Lean, Put Into Practice
Waste in Sustainability Transformation Work
A bad system will beat good people every time.
― W. Edwards Deming
What does waste in knowledge work look like?
Specifically, the work of transforming companies to be authentically contributing to sustainability? There are many reasons why sustainability transformations are painfully slow, altogether ineffective, or just plain fail.
Here is a draft list of contributors to wasted effort in corporate sustainability transformation work. Waste at a time in history when we can ill afford it.
Contextual inadequacy
- Actions based on opinions ('low-context'), not facts and evidence
- Internal perception that ‘we are already doing enough’ (fueled by PR-hyped communications)
- Finance-dominant mindset and KPIs (transactional thinking & 3-year horizons reign)
- Actions dictated solely by regulatory requirements (lowest bar)
- Reactive ‘crisis-mode’ management style leaves no time for effective perseverance
- Rigid (non-adaptive) implementation frameworks grafted onto existing organization
- Urgency is dissipated by senior management interpretations: challenges to business-as-usual are dampened
Unclear direction
- Unclear Leader’s intent with respect to sustainability
- Routine changes in top leadership and/or direction (shifting sustainability priorities)
- Inconsistent and contradictory corporate messaging (e.g. reduce impacts and grow the company)
- Targets too far-off in time to incite meaningful action today
- Waiting for perfect data and/or firm regulatory requirements
Knowledge gaps
- Lack of dedicated sustainability training and existing trainings are not aligned
- New sustainability knowledge not communicated and applied across the enterprise
- Limited opportunities for cross-functional collaboration and learning
- Sustainability specialists guard their expertise instead of sharing and coaching
- Decision-making proceeds despite known sustainability knowledge gaps
- Underutilized sustainability talent within the general workforce
- Sustainability staff depart for companies with stronger commitments
Resistance to change
- Rigid hierarchy and countervailing power and influence: legacy mindsets prevail
- Waiting for input and participation from key functions and/or executives
- Passive interest by key players (too busy with “real work”)
- Overburden: staff workload leaves no time for key functions to contribute
- Sustainability not seen as everyone’s job (i.e. psychological ownership[1] is localized and isolated)
- Insufficient resources committed to sustainability
- Policies, procedures and standard work are not aligned with sustainability goals
- Inadequate legacy tools, systems and methods
- Management is KPI-focused vs. system change-focused (e.g. remote leadership insists on frequent, unnecessary status reporting on sustainability)
The consequences of these waste-drivers are that effort is misdirected or dissipated and additional time and effort will be expended looping back to revisit, rework and redo.
We are at a point where we have exhausted our global margins for error. Being effective and getting sustainability work right the first time is now vital to humanity’s future.
I am grateful for any thoughts and suggestions posted to comments.
The greatest waste…is failure to use the abilities of people [and] to learn about their frustrations and about the contributions that they are eager to make.
― W. Edwards Deming
Notes
[1]Psychological ownership refers to the state in which individuals feel as though the target, whether material or immaterial, or a piece of it is “theirs.” Source: Cultivating Sustainability Thinkers: Analyzing the Routes to Psychological Ownership in Local Business Units of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs); Martina Kurki and Merja Lähdesmäki (2023)
