Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Climate change’

“The time has come to break away. Dismal scenarios of mounting destruction of national and global potential for development – indeed, of the Earth’s capacity to support life – are not inescapable destiny.”
~ UN – Our Common Future – Brundtland Report, 1987
________________________________

War is hell. A common agreement that the price of war is destructive for all stakeholders. War is usually a well organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by radical parties, dictatorships, totalitarian regimes or other nation-state participants. It is generally characterized by extreme destruction of societies, violent elimination of minority groups, social disruption of community organizations, limitation of food, water, safety and usurp of sovereign ownership of resources.

In context to the last World War (a war that involved Asia, Australia, Africa, Europe, North and South America) very few countries were not affected by its activities. World War Two was a major historic event that changed the course of history and humanity. That event claimed about 40 to 50 million civilians lives in the war. The total number of soldiers killed ranges from 20 to 25 million people. This was estimated to be about 2.5 percent of the world population. It destroyed populations, technologies, infrastructures and brought the world to the edge of even worse scenario of annihilation by starvation and disease.

And that brings us to a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean. The Marshall Islands, is an island nation that covers over 1,150 atolls, islands and islets. This territory was first settled in the second millennium B.C. It is the largest country in Micronesia and currently has a population of about 70,000 inhabitants that live in an area. In 1986, it received full sovereignty from the United States.

Why are the Marshall Islands an interest? First and last, its history is significant. It is also filled with lessons to learn from. During World War Two, it was the location of major conflicts between Japan and United States from 1943-1945.  After World War Two, the Marshall Islands became and a protectorate of the U.S. and site of the Pacific Proving Grounds, where the U.S. tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands [1]. In 1956, the United States Atomic Energy Commission regarded the Marshall Islands as “by far the most contaminated place in the world”[2].

Today, the Marshall Islands are facing a new dilemma, some of it based on the historic use of this part of the Earth. Read more from Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent from BBC News, to see what is now happening. But remember as you read, how decision-making often has long-term consequences and when those decisions are compounded, what happens to future generations:

Read more:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27742957

[1] “Nuclear Weapons Test Map”, Public Broadcasting Service
[2] Stephanie Cooke (2009). In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age, Black Inc., p. 168, ISBN 978-1-59691-617-3.

______________________________________

Building a bridge to benefits thumbnail

Owners, Executive and other Leaders are investigating a global world concerned about Sustainability, that type of understanding can be difficult to obtain. In early December 2013, I published my second book entitled “Building a Bridge to Benefits”. If you are interested in reading about the book or want to purchase copies today, here is the link to CreateSpace, an Amazon company, go to: Building a Bridge to Benefits –  Password: book2013  Discount: A37ZVRKK
______________________________________

Contact information and Services
A Certified Sustainability and Quality consultancy
•    Sustainability and Quality Consulting
•    Sustainability and Quality Workshops
•    Sustainability and Quality Speaking Engagements

Jarvis Business Solutions, LLC

Toll Free: (888) 743-3128
Email: Ralph.Jarvis@JarvisBusinessSolutions.com
Web site: http://www.JarvisBusinessSolutions.com

Read Full Post »

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.” ~Robert Frost
________________________________

Once upon a time there was Global Warming. When it was measured on the planet, warming truly did not grow for over a period of 15+ years. Measured from space, there was no apparent change for 20 years.

Advocates of Global Warming portrayed the measurements too minuscule and too short of time line to be valid. They said, geologically, the time frame was not significant for 20 years or less. But, critics drew the opposite conclusion and declared that the data points were essentially a flat line in temperatures measured and argued that Global Warming did not exist.

So where was the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) who championed Global Warming? They documented these anomalies but essentially ignored the dialogue. So, in today’s discussion, opponents often claim that liberal environmentalists have rebranded Global Warming to Climate Change.

Matt McGrath, environmental correspondent for the BBC, has recently written a well thought out article on the IPCC and Climate Change. He adds other layers of complexity to the argument and brings the awareness, costs and economic accountability to the negotiation table. Here are excerpts of his article:

“Countries are developing in different ways. There are some changes in their emissions patterns, but there are also historical emissions we have to take onboard,” said Dr Yacob Mulugetta from the University of Surrey, another of the report’s authors.

