I typically count myself among the last-minute shoppers—rushing frantically from store to store; arranging next-day shipping to expedite my online orders; and, finally, wrapping gifts in newspaper late into the night on Christmas Eve.

But, not this year.

No, I’m stopping the madness and buying all of my gifts from the Zingerman’s website. FYI, Zingerman’s is a family of small food-related companies based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Sorry, Mom, if I ruined the surprise, but if it’s any consolation, here are a few things you can feel good about:

• Michigan needs us: The unemployment rate—15.1 percent as of October 2009—is higher in Michigan than in any other state. The auto industry is still struggling, despite a massive bailout and recent some signs of life. And Detroit’s Pistons (currently four games behind .500) and Red Wings (also running with the middle of the pack) aren’t lifting many spirits either. Supporting Michigan’s business community seems like the least we can do to help.
• Small business is the backbone of America: while Zingerman’s is hardly a small business anymore, it still feels like and operates like one, serving as a reminder that small, independent businesses need help too to survive in this economic climate.
• Enough with the “green” gifts: there are a number of gift guides on the web touting “green” products this holiday season (see examples here, here, and here). While I appreciate the focus and enthusiasm, I can’t help but think that my family and friends have their essential needs met already. Will more clothing or toys or gadgets make them any happier? Not nearly as much as good chocolate or cheese will!
• Last but not least, an eye toward sustainability: Zingerman’s strategic vision for 2020 focuses on sustainability as it pertains to customers, employees, and the planet at large. What’s not to like? 

That said, the holidays will have come and gone before we all know it, so let me take this fleeting opportunity to wish you a happy and festive holiday season! Oh… and happy shopping!

• UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen: is it dead on arrival or too early to tell?
• If we can’t get effective climate policy, is it too soon to start thinking about water policy as well?
• When one moves, what does one do with that stash of outdated business cards? [Seriously, I want someone to answer this question for me.]
• How will Americans wean themselves off plastic?
• Has no one thought of a “green” pizza box before?

2008 Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report PDF

The sustainability community is obsessed with the concept of “best practices.” Conferences promise to teach them; social media platforms encourage us to share them; and consultants are hired to impart knowledge of them.

Our tendency to focus on best practices is useful and necessary, in part. It saves considerable time and energy by narrowing the ever-evolving world of sustainability into bite-sized lessons from which practitioners can pick and choose.

At the same time, I can’t help but think that our fixation on best practices is short-sighted. Best-practice examples too often identify and celebrate outcomes while ignoring the processes that deliver said results.

This is troublesome because results are difficult to replicate when the circumstances change. Processes, on the other hand, can be transferred and adapted across industries, corporate cultures, and so on and so forth.

I am reminded of the well-known Chinese proverb: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.  The premise of sustainability—in my opinion, to take a long-term view of key challenges and raise the awareness of others— is aligned more with the latter than the former.

So shouldn’t we also practice what we preach?

Wal-Mart 2009 Global Sustainability Report PDF

It’s mid- to late-August and you know what that means: practically everyone (except you and me) is on vacation.

Here inside the Washington beltway, vacation policy has taken a back seat to healthcare reform, economic recovery plans, and impending climate change legislation for most of the summer. Vacation, however, has not been forgotten.

Case in point: Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) introduced the Paid Vacation Act to Congress in May 2009. Mr. Grayson’s bill would initially require one week of paid vacation per year at companies with at least 100 employees, and later expand to include smaller businesses as well. He explained, in a recent blog post, why mandatory paid vacation is necessary to American workers and to reduce our collective healthcare costs. He writes, “27 million workers in America never get a single day of paid vacation…  [Yet] we spend more than $3,000 per employee per year on health care for stress-related conditions.” Amazing, isn’t it?

While paid vacation may make sense from a healthcare perspective, other economic impacts seem less favorable. Blogger and human resources expert Susan Heathfield argues that the Paid Vacation Act carries potential consequences for U.S. employers struggling to compete in a global economy. Her concerns include the higher cost of doing business in the United States versus overseas, which may slow hiring or contribute to the loss of more American jobs; an incentive for employers to change or reduce other benefits that may be critical to their employees; and less money to pay for compensation increases over time.

Both arguments are compelling, but miss a crucial point. In spite of our economic woes, the debate over mandatory paid vacation should center on time rather than money. Yes, I am familiar with the old adage that “time is money.” But, no, I don’t think it is universally applicable. Work-life balance, for example, is something that both employees and employers are supposed to value, but don’t in practice.

