The annual CORE Sustainable Opportunities Summit in Denver two weeks ago was a great event as usual, and one of the standout panels was called “The Art of Leading a Sustainable Company”. Panelists included: moderator Walt Rakowich, CEO of distribution facility powerhouse Prologis; Ellen Feeney from WhiteWave Foods; Lisa Grice from Environ Corporation; and Kim Jordan from New Belgium Brewery.
A few highlights:
Walt led off saying that business must have a “broader purpose in life” – employees and other stakeholders become much more excited if there is more to it than making money. This is a natural human desire, for meaning – and it’s surprising in a way that somehow the “common sense” of business tells us to ignore something so fundamental. According to Walt, making money is great and essential, but – has to be a by-product of something bigger. Purpose really has to come first.
Lisa made the point that leadership includes understanding the full impacts of one’s decisions and actions, evaluating and driving reductions in negative impacts, and constantly engaging and communicating. Ellen and Kim supported this with some very concrete examples of how they do planning, budgeting, and impact measurement in their respective companies.
I posed the question to the panel “In order to be sustainable, is a fundamentally different leadership style required?”
The consensus was that the style was not different, but additional. Instead of thinking one quarter ahead, it’s having a longer term vision of the business in the world. It’s respecting the need to get buy in throughout the organization, to advocate for sustainability throughout the supply chain, and to act consistently from a set of sustainable values.
These are not in any way something antithetical to good business practice. This deeper appreciation of time and complexity translates into concrete business results, including financial savings, brand protection, the ability to shape or avoid regulation, protecting resources needed in the supply chain, anticipating and meeting customer requirements.
Another question: “Doesn’t this all make executive decision making much more complex, and thus more difficult?” The answers surprised me. Everyone said that it wasn’t actually more difficult, and in fact had very positive results. Walt felt that this approach increased employee involvement and satisfaction. Kim said it was hard to quantify but undoubtedly profitable. Lisa said it resulted in more integrated, deeper solutions.
Ellen described it as taking the process of due diligence deeper into the organization, including thinking longer term about potential impacts and risks. She used the term “greater mindfulness” to describe this way of seeing.
In the end, culture is huge, the major driver of sustainable corporate behavior. It means basing hiring decisions, rewards and incentives on consistent values – which in New Belgium’s case, includes a commitment to FUN. (A simple concept they never taught me in business school!). And Walt spoke of the most important skills for new employees being not technical – he says we can teach that stuff – but more fundamental attributes of passion, integrity and character.
Sustainable leadership is perhaps best seen not as huge and disruptive paradigm shift, but rather a more gentle and ongoing deepening of perspective.