Low Tech Solutions for First World Problems, Part 1

I was pleased to stumble across an interesting article written by David Roberts on Grist today regarding the use of advances in our understanding of behavioral science to tackle some of the more recalcitrant problems of our times.  The article addresses a personal concern of mine, namely that much greater emphasis is typically placed on the development of novel technologies to accomplish a goal, rather than clever implementation of our existing tools and knowledge.  While new technologies will clearly have a role to play, I am of the personal opinion that much of the novel gadgetry we are attempting to make is already preemptively obsolete by existing techniques we aren’t utilizing.  It seems that there is no better example of the disconnect between our understanding of an area and our implementation of that information than in the area of behavioral research.

Many recent studies into the ways that humans think and perceive are revealing some shared psychological traits that shape decision-making on the individual and cultural levels.  These studies are remarkable both because they expose some of the underlying thought processes we all share, and because their conclusions tend to be so intuitive once they are pointed out.   If you are curious about some of this research, I’d recommend the books Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely and Nudge by Richard Thaler, which both do excellent jobs of pointing out how sometimes we don’t behave nearly as logically as we think we do.  Indeed, ‘Nudge’ is entirely devoted to the concept of how we can use some of these human fallibilities to steer a crowd of people to make a socially responsible decision without taking away any of their choices.

As an illustration, both the Grist article and Nudge refer to some power companies (such as socially-minded, OPOWER) that are moving towards a system of informing people of their relative power consumption compared to their neighbors.  This has the effect of allowing the consumer to rank themselves and know relatively how frugal or gluttonous they are with their power usage.  With a little positive reinforcement, consumers can be steered in the direction of conserving more energy.  What is most remarkable is how insubstantial the reinforcement needs to be.  Namely, by simply putting a smiley face on the utility statements for consumers, the company can leverage the consumers’ desire for approval, do-gooder instincts, and competitive drive to “beat” their neighbors.  It seems too simple to work, yet the result of providing transparency beside a printed smiley face has been a substantial drop (up to 3.5%) in the energy consumption of OPOWER’s consumers.  Sure, it alone won’t save the world, but it is still more effective than switching everyone to compact fluorescent bulbs, doesn’t eliminate any consumer choice or generate controversy, and is essentially free.

While this example is narrow in focus, it isn’t difficult to see how similar principals could be employed to passively encourage conservation in a wide variety of other daily activities.  Or even translated into other areas, for example, encouraging citizens to be more charitable or involved in their community.  Perhaps best of all, these are methods that don’t impose outside regulations on people or markets, which might keep them from getting bogged down in the depressingly slow/embattled political wrangling of other efforts to influence consumer choice.

Willie Smits: Alleviating Poverty with a ‘Spoonful of Sugar’

A bit of a short spotlight today on one of the changemakers out there who is using social entrepreneurship to make a difference and a living.  Ashoka Fellow Willie Smits runs a palm sugar refinery in Indonesia that helps local farmers to process their palm juice into sugar and ethanol.  Yet, by making a few changes to his business practices, getting his customers involved in cooperatives, and using renewable energy sources, Smits provides a business model that also acts to preserve local forests, raise living standards, stabilize local communities, and even protect endangered orangutans.

Hear more about Smits’ philosophy in his 2009 TED talk, or read more on Ashoka’s website.

Report Highlights Need for Transparency in Transparency Efforts

This week’s New Scientist features an article highlighting the failure of consumers to correctly identify companies that are involved in environmentally conscious practices versus those who are merely “greenwashing” (or those not bothering with a green image at all).  New Scientist used data obtained from Trucost and Earthsense to estimate the environmental impact of larger companies relative to their budgets.  Public opinion of the involvement and attention of these companies to environmental matters was then surveyed, and the two data sets compared.

Unsurprisingly, there was some confusion in the perceived environmental intent of a given company and its actual real environmental impact.  However, the real surprise was in the degree of the disconnect that was discovered.  In fact, there was virtually no correlation between a companies’ actual environmental footprint and the perceived impact of those companies.  This depressing news is, at least, pleasingly illustrated in the New Scientist’s interactive scatterplot, with estimated environmental impact of a company (as a percent of their budget) graphed against public perception.

