Can ”Social footprints” and/or a ”Social Shadow Index” help guide decisions?

The lack of dynamic instruments that can help to measure products, companies and countries in terms of social impact inspired me to think about a measurement that can show what’s behind certain choices and what consequences over time these choices can have.

In the same way as I find the ecological footprint a good tool to make people think about the ecological consequences I think a “social footprint”/”Social Shadow” could do the same for social consequences.

I have started to write down my ideas about Social Footprint/ Social Shadow Index here, feed-back welcome. I will try to get the other ideas up on the web also, but it always take a bid longer than I plan to move things from word to html...

Can ”Social footprints” and/or a ”Social Shadow Index” help guide decisions?

The lack of dynamic instruments that can help to measure products, companies and countries in terms of social impact inspired me to think about a measurement that can show what’s behind certain choices and what consequences over time these choices can have.

In the same way as I find the ecological footprint a good tool to make people think about the ecological consequences I think a “social footprint”/”Social Shadow” could do the same for social consequences.

I have started to write down my ideas about Social Footprint/ Social Shadow Index here, feed-back welcome. I will try to get the other ideas up on the web also, but it always take a bid longer than I plan to move things from word to html...

Vattenfall and Shell in the lead with empty Climate PR undermining necessary actions

Last year climate change moved from a fringe issue to mainstream. These days politicians and business leaders are falling over themselves to talk about the need for a resource efficient low carbon future. I wonder if this new found enthusiasm partly can be explained by the realization that a strong PR message combined with destructive actions not only is possible, but also brings companies to the centre stage of influence and allow them a voice in media.

Governments like the Swedish and German have invited Vattenfall and both have appointed the CEO as a climate advisor. The result is that a company that talks about action to reduce CO2 at the same time as they lead the lock-in of Europe in dependence on coal power is rewarded and put in a position where they influence government policy. This is dangerous as serious companies realize that the government is not interested in real actions that deliver results.

Vattenfall might actually be so bad that they would become number one if a “Hypocrisy index” was created were the distance between word and action could be measured. (this is not to say that Vattenfall lack good ideas, see earlier blog for example of how interesting things happen within Vattenfall).

Other companies are trying a different path. They are trying to turn the environmental rhetoric around and try to make destruction something innovative that we should be proud of. Shell is probably the leader in this field. After Brent Spar and the Ogoni Shell, together with BP, took the lead in ethical discussions and investment in sustainable energy production. I have no idea why, but now Shell seem to do everything they can to position themselves as leaders in destroying the planet and ensure that the infrastructure for the addiction to oil will be with us for decades to come.

So right now I would put the following as the worst/most dangerous PR climate campaigns:

1. Vattenfall: “Empty words just add carbon dioxide” Yes, agree. Especially if the words come from a CEO that have used tax payers money (Vattenfall was compensated when the government closed one nuclear power plant for Sydkraft, now E.ON. and gave them part in a plant from Vattenfall and gave Vattenfall compensation for this) and high energy prices to invest in dirty coal power. Vattenfall is now responsible for more CO2 emissions that Sweden as a whole, to be celebrated as a leader then is something that

2. Shell: “Difficult, Yes. Impossible, No” I guess this refers to how the PR people replied when they were asked if they could make people believe that oil sand was part of the sustainable energy future. That they run this ad in Scientific American is amazing, especially when they manage to have it in the same issue as “The Sea-Level Threat from Sliding Ice Sheets”. My optimistic side think that the people how picked the spot wanted Shell to wake up and realize that they cannot redefine the truth with simple PR.

3. Ford/Volvo: “Life is better lived together”
Yes, but it is impossible if a lifestyle and technology that will make the poor people and future generations suffer is promoted to expencive PR campaigns.

I would like to add a third company to the list as the launch for the new destructive car use a slogan based on an idea of caring for each other. Interesting enough the launch of this car was so out of sync with reality and what people want that the FT of Sweden (Dagens Industri) asked if Volvo understood what the market was asking for.

With an image like Volvo they help fuel cynicism and here is the kind of respond they get. If this is the customer they want Volvo will have a hard time explaining why they should exist in the 21^st Century.

Vattenfall and Shell in the lead with empty Climate PR undermining necessary actions

Last year climate change moved from a fringe issue to mainstream. These days politicians and business leaders are falling over themselves to talk about the need for a resource efficient low carbon future. I wonder if this new found enthusiasm partly can be explained by the realization that a strong PR message combined with destructive actions not only is possible, but also brings companies to the centre stage of influence and allow them a voice in media.

Governments like the Swedish and German have invited Vattenfall and both have appointed the CEO as a climate advisor. The result is that a company that talks about action to reduce CO2 at the same time as they lead the lock-in of Europe in dependence on coal power is rewarded and put in a position where they influence government policy. This is dangerous as serious companies realize that the government is not interested in real actions that deliver results.

Vattenfall might actually be so bad that they would become number one if a “Hypocrisy index” was created were the distance between word and action could be measured. (this is not to say that Vattenfall lack good ideas, see earlier blog for example of how interesting things happen within Vattenfall).

Other companies are trying a different path. They are trying to turn the environmental rhetoric around and try to make destruction something innovative that we should be proud of. Shell is probably the leader in this field. After Brent Spar and the Ogoni Shell, together with BP, took the lead in ethical discussions and investment in sustainable energy production. I have no idea why, but now Shell seem to do everything they can to position themselves as leaders in destroying the planet and ensure that the infrastructure for the addiction to oil will be with us for decades to come.

