Search

The Marie Claire 2014 Prix d’Excellence de la Beauté award has gone to an algae oil company called Solazyme, making it one of only two U.S. brands to garner a prize against hundreds of entrants this year. The award indicates excellence in both innovation and performance. That's a pretty high mark for a company better known for algae biofuel, but Solazyme actually covers four markets with its unique algae oil extraction technology: fuels, chemicals, nutritionals and personal care.

Announced earlier this month, the award was given unanimously by a panel of judges for the company's Algenist® line of skin care products. That's great timing for Solazyme. The company has just announced the start of commercial algae oil operations at two integrated locations in Iowa, which together showcase the company's ability to hop nimbly from one market to another.

Solazyme and Biofuel

Solazyme's biofuel endeavors became big news back in 2011 when it began supplying algae biofuel to the U.S. Navy, including a biofuel-for-shipping project between Maersk and the U.S. Navy, so that accounts partly for its familiarity as a biofuel company.

In 2012 the company also launched a unique retail biofuel station for vehicles in partnership with Propel Fuels, making it the first to offer algae biofuel to the general public.

The company also gained some additional fuel-related notoriety in 2012 when it opened an algae oil facility in Peoria, Ill., with the support of Department of Energy funding.

Solazyme Makes Its Mark In Beauty

Solazyme's earlier biofuel ventures occurred while certain members of Congress were engaged in an all-out war to stop the Department of Defense (the Navy, in particular) from buying algae biofuel, but now that the noise has died down, what's left is the fact that algae is becoming a commercially viable feedstock for sustainable fuel.

The company's growing reputation in personal care opens up a whole new level of public awareness about commercial algae farming. This is what Marie Claire Health and Beauty Editor Ariane Goldet had to say about Solzyme's award:

For the past 28 years, we have searched for trailblazing products and brands that couple the latest breakthroughs with the latest trends, and Algenist with their breakthrough, hero-ingredients, Alguronic Acid® and Microalgae Oil, do all of this and more. They are a pioneering brand and we are pleased to place them amongst the 2014 Maria Claire Prix d’ Excellence de la Beauté winners.

Solazyme and the Sustainable Supply Chain

Solazyme's ability to hop markets provides yet another new option for companies looking to ramp up the sustainability of their supply chains.

The global textile lubricant company Goulston, for example, has already publicized its relationship with Solazyme for a new class of sustainable products.

The key to Solazyme's market-hopping is a tailored approach to growing microalgae called TailoredTMoil.

Also helping things along is a high-efficiency, low cost process that uses microalgae that grow in the dark, feeding on waste material including corn stover, forestry waste and other renewable sources.

The algae "farm" consists of standard industrial fermentation equipment, so the use of off-the-shelf technology also plays a role in the cost-effectiveness of the system.

The new facilities are in partnership with Archer Daniels Midland Company in Clinton, Iowa, which takes care of the algae oil process, and American Natural Products in Galva, Iowa, which takes care of the downstream product end.

The two facilities have already produced three different products at commercial scale with applications that range from lubrication and metalworking to home care and personal care.

Image (cropped): Courtesy of Solazyme

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

The Environmental Protection Agency has just released its annual Climate Protection Partnerships report, and it indicates that the U.S. is in a strong position to achieve economic growth - in other words, job growth - as it transitions to safer, healthier and more sustainable forms of energy. The report comes on top of great news for job growth in the solar industry, with as-yet untapped offshore wind energy and vast reserves of geothermal energy offering potential for even greater growth in the green jobs sector.

That's something to keep in mind as the battle over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline gathers a new head of steam. Now that the State Department has delivered a required environmental report, it has to move forward and consult with other U.S. agencies to consider a variety of potential impacts the project could have on the public, and that includes economic impacts.

The 2012 Climate Protection Partnerships Report

The latest year for which statistics are available is 2012, hence the formal title of the report, "EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Protection Partnerships 2012 Annual Report."

The report highlights the achievements of EPA partnerships with more than 21,000 organizations, impacting millions of individuals with new clean energy and energy efficiency programs, including the ENERGY STAR and Green Power Partnership programs.

Here's a taste of the results for 2012:

1. Prevention of 365 million metric tons of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (about the same emissions from electricity used by 50 million homes).


2. A $26 billion savings on utility bills with and assist from ENERGY STAR.


3. Emissions equal to the electricity used by more than 10 million homes prevented by methane and fluourinated greenhouse-gas-program partners, using tools and resources developed by EPA.


