Green Futures
Ambition is a wonderful thing.
Over the years, many companies and organisations have published environmental
reports in which the word 'ambition' features prominently.
In some cases, it's vague to the point of meaningless: “Our long term ambition
is to be wholly sustainable in every aspect of our business”… In the long term we
are, as Keynes put it, all dead. So an unspecified long term goal hardly
stretches current management. Others proudly characterise as “ambitious” targets which
are about as challenging as a pussycat. A useful rule of thumb is to compare any
goal with the equivalent government one. If you're not exceeding it, you're
hardly being ambitious… There's no shame in missing a target – indeed, doing so can
sometimes bring valuable lessons.
So how do FDF rate? On the whole, I think it comes out extremely well. The goals
are nicely specific, and, in some cases, genuinely ambitious. Take that of
sending zero food/packaging waste to landfill. On the surface, it doesn't sound that
exciting. But by setting – and sticking to - that magic number 'zero', it should
play a useful part in driving better recycling provision. I'm pleased as well to
see a water target. When we waste water, we also waste energy…
My one small quibble is whether the wording is quite robust enough to really
focus the attention of hard pressed managers. At the top of the five-fold list is
the phrase: “Our members aspire to achieve the following goals”. Now an
aspiration, as all politicians know, is well short of a target. And in the otherwise
impressive 2020 carbon goal, there's a further qualification in the phrase “strive
towards a 30% reduction”… Put the two together, and you have FDF members
“aspiring to achieve the goal of striving towards” a 30% cut.
Which is still admirable, of course – but wouldn't it be better to strip away
what could unfairly strike a cynic as ever-so-slightly weasel words - and just set
a good old honest target, pure and simple – and then see what happens?
Martin Wright, Editor in Chief, Green Futures, Forum for the Future
top
More Information
Last reviewed: 07 Dec 2009