So right now I would put the following as the worst/most dangerous PR climate campaigns:

1. Vattenfall: “Empty words just add carbon dioxide” Yes, agree. Especially if the words come from a CEO that have used tax payers money (Vattenfall was compensated when the government closed one nuclear power plant for Sydkraft, now E.ON. and gave them part in a plant from Vattenfall and gave Vattenfall compensation for this) and high energy prices to invest in dirty coal power. Vattenfall is now responsible for more CO2 emissions that Sweden as a whole, to be celebrated as a leader then is something that

2. Shell: “Difficult, Yes. Impossible, No” I guess this refers to how the PR people replied when they were asked if they could make people believe that oil sand was part of the sustainable energy future. That they run this ad in Scientific American is amazing, especially when they manage to have it in the same issue as “The Sea-Level Threat from Sliding Ice Sheets”. My optimistic side think that the people how picked the spot wanted Shell to wake up and realize that they cannot redefine the truth with simple PR.

3. Ford/Volvo: “Life is better lived together”
Yes, but it is impossible if a lifestyle and technology that will make the poor people and future generations suffer is promoted to expencive PR campaigns.

I would like to add a third company to the list as the launch for the new destructive car use a slogan based on an idea of caring for each other. Interesting enough the launch of this car was so out of sync with reality and what people want that the FT of Sweden (Dagens Industri) asked if Volvo understood what the market was asking for.

With an image like Volvo they help fuel cynicism and here is the kind of respond they get. If this is the customer they want Volvo will have a hard time explaining why they should exist in the 21^st Century.

European Business Summit – Agreement about the need for a revolution, but little action

Participating in the European Business Summit (EBS)over two days is an interesting experience, part inspiring visions, part sad PR attempts and part opportunities for very frank one-to-one conversations with interesting people.

The reason for my participation was a panel with the theme “ICT: solution for a low carbon economy?”. It was a good panel with the following participants:

Moderator: Martin Porter, Managing Director, The Centre
Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Information Society and Media, European Commission
Tim Cowen, Commercial Director and Legal Counsel, BT Global Services
Francesco Serafini, Senior Vice President, Managing Director, HP EMEA
Dr. Craig Barrett, Chairman of the Board, Intel
Håkan Eriksson, Senior Vice President, CTO, Ericsson
Dennis Pamlin, Global Policy Adviser, WWF

It was encouraging to hear Viviane Reding talk about the role of ICT at the panel and the day after Euroactive wrote:
“To tackle the problem, the commissioner announced a range of actions for ‘the coming months’. The EU executive will start with a document suggesting the way forward. Then there will be a stakeholders' forum, followed by a final recommendation by the European Commission. ’Everything [will be] in 2008,- pointed out Reding.”

I look forward to follow this process. It sounds very much like the WWF-ETNO roadmap from 2005. But if we could get started now we have only lost two years.

The others on the panel where strong supporters, Craig Bannet was the only one who did not seem to be 100% on the solution side, but instead slipped back into the energy use of the IT-equipment all the time (maybe he did not hear that the rest of the panel left that discussion behind)

THE BEGINNING
Looking at the rest of the event it is interesting to observe that the first panel included, but was not dominated by, Björn Lomborg. It was almost symbolic that he was part of the introduction as his role these days seem to be reduced to a clown/joker that is invited to be a voice for a world we have left behind.

His statements where either obvious things that no one disagree with (that we need to think carefully about the long term consequences of our actions, and that research is important, that we cannot solve the climate challenge by asking individuals to act as structural changes are needed, that other important challenges exist, etc) or just plain wrong (that it will be extremely expensive to save the climate, or that early action is unimportant). While he earlier discussed important issues like the risk of overestimating the risk of climate change (and other environmental threats) he seem to have nothing to say these days beside that we should not act, but instead focus on research (that it is not a matter of either or seem to more than he can grasp).

AND THE END
The final panel was dominated by Jeremy Rifkin, who talked about the need for a revolution, to make society smart, to move beyond incremental improvements, the need to focus on the three big areas of climate (Buildings, meat and transport). Jeremy have said these things for years, so the surprise is not that he says this, but that he is allowed to end the European Business Summit, and even more surprising the strong support he got from other in the panel. I hope they all read our material from Davos that is exactly about this (5 meg and in a difficult format to read as it is from A4 to A2)...

The biggest surprise for me was probably Gunter Verheugen, hardly known for his leadership in sustainability. He was talking about the need for market regulation in order to ensure that new technologies can enter into the market. The feed-in tariffs that gave birth of the Wind industry in Germany was all of a sudden almost his personal invention. Others on the panel where equally radical. Mark Spelman, Global Head of Strategy, Accenture, talked about the need to get sustainability and climate in as performance management targets on board levels in companies, that innovation must be supported and venture capital increased. Bernard Wientjes, from Belgium was probably one of the more conservative on the panel but was still presenting ideas about green houses that are net producers of electricity.

I should also mention Jean-Philippe from Microsoft who was on the same panel as Lomborg and probably the one on that panel with the most coherent message. From innovations to smart homes, he included much of what Jeremy talked about in the final panel. But there was one big thing missing (not only from him but everyone, including Jeremy): NUMBERS. There were very few concrete numbers about the CO2 reductions that different options will result in and very few, if any, concrete numbers regarding …

So in short the conference started with the historic way of looking at climate change as a problem, and ended with the perspective that it is a driver that can deliver a positive revolution.

NEXT YEAR
I would not mind if the theme next year could be action, where the conference start with the most innovative solutions today and end with the most promising for 2010… Less talk and more action…