economy – Page 3 – 8020 Vision

Jeremy Grantham: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes

Posted on 02 August 2010 | by Jay Kimball | 5 Comments

Jeremy Grantham, savvy dean of US money management, has boiled climate change down to thirteen essentials.

Jeremy Grantham is Chairman of the Board of Grantham Mayo Van Otterloo (GMO), a Boston-based asset management firm. GMO is one of the largest managers of such funds in the world. Grantham is regarded as a highly knowledgeable investor in various stock, bond, and commodity markets, and is particularly noted for his prediction of various bubbles.

Grantham’s Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes appeared in GMO’s Quarterly Letter, published July 2010.

Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year. This is certain and straightforward.

One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise. This is just physics. (The amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, has also risen steeply since industrialization, which has added to the impact of higher CO2 levels.)

Several other factors, like changes in solar output, have major influences on climate over millennia, but these effects have been observed and measured. They alone cannot explain the rise in the global temperature over the past 50 years.

The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system. It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise. But, the past can be measured. The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased. But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century. A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, floods, and other extreme weather events.

Skeptics argue that this wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: “Why spend money when you’re not certain?” But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.) This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued.

Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infinite loss? And, he answers, “Infinite.” In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less. The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fired power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important. Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious: costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war. And, to Pascal’s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: definitely life changing, possibly life threatening.

The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity. This features nowhere in economic cost-benefit analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless.

A special word on the right-leaning think tanks: As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise. In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons – seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation. Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science. Not a good idea.

Also, I should make a brief note to my own group – die hard contrarians. Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market. And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists who lead finance theory attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market efficiency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged. The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was man- made. (See the attachment to last quarter’s Letter.) Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same. Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers.

Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for … what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news. Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results.

Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”

Almost no one wants to change. The long-established status quo is very comfortable, and we are used to its deficiencies. But for this problem we must change. This is never easy.

Almost everyone wants to hear good news. They want to believe that dangerous global warming is a hoax. They, therefore, desperately want to believe the skeptics. This is a problem for all of us.

Postscript
Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving field rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it.

Consumer Behavior: Deleveraging

Posted on 19 July 2010 | by Jay Kimball | 3 Comments

Roger Lowenstein, an outside director of the Sequoia Fund, and author of The End of Wall Street has an article in The New York Times called Paralyzed by Debt.

Highlights of the article are below. It is an excellent example of the impact uncertainty and consumer unease can have on consumer behavior. To put the article in context, here are a couple charts I use when talking about consumer behavior and impact on business and government economic models.

In Maslow’s hierarchy, the higher level needs can only be met when the foundational needs are solid. When something like the current recession, or high oil prices, or job insecurity occur, uncertainty rises and undermines our sense of wellbeing. We shift our focus to the basics – do we have a stable home situation, can we pay the mortgage, do we have a job, can we depend on it, can we afford healthcare, etc.? In short, the consumer mind shifts from Thrive to Survive.

We can see a practical example of this in the Personal Savings Rate. As the US entered the 2008 recession, the Personal Saving Rate, which has been trending down, did a stunning reversal in a single quarter, pivoting from .8 percent to almost 6 percent.

Lowenstein details how economic uncertainty impacted refinancing his home.

Highlights from NY Times Article: Paralyzed by Debt

Last month, my wife and I refinanced our mortgage. Though the rate was lower and we could have afforded more debt, we paid down a chunk of the balance. Don’t ask me why — it just felt better to owe less money. Time was, such thrift would have been hailed as patriotic. Now it threatens the economic recovery. Less borrowing means less to spend.
Suppose everybody did this? Well, it turns out, everybody has. Eschewing trips to the mall, Americans are paying off credit-card balances and home-equity lines. Despite low rates, mortgage demand has plummeted.

12.5% of household after-tax income is devoted to repaying debts (source: The Federal Reserve Board, 2010)

Half of American workers have suffered a job loss or a cut in hours or wages over the past 30 months.

The economy is Deleveraging. Credit in the economy is shrinking, as opposed to the normal state of affairs, in which, each quarter, people borrow more money and banks issue more loans.

