The U.S.S. Prius
When gas hit $4 a gallon, I was happy. Nothing motives changing behavior like getting hit in the wallet, and SUV sales slumped for the first time since we were convinced they were the vehicles we needed to be driving. Well, it appears this maxim is also true of our military...
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Sustainability and The Bike Industry
This week, I've been contemplating a deep and disturbing question: is the bike industry as we know it sustainable? What is important to note is that the bike industry is similar in so many ways to all of our other industries. So I ask the question of the bike industry, because that is what I know best, and because that is the industry in which I find myself, but it could and should be asked of all our industries.
We had a meeting with our strategic planning team this week. It was encouraging; the business is doing well. We talked about growth, profit, and partnerships. What wasn't discussed were limits to growth. I doubt anyone in the room would've argued that unlimited growth is sustainable, but limits to growth seem to be the elephant in the room in any discussion of business strategy. The following is purely speculation, but it seems logical to assume that to talk about limits would stifle growth. To recognize openly that, if we want to be serious about sustainable business, we need to limit our growth would be to limit ourselves, rather than being held back by an external limiting factor.
I see in this the tragedy of the commons. If we limit ourselves, that means we'll be leaving resources on the table for others to use. In other words, if we don't use those resources, somebody else will, and then we've sacrificed our competitive edge.
At this point, I'm not comfortable enough at work to actually ask these questions. I don't even know how my asking would be perceived; I don't want others to think I'm questioning the foundation upon which 500 employees depend. But I hope to ask someday.
We had a meeting with our strategic planning team this week. It was encouraging; the business is doing well. We talked about growth, profit, and partnerships. What wasn't discussed were limits to growth. I doubt anyone in the room would've argued that unlimited growth is sustainable, but limits to growth seem to be the elephant in the room in any discussion of business strategy. The following is purely speculation, but it seems logical to assume that to talk about limits would stifle growth. To recognize openly that, if we want to be serious about sustainable business, we need to limit our growth would be to limit ourselves, rather than being held back by an external limiting factor.
I see in this the tragedy of the commons. If we limit ourselves, that means we'll be leaving resources on the table for others to use. In other words, if we don't use those resources, somebody else will, and then we've sacrificed our competitive edge.
At this point, I'm not comfortable enough at work to actually ask these questions. I don't even know how my asking would be perceived; I don't want others to think I'm questioning the foundation upon which 500 employees depend. But I hope to ask someday.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Hannover Principle
Source: The Hannover Principles Design for Sustainability
By: William McDonough & Partners, 2000
Reflection:
It is my final week of training at the new job. This morning, we had a module called Commitment to Action, the gist of which is that intentions, ultimately, are worth nothing. It is action that actually “makes the world a better place.” This is something that resonates with me on a deep, fundamental level. I spent the first part of my life wandering through the world, recognizing problems and hoping for solutions. Ugh, that trash in the sidewalk is ugly. Somebody should really pick that up and put it in the garbage can. Hmmm, Cathy has something stuck in her teeth. Somebody should really let her know. Wow, I really like those shoes. I hope somebody says something to her. Thoughts like these are evidence that my heart was in the right place, but thoughts like these didn’t clean the sidewalks, or prevent Cathy from having an embarrassing afternoon, or boost the confidence of the woman with the nice shoes, and isn’t that the purpose of those thoughts? On my right bicep is a tattoo. It is a delta, which is, as the physics geeks out there know, the symbol for change. It is my always and constant reminder to live those immortal words of Ghandi, which I consider to be the most powerful ever uttered, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Pick up the trash, tell Cathy to get some floss, and compliment the woman with the shoes. If somebody should do it, be that somebody. This is not an easy standard, and I fall short more often than not, but if I can live up to those words even a tiny fraction of the time, I have made a greater difference than all the good thoughts I have ever had or ever will have, combined.
The Hannover Principle is a heavy, philosophical, and inspirational document. It envisions a world in which our culture of unsustainable consumption has been transformed into something we can live with for the foreseeable future. It does not ask the question, “Is this possible?” It just says, “This is how it has to be.” (Although I doubt McDonough would argue this is the only way things could be in our quest for sustainability) I don’t disagree. The Way Things Are is not sustainable, and unless that changes, our unsustainable culture and the creatures who propagate it will cease to exist, rendering the former question moot.
My thoughts when reading The Hannover Principles, and I purposefully avoided using the term criticism, for reasons I’ll discuss later, is that it represents good intentions. There are a lot of goals and guidelines about how the expo should be carried out. This is the first I had heard of the Hannover Expo, so I don’t know if these intentions were acted on, or with what success the goals were met, although I am certain, given the time and motivation, I could have found out. Even if the expo adhered strictly to the guidelines, and all the goals were met with great success, so what? It’s an expo. It is, literally, a microcosm, and these issues are of the macro level or greater. The ultimate question is, what do we do with these good intentions?
Forgive me if that’s an obvious question, but it seems important enough to risk being trite. Again, this is not criticism; it is simply recognition that we have identified a good starting point, intentions, and must move on to the next phase, action. Current cities and the way in which they’re planned (or not, as it turns out) are not sustainable. We need to change that, so let’s have an expo that explores ideas of sustainable cities. And then what?
Clearly, the intentions aren’t going to save the world, and one person acting on good intentions isn’t going to save the world, and a whole city of people acting on good intentions are not going to save the world, and it may not even be possible for an entire country, acting on good intentions, to save the world (although it would depend on the country I suppose). So the first action must be the dissemination of information. I think we get this, though the manner in which it’s communicated often leaves much to be desired. Then, because one person, acting alone, cannot save the world, we need to empower others to make changes when appropriate and possible. While the details of this are complex and daunting, on a theoretical level it's simple: education. Make people aware they have the power to change, and give them the tools to do so. Easier said than done...
By: William McDonough & Partners, 2000
Reflection:
It is my final week of training at the new job. This morning, we had a module called Commitment to Action, the gist of which is that intentions, ultimately, are worth nothing. It is action that actually “makes the world a better place.” This is something that resonates with me on a deep, fundamental level. I spent the first part of my life wandering through the world, recognizing problems and hoping for solutions. Ugh, that trash in the sidewalk is ugly. Somebody should really pick that up and put it in the garbage can. Hmmm, Cathy has something stuck in her teeth. Somebody should really let her know. Wow, I really like those shoes. I hope somebody says something to her. Thoughts like these are evidence that my heart was in the right place, but thoughts like these didn’t clean the sidewalks, or prevent Cathy from having an embarrassing afternoon, or boost the confidence of the woman with the nice shoes, and isn’t that the purpose of those thoughts? On my right bicep is a tattoo. It is a delta, which is, as the physics geeks out there know, the symbol for change. It is my always and constant reminder to live those immortal words of Ghandi, which I consider to be the most powerful ever uttered, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Pick up the trash, tell Cathy to get some floss, and compliment the woman with the shoes. If somebody should do it, be that somebody. This is not an easy standard, and I fall short more often than not, but if I can live up to those words even a tiny fraction of the time, I have made a greater difference than all the good thoughts I have ever had or ever will have, combined.
The Hannover Principle is a heavy, philosophical, and inspirational document. It envisions a world in which our culture of unsustainable consumption has been transformed into something we can live with for the foreseeable future. It does not ask the question, “Is this possible?” It just says, “This is how it has to be.” (Although I doubt McDonough would argue this is the only way things could be in our quest for sustainability) I don’t disagree. The Way Things Are is not sustainable, and unless that changes, our unsustainable culture and the creatures who propagate it will cease to exist, rendering the former question moot.
My thoughts when reading The Hannover Principles, and I purposefully avoided using the term criticism, for reasons I’ll discuss later, is that it represents good intentions. There are a lot of goals and guidelines about how the expo should be carried out. This is the first I had heard of the Hannover Expo, so I don’t know if these intentions were acted on, or with what success the goals were met, although I am certain, given the time and motivation, I could have found out. Even if the expo adhered strictly to the guidelines, and all the goals were met with great success, so what? It’s an expo. It is, literally, a microcosm, and these issues are of the macro level or greater. The ultimate question is, what do we do with these good intentions?
Forgive me if that’s an obvious question, but it seems important enough to risk being trite. Again, this is not criticism; it is simply recognition that we have identified a good starting point, intentions, and must move on to the next phase, action. Current cities and the way in which they’re planned (or not, as it turns out) are not sustainable. We need to change that, so let’s have an expo that explores ideas of sustainable cities. And then what?
Clearly, the intentions aren’t going to save the world, and one person acting on good intentions isn’t going to save the world, and a whole city of people acting on good intentions are not going to save the world, and it may not even be possible for an entire country, acting on good intentions, to save the world (although it would depend on the country I suppose). So the first action must be the dissemination of information. I think we get this, though the manner in which it’s communicated often leaves much to be desired. Then, because one person, acting alone, cannot save the world, we need to empower others to make changes when appropriate and possible. While the details of this are complex and daunting, on a theoretical level it's simple: education. Make people aware they have the power to change, and give them the tools to do so. Easier said than done...
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Green Chemistry
Source: Chemistry Innovations in Sustainable Development
By: The Natural Edge Project (‘TNEP’) 2008
Reflection:
Allow me an analogy: plastic is to our lives what high fructose corn syrup is to our diets. It is utterly pervasive, harmful in large doses, and largely taken for granted, meaning, we don’t think about it until we try to envision life without it. Diet without HFCS? Say goodbye to cheap and tasty everything, from bread to ketchup. Life without plastic? Goodbye car parts, Tupperware, shoes, clothing, appliances, carpeting, etc. etc. etc.
None of this is to say we can’t develop alternative that perform just as well as or better than these pervasive substances. We can now make plastic out of corn, and it seems like there’s a new ad for some new sweetener (All Natural!) every time I turn on the TV.
What’s my point? “Plastic” is just one example of a pervasive chemical, and that label is attached to dozens, maybe hundreds of materials with similar characteristics but different chemical ingredients and manufacturing methods. And plastic is just one of thousands of synthetic (i.e. human-made, not naturally occurring) materials that pervade our lives and which we take completely for granted. To envision a future without a lot of these materials strains the imagination, yet that is exactly what we must do.
Such is the focus of Green Chemistry. To maintain our current quality of life without pervasive, synthetic materials (because chemical is such a vague, messy term) would be, dare I say, impossible. We need to engage in some critical thinking, figure out how these materials serve us, find ways to provide those same services using alternative, sustainable materials, or learn to live without. As always, easier said than done, but we don’t really have a choice. Interface is the most oft-cited success story in this vein.
There are several aspects of Green Chemistry I appreciate. First, the 12 Principles of Green Engineering and 12 Principles of Green Chemistry offer simple, straightforward guidelines for innovation, which is the second strength of the document. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we’re good at innovation. Why do you think HFCS became so prevalent? Because we had mountains (literally) of surplus corn and needed to figure out what to do with it. The fact that corn derivatives can be found EVERYWHERE in our lives is proof of our ability to innovate (misguided though it turned out to be).
By: The Natural Edge Project (‘TNEP’) 2008
Reflection:
Allow me an analogy: plastic is to our lives what high fructose corn syrup is to our diets. It is utterly pervasive, harmful in large doses, and largely taken for granted, meaning, we don’t think about it until we try to envision life without it. Diet without HFCS? Say goodbye to cheap and tasty everything, from bread to ketchup. Life without plastic? Goodbye car parts, Tupperware, shoes, clothing, appliances, carpeting, etc. etc. etc.
None of this is to say we can’t develop alternative that perform just as well as or better than these pervasive substances. We can now make plastic out of corn, and it seems like there’s a new ad for some new sweetener (All Natural!) every time I turn on the TV.
What’s my point? “Plastic” is just one example of a pervasive chemical, and that label is attached to dozens, maybe hundreds of materials with similar characteristics but different chemical ingredients and manufacturing methods. And plastic is just one of thousands of synthetic (i.e. human-made, not naturally occurring) materials that pervade our lives and which we take completely for granted. To envision a future without a lot of these materials strains the imagination, yet that is exactly what we must do.
Such is the focus of Green Chemistry. To maintain our current quality of life without pervasive, synthetic materials (because chemical is such a vague, messy term) would be, dare I say, impossible. We need to engage in some critical thinking, figure out how these materials serve us, find ways to provide those same services using alternative, sustainable materials, or learn to live without. As always, easier said than done, but we don’t really have a choice. Interface is the most oft-cited success story in this vein.
There are several aspects of Green Chemistry I appreciate. First, the 12 Principles of Green Engineering and 12 Principles of Green Chemistry offer simple, straightforward guidelines for innovation, which is the second strength of the document. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: we’re good at innovation. Why do you think HFCS became so prevalent? Because we had mountains (literally) of surplus corn and needed to figure out what to do with it. The fact that corn derivatives can be found EVERYWHERE in our lives is proof of our ability to innovate (misguided though it turned out to be).
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Design For Sustainability
Source: Design for Sustainability
By: Indeco Strategic Planning, 1997
Reflection:
This is not the first document we’ve looked at that deals with the need to redesign our products and alter our patterns of consumption in the name of sustainability. As with those resources, I find this one to be utterly logical and, dare I say, obvious. Once I attempted to look objectively at these things, at our “stuff” and the patterns with which we consume it, (potential PhD dissertation: is that possible?), it really did become obvious that The Way Things Are is not sustainable, and even if everybody on Earth lived like me, we still would not be living sustainably. That’s a bitter pill to swallow.
So, if this is obvious, and not just to me, why aren’t all our products designed to be sustainable? What has prevented that transition? After all, this document is thirteen years old. That’s a fair amount of time to expect change. Furthermore, Design For Sustainability contains several mini case studies outlining companies that are already successfully implementing these ideas. But, for better or worse, these sustainability initiatives are not what these companies are known for. We like Volvo because they make safe cars, not because they’ve embraced some sustainable ideals. It's better, because it shows that “mainstream” success and sustainable business practices can coexist. Worse, because it gives short shrift to those sustainable initiatives. Again, we’ve talked about the need to communicate before. Changing one individual, or one family, or one business, or one city, or even one country, isn’t enough. These are big problems, and if solutions exist, we need to make sure everybody knows.
Fast forward 24 hours. I recently moved (hence the lack of recent posts) and I don’t yet have an internet connection at my new place. As such, I had time to sleep on the above, ruminate, and as usual, I came up with some other stuff. Coincidentally enough, in looking at some previous comments from Dr. K, I realized that what I came up with ties in nicely with some things I should have replied to long ago, so here goes.
Looking back to my post on Sustainability Reporting, the comment was, sustainability has been shown to negatively impact efficiency and innovation. The questions were: (1) Are you surprised by these findings? (2) Do you think this is the Achilles heal of sustainability? (3) How might human rights be dealt with in order to succeed yet NOT compromise sustainability?
Am I surprised by these findings? I am not surprised that concerning yourself with the human resources aspects negatively affects efficiency. People can be pushed to be more productive and more efficient long past the point where it starts to affect their physical and emotional well-being. In some cases, workers will put up with this, and in others, they may not. The point is, disregarding physical and emotional well-being, people could be more productive in a given amount of time, which is just another way of defining efficiency.
This is the point that ties into the above post. The epiphany I had upon awaking today was, our “stuff” needs to get more expensive. At some point in the past, I questioned whether was money was an accurate analog for resources. It is not. Because we have gotten so efficient, and because we have gotten so good at consuming raw materials, the cost of our stuff has decreased. What we pay no longer reflects the raw materials therein. Therefore, if we want to rely on market forces to lead us to consume sustainably, we must pay more for our stuff. This argument has been put forth many times in regard to food. Food has never been less expensive than it is now. We have never devoted a smaller part of our disposable income to food than we do now, but the price of that food is dependent on cheap oil. When oil is no longer cheap, and unless we have figured out some other way of fertilizing and transporting our food, we will be faced with the prospect of paying the true cost of our food. It will be more expensive, and we will consume less. Those who try to eat local and organic are getting closer to paying the true cost of food, and in many cases, it is more expensive. So maybe sacrificing efficiency for the sake of human welfare is a good thing. How you would make that case to a business manager is another matter.
The relationship between sustainable business and innovation is a little more puzzling, and I don’t know what to make of it. Superficially, I can see no reason for this connection, unless it is a direct result of the above, since innovation is one measure of productivity/efficiency.
Whatever that connection, the argument brings us full circle, back to the moral standard of sustainability. If one asked a business manager to trade efficiency and innovation for happier, healthier workers, it would be a hard decision, unless you accept that happy and healthy workers are the only sustainable option. Any business manager, given the choice of a business model that will work and one that won’t, will choose the model that works. Of course, saying a business model will work is easy to say, harder to quantify, and much harder to prove.
By: Indeco Strategic Planning, 1997
Reflection:
This is not the first document we’ve looked at that deals with the need to redesign our products and alter our patterns of consumption in the name of sustainability. As with those resources, I find this one to be utterly logical and, dare I say, obvious. Once I attempted to look objectively at these things, at our “stuff” and the patterns with which we consume it, (potential PhD dissertation: is that possible?), it really did become obvious that The Way Things Are is not sustainable, and even if everybody on Earth lived like me, we still would not be living sustainably. That’s a bitter pill to swallow.
So, if this is obvious, and not just to me, why aren’t all our products designed to be sustainable? What has prevented that transition? After all, this document is thirteen years old. That’s a fair amount of time to expect change. Furthermore, Design For Sustainability contains several mini case studies outlining companies that are already successfully implementing these ideas. But, for better or worse, these sustainability initiatives are not what these companies are known for. We like Volvo because they make safe cars, not because they’ve embraced some sustainable ideals. It's better, because it shows that “mainstream” success and sustainable business practices can coexist. Worse, because it gives short shrift to those sustainable initiatives. Again, we’ve talked about the need to communicate before. Changing one individual, or one family, or one business, or one city, or even one country, isn’t enough. These are big problems, and if solutions exist, we need to make sure everybody knows.
Fast forward 24 hours. I recently moved (hence the lack of recent posts) and I don’t yet have an internet connection at my new place. As such, I had time to sleep on the above, ruminate, and as usual, I came up with some other stuff. Coincidentally enough, in looking at some previous comments from Dr. K, I realized that what I came up with ties in nicely with some things I should have replied to long ago, so here goes.
Looking back to my post on Sustainability Reporting, the comment was, sustainability has been shown to negatively impact efficiency and innovation. The questions were: (1) Are you surprised by these findings? (2) Do you think this is the Achilles heal of sustainability? (3) How might human rights be dealt with in order to succeed yet NOT compromise sustainability?
Am I surprised by these findings? I am not surprised that concerning yourself with the human resources aspects negatively affects efficiency. People can be pushed to be more productive and more efficient long past the point where it starts to affect their physical and emotional well-being. In some cases, workers will put up with this, and in others, they may not. The point is, disregarding physical and emotional well-being, people could be more productive in a given amount of time, which is just another way of defining efficiency.
This is the point that ties into the above post. The epiphany I had upon awaking today was, our “stuff” needs to get more expensive. At some point in the past, I questioned whether was money was an accurate analog for resources. It is not. Because we have gotten so efficient, and because we have gotten so good at consuming raw materials, the cost of our stuff has decreased. What we pay no longer reflects the raw materials therein. Therefore, if we want to rely on market forces to lead us to consume sustainably, we must pay more for our stuff. This argument has been put forth many times in regard to food. Food has never been less expensive than it is now. We have never devoted a smaller part of our disposable income to food than we do now, but the price of that food is dependent on cheap oil. When oil is no longer cheap, and unless we have figured out some other way of fertilizing and transporting our food, we will be faced with the prospect of paying the true cost of our food. It will be more expensive, and we will consume less. Those who try to eat local and organic are getting closer to paying the true cost of food, and in many cases, it is more expensive. So maybe sacrificing efficiency for the sake of human welfare is a good thing. How you would make that case to a business manager is another matter.
