed to use their mobile phones more than 12 hours per day. When reached by telephone in Sweden, Dr. Feychting confirmed that out of the 210 reported “heavy users,” the total number of the 12 hour per day users was (12) twelve. Researchers based their $25million dollar theory that foggy memories prevent reliable conclusions on the connection between brain tumors and heavy cell phone usage on 12 people!
 
Motivated to Recall
 
The study blew further smoke on participant testimony with the statement that, “cases may be more motivated to recall and report a publicized potential risk factor for their disease.” Researchers claimed that people who learned they had a brain tumor were inclined to falsely report heavier usage of their mobile phones.
 
Dr Elisabeth Cardis at the Centre for Research in Environment Epidemiology (CREAL) suggested at a press conference that respondents with brain tumors were angry and motivated to falsely blame mobile phones for their health issues. Therefore, they may claim higher cell phone usage than what actually took place.
 
Interphone’s own validation study from 2006 stated there were “a substantial proportion of subjects who markedly over or under-estimated their mobile phone use.” Yet “under-estimating” cell phone usage is not included in the analysis.
 
Two Opposing Views
 
Over the four year debate, two theories emerged in the research community. One concluded there was no link between cell phone usage and brain cancer. The other concluded that there was a great deal of evidence to support this connection.
 
Dr Feychting claimed in Computer World that mobile phone usage resulting in “increased risk” of brain cancer from heavy cell phone usage “isn’t biologically believable.” In my brief discussion with Dr. Feychting, she explained that all the research done today on this topic in all interrelated fields suggested the same thing. No relationship exists between cell phone radiation and brain cancer.
 
Her colleague, Dr. Olle Johansson, does not share her view. “At the Karolinska Institute, we have for many years observed very serious biological changes from exposure to microwave radiation and extremely low-frequency magnetic fields of the kind emitted by cell phones.” One of the studies he was referring to showed a 3.9 times increase in acoustic neuroma, a type of cancer in the ear.
 
Dr. Lennart Hardell, a professor in oncology and cancer epidemiology at the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, has conducted research on young people’s usage of mobile phones. His conclusion is that, “People who started mobile phones before the age of 20 had a more than five-fold increase in glioma.”
 
Conflicting Interests
 
The Interphone researchers, Dr Feychting and her colleagues at the Institute dismiss Dr. Hardell’s research, however, Dr. Hardell has written a paper entitled “Secret Ties to Industry and Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research” which suggests close connections between the Karolinska Institute, the SSI, the Swedish Radiation Protection Agency, Dr. Feychting and the mobile phone industry.
 
Working relationships between industry and research are of course common, but there are few countries in the world in which industry and research institutions collaborate as closely and as successfully as in Sweden, and especially on the very edge of advanced technology and research. The relationship between government, industry and research institutions put Sweden at the top ranking of The Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010 determining the worlds countries competitive edge in terms of information technology. This report was released in March by the World Economic Forum with the motivation “The success of these countries (Sweden, Singapore and Denmark) underlines the importance of a joint ICT (information and communication technology) vision, an implementation by all the different stakeholders in a society for a country to take full advantage of ICT advances in its daily life and overall competitiveness strategy.”
 
Yet the monetary interests of the mobile phone industry lobbyists and executives and the close industry ties to the Interphone researchers throw a cloud of uncertainty over the reliability of their findings. Additionally, the unscientific theories of false blame and sketchy memories make this study’s conclusions harder to accept.
 
A leading scientist of the Interphone project, Dr Elisabeth Cardis of Spain, stated at a May 17, 2010 press conference that they had “not been able to demonstrate that there is an increased risk” between cell phone usage and brain tumors.
However in an interview with Microwave News Dr. Cardis admitted, “To me, there’s certainly smoke there.” “Overall, my opinion is that the results show a real effect,” she continued.
 
Dr. Cardis will continue her investigation with a research project focusing on mobile phone usage and its relation to brain tumors in young people dubbed “Mobi-kids.” This study will take 5 years, excluding time for interpretation of the data, through surveys of young adults with brain tumors as well as “exposure assessments” provided by France Telecom SA. Representing Canada will be a Dr Daniel Kewski, who very well could conclude that peoDr. ple with brain tumors have sketchy memories and therefore cannot be reliable.
 
It is possible that “bias” was present among brain tumor patients who reported 12 hours of mobile phone usage every day over 10 years. Yet it is also possible that industry relationships make researchers biased judging by their emphasis on 12 respondents (out of 5,000) who overstated their usage. 
 
Is there a coincidence that the Swedish researcher Dr. Maria Feychting and her Canadian colleague Dr. Daniel Kewski who both refer to the “poor memory thesis” as grounds for disqualification of this study and the fact that their countries’ economies are dependent on the success of industry telecom giants Ericsson and Nortel?
 
©2010 – All Rights Reserved
 
Staffan Engström is a media executive living in New York City. He has a Master’s Degree in Business Administration and a background in philosophy and information technology. Staffan is a socially conscious freelance writer that scrutinizes the world with critical eye and a sharp witty tongue.
 

Click for GoodB Blog – provocative and informative.
 
Click for the latest updates on GoodB

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

What’s Your Why Behind Sustainability Choices?

You may often ask yourself why people make the choices they make.  Given an endless range of possibilities, is sustainability one of the decision criteria which leads to the eventual outcome?

When it comes to daily choices, our personal and professional consulting views each decision point as an opportunity to integrate eco awareness into an eventual outcome.  While the result of every decision does not have to be directly aligned with sustainable values, the inclusion of sustainability concepts in the thought process can greatly improve the evaluation.

 Integrating sustainability into your daily living is more than just a one-time single yes or no decision.  The pursuit of personal and business sustainability is a mindset change that incorporates expanded eco awareness into all decision making. 

The factors that lead to the choice of one path versus another are usually based upon personal value drivers.  By incorporating sustainability as criteria in decision process and recognizing that the pursuit of personal or business sustainability is not a single decision, this presents an opportunity to make alternative choices.

•    Explore healthier living.
•    Improved quality of life and work life balance.
•    Reconnect with local community.
•    Build your career with eco awareness.
•    Become an educated and conscious consumer.

 Our sustainability consulting practice works with clients to build sustainability concepts directly into personal daily living.  We work with individuals to release resistance and embrace the benefits of personal and business sustainability.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Reverse Innovation: A Sustainability Market Trend to Watch

As the market shifts its focus in response to a potential recovery and as consumer expectations  for alternative products and business sustainability practices continue to increase, companies are feeling the need to redirect their capital and resources.  In our professional consulting, we find leading businesses shifting the emphasis of their research and development in response to growing global eco awareness.  As a result, business innovation appears to be moving towards a greater emphasis on business sustainability practices.

A recent article, The Top 10 Drivers of Change in 2010 and Beyond,  indicates that the best-positioned companies will push innovation practices to be truly global and facilitate seamless idea flow across their organization and network.  Further, the market prediction is that consumers will become the source of new ideas.

To capitalize on this momentum, a common characteristic will be the ability to recognize public eco awareness and deliver new products that address societal and environmental challenges in a way that meets business sustainability expectations and delivers long term value.

As we engage with companies and business leaders seeking to inspire and motivate sustainable action within their organization, we encourage them to look to their key stakeholders as a source of valuable market information. Our professional consulting works with clients to step outside of the confines of the business to leverage employee, supplier, and end consumer thinking.  We encourage innovative businesses to:

 •    Promote open communication and embrace creative thinking in the organization.
•    Be curious about what the outside world is thinking and how they responding.
•    Instill imaginative thinking, focusing on the future equally with the present.

The best ideas do not always come from the top or even from within.  By enabling creative ideas and inspired actions inside and outside of the company, businesses can create an innovative environment that promotes long-term business sustainability.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Social Entrepreneurship and Leadership by Example in Guatemala – Part I

Earlier this week I had the good fortune to meet again with Greg Van Kirk, Ashoak Lemolson Fellow, and Social Entrepreneur in Residence at Columbia University. Greg is an open, engaging and skilled social entrepreneur who has demonstrated that with passion, intelligence and integrity – communities can be made stronger.

The discussion was rich with information and as a result, over the next week or so this blogspace will contain excerpts from that conversation.  Further information on Greg’s work can also be found at http://www.newdevelopmentsolutions.com/, or watch the video.
 
Some brief background first:  Greg runs a variety of programs- including Social Entrepreneur Corps, (SEC). This program provides development programs in Ecuador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Working with local agencies, interested local entrepreneurs and with input from seventy-five university students and recent graduates interns from the US – Greg has supported the development of a variety of programs that benefit local villagers in these three countries.
 
Can you describe your program? 
 Well we looked at the various programs that existed such as academic programs that focused on the learner’s academic needs, or even volunteer programs that tend to be more relief focus and realized that that would not work for our vision. We don’t see our program as a volunteering program, we are a development organization that focuses year round on developing local people. We have been able to create a structure whereby people can, on a short term basis – focusing as apprentices or interns – share their skills in a manner that adds capacity to the local community; the focus is always on the beneficiaries and the work flows from there. 80% of our current permanent workforce are former interns of the Social Entrepreneur Corps.
 
I know that you started with the Centro Exlprativo, can you tell me more about that and how that has evolved and benefitted from some of the “incubator” work of SEC?
Centro Explorativo, in Nebaj is an education centre that started as a literacy program, but now has over 2000 books, free computer classes, after school classes on math and literacy, along with sports programs – all these services are free up and running since 2003. The program now boasts three teachers, and is owned  and administered by a local organization of Guatemalan’s and has had  thousands of participants.
 
I know that a logical spin-off was combining the computer skills with supporting the needs of tourists via an internet café?
That’s right, from education there has also been a focus on tourism- a site that started as a restaurant, has evolved and created spin- offs such as a guiding business, a coffee shop, a hostel, internet centre, language school –  that have now be owned by local folks since 2004. SEC provided $25,000 of program support resulting in total revenues of $750,000.
 
These are concrete examples of creating a tangible presence in the community, but these locations are backed up the creation of skills that are portable. SEC is a driver of the micro-consignment model . The purpose of which is to create access to products and services that ordinarily would not exist or are donated.  We stared with the distribution of wood burning stoves,  and now distribute eye glasses, energy efficient bulbs, lamps,  and now water treatment programs. These are just the products but SEC has trained and supported – over 200 women entrepreneurs and also work with broker community organizations like libraries, who can in turn provide training. We help create village campaigns, where we assist entrepreneurs do the marketing, advertising etc to a village, building anticipation and then they show up with their goods –  so far we  have executed over 2000 of these campaigns, sold over 60,000 products.  Earned net income  in aggregate around $75,000.  Now, a social enterprise  has been created to allow this activity to continue and to be sustained–  it is share based company model owned by Guatemalan men and women, homemakers with no experience, now own a company that generates $80,000 annually in revenue.  We estimate that the economic productivity  benefit from this i.e. health issues with a stove, savings from not having to buy water or consume contaminated  water, increased productivity due to being able to see because of glasses is around $1.4 million in Guatemala alone. We have now taken this model to Ecudaor and Nicargaua –  and all sales are even across the board and consistent with the beta work we have done in Guatemala
 
Greg’s work has captured the attention of the social entrepreneur community and there is a desire to determine how this can be duplicated in other sites. More information on this issue, and the notion of engagement will be discussed in blogs posted later this week.  Stay tuned, or subscribe!
 
The Acacia Group works with Greg and Social Entrepreneur Corps in Nebaj, and is offering an opportunity for individuals or groups to participate in, observe and learn from SEC and the citizens of Nebaj. This experience is combined with personal and group leadership development coaching before, during and after the trip for up to three months. Interest is building, so book soon at www.theacaciagroup.ca 

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Looking Up: Discovering What’s Over Our Heads

The Signal: News and Notes from the Pharos Team

Anyone who finds themselves in a hospital, as a visitor or patient, has plenty of idle time sitting or reclining, looking around – as “islandtime” writes on a poetry discussion board – “thinking about the patient, where the ceiling tiles came from, how hospital sounds can mimic outdoor sounds, the way the techs and nurses are all dressed the same.”  

For those who wonder about, and those who specify, ceiling tiles, the Pharos Project is exploring “where the ceiling tiles came from.”  This week, our Building Product Library published the first diverse set of ceiling tile evaluations.

Our research into acoustical ceiling tiles indicates a very complex category.  The contents and additives in ceiling tiles vary greatly.  The primary core materials for acoustical ceiling tiles are mineral wool, fiberglass, or gypsum.  Specialty tiles and panels may be made of wood, metal, recycled glass, and even jute.  Facing materials range from paper to vinyl to antimicrobial paints.  Within each type of tile, the amount of recycled and renewable content differs significantly from product to product.

