http://www.climateculture.com/

The twist here is that if you don’t stick to your pledge, you have to donate money to your chosen charity.

http://www.pledgehammer.com

We considered how companies might identify effective action and could see that there may well be a need for a company representative to act as games master. They’d be responsible for coordinating action between general staff, facilities engineers and management, and help work out how effective a given action might be.

We considered the following scenario – it may be an extreme case, but the principles are widely applicable.

• A staff member puts up the idea to ‘stop using the company jet’. Surprise surprise, it proves popular with the majority of the staff. It’s going to save a lot of carbon emissions, so on the face of it it looks like effective action and should be endorsed.

• The games master takes this idea to the people who are directly affected by this action and a few of the jet users agree, yes this is a good idea and are happy to sign up to this pledge for 3 months for example. So far, so good.

• The games master talks to the accounts department and they provide a breakdown of costs of running and using the jet – this thing costs a lot of money to use – no surprise there.

• Then the games master works out the carbon emissions for using the jet using one of the many available carbon calculators.

• However, when the games master talks to the Client Services Manager, it transpires that the company’s most lucrative client really likes been flown around in the jet and they see a significant risk to the relationship if the jet is ditched. So, although the action is effective in reducing the carbon footprint and it has significant purchase among the staff, there’s a big risk at stake if the action is adopted company-wide.

The point isn’t that the crazy people needing in-flight entertainment are wrecking the world, it’s that problems are more complex than they may first appear. Until you understand all the variables in play, you can’t make an informed decision. Does that mean that we should restrict idea submissions only from those who are directly affected by an action, the ones who are informed? For example, if I don’t use the jet, should I be able to put forward a motion to stop using it? It’s a moot point, but in the above example crowd-sourcing the idea led to a discussion about usage, an awareness of the role the jet plays for the company and maybe some reduction in it’s use. It all sounds like positive change…

What else might a company gain by using Footsie? In an ideal world, a company actively listens to its employees and understands that frontline staff have a unique and informed understanding of the problems they face and some possible solutions. In the real world, a forum that facilitates this can be difficult to organise – yet another meeting where the same old personalities dominate will have limited appeal to the group. A process that allows ideas to bubble through in a democratic manner and bypass office politics may well be a welcome and refreshing approach that could bring real value to any group. However, the key to its success lies in the ideas being evaluated seriously. If staff realise their efforts are ignored, then it’s bound to fail. If they are taken seriously, then staff are going to feel valued and see that their voice really can make a difference. That’s got to be good for everyone – once we feel we’re being listened to, we’re going to feel more inclined to do it again, and perhaps more boldly.

I may well be being naive, but I also wonder if lots of small changes add up to big changes? When we were on the train from Brighton to London to present Footsie to SiCamp, we passed through East Croydon. We went past numerous office blocks that had all the lights on, on every floor even though they were completely empty. A large proportion of computers and printers were still on too probably, likewise the heating. This is a real problem and it begs the question ‘why are all the lights on every night?’ Is it company policy – we have to keep all the lights on to advertise our company, to show that we’re a player? Or is it an effect due to not having a policy? As individuals, our personal awareness may tell us to turn off our own computers, but it doesn’t extend to the printer nearby (someone else might want to use it after we’ve left) and it certainly doesn’t extend to turning off the lights on the whole floor. Consider this simple two-rule policy:

• turn off all the devices and lights that directly effect you whenever you leave

• if you’re the last one leaving your dept/room/floor, turn off the lights

It’s likely that there would be security and personal safety issues to resolve, but the instructions are simple enough that I think most companies could adopt a version of it. I think I must be missing something as I find myself reiterating the question, ‘why are all the lights on every night?’

However, I have to say that I don’t think that significantly reducing the carbon footprint for larger companies is as simple as you make out; as it’s much more influenced by better management of building services (heating/ventilation and cooling control), so it’s much more influenced by facilities engineers than by the behaviour of general staff members.

Individual responsibility and behaviour change does still play a key part, but the actions suggested need to be targeted actions which will significantly reduce energy use in buildings. I don’t know if you’ve come across CIBSE (the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers), but they run a ’100 hours of Carbon Clean Up Campaign’, with suggested activities designed by sustainability / building services management consultants. http://www.cibse.org/index.cfm?go=page.view&item=1102 Their campaign obviously doesn’t have the staff interaction that yours does, however.

I suppose what I’m trying to say (from my point of view as an Environmental Consultant specialising in resource efficiency), is that you need to first identify the actions that really will make a difference. The level of staff involvement won’t alter the fact that a insignificant action was chosen in the first place. Campaigns which target less effectual actions can switch the attention (and staff energy and involvement) away from much more pressing concerns. I speak from personal experience – it’s really frustrating visiting companies to find out that they’ve focused on ineffectual actions, while ignoring the huge potential energy savings that are staring them in the face. Furthermore, ineffectual actions can then backfire, when projected savings aren’t made, and staff become disillusioned in the whole process.

As I say, I’ll be very interested to see how you make this game-like, as that’s something we’d really like to do with EasyEthical, too, to encourage people to contribute more research.

The Greener Living Fund will help voluntary organisations promote positive environmental changes to individuals and communities, helping them reduce their carbon footprints, make greener lifestyle choices and find new ways to rely less on our natural resources.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/081103b.htm