Strategy

Le pilotage stratégique du développement durable (2e partie)

| simon_robert

Voici l’introduction d’un essai universitaire que j’avais produit sur le sujet il y a quelques années :

Devant la forte tendance à l’intégration du développement durable dans les entreprises, les dirigeants sont de plus en plus confrontés à ce concept souvent large pouvant être intégré dans tous les secteurs de leurs organisations. Concept à la formulation simple « un développement qui répond aux besoins du présent sans compromettre la capacité des générations futures de répondre aux leurs », l’application du développement durable peut facilement devenir un cauchemar pour les gestionnaires. Dans cette optique, l’approche de la planification stratégique du développement durable dans les entreprises présente un cadre méthodologique cohérent visant l’opérationnalisation du concept tout en assurant un alignement stratégique performant. La dichotomie entre « faire les choses bien » et « faire les bonnes choses » est une réalité quotidienne pour les gestionnaires. L’approche du tableau de bord prospectif et de la carte stratégique est un outil efficace dans l’amélioration de notre performance et donne au gestionnaire les outils afin de pouvoir concrètement déterminer « s’il fait bien les choses » et « s’il fait les bonnes choses ».

Dans un même ordre d’idées, du côté des conseils d’administration, une étude de Fortune démontre que la majorité des administrateurs et de la haute direction croient que l’information non financière leur est essentielle afin d’assurer une pérennité de leurs opérations. Toutefois, ces mêmes dirigeants trouvent, pour la plupart, que ce type d’information est inexistante, ou, quand elle est disponible, de faible qualité. (Deloitte, 2004)

Même si les entreprises sont conscientes du risque de mettre l’emphase seulement sur des indicateurs financiers, leurs compétences et leurs connaissances dans la mesure d’indicateurs extra financiers semble inadéquates. Ces entreprises soit n’ont pas, ou ne partagent pas l’information extra financière critique avec leur conseil d’administration. (Deloitte, 2007)

L’approche purement financière de gestion des entreprises n’est plus suffisante pour assurer une rentabilité financière. Les enjeux environnementaux et sociaux liés aux pressions des parties prenantes et à la législation font en sorte que la vision d’une entreprise ne doit plus être celle d’une machine bien huilée mais bien comme une entité vivante évoluant dans un écosystème changeant.

Les systèmes de mesures traditionnels sont généralement axés sur la performance annuelle à court terme en fonction de critères d’évaluation financiers. Ces mesures de la performance ne tiennent pas compte de facteurs intangibles importants comme la valeur de la marque, la satisfaction des clients, la mobilisation des employés, la capacité à innover et la qualité des processus. Les mesures extra financières ont un lien bien plus fondamental avec la vision de l’entreprise. La pénétration d’un nouveau créneau de marché peut constituer, par exemple, un objectif stratégique important qui s’aligne avec la vision, mais en même temps freiner la performance financière à court terme. En associant aux mesures comptables des données extra financières sur la performance et la mise en œuvre des plans stratégiques, les entreprises peuvent propager et communiquer leur vision et inciter les cadres à s’intéresser à la stratégie à long terme et en faire un processus quotidien. (Abdelhaq, 2008) Les facteurs extra financiers ont un impact considérable sur le succès d’une entreprise.(Baetge, 2006)

L’engagement des entreprises envers le développement durable consiste à conjuguer performance et responsabilité. Dès lors, les entreprises doivent mesurer leurs progrès à partir d’une performance globale et systémique incluant, en dehors de la dimension économique, des dimensions sociale et environnementale. (Berland, 2007) Aujourd’hui, la difficulté des entreprises réside dans la mesure des interactions entre les différentes dimensions du développement durable et leur lien avec la performance. Cette notion est centrale en sciences de gestion. Depuis les années 80, de nombreux chercheurs se sont attachés à la définir (Bouquin, 1986 ; Bescos et al.1993 ; Bourguignon, 1995 ; Lebas, 1995 ; Bessire, 1999 …) et plus récemment cette notion est mobilisée dans la littérature managériale pour évaluer la mise en oeuvre par l’entreprise des stratégies de développement durable (Capron et Quairel, 2005). (Berland, 2007)

Les gestionnaires font face à une prolifération des systèmes de gestion. Les normes internationales telles qu’ISO 9000 sur la qualité, ISO 14 000 sur l’environnement, les normes de santé, de sécurité, d’hygiène, les normes de reporting tel que le GRI viennent s’additionnées pour créer une agglomération complexe de systèmes qui tentent de s’associer afin de créer un ensemble cohérent.