Remarkably, this deleveraging has been going on for nearly two years. Ordinary Americans are behaving just as the banks they love to excoriate — having, formerly, assumed too much risk, they are going into hibernation. If credit, in the words of the writer James Grant, is money of the mind, people have become psychologically indisposed to minting it.

Total household credit has contracted for seven straight quarters.

Mortgage debt is down $462 billion from the peak, which it reached in November 2008.

Bank-card borrowings, which peaked two months later, are off $126 billion.

Auto loans have fallen $122 billion; home-equity lines, $77 billion.

As Stephanie Pomboy, publisher of the newsletter Macro Mavens, has pointed out, government transfers like stimulus spending and tax credits masked the effects of diminishing credit for a while. That is to say, even if people were unwilling to borrow, they were happy to spend money they got from the government. Now that government supports are being pulled away, the effects of deleveraging are in plain view. Home and car sales are plummeting again. Job growth has shrunk to a sliver. Personal bankruptcies are soaring. Deflation, a dangerous state of economic dead air, when prices fall from lack of demand, is a distinct possibility.

In 2001, household debt reached a par with annual after-tax household income. (The average family owed what it earned.) By the peak of the bubble, in 2008, borrowings had surged to 36 percent more than income.

Which raises the issue: how much of that debt will have to be repaid before people return to their customary, and stimulative, profligacy? Thus far, we have undone only a portion of the excess. Household debt now stands at 26 percent more than income — still very high by historical standards. “There is no magical level where it should be,” says David Resler, an economist with Nomura Securities. “There is no clear equilibrium.”

To return to the status quo of before the housing boom — say, back to debt to income ratios prevailing in 2000 — it would take five more years of deleveraging at the current rate.

McKinsey recently published an excellent review of the global deleveraging process that began in 2008. From their report:

Americans steadily increased their debt levels for a good six decades, but it wasn’t until the turn of the millennium that the ratio of household debt to income really soared. Yet by the second quarter of 2011, three years after the start of the global economic crisis, the US ratio had fallen 11 percent from its peak. At the current rate of deleveraging, it would return to trend as of mid-2013—a conclusion buttressed by a comparison between US households today and those of Sweden and Finland during the 1990s, when the two Scandinavian countries endured similar banking crises, recessions, and deleveraging episodes. In both, the ratio of household debt to income fell by roughly 30 percent from its peak. As the exhibit below shows, the United States has been closely tracking the Swedish experience, while households in Spain and the United Kingdom have only just begun to deleverage. To learn more, read “Working out of debt” (January 2012).

Rethinking the Measure of Growth

Posted on 19 July 2010 | by Jay Kimball | 1 Comment

Lat year I posted an article (Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz on Sustainability and Growth) about an interview with economics Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz at the Asia Society in New York City. Stiglitz talked about how “what we measure determines what we grow” and the dramatic negative side-effects a metric like GDP can have on societal well-being.

Today, Wayne Arnold at The New York TImes builds on this idea in his article Rethinking the Measure of Growth.

Highlights from NY Times Article

The quest for more plentiful and less expensive oil for fast-growing Asian economies has also brought a wave of offshore drilling from India and the Gulf of Thailand, to Vietnam and Bohai Bay, on the northeast coast of China.
In considering this risk and the increasing evidence of the toll that rapid economic development is already taking on Asia’s environment, economists and other experts in Asia have taken up the call to re-examine the prominence of economic growth as a measure of policy success, particularly the use of gross domestic product.
Asian governments have become particularly enthralled with gross domestic product (GDP) statistics for validation, becoming what Vishakha Desai, the president and chief executive of the Asia Society in New York, has called “G.D.P. junkies.”

For local officials in China, gross domestic product was, until recently, more than just a barometer for gauging policies, it was the measuring stick against which their futures in the ruling Communist Party were determined. Economic growth still ranks as one of the chief criteria for determining party promotions, according to Tan Kong Yam, an economics professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore who offers a course for mayors from China.

