- Reduce current costs, and as they continue to inevitably escalate, reduce future costs
- Do what a significant percentage of your customer base wants you to do, makes some sense to listen to customers.
- Use the need to make changes as a catalyst for stakeholders, particularly employee, engagement in the values and strategies of the organisation, which will lead to process improvement and innovation opportunities. Recent commercial history suggests that the many of the top companies in 20 years are not yet out of the garage, if they are even formed, the opportunities for innovative solutions to the technical and business model challenges we face today are enormous, just hard to quantify because they have not happened yet, so don’t let the nay-sayers get in the way.
- Attract the “right” type of employee, those who are willing and able to contribute at a greater rate than just somebody with a pulse who can do the job. These “right” employees will be attracted to organizations that are on the front foot with this stuff. Whilst the competition for talent is off many agendas currently, the real competitive edge of any organsiation is tied up in the heads of its employees and service providers, so you need the best to stay ahead, may as well use the “crisis” to attract and keep them.
- Mitigate risk, what if the dire predictions are right, you are far better off having made some changes, and having perhaps a few of them not pay off, than do nothing, and cop the lot in one hit. It is just insurance by another name.
It is pretty obvious that the big party in Copenhagen finished like most big parties where there are lots of strangers with different agendas, in an unsatisfactory way for all.
The nonsense of the Rudbott and his sidekick trying to ram through Parliament a unilateral ETS prior to the meeting was confirmed, the concern is that they will continue to try and ram it through, allowing their egos to completely mask the real issues and opportunities.
It is also clear that the globe is rapidly warming, that warming has a lot to do with the impact of humans over the last 150 years, and if we do not do something, we will all be deeply in the poo, or at least our children and grandchildren will be.
Instead of insisting on a new tax on emissions, our leaders should be focusing on the demand side, putting their efforts and largess where it will motivate behavior change for positive reasons, rather than just taxing current behavior and hoping the tax will be effective in reducing emissions. I know the economists will tell you if you tax something, you get less of it, that is true, but it comes at the price of gross market distortion. How much better to enable the reward of desirable behavior?
There are numerous reasons organisations should set about reducing their emissions, and re-order their priorities to be more “green” but it has nothing to do with global platitudes and ego, and everything to do with self interest. Here are just a few:
Trackbacks/Pingbacks