4. The Green Power Partnership, a voluntary program launched back in 2001, included more than 1,400 organizations with a combined commitment of approximately 29 billion kilowatt-hours of green power annually.


5. Another 2001 voluntary initiative, the Combined Heat and Power Partnership, included more than 450 partners with more than 5,700 megawatts of new combined heat and power installed.

Climate protection and economic growth

The Climate Protection Partnerships predate and support President Obama's Climate Action Plan, which was announced in June 2013. In fact, some elements of the program go back 20 years including at least two launched during the Bush administration.

As for the consistency of that timeline, in an introduction to the new report EPA Chief Gina McCarthy points out that compliance with the Clean Air Act has been an overall winner for the U.S. economy:

...Every dollar we've invested to comply with the Clean Air Act has returned $4 to $8 in economic benefits. A clean and healthy environment lays the foundation for a strong, sustainable economy."

You can see that reflected in the EPA's top-ranked Green Power Partners.  Along with government agencies and academic institutions, the quarterly list of 100 percent green power users (including purchased offsets) boasts healthy representation from the private sector including Intel, Whole Foods, Staples, Herman Miller, and of course, the Empire State Building.

With winter sports upon us, let's also note that the National Hockey League was the first pro sports league to join the Green Power Partnership, with support from the National Resources Defense Council for its efforts to preserve a hockey-friendly climate in the U.S.

In that regard, McCarthy draws a stark picture of the devastating economic consequences of inaction:

Scientists have observed changes in precipitation, rising sea level, melting ice and altered weather patterns, including more frequent and intense storms...These changes come with devastating consequences and real economic costs to Americans. Last year alone, the second costliest year ever recorded in terms of disasters, the U.S. endured 11 different weather and climate events with estimated losses exceeding $1 billion each."

That's not even counting the economic fallout from recent fossil fuel-related disasters -- such as the Kalamazoo River diluted bitumen spill in Michigan, the long-term damage to Louisiana ecosystems from oil industry infrastructure, and the West Virgina chemical spill, which involved a compound used to prepare coal.
Add California's ongoing and devastating drought this year, and you have a compelling case for aggressive action.

The boom in solar energy in the U.S. is due in large part to innovative financing, putting solar within reach of almost any business or homeowner with a roof, for little more than their signature. But for nonprofits it's a different story.

Traditional banks and financial institutions shy away from lending to 501c3 nonprofit organizations who are dependent upon charitable giving because they see it as an unreliable source of revenue. "We shouldn't penalize nonprofits for being nonprofits," says Lee Barken, founder and CCO (chief community officer) for CollectiveSun, a firm specializing in solar power financing for nonprofits, a deeply underserved market in need of a solar power financing solution.

With years of experience as a CPA and LEED-AP in renewable energy project finance, Barken saw day-in and day-out the gap that did, in fact, penalize nonprofits interested in going solar. With no tax liability, nonprofits are unable to reap the tax benefits of solar power projects available to homeowners and for-profit corporations.  "Solar should be accessible by everybody trying to expand the market and include community participation," says Barken.

The problem with the self-service island

Unable to secure a traditional loan or 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) financing arrangement, Barken explains that too many nonprofits try to "roll their own" solution. Often this leads only to frustration.

"There are a lot of nonprofits struggling, that don't know about us and are trying to figure it out on their own" says Barken, "Instead of spending a lot of money on attorneys and accountants, we could probably help."

It isn't impossible for nonprofits to go solar on their own, devising their own methods and using their own limited resources. It's just prohibitively difficult, expensive and doesn't leverage community support and involvement, a key asset for any nonprofit.

CollectiveSun provides a much easier, lower-cost path to solar power, one that saves the nonprofit money while engaging community support.

"Part of the huge benefit we can offer," says Barken, "is that our structure offers a way to monetize tax benefits. But more importantly we can do it in a way that allows community participation as a promissory note. We use a simple debt arrangement."

Solar financing for nonprofits - how it works

"If you really want to serve the nonprofit, you give them a pathway to ownership."

The CollectiveSun approach involves two simultaneous transactions: First is the promissory note between CollectiveSun and investors to raise funds for the solar project. Second is the PPA between CollectiveSun and the nonprofit. After CollectiveSun raises project costs from investors, funds are then handed off to the solar installer chosen by the nonprofit. The PPA payments are used to make the annual principal and interest payments back to investors.

Using a community-based affinity investment platform, CollectiveSun offers nonprofits a low-cost, 10-year PPA, followed by a purchase option that is paid in equal monthly installments over four years. Tax benefits are passed through to the nonprofit in the form of lower cost power, and the short-term PPA with purchase option gives nonprofits a clear path to ownership.

As an investment, it isn't risk-free. Barken explains that CollectiveSun is very upfront with investors - if the nonprofit defaults on a PPA payment, no payment is made to investors. Generally speaking, investors interested in backing a particular nonprofit are already engaged in the community and much more risk-tolerant with the investment vehicle than "a typical risk committee at a bank."

Not just another brick in the wall

The challenge for nonprofits, apart from pursuing their particular mission, is fundraising. For any nonprofit wishing to go solar, this creates a conundrum: Do we just go out to our community and ask for another donation to finance solar power? Is it the best use of our community's good will, or is there a better option? CollectiveSun is that better option, drawing the best elements of solar financing for both investor and nonprofit.

By providing a return on their investment dollars, nonprofits aren't asking for a handout from their community as they go solar. It's real return on the dollar and not "just another donor's name on a brick." The nonprofit is able to share in the benefits of solar, with a clear path to ownership and reduced energy costs.

Nonprofits serve society in countless ways. They educate, heal, and comfort the vulnerable and less fortunate in our communities. Yet too often they struggle to share in the promise of the new energy economy. CollectiveSun's mission is to change that equation.

CollectiveSun currently operates only in California, but it is looking to expand as more nonprofits and local communities throughout the United States seek to share in this win-win community investment platform for low-cost solar power.

"This is an investment in my local community that hits all three P's: People, Planet, and Profits!" - Ellen K

A version of this story originally appeared on NoCamels – Israeli Innovation News

By Johanna Weiss

"Here comes the sun," the Beatles sing. And that makes us happy. Because not only does the sun shine free of charge, it could also be a great way to earn some extra money.

That's why Generaytor, a Tel Aviv-based startup, has devised a cool Web-based app that allows us to see in real time how much money we can make by placing solar panels on our roof. And IKEA has already adopted it to convince customers to go solar.

CEO and founder Amit Rosner says it all began when salesmen started knocking on his brother's door, trying to convince him to install solar panels and promising a good return on investment. Even though Rosner's brother lives in the sunny state of California, Rosner says, "It was incredible to see how long it took him before he decided to do the right thing and go solar."

Rosner says his brother's experience showed him how complicated the decision-making process is for people who are not familiar with solar energy. "Since it is a long-term investment, it is important to make an educated decision," Rosner says.

Rosner's own educated decision was to help people in their own decision-making process. He quit his job, co-founded Generaytor with Idan Ofrat and Paolo Tedone, and raised raised $1 million in 2012. The outcome is a platform that connects novices with people who already generate solar energy and are ready to share their experience with those who want to learn more about it.

Crowdsourcing sunshine

Generaytor's concept is simple: On one side there are people who already produce solar energy. Some are idealists who want to be independent of the public electricity supply (which in most countries is still based on fossil fuels). Others do so simply because they consider it to be a smart investment. Whatever the reason, Generaytor found that many of them are happy to share their experience and data related to their solar energy production.

Generaytor then gathers information about users' roofs, such as size, location and shade. It accumulates data from private solar producers region-by-region and, based on that, offers calculation of the solar potential in different locations.

Basically, users can go to the website, type in their roof's specifications and the app will show them how much electricity they can produce. Generaytor says it's important for them to be objective, and they do sometimes tell users not to invest in solar.

“As sunshine does not cost anything, we think the same should be true for the knowledge around solar energy – it should be for free and easily accessible,” Rosner states, explaining how this perception led to the business model. Generaytor’s services are free for homeowners. There are no advertisements on their webpage and Generaytor does not sell any panels themselves. “This is important, because if we [sold advertisements] we would not be objective, we would lose credibility and miss the whole point of creating a transparent platform where people can make a sound decision in a trustworthy environment."

FMCG giant Unilever has extended its compressed deodorant aerosol format to its four male deo brands.

Just one year after the launch of the award-winning technology, Unilever has sold approximately 12m cans of compressed deodorant, resulting in an aluminum saving of 77 tons – equivalent to 38,000 bicycles.

