Among our predictions are that leaders will become more system-centric and that the very meaning of the firm will change from self-contained entity to node in a network. In both cases, the importance of system success will grow relative to individual or firm success.  There will be new tensions to balance such as low cost vs. low impact. Each of the predictions is meant more as provocation for thought and conversation — we aren’t vain enough to think that our crystal ball is perfect.

I invite you to read the paper (link below) and share your thoughts. Agree or disagree, your voice is important to the conversation.

Pillar Trends RM final

You can read more about them in my latest post for MontaRosa.

The framework is designed to help bring the most critcal issues to the fore and ensure that the mid- and long-term implications are not overwhelmed by short-term considerations. I would appreciate your thoughts on this model. What do you think?

First, I have to say that the professionalism and deep expertise of those involved in the recovery is truly impressive. For those of you who are cynical about the government, put it on the shelf with regard to these folks. The Coast Guard, NOAA, and many other federal, state, and local agencies are putting in 20+ hour days, their scientific knowledge and concern for the environment are genuine, and attention is being paid at the highest levels.

These folks know what they are doing when it comes to responding to an oil spill and are concerned about the environmental impact from the spill. Pick on the regulators — they deserve it — but be glad that these responders are on hand.

The slick has been portrayed on television as a big, black mass. It is big — about the size of Puerto Rico — but much of the oil has begun to break down (NOAA maps). From the air, it can be tough to see the oil until you get fairly close to where the wellhead is. There are orange-ish stripes, some areas of sheen (which I learned is about 1 atom thick), and some amoeba-like blobs. There are a few spots of black but they are few and far between. Natural wave action and the sun start breaking the oil apart as soon as it hits the surface and the dispersants being used also help. The strategy of “skim, burn, and disperse” may not be a long-term one but for how it lets responders hold their own. They were actually getting ahead of the release on the days that I was there.

The winds have kept most of the oil offshore. Reports of oil in wetlands were few and far-between so far (whew). The number of dead birds was in the single digits. One dead whale had been found and an autopsy was being performed to discover if the spill was the cause of death. The favorable winds were allowing the responders to position boom to protect sensitive areas. There will be damage but the distance from shore of the rupture and the benign weather are helping to mitigate it by allowing responders to mount a defense.

Now, about that cofferdam — or concrete condom — they are trying to put on the well. The engineering is extraordinarily difficult and we should be rooting for these engineers the way we did for NASA when Apollo 13 was “stuck” in space. I fully believe that in the future companies should not be allowed to drill anywhere that they can’t demonstrate a proficiency in rapid recovery from an accident, but for now let’s pull for BP to work some magic. The pressure, temperatures, and low visibility make the degree of difficulty of this job off the charts; the time, media, and political pressures just make it harder.

By all accounts that I heard, BP is being stand-up about this. They are paying for everything and aren’t trying to deflect blame. There will be investigations and lawsuits that will last decades, I’m sure, but the recovery is not being hampered by corporate evasion or obfuscation as far as I could see.

The good that may come out of this is a robust conversation about energy policy, risk, and the need to decrease our consumption of fossil fuels. Time Magazine has an excellent piece in the current issue. We need to seriously ramp up our efforts to increase the percentage of our energy that comes from sustainable sources — and yes, we’re going to need to keep drilling for awhile. It’s time we act like grown-ups and make some hard choices because the birds, fish, plants, and animals we’re all fearing for won’t get that chance.

70 million people move into cities each year

If you missed Part I of this post, check it out. Then add your voice to the conversation. I was asked by a colleague at a Fortune 500 company to give my thoughts on the hottest questions in sustainability — those that are generating the most provocative discussions. These are what I gave him and each will become the subject of a longer future post in which I’ll share my version of the answer.

My lens on sustainability is colored by urbanization, another of what I call Pillar Trends: long-term, global trends that will effect all of us and of which no individual or single organization or government can alone change the trend line. It’s cope (and find the opportunities)…or endure the consequences.

