It’s called Sustainable Growth, and it is the brainchild of the guys at Sensis (you know – Yellow Pages/White Pages etc.).
 Sensis commissioned Jon Dee (super famous environmentalist) to write a book for small-to-medium business owners who want to implement sustainable changes into their business and are very short on time.

And get this – they are giving it away for free! (Seriously! Just click here for your free copy.)

But is it a worthwhile read? I have come across lots of ‘how-to’ books on sustainability that often leave me feeling either totally inadequate or a little bit bored. This book left me feeling neither.

While it started with the reasons why implementing sustainable change is important for the environment, it didn’t dwell on this fact. It focused more heavily on how sustainable changes are good for business. I think the challenge for many small companies is that there is not one central place for receiving ALL the information they need. Well, this is it – this is your bible!

I know quite a few small-business owners who have been forced down the ’sustainability path’ because their major clients (big brands) are ‘greening up’ their supply chain. This often leads to frantic scrambling about and paying for advice on how to ‘go green’ so that they can continue to supply these major brands.

Instead of waiting for that to happen (and it’s likely to happen sooner rather than later!) you can order one of these books and get started yourself. You’ll love the read because you can pick it up at any page and get some good advice. It’s bite-size chunks all the way from greening your fleet to waterless urinals!

I wanted to do a little more digging behind the scenes of this book. So I met up with its author, Jon Dee, and asked him a few questions on your behalf. Charming fellow! You can watch the video of our interview here: http://www.brands4tomorrow.com.au/video/book-review-sustainable-growth

This post was originally featured on the brands4tomorrow website on 19 July 2010.

Lisa Corduff is the creator of brands4tomorrow, an online blog dedicated to providing an open and transparent space for consumers to talk about the sustainability of the products they buy and use. Visit brands4tomorrow.com.au to read more articles by Lisa.

According to Beyond Blue, undiagnosed depression in the workplace costs $4.3 billion in lost productivity and accounts for more than 12 million days of reduced productivity each year.

And presenteeism – Gary’s practice of showing up for work but running on empty – costs workplaces twice as much as absenteeism, according to The Economist.

When you consider that more than 3 million people in Australia reportedly experience depression, anxiety or related alcohol and drug problems each year, creating a culture that respects and protects mental wellbeing becomes a business imperative.

Early diagnosis and intervention can increase employee productivity and lead to a five-fold return on investment, according to Beyond Blue research.

And there can be flow-on benefits for your team and workplace culture … if it’s done right.

Talking about mental health

Discounted gym memberships and free fruit in the kitchen are common ways for employers to promote good physical health in the workplace, but many organisations are yet to talk as freely about mental health.

Companies as varied as BT and Rolls-Royce have now introduced mental-health programs, which include running wellbeing projects for employees and training managers to help staff deal with stress.

In general, organisations are not handling mental-health issues as well as they could; many current management practices, such as coercing people into taking leave, can even make matters worse.

There’s more to mental wellbeing than team meetings on happiness or a news alert on the intranet about the workplace counsellor.

Caring for your employees’ mental health means ensuring respect for human rights and balancing this with your business objectives.

Privacy, respect and protection

How many of your previous employers would you trust to respect information about your own mental wellbeing?

What if your private information got in the way of a promotion, or people started to gossip? And would you trust your boss to help you through a relationship breakdown?

Done carefully, corporate training programs can help staff deal with stress and can raise awareness about depression. But it’s a sensitive issue and must be treated as such.

Creating a culture where it’s implicitly safe to discuss mental health is one way to respect and protect your workers, particularly when it comes to their privacy.

With this kind of culture, it will gradually become easier to:

• recognise some of the causes of depression
• spot depression among colleagues
• understand the consequences of untreated depression on workplace performance
• act sensibly, sensitively and responsibly in managing people with depression
• know where to go for help and guidance
• draw a link between workplace mental health and business performance.

When employers create environments in which their people know how to respect and protect their own and their colleagues’ mental wellbeing at work, their organisational culture and performance improve.

For more information and tools to help you deal with depression in the workplace, visit En Masse. Other useful resources can be found at Beyond Blue and Lifeline.

Mark Dean is Managing Director of En Masse, a provider of human rights online education and training.

Accessibility can be loosely defined as the degree to which a product or service is readily available to all users. In the online context, this means that websites need to account for slow internet connections and/or small displays, and cater to the needs of users who may have impairments in literacy, dexterity, hearing, cognition or vision. For most of us, the web is experienced via one of the common web browsers – Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, etc. – and we take ease of use for granted. But for many others, accessibility considerations, assistive technologies and speciality software are absolutely critical to their being able to use the web effectively or even at all. And, unfortunately, most current websites are not well geared for these people.

Current guidelines

It is with these issues in mind that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) were released by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) for review and adoption by the global community. According to the four principles of accessibility that underpin the entire standard (and under which there are numerous specific directives), websites should be:

• perceivable
• operable
• understandable
• robust.

It should be noted that the guidelines specify three levels of compliance: A, AA and AAA. Level A compliance is now the standard recommended in the Australian Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and endorsed by Vision Australia.

It’s really not that hard

Generally speaking, none of the directives in these guidelines is particularly onerous, and once understood they are readily implemented at the building stage of any well-conceived website.

The broader adoption of accessibility standards hinges on greater awareness by stakeholders, an acknowledgment that accessibility is integral to good design and a willingness to incorporate these standards into professional practice on every new project. Once we do away with the erroneous idea of accessibility as an unachievable, time-consuming and expensive ideal, the web can truly evolve and become a more equitable environment for all concerned. To this end, I recommend two excellent articles on ‘inclusion’ and ‘universal design’ at A List Apart.

P.S. I also challenge the developer of this blog to bring the site up to AA compliance and display the accreditation logo.

Michael Smith is Director of Digital Media at WellmarkPerspexa, where he keeps his finger on the pulse of the latest developments in electronic communications.

Though the psychology of personality is complex and well beyond the scope of this discussion, the essential reason for behavioural change’s being difficult is not the stuff of dense theory. Put simply (if a little simplistically), you and I are creatures of habit. We resist change, especially when it’s externally imposed.

Which probably leads you to think, quite sensibly, that a belief in being able to change another person is fundamentally misguided. You would not be alone in this regard. For the most part, mainstream psychological literature still considers personality (and, by extension, its attendant behaviour) to be more or less fixed from young adulthood onwards.

So if that’s the case at the individual level, what about changing entire communities or societies? Logic dictates that it must be near impossible – surely?

Certainly, it’s not everyone’s bag. An agent of social change must offer more than just determination, or conviction, or altruism. To change the way a group of people think – which is, at least to some degree, a determinant of how they behave – requires a truly remarkable message. One that generates insight. One that forces people to question the status quo.

Eco-design consultants, Ecoinnovators, are trying to do exactly that with The Secret Life of Things project, a series of short, animated videos exploring the hidden environmental impacts of everyday things. Their first animated video, Life Psychl-ollogy, is featured below.

What we refer to in marketing speak as ‘cut-through’ or ‘a tipping point’ is what psychotherapists call a ‘breakthrough’: a rapid change in mindset after a period of resistance. Unfortunately, as psychotherapists will attest, these are exceptionally rare events. It may take years, even decades, of therapy before an insight of this magnitude is achieved. Sometimes it never happens at all.

So is this kind of change really possible on a macro scale? That is, does it represent profound insights and lasting behavioural shifts? Will the YouTube clip shown above result in real behaviour change? Do people like Al Gore have a rare gift for guiding whole sections of society towards a new way of thinking and doing? Or is their popularity just a passing fad that will lapse at the first sign of self-interest and human fallibility?

Are those who pursue social change a force for good – or just unrealistic zealots?

Ryan Wallman is Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a strategic communications and design agency that believes in the power of social marketing.

Not really. If you agree that integrating all the elements of a promotional mix can maximise cost-effectiveness and reinforce a consistent brand message or image, then you’ll also agree that the integration of these elements is wholly dependent on the ability of the brand team to coordinate multiple different communications tools and vehicles – often all at the same time. This, in turn, requires careful planning.

Unfortunately, it’s a rare brand manager who has the necessary foresight and organisational skills to pull off a truly integrated marketing communications campaign. Accordingly, the reputation of marketing is marred by brand managers who simply can’t complete (or think about) more than one element of the promotional mix at once. This means that many brands are missing out on the potential ROI that can be gained from enabling marketing communications to act synergistically.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was to develop marketing strategy with ‘ordinary mortals with average skills’ in mind. I would suggest that keeping in mind a specific brand manager – and the organisation’s internal processes and philosophy – is also useful. This approach will ensure that your recommendations play to the strengths of the product, the individual and the organisation. As Steve Waugh once said: ‘Your strategy revolves around the bowlers you’ve got.’

Or if you prefer the advice of a Prussian soldier and German military theorist to an Aussie cricketer, Carl von Clausewitz once said: ‘Effective strategy derives from tactics that are implementable.’ That doesn’t mean not setting stretch targets or proposing ideal-world, even ‘out of this world’, scenarios. It simply means taking the time to really understand your client, warts and all. After all, personal idiosyncrasies have led to the downfall of more than one great creative concept. So if your client or organisation is procedurally challenged (i.e. disorganised), show them the way by providing detailed timelines, prioritising tasks, and including recommendations such as ‘if you only do three things out of this entire document, do this, this and this’. To steal another line from Carl von Clausewitz: ‘If a strategy only works when it is superbly implemented, it is a flawed strategy.’

Some of the most positive feedback we get from clients is about our ability to ‘hold their hand’ throughout the life of a project and guide them from A to Z. This becomes particularly important with integrated campaigns, when you need to be able to think several steps ahead in order to see how all the pieces of the puzzle will work together. Clients may not always be able to see the bigger picture or be mindful of the need to do so. Some just won’t be capable of seeing it – ever. Others won’t have the time. Whatever the reason, you have a role to play in bringing your big ideas to fruition.

By not setting your clients up to fail, you’re much more likely to move their brand closer to what is really meant by ‘integrated marketing communications’. Do that and you’ll help rid the world of one-off direct-mail pieces that end up in the rubbish bin, advertising that’s off-message, sales aids that can’t be sold from, etc., etc. Do that and you’ll help say goodbye to inefficient and ineffective marketing communications, i.e. you’ll produce less crap and reduce a large part of the world’s waste. Need more convincing? Check out the following video by Melbourne-based agency GreenMonkeyDesign showcasing the very best and very worst of print advertising.

Candice O’Sullivan is Head of Strategy at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency where integrated means less is more (less waste, more ROI).

Indeed resource companies can, and must, play a role in the broader and more sustainable development of society in general, including attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to improve social and economic conditions the world’s poor.

A number of countries are struggling to meet their MDG targets, including our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea (PNG), which ranks last among the Asian Development Bank’s Pacific developing member countries on both the Human Development Index and the Human Poverty Index of the United Nations. In PNG, the proportion of people living under the national poverty line has increased and many health indicators have deteriorated in recent years. Yet, while the country struggles to meet their MDG targets, a resource boom is occurring in parallel. There must be a way to create lasting social value from this economic growth.

Some sceptics say this is the government’s responsibility. However, the job of the government is to ensure that the people have their basic needs met – it doesn’t necessarily have to supply the services itself. In fact, almost half of all health services in PNG are effectively sub-contracted to churches to deliver. Resource-sector companies already provide a range of health services to their employees and local populations. We just need to make this more systematic and in concert with national programs.

Speed, efficiency, innovation, creative marketing and leadership are urgently needed to achieve the MDGs. The resource sector has these capabilities in spades. Furthermore, companies also have assets (premises, equipment, transport and delivery systems, and money), business networks (workforce, customers, other businesses, access to governments, international reach) and a skill base (management and communication skills, monitoring capacities, information-technology skills and employee knowledge) that would contribute significantly to reaching these goals. For instance, consider the following examples.

• MDG 4 (reduce child mortality) – resource companies could support immunisation programs by providing vaccines and cold-chain transport; support antibiotic drug supplies by providing transport and supplementation; support female-literacy programs; promote exclusive breastfeeding and birth spacing.
• MDG 5 (improve maternal health) – companies could assist in obstetric emergencies by providing transport and communications; help local health facilities deliver emergency obstetric care; ensure family-planning methods are available; expand antenatal care; train village health volunteers in remote areas; support female-literacy programs.
• MDG 6 (combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases)
  • HIV/AIDS – companies could implement HIV workplace policy and education; distribute free condoms; provide access to voluntary counselling and testing; deliver programs on how to prevent mother-to-child transmission; assist in active management of sexually transmitted infections.
  • Malaria – companies could support the distribution of impregnated bed nets; increase availability of diagnostic tests and treatment; institute vector-control measures.
  • Tuberculosis – companies could implement the Directly Observed Treatment Short-course (TB DOTS) program and provide diagnostic testing.

It is also in the interests of resource companies to assist efforts to reach the MDGs where they operate. A healthy workforce leads to improved productivity. Healthy villages improve business–community relations and the social license to operate. Certainly, there are growing expectations that these companies will support local social- and economic-development initiatives – something promoted by organisations such as the International Council on Mining and Metals, the Global Reporting Initiative and the International Finance Corporation. While investors do not necessarily reward corporate social responsibility, announcements of socially irresponsible events are invariably followed by significant downturns in a company’s stock value.

The challenge is how to create a facilitative environment, which systematically encourages and enables business participation in the MDGs. We need to start dialogue between resource companies, governments, NGOs and donors about ways to engage the resource sector for lasting social benefit. Relationship issues can impact on the success of extractive industry partnerships, so all parties need to better understand the differences in private- and public-sector motivations, expectations, methods of ‘doing business’ and other ‘people issues’. There must be clear expectations in relation to industry social commitments. Fiscal instruments, such as the tax-credit scheme and distribution of royalties – to create incentives for such participation – should also be broadened.

To date, the experience with partnerships involving the mining sector in PNG has been encouraging. Involvement of resource companies in social development initiatives, while not a panacea for poverty, is a legitimate and valuable asset in the journey towards achieving the MDGs, and will benefit the private sector, government and community alike.

Jane Thomason is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Queensland and is part of a global collaboration to develop a framework for measuring business contribution to development.

Because if we’re honest, most of us would probably admit that people with an entrepreneurial bent can actually be a bit on the anti-social side. Simon Cowell, for example, or that America’s Cup guy … you know, the one who rorted a whole state and then claimed illness at his court appearances … meh, I forget who he was now. (If he could get away with it, so can I.)

But what if – and you might want to sit down for this – what if people with an unusual degree of initiative and ambition and creativity were to apply those traits in the pursuit of something other than the almighty dollar? (Notwithstanding that most dollars are not exactly ‘almighty’ right now … more ‘formerly-almighty-but-now-a-bit-soft-around-the-middle-and-considering-retirement’ kind of dollars. Whatever. I figure you get the gist.)

Well, now, that would indeed be quite something – the kind of something that has the potential to change everything. And, let’s face it, most people just don’t have the wherewithal to carry through with a something that big. Hell, most people these days don’t have the wherewithal to carry through with a half-hour TV program.

And yet these big somethings are happening. What’s more, they are happening because of big somebodies. As the Ashoka Institute (a global association of social entrepreneurs), puts it:

Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires a social entrepreneur because only the entrepreneur has the committed vision and inexhaustible determination to persist until they have transformed an entire system.

So it’s the old adage: when the going gets tough, call an entrepreneur. Or something.

Ryan Wallman is Senior Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, where he is always working towards something big.

The question is: how many of these messages are getting through?

Not many, according to environmental psychologist Professor Robert Gifford, from Canada’s University of Victoria. Presenting his research at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology in Melbourne during July, Gifford highlighted the complexity inherent in communicating climate-change issues.

His research suggests that consumers face a number of obstacles that block climate-change messages. These obstacles, which he calls the ‘dragons’ of climate change, are experienced to varying degrees by different people at any one time. They stop the public from taking action on environmental issues, relegating them to the sidelines as concerned bystanders.

Gifford’s six ‘dragons’ of climate change:

1. Limited cognition – Consumers battling this dragon feel that they don’t need to do anything about the environment because they believe that everything will just work out anyway, or are too tuned to the present to be concerned about what might happen in the future.
2. Ideology – Also referred to as ‘tech salvation’, this refers to consumers’ reliance upon scientists to save the day, or believing that Mother Nature will take care of everything. This is similar to religious ideology, in which a person believes that faith will save them.
3. Social comparison – When what we do is influenced by what others do. For example, ‘If they’re not recycling, I’m not going to either.’
4. Investment – Investment in ‘non-sustainable’ actions brings up a consumer’s conflicts between environmental aspirations and other goals or aspirations. For example, if a consumer has just bought a new car, they might believe that justifying the purchase (by driving) outweighs the environmental issues.
5. Mistrust or discredence – Refusing to give credibility to authorities (scientists, governments etc.) because of a mistrust of these groups.
6. Limited behaviour – This is when a person is doing the right thing but not to any great extent. For example, someone could choose to use an energy-efficient product but compensate by overusing it.

According to Gifford, these obstacles should inform the way climate campaigning is undertaken. He believes it should take on a number of different forms, based on the needs and obstacles faced by different demographic groups.

Where it fits: the body of research on communicating climate change

Gifford’s research adds to a great global body of knowledge about communicating climate change.

Fenton Communications recently analysed a number of research reports from Australia, Europe and the US that explored the global problem of motivating consumers to act on climate change.