The new cans require up to 50 per cent less propellant but last just as long and use up to 25% less aluminum. The company says that switching to the new compressed can reduces the overall carbon footprint of the product by up to 25%. This takes Unilever closer to its challenging Sustainable Living Plan targets of halving the greenhouse gas impact of products across the lifecycle and the waste associated with the disposal of products by 2020.

Richard Swannell, director of design and waste prevention at WRAP, commented: “WRAP applauds Unilever’s leadership role in making this ‘step change’ in the aerosol format. This is exactly the type of innovative initiative that the WRAP is encouraging retailers and brands to explore as Courtauld Commitment signatories – delivering environmental benefits and added consumer appeal.”
 

By Miles Knowles

When it comes to managing sustainability issues such as climate change or diminishing fossil fuels, one might presume that the greatest impact is achieved by targeting the greatest audience possible.

For the past 20 years, environmental legend Denis Hayes has relied on a different approach. Hayes became an environmental superhero by spearheading the first Earth Day in 1970. More than 20 million Americans took to the streets for teach-ins and environmental advocacy. He followed up by forming the Earth Day Network and expanding annual Earth Day events to 184 different countries. Former President Jimmy Carter named him the first director of the Solar Energy Research Institute (now the National Renewable Energy Laboratory).

After years of national and international success in furthering the environmental movement, Mr. Hayes shifted focus -- directing his attention to a region of the U.S. with a small but progressive population of concerned citizens. In 1992, Hayes was named CEO and president of the Bullitt Foundation, a Seattle-based grant-making organization. His hiring was met with skepticism from some local environmental leaders and NGOs.  Hayes was an international celebrity with the ability to influence millions globally. How long could he be satisfied working on a smaller, regional platform? More than 20 years later, he’s still there, and the reasons are embodied in his approach to sustainable management.

For years, the Pacific Northwest has been a stronghold of progressive thought and motivated citizens -- exactly the type of audience open to addressing sustainability challenges. Before coming to Bullitt, Hayes’ advocacy work was directed at national and global audiences. Promoting a sustainability agenda on a huge scale requires convincing those who deny or remain apathetic to environmental issues. Narrowing his target audience to more like-minded individuals increased the efficacy of his actions. The Pacific Northwest is not completely devoid of sustainability skeptics, but it has the smallest concentration of them.

Secondly, Hayes identified a target region small enough so the resources at his disposal could make a significant and lasting impact. The Bullitt Foundation makes grants to nonprofits in order to "safeguard the natural environment by promoting responsible human activities and sustainable communities in the Pacific Northwest." Their target area includes Southeast Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Western Montana. This bioregion has been referred to as “Cascadia” since the early 1990s. Its integration is deeper than one might think. In 2008, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska and British Columbia signed the Pacific Coast Collaborative into law. The agreement seeks to promote coordinated policy in the areas of fishery and forest management, renewable energy, tourism and establishing a high-speed regional railway. The movement is more than simply cooperation on economics and policy, it’s an identity local residents buy into. Cascadia even has its own flag, The Doug.

The audience Hayes is targeting in the Pacific Northwest is not only receptive to sustainability issues, but willing and active participants. From volunteers to donors and involved citizens, the residents of Cascadia are pushing for progressive environmental action. This is not confined to the ballot box. The Bullitt Foundation’s dedication to public engagement enables Cascadian citizens to fund their sustainability projects through grants. “The Foundation seeks to identify the most talented individuals and most effective organizations and empower them to respond to the most important issues facing the region.” From 1999 to 2012, The Bullitt Foundation has authorized thousands of grants to over five hundred different organizations operating within Cascadia.

Perhaps the most ingenious element of Hayes’ approach to sustainable management is utilizing Bullitt as a force multiplier for transmitting Cascadian ideas worldwide. “Through its innovations in science, technology, commerce, and culture…[Cascadia] exerts a disproportionate national, and even global impact, relative to its size and population.”

Nowhere is this better embodied than in Hayes’ latest project, The Bullitt Center in Seattle. Otherwise known as “The greenest commercial building in the world,” The Bullitt Center goes well beyond LEED platinum standards, generates one hundred percent of its own energy and has net-zero waste. The effect showcases Cascadia as the regional leader of the U.S. sustainability movement and pushes the green building envelope globally. If in the coming years, possibly even months we will see a new “greenest building in the world,” It will likely be in Cascadia.

