ICE for your cell phone

A friend sent me this today, and it seems like a good idea worth passing on:

The "ICE" Idea - Public Information Service

The idea was thought up by a paramedic who found that when they went to the scenes of accidents, there were often mobile phones with patients, but they didn't know which numbers to call. He therefore thought that it would be a good idea if there was a nationally recognized name to file "next of kin" under. Following a disaster in London, The East Anglican Ambulance Service has launched a national "In case of Emergency (ICE)" campaign.

The idea is that you store the word "ICE " in your mobile phone address book, and with it enter the number of the person you would want to be contacted "In Case of Emergency". In an emergency situation, Emergency Services personnel and hospital staff would then be able to quickly contact your next of kin, by simply dialing the number programmed under "ICE". For more than one contact name simply enter ICE1, ICE2, ICE3 etc.

Raising the Bar

We've got a fun assignment this week: Reading Raising the Bar, by Gary Erickson, founder of Clif Bar and Co. And it's an assignment for my finance class. Is that cool or what?

The book is subtitled "Integrity and Passion in Life and Business," and is a mix of Gary's personal story and the company story of Clif Bar. He's a fascinating guy-- one of those hard-core adventure enthusiasts who has climbed mountains the world over, done bike treks through Europe, and generally sucked the marrow from life. He loves food, wine, good company, living light, and trying new things. Like starting an energy bar company, for instance.

It's a very old theme, but Erickson employs it pretty well: Using the "path" and "sports" analogies for business. He devotes much time to explaining the difference between the "Red Road"-- the straight-line, profit-focused behavior of average companies-- and the "White Road"-- the more whimsical path of companies like Clif Bar. It's about enjoying the journey, not just driving for the destination. You get the picture. He also gives sports analogies like not training too hard, but still staying in shape as a reference to companies' alternation of expansion and internal reflection. Go all out, but take a break now and then.

A central theme is his decision NOT to sell the company in 2000, just moments before he signed the dotted line. We don't find out the mystery suitor, but we find out lots about Gary's personal vision for Clif Bar and why he just couldn't sell it despite the reward of $60 million for doing so. This, by the way, is why the book is appropriate for our finance class-- there is lots of information (presented in plain English) about Gary's options for financing the company, and why he made the choices he did. It's not an easy game getting the funds needed to run a company: Debt or equity are the only options and both have a bitter side. Gary has actually managed to keep Clif Bar 100% private and nearly self-financed, starting with a few thousand of his own money. That alone is worth a deep bow of respect.

The book has a wandering, blog-like style, very much the "white road" that Erickson glorifies (and personifies). I'd love to meet him, actually.

On a personal note, my buying behavior matches well with the book. I loved Clif Bars when they came out in the mid-90s exactly because they were a tastier alternative to PowerBars (the poor taste of which were Gary's "epiphany" that led him to start the company). But something happened around 1999-2000, and I thought Clif Bars didn't taste very good. Many alternatives were available then, and I barely bothered with Clif (I think I mostly ate Balance Bars). Then things got better a few years ago, and I especially noticed that Clif bars contained organic ingredients and NO high-fructose corn syrup or sugar. Plus, the taste was improved! I am now a devoted Clif and Luna consumer.

This parallels the company's path. 1999-2000 was around the time everything was blowing up. Gary thought he would sell, and then when he didn't, he had problems with his partner and had to seek emergency funding to be able to buy her out. He neglected running the company, and it took a couple years to straighten things out. Finally, in 2003, the company switched to organic ingredients and started to get its act together again. This is about the time I started buying again. It's as if I somehow sensed the "mojo" of Clif and was repelled during those dark years.

One more note: When Clif Bar was about to launch the Luna product line (bars targeted specifically to the preferences of women), they were told that they were insane to forgo half their market (men). Clif projected sales of $1.5 million for the first year of Luna. In reality, they did $10 million, and it wasn't long before Luna bars brought in MORE revenue than standard Clif bars. Notice that no one criticizes companies for forgoing half their market (women) when they explicitly make products for 18-29-year-old men. When will people realize that women control a LOT of money in this economy, and we are not a "niche market"?

Rock on, Clif. I am a loyal customer.

How good is good enough?

Tonight we had a great guest lecture and discussion forum from Joel Makower, a leading sustainability consultant and pundit extraodinaire. His theme was "How good is good enough?", meaning the complex issue of deciding what is reasonable "progress" for companies to be making regards the challenges of sustaining our planet.

What I can say about Joel is that his eloquence far exceeds good enough. His speech is peppered with little puns and dry witticisms that remind us not to get stuck in conventional thinking.

For instance: "The environment is way too important to be left to environmentalists." He heartily discouraged BGI students from taking employment in the "Environment" department of companies-- a sure route to marginalization and containment.

