- Academic Programs
- Faculty & Research
- Alumni
- Executive Education
- Corporate Connection
- Newsroom
- About MIT Sloan
You gave a talk at a recent town meeting about “Changing the Discourse on Sustainability,” which discussed moving related issues away from constraint, scolding, and despair toward challenge, opportunity and empowerment. Can you expand on this line of thought?
I'm one of a group of faculty who has been pushing this sustainability initiative here at Sloan. The others are Rebecca Henderson and John Sterman and senior lecturer Sarah Slaughter. We launched a course called S-Lab last year, and this year we are offering the second edition of the course, in addition to an active speaker series and a bunch of other activities that we've been developing. One of the things we realized when we were doing this work is the way that business is beginning to change. Many companies still see sustainability as a challenge, as a threat, as some sort of regulation that's about to hit, as a risk that needs to be managed so it does not interfere with company growth. The more we thought about it, we thought it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe instead of thinking about it as a zero-sum relationship, it could be seen as a plus-sum relationship in the sense that some of the things that businesses can do, which are good for the environment, are also good for them.
Such as?
Simple things like retrofitting buildings, cleaning up their own operations, etc. could reduce waste, reduce energy consumption, reduce water consumption, improve the work environment (making employees more productive and satisfied) … all of these changes would help the bottom line and also improve the environment.
Can you provide an example?
This is something that Nike has done, where — when they were looking just at their production systems — they realized how much material was being thrown on the floor and if they could then figure out reasonably better cutting procedures, better models, better utilization of the material, they could not only save on material, which is a cost, but also reduce waste. Or they could think about materials they design for their products that are more easily recyclable. So they, with a couple of other companies, have been very active in promoting organic cotton, so that's one example. A second example is companies can redesign their supply chain. Global supply chains have provided companies with all sorts of advantages but have also increased their carbon footprint. To make things in one part of the world and transport it elsewhere is a big cost for them. It's not just money, but time and logistics as well. So now companies, Nike again but not just Nike, are thinking about regional centers of production that still give them the cost savings that they want while also, by streamlining their supply chains, reduce their environmental impact.
What about the retrofitting of buildings?
Retrofitting buildings would be another example of things that companies can do right now that would be good for both their bottom line and the environment. A lot of carbon gets emitted into the environment simply from the buildings in which we work and live every day. If we just retrofitted buildings, make them less energy consuming, use more natural light, intelligent ventilation, a whole variety of things, it helps the bottom line, it doesn't cost that much and it's a good thing to do. What we're trying to do is show managers there are some really clear things that they can do and companies are doing already. Take, for example, Wal-Mart, a company not known as the most progressive company in America but one that has completely been redoing their stores with natural light, better insulation, working with the suppliers of their trucks to make sure that the engines are more fuel efficient. They're doing that because they know it's good for the bottom line, not because suddenly they decided to be the champion of all good things…. So one of the things we want to try to do is say, “Look, there's all sorts of opportunities here, not just in terms of savings, but also in launching new product.”
So it's a matter, and a message, of both critical importance and opportunity?
There's opportunity to start new businesses, to redesign existing businesses, and business practices. Given how we think about entrepreneurship, you could really get into starting a business that could run around revamping buildings and retrofitting them, thinking about recycling models or alternative energy models. What we are trying to do is show business is that this issue of sustainability will not go away, it's not another fad. We've had those fads, but all the facts seem to be coming in that this is a pretty serious issue. Either you react by becoming depressed or you acknowledge that this is a really big problem but people like us can do something about it. And we can do something that is actually integrated into our day-to-day lives.
What projects are you pursuing along these lines?
There's S-Lab, where we have companies and organizations that have identified a project around sustainability that they want our teams of students to help them with. Recently, we worked with a company called Merida Meridian, a small natural fiber carpet company focused on selling “all natural” products, yet they hadn't thought about sustainability and how they could guarantee that their whole production chain was sustainable, which they could then use as a marketing device. In terms of my research, I've been working the last couple years on labor conditions in supply chains. We can help these companies introduce more modern management systems into their supply chain, which is good for business, good for dealing with labor issues and good for environmental issues too. More recently, we're linking labor and the environment together, so that's my own research. We're also doing another case study with Nike where we're looking at their new product development program, called Considered Design, which is using recyclable materials.
Earlier, you mentioned the resistance of some to the notion of sustainability. Is it based on the assumption that here will be a detrimental affect to the bottom line?
People had always assumed that it would lead to increased regulation, which usually means increased costs initially if you have to retrofit buildings or smoke stacks, for example. Historically that's true; there is the initial cost but usually it leads to all sorts of efficiencies later on. At one point, the auto industry didn't want catalytic converters, they didn't want seat belts, so what we want to show companies today is that you can be ahead of the curve and it's going to be good for your bottom line, maybe good for your public relations, and good for your brain value. Should regulation come — and I think a lot of companies think it is going to come — you'll be on the right side of that curve.
In terms of the projects you mentioned that are currently under way, what role do students play in them?
They're in all of them. S-Lab is all student run. In all of my research projects, I usually put together groups of students — Sloan students, but sometimes even students from other parts of MIT — and we typically meet once a week for an informal seminar. All of my research papers have some combination of student input in addition to my own, and it's great to see students getting so attached to the research and not just the teaching part of their experience here.
Does MIT, with its resources and collaborations, have a unique advantage toward tackling issues of sustainability?
Yes, that is a great opportunity here. One of the things we're trying to do differently at MIT is not to view sustainability in a siloed approach. In the past, we've had the energy people just talk about energy, the environmental people just talk about climate change, the social people only talk about the social side of things … without a realization that all these things are linked. Here, with the expertise on campus already, we have the possibility of bringing the community together to work on issues in a systemic way, and we know that technology will play an important part. It's not going to solve it, of course, but technology is going to enable some of the changes we need. What we want to do is link together the technology side with the organizational side in discussions on our choices and strategies. If we can do that, and I think MIT is probably one of the few places in the world that can, we could really show the possibilities, we could show what the limitations are, and how to meet them both in a systemic way.
In your work, have you found that among other universities, businesses, NGOs and governments, are issues of sustainability as much on the forefront as they should be?
“Should be” is a normative thing. I think they're getting it….
More so in some places than others?
Yes. The Europeans are much more together, even Australians are much more ahead of us in this area. In the United States there are some parts of this country that seem to be thinking about it more, especially since the release of the Al Gore movie (“An Inconvenient Truth”). People's consciousness in the last year and a half has really changed. It's no longer a case of, “Oh, you care about this; you must be a tree hugger.” Now you can see people are thinking hard about what they do and how they do it. We've seen this, for example, at our Executive Education programs, where we have companies coming to us to say, “Will you work with us on these kinds of issues if we want to understand them better?” I see a wake up call. Is it consistent? No. Not everyone in the organizations that we work with get it, not all universities are jumping on to this, and, to the extent that they are, sometimes it's more faddish than real, but I do see a real switch happening.
What might it take to push it to the forefront?
The negative thing that it would take is another Katrina, which I hope doesn't happen. That was another wake-up call. With Katrina, there was an environmental part, there was a social part … it shocked so many people, the poverty that existed, and the inequality that existed within the United States. What we need are positive role models. We don't need any more depressing stories; we need hopeful stories that demonstrate to people that companies can do this, that individuals can do this. Part of what we are trying to do here at Sloan is to provide some stories, some narratives that people can hold on to and say, “Wow, they did it. Maybe I can do it too,” and then model different kinds of behaviors.
What can be done at the national level?
We have a great opportunity within cities, where obvious problems emerge because of the state of our infrastructure. There are real problems with a lot of carbon footprint in urban centers, a lot of waste water and waste in general, as well as unemployment problems. So imagine a group of us from different parts of the university … imagine if we started working with different cities about what would it take to green a city in terms of rebuilding infrastructure, retrofitting buildings, creating jobs for people with these kinds of skills and all of the services related to the aforementioned things. You could tackle the job employment situation, you could tackle the environmental, and you could make this an interesting project. Showing that it's possible could capture people's imagination, and you don't have to be a Democrat or a Republican to be involved. You could do it because it simply makes sense.
© 2009 MIT SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT