The well thought out article below by Andrew Winston is saying in slightly different semantics what this Blog is trying to say, that we have to take a holistic and systemic view of organisations and societies to continually reduce the losses in processes, that is, to improve their quality.
This has to recognise that the One Planet Equation is driving change, we just steadfastly refuse to acknowledge it.
Humans are creative and ingenious and, assuming no doomsday, some societies and organizations will survive, and many will be created in our transition to a low carbon future, one we have no option but to enter, either by design or negligence.
Business models must be predicated on this reality, and they must be able to show how the enterprise can continually reduce the ‘resource intensity of society’ in the way it creates, uses and disposes of goods and services.
We must be effective by doing the right thing, then efficient, by doing it right every time.
The sting in the tail is that the least ‘resource intensive’ process it the one that doesn’t exist, and those organizations that do not deliver continual reduction in resource intensity will cease to exist, either in their present incarnation or by destructive innovation to ‘keep ahead of the oil curve’
Can Small Changes Save Your Business, and the Planet?
3:17 PM Friday June 12, 2009
At a recent executive education program on sustainability, I spoke about the many tactical ways to reduce environmental impacts and save money quickly in areas such as facilities, fleet, IT, telework, and waste (these are the main topics in a free special report I put out recently on green cost cutting). To fit the current economic climate, my focus was specifically on short-term, quick wins. After I finished my talk, an interesting challenge came from one of the program faculty: Given the scale of environmental challenges we face, shouldn’t we be talking more about systematic, disruptive changes in how we do business?………………
………………….When I talk about the incredible value in getting lean, of course I’m channeling Amory Lovins(and many other efficiency proponents). The big idea here is that there are not only low-hanging fruit, but fruit on the ground. Many companies that have aggressively pursued efficiency have found vast amounts of money waiting to be picked up, even if the large-scale savings result from adding up many small changes. For example, Wal-Mart improved the fuel efficiency of its entire fleet by over 25% in just a few years with a range of efforts — from new tires to aerodynamic improvements such as side ‘wind skirts’ to a larger investment in new auxiliary power systems that eliminate idling. (Note that all the improvements paid back in at most two years, the company’s internal hurdle rate for investments.)