Toutefois, l’impact réel de ces outils est faible tel que démontré dans les recherches de l’ IWOe-HSG (Dyllick and Hamschmidt 2000). Cette étude démontre que la durabilité environnementale reste largement séparée des stratégies principales de l’entreprise et de son système de gestion principal qui sont orientés exclusivement vers des indicateurs de performance financière. (Bieker-Dyllick-Gminder-Hockerts, 2001) Devant cette dichotomie, les dirigeants se basent sur leur compréhension intuitive de la performance organisationnelle pour formuler la stratégie. Par conséquent, plusieurs ensembles d’indicateurs opérationnels utilisés par les entreprises n’ont pas de liens identifiés entre eux et avec les résultats financiers. (Boisvert, 2007) Approcher le développement durable par la seule évaluation (rationalité évaluative), en fixant une grille d’indicateurs de développement durable n’a aucun effet si ces indicateurs ne sont pas rattachés à la réflexion stratégique et donc à la hiérarchisation des priorités (rationalité substantive) et à la mise en œuvre concrète des décisions (rationalité procédurale). (Brodhag et coll, 2004)

Ceci nous amène à nous demander qu’elle serait la meilleure méthode afin de répondre à ces enjeux systémiques de la performance globale des entreprises. Devant la panoplie d’outils se développant au nom du développement durable et la foule de consultant en ce domaine, il devient difficile, pour les dirigeants d’entreprise de déterminer la ressource qui lui permettra d’accroître sa performance globale dans un contexte de responsabilité sociétale et de développement durable.

Disruptive innovation or a pathway to strategic sustainability (part 1)

| simon_robert

I’ve been reading a lot lately. My everyday job is change. I need to tell people that what they’ve been doing for the past 20, 30 , 40 years is just not enough anymore… But how can I do that without offending them? (yes I know, politeness, Socrate’s approach of asking questions, etc… but that’s not the point of this post)

The real question is how do I bring « change » to become the next status quo? A paradox you say? Well… kinda, but the idea is there. So I’ve been, reading about change, innovation, continuous improvement, creativity, business developpement and obviously sustainability and CSR. You can read my twitter feed (@simon_robert) if you’re interested. 

That’s how I found the concept of « disruptive innovation ». Here are the basics:

Here’s what Wikipedia says:

A disruptive technology or disruptive innovation is an innovation that disrupts an existing market. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers.

In contrast to « disruptive » innovation, a « sustaining » innovation does not have an effect on existing markets. Sustaining innovations may be either « discontinuous »[1] (i.e. « transformational ») or « continuous » (i.e. « evolutionary »). Transformational innovations are not always disruptive. Although the automobile was a transformational innovation, it was not a disruptive innovation, because early automobiles were expensive luxury items that did not disrupt the market for horse-drawn vehicles. The market for transportation essentially remained intact until the debut of the lower priced Ford Model T in 1908 by making higher speed, motorized transportation available to the masses.[2]

The « founder » of this terms describes it as such on his website:

Disruptive innovation, a term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves ‘up market’, eventually displacing established competitors. 

Here’s my point: sustainability is to management what the digital camera was to traditionnal films. What we are living, in the management world, is disruptive innovation on a large scale and at a fundamental level.

Here is a quote from a Thesis on the subject by Christian G. Sandström (2010):

Disruptive innovation can therefore be regarded as a business model challenge in the sense that the new value creation and distribution distorts the firm’s surrounding constellation of actors. Firms need to change their network, but struggle to do so since business models transcend their boundaries and they are therefore forced to act under conditions of interdependence.

Sandström also states that organizations must be regarded as open systems. Here is a bit more from this thesis:

Weill and Vitale (2001) argued that there are three important dimensions of a business model: the participants, the relationships and the flows that connect these participants. Other scholars have also pointed out the boundary spanning nature of business models and that this concept addresses how and why value is created and distributed in a network (Akkermans, 2001). Based on the above, it can be concluded that business models are generally concerned with how firms create and appropriate value by interacting with their environment. Hence, value and networks can be thought of as two important components of the business model concept. These two notions are therefore briefly described in the coming two sub-sections.

It is argued that too much focus has been put on performance dimