This past week I attended a workshop hosted by Swissnex Boston, an initiative of the Swiss embassy, in which the challenges of building innovation partnerships were discussed. Entitled “Open Innovation to Innovation Partnerships – A new paradigm in a troubled economy,” it was a successful event (IMHO) mostly because there was an appropriate mix of large companies, SMEs, academics and service providers. My experience has been that companies pursuing open innovation benefit more by talking to SMEs and universities than like-sized peers since the latter just propel big-company self-absorption and bureaucracy that are the bane of successful innovation strategies.
Of particular interest to me was the focus on environmental sustainability solutions that can be exploited through open innovations. Which reminded me that one of the most frequent OI challenges we see companies submit are for sustainability innovations: energy efficiency, lower waste levels, switch to non-carbon fuels, etc. This trend spands virtually all industries as fluctuating fuel prices, environmental regulations, and changing consumer buying habits refocus companies on “going green.”
Others at Nerac are much more versed than I on trends in environmental sustainability (See Rosemarie Szostak‘s blog on sustainability called “The Dirty Footprint“.) But I was struck by the repeated use of the word “greenwashing” by attendees from academia, environmental consulting firms, and eco-entrepreneurs. They use this term to describe the efforts by businesses to disingenuously claim environmental virtue in order to make more profit. Many attendees, including some of the presenters, postulated that the lack of progress in eco-innovation could primarily be blamed on a greenwashing attitude; big companies who ignore perfectly valid eco-strategies because they don’t want to take risks, like the status quo, and don’t care about the environment. The result, so went the theme, is that eco-entreprenuers have their great ideas ignored by “old, white, chemical engineers” who are too indifferent, too myopic, and are not incentivized to pursue these types of innovations because they get the benefit of being thought “green” without the investment.
Personally, I thought some of the conversation turned a bit whacky. I don’t deny that greenwashing exists. But that it is the primary hurdle to new innovation is a bit of a stretch. At Nerac, we evaluate many of these new eco-strategies for both the entrepreneurs and their potential big-company licensees/customers. Often their proposed economic benefits are “blackwashed” – a term I create to describe an eco-technology for which the economic benefits are stretched past the limits of the buyer’s “sniff test.” They promise to put your company “in the black” with an approach that provides financial benefit and improvements in sustainability or other environmental benefits. Too often, their economic benefits are so ill-conceived that they are dismissed out of hand. I suspect, given some experience, that the drivers behind blackwashing include lack of experience in business model creation and zealous environmental positions that cause bias in the eco-entrepreneur. The rate of incidence of blackwashing is high enough that the “splatter” affects genuine eco-innovation; painting their ideas as always tainted by bias that ignores economic reality.
But the result of “blackwashing” is exactly the same as “greenwashing” – good ideas get ignored.
May 4, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Very interesting insight. I was struck by the particular line: “The result, so went the theme, is that eco-entreprenuers have their great ideas ignored by ‘old, white, chemical engineers’ who are too indifferent, too myopic, and are not incentivized to pursue these types of innovations because they get the benefit of being thought ‘green’ without the investment.
Perhaps it is because I am, in fact, an “old, white, chemical engineer” that this jumped out. Or it could be the fact that I think it very succinctly captures one of the key issues with making progress in sustainable business practices.
While I will not deny that greenwashing exists, I agree that it is certainly not the major factor preventing progress. Supporters of sustainability all too often disregard those who have alternative opinions, and attack them with such language as is summarized in the article (it’s actually not limited to sustainability as a topic — it seems to be the standard MO of all political discussion these days).
A far, far more effective way of influencing for change is to practice what I’ve heard termed “intellectual judo.” Rather than countering a different viewpoint with head-on attacks, it is better to actually listen to the viewpoint, and find some commonalities, look for the understandable part, and use the force of their own arguments to bring them in alignment with you. Name-calling and wrath rarely bring people to your side of an argument, and more often encourage them to dig more deeply into their positions. It also puts the name-caller in a less-than respectable light.
A key advantage of this approach is that it puts the responsibility for change on the change agent, rather than on those “others out there.” Calling somebody short-sighted and claiming that to be the problem means that we will have to sit and wait for them to magically change for anything to get anything done. That’s not likely to happen on it’s own. Rather, we must take responsibility for creating the change ourselves, by changing our approach.
It is important for all of us who believe in sustainability to recognize that people who don’t share those beliefs actually have legitimate concerns. We must listen to those concerns and find a way to address them, rather than dismiss them as myopic, stupid, greedy, indifferent, or anything else.
By the way, not all old, white, chemical engineers are anit-sustainability.
Posted by Brad Barbera (LinkedIn)
May 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Chris:
I think its a common enough frustration for both sides – but I think in the end that the acceptance by business is the gold standard that your pitch has finally resonated. I think it takes a bit of time to get it there even with the best planning, market surveys, and business acumen. Ecopreneurs have to also be persistent and to listen to what a customer needs which means that often the product has to migrate to common ground. Keeping an eye on the business plan keeps you centered. Sometimes you have no idea what a customer wants, especially if it is a complex sale process. If you think that you are going in with a product-line that is a greener alternative to what they are already buying then its an easier sell. I think “green-washing” is also a starting place. Companies are at various levels of change – as is preached in the complex sale. Its up to you to read the signs and determine if you are ahead of the market or have not refined your product to easy usability.
May 7, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I agree that claims of greenwashing are often cries of frustration among true believers who see everyone with less passionate views as the enemy.
But, from an innovation point of view, I don’t think his is restricted to the green world. Many times innovation enthusiasts in other areas castigate or insult those who are slightly more conservative or methodical. Usually the issue is change, and it’s about personality: Some people, usually the creatives and innovators, relish it because they are most comfortable in it; others, usually the steadier and more analytical, are less comfortable with it because it is often chaotic.
But every dreamer needs to ally with a doer or no innovation will ever get done. So to create a powerful innovation effort, there must be collaboration between these seemingly “opposing” forces.
August 7, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Great conversation.
Currently, I’m a consumer products innovator — strategic + practical all-in-one.
The hurdle described by Kevin seems (to me, anyhow) self-created and unnecessary. How well we all know how complex the UNDOING process can be once something is culturally ingrained.
A major part of my professional role is integrating and watchdogging the exciting convergerence and/or collision of material science advances, start-to-finish practical manufacturing and end-of-life infrastructure constraints, environmental and human health considerations, legislative, policy and regulatory actions (in 62+ countries potentially), sales & marketing desires, media-shaped consumer perceptions of our materials and products, demographic and psychographic consumer-based trend factors, external marketing & messaging … and then taking it ALL together to the next step by predicting outcomes and impacts of every action my company is considering taking in the (loosely used term) innovation area based on that snarly conglomeration of “lenses”.
Because we spend so much time battling and creating systems for managing the tensions, I see vast untapped innovation opportunities float by my window almost every day. We expect to do battle, and therefore there is one.
Relieving the tension is not only doable, but the leveraging of these various powers and areas of expertise into a new level of innovation is a unharnessed force in all but the most exceptional environments.
Recently, I am working toward creating replicable collaborative solutions to previously unsolvable issues with global food safety compliance for post-consumer recycled plastics for consumer products, for example. Snarly. Doable. Fun!
Would like to hear more about resources or cases where these seemingly “opposing” forces are instead harmonized and clicking.