Take aways:
We can learn a great deal by being more aware of the “lens by which we see the world, and the lens by which we see ourselves operating in the world,” by sharpening our skills in self-assessment, critical and creative thinking.
Some of the world’s largest corporations that manage the most significant environmental liabilities are also leading an advance toward a more sustainable future with a preventive, predictive, and proactive posture on environmental risk management and sustainable production in the 21st Century.
Corporate Sustainability today has progressed beyond the romanticized allure of a ‘David and Goliath’ narrative. Slaying big dragons will only lead to hungry baby dragons. This is not an underdog story or a comeback one driven [exclusively] by radical change. Rather, it’s an evolutionary tale of the role of business in society, and the role of society in positively shaping and reinforcing shared goals for economic prosperity.
In an effort to extinguish environmental liabilities or address climate-facing greenhouse gas emissions with new technologies, there is concern that we are also propagating a new generation of environmental, economic and social risks.
Corporate and societal values and virtues for planetary pragmatism are increasingly at play, giving rise to greater certainty of business outcomes and environmental risk management. Managing change is a critical and in-demand skill set for environmental leaders, and a requirement for achieving personal and professional success.
Part 1. The Lens by Which We See the Changing World, and Ourselves Within It
We now live in a complex global society that requires all of us to serve a role to ensure that economic, environmental, or social injustices to people or planet do not persist or promulgate. There are long-trenched power dynamics between civil society, industry, government, academia, religion, and non-state actors at work that are both passively and proactively shaping our world.
Most of us are subservient to the global chess game that is being played as we take stock of our personal livelihoods and spheres of influence. But individually, and certainly collectively, we have power and can positively influence our present and future. I am 1000% in support of individuals, companies, and governments taking full responsibility and accountability for any negative impact that results from their behavior, operations, or policies. To evolve as a society and as a global economy that enables prosperity for all people, we must be willing to learn from the past, be pragmatic in the present, and protect the promise of our collective futures.
Dwelling on the past is a fools move in this global chess game, as the future is being won now, in the moment. Reflecting upon and learning from the past is however, a necessary and smart move for those seeking wisdom and insight to inform one’s next move, let alone, the next three moves forward. We can view the world as complex and left to masterful chess players – and feel disconnected and helpless in what is unfolding and shaping our reality and quality of life – or we can stop feeling victimized, jump in, and change the dynamic of the game. But player beware, the rules are ever-evolving. Staying sharp and making smart moves is a survival tactic and necessary skill for success.
In my short industrious career, I’ve worked through many moments of “personal turmoil” self-examining my purpose, and the structured form and function of my chosen field and to those whom I serve. When I was a young lad, wide-eyed and fresh out of graduate school, I had a very binary sense of the world. Corporations that polluted were bad. Politicians that made do on their promises must always be noble and good. I inherently understood that the forces at play in the world were more dynamic than the simplicity of good versus evil. But it was then, as it remains today, more convenient to oversimply the world and its actors.
In preparation for my formal professional launch into the world, for my undergraduate education I pursued and earned degrees in humanities and social sciences, environmental studies, and geography. For my graduate education I earned my Master of Science in environmental management and policy. Some might argue that my early academic research and training “converted” me to think of corporations, capitalism, and consumerism as “bad.” Surely, I had plenty of those 101 classes that sought to evangelize environmentalism and capture my and other young student’s attention by contrasting the evils of the world bestowed by multinational corporations. But, my training also brought me deeper into stakeholder relations and communications, geology, economics, consumer behavior, entrepreneurship, marketing and manufacturing, and so much more. It became, at least to me, self-evident that each of us has a unique lens by which we view the world.
The lens we each have, at any moment of time, is encoded by our DNA and engineered by our experiences – how and where we grew up, where we went to school and what we studied, whether or not we were nurtured and loved, our family genetics, our quality of health, and so much more. Although the building blocks of what makes us each unique can be generalized as similar, there are an infinite number of data points that nudge each individual’s lens to be skewed slightly different from another’s. Take me and my three sisters as an example. Each of us grew up with the same generalized inputs and experiences from a family perspective, yet we all have a different point of view on our past as well.
Over the course of my life and career I have found that the aperture of the lens widens, as I take in more information and am shaped by the people, places, and experiences that comprise my personal journey. The journey is distinct, and the assimilation of data and information drawn from prior experience is also unique to each individual.
Over the past six years I have taught undergraduate and graduate students at Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management. I’ve often used the “lens by which you see the world,” as a metaphorical exercise to introduce self-evaluation, critical thinking, mindfulness, diversity and inclusion into the students’ awareness.