Denis Hayes did not create the Cascadia sustainability movement, but he has further enhanced the region’s efficacy in tackling sustainability challenges by means of advocacy, direct engagement and funding. This would not be possible without a realistic target area and a receptive and engaged target audience. Mr. Hayes’ Earth Day legacy will forever enshrine him as an environmental legend, but in his work at the Bullitt Foundation, he has truly found his calling as a leader in sustainability management.

If you’re a fan, just like me, of Natural Quaker Granola you might be surprised to find that your beloved granola brand has changed its name. It is no longer "Natural Quaker Granola" but "Simply Quaker Granola."

Don’t worry, though. Other than the name, nothing has really changed in the granola. This is just part of a step PepsiCo, the company that produces the granola, has taken to replace the word "natural" with the word "simply" in all of its products. Its "Simply Natural" line of Frito-Lay chips for example will be called now just "Simply," and so on.

Why has PepsiCo gone through the trouble of changing the names of so many of its products, omitting what seems to be a key part in the marketing strategy of these products?

According to Candace Mueller-Medina, a spokeswoman for PepsiCo's Quaker brand, this is quite simple. "We constantly update our marketing and packaging," she said. Apparently though, the answer is a bit more complicated.

It starts and ends with the fact that the adjective “natural” (or “all natural”), which for years has faithfully served food manufacturers due to its vague definition and the fact that many consumers believe it means "healthy," has become much more controversial lately -- to the point that companies like PepsiCo have decided they’ll be better off without it.

You might be surprised to hear how popular the term "natural" has become on product packaging. The Wall Street Journal reported last November that: "Food labeled "natural'' raked in more than $40 billion in U.S. retail sales over the past 12 months. That is second only to food claiming to be low in fat, according to Nielsen.” Just for comparison the organic food and beverage market was valued at $29.22 billion (2011 figures).

Yet, on a second thought, it shouldn’t be that surprising. After all, organic foods need to meet a relatively clear and rigid definition, while "natural" can basically mean anything, as long as it meets the FDA requirements of not containing added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances. In other words, it’s probably cheaper and more profitable to produce and sell a "natural" food product than an organic food product.

So why on earth have PepsiCo and other companies decided to ditch it? In one word: litigation. "In recent years, advocacy groups have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to ban 'natural' claims on foods containing ingredients that seem unnatural, especially those genetically modified," Prof. Marion Nestle explained on her blog.

And PepsiCo was no exception. As we reported here, PepsiCo announced last July that it will remove the "all natural" moniker from its Naked Juice product line for the foreseeable future and also agreed to pay $9 million to settle a lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs complained the fruit, vegetable and smoothie drinks contained ingredients that did not fit the definition of "natural."

I believe the company’s latest step of replacing "natural" with "simply" reflects its understanding that using "natural" has just become too risky for its brands and is not worth it anymore, especially when the company is looking to further expand its product portfolio of healthier foods and beverages -- which in 2012 represented 20 percent of the company’s net revenue.

Now comes the question of whether we should applaud PepsiCo for ditching the vague and sometimes misleading term "natural," or be worried that "simply" is just another marketing stunt to get us, the consumers, to believe that the products are healthier whether it’s true or not.

I believe it’s probably neither one of the two. First, PepsiCo probably takes this step apparently not because it understands that "natural" might send the wrong signals to consumers but because of a simple cost-benefit analysis showing the company using "natural" is not that advantageous anymore. If anyone should be applauded here it's organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest that act as watchdogs and file lawsuits against companies that it feels are misusing the term "natural." These organizations are the ones that transform "natural" from an asset to liability and get companies like PepsiCo to think twice before using it.

At the same time, I should mention that PepsiCo is not only busy with changing the names of its products, but actually tries to make some of them healthier as well. For example, as the WSJ reported, the company’s Frito-Lay snack unit reformulated more than 60 products by 2011, removing "about three dozen artificial ingredients including FD&C Red 40, a food coloring it replaced with beets, cabbage and carrots."

The bottom line is PepsiCo should be more focused on making its products healthier rather than on making their names better protected from future litigation. Simply, there’s no way around it if PepsiCo is really about "building a profitable and sustainable 21st century corporation" as it claims to be.

Image credit: Walmart

Raz Godelnik is an Assistant Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons The New School of Design. You can follow Raz on Twitter.

