There’s much talk these days about innovation and entrepreneurship driving the “new economy.” Washington’s new governor, Jay Inslee, on his first day in office, said that Washington is “poised to develop the next wave of innovations that will change the world.”

I agree and strongly believe that in order to unlock innovation in the private sector, we must foster a renewed partnership between legislative leaders and business entrepreneurs.

Together, we need to pave the way for the entrepreneurs of tomorrow through an improved educational pathway – because as we all know, education is where innovation is born. Our environmental, social and economic futures depend on the education, support and development of tomorrow’s Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs.

Our appetite for innovation has long been insatiable, and in the past 50 years we have seen unprecedented leaps in innovation and creativity.

But how many companies are truly innovative? Try to name three companies that have developed breakthrough products or services recently.

The innovations are out there, but they are happening at a micro-level in response to our changing climate, changing social conditions and changing economies. The innovations of tomorrow are going to be much more incremental and focused on breaking the unsustainable nature of our old model: extract, create, use and dispose.

The internal (and global) cost savings of this type of innovation drives an organization’s success in a resource-constrained world.

We’ve seen this play out through a few interesting local examples:

 • Local Roundtable Pizza franchisees Lance and Karrie Hungerford, after contributing extensively to their community through their restaurants, created a technology to connect businesses with community agencies and ultimately to their constituencies. GIVINGtrax is a web-based technology that is connecting people with good corporate citizens in their communities.

 • Coinstar of Bellevue, after changing the way we deal with our change, has now altered the way we receive our home entertainment. We used to walk into a 6,000-square-foot retail space that was air-conditioned, lighted and staffed to rent our VHS tapes. We now order our DVDs on our phones and pick them up from a box outside our grocery stores.

 • A small firm called Hydrovolts in Seattle developed a product that converts moving water to energy. The innovation takes an old idea (hydroelectric power) to a micro-scale and generates electricity in remote drainage ditches, waterfalls or other places where water is moving. This new (green) power source is driven by energy that was previously untapped.

Each of these innovations occurred because of a new mindset of social responsibility, citizenship and sustainability that is becoming an essential element of successful business – not just to attract new customers, but to drive innovative and creative thinking.

To some degree, the innovations of the past have helped set us on a path of unsustainable global conditions. Environmentally, socially and economically, we need to make changes that will lead to a more sustainable world.

We also need to improve the quality of education and access to higher education in order to tap into the creativity and innovation of a new generation. It is the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of private enterprise that has the most opportunity to make a positive impact.

The innovations of today will ensure a better world for tomorrow’s children.

Conference on Coporate Social Responsibility - March 6 - Bellevue, WA - CSR Driving Innovation

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/02/28/2492973/quality-education-paves-the-way.html#storylink=cpy

Sustainability is Not a Social Problem…It is a Math Problem

Much of our belief system is built on faulty math.  That bad math is not sustainable.

We have come to believe that more = better.  Well your average second grade student can see that this cannot possibly be true.  It is like saying that 2 = 4 or cat = dog.  More does not equal better, it is just simply more.  Better is better, and that is the “new” reality that we must come to grips with if we are to become a sustainable civilization. Let me give you some examples of how this mindset has affected our culture. 

Food: In the late 60’s the USDA decided that the quantity of food that we produce needed to be increased.  We set in motion policies that rewarded the massive production of food (mostly corn) so that it could be cheap and widely available.  The result of these policies is food that is making us fat, sick and extremely unhealthy.  More food is not better; better food is better.

Healthcare: In the US, we provide massive amounts of healthcare; as a matter of fact we spend more per capita than any other country on Earth.  Yet, we consistently rank somewhere around 40th in health outcomes.  I can tell you from personal experience as a frequent flyer in the healthcare system that more is certainly not better when it comes to medicine; better healthcare is better.

Transportation: In most US cities, and now in developing countries, more cars represent a sign of wealth and success.  More cars, more streets, more gas stations, and bigger vehicles (SUV’s) has been our mantra for decades.  In a world of limited natural resources (i.e. peak oil), more is not better, better transportation is better.  In cities where public transportation is readily available, the average savings per household is $10,000 annually. 

Guns: Given the recent tragic events of mass shootings, I have to address this misconception.  More guns are not better.  In a typical year, somewhere around 30,000 citizens in the US are killed by gun violence. That is the equivalent of a Boeing 747 crashing every week. Can you imagine the absolute crisis if a 747 was falling from the skies every week?  I don’t know the answer to our gun culture problems, but I do know one thing – more guns in the hands of more people is not better for our society.

Homes: According to the National Association of Homebuilders, the average home size in the US was 2700 square feet in 2009, up from 1400 square feet in 1970.  That is 93% more home with 93% more stuff to fit into it.  I am fairly certain that we are not 93% happier than people in 1970.  More homes and more stuff is not better, it is just more.

There is no shortage of examples of this bad math in our culture.  Sustainable homes, families, communities, countries, societies, economies, and environments rely on good math where more = more and better = better.  Let’s hope that 2013 brings us to better.

What is CSR?

As the director of the University of Washington Center for Leadership & Social Responsibility, that is focused on corporate social responsibility (CSR) I hear this question often. I like the question because the answer isn’t concrete (e.g. 2+2=4), but rather is the start of a conversation. The question is somewhat analogous to “What is red?” or “Who should be president?”

There isn’t a right answer, only your own viewpoint that is based upon your experience, your perspective and your biases.

The dialogue that flows from this question is often much more rich and enlightening than that with a definitive “right” answer.

There are, however, a few themes in the conversations: Sustainability * Governance * Citizenship * Stakeholders * Social Good * Philanthropy * Environment * Transparency * Human Rights *

CSR is not a function of business like accounting or marketing, it is a representation of the soul of a
business, like values or principles. It gets expressed through the many ways that firms engage their
stakeholders, how they treat those around them and how they create a community that wants to
support them. CSR done well does not create shareholder and social value because it figures out new
techniques, strategies, messages or markets. It leverages the value that exists in the marketplace that
rewards firms who share consumers’ values and punishes firms who defy them.

The social responsibility of business is to engage in mutually beneficial exchange that creates value for
all in an ethical way without burdening someone else with the negative results of the transaction. Think
about that statement for a second – read it again. It is both an aspiration and a challenge.

The most challenging part of the statement is the part about capturing the “negative externalities”
(my favorite economic term!) The more we know about negative externalities (carbon emissions,
slave labor, de-forestation, water use, unethical financial instruments…I could go on), the more we are
demanding through regulation and the marketplace that firms minimize those effects and account for
those costs.

We have headed down this path, sometimes kicking and screaming, since the early 70’s. The pace
accelerated in the 90’s with the advent of the internet and the availability of information. It has been
the recent past, however, that has super-charged the pace of CSR due to the instantaneous availability
of information and the ability to engage as consumers in global “viral” campaigns.

The face of CSR has changed and continues to change. It used to be defined as “giving back” through
philanthropy and good deeds. The new world requires a much more holistic approach that leverages
authentic values, engages stakeholders in solving problems and treats consumers as partners in solving
world problems through the power of commerce.

This is a big task that will require a team effort. I think we are up to it, and I hope you will engage in a
conversation about what your definition of CSR is today and what it might be tomorrow.