Moreover, we have identified issues that may concern Pharos users: the widespread use of biocides, flame retardants, and formaldehyde-based binders, some of which are not disclosed in company literature.  We have found carcinogenic flame retardants and biocides being released from ceiling tile plants – with no corresponding information about these chemicals on manufacturers’ websites. 

Pharos Project subscribers will find several ceiling tiles in the system that use urea phenol formaldehyde and biocides.  Some use a lot of recycled material.  You will find further information about these and other ingredients in the Chemical and Material Library section of Pharos.  We will also detail these and other concerns – as well as the positive attributes – of products in upcoming Signal blogs.

Many of our users, who specify millions of square feet of health care and other facilities per year, understand the importance of any decision on specifying ceiling tiles.   Ceilings represent one of the largest surface areas in any interior.  Suspended ceiling tiles and panels lie at the intersection of building ventilation systems and occupied space.   They are receptors and sources of Volatile Organic Compounds and other toxicants.

Our research and evaluations of ceiling tiles should help users identify which panels use and emit the fewest toxicants and incorporate the most renewable materials. Then, when patients and visitors are staring up at some hospital room ceiling, the view will be healthy.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily

Robert Cialdini is My Hero: Sustainability “Social Proof”

When people see that their neighbors have more energy efficient households, it GETS them!  My absolute hero (and someone whose work I am closely studying for my master’s thesis), Robert Cialdini, is now leveraging his “social proof” compliance technique for sustainability purposes.  A New York Times article by Saqib Rahim reports on Cialdini’s post-academic career in studying consumer behavior and energy efficiency as chief scientist for OPOWER. According to the article, he recently tested the effectiveness of four different signs/messages with regard to energy conservation with a sample population in San Diego.  I LOVE that (my paraphrase) “your neighbors are beating you” was the message winner!  It appeals to my fourth grade competitive bombardment game mentality… and that, I believe, still exists in us all.

Anyway…

As mentioned in Rahim’s article, the other three signs Cialdini’s team tested were, 1) saving energy for the environment’s sake, 2) doing it for the sake of future generations, and 3) the one most of us non-research types might suspect would be most effective: cash savings.  Isn’t this fascinating?  As I’ve mentioned in so many other blog posts by now, Cialdini’s “social proof” has two components: 1 – uncertainty about which behavior is appropriate (need to see others around you doing the behavior), and 2 – similarity, or the need to see that others, and preferably those very much like you, are behaving that way.

A few examples Cialdini gives from his now classic book, INFLUENCE: The Psychology of Persuasion, include: tip jars (bartenders “salt” them by putting in some bills before they set it out for customers),  “best-seller” of “fastest-selling” marketing messages (I don’t need to explain this for you, my very marketing-oriented readership), and – this is perhaps most compelling (and incredibly creepy), the methods by which Jim Jones’ teachings created a cult.  Powerful stuff, that social proof.

Those of us driven to “inspire” citizen behavior change toward sustainability may be a tad disappointed that “saving the environment” or “helping future generations” doesn’t really work – or work yet.  But, the point is to start where people are – to be pragmatic with persuasion methods.  Perhaps the most baseline guide for human decision-making is the quick look-around at others.  Social proof is a “method” that can be called on quickly and automatically.  Cialdini writes that social proof “provides a convenient shortcut for determining how to behave.”  That shortcut can be used for good, but can also be used for bad -  to leave people who use that shortcut “vulnerable to the attacks of profiteers,” as he reminds us.

But, if you are reading this, you are here to do some sustainability good.  So, how can we, in each of our various – but interconnected(!) – business ventures, put social proof to work?  We can communicate our sustainability stories better, and reflect the truth in just how many of our customers/members/employees are already demonstrating the behavior we’d like to promote (and – clearly – that means buying our more responsibly designed and produced products in a lot of cases).  Like the “beat the Jones’s” approach that Cialdini seems to be proving, we can also tap the competitive spirit that exists (whether we acknowledge it or not) among human beings.

The race to the top of energy efficiency and other sustainable living and business practice goals can be fun and social!  Let’s all learn more about, and use the concept of “social proof” to make participating in that race the only human option.

*Thanks to @Think_LED (on Twitter) for ensuring I noticed today’s NYT piece!

Andrea writes exclusively for her blog, LearnedonWomen, and appears regularly on Vermont Public Radio.

Posted via web from 3BL Media, CSR News, and Emily