“The key question is how do you bring in the past emissions and align them with the future?”

This question seems to have sparked some of the same divisions between the developed and developing world that have hampered the UN climate negotiation process.

The scientists appear to have agreed on the causes, impacts and solutions to the climate challenge, but there are divisions appearing about who should cut, and who should pay.

So, if you are interested in Climate Change or not, Matt provides more insight to the issue. I encourage you to read his article and decide for yourself. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27014603

______________________________________

Building a bridge to benefits thumbnail

Owners, Executive and other Leaders are investigating a global world concerned about Sustainability, that type of understanding can be difficult to obtain. In early December 2013, I published my second book entitled “Building a Bridge to Benefits”. If you are interested in reading about the book or want to purchase copies today, here is the link to CreateSpace, an Amazon company, go to: Building a Bridge to Benefits –  Password: book2013  Discount: A37ZVRKK
______________________________________

Contact information and Services
A Certified Sustainability and Quality consultancy
•    Sustainability and Quality Consulting
•    Sustainability and Quality Workshops
•    Sustainability and Quality Speaking Engagements

Jarvis Business Solutions, LLC

Toll Free: (888) 743-3128
Email: Ralph.Jarvis@JarvisBusinessSolutions.com
Web site: http://www.JarvisBusinessSolutions.com

Read Full Post »

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”  ~ Galileo Galilei
________________________________

U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a small staff of 12 volunteer scientists who research Climate Change. They recently published another tome that questions their veracity. It also questions whether Climate Change is real, imagined, but essentially does not resolve that question at all. Its suggested (but unsubstantiated) impact on the environment, society and economic consequences is becoming an indicator for uncertainty rather than explaining real trends.

These assumptions and Climate Change is controversial since it is promoted by “beliefs” rather than measurable facts and metrics. The IPCC said; “scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.” Although there is no change in temperature for the last 15 years, yet that anomaly is downplayed in the report.

Why the disparity? According to the scientists, it is due to the ongoing understanding of climate change. The report made significant adjustments from its previous reports. For example:

  • In the 2007 study, the temperature range for doubling CO2 in the atmosphere was 2.0C to 4.5C.
  • In the latest study,  the temperature range for doubling CO2 in the atmosphere was expanded  to 1.5C to 4.5C.

Apparently they needed to expand the range of temperature to “fit” their models? Although this is cynicism, increasing the range in temperatures and assumptions affect predictions of sea level rise that will proceed faster, ocean warming, and other areas where warming is projected to continue in all scenarios. Here are some other areas where recommendations from the IPCC impact scenarios:

  • Rising Sea Levels
  • Ocean Acidification
  • Heat Extremes
  • Lower agricultural yields
  • Risks to Human Support Systems
  • Non-linear impacts tipping elements

So, where is the reporting Transparency in the study? It is public, right. But shouldn’t the IPCC stand on the same level of scrutiny that corporations are encouraged to provide? It stands with “scientist’s belief” that man has created the problem of climate change, yet recent IPCC models do not explain man’s significance on Earth’s climate.

What be other explanations? Here are a few examples: volcanoes in the lithosphere or hydrosphere, recent earthquakes that created an island off the coast of Pakistan that is made of methane infused clays, possible thawing of the permafrost and possible underestimate of the sun’s influence, especially with the recent large solar flares.

Predicting the Climate Change of our planet is a huge undertaking. Given this rather “flexible” notion to Climate Change, based on a dozen volunteer scientist’s “beliefs” and opinions. Why would executives give any credence to Sustainability? Executives make decisions on facts. And according to other sources, there are other significant megaforces that executives would recognize as a threat to their bottom line.

IPCC has been a target for promoting their own agenda, not the science. I would have thought that criticism could be minimized if they took a recommendation from their organization, the United Nations. Both the UN Global Pact and CERES have principles for BUSINESS. Why doesn’t the UN have principles for CLIMATE CHANGE? My suggestion is to read and become more informed. Here are a couple of recent articles that also question the recent IPCC publication:

Read Full Post »

“Courage is of no value unless accompanied by justice; yet if all men became just, there would be no need for courage.”
~ Agesilaus the Second 443 ~ 359 BC, King of Sparta 401-360 BC
________________________________

I have had my graduate students ask what are non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and why should they be considered as an externality to a corporate organization? A better question might be: Does a business-to-NGO (B2N) relationship exist and should we beware of outside agendas?

First, what is an NGO? The term originated from the United Nations, and normally refers to organizations that are not a part of a government and are not conventional for-profit businesses. In the United States, NGOs are typically nonprofit organizations. The term is usually applied only to organizations that pursue wider social aims that have political aspects, but are not openly political organizations such as political parties.

Second, the term “externality” originated from an economic perspective: a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved, such as the pollination of surrounding crops by bees kept for honey.

In a Sustainability context, it takes another meaning: Externalities occur when a third party incurs unintended consequences from the market behaviors of others. Externalities can be either negative (pollution, waste clean-up fees that a community must bear, rather than the generator of the waste), or they can be positive (The Clean Water Act generates positive effects for many who were not involved in enacting the bill).

Sustainability is in its infancy and understanding how to manipulate or replace one technology with another, or use a different best practice over another, or even find a better energy source that is reliable, safe, practical and cost effective can be very complex set of decisions and often require innovative approaches. Business must currently utilize existing energy resources to produce goods and services and create jobs and investments.

But, business is always looking for better ways of working. It now recognizes that energy will have a significant impact on our economy in the next 20-50 years. The 18 September issue of the WSJ states; “Companies are increasingly choosing to generate their own power, rather than buying it from a utility, spurred by falling prices for solar panels and natural gas, and fears of outages.”

Executives clearly understand that continuing to rely on local utilities is a risky decision. They also recognize that alternatives can produce significant tangible benefits for the corporation and energy efficiency is one of  those opportunities. So, when costs for alternative energy sources are available, business will migrate.

There is a raging debate about the importance of carbon energy usage. It is neither clear-cut, nor clearly understood. It is often a discussed in simplified terms, but in reality is interwoven into our biosphere and interacts with other recognized issues: global warming, climate change and increasing rise of emissions. But this is an issue that NGOs, like CDP, embrace and often distort to fit their agenda.

“Companies can only reduce their carbon emissions if they know how and when they are emitting”; says Frances Way, Co-Chief Operating Officer, of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). That may sound good, but as an executive of an NGO, her perspective is neither objective, nor recognizes what has been implemented and successful without her rhetoric.  She sees CDP as the one change agent for businesses and highlights the importance of reducing carbon emissions. The Guardian journalist, Jo Cafino wrote; “Shame on all of you and the other 90 of the 500 largest listed companies in the world that chose not to give CDP the data it requested.”

So, why didn’t business furnish the data? From an executive’s point of view, compliance is not an NGO-business (B2N) function or purpose. Compliance is based on laws and regulations within governments (B2G) that corporations are legally incorporated and obliged to fulfill. But the drum beat by CDP seems to ignore what many of these companies have successfully done. In many ways they are the leaders of change and have begun the journey of reducing their carbon footprint. Had Cafino and Way actually researched a few of the 90 who didn’t report to CDP, they would have found much more.

If CDP read between the lines, Business is saying you are wasting our time. Sustainability is eliminating all waste: waste from external sources, waste from internal sources and waste from external demands that have already been actively pursued. From a Business perspective, their time has already been expended to resolve all of their Sustainability issues, not only carbon. Here are the their top three and what I found through simple searches on the web:

Amazon’s has demonstrated their commitment to energy reduction, thus reducing their carbon footprint:

  • Energy efficient buildings – usually 35-40 percent of energy use is consumed by buildings. Amazon has constructed six new LEEDs Gold certified buildings.
  • Corporate offices in Munich, Germany have been Gold-certified as environmentally friendly by the German Sustainable Building Council
  • Amazon’s fulfillment centers in Indiana, Pennsylvania and Arizona received LEED certification for their commercial interiors.
  • Beijing, China maximizes the use of natural lighting, saving thousands of kilowatt-hours of power usage each month.

Amazon’s program summary: http://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=13786321

Apple: Since 2009, Apple has measured their Environmental Footprint, not only in their buildings, but they approach it systematically. It included their products, supply chain and end of life cycle. It was a holistic approach. A former executive from EPA was brought in to organize and develop those strategies that would effectively benefit Apple not only in terms of carbon reduction, but included benefits in cost reduction, waste elimination, sales opportunities, brand image and incorporating Sustainability into product development and differentiation. In addition, their data centers (which also consumes 25-40 percent of energy in most corporations) are now powered 100 percent by renewable sources (e.g., solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal). Apple’s program: http://www.apple.com/environment/

Facebook is often controversial. Its privacy policies and lack of transparency are often problematic. So, when the issue regarding carbon usage or even applying Sustainability is not clear; therefore, their organization is easy to target its brand image.

So, what is an NGO? CDP is an organization that pursues wider social aims that have political aspects. It could also be viewed as an organization with an suspicious agenda. In this case, it demands information without authority, one that duplicates efforts from the business-government relationship model (B2G). So, in this context, what is the value-added? Maybe CDP should be obliged to apply Transparency themselves?

For those interested in the original articles, their links are provided below:

Original articles

An NGO opinion: Report shows companies still don’t take climate change seriously – CDP analysis reveal lack of action on emissions by top FTSE Global 500 corporations

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/cdp-report-companies-emissions-failing?goback=.gmp_59299.gde_59299_member_273381545#!

Another NGO opinion: Full disclosure on carbon emissions is the only way to save the planet. Shame on you, Apple, Facebook and Amazon. It is nothing short of a disgrace these three brands and 94 other major corporations refuse to divulge carbon emissions data to global NGO CDP. Read about the 97 brands, including Apple, Facebook and Amazon, which refuse to disclose their carbon emissions

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/apple-facebook-amazon-carbon-emissions-reporting

Read Full Post »

A polar bear swimming

Climate change, by itself, is probably the most important megaforce that could directly impact all other environmental issues. According to KPMG; “Predictions of annual output losses from climate change range between 1 percent per year, if strong and early action is taken, to as much as 5 percent a year–if policymakers fail to act.”

Consider taking the test below to gage your awareness and understanding of global climate change:

Think you know the odd effects of global climate change? Take our quiz.

Climate change conjures images of long, hot summers, melting ice caps and stranded polar bears. But as the weather gets stranger, so too does its effects on the environment, sometimes in the oddest of ways. How well do you know the signs of change?

, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

Read Full Post »

This was a published press release by KPMG, and outlines the ten megaforces which will shape the commercial landscape for the next 20 years. Articles, reposts and videos, in this category, will relate to current and possible future impact of these ten megaforces.

The KPMG study, Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing World, explores issues such as climate change, energy and fuel volatility, water availability and cost and resource availability, as well as population growth spawning new urban centers. The analysis examines how these global forces may impact business and industry, calculates the environmental costs to business, and calls for business and policymakers to work more closely to mitigate future business risk and act on opportunities.
Michael Andrew, Chairman of KPMG International, said: “We are living in a resource-constrained world. The rapid growth of developing markets, climate change, and issues of energy and water security are among the forces that will exert tremendous pressure on both business and society.”
“We know that governments alone cannot address these challenges. Business must take a leadership role in the development of solutions that will help to create a more sustainable future. By leveraging its ability to enhance processes, create efficiencies, manage risk, and drive innovation, business will contribute to society and long-term economic growth.”
The KPMG research finds that the external environmental costs, which today are often not shown on financial statements**, of 11 key industry sectors jumped 50 percent from US$566 to US$846 billion in 8 years (2002 to 2010), averaging a doubling of these costs every 14 years.

The 10 global sustainability megaforces that may impact business over the next two decades are:

  1. Climate Change: This may be the one global megaforce that directly impacts all others. Predictions of annual output losses from climate change range between 1 percent per year, if strong and early action is taken, to as much as 5 percent a year–if policymakers fail to act.
  2. Energy & Fuel: fossil fuel markets are likely to become more volatile and unpredictable because of higher global energy demand; changes in the geographical pattern of consumption; supply and production uncertainties and increasing regulatory interventions related to climate change.
  3. Material Resource Scarcity: as developing countries industrialize rapidly, global demand for material resources is predicted to increase dramatically. Business is likely to face increasing trade restrictions and intense global competition for a wide range of material resources that become less easily available. Scarcity also creates opportunities to develop substitute materials or to recover materials from waste.
  4. Water Scarcity: it is predicted that by 2030, the global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40 percent. Businesses may be vulnerable to water shortages, declines in water quality, water price volatility, and to reputational challenges.
  5. Population Growth: The world population is expected to grow to 8.4 billion by 2032. This will place intense pressures on ecosystems and the supply of natural resources such as food, water, energy and materials. While this is a threat for business, there are also opportunities to grow commerce and create jobs, and to innovate to address the needs of growing populations for agriculture, sanitation, education, technology, finance, and healthcare.
  6. Wealth: the global middle class (defined by the OECD as individuals with disposable income of between US$10 and US$100 per capita per day) is predicted to grow 172 percent between 2010 and 2030. The challenge for businesses is to serve this new middle class market at a time when resources are likely to be scarcer and more price volatile. The advantages many companies experienced in the last two decades from “cheap labor” in developing nations are likely to be eroded by the growth and power of the global middle class.
  7. Urbanization: in 2009, for the first time ever, more people lived in cities than in the countryside. By 2030 all developing regions including Asia and Africa are expected to have the majority of their inhabitants living in urban areas; virtually all Population Growth over the next 30 years will be in cities. These cities will require extensive improvements in infrastructure including construction, water and sanitation, electricity, waste, transport, health, public safety and internet and cell phone connectivity.
  8. Food Security: in the next two decades the global food production system will come under increasing pressure from megaforces including Population Growth, Water Scarcity and Deforestation. Global food prices are predicted to rise 70 to 90 percent by 2030. In water-scarce regions, agricultural producers are likely to have to compete for supplies with other water-intensive industries such as electric utilities and mining, and with consumers. Intervention will be required to reverse growing localized food shortages (the number of chronically under-nourished people rose from 842 million during the late 1990s to over one billion in 2009).
  9. Ecosystem Decline: historically, the main business risk of declining biodiversity and ecosystem services has been to corporate reputations. However, as global ecosystems show increasing signs of breakdown and stress, more companies are realizing how dependent their operations are on the critical services these ecosystems provide. The decline in ecosystems is making natural resources scarcer, more expensive and less diverse; increasing the costs of water and escalating the damage caused by invasive species to sectors including agriculture, fishing, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals and tourism.
  10. Deforestation: Forests are big business – wood products contributed $100 billion per year to the global economy from 2003 to 2007 and the value of non-wood forest products, mostly food, was estimated at about US$18.5 billion in 2005. Yet the OECD projects that forest areas will decline globally by 13 percent from 2005 to 2030, mostly in South Asia and Africa. The timber industry and downstream industries such as pulp and paper are vulnerable to potential regulation to slow or reverse deforestation. Companies may also find themselves under increasing pressure from customers to prove that their products are sustainable through the use of certification standards. Business opportunities may arise through the development of market mechanisms and economic incentives to reduce the rate of deforestation.

_________________

Press Release, KPMG, Sustainability “Megaforces” Impact on Business Will Accelerate, Finds KPMG, 14 Feb 2012; Retrieved: 14 Feb 2012

Read Full Post »

As the world faces recession, climate change, inequity and more, Tim Jackson delivers a piercing challenge to established economic principles, explaining how we might stop feeding the crises and start investing in our future.

Today, we have many sources of information and knowledge. That is true for topics surrounding Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, Business Transformation, etc. I have discovered some very good videos that are supported by the Creative Commons (CC) license and comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). For more information, please go to originating sites for more information (TED, YouTube, and other  web sites). We hope you enjoy these videos and share with your friends and colleagues.

 

Read Full Post »

21st Century Tragedy Pending
Sustainability is recognizing the need to better manage resources for survivability, while rethinking actual needs, and reducing waste of emissions, energy and water.  In the European Union, sustainability is implemented through government regulations and policies.  In other countries it is not national policy, but corporate leadership that understands needs for change. Sustainability is an American governmental policy, but is only mandated through environmental laws and regulations. Here, sustainability initiatives are voluntary and a choice for the individual and business concerns.  Not surprising, a recent MIT study suggests that  American leaders are motivated by significant tangible results that affect profitability for their enterprises.

Why are so many governments and so many corporations engaged in sustainability? Why are so many studies focused on sustainability? Simple, survival. Here is an example of a recent survey that shows world population growth has grown dramatically and will continue to do so:

  • 1800 less than 3 percent of the world population lived in large urban areas
  • 1900 about 150 million people lived in the largest urban areas
  • 2011 currently about half of the world’s population live in large urban areas, 3 billion (7 billion total)
  • 2050 it is estimated that over 65 percent of the world population will live in urban mega cities, the world’s estimated population will be 9 −10 billion

Additionally, according to KPMG, the 10 global sustainability megaforces that may impact business over the next two decades are:

  • Climate Change: This may be the one global megaforce that directly impacts all others. Predictions of annual output losses from climate change range between 1 percent per year, if strong and early action is taken, to as much as 5 percent a year–if policymakers fail to act.
  • Energy & Fuel: Fossil fuel markets are likely to become more volatile and unpredictable because of higher global energy demand; changes in the geographical pattern of consumption; supply and production uncertainties and increasing regulatory interventions related to climate change.
  • Material Resource Scarcity: As developing countries industrialize rapidly, global demand for material resources is predicted to increase dramatically. Business is likely to face increasing trade restrictions and intense global competition for a wide range of material resources that become less easily available.
  • Water Scarcity: It is predicted that by 2030, the global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40 percent.
  • Population Growth: This will place intense pressures on ecosystems and the supply of natural resources such as food, water, energy and materials. While this is a threat for business, there are also opportunities to grow commerce and create jobs, and to innovate to address the needs of growing populations for agriculture, sanitation, education, technology, finance, and healthcare.
  • Wealth: The challenge for businesses is to serve this new middle class market at a time when resources are likely to be scarcer and more price volatile. The advantages many companies experienced in the last two decades from “cheap labor” in developing nations are likely to be eroded by the growth and power of the global middle class.
  • Urbanization: By 2030 all developing regions including Asia and Africa are expected to have the majority of their inhabitants living in urban areas; virtually all Population Growth over the next 30 years will be in cities.
  • Food Security: Global food prices are predicted to rise 70 to 90 percent by 2030. In water-scarce regions, agricultural producers are likely to have to compete for supplies with other water-intensive industries such as electric utilities and mining, and with consumers.
  • Ecosystem Decline: The decline in ecosystems is making natural resources scarcer, more expensive and less diverse; increasing the costs of water and escalating the damage caused by invasive species to sectors including agriculture, fishing, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals and tourism.
  • Deforestation: Wood products contributed $100 billion per year to the global economy … Yet the OECD projects that forest areas will decline globally by 13 percent from 2005 to 2030, mostly in South Asia and Africa. 1

But why do we need to act now?
Political and Business leadership, mostly in Europe, and many multi-national organizations with revenues exceeding $1 Billion annually have recognized the global need for Sustainability and, in many cases, implemented initiatives to transform to 21st century realities.  Major players clearly understand the consequences of their actions, possible scenarios, and the need to manage potential threats or conflicts. The future of current societies will be based on keen understandings of what is required to be efficient, sustainable and promote policies of “zero waste” with long-term commitments from business, governments and citizens.
Many organizations are preparing for limitation of resources in the next three to five years. China has already demonstrated restraints on the export of rare earths or other commodities to the West. For this century, we need Sustainability Leadership that effectively orchestrates resources to preserve our planet for this generation and succeeding generation to meet their needs, whether East or West. Protracted trade wars would have little or no advantage to the global economy and could be a catalyst for a second recession.
To summarize, this man-made global situation, based on poor economic, environmental and social decisions were based on these criteria:

  • Scope: total Global impact (threat to entire biosphere)
  • Business: Involvement and engagement from a global perspective
  • Government: Multi-lateral, multi-country driven legislation and voluntary participation
  • Stakeholders: Consensus varied from Tier 1 – developed and Tier 2 – developing countries. There is no one leader or country that is  inspirational, promotes change and accepts long-term commitment. Responsibilities are unilateral and often centered on individual country priorities.
  • Mitigation: Diplomacy, treaties, government trade and economic policies
  • Result: On-going global discussions for the last thirty years has elevated awareness. Currently, there is no consensus regarding timeline, international sustainability,  or universal strategies to reach a sustainable economy in each country.

Comparing the 20th century to the 21st century, is a contrast in scenarios and outcomes. In the last century, lines were drawn across ideologies and almost produced a cataclysmic event that would have changed the world permanently, in just a few minutes.
Since the 1960s, we watched radical environmentalists confront business and government, to promote environmental and social issues. From the scientific community, environmental and social issues have been studies and shown that indeed our world is changing. Public skepticism has been a byproduct of radical self promotion and scientific bias. Public opinion is concerned about improved economic conditions, while it also has a growing concern over the environment.
Also, we are seeing the expansion of sustainable infrastructure into new areas, destined to build and restore our environment. Successes are often cited in articles about Sustainability initiatives improving business, education, government and the military. Measuring tangible results are posted by the Business Roundtable,  company Sustainability Reports and financial market indices. Sustainability is embraced as a smart choice for future, but it is not quick fix, and will be a long-term commitment.

Footnote:

1 KPMG, Sustainability “Megaforces” Impact on Business Will Accelerate, Finds KPMG, 14 Feb 2012; Retrieved: 14 Feb 2012

Related articles

Read Full Post »

Onstage at TED2012, Peter Diamandis makes a case for optimism — that we’ll invent, innovate and create ways to solve the challenges that loom over us. “I’m not saying we don’t have our set of problems; we surely do. But ultimately, we knock them down.”

Today, we have many sources of information and knowledge. That is true for topics surrounding Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, Business Transformation, etc. I have discovered some very good videos that are supported by the Creative Commons (CC) license and comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). For more information, please go to originating sites for more information (TED, YouTube, and other  web sites). We hope you enjoy these videos and share with your friends and colleagues.

Read Full Post »

Those working at capacity, professionals most likely prepping to leave
by Neli Esipova and Julie Ray, Nearly 50 Million Worldwide Planning to Migrate Soon, Gallup, February 24, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C.

These findings, and others highlighted in the new report, “Gallup World Poll: The Many Faces of Global Migration,” are based on a rolling average of interviews with 401,490 adults in 146 countries between 2008 and 2010. The 146 countries represent more than 93% of the world’s adult population.

Potential migrants in the Middle East and North Africa were the most likely worldwide to say they plan to leave their countries permanently in the next 12 months. While more than one in five adults (21%) in the Middle East and North Africa overall said they would migrate permanently to another country if they had the chance, one in six of them said they were planning to do so in the near term.

Twelve percent of potential migrant adults in sub-Saharan Africa said they are planning to move to another country permanently in the next year, while 10% of potential migrant adults in the Americas said these were their plans. In all other major regions, the percentage planning to move is in the single digits.

The Most Educated, Those Working at Capacity, and Professionals Prepping to Leave
The people countries would most like to retain or attract — those with high levels of education, professional workers, and those already employed at capacity — are the most likely to say they are making preparations to migrate such as applying for visas or residency and purchasing tickets. This may partly reflect their greater likelihood of having the means to move, but still provides insight into who is motivated to take the necessary steps.

While education makes a significant difference among those preparing to leave, it makes little difference among those who say they are planning to migrate. Among those planning to migrate in the next 12 months, those in the most educated group are nearly twice as likely as those in other education groups to say they are actively preparing to leave.

Those who are employed at capacity are the most likely to say they are making the necessary preparations to move. Although the underemployed are often the most likely to say they would like to migrate permanently and say they are planning to go, they are actually the least likely to say they are taking steps to migrate.

Worldwide, those whose work falls under the “professional” category, which includes professions such as lawyers, doctors, managers, business owners, and office workers, are more likely to desire to migrate than those who are “not employed” or those whose work falls into a category other than “professional.” A majority (54%) of “professionals” who are planning to migrate in the next year say they are actively preparing to move.

Bottom Line
No one factor explains why some people only dream of migrating, while others go. Many factors can influence the situation. Potential migrants’ personal circumstances such as their finances, health, family situation, and their job status can keep them home or push them out the door. Migration policies — or lack thereof — can also create so many roadblocks to leaving or entering a country that potential migrants become discouraged. Yet Gallup’s surveys show millions are actively preparing to leave their homelands for good — and it is often the best and brightest that their homelands would like to see stay.

For complete data sets or custom research from the more than 150 countries Gallup continually surveys, please contact SocialandEconomicAnalysis@gallup.com or call 202.715.3030.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: