Part one: Industrial development from linear to cyclical
from liberty-moonbeam.blogspot.com
Almost every society that has experienced rapid development or progress in wealth has done so through industrialization. (Industrialization: the process of automating the production of things in large quantities) However, at what cost has this been?
The rapid industrialization process has inevitably led to environmental degradation- both in running out of scarce natural resources and polluting the environment. However, can we change this?
It is interesting to see how companies are increasingly shifting from the “linear” way of thinking to the “cyclical” approach in designing a product. The difference lies in whether they consider the long-term pollutive effect of the item, from its raw materials to becoming a used good. In other words, products designed from a “cyclical” angle are perhaps recyclable, compared to those, which are rendered worthless after their useful product life.
from http://livingears.com/
There's a problem: Human beings (and private enterprises) don't care so much about the earth as they do about themselves.
It would be ideal if all companies took such an approach, as that would help us work towards sustainable development, where there is development and economic progress, yet not at the expense of future generations.
However, I doubt it is realistic to expect companies to want to switch to the “cyclical” approach soon. Process rigidities are present and private enterprises are more likely than not to want to maintain the status quo especially if current processes are bringing in high profits. They would only be likely to want to change if the return on investment is high- and guaranteed to be high.
Thus, the challenge I feel is to make it 1. More profitable to go green and 2. Establish such “green” practices to be profitable, so that risk is seen to be low, thus gradually persuading more companies to make the switch.
I feel that much of the job is then left into the hands of the government- it is the only body that has the capacity to take into account social costs and hopefully has the foresight to plan into the future. Compared to activism groups, they have far more funds to influence even the minds of self-centered private entities, through tax incentives and research and development grants. This all links back to the motivations of humans- that we discussed in our previous lesson. Money is perhaps the universal tool for such.
Another important driver of sustainability for the future is education: to teach and persuade consumers to go green, out of their own will. This means cultivating habits and mindsets in them to be more conscious of energy consumption and the environment. This may mean curbing extravagant consumption behavior or going out of one’s way to recycle items- of which are challenging tasks for societies which are increasingly affluent and used to living in comfort.
An important case in point is the rising middle class of China- increasingly affluent; they are able to keep up high consumption habits. Such habits will ultimately be detrimental to the environment. This is especially worrying due to the sheer size of the growing Chinese middle class. Thus it is imperative to ‘catch’ them before they develop undesirable environmentally harmful habits. This can be done through campaigns and movements. Perhaps the social make up of the Chinese may aid in this process, due to the focus on community spirit- if the community decides to do it, then perhaps masses of Chinese would do so too.
I wonder if we would ever be driven to desperate times where the government has to enforce strict rules and regulations on “green” standards. Currently, the Environmental Law in Singapore seems to be more of a balancing act- managing both economic progress and environmental sustainability. I predict that with time, if environmental issues become more severe, international bodies would pressure societies to tighten their Environmental regulations.
Or, can we make use of their "selfishness"?
We discussed that the smart way around it would be to sustainable development profitable. I shared that it could be a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" situation where developed and developing countries collaborate towards sustainable development. This would also address the ethical issue of whether developing countries need help protect the environment (since it was the developed countries who damaged it previously, and perhaps now it's only fair that they have their turn at rapid economic progress)
The transfer in skills and development in tech for developing countries would be valuable. Developed countries would be drawn to the cheap labour, land and other raw materials- along with the possibility of a new market in the future(who knows?)
Disclaimer: At the end of the day, it still boils down to the country's comparative advantage- or the potential to create the comparative advantage, in this case, green technology.
Part Two: Tech & Innovation Management
There are two different types of innovation: those that are purely driven by Technology, and those that are driven by Market Demand.
It makes quite a lot of sense to focus on those driven by Market Demand, as one would naturally have a customer base. For the former, one would have to take pains to create it-and risk failing as well.
However, what about the innovations that are Techonology-driven, yet are so good that create a market for themselves? What are some examples of these, and are there many of them? What is the common characteristic of such innovations, and in what field do most of them lie? Perhaps those innovations driven by technology are more successful in the Research & Development sector, where such intermediate innovations can further be used to supplement current innovations-which are still ultimately for market demand.
There was also an interesting presentation on Google Wave and how it failed, but also how it picked itself up. This highlights Google's commitment towards developing a culture conducive to innovation. In which sectors would it be more important to develop such a culture? Is there any sector of the economy that does not require innovation at all? Even then, is it both product and process innovation that is unnecessary?
Key Learning Points:
1. The ultimate self-interest in individuals, enterprises and even countries. This is important if we want to find a real solution to achieve sustainable development.
2. The importance of having the most conducive environment for innovation to take place, and the factors to effectively manage it.
No comments:
Post a Comment