When we become more aware of the “lens by which we see the world, and the lens by which we see ourselves operating in the world," we can begin to better understand what has shaped it or shielded it, thereby identifying any biases we have in how we take in, evaluate, and make sense of the world around us. And by the way, we all have biases in how our lens operates. The sooner we can identify biases in how we take in, interpret, and act on information – the more quickly we can move from playing connect the dots, to checkers, to chess.
There are many self-identifying pundits in our world today. Everyone seems to be an expert on something. The development and projection of expertise, however, can be limiting, particularly if the lens by which refines that expertise does not acknowledge its blind spots, inherent biases, or areas for further discovery. The metaphoric lens, for example, may be blurred, smudged, or it may have a filter on it. Too often, “experts” remain confined to their worldview, limiting beliefs, and the rigidness of their workflow on how they choose to analyze information. Those skillsets got them to the game, but they will only play and advance so far.
When I was in my 20s, I was intrigued by global business. Admittedly, I thought most large companies were bad, faceless organizations that pursued profit at any cost, including degrading the natural environment, mistreating employees, and causing unhealthy living conditions around the world. Today, many of the same activist organizations that fought twenty-five years ago continue to pursue the same game (and fight) against the same company’s today. The game goes on so to speak. Watchdog activists serve a role in our society, no doubt. As newer generations of pundits rise for attention, greater agency and autonomy, my hope is that they spend time learning from the past, remaining vigilant – but not violent in the present, and humbled by the fact that the future they desire is but one perspective in a world of 8 billion and more lenses.
As I near three decades of professional service, my aperture to the world continues to widen. Some of the skills that earned me a career as an energy analyst and management consultant twenty-five years ago are being disrupted by a new generation of capabilities including artificial intelligence (AI), data science, and social media engagement. This said, I believe I’ve cultivated new skills over the years that I never thought would be as critical as they are today. Creativity, critical thinking, agility and adaptation, objectivity and self-awareness, leadership growth and development – these and other skills – I have found, help one to grow, lead, and discover through change.
Our life’s journey is ever-changing. The person and professional I was twenty-five years ago is much different than who I am today. I like to think I’ve held onto the good, shed the bad, and continue to remain open to my biases and limitations and opportunities for personal growth and improvement. To that end, much like our personal journey’s and the stories we attach to them to create meaning, so too are the stories of global actors, governments, NGOs, corporations, nation-states, and others. These stakeholders are comprised of people, individuals that also are serving a narrative and exploring their lens to the world. They too are evolving, growing, and attempting to lead. There is nothing perfect about this process, but it is important to acknowledge that this is a process, and people can intersect and disrupt, or intersect and invigorate and empower the process at any moment of time.
I do not believe companies are inherently bad, or evil. I have students, colleagues, and contemporaries that have and likely will after reading this, continue to challenge me on this point. Perhaps this remains a blind spot and bias that I need to reassess. But as I see it, companies are comprised of people, and I have a hard time believing all people are bad and set out intentionally to wreak havoc in the world. I can think of a few very bad people and corporations; they were overtaken by greed, poor leadership, and inept management. Eventually those that had ill intent were found out, and the people were removed and/or the companies failed to exist.
The idea that corporations are evil however, is a pervasive cultural stigma that has created a blind spot on how some business schools train next generation talent, and on how young and mid-career professionals think about how they can work with (rather than against), corporations to create sustainable value and positive impact. Unfortunately, corporations are viewed as ugly giants or fire breathing dragons that need to be destroyed in order for positive change to prevail. Planetary pragmatism, the idea that change is both radical and intentional, challenges the notion that positive change only happens when bad actors are removed.
Part 2. Making Change is Not Always About Slaying Dragons. Corporate Sustainability is an Evolutionary Tale of Innovation and Pragmatism. Look No Further than the 'current' Energy Shift
Our society navigates to and celebrates stories of triumph, courage, and transformation. Who doesn’t like a good underdog or comeback story? In popular culture, such stories have been romanticized by media, and within books and movies. But these stories have also been handed down for generations, much like the story of David and Goliath. There is something enduring about taking down the big bad giant or slaying the fire breathing dragon.
