We are going through a revolution right now on “sustainability.” I would like to compare this revolution to what we went through on “quality management” back in the 60s and 70s. Although I think the topic of sustainability has much greater ramifications, the challenges of creating change and implementing a new way of thinking were also met by our foundational thinkers of quality management. Edward Deming was probably the most famous contributor. His ideas helped define quality, the importance of quality, and the cost of not having quality . These ideas were initially met with disregard, disbelief and ultimate defiance. Deming had to take his ideas to Japan before he was embraced and valued.
Today we have the same problem introducing sustainability. One of the main push backs that I receive when teaching and consulting on sustainability is that the benefits do not out-way the costs and that we cannot afford to incorporate proper sustainability activities. In fact, the benefits do out way the costs. The problem is that most organizations simply don’t calculate “true” costs and spend most of their time measuring the wrong things.
For example, if you’re deciding between natural gas and solar technology, you can’t simply make a straight comparison between the current market costs of natural gas per unit and the costs of solar technology. The trilogy of fuels: natural gas, coal and oil are limited in availability. We must incorporate this into their cost. Additionally, many fuels create dangerous gases, waste, and toxic bi-products throughout their lifecycle from appropriation, processing, shipping through to consumption. All of these variables must be incorporated into the cost/benefit calculations. If this was done accurately, with these considerations translated into reflective costs, I’m sure solar and wind technologies would start to compete with the benefits of coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power.
Another key variable that’s rarely incorporated is the cost of social responsibility and the impact to key stakeholders around the world. Ask some of the community groups around the world what they think about high risk mining or about oil pipe lines stretching under their land or fresh water supplies, and I think you’ll get a different picture. Shouldn’t these things be included in the cost/benefit analysis? I’m not saying we don’t need fuel, I’m simply saying we need to change our approach and incorporate sustainability into our plans.
I’m sure that ideas on quality received the same cold reception 40 years ago. The reality is that we cannot afford not to incorporate sustainability into our projects, our organizations and our lives. On an annual basis we are spending the resources of three planets to maintain the current population. The US alone creates about 250 million tons of waste a year for landfills, recycling, and incineration plants.
How long can we sustain burning through our resources before we do irreparable damage to the planet? When will we add the real cost of sustainability to our business cases? When will we incorporate social responsibility into our stakeholder management plans?
Just like quality management, sustainability needs to be planned in. Just like quality, we need to believe in prevention over inspection. It’s time for a paradigm shift and a revolution to protect future generations. If Deming could help us now!
