page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16
page 17
page 18
page 19
page 20
page 21
page 22
page 23
page 24
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
page 32
page 33
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
page 39
page 40
page 41
page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98
page 99
page 100
page 101
page 102
page 103
page 104
page 105
page 106
page 107
page 108
page 109
page 110
page 111
page 112
page 113
page 114
page 115
page 116
page 117
page 118
page 119
page 120
page 121
page 122
page 123
page 124
page 125
page 126
page 127
page 128
page 129
page 130
page 131
page 132
page 133
page 134
page 135
page 136
page 137
page 138
page 139
page 140
page 141
page 142
page 143
page 144
page 145
page 146
page 147
page 148
page 149
page 150
page 151
page 152
page 153
page 154
page 155
page 156
page 157
page 158

eing involved in the International GreenAwardsT over the last five years, as ajudge and a trustee, has underlined forme where organisations often go wrongwith "green". Conversely, it also illustrates howsometimes they get it dramatically right, withbreakthrough results. The key to the latter cases iscreativity and co-operation.Green (and sustainability in general) is a net output,a bit like health. It is hence an objective, and notnecessarily the strategy. Some of the greenestcompanies in the world do not even look green. eBay,for example, has saved millions of tonnes of secondhand clothes, electronics and other mass-producedgoods from landfill. The greenest thing you can do ingeneral is stop wasting: a message manyorganisations have taken to heart in reducing energy,packaging and shipping.Campaigns that aim to make normal things lookgreen, are seldom "green" in the true sense. They arelike cosmetic surgery, rather than healthy lifestyles. Iargued in The Green Marketing Manifesto (2007) thatwe should actually be doing the opposite: makinggreen things seem normal. Making normal appeargreen is what has become known as "greenwash". The term was invented by journalist Jay Westerfeld,writing an investigative article about those "hoteltowel schemes" where they ask you to keep yourtowels for further days' use. What else were thesehotels doing, Westerfeld wondered? With theirrecycling, energy, cleaning products, labour rights.?The answer Westerfeld found was "not much", only agreen washing scheme to launder their image (andpass the buck, in the process). Gratifyingly, thegreenwash quotient in entries to the InternationalGreen AwardsT has fallen dramatically. It seemed toaccount for half the entries six years ago. I struggle torecall an example among hundreds of entries I readthis year. But the problem with trying to "green" yourproducts, services or organisation runs deeper. One danger is missing the bigger picture, for instance ifwe encourage people to "save money, save energy"what do those people then do with the money that wassaved? In the UK, where savings ratios hover aroundzero, the answer is they spend it on something else.Whatever you spend your money on, it has a carbon andenvironmental impact, so the net effect is not green.This is a phenomenon (the indirect rebound effect) theWWF used to challenge the whole "green marketing"paradigm (Weathercocks and Signposts, 2008).If people buy "ethical brands" there can be a haloeffect - one pack of organic corn and one of fairtradecoffee is the average in the UK out of over £200 spenteach week on other groceries that go unexamined.Therefore, the net effect is not green, even if theintention is there. Generally, for these reasons (andmany others) the action has moved on; frommarketing to fundamental innovation.Why fundamental innovation? As scientists,economists, environmentalists and politicians warn usrepeatedly, we face what UK chief scientist JohnBeddington described as a "perfect storm" by 2030:as rising demands for energy, food and water are metwith a crisis of limited supply, further compromised byclimate change. To avoid the social dislocation,economic collapse and widespread conflict that wouldderive quickly from such a scenario, we must innovate- something the International Green AwardsT rightlystresses. We must create a step change to morewellbeing obtained from much less resources. AlongGLOBAL PROBLEMS: CREATIVE AND CO-OPERATIVESOLUTIONS040SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTJOHN GRANT, CO-FOUNDER OF ECOINOMY AUTHOR OF CO-OPPORTUNITY AND THE GREEN MARKETING MANIFESTO MEMBER OF THE STEERING GROUP ADVISORY PANEL, INTERNATIONAL GREEN AWARDSTB" "SUSTAINABILITYIS NOT A TECHNICAL MATTER TO BEFIXED WITH A DIFFERENT KINDOF ENERGY. IT IS GIVING DUE WEIGHT TO TODAY'S NEEDS ANDTOMORROW'S

G20 MEMBER COUNTRIES117