Amid the economic, social, and environmental challenges society now faces, it’s no wonder that multinational corporations represent Goliath and/or the dragon, needing to be taken down and slayed. The oil industry is largely considered the Goliath of our time. The products and derivatives of this industry are foundational to our global economy. The industry fuels our society and touches every aspect of our modern word, from transportation to housing, healthcare, telecommunications, finance, pharmaceuticals, defense, education, housing, and infrastructure – the molecules of the oil industry have bonded with all facets of our daily lives. The industry powers our homes and cars, its part of how we diagnose and treat diseases, and it is a lifeline for national defense and security.
Subsequently the world’s largest corporations (some of which control greater wealth than nation-states), are oil and gas. Further, the next round of the worlds largest companies are either enables, benefactors, or both of our oil based economy, including aviation, defense, automotive, chemical, and even technology enterprises. It’s no wonder that oil companies have long been and remain the target of social and environmental activists, many who clamor for attention by defacing historic statues, landmarks, works of art, or by attempting to disrupt corporate Board meetings, events, and even the daily minutia of civil society. The interesting thing about modern corporations is that they control enormous resources: financial, technological, information, human talent, geopolitical, trade and union, and so on.
One must be careful in any attempt to take down the giant or slay the dragon. Slaying a big dragon may only lead to the creation of many smaller, but equally hungry dragons that will, given the dynamics and forces of the current world order, feast and grow up rather quickly. If those baby dragons grow within the same culture and thinking of the big dragon, little will have changed; and worse, the social, economic, and environmental challenges we face may be exacerbated.
This is not to suggest that giants cannot fall, or dragons should not attempt to be slayed. Rather, it’s simply a point in acknowledging that changing the world doesn’t always require an underdog or comeback narrative. Sometimes change happens over time. The giant dies off, naturally and methodically. However, for many people, this process is frustratingly slow.
The oil industry has an enormous target square on its back; and that target is only getting bigger. Fed up with environmental disasters and plagued by climate and health risk, society is questioning the trade-off between an economy fueled by oil, versus one that is fueled by more sustainable options. Radical innovation in energy technology and infrastructure can intersect and disrupt the oil industry. There is however, a great deal of prior and existing knowledge, know-how, intellectual property, and capability that the oil industry has that has, and I believe will continue to serve humanity, as an energy shift ensues.
Truly, all of industry and society are undergoing an energy shift, call it a transition in the next two decades, and a full-on transformation thirty years from now. In the near-term, the transition will continue to place emphasis on the existing energy value chain. Demand for energy is rising worldwide.
Underlying the demand for electrons and molecules are classic market values including the need to have affordable and reliable energy. In recent years, demand for cleaner, diversified, and distributed energy have also become core values for many customers. In the long-term, the energy transformation will be shaped by the eight meta-dimensions of sustainability, including the digitization, democratization, decentralization, and de-risking of energy supply, delivery, and utilization.
The energy shift will take time. Much like society’s love of a rags-to-riches story, we tend to also love to elevate technology entrepreneurs and place them on a pedestal. But for all its enormous promise to elevate prosperity, the technology sector, much like the oil sector, has its challenges. Look no further than the prolific and contentious Elon Musk, as an example of someone either beloved or loathed. Musk, an iconic entrepreneur, is hailed by some as a savior, and as an obstructionist by others. On one hand, his company Tesla is working hard to decarbonize society by disrupting the oil-based automotive industry; on another hand, his SpaceX rockets have punched holes through the Earth’s ionosphere.
I’m more than willing to bet that the technology industry has, can, and will continue to justify high-risk technology deployments as justifiable, no matter the unintended [security, social, ecologic, or economic] consequence, in the name of advancing humanity for the long-term. For some reason, many staunch clean energy and environmental advocates tend to dismiss certain entrepreneurs or technology companies from the environmental risk equation. The fixation on slaying the dragon can be distracting. If we are not careful, what we might just discover is that one problem (i.e., carbon elimination and removal) was simply traded for another, just as persistent and pervasive challenge.
The advance of artificial intelligence (AI) and coupled with declining costs and enhanced efficacy for renewable energy, energy storage (across the spectrum: grid-tied battery storage, transportation electrification and batteries, consumer-focused energy storage), and other energy technologies (i.e., advanced solutions for scaling hydrogen, geothermal, small nuclear reactors, and more), is providing options for curtailing fossil-based energy.
These technologies, at scale, pose great opportunity for reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs), yet they also pose a new generation of environmental, social, and economic risks, not that dissimilar to the fire breathing dragons they are attempting to slay and displace. Renewables, batteries, sustainable fuels, advanced nuclear – these and other energy shift solutions also embody risk. For example, the supply chain concerns regarding “shifting the burden” regarding environmental damages and health and safety onto rare earth and battery mineral (lithium, nickel, cadmium, etc.) mining communities in developing countries has been well substantiated and documented.
The environmental risk and societal costs associated with the extraction, conversion, distribution, use, and retirement (recycle, reuse, remanufacturing) of rare earth minerals that enable our digital society and the advance of “clean” energy cannot be deemphasized. It is true that there have been studies evaluating the lifecycle costs and benefits of a petroleum-based energy society versus an clean energy society, typically favoring clean energy pathways.
Turning the oil spigot off and transforming our energy systems to alternatives cannot happen overnight. Our infrastructure has not been set up to absorb the culture, economic, or cyber-physical shock waves of swift swings. For better or for worse, markets enjoy a little bit of certainty – call it at least a forecast for the weeks weather ahead.
We are seeing this play out in the North American power market, where policies pushing for electrification and decarbonization are butting up against the “physics of power,” and the capacity for the existing transmission and distribution infrastructure of the power grid to absorb renewable energy at scale, particularly in a manner that meets the regulatory and market requirements for affordable, reliable, high quality, and resilient electricity.
Of course there are a myriad of policy, legislative, technology, grid-integration, and business model scenarios and “fixes,” that could be put into place in a measured way; but right now, there is a widening chasm between the idealistic views of a decarbonized and electrified future, and the engineered capacity of the existing system to transition (let along transform) in the time frame many policy makers have laid out in states like California and New York.
The energy shift, much like addressing corporate sustainability, is not [exclusively] a technological or business case problem; it is a lesson in pragmatism and people [leadership] one. Again, this is not to suggest that decarbonization and electrification should not be pursued at scale. Rather, we must be realistic and pragmatic in how we work together, and across sectoral, geographic, and political boundaries, to ensure that we address the energy shift in a holistic way.
Part 3. Back to the Future: What We Can Learn from Environmental Liability ‘Mistakes of the Past’ to Provide a Preventive, Predictive, and Proactive Posture for a Sustainable Future
Many of my colleagues and even friends and family don’t know that for fifteen years I managed and facilitated a private peer-to-peer workshop that assembled 25 to 30 of the world’s largest environmental polluters. Given the sensitive nature and confidentiality of these companies environmental liabilities, years ago I signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with many of the individual companies, and also, with my main client, a global environmental, architecture and engineering company that hired my small firm to design, develop, manage, and facilitate this network on an annual basis. Although the term of those NDA’s has long past, I choose to remain objective and confidential in my disclosure.
To be clear, the companies engaged in this network represented some of the most toxic and litigious environmental liabilities in the world. Their portfolio’s included legacy environmental sites that spanned United States based federally regulated Superfund hazardous waste sites to international environmental clean-ups in ecologically sensitive regions of the world. I took my oath of confidentiality very seriously, not in fear of my own personal liability, but because I quickly discovered, even as a young emerging professional, that the corporate environmental movement and the future of environmental protection, resilience and sustainability, were much more nuanced than my young self would ever have imagined.
The contaminate portfolio of this network would read like a horror novel to anyone familiar with environmental toxicology and the persistence and impact of long-chain chemistries and molecules in our environment, and upon our public health. The companies in this network represented a diverse and vast portfolio of environmental liabilities which included perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoroctane sulfonate (PFOS), polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), trichloroethylene (TCE), chlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, hydrocarbons and solvents, arsenic and other heavy metals, agriculture fertilizers and compounds including phosphorus and nitrogen, and unfortunately, much more. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with these contaminants and chemical compounds, think Love Canal, ‘A Civil Action’, or PCBs in the Hudson – three prominent cases that you likely have stumbled upon.
The companies in the network voluntarily participated and represented a diversity of industrial sectors ranging from integrated oil and gas, agriculture, chemical, defense, railroad, electric utility, consumer product, automotive, aerospace, semiconductor, and others. The companies voluntarily participated in this peer-to-peer network to engage with one another on emerging issues, exchange knowledge, share best practices on safety, operational performance, technology, engineering management, and more. Essentially, this cohort of cross-sector corporations met annually to benchmark environmental risk and performance against other companies and walk away with new ideas and opportunities to refine, improve, and advance their environmental remedial programs.
Collectively, the network’s annual environmental reserve and annual spend for managing environmental liabilities was greater than $13 billion and $2.5 billion respectively. The network also represented (back in 2018), a market capitalization of $2.5 trillion, $1.8 trillion in revenue, $115 billion in net income, and they employed over 2.1 million people worldwide. Those are significant numbers, even for 2018. I share this aggregated level of information to make the following observations:
Corporate environmental remediation is an enormous business unto itself. The art, science and management of environmental liabilities requires pragmatism and innovation.
Corporations managing significant regulatory defined environmental liabilities objectively want to extinguish those liabilities (i.e. “get them off the books”) as quickly, cost-effectively, and with the greatest efficacy (certainty of remedial outcome) as possible.
Accordingly, corporations have invested heavily in their people, the environmental professional talent.
The financial carrying costs of environmental liabilities and impact on the business are significant. Accordingly, corporations also invest wisely in new technology, innovative clean-up methods, date-and-science backed decision analysis tools, and project engineering and management systems to ensure their environmental liabilities are cleaned up safety, efficiently, and according the legal requirements and toxicological thresholds.
In many instances, corporations clean-up remediation sites to a level that is cleaner than the background level of measured chemistries within adjacent parcels.
Corporations managing complex liabilities have become a knowledge and innovation center. Given the complexity of their task, these organization have adopted a “preventive, predictive, and proactive” posture on environmental risk management, choosing to learn from the past so as to alleviate the future liabilities from being created.
The know-how, knowledge base and intellectual capital associated with environmental liability management and restoration as it pertains to managing environmental risk and attempting to prevent future liabilities from existing enterprise operations and assets, cannot be understated.
There is an underlying base of knowledge and capability that large global multinational corporations have with regard to managing environmental exposures, including how global enterprise can design, build, operate and maintain, and decommission manufacturing, research and development, and other operational facilities around the world.
My observation having worked within the environmental profession over the past twenty-five years is that the stigma and caricature placed on corporate environmental professionals is often misguided and completely wrong. When I was a young professional, I too cynically and naively bought into the idea (reinforced by my youthful friends and colleagues) that corporate environment professionals were biased protectionists, doing the dirty work of polluting corporations, trying to keep secrets buried and any financial liabilities (or worse) at bay. Truthfully, I’ve met a handful of these types of people over the years, regrettably they exist.
The interesting thing that I discovered early in my career, and which has been a lasting element over the past twenty-five years, is that environmental professionals care deeply about the work that they do. In fact, corporate environmental professionals are just as passionate about protecting and enhancing the environment as their peers serving regulatory, policy, advocacy, watchdog, or litigation roles do.
The corporate environmental professionals, the people behind the veil of corporate brands and lawyers, represent grandparents, parents, community leaders, local sheriff and law enforcement, business owners, volunteer firemen and women, among many other hats they wear. These professionals work with environmental engineering and consulting professionals, regulators, lawyers, technology firms, construction management, safety professionals, local elected officials, and so many others who also share a strong affinity for protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and enhancing quality of life within the communities in which they live and work.
But for most companies, and certainly for any company that takes its license to operate in society seriously, the environmental professionals working for them are incredibly passionate, dedicated, and have high integrity. They choose these traits, because they believe in being stewards of the environment – but they also understand environmental law and the repercussions before them, including imprisonment, if they did not uphold integrity, accountability, and responsibility in the work they perform. All environmental professionals understand this, believe me. This is not to say however, that bad actors don’t exist, they do. And perhaps there is a dragon or giant out there that should be slayed and fall.
It is important to acknowledge that the knowledge, resources, creativity, and intellect of existing enterprise holds tremendous value in shaping our future. The lessons of our storied and complex corporate environmental past, especially the awful ones, represent an opportunity for all stakeholders to learn from the past, as we work together to protect our present, and prepare for a more prosperous future.
In Summary
If not appropriately assessed, attempting to create a more sustainable future by taking down giants and slaying dragons can be laden with unintentional global economic, environmental, and societal risk and concern. If we don’t learn from past mistakes and mishaps, we are doomed to repeat them.
The energy shift is indicative of the broader industrial and societal transition that is underway, seeking to redefine prosperity in terms of planet pragmatism, an approach to uplift the inherent wisdom we already have for survival while optimizing resources to attain a better quality of life here and now.
Humanity is, in a sense, living with one foot in the past and one in the future. Too often however, we forget to leverage our wisdom, garnered from prior experience and know-how, with our desire to shape the future, to inform our decisions in the present moment. This phenomenon limits our collective lens (view to the world and what’s possible) to achieve positive impact in the here and now.
When we integrate our wisdom and deep knowledge, much like corporate remediation professional have, with real-world challenges today, we can make measured improvements for today, as we also consider the full potential of transitional and transformational technologies and new business models.
Comments