And then there's this one: "Sustainability is like teenage sex. Everyone says they're doing it, but in reality few people really are-- and no one really knows what the real thing looks like!" Kinda speaks for itself.

But anyway, the question about how good is good enough. Here's the challenge: As companies begin to figure out how to be "green," they often start with small, nearly inconsequential changes. By taking that first baby step, they open themselves to criticism of "greenwashing," and angry demands that they do much more.

For instance, Levi Strauss, at one time the largest purchaser of cotton in the United States, decided to begin sourcing 2% of its cotton organically. Even this amount was difficult because at that time the organic supply chain was unreliable in terms of both quantity and quality. Levi Strauss couldn't obtain more organic cotton within its internal quality standards.

Makower heard about the 2% and wanted to interview them about it. They said they didn't want to talk about it. After much wrangling, he got an interview with the right person, and the first thing he asked was why they didn't want to talk about it.

The answer was fear. Levi Strauss imagined people going ballistic: "You are sourcing 2% of cotton organically? Why not 5% Or 10%? In fact, we're going to boycott Levi Strauss until you guys can do 10%! As it stands, 98% of your jeans are still made with cotton that is poisoning the world!!!!!!" (Cotton is one of the most heavily pesticide-laden crops in the world).

As much as they wanted to, they couldn't source 10% or more of their cotton organically. And even if they could, it might be very expensive. Time was needed to develop the organic cotton market -- to bring it up to the quality standards of global corporations and to gain economies of scale such that prices started coming down.

However, that is not to say that all big corporations have their heart in the right place and are simply limited by market challenges or source limits. Some really just want to greenwash, spending far more money on marketing and creating glossy CSR (coroporate social responsibility) reports than on actually doing anything helpful. We need ways to distinguish those with good intentions from those without, and even among those with good intentions, we need some criteria for who is actually following those intentions with tangible actions.

There is room for a wide range of views here. Some of my BGI classmates are quite radical about this issue, wanting to "force" companies to act more responsibly regardless of the bottom line or any considerations that change takes time.

At this time, I find myself less radical. Changing something as large as a global corporation (or even a medium-sized enterprise) is not as simple as flipping a switch. This is obvious from my own personal changes. I am just one human, and yet, it has taken a lot of effort and not insignificant time to alter some of my habits, such as the habit of apologizing too easily. Has anyone reading this blog ever been on a diet, or tried to stop drinking coffee, or attempted to be more patient when talking to their parents? It's not so easy, is it. Now ask Boeing to alter decades of corporate habit in its operational procedures. I am willing to reward and encourage even small changes, so that they don't get discouraged and stop. (The carrot approach).

On the other hand, I understand and appreciate the need for radical goals, and for pushing pretty hard in order to get the momentum going. You have to have the big vision in order to inspire the big changes and maintain the energy to keep improving even when it's hard. This may mean no longer supporting changes that are only incremental. For instance, the feminist movement has been applying pressure to the male-dominated world of business for decades now. How long must women wait for executives to start walking their talk? So I appreciate radical environmentalists for not letting anyone forget the Big Vision or settle for small gains. (The stick approach).

How good is good enough? Probably the answer is different for each company.

Haiku Iraq

A friend commented recently that he could hardly think of any people he knew who were completely untouched by the war in Iraq. Nearly everyone knows someone directly who is serving/stationed there, or is just one step removed (a friend or coworker has a loved one serving). You may be surprised to learn that even a liberal, eco-green school like BGI is directly affected: One of our students is with the U.S. Embassy, Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, and is currently stationed in Baghdad.

We just had our classes up at Bainbridge Island this weekend, and one thing we do each day is begin with a circle where the whole school is together to start the day off. Our missing colleague drew a circle in the sand in Iraq so that he could stand with us. And in turn, we used a small camcorder to capture our circle digitally (a guy walked around the inside, filming the row of people as we waved). We sent him the film, which touched his heart. And he posted his picture of the sand circle on his blog, along with a poem.

It's a great blog, by the way: http://haikuiraq.blogspot.com/. The poems are incredibly beautiful. We are all touched by this war.

Katie Dolan

I want to dedicate this post to remembering a pioneer in the quest to gain acceptance and educational opportunities for autistic people: Katie Dolan. She lived in Seattle, raising an autistic son, and was appalled that he was rejected from the public school system for his difference. Thus began a political campaign-- something not especially suited to her character-- that resulted in progressive laws recognizing the rights of autistic people.

Katie Dolan also founded the Autism Society of Washington, and is featured in a book by Susan Schwartzenberg called Becoming Citizens: Family Life and the Politics of Disability.

She passed away this weekend of heart failure.