Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Creating Buy In for Sustainability Programs

1,141 views

Published on

In this lecture, I speak about the importance of creating buy in for sustainability, ways that champions can traverse internal structures, and how to then engage external partners.

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

Creating Buy In for Sustainability Programs

  1. 1. Creating Buy-In<br />
  2. 2. Buy-in<br />What does it mean to create “buy in”?<br />Getting people to agree with, and support, a …….<br /><ul><li>Project proposal
  3. 3. New product
  4. 4. Training program
  5. 5. Process
  6. 6. Way of thinking….</li></ul>Major types of buy in:<br /><ul><li>Internal
  7. 7. External
  8. 8. Vertical
  9. 9. Horizontal</li></li></ul><li>Determinants/ Constraints<br />Core Reason for Action: <br /><ul><li>Make Money
  10. 10. Save Money
  11. 11. Spend Money
  12. 12. Look Good
  13. 13. Feel Good</li></ul>Source of action: <br /><ul><li>Top-down or bottom-up</li></ul>Motives for action<br /><ul><li>Global Directive
  14. 14. Improvement in product of service
  15. 15. Non-critical process improvement
  16. 16. Critical regulatory Change</li></ul>Scale<br /><ul><li>Global, regional, local
  17. 17. Corporate vs. Business Unit
  18. 18. Supply Chain/ Distribution Channels impact</li></ul>Speed<br /><ul><li>Business as usual or Crisis</li></ul>Duration of action<br /><ul><li>One-off
  19. 19. Long term program
  20. 20. Process</li></ul>Focus<br /><ul><li>People
  21. 21. Process
  22. 22. System</li></li></ul><li>Why do people buy in?<br />Why Firms Are Not…<br />Why Firms Are Going “Green”<br />Strategic Interests Supplier Performance Customer Satisfaction<br />Lack of Expertise. Lack of Incentives. Lack of Regulation???<br />
  23. 23. Keys to Success of Internal Buy-in<br /><ul><li>Internal Champions
  24. 24. Higher level support is a must
  25. 25. Internal Guanxi to get proposals into the right hands
  26. 26. Can help navigate politics, report lines, and approve budgets
  27. 27. Can review proposal before pitch and provide feedback
  28. 28. Collaboration over coercion
  29. 29. The less a proposal is “forced”, the better it will be to develop buyin.
  30. 30. Isolating the director of a business unit will almost guarantee isolating that BU
  31. 31. …. Even if it is the CEO pushing down.
  32. 32. Communication.. Communication… communication
  33. 33. Developing broad based buy in requires communicating to stakeholders (internal/ external)
  34. 34. Providing a forum for Q&A, feedback, and engagement
  35. 35. Executive calls, newsletters, emails, forums
  36. 36. Time
  37. 37. Planning, rollout, and measurements require time
  38. 38. Rome was not built in a day.</li></li></ul><li>Win/ Win Propositions<br /><ul><li> Creating the “Win / Win”
  39. 39. Goal Alignment
  40. 40. Developing proposals and conversations that balance need of parties
  41. 41. Making money approach always beats spending money
  42. 42. Saving money is good too…
  43. 43. Willingness of parties to do what it takes to achieve goals
  44. 44. Rewards outweigh cost</li></ul>Easy to do with low hanging fruit<br />BYD’s Move to Electric Cars<br /><ul><li>Executives developing shred goal to focus on building electronic systems
  45. 45. Droving finance, R&D, and human resource departments to act
  46. 46. Developed key support from government officials, banks, and industry</li></ul>Imagine the resistance of the move was away from batteries towards combustibles<br />
  47. 47. Win/ Lose Propositions<br /><ul><li> Dealing with the “Win / Lose”
  48. 48. When Goals are Alignment, or lacking natural alignment
  49. 49. One party is going to lose more the other…
  50. 50. Pain of loser can be minimized
  51. 51. Reasons for Win/ Lose programs succeeding
  52. 52. Winner has significantly more power/ leverage over “loser”
  53. 53. Top down pressure and decision making
  54. 54. “Common Good”
  55. 55. No Choice
  56. 56. Weaknesses of Win/ Lose Programs
  57. 57. Requires more effort to enforce – particularly if changing human behavior
  58. 58. Long term stability requires acknowledgement of results (has to have had impact)
  59. 59. Examples:
  60. 60. Macroeconomic policies that restrain growth of new loans
  61. 61. Wal-Mart Sustainability Program
  62. 62. Employee Anti-graft campaign restricting gifts to external, dinners, etc</li></li></ul><li>Win/ Lose Example<br />Shanghai EXPO<br /><ul><li>Like Olympics – considered a “common good” and requires lots of buy in
  63. 63. Upside include:
  64. 64. EXPO Run-up investment in city
  65. 65. Direct EXPO impact to Shanghai economy
  66. 66. Local pride and
  67. 67. Hotel, restaurants, and retail
  68. 68. Downside included
  69. 69. Relocation of Huangpu/ Pudong residents
  70. 70. Construction related inconvenience and noise
  71. 71. New regulations: No Smoking, security in metros
  72. 72. Increased traffic from 300,000 visitors
  73. 73. Required constant communication
  74. 74. 5th, 15th, and 25th “better citizen” activities
  75. 75. EXPO is worth the noise – be a good citizen
  76. 76. Line up on right/ walk on left</li></li></ul><li>Wal-Mart: Reduction of Packaging<br />October 2008 Announce Sustainability Revolution<br /><ul><li>Comprehensive effort across supply chain and stores
  77. 77. Alternative Energy, Transportation, Packaging, Recycling</li></ul>Not spontaneous. It was planned for years. Wal-Mart is Serious<br />Over 200 Associates who will:<br /> monitor factories, educates suppliers and buyers, and works with others in our industry to implement effective ethical sourcing programs.<br />2008 Wal-Mart Home Entertainment Design Challenge<br /><ul><li>Great design that attracts consumers.
  78. 78. Product innovation that reduces the environmental impact for its product category.
  79. 79. Packaging design that facilitates reuse and recycling, reduces waste, and reduces or eliminates the use of toxic materials. </li></ul>HP Reduces wins – reduces packaging 97%<br />Win/ Lose to Win/ Win<br />Breaking Barriers, Changing Habits, & Encouraging Change<br />
  80. 80. External Buy In<br />… Taking complexity up a notch<br />
  81. 81. Externals are Different than Internals<br /><ul><li>Champions Won’t do it
  82. 82. For big changes, it can only be done through executive to executive relationships
  83. 83. Driver will not be a single champion, but a common path to profit, sharing, markets, etc
  84. 84. Primary decision makers will have hidden agendas and may not be in position to make the call
  85. 85. Collaboration over coercion
  86. 86. Requires collaboration as, unlike an internal buy in, externals can push back
  87. 87. “partners” always have options, and self preservation ultimately will rule
  88. 88. Higher level of compromise and increased number of steps
  89. 89. Communication.. Communication… communication
  90. 90. Clear communication of goals, partnership, and steps is a must
  91. 91. Any miscommunication can lead to the tabling of idea
  92. 92. Requires each actor build internal buy in as well
  93. 93. Time
  94. 94. Planning, rollout, and measurements require more time
  95. 95. Speed is determined by slowest player</li></li></ul><li>Building Buy-in Internally<br />X<br />

×