All Posts Tagged With: "sustainability"

Sustainability Forces Wheel

Sustainability Forces Wheel

In strategic planning, the quality of the plan depends on the quality of the information collected and analyzed to guide the plan. The Baldrige Criteria ask how you collect and analyze information about your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats; early indications of major shifts in technology, markets, products, customer preferences, competition, or the regulatory environment; long-term organizational sustainability; and your ability to execute your strategic plan.

The goal is to build a sustainable organization that can survive change in whatever form it takes. Andrew Winston has created a tool to help navigate the forces that may affect your organization’s survival. He calls it the Sustainability Forces Wheel.

In “A New Tool for Understanding Sustainability Drivers” (HBR, July 13, 2010), Winston describes the three rings that make up his wheel and his idea to “spin” the wheel to line up different forces on each ring, which could then spur discussion among leaders about what that combination might mean for their organization. For example, he looks at the issues that currently line up at 9:00: “Consumers increasingly want to know what’s in products and where they come from; technology is enabling more data on a product’s origins; and there’s no denying the rising concerns about chemicals and toxics in our bodies and our children’s bodies. If your company operates in the consumer products world, how are you handling this trifecta of concerns?”

From a Baldrige standpoint, your strategic planning process should include a systematic approach to identifying the factors that are likely to impact your short-term…

13Jul2010 | Steve George | 0 comments | Continued

The First Healthcare Sustainability Scorecard for Suppliers

In “Kaiser Permanent Launches Health Care Industry’s First Sustainability Scorecard,” by Ariel Schwartz (May 4, 2010), Fast Company shows us the scorecard’s SKU-level questions that suppliers must answer:

  1. NICU product?
  2. PICU product?
  3. Latex-free?
  4. Lead, Mercury, Hexavalent chromium, Polybrominated biphenyls, Polyborminated diphenyl ether, <1,000ppm or Cadmium <100ppm
  5. Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)-free?
  6. Diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)-free?
  7. California Prop 65 Chemical <threshold or warning level
  8. Product – Contain more than 10% post-consumer recycled content?
  9. Primary Packaging – Contain more than 5% post-consumer recycled content?
  10. Secondary packaging – Contain more than 30% post-consumer recycled content?
  11. Product – Designed for multi-use (i.e., not a single-use device)?
  12. Manufacturer’s product code for environmentally preferable alternative

The desired answer for questions 3 through 11 is “yes.”

Kaiser Permanente claims that, if all things are equal between competing suppliers, the scorecard will be the deciding factor.

The article provides an example, courtesy of Robert Gotto, executive director in Kaiser’s Procurement & Supply group:

“One contract we went through last year was for a rigid endoscope provider. We evaluated the four major players and found that clinical performance and pricing were comparable, but there were big differences in terms of sustainability performance. One supplier had the foresight to develop a camera that doesn’t need to be sterilized with chemicals. It uses steam instead, and we can cut down chemicals in operating rooms by half.” The supplier was awarded a five-year, $100 million contract.

Kaiser buys a billion dollars of medical equipment and products each year and its supply chain partner, Broadlane, which will adopt the scorecard in September, influences $10 billion in medical purchasing. Chances are good that Kaiser Permanente won’t…

5May2010 | Steve George | 0 comments | Continued

Sustainability: A Business Imperative

If your organization isn’t on the environmental responsibility bandwagon yet, what are you waiting for? Last year Wal-Mart announced plans to investigate more than 100,000 suppliers with a Sustainability Index. Now, according to Fast Company, “IBM is following Wal-Mart’s lead by asking its 28,000 suppliers in 60 countries to establish environmental goals and measure energy conservation, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste management/recycling practices.” (“IBM to Suppliers: Embrace Sustainability…Or Else,” Ariel Schwartz, April 14, 2010)

The Baldrige Criteria ask how you consider societal well-being and benefit as part of your operations, including the environmental systems to which you contribute. As with everything in the Baldrige model, acting on your environmental responsibility requires well-defined  and deployed processes that align with your mission and vision and support sustainability and long-term success.

IBM seeks the same systemic approach by its suppliers. According to Wayne Balta, IBM’s VP for corporate environmental affairs and product safety, “We want them all to build long-term sustainability in a way that is integral to their routine operations, not as an add-on fix.”

The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program (VACSP) Clinical Research Pharmacy Coordinating Center, which won the Baldrige Award in 2009, is a small organization of approximately 112 people that supports and manages drug-related activities in clinical trials. In its application summary, it describes how it considers societal well-being and sustainability:

“As a small organization, the Center has a culture of improvement, including a strong commitment to conserving natural resources and to environmental stewardship. The Center maintains a constant focus on process improvement and…

15Apr2010 | Steve George | 0 comments | Continued

How Can You Stay on Top?

For years, if you wanted the highest quality car, you bought a Toyota. Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler floundered. Toyota’s reputation grew. The Toyota Production System was the poster child for Lean, for eliminating waste and shortening cycle times while improving quality in the process.

And then its goal changed from being first in quality to being first in global sales. A culture built on slow-and-steady, where teams were given months to find solutions and leaders spent years developing their capabilities, gave way to quicker product launches, faster plant openings, and rapidly expanding supplier networks. Customer started to grumble. Flaws appeared. Recalls tarnished a reputation that seemed indestructible.

The Baldrige Criteria ask how you create a sustainable organization. That’s not the same question as how you sustain a great organization, and based on results, you can’t, at least not indefinitely. Companies rise and fall. Some reach the top and dominate the landscape for years, even decades, but they, too, eventually lose the lead.

Why is that inevitable? The Baldrige model can help your organization achieve performance excellence and it can help you sustain it, but for how long? New owners and chief executives enforce new agendas, hungry competitors draw away customers, and markets, economies, and industries change.

So how can you stay on top? Or is it impossible?

17Feb2010 | Steve George | 0 comments | Continued

Baldrige for the 20-Teens

Gill Corkindale is an executive coach and writer based in London. She recently wrote an article about Baldrige for the Harvard Business Review entitled “A Better Decade for Business is Coming” (December 31, 2009). And she wrote it without using the word “Baldrige” once!

Corkindale lists four things business leaders can do to correct the negative perception of business built during the past decade (Enron’s collapse, dotcom bust, Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, irresponsibility of the banking sector, global recession, declining wages—unless you’re an executive, etc.). Her four recommendations are:

  1. Examine your organization systematically. “What is really going on?” she writes. “What needs to be improved?” In other words, conduct a Baldrige assessment to answer these questions and systematically improve your organization.
  2. Build a new dialogue for business. Leaders must make ethical behavior, accountability, sustainability, longer-term focus, and community awareness part of the business agenda. Once again, a Baldrige assessment will help you understand how to make these issues part of your agenda and how well you do it.
  3. Engage people to make the best possible contribution to the business and wider society. “This means sharing power, information, responsibility, and, of course, rewards,” writes Corkindale. Workforce engagement, a key element of the Baldrige model, considers how you share power, information, responsibility, and rewards.
  4. Understand what it really takes to be a leader. “Simplicity is the key.” A Baldrige assessment helps leaders lead by presenting a clear picture of where their organization is today and how it can improve performance tomorrow.

To learn more about integrating Baldrige, click on these articles:

4Feb2010 | Steve George | 0 comments | Continued

The Most and Least Ethical Companies

According to Covalence, a Swiss research firm, Monsanto is the least ethical multinational corporation in the world. Covalence used quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate 581 companies over a seven-year period. Criteria included labor standards, waste management, and human rights records.

The top-ranked companies were IBM, Intel, and HSBC. Rounding out the top ten were Marks & Spencer, Unilever, Xerox, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Dell, and Procter & Gamble.

The worst were:

  1. Monsanto Co. This is the same corporation that Forbes named America’s Best Company in December. Apparently, ethics wasn’t part of the equation.
  2. Halliburton Company. Dick Cheney’s legacy lives on in both the business and political worlds.
  3. Chevron Corp.
  4. Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.
  5. Philip Morris International Inc.
  6. Occidental Petroleum Corporation
  7. Ryanair Holdings plc
  8. Syngenta AG
  9. Grupo Mexico SA de CV
  10. Total SA

The companies on this list may survive in the short term because of their economic success, but sustaining that success is another matter. As Adam Werbach, former Sierra Club president, wrote, true sustainability has four equal parts: economic, social, environmental, and cultural (click here). It’s hard to imagine any corporation standing for long on one of those legs, no matter how strong it is.

To read more about corporate social responsibility, click on these articles:

3Feb2010 | Steve George | 0 comments | Continued

5 Added Values of the Baldrige Process

This is a guest article by Paul Grizzell. If you want to contribute an article to Baldrige.com, check out the guidelines here.

When visiting with senior leaders about the value of embarking on a Baldrige journey, a frequently used phrase is, “It’s not about the Award.”  At that point, the discussion moves to writing an application, and the sense of leaders is: “We’re applying for an Award!”  How do we convince leaders that there is value within the Baldrige process above and beyond applying for Baldrige or a state or local quality award?

Leaders need to understand what value the Baldrige process provides if it’s not just about the award, especially considering the investment of time involved in developing a 50-page application.

In my experience, five “added values” of the Baldrige process demonstrate the benefit of developing a Baldrige application—even if you never submit the application to an award process.

1. Accountability Tool. The structure of the Baldrige process forces accountability.  When senior leaders take responsibility for a particular Baldrige category, they “own” the linkage among the three components of the application:

  • Organizational Profile: What is important to the organization?
  • Process categories: Based on what is important, what do we do, and how do we do it?
  • Results category: Now that we’ve done it, were we successful?

2. Sustainability Tool. The Baldrige process helps document how business is done at the organization.  The departure of a senior leader doesn’t have to mean we start all over again.  The application describes how the organization operates; a new senior leader…

18Jan2010 | Paul Grizzell | 0 comments | Continued