While it may be tempting to simply tsk and move on about our business, I believe that this report is an indicator of a much more systemic problem.  Namely, the movement for greater corporate responsibility (in both the environmental and social spheres), has been primarily focused on getting companies to be more transparent about their work practices and product pipelines.  This side of the CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) movement is, of course, very commendable and important, but becomes wasted effort if the information that is disclosed is not reaching the public.  Indeed, this report highlights a wide gap in the movement, one that calls for new leaders and ideas in the area of translating CSR data to the public.  In essence, adding transparency to our transparency reports.

While we wait for these leaders to arise, we may take some solace in the resources that we do have, such as the recently published list of 500 companies ranked by environmental impact, released by Newsweek.

One Man’s Trash… Another’s Auction?

eBay and RecycleBank recently announced a collaborative effort to reduce the amount of waste headed to landfills.  RecycleBank is a 5 year-old company originally founded out of Philadelphia by Patrick FitzGerald that works with local municipalities and recycling programs in order to track and reward members for taking environmentally friendly actions in their daily life – such as recycling. The company has grown rapidly in the past few years and now serves 20 US states and recently opened operations in the UK.

If you’re reading this, you need no introduction to eBay, but you might be unaware that eBay’s employees launched an initiative starting back in 2007, called the eBay Green Team.  The efforts of the team have been focused around trying to encourage eBay users to think and buy in an environmentally conscious fashion.

Together, the companies hope to funnel some recycled goods into a second life by distributing vintage or mostly new items through eBay’s auction system, all while rewarding the individual who recycled the item through RecycleBank’s established program.

One Young World

A little bit further from home, but in keeping with our post last week, buzz this week is focused on One Young World, a summit that kicked off today in London.  One Young World is a gathering of youthful (25 years or younger) leaders meant to represent each of the countries of the world.  Over a thousand representatives from over one hundred countries will gather to and address such global crises as climate change, poverty and economic justice.

If this sounds nice and all, but perhaps a tad on the dreamy-eyed and unrealistic side, consider some of the heavy-hitters that are leading the discussion: 3 Nobel Laureates to start.  Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the UN, Desmond Tutu, activist and humanitarian, Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank and microfinance.  Many other leaders within the humanitarian, political, and social enterprise sectors will be speaking with the delegates.  While it may be unlikely that any world-shaking ideas will be formulated over the course of the 3 day event, the delegates aim to gather intellectual capital and resources for creating effective social programs/businesses upon their return home.

Ultimately, One Young World hopes not only to be a forum for reform, but also to establish a network of active and talented young individuals across the globe.  It is hoped that this program may be useful in empowering the leaders of tomorrow, and that these individuals can be collected in their efforts.  And when a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens come together….  Well, you know the rest…

Evaluating Environmental Economics

The Economist recently reported on a London conference designed to bring together a number of ecologists to work towards the goal of developing better models for the economic value of undisturbed natural systems.  Although the idea of placing a price tag on nature can seem almost heretical to some at first glance, conservationists have been making the argument that designating a specific value to the natural services provided by an ecosystem allows us to make a more precise evaluation of the benefits and costs of development.  While the concept of appraising land is hardly a new one, there have been advances in our ability to accurately evaluate the full range of “ecological services” provided by a given ecosystem through modeling software.  The Natural Capital Project designed the most widely used program currently in use, InVEST.

While rising awareness of the tangible benefits provided by natural systems to society is good news for conservationists, it is also great news for social entrepreneurs who are environmentally conscious.  Making a commodity out of the ‘free’ services provided by nature opens the possibility of making business investment in conservation.  Current conservation organizations rely nearly entirely on donations, and are often only able to provide small compensation to the property owners who pledge to leave their land undeveloped.   Commoditization of ecological services may be the only way to counteract the incentives towards development in an increasingly market-driven, global economy.