The earth cried

Story idea inspired by Visual Verse (1 picture, 1 hour and less than 500 words) and picture used is my collage card shown.

 

The poem "The Earth cried the day the mist set in" has now moved to my new website. 

If the Earth was a supplier

I'm not sure what set my filters to notice, but there seems to have been a lot of discussions on sustainability recently. I'm sure there always is - it's just been a main topic of many of the conferences I've followed vicariously via livestream and on twitter in the last month: IoD, one young world, CIPS, CIPS awards, climate justice and a meeting I attended facilitated by the unreasonable learners inspired by The B team.

As I reflected on the Landscaping Your Life process, where I use the wisdom of nature to identify solutions to life's challenges, and the profession in which I apply it most, procurement, I wondered about our relationship with the Earth and its sustainability. 

Due to our dependence on the goods and services supplied by Earth shouldn't we be wanting to develop a relationship with the earth. Wouldn't it be in our best interest to ensure the long term flourishing of the Earth for our future needs? 

Since we're continuing to deplete the finite resources of the Earth at ever increasing knots it would seem we haven't quite got our relationship right with the Earth. Which had me wondering what insights and changes in behaviour might emerge if the Earth was classified as a supplier in the supply chain. 

The answer is this blog.

I've used David Atkinson's 10 guiding principles to Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) (shown in italics below) as a basis for this exploration. 

As I've undertaken the exploration it's become clear that some of the principles still don't necessarily safe guard the long term sustainability of Earth due to the objectives of the organisation taking precedence over the long term sustainability of their suppliers.

Two reasons for this jump out at me (although I'm sure there are others):

• The unconscious implication in best practice procurement that we'll always be able to find alternate sources of supply. 
• That an organisation's own desire to survive will always take precedence over another organisation's survival.

That said I share here observations that arise if we were wanting to build a relationship with the Earth as a preferred key long term permanent supplier of an organisation with a SRM programme:

1. SRM is the systematic creation and capture of post-contract value from key business relationships. For most organisations the Earth is one of their subcontractors. So long as they're getting value they're not worried about the implications in the supply chain of obtaining that value. Cost and value analyses are certainly unlikely to include a cost for depleting finite resource in a way they do for replenishable resources such as trees. 
2. It is about aligning the whole enterprise around the task of managing a specific supplier based on a clearly documented relationship strategy. Sustainability policies, what ever they're called, aren't relationship strategies. They generally state what the organisation is able to do to support the Earth, not what it needs to do in order to maintain a long term relationship with them*. 
3. It is mostly about collaboration with strategic suppliers, but can still be adversarial. Do we even understand what collaboration with the Earth really looks like. I'd suggest a majority of the time we're treating the earth adversarially. Does the strategy really suggest that's the best course of action with them? 
4. SRM needs to be completely integrated with strategic sourcing / category management processes. I'm unconvinced that every category strategy would suggest reliance on the Earth was a good thing. Earth, however, is a default supplier. Taken as a given in every sourcing strategy. If we were to apply best practice to this supplier shouldn't we be spending a majority of our time trying to find alternatives? (Although I suspect that's where self interest gets in the way - turkeys after all don't vote for Thanksgiving nor Christmas) 
5. It requires a detailed analysis of the specific supplier relationship, before the strategy can be determined; one size certainly does not fit all. As the Earth isn't considered to be a supplier then how much of the analysis even gets done? I wonder what the finance guys would say if someone sent the balance sheet and profit loss account for the Earth to them for assessment. 
6. SRM is not a soft option in dealing with suppliers. It’s demanding and process-focused. Yet we've ignored the need to do it for our most important supplier. We've not undertaken any planning, no risk assessment, no analysis of power, no strategy B (or as The B team would suggest no Plan B). Instead we've ignored the need for an effective relationship with the Earth and hoped they'd continue to flourish!
7. It requires recognition that ‘relationships’ are not an end in themselves. Successful relationships are an outcome and, for the buyer, that outcome can be measured in value terms. Perhaps something organisations have concentrated too much on - basing their actions on the value they've achieved rather than considering the impact of their actions. Whether value comes from cost out, price down, risk mitigated or revenue increased it's not sustainable once the resource you're relying on becomes scarce. 
8. SRM is not all about ‘win-win’; although contracts must be structured to ensure each party enthusiastically implements the agreement. Perhaps it does have to be win/win with the Earth. There's still a propensity to take from the Earth rather than understand that an agreement between two parties requires 'consideration', and therefore we can't just take what we want without something being given in return. What payment are we giving for all this taking? Even in the most exploitative buyer/supplier relationships the supplier gets paid! 
9. It is as much about driving-up day-to-day operational performance as innovation and joint value creation. I think we're overly focusing on day-to-day performance and even allowing our inefficiencies to increase what we're taking from the Earth. We need to be spending more time on innovation and joint value creation in order for us to flourish alongside the Earth. After all we won't last long without them. 
10. To get started, it always best to successfully implement a small number of SRM pilot projects, rather than go for the ‘big bang’. Pilot projects need to look at different aspects of your relationship with the Earth dependant on your usage of finite resources, usage of replenishable resources, pollution of the environment, impact of disposal of your goods and so on.  