For such officials, “there is an enormous incentive to promote investments and industrial production,” he said. “This explains why there’s enormous pollution.”

Gross domestic product has come in for some particularly hard knocks since the global financial crisis, notably after a report last year whose co-author was Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, that said reliance on gross domestic product had blinded governments to the increasing risks in the world economy since 2004.
Overlooking that risk has possibly cost future economic growth, the report said, and has contributed to a looming environmental crisis.

“Market prices are distorted by the fact that there is no charge imposed on carbon emissions,” the report said. “Clearly, measures of economic performance that reflected these environmental costs might look markedly different from standard measures.”

Economists in Asia say the debate about gross domestic product misses the point. Gross domestic product as a statistic is sound, they say; what is wrong is the fascination in government with what it measures — the sum total of a nation’s annual production.

“The problem is not G.D.P.,” said Bhanoji Rao, a visiting economics professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore. “The problem is the culture of consumption.”

Mr. Rao is part of a growing body of economists, largely in academia, who question whether rapid economic growth rates in Asia — from the 10.3 percent expansion in giant-but-poor China to an expected 15 percent growth this year in tiny-but-rich Singapore — are necessarily producing a happier, healthier Asia.
Some Asian governments, China’s included, have been trying to recalibrate gross domestic product to include the cost of growth to the environment, creating a green gross domestic product. Such efforts, said Mr. Tan, the Nanyang professor, have been frustrated by the difficulty in determining the future cost of environmental destruction.
What is needed instead, some economists say, is a wholesale re-examination of development’s goals. “There needs to be an internal debate within the developing countries about what is the path of development we want to have,” Mr. Rao said.

Andy Xie, a private economist in Shanghai, has long argued that the 1.3 billion people in China cannot realistically hope to live like Americans.

“That statement is truer than ever,” he said.

Beijing, at least, appears to have gotten the message, if its investments in green technology and public transportation are anything to go by. The Communist Party has also revised the promotion criteria for officials so that environmental conditions are included along with gross domestic product.

But economists like Mr. Xie and Mr. Rao warn that even with greener development, the result may still be the same if the goal remains an American-style standard of living. Asia may instead need to carve out a vastly different vision of prosperity that does not rely on ever-increasing levels of material consumption.

Creating Leaders Great at Performing in Uncertainty without a Clue as to Why

Posted on 14 July 2010 | by Belina | 3 Comments

There is an interesting phenomena going on in some of the major business schools in Europe. In some – you are not allowed to mention environmental factors as a major catalyst for new business models/thinking. It is “understood” that as a lecturer, you inspire the students with fresh thinking but only so far. Go further, and people just roll their eyes and pigeon-hole you as a treehugger.

Here are three quotes from top business leaders:

“The era of ‘abundance’ is over. The future will see our natural resources, from oil to food, having some level of restriction placed on them.” – Andy Bond, CEO, Asda (May 2009)

“We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels.” – Richard Branson, announcing investment of all profits from Virgin transport business, estimated at $3 billion over 10 years, to be invested in fighting global warming. (21 September 2006)

“Sustainability is here to stay or we may not be.” – Niall Fitzgerald, UK CEO, Unilever

Now, none of these guys are particularly treehuggy. And most MBAs would give their eyeteeth to fill the shoes of these guys – and yet – in many MBA programs – coverage of sustainability issues is absent, apologetic, sidelined, or sketchy.

Let’s stop tiptoeing around the obvious. Business leaders can handle the truth. Though there is uncertainty on what the impact will be, climate change is a global issue that will impact business. Period.

In 2008 the US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) presented to Congress the DNI report National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030. Here are a few excerpts:

“The United States depends on a smooth-functioning international system ensuring the flow of trade and market access to critical raw materials such as oil and gas, and security for its allies and partners. Climate change and climate change policies could affect all of these—domestic stability in a number of key states, the opening of new sea lanes and access to raw materials, and the global economy more broadly—with significant geopolitical consequences.”