Target recently announced that it is dropping its part-time store employees from its health insurance. The statement has been used recently to bolster accusations by critics who say that the Affordable Care Act is a drain on U.S. taxpayers and is forcing employers to shirk their own responsibility to provide healthcare coverage.

Others say that the disqualification of part-timers by employers like Target, Walmart and Trader Joe's undercuts the effort to force the employers of some of the country lowest paid workers to improve how they do business.

"Major employers like Target should not be looking to taxpayers to subsidize an employee benefit they can more than afford to pay," said Carrie Gleason in an interview with Forbes.  Gleason serves as executive director of the Retail Action Project, a nonprofit advocacy group that has been calling on big-box stores to improve their labor practices.

She has a point. The fight to improve labor practices in stores like Walmart and Target, particularly when it comes to benefits and a living wage, has been going on for more than a decade. It’s not hard to see how large companies that were encouraged years ago to improve their healthcare benefits for workers may be benefiting from the government’s new healthcare marketplace.

But the greater question here may be: Who really stands to benefit from the change? Would part-timers who barely make enough to obtain adequate healthcare insurance really be better off under an employer’s plan?

Under federal law, employers aren’t obligated to cover employees who work less than 30 hours a week. But as Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post points out, continuing to cover the few that do plunk down a co-payment for their insurance premium could, in effect, lock out others from joining the ACA Marketplace.

And it’s important to remember that no two insurance premiums are equal. Does an insurance plan offered to a part-time employee at Target or Walmart really provide the employee with adequate coverage? And at what price?

Under the ACA, low-income subscribers qualify for healthcare subsidies that ensure that the worker can get adequate coverage for a reasonable price.

Yes, that does mean that part-timers benefit from taxpayer support. But consider it a bit of a quid-pro-quo arrangement: The addition of those part-time workers (many who are young and healthy) to the ACA network from large national stores like Target, Walmart and Trader Joe's means tens of thousands of additional subscribers, who, in their own way are helping initiate a change to how we look at healthcare. It means more dollars in the system, and it means more healthy checkups and more healthy employees. It means the potential for less sick time from health complications when they do occur.

Best of all, it means a change to how we regard the responsibility of providing healthcare. Making healthcare a personal initiative isn’t such a bad thing. And viewing those changes as good for the community, even if it means more initiative by the individual at first, isn’t really a loss, either.

For its part, Target has announced that it will give each part-time employee $500 to cover their enrollment in an ACA healthcare plan. With healthcare subsidies that account for their part-time income status, that contribution will allow the employee to enroll in a far better plan than what he or she would have been able to afford on employer-provided insurance (which oftentimes isn’t co-paid by the employer when the worker is part-time).

Target’s decision to drop its part-time employee insurance may seem like a burden on taxpayers, but it’s also an investment into a new way of looking at good health as a personal investment that is better for the nation, as well as the worker.

Image credit: Sarah Gilbert

By Megan McAuliffe 

How often do you think about space - that is, the space within your immediate environment?

Imagine for a moment that you live amongst trees. How would you feel? Would the sounds of the rushing leaves and the woody scents help you feel relaxed? What about how you see your surroundings, would the soft light filtering through the trees help put you into a moment of quiet contemplation. Your heartbeat would probably slow down considerably and your blood pressure would drop, as a sense of wonder and peace enveloped your senses.

Now think about your work environment. How does it make you feel? Do you feel challenged by the space around you, does it limit you or enable you? Does what you see, smell and feel help you relax and stay alert, or does it make your mind wander off into a wakeful dream-state?

The spaces we occupy shape who we are

Every minute of our lives is spent in physical dialogue with the space around us. The spaces we occupy directly influence our psychological well-being and creative performance. Space has the ability to shape who we are and how we behave. And, the fact that many of us spend large amounts of time, even years, working in the same space, it makes sense to optimize that space for maximum benefit.

Psychologists such as Kurt Lewin and Egon Brunswik conducted extensive work in the field of environmental psychology - which is the study of the relationship between the environment and its inhabitants. Brunswik found that psychology should give as much attention to the properties of the organism’s environment as it does to the organism itself. Overall, their studies highlighted the importance of incorporating psychology into the design of space and how, by manipulating space, one can control an environment and up to a point, its inhabitants.

Increasingly, urban planners, designers and business owners are tapping into the knowledge that a large part of how we define ourselves is caught up in the relationship we have with the places we occupy and the way in which we inhabit them. Actually, space has so much influence on the way we live that it can literally empower or disempower us.

Recently, Google released its plans for a new London headquarters, set to open in 2016, which will occupy a space of one million square feet and house an outdoor swimming pool, a full-length indoor football field, a climbing wall and a roof garden -- showing that the search engine giant takes its spaces seriously.

Googlers will have all their recreation needs met at work. They’ll be able to ride their bicycles into the building’s bike storage room, take a shower in the on-site facilities and ride around the building on micro-scooters. There will also be plenty of wide open space to use for networking and collaborating with others, in addition to the open-plan desk space to work autonomously.

The new Google space will provide more flexibility and room for relaxation and enjoyment -- a way to create contented and happy employees who will perform better and stick with the company longer.

Creating a cultural hearth drives connection

A study by architectural historian Charles Rice, "The Emergence of the Interior," found there was great importance in the understanding and implementation of interior design psychology on the performance, efficiency and well-being of an individual. 

His belief is that we are missing out on the experience of connection in our fast-paced society, largely due to the high speed at which information is being hurled at us. In his work, he found that if we can address this lack of connection by creating a relationship with our environment, we can significantly improve our overall well-being.

Through his studies, Rice found that if we improve our relationship with the space we occupy and the objects within it, we can embody a sense of connection by creating a mythical fireplace, and the traditional experience of storytelling.

Urban designer Richard Wolfstrome uses this same philosophy when working with architects and local planners to design spaces in the urban community. With a narrative in mind, he unlocks historical stories and looks at the way people work, play and interact with the environment:

“We are human beings who have a capacity to emotionally connect to our landscapes. One of the best ways to do this is through story. Just like the indigenous cultures have done throughout time. Western society is starting to relate to this connection. Our ancestors are speaking to us in a way. It’s in our DNA. There is still a strong part of us that wants to sit around the fire and tell stories. And be a part of that hearth.”

Connection with space increases productivity

A study conducted by Dr. Craig Knight - which surveyed more than 2,000 office workers by looking at attitudes to a working space and how that directly affected productivity - found that most business offices have a model focused on "lean" functionality with little control by its occupants.

The University of Exeter’s School of Psychology study revealed that if employees are involved in the design and layout of a workspace, they are not only happier and healthier, but are 32 percent more productive:

“When people feel uncomfortable in their surroundings they are less engaged - not only with the space but also with what they do in it. If they can have some control, that all changes and people report being happier at work, identifying more with their employer, and are more efficient when doing their jobs.”

The bonds that tie us to our environment

David Ward , CEO of VW Heritage on the south coast of England, has boosted his company’s growth by creating an inclusive and ethical culture from the grassroots. The company’s staff retention levels are high, and they display a rare kind of loyalty to the business:

“Customers are important, but staff are even more important. It’s all about creating a good culture. If our staff are happy, then they are performing at their best, which in turn will offer the best possible experience for our customers.”

Ward intuitively knows that by including staff in the vision for the future they can be part of the success of the company. They also understand that their role is contributing to the company’s final goal.

“Our staff spend so much time at work, it’s important they feel involved in the environment they occupy rather than separate from it. An environment needs to enable and encourage a person’s productivity.”

Even though there is no universal checklist on how to attain "good company culture" and business profit, there is no doubt that a little shapeshifting in the office environment can lead to happier staff and higher levels of productivity. Let’s face it, when we’re feeling good, that’s when everything else in life flows.

Image credit: Julien Gong Min

Megan McAuliffe is a writer at www.vwheritage.com. She explores ethical business, sustainable living and culture. You can find her on Twitter @MeganEditorial. 

The top four business buzzwords used today define how sustainable businesses are winning customers in the 21st century. These four key buzzwords (in order) are:

1. Content


2. Social


3. Sustainability


4. Transparency

These buzzwords are the building blocks upon which sustainable companies design products, operations and marketing. The following are best practices tied to these four business buzzwords that are proven to win customers:

Content

Content is by far and away the number one business word. It used to be that advertising volume defined customer awareness. Today customer awareness is defined by what people are saying about your business and its product.

Content marketing is an outreach strategy that uses social media to engage the customer on the customer’s key issues. The best marketing content for a business is a satisfied customer posting on a positive experience. The worst content is a customer’s post that exposes your company as untrustworthy and your products as harmful.