The relationship between sustainable business and innovation is a little more puzzling, and I don’t know what to make of it. Superficially, I can see no reason for this connection, unless it is a direct result of the above, since innovation is one measure of productivity/efficiency.
Whatever that connection, the argument brings us full circle, back to the moral standard of sustainability. If one asked a business manager to trade efficiency and innovation for happier, healthier workers, it would be a hard decision, unless you accept that happy and healthy workers are the only sustainable option. Any business manager, given the choice of a business model that will work and one that won’t, will choose the model that works. Of course, saying a business model will work is easy to say, harder to quantify, and much harder to prove.
In Response to Some Previous Comments
This is going back a ways, but I need to address the comments left on my Extended Product Responsibility post, both because it is my class-imposed duty to do so, and because it deals with a topic at the heart of sustainability, and to not respond would be negligent.
The comment in question makes the case for sustainability as a moral standard. I resisted this idea for a long time, until I realized my arguments against it were purely semantic. When I said I was trying to rise above labels like "good" and "immoral" in favor of recognizing systems that work or don't work, what I was saying is sustainable or unsustainable. Furthermore, as I made those statements, I was in no way accounting for the undeniable group of people for whom sustainability is not important, those people who would agree the world is going down the crapper, but don't care, for whatever reason.
There was a time when I would have thought that was OK. So you don't care that the world needs saving? Well, it won't likely become unbearable until after I'm gone, so believe whatever you want. Now I've got nieces and nephews, and children of my own is no longer a ridiculous thought, and the idea that we could solve these problems but decided it was easier to just pass them along to the next generation because my life will probably turn out OK...that's literally disgusting. It turns my stomach. How could I possibly look those nieces and nephews in the eye and feel OK, knowing I could have done something and made the choice not to.
That is a moral standard.
The comment in question makes the case for sustainability as a moral standard. I resisted this idea for a long time, until I realized my arguments against it were purely semantic. When I said I was trying to rise above labels like "good" and "immoral" in favor of recognizing systems that work or don't work, what I was saying is sustainable or unsustainable. Furthermore, as I made those statements, I was in no way accounting for the undeniable group of people for whom sustainability is not important, those people who would agree the world is going down the crapper, but don't care, for whatever reason.
There was a time when I would have thought that was OK. So you don't care that the world needs saving? Well, it won't likely become unbearable until after I'm gone, so believe whatever you want. Now I've got nieces and nephews, and children of my own is no longer a ridiculous thought, and the idea that we could solve these problems but decided it was easier to just pass them along to the next generation because my life will probably turn out OK...that's literally disgusting. It turns my stomach. How could I possibly look those nieces and nephews in the eye and feel OK, knowing I could have done something and made the choice not to.
That is a moral standard.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Leasing
Source: Leasing: A Step Toward Producer Responsibility
By: Bette K. Fishbein; Lorraine S. McGarry; Patricia S. Dillon; INFORM 2000
Synopsis: Leasing, if executed properly, has the potential to close the materials loop of production. Leasing explores how and offers case studies of companies with leasing programs already in place.
Reflection:
I had every intention of treating this resource much like I have previous ones, by applying it to that context with which I have the most experience, bikes. See, bikes are something of a paradox in the consideration of sustainability. On the one hand, they are a solution to so many of the problems with which we’re faced. Riding a bike to work addresses all of the following: physical and emotional health, traffic congestion, fossil fuel use, GHG emissions… I’m sure there are others, but those are the biggies. No question, riding bikes is a good thing.
On the other hand, bikes are a technology-driven industry, and we are as guilty as any of perpetrating planned obsolescence. Many, many years ago, bikes had one speed and you couldn’t coast. Then, you could coast. Then you could select from a few gears, then five, then ten. Now, you can ride a bike that has 30 different gears, or via a different mechanism, one that has a CVT, allowing you to select an INFINITE number of gears! Whoa! Life is good. Well, every time the bike industry added a gear, it made one of the previous generations obsolete, and a product doesn’t have to be obsolete for very long before the manufacturer stops supporting it. There are parts of a bike that wear out. On a timeline long enough, there will come a day when the parts required to keep an old bike working are simply no longer available. It is then a pretty wall-hanging. Or a boat anchor. Or garbage. It is no longer a usable bike. There is a class of cyclists, affectionately referred to as retro-grouches, for whom this seemingly inevitable progression is a continual source of aggravation. Why can’t we just make a bike that’ll last forever?
It was at this point I was going to construct Reality B, in which The Bike Company wasn’t in the business of producing and selling bikes, but in the business of leasing bikes as a service to those desiring to ride. I really struggled with this seemingly simple mental exercise, and a brief explanation will illustrate why and hopefully get me to a deeper understanding of how leasing fits into sustainability. In this reality, the variables that would make The Bike Company competitive would be durability, reliability, choice, and yes, performance, although it’s hard to say in which order those would be valued. It’s probably safe to assume that in Reality B that people will still value the things they valued before. The cyclist with buckets of disposable income is still going to look for the bike that performs best regardless of cost, and the cyclist who looks for the most durable and reliable product will use the service that can provide her with that. So the market doesn’t necessarily change. What changes?
The first thing that pops to mind is the bikes themselves. As a mechanic, I can personally attest that less expensive, lower performing bikes are harder to work on and require more attention. So, it stands to reason that the bikes available for lease will be of higher quality, creating a win-win situation for dealer and cyclist alike. My next question was, would it slow the pace of innovation? With current market incentives, planned obsolescence means bike companies are completely revamping their lines every three or four years (that’s an estimate based on anecdotal, personal evidence). As mentioned above, some of these changes involve adding gears, to which most cyclist reply, “whattya need all them gears for?” Non-bike examples would be things like increased horsepower in autos, steam cycles in washing machines, more memory in computers, etc. What do these have in common? I’d say they’re all examples of technological innovation we didn’t know we wanted until the companies showed it to us and told us we needed it. So is this innovation for the sake of innovation (and sales), or is it really adding to our quality of life? Good question, but I don’t want to wander too far astray.
Where were we? Yes, the effect of leasing on innovation. If I understood the resource correctly, this is where the difference between an operating vs. capital lease becomes important. As Leasing points out, only operating leases create the kind of market pressure/monetary incentives, by ensuring that the manufacturer retains ownership of the item after use, that can potentially close the loop on the production of goods. So going back to the bike example, from The Bike Company’s perspective, they want to be producing a product that retains value (as the proud owner of no less than six bikes, I can attest that they do not retain value; it never pays to sell). This could mean a bike that might be refurbished and re-leased, dismantled so the parts can be reused or recycled, etc. Again, the question of innovation pops up, but I think the point Dr. K made regarding one of my previous points is starting to sink in. Innovation isn’t entirely dependent on raw materials. If we want a high performance bike made out of the parts from older bikes, and people are willing to pay for it, we’ll make it happen.
And that’s kind of where I’ve left it. I still have a lot of questions about the philosophy of leasing. As a renter, one of my biggest worries is that I’m left with nothing tangible when I’ve fulfilled a lease and moved out. I’ve paid for the service of being sheltered, but I want something that’s mine. How does leasing other objects in our lives relate to that? Can leasing offer us the choice we’ve come to expect? If not, does it have a chance at success? I encourage any and all (not just the prof) to weigh in on this if you’d like.
By: Bette K. Fishbein; Lorraine S. McGarry; Patricia S. Dillon; INFORM 2000
Synopsis: Leasing, if executed properly, has the potential to close the materials loop of production. Leasing explores how and offers case studies of companies with leasing programs already in place.
Reflection:
I had every intention of treating this resource much like I have previous ones, by applying it to that context with which I have the most experience, bikes. See, bikes are something of a paradox in the consideration of sustainability. On the one hand, they are a solution to so many of the problems with which we’re faced. Riding a bike to work addresses all of the following: physical and emotional health, traffic congestion, fossil fuel use, GHG emissions… I’m sure there are others, but those are the biggies. No question, riding bikes is a good thing.
On the other hand, bikes are a technology-driven industry, and we are as guilty as any of perpetrating planned obsolescence. Many, many years ago, bikes had one speed and you couldn’t coast. Then, you could coast. Then you could select from a few gears, then five, then ten. Now, you can ride a bike that has 30 different gears, or via a different mechanism, one that has a CVT, allowing you to select an INFINITE number of gears! Whoa! Life is good. Well, every time the bike industry added a gear, it made one of the previous generations obsolete, and a product doesn’t have to be obsolete for very long before the manufacturer stops supporting it. There are parts of a bike that wear out. On a timeline long enough, there will come a day when the parts required to keep an old bike working are simply no longer available. It is then a pretty wall-hanging. Or a boat anchor. Or garbage. It is no longer a usable bike. There is a class of cyclists, affectionately referred to as retro-grouches, for whom this seemingly inevitable progression is a continual source of aggravation. Why can’t we just make a bike that’ll last forever?
It was at this point I was going to construct Reality B, in which The Bike Company wasn’t in the business of producing and selling bikes, but in the business of leasing bikes as a service to those desiring to ride. I really struggled with this seemingly simple mental exercise, and a brief explanation will illustrate why and hopefully get me to a deeper understanding of how leasing fits into sustainability. In this reality, the variables that would make The Bike Company competitive would be durability, reliability, choice, and yes, performance, although it’s hard to say in which order those would be valued. It’s probably safe to assume that in Reality B that people will still value the things they valued before. The cyclist with buckets of disposable income is still going to look for the bike that performs best regardless of cost, and the cyclist who looks for the most durable and reliable product will use the service that can provide her with that. So the market doesn’t necessarily change. What changes?
The first thing that pops to mind is the bikes themselves. As a mechanic, I can personally attest that less expensive, lower performing bikes are harder to work on and require more attention. So, it stands to reason that the bikes available for lease will be of higher quality, creating a win-win situation for dealer and cyclist alike. My next question was, would it slow the pace of innovation? With current market incentives, planned obsolescence means bike companies are completely revamping their lines every three or four years (that’s an estimate based on anecdotal, personal evidence). As mentioned above, some of these changes involve adding gears, to which most cyclist reply, “whattya need all them gears for?” Non-bike examples would be things like increased horsepower in autos, steam cycles in washing machines, more memory in computers, etc. What do these have in common? I’d say they’re all examples of technological innovation we didn’t know we wanted until the companies showed it to us and told us we needed it. So is this innovation for the sake of innovation (and sales), or is it really adding to our quality of life? Good question, but I don’t want to wander too far astray.
Where were we? Yes, the effect of leasing on innovation. If I understood the resource correctly, this is where the difference between an operating vs. capital lease becomes important. As Leasing points out, only operating leases create the kind of market pressure/monetary incentives, by ensuring that the manufacturer retains ownership of the item after use, that can potentially close the loop on the production of goods. So going back to the bike example, from The Bike Company’s perspective, they want to be producing a product that retains value (as the proud owner of no less than six bikes, I can attest that they do not retain value; it never pays to sell). This could mean a bike that might be refurbished and re-leased, dismantled so the parts can be reused or recycled, etc. Again, the question of innovation pops up, but I think the point Dr. K made regarding one of my previous points is starting to sink in. Innovation isn’t entirely dependent on raw materials. If we want a high performance bike made out of the parts from older bikes, and people are willing to pay for it, we’ll make it happen.
And that’s kind of where I’ve left it. I still have a lot of questions about the philosophy of leasing. As a renter, one of my biggest worries is that I’m left with nothing tangible when I’ve fulfilled a lease and moved out. I’ve paid for the service of being sheltered, but I want something that’s mine. How does leasing other objects in our lives relate to that? Can leasing offer us the choice we’ve come to expect? If not, does it have a chance at success? I encourage any and all (not just the prof) to weigh in on this if you’d like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