This dual perspective is reflected in questions #4 – 7 in my hot questions. They’ll also be part of Sustainable Cities: Smarter, Greener, and More Competitive, an Executive Council Sustainability Leadership Forum on June 8 for which I am serving as consulting editorial director.

4)      Are cities the “great green hope” for a sustainable planet? Urban areas are typically thought of as crowded, noisy, and dirty – a far cry from the bucolic country scenes associated with organic farms, fresh air, and gently flowing streams. More than half of the world now lives in urban areas. Almost 75% of energy is consumed there and, in the developed world, about 80% of economic wealth is created in cities. Buildings consume a greater percentage of our total energy use than transportation. But are there environmental benefits to the urban density of population and activity? Should the desire to reduce environmental impact drive an acceleration of global urbanization? What are the downsides to increased urbanization?

5)      Which metrics matter? From Wal-Mart’s Sustainability Index to Newsweek’s Green Ratings, the race is on to create the metrics by which corporations will be measured and public perceptions shaped. What are the agendas of the various parties bringing new “sustainability rulers” to the fore? How will business leaders and the consuming public be able to discern which measures matter most – and which are simply gimmicks or clever public relations?

6)      What is the right public-private balance for creating the sustainable city? Free market enthusiasts will argue that we will best optimize the “greenness” our cities through the rough-and-tumble of interactions between buyers and sellers. The sustainability ideas, products, and services that rise to the top will be those that the public most wants and is willing to pay for. Others will counter that a broader vision is needed – that only with greater planning, more stringent standards, and greater public sector involvement can next-generation advancements find their way into the mainstream. A systems challenge, they say, can’t be solved with a component-based approach. Would the green building movement have grown so dramatically without LEEDS certification standards? Even some regulators, however, argue that a top down approach is inappropriate for the challenges we face.

7)      Must the developing world go brown before it goes green? Developing nations argue that they are entitled to their period of “dirty” growth so that they can raise the living standards of their people at a cost they can afford. To hold them to the environmental standards of the developed world would be unfair and hypocritical. This position has been a major point of contention at every global negotiation on environmental protection. Is this right – or is the world missing a major opportunity to meet climate change challenges by not undertaking a green Marshall Plan to bring the latest technology, materials, and insights to these developing population centers? After all, the most populous cities in 2020 will largely be in the developing world.

What are your thoughts?

1)      What happens when science and public perception are at odds? Eco-pragmatists like Stewart Brand have recently made headlines by embracing nuclear power as a sustainable energy source and asserting that only with genetically modified crops can a world of 9 billion be fed. Both nuclear power and GMOs have been on the blacklists of the green movement and the general public. Can science triumph over sentiment? Should it? Does the environmental movement need to loosen up a bit?

2)      Has the green movement peaked – or has it reached a tipping point? The COP 15 talks in Copenhagen were judged a disappointment, the “climate gate” scandal over suppressed scientific data knocked advocates of climate change as a serious threat back on their heels. Public opinion polls in the U.S. have shown declining belief in the threat of climate change. Cap-and-trade legislation is stalled in the U.S. However, the U.S. government – the world’s largest procurer of almost everything – has put sustainability requirements into its purchasing specifications. Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, is moving forward with a sustainability index that will have ramifications throughout its vast global supply chain and bring new transparency to each product’s environmental footprint. Companies like Coca-Cola have publicly committed to bold goals such as water neutrality. Some battles are being won by each side, but who is winning the war?

3)      Should companies lead or follow their customers on sustainability issues? Some argue that a company’s only goal should be to generate return for their shareholders and they should do so by listening to their customers and profitably serving their needs. Others feel that corporations should be ahead of the curve – both to anticipate customer demands and to prepare for a world of resource scarcity. Far reaching commitments to retrofit or replace transportation fleets, reengineer supply chains, redesign processes and products, and reduce resource use require investment that may impede short-term profits in search of long-term gains that may never appear. Are these efforts smart bets or unneeded distractions? What are the costs and benefits of being on the bleeding edge of green?