The research findings had some common themes that should be considered when communicating climate change:

• Social acceptance is important – Consumers no longer act alone. They are more likely to change their behaviour when influenced by the groups and communities to which they belong. Similarly, they are more likely to trust and be motivated by other people than by institutions or government.
• Big achievements spark smaller ones – Major achievements on environmental issues motivate people to take action. For example, a large solar-energy installation will encourage people to conserve energy or install their own solar-energy systems. Promote these big successes, rather than just publicising the doom and gloom.
• We have a mismatch between the problem and the solution – ‘Climate change is the greatest problem facing mankind’, yet we tell consumers that it can be solved by turning off a light. In an effort to foster simple actions on climate change, a mismatch has been created in consumers’ minds between the problem and the solution . Simple solutions need to seem heroic enough to tackle the size of the climate-change problem.
• Ego is still a great motivator – While we would all like to believe humans can be purely altruistic, feeding self-esteem can still provide great results. Give consumers opportunity to receive praise for completing green actions.

A key learning from all the research into climate-change communication, backed up by Gifford’s presentation in Melbourne, is the need to understand audiences so that you can target them with messages and actions that are specific to their lifestyle.

Effective research, a well-segmented communication strategy and careful evaluation can help to drive consumers off the sidelines and back into action on climate change.

David Micallef is the Group Account Manager for Sustainability and Infrastructure and Head of Media at Fenton Communications. He has extensive experience in developing and implementing communications, media and stakeholder-engagement strategy in the sustainability sector, and has worked with a range of clients in the government and NGO sectors.

So garbles Swedish pop star Kesha. No, I’m not at a concert singing along to what I consider to be a finely crafted piece of poetry. Instead, I’m at work and this delightful ring tone has alerted its owner, and the rest of the office, to the fact that she has an incoming call.

Luckily for me, I don’t mind hearing this catchy chorus pierce the room at random times throughout the day … yet. Actually, I admit (somewhat ashamedly) that I hum to the beat while my head shakes rhythmically. Or at least I like to think it does. And although highly unlikely, I also delight in imagining that the toes of my fellow office dwellers are tapping in unison across the whole room.

However, when the request goes out for some Barry Manilow to be played on the communal iPod, I have to draw the line. That’s right, there it is: a solid line right down the middle of our office. Take that.

Thus starts the debate over open versus closed. Office plans that is. Music and mobile phones are just two examples on a long list of things about which workmates may have wildly divergent views. As is the smell of last night’s Indian takeaway wafting through the room, enough to bring back to reality those who dare to daydream. Then there are the varying degrees of desk tidiness – a conversation favourite in our office, predictably resulting in those who are not bound by the laws of order and structure protesting that they are simply demonstrating the benefits of ‘creative’ organisation to the rest of us. Hmmm, I’m not quite sold on that one.

Interest in this topic was recently renewed when a study by Queensland University of Technology reported that open-plan offices are a health hazard. The findings included high stress levels, high staff absenteeism and turnover, increased workplace conflict, reduced concentration levels, lack of privacy, greater spread of infectious diseases and lowered productivity in 90 per cent of the research conducted. Despite the fact that the majority of offices are now open plan, the study recommended a return to the past. Back to those enclosed, small, private offices of yesteryear.

Of course, there are a number of reasons why open-plan offices became so popular in the first place. They can promote communication, teamwork, a communal work environment and improved workflow. Gone are the barriers separating senior management from junior employees. And having fewer walls is also kinder on that all-important bottom line, with cheaper office fit-outs, higher worker density and reduced energy bills.

But does it really need to be one or the other? Providing a safe, happy and productive office setting is definitely important. How a business reaches this ideal isn’t necessarily as obvious. Could it be possible that a mix of both open and closed is the way to go? There’s probably no right or wrong answer – it’s just a matter of getting the fit (and fit-out) right for the individual workplace.

My experience? Well, I’m happy to say that I’m firmly entrenched in the minority here. I thoroughly enjoy the open-plan office that I inhabit with others for hours each weekday. A great mix of personalities sees extroverts, introverts and those in between drawing out the best in each other. It doesn’t hurt that everyone seems to have a similar work ethic and knows what has to get done. But there’s also a lot of laughter and a genuine feeling of being part of a team. Nobody here is withering away in isolation. However, I will concede that not everything is perfect and in reality a few lessons on office etiquette wouldn’t go astray. So, any ideas on how to break it to a colleague that Barry Manilow is best appreciated in private?

Brandy Munro is a Writer at WellmarkPerspexa, a business-to-business communications agency where diversity (displayed to its fullest in an open-plan space) breeds creativity.