What will you do differently today in your relationship with the Earth and please don't ignore the one thing you know the Earth would be screaming about if only they had a voice.

Alison Smith

Inspiring change inside and out

 

* We often refer to organisations as 'they' or 'them' and not 'it'. When writing about the Earth I started to use 'she' rather than 'it' but realise perhaps that's the problem. We don't treat the earth like a supplier because we treat them like an inanimate object, or personify them, rather than an Eco system made up of many more interconnected components than any organisation. As I wrote the blog I chose therefore to treat the Earth as an organisation and therefore use 'they/them' throughout to recognise these many component parts. 

This also links to an earlier blog I wrote on use of empathy when all else fails to get more right doing. In this context empathy is certainly easier when aimed at 'they/them' than 'it' don't you think? 

Planetary sustainability

Last week I explored examples of people in business doing the right thing when anonymity was lost and empathy was felt for another person. In another blog I also discussed the impact of the hard wired desire for self preservation that sometimes supports wrong, rather than right, doing.

If right doing isn't always a given, especially when in the context of corporate social responsbility, a subsequent blog started to explore how an organisation's cultural web might be used to increase the likelihood of support for right doing.

Today I'd like to think a little more widely - about planetary sustainability!!

It's not going to be a blog with facts and figures that prove or disprove global warming, nor will it discuss how many planets full of resources we need to sustain the current population. I'll leave that to others.

What I'd like to do is continue the conversation and exploration from recent blogs. That is if right doing comes from empathy and/or the threat to personal survival then what does that mean when we're wanting people to seriously act in ways that support planetary sustainability?

Threat to your personal survival

You'd like to think that a link between the current state of the planet and our personal survival could be easily made. 

Many do see the link and do act believing their personal survival is at stake. Many, however, do not, and get annoyed with those on their 'the end of the world is nigh' soap boxes. The evidence may be there but its not easily digested and the impact is still seen as too far away to inspire change in many of the population. 

I don't wish to suggest its not a great strategy, and wholly support the many organisations and people packaging the information and data in ways that hope to convince people of the threat to their personal survival.

I just think we're missing something otherwise why hasn't it worked and why are things seemingly getting worse?

Empathy

Indigenous cultures had, and continue to have, empathy with nature and the planet. This empathy led them to relate to nature and the planet in ways very differently from how we do currently. 

If my hypothesis about empathy leading to right action is correct, then the solution to planetary sustainability isn't just more data and persuasion but more empathy for nature and the planet. It can't only be about logical persuasion of other's minds, it has to be about inspiring their hearts too and that will only come as they each individually find empathy with the planet.

Which then leads to the questions of: how do we get empathy for the planet? And how do we help others get empathy with the planet?

I'd love your views. Here are a few of mine to get us started on what I believe could be a very important solution to getting 'right action' with respect to the planet. 

• Education that is about being with and in nature
• Organisations connecting to nature 
• More recreational pursuits that connect to nature
• Games, books and apps that connect to nature (not sure I mean FarmVille but am open to be persuaded that it does facilitate more empathy for nature and the planet)
• Using nature as our teacher - I'm a practitioner of landscaping your life which is a profound tool because, I believe, of its link to nature 

As you can see not an exhaustive list and one I'd love your input to.

