The FutureLab was the first meeting of the oikos community happing with this format. Compared to the Spring or Autumn gatherings the FutureLab news concern its participants, theme and format.
At the FutureLab came students from 22 oikos chapters, oikos fellows and alumni from over 38 companies and 10 research institutes. Thus the participants were not only students, but a great pool of international people being at different stages of their oikos experience: from bachelor students to oikos “dinosaurs” that participated to its foundation in 1987. In this way the FutureLab atteint to gather people from all over sharing the same will of building a more sustainable world together.
The FutureLab red thread is the future, especially the development of a common vision for the coming years. What are the best-case scenarios for 2020 and 2012? And how can we bring these scenarios to reality? Developing a picture of the future we would like to have is essential to positively define what we want to achieve in the future. It is not enough to say, we don’t want to have a world with endless economic, social and environmental crises, we need to define how an alternative world looks like. By choosing the future as common theme of the FutureLab the oikos community identified this need and its potential for developing creative projects from inspiring visions.
The FutureLab is a “Lab” as its format is experimental. The event aims at involving participants to a degree going beyond conventional conferences based on passive listening. But the best way to involve participants in a informing, interactive and constructive way still needs to be identified. In the first FutureLab the combination of five formats was tested: keynote speaker presentations, “fish bowl” discussions, workshops, “elevator pitch” project fair and open spaces. Additionally there was plenty of time for discussing with participants and guests during coffee, lunch and cake breaks.
My favorite input format was the “fish bowl” discussion. We put five chairs in the middle of a large circle of chairs and defined the topic of the”round panel discussion” by asking a question like: “How could sustainable lifestyle look like in 2020?”. The people sitting in the middle could speak out and discuss about the topic. To allow everyone to participate in the discussion, one of the inner chairs was always left empty to allow new people joining. It worked in a wonderful way!
To end this introduction to the FutureLab greatly, listen to the outcomes of the first FutureLab on the interview done with Harriet Jackson, just finishing her term as president of oikos international 2011 and being one of the main organizers of the Future Lab just taken at the end of two restless days.
Student ReporterLaura Burger Chakraborty from the International Environment House in Geneva where two short documentaries were screened, “When the Water Ends” and Carbon for Water, which focus on the subject of health, lack of clean water and climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa, Friday 28 October.
The United Nations launched a large Millennium Campaign in 2000. Eight goals were chosen to improve dramatically the state of the world by the year 2015. Today, increasingly more people have a sceptical view on this campaign. Four years are left, but the chances that any of the goals is met are very low.
The question is: can these goals at all be met if they are considered separate from each other? Can you end poverty without ensuring a healthy environment? Can you ensure child health if you do not provide universal education? The Millennium Development Goals contain per se a conceptual flaw that will stand against the success of the campaign. How easy would it be if the world could be understood in separated concepts. But instead, it is a complex nexus of living beings, natural environments and processes. And all are interlinked. Who fails to consider it as a whole may improve one end but worsen the other end, and ultimately won’t make any change.
The Carbon for Water campaign launched by Vestergaard Frandsen is said to impact four Millennium Development Goals: reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat diseases, and ensure environmental sustainability. Health aspects are achieved through the distributed Lifestraw Family filters, that remove 99.99% of bacteria and viruses from the water. Environmental sustainability is achieved through the carbon emission reduction, which is a small contribution to mitigate carbon emissions and combat climate change.
The emission reduction achieved by the campaign and the legitimacy of such a campaign for getting carbon credits are however strongly debated. The main critic raised by Kevin Starr amongst others is that the majority of the Kenyan population actually does not boil the water before drinking it. The emission reductions are therefore not realized. Worse, the project is part of a system that encourages polluters to pollute. According to Shiney Varghese: “Carbon trading has emerged as a response to our refusal to cut down or reduce actual emissions. Instead it is a mechanism to provide emitters with a cheaper option: continue with emissions by buying permits to pollute rather than incur costs to replace the GHG [Greenhouse gas]-emitting technology with better options. ”
Moreover, the production of the filters remains in the hands of the North. There is no intention to shift it to Africa. Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen, CEO of Vestergaard Frandsen, is convinced that keeping the production local would not add much value to the project, whose impact on the community regarding employment and health is already high. But what about the additional carbon emissions due to the transport of the filters and maintenance pieces? And isn’t it more sustainable to localize the production of a good and transfer the know-how to the people who will eventually be the end users?
Nevertheless, even the opponents to the project acknowledge the fact that water related health issues have to be addressed and that filters can be a solution. “There is no doubt that technologies like LifeStraw may be necessary (and much better than, say, bottled water) in water-stressed situations, or emergencies such as floods” writes Shiney Varghese, while Kevin Starr says that the LifeStraw filter is very effective.
So which goal should be given priority? Better to provide health tools at the cost of the environment or to save the environment while renouncing to distribute the filters? There is no answer, as it is a question of the time scale. In the short-term, health is a priority. Who thinks about the future if one’s days are counted? But in the long-term, African people will be some of the most vulnerable to climate change. Therefore, let us not choose one goal over the others. If we want to bring a change, we must tackle all of them simultaneously.
Student ReporterLaura Burger Chakraborty from the International Environment House in Geneva where two short documentaries were screened, “When the Water Ends” and Carbon for Water, which focus on the subject of health, lack of clean water and climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa, Friday 28 October. Includes an interview with the CEO of Vestergaard Frandsen a venture that states to create life-saving products for the most vulnerable.
“We are the 99%”. This is called out at the major financial hubs around the world – from the Wall Street in New York to the Paradeplatz in Zurich, occupied by people who are concerned about and unsatisfied with our economic system, ruled by institutions that control most of the wealth of the world. But what are the alternatives? How can money, business and profit be re-defined to be more equally shared?
The strategy followed by Vestergaard Frandsen could be an option. Following what it calls as “profit for a purpose” the company donated water filters to 90% of the households in the Western Province of Kenya. Is this charity or an economically sound approach? It is not that clear at a first glance. The use of filter is expected to trigger a behavioural change in the population: instead of boiling the water using wood fuels, Kenyans now will only need to filter it. This change – if it happens – will produce a reduction in carbon emissions of 2million tons carbon per year. Thanks to this reduction, Vestergaard Frandsen will receive carbon credits from the Voluntary Gold Standard, a certification standard for voluntary emission reductions. These credits can then be sold on the carbon market. Vestergaard Frandsen’s whole investment was USD 25million. The return will be defined by the carbon market price.
The company will get its share of profit – else, why should it engage into such a campaign? But through this action, thousands of people have now access of water filters. In spite of the critics raised about the financing of the project, this achievement is not to be underestimated, considering the death toll caused by water-related diseases specially in developing countries.
Malicious gossips might pretend that the project is just a long-term marketing campaign. Indeed, if the project runs successfully, at the time of its end, the filters will be fully implanted in the Kenyan lifestyle. In case Vestergaard Frandsen suddenly charges for the filters, it will look at an even greater profit. To this question during the interview Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen, CEO of Vestergaard Frandsen is categorical: “hopefully, by the end of the project, the Kenyan government will be able to provide every house with safe water. Else, Vestergaard Frandsen will renew its commitment for another 10 years.” Safe drinking water is a basic human right. Are they in Kenya to charge for it? Certainly not.
What is Shared Value? Is this value measurable, and how do you convince business to pursue Shared Value in addition to profit? Find out about the roles of family businesses, how businesses can combine growth with shared value, and why leadership by example is so important with Marc Pfitzer, Managing Director of the Geneva Office of FSG Social Impact Consultants and Harriet Jackson, President oikos International.
Check out Creating Shared Value article in the Harvard Business Review January 2011 (link: http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value) for more background information.
Lea Fuenfschilling, doctoral student at EAWAG Aquatic Research Institute Zurich, and participant at the 1st oikos Young Scholars Organizations Academy on Culture and Sustainability interviews Jennifer Howard-Grenville. Jennifer recently became Associate Professor of Management at the University of Oregon and since her PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology she has conducted research at the intersection of the environment and corporate strategy and change.
Jost Hamschmidt, academic director oikos Foundation chats with Trexler Proffitt during the 1st oikos Young Scholars Organizations Academy. Trexler has gone through top US research schools, today he is an Assistant Professor at Franklin and Marshall College, runs a few ventures, and loves teaching students.
Bryan Gallagher, doctoral candidate at Simon Fraser University and participant at the first oikos Young Scholars Organizations Academy in Appenzell, Switzerland interviews Davide Ravasi. Davide is an Associate Professor of Management at Bocconi University, associate editor of the Journal of Management Studies, and a member of the editorial board of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, and Strategic Organization.
Kim Poldner, oikos PhD Fellow, participates at the Eeastern Academy of Management in Bangalore 2011 and chats with Professor James A.F. Stoner about his passion to change business schools to further global sustainability.
Liudmila Nazarkina, oikos PhD Fellow at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland, and Raja Singaram, doctoral candidate at the University of Twente in the Netherlands are in Filzbach, Switzerland at the oikos Young Scholars Entrepreneurship Academy for researchers in the field of cleantech entrepreneurship, finance and policy. Their guest is Dr. Itai Sened, Professor of Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis. Prof. Sened is the Director of the Center for New Institutional Social Science. He is carrying the legacy of Douglass North, co-recipient of the 1993 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
Liudmila Nazarkina, editor of the oikos case quarterly and oikos PhD Fellow at St Gallen University explores how sustainability can be taught with cases. Her guest is Michael Russo, the Charles H. Lundquist Professor of Sustainable Management at the University of Oregon. Michael is an author of several cases on mission-driven companies, including an oikos winning case on Seventh Generation. Michael is also a noted researcher and an author of an award-winning book published in 2010 and titled “Companies on a Mission: Entrepreneurial Strategies for Growing Sustainably, Responsibly, and Profitably”.
Laura Burger reports from the International Environment House in Geneva where two short documentaries were screened, “When the Water Ends” and Carbon for Water, which focus on the subject of health, lack of clean water and climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa, Friday 28 October. Includes an interview with the CEO of Vestergaard Frandsen a venture » read on […]
Laura Burger reports from the International Environment House in Geneva where two short documentaries were screened, “When the Water Ends” and Carbon for Water, which focus on the subject of health, lack of clean water and climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa, Friday 28 October. The United Nations launched a large Millennium Campaign in 2000. Eight » read on […]
Recent Comments