“In addition, anticipated impacts to the Homeland—including possible increases in the severity of storms in the Gulf, increased demand for energy resources, disruptions in US and Arctic infrastructure, and increases in immigration from resource-scarce regions of the world—are expected to be costly. Government, business, and public efforts to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to deal with climate change — from policies to reduce greenhouse gasses to plans to reduce exposure to climate change or capitalize on potential impacts—may affect US national security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate change itself.”

“Climate change is a threat multiplier in  the world’s most unstable regions.”

“From a national security perspective, climate change has the potential to affect lives (for example, through food and water shortages, increased health problems including the spread of disease, and increased potential for conflict), property (for example through ground subsidence, flooding, coastal erosion, and extreme weather events), and other security interests.”

These leaders are talking about fundamental shifts in ‘givens’ that require action, a joined up way of behaving, new ways of thinking, and new approaches. And our top business schools should be on the leading edge.

I first got interested in business schools ignoring the big elephant in the classroom two years ago when I was delivering a course on dominant business metaphors and implementing change. I wanted to say one line – one sentence inviting students to ponder how the nature of sustainability planning would be different if organisations, in addition to approaching business as a ‘competitive sport’, also approached it as a living organism. The professor who brought me in said ‘no’ – that the MBAs would feel they were being hijacked away from the course they had paid for. There was a specific elective for sustainability – and outside of that – best not to mention those issues.

Over the past few months, I’ve been speaking with several top MBA programs in Europe. Each is saying that leaders need, more than at any other time in history, to be able to lead in the presence of ambiguity, and to be able to perform collaboratively with high levels of uncertainty. Applied Improvisation skills are rather good for that, which is why I’m there in the first place.

What I find interesting in talking with these top MBA programs is that many are not contextualising the WHY of this new emphasis. Not addressing why managers/leaders would need to be so good at ambiguity.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” – Edward Abbey

I sat up when I saw this quote. It was refreshing to see in a lecture to potential MBAs at a leading business school in the Netherlands a few weeks ago. During my time at the school, two of the guest lecturers talked about sustainability – kind of…

The first lecturer used the Abbey quote (Abbey is a renown outspoken sustainability activist) and talked about the need to create ‘sustainable businesses’ quickly dismissed the notion of ‘sustainable’ as being linked to any ‘environmental’ issues… – it was about a business which can keep going, despite ‘adversity’. Given what scientists are saying about increasing disruptions over climate change, peak oil, peak minerals, peak water, how could adversity due to these factors not be mentioned?

The other lecturer had just hosted a biomimicry event two weeks before and deeply cared about the environment and sustainability. He works with top leaders in the best companies around the world on developing leadership skills. In his session, he talked about the profound need for leaders to be comfortable leading in the presence of ambiguity, but didn’t say why. In the break he confided that there are some groups with which you cannot talk about the environment directly. He had been gently testing the water with that day’s group and found he could mention it a bit…but only a bit. Several people were there for the express purpose of earning more money with an emphasis on value extraction, not particularly wealth creation/exchange.

Contextualising is a vital part of learning. The military does this routinely in their simulations – creating real world scenarios in the classroom. If we are facing a series of challenges (climate change, scarcity of water, oil, minerals, etc.) we must mention that as part of what leaders will face.

One initiative that gives me hope is the UN Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME) initiative. The head of a leading MBA program in the UK turned me on to it. Finally – a global effort is being made to transform business schools and the Assocation of MBAs is part of it. In theory – that should mean that the taboo-ness of sustainability issues being explicitly mentioned, or mentioned only in specific electives – disappears.

As I continue to work with MBA programs, I will keep you posted on what I see going forward in this arena. And if you know of any best practice in this area – please post it here. Let me know!

“Unless we change direction, we are likely to end up where we are going.” – Chinese proverb

Sustainable Energy Security: Strategic Risks and Opportunities for Business

Posted on 12 July 2010 | by Jay Kimball | 3 Comments

Lloyds of London, the insurance market, and Chatham House have published a white paper on Sustainable Energy Security that details the risks and opportunities for business.