Sustainably run businesses have a huge competitive advantage in content creation. The key market segments of millennials and moms are actively looking for price competitive "in me, on me and around me" solutions. A company that posts content on its price competitive solutions will engage these key customers.

More importantly, a sustainably operated company will win customer postings on their experience using the company’s "in me, on me and around" product solutions. These customer postings are the top business path today for winning new customers. For example, the majority of millennial generation purchases are based on third-party product recommendations -- sourced from a complete stranger to the procuring millennial. Similar to "build it and they will come," having a sustainable and price competitive product will generate invaluable customer-sourced content that will attract more customers and grow revenues.

Social

Social is closely tied to content. Social is the collective engagement and sharing between your customers, and most especially, your potential customers. Social is what they are saying about your company and products without your direct participation.

The key business question is how to get customers and potential customers talking about your company and products. One sure fired path is to do something that is either really wrong or very right. Here are the top five product recalls in U.S. history and the social lessons-learned for how to win (or lose) customers:

1. Tylenol. The crime of inserting poison into a Tylenol container while it sat on a retail shelf reshaped the product container industry. Johnson & Johnson had to immediately recall 31 million Tylenol bottles costing $100 million. What turned this from a disaster into an increase in Tylenol’s brand equity was the tremendous credibility Johnson & Johnson earned from aggressively removing Tylenol from retail shelves and then not restocking product until they had figured out a safer container. The social lesson learned is that customers will say good things about your company and its product (and buy your product) if your company acts responsibly.


2. Ford Explorer/Firestone tires. Graphic pictures of horrific accidents swamped the efforts of these huge companies to "contain" the damage inflicted on their credibility and sales. This is my No. 1 supply chain coaching lesson on the value of green supply chain practices for minimizing operating and product risks. This product crisis resulted in Ford ending its historic supplier relationship with Firestone.


3. Westland/Hallmark ground beef. This recall was sparked from a video posted by an undercover Humane Society person. Today, nothing is secret. Everything your company does will be captured on video through smartphones, and it will be posted on social media. Do right or perish under an avalanche of viral videos.


4. Lawn Darts. This product endangered children. It was sold in the 1980s before social media. Can you imagine the viral YouTube videos if it was sold today?


5. Sunland peanut butter. This product was recalled over product safety. There are now more than 2 million mommy bloggers. Sites like Care2 are followed by tens of million of women tracking human health causes and information on product safety. An absolute business best practice is NEVER sell a product that threatens the safety of a mom’s love ones. This is a lesson the fast food industry is learning the hard way.

Sustainability

Sustainability is directly linked to the top two business buzzwords of content and social. Sustainable actions by companies create the content that sparks social messaging.

Yes, a price discount coupon will generate a ton of social media hits for a business. But it is content generated by a company’s sustainable practices and then virally shared by consumers through social media that will win new customers searching for products that align value with values. The classic example is Patagonia, a company that generates $500 million annually in sales and is strongly followed by the millennial generation. Their "Don’t Buy This Jacket" campaign set the bar on viral messaging tied to sustainability.

Transparency

Transparency is the marketing path for winning customer trust. Or, as a Walmart executive defined transparency, “We are all naked. So get buff.”

A transparency challenge for many companies is the economics of doing right. A failure in government policy from not assigning a price or tax to externality costs like obesity, diabetes and climate change is a huge challenge for CFOs -- who allocate capital based on an economic return on investment. Social media is radically challenging ROI decision-making based upon increased transparency on the total cost to the consumer from buying a product. Customers are looking past the retail price to assign a value proposition on a product that includes the externality costs it places on the consumer.

A dollar-menu item is viewed as costing much more than a dollar to an obese person with diabetes. Moms are looking past price to evaluate products based on how they impact the wellness of their loved ones. The millennial generation was born into climate change. They view the lower greenhouse gas emissions of an urban lifestyle and use of digital products as "cool with a purpose" alternatives to cars and suburbia. Transparency is the mirror into which all businesses must look to win customers who are using social media content in deciding what to buy and from whom.

Image credit: IMN Marketing

Bill Roth is an economist and the Founder of Earth 2017. He coaches business owners and leaders on proven best practices in pricing, marketing and operations that make money and create a positive difference. His book, The Secret Green Sauce, profiles business case studies of pioneering best practices that are proven to win customers and grow product revenues. Follow him on Twitter: @earth2017