That’s right. The value of our time seems to be diminishing. Carissa Bluestone of Worldchanging hits the nail on the head in her post on travel and sustainability, in which she credits the “devaluation of vacation time” as partly to blame for our unsustainable travel and vacation habits. In other words, life moves so quickly and pulls us in so many directions nowadays that we often forget to enjoy—or sometimes even use—the vacation time allotted to us.

So what does this mean? To my mind, it means that paid vacation law is the start of a conversation on work-life balance, as opposed to the end of it. Indeed, companies will have to address economic implications if the paid vacation law passes.

But employees have reason to pause as well. We all must stop to consider implications and the spirit of Representative Grayson’s bill. Even those of us who receive paid time off already stand to be reminded how important it is to care for ourselves, to balance the personal and professional, and to enjoy (read: value) the time that we have.

Think about it.

This post is the first in a six-part series based on Where Sustainability Lives, a new study which indicates that organizational structure matters to sustainability performance. Please check back in the coming weeks for further insight and analysis from the Framework:CR team and various corporate practitioners.

…

With respect to vertical structure, Where Sustainability Lives concludes that a company is more likely to receive external recognition if the sustainability function lives higher within said company’s organizational structure. The data, upon which the study is based, offers compelling evidence in support of this conclusion. For example, companies in which the sustainability function is just one level removed from the CEO are recognized nearly twice as often as companies in which the sustainability function is four levels removed from the CEO.

So here’s a question to ponder. Why? Why does vertical structure matter? In my opinion, it boils down to two simple—perhaps obvious—factors: power and money.

Power:  Like it or not, our titles and the perception of our influence—or lack thereof—can precede us in the workplace. Hence, the extent to which a company’s sustainability function can influence stakeholders and secure buy-in depends largely on their position within the corporate hierarchy. Think about employee engagement, for example. Employees are likely to respond differently to a request (read: polite appeal) from a junior executive than they would to the same request (read: direct order) from a senior executive. Thus, a senior executive in charge of sustainability can exert more leverage, gain more traction, and, therefore, build a more successful program than his/her junior counterpart who manages a similar program at a competing company.

In turn, senior executives are better positioned to engage with their CEOs on sustainability-related topics, because senior executives have direct access to the CEO and other C-suite executives, whereas junior executives may not. I would be remiss to not point out how advantageous this is for the senior executives in terms of raising awareness, gaining cross-functional support, and ultimately building momentum behind sustainability. Clients tell us time and again how critical CEO support is to the success of their respective programs and initiatives.

Finally, we have to consider scope. Senior executives are often responsible for a range of business units or geographic regions, whereas junior executives have narrower responsibilities. In reviewing the responses to our survey, it seems that— in addition to sustainability— most senior executives also oversee the likes of communications; public relations; environment, health, and safety; and/or other functional areas. These structures allow those senior executive to drive sustainability down into the other business units for which they have control.  Junior executives, by comparison, may have to work up through senior executives and then back down into other business units to achieve the same results.

Money: Money, of course, goes hand in hand with power, so I won’t belabor this point. However, we must recognize the important role that money and budgets play in determining a successful sustainability effort. Junior executives must often request and apply for budget dollars, whereas senior executives allocate them. From this premise, one would expect the senior executive, who is allocating budget dollars, to protect his/her budget first. The junior executive overseeing a similar responsibility is unlikely to take any precedent. He/she may have limited budget or no budget, especially in a downturn economy like this one.

Presented by Framework:CR

Hosted by the Altamont Group 

 A sustainability strategy requires the support of senior business leaders. Leadership in sustainability, however, begins and ends with your employees.

Join us and learn how to position employee engagement as a critical part of your overall sustainability strategy.

• Develop an employee engagement approach that aligns with your company culture and core business strategy
• Identify internal sustainability leaders and champions
• Target various constituencies within your organization
• Foster a culture of personal accountability
• Leverage social media platforms

PRESENTERS: Kyle Whitaker and Aleksandra Dobkowski-Joy, Principals at Framework:CR 

TIME: 1:00-2:30PM (EST) on July 16, 2009

REGISTER: Via the course brochure or register@altamont-group.com 

SINGLE ATTENDEE: $249 (early registration)

ADDITIONAL ATTENDEE: $99

The Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA) hosted its third annual sustainability conference on Tuesday, June 16. Leaders from around the Nutmeg State—and beyond—convened in Hartford to discuss best-in-class sustainability initiatives and to assess how “green” practices are faring in these difficult economic times.

Here are two observations worth considering. First, interest in sustainability is alive and well in Connecticut, which I believe is good news for us all. Second, we still have a long way to go in terms of building dialogue around sustainability in our state.

Click here to read more.

Barclays Sustainability Report 2008 PDF