Lloyd’s CEO, Dr. Richard Ward, doesn’t mince words in his foreword to the white paper:

This report, jointly produced by Lloyd’s 360 Risk Insight programme and Chatham House, should cause all risk managers to pause. What it outlines, in stark detail, is that we have entered a period of deep uncertainty in how we will source energy for power, heat and mobility, and how much we will have to pay for it.

Is this any different from the normal volatility of the oil or gas markets? Yes, it is. Today, a number of pressures are combining: constraints on ‘easy to access’ oil; the environmental and political urgency of reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and a sharp rise in energy demand from the Asian economies, particularly China.

All of this means that the current generation of business leaders – and their successors – are going to have to find a new energy paradigm. Expect dramatic changes:

Prices are likely to rise, with some commentators suggesting oil may reach $200 a barrel.

Regulations on carbon emissions will intensify.

Reputations will be won or lost as the public demands that businesses reduce their environmental footprint.

The growing demand for energy will require an estimated $26 trillion in investment by 2030. Energy companies will face hard choices in deciding how to deploy these funds in an uncertain market with mixed policy messages. The recent Deepwater oil spill shows all too clearly the hazards of moving into ever more unpredictable terrain to extract energy resources. And the rapid deployment of cleaner energy technologies will radically alter the risk landscape. At this precise point in time we are in a period akin to a phony war. We keep hearing of difficulties to come, but with oil, gas and coal still broadly accessible – and largely capable of being distributed where they are needed – the bad times have not yet hit. The primary purpose of this report is to remind the reader that all businesses, not just the energy sector, need to consider how they, their suppliers and their customers will be affected by energy supplies which are less reliable and more expensive.

The failure of the Copenhagen Summit has not helped to instil a sense of urgency and it has hampered the ability of businesses – particularly those in the energy sector – to plan ahead and to make critical new investments in energy infrastructure. I call on governments to identify a clear path towards sustainable energy which businesses can follow.

Independently of what happens in UN negotiating rooms, businesses can take action. We can plan our energy needs, we can make every effort to reduce consumption, and we can aim for a mix of different energy sources. The transformation of the energy environment from carbon to clean energy sources creates an extraordinary risk management challenge for businesses. Traditional models that focus on annual profits and, at best, medium term strategies may struggle. Parts of this report talk about what might happen in 2030 or even 2050 and I make no apology for this. Energy security requires a long term view and it is the companies who grasp this who will trade on into the second half of this century.

Executive Summary

Businesses which prepare for and take advantage of the new energy reality will prosper – failure to do so could be catastrophic.
Market dynamics and environmental factors mean business can no longer rely on low cost traditional energy sources.
China and growing Asian economies will play an increasingly important role in global energy security
We are heading towards a global oil supply crunch and price spike.
Energy infrastructure will become increasingly vulnerable as a result of climate change and operations in harsher environments.
Lack of global regulation on climate change is creating an environment of uncertainty for business, which is damaging investment plans.
To manage increasing energy costs and carbon exposure businesses must reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Business must address energy-related risks to supply chains and the increasing vulnerability of ‘just-in-time’ models.
Investment in renewable energy and ‘intelligent’ infrastructure is booming. This revolution presents huge opportunities for new business partnerships.

A change in the energy market balance between East and West

Advanced economies remain the biggest consumers of primary energy per person but by 2008 non-OECD countries led by China and India had outstripped them in terms of the share of world demand. This shift began in the 1990s, partly because manufacturing shifted eastwards. Meanwhile, lower population growth, de- industrialisation, greater efficiency, higher fuel prices and a concern for the environment are lowering demand for oil-based fuels and coal in the OECD.

These consumption trajectories mean there is likely to be a tipping point in 2015 when countries in Asia-Pacific need more imported oil in total than the Middle East (including Sudan) can export.

Middle East oil surplus vs Asia-Pacific deficit (Source: John Mitchell, Chatham House 2010)

The white paper goes on to detail market forces, energy trends, risk and opportunity. This is recommended reading for business and government leaders and risk managers.

Walmart Partnering with Patagonia on Sustainable Business Practices

Posted on 01 July 2010 | by Jay Kimball | 2 Comments

A recent article in Forbes describes how Patagonia, one of the early thought-leaders on sustainable business practices, and Walmart, are partnering to help Walmart move up the sustainable business learning curve fast. The article emphasizes the need for not just being sustainable inside the business, but up the supply chain as well.

Highlights of the Forbes article:

Patagonia is working with Walmart to develop a sustainability index for its products
This initiative is being driven by Walmart CEO, Lee Scott, working with Patagonia’s CEO, Yvon Chouinard.
Walmart CEO Lee Scott first articulated a sustainable vision for Walmart in 2005 saying Walmart “must operate in a world that is healthy.“
Walmart is assessing things like how much water is consumed in the manufacturing process of a product, whether pesticides are used, impact on climate change, energy efficiency, etc.
Walmart wants to place a scorecard on its store goods that rate products on eco-friendliness and social impact.
Walmart is evaluating its suppliers and will give preference to those who best comply.
Patagonia has helped others, including Nike, Gap, REI, and North Face.
Nike has gone on to form GreenXchange, a consortium of ten companies (among them, Yahoo) that will trade eco-friendly intellectual property.

Most businesses I talk with want to do the right thing in terms of caring for the planet, but it rarely shows up in their mission statements or operational imperatives. However, if you ask any business person if their business depends on a healthy customer and a healthy supply chain, the answer is an obvious “Yes!”

Sustainable Business Interdependence

When I talk with business about strategies and tactics for sustainable business, we invariably come to this picture:

If a business confines their view of global issues to within their own business, they might think that climate change, water scarcity or high energy costs don’t impact them. They might say “Well, we don’t use much water, so that’s not an issue for us.” But if the view becomes more expansive to include the supply chain and the customer, they find increased risk to “business as usual.” Everyone interdepends on everyone else. Just as the proverbial rising tide lifts all boats, if the tide falls for one, it falls for all.

For example:

Water tables are falling rapidly in China. If a production plant in China, making product for Walmart, depends on water for the production, and the price of water suddenly rises, or access is limited by government edict, that impacts Walmart cost of goods and product flow.
If Walmart customers can’t afford to buy as much because they are spending too much on energy bills and gas expenses because the price of oil is at $120 a barrel, Walmart top line revenue growth declines.

Even if a business isn’t selling directly to “the consumer,” there is risk. If a company has businesses as a customer segment, they must understand how those businesses will be impacted. For example, if Walmart customers choose to spend less money at Walmart because of rising energy prices or fear of losing a job, Walmart will place less orders with their vendors and vendor order volume will fall. So consumer wellbeing matters to vendors all the way up the supply chain.

Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world. They are taking the long view and understand the interdependence of their success with the health of their supply chain and customer base.

Regarding sustainable practices, as a business expands its field of view to include supply chain and customer, there are three key things to examine:

Mitigation – Understanding what impact global issues will have on the business and creating adaptive strategies and tactics to prepare. Shareholder value is protected.
Innovation – As a business understands the global trends and challenges, they can innovate solutions that will have real value for their business, supply chain and customers, and beyond the, open new markets and opportunities. Shareholder value is increased.
Advocacy – Are the steering directions a business gives to representative associations, lobbying firms, chambers of commerce and state and federal representatives in alignment with new found adaptive strategies and tactics?

Thinking like Walmart – What can a business do to ensure a healthy world?

Perhaps we should call it the The New Trickle Around Economy!

More on this in a future post. For now, here are some photos I took while visiting Walmart headquarters, in Bentonville, AK, for a book I am writing on sustainable business strategies. These pictures were taken while touring one of Walmart’s flagship stores in Fayetteville, AR.

Walmart store green steps program, sign at check out — Walmart store Green Steps program, sign at check out, in Fayetteville, AK

Walmart store green steps program, rain water harvesting catchment tanks at back of store

Walmart store green steps program, rain water harvesting description

Walmart store green steps program, wetlands for catching run-off, and purifying it naturally.

Walmart store green steps program, streamlined truck to reduce fuel consumption