Over coming weeks and months I look forward to exploring further with you this hypothesis and solution.

Alison Smith
Inspiring change in purchasing - inside and out

Picture courtesy of Pixabay 

Organisational culture, CSR strategies & ethics

Yesterday I hypothesised that to inspire leaders to support sustainable and responsible actions these actions needed to be linked to organisational survival. That is so long as someone felt they had a choice they might opt for a different less sustainable and responsible one.

In the blog I suggested that to use 'survival' as the motivation for support for a corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy would require understanding the organisational culture.

One model I think enables a better exploration of organisational culture and the potential areas to be considered is Johnson, Scholes and Whittington's cultural web as shown above.

The cultural web is a means of documenting the 'taken for granted assumptions' of an organisation. It's this culture that drives strategy and therefore it's this culture that you can use to get support for the CSR policies you're wanting to implement.

• Stories - what stories are continually told about and within the organisation, who are the heroes and the villains, how is success defined, what about failure, what character traits do they support, what character traits do they disapprove of? How can these patterns hidden within the stories told by employees be used as you develop your strategy for CSR? 
• Symbols - status symbols, language and jargon are all characteristics of this element of the cultural web. Use of appropriate language and threat of loss of status may play a part in a CSR strategy. 
• Power structures - which individuals, departments and business units are the most powerful. Stakeholder mapping will help you understand how to best manage the complex relationships that exist within your organisation and how best to facilitate support for your strategy.
• Routines and rituals - if you try to implement a strategy that is counter to 'the way we do things round here' you're increasing the chances of failure. How can you support 'the way we do things'  in your strategy, its implementation and how you sell it to others? 
• Control Systems - what do the measurement and reward systems in place say about the organisation? How can your strategy support these? 
• Organisational structures - you can spend a lot of time winning over managers who have no say what so ever in the decision to support, or otherwise, your strategy. I'm not saying talking to other managers isn't important, especially if their support will be needed to implement any strategy. However you do need to focus your effort on those making the decision. 

Like any model I suspect the benefit when using the cultural web comes in identifying the one thing that's been ignored whilst developing the strategy. That is we're likely to have considered many of the above unconsciously without referenced to these six headings. Although we may view them differently when using 'survival' as the criteria for obtaining motivation.

Would undertaking an analysis of the cultural web for your organisation identify alternate means of obtaining support for your strategies? As it will certainly be easier to understand if this works when applied to a real situation do please let me know how you get on. 

Alison Smith
Inspiring change in procurement - inside and out

Personal and organisational survival

In an earlier blog I argued that many ethical decisions are compromised because personal survival is placed as higher importance than ethics. I can get on my soap box about integrity and doing the right thing, but we're hard wired to survive and need a huge amount of will power to override our internal programming that prioritises personal and family survival.

With thoughts of that blog still in my mind I attended the CIPS Supply Management awards. The overall winner was a team successfully raising the awareness and changing behaviours with respect to sustainable purchasing. 

Before the dinner I spoke to one of the other nominees for the award. As we spoke I realised that for that organisation the choice to support sustainability was clear cut and the right decisions were being made. Then the realisation dawned that the right doing arose because the organisation felt its survival was conditional on not doing the opposite. Brand and customer loyalty would be seriously jeopardised if they didn't get sustainability right - ROI, profit and competitive advantage would all be detrimentally impacted too. 

I wonder therefore how the internal programming to survive can, and is being used by procurement teams to inspire more businesses to do the right thing? That is how can we link sustainable action to survival of our own business and how can we link sustainable action to survival of our suppliers' businesses.

Perhaps more importantly what does that look like in terms of specifics:

• Certainly following through on not dealing with suppliers who don't take the necessary action (all talk and no action is a strategy that's bound to fail if survival is being used as the motivation).
• I also suspect culture will play a big part in how to tell the story to leaders within an organisation to enable them to accept the urgent need for changes in direction. 

Another blog last week suggested having empathy also supported right doing. I wonder how powerful a strategy that uses empathy and personal survival might be in removing the resistance to more sustainable and responsible actions in business? I suspect that's the topic for a future blog.

Alison Smith

Inspiring change inside and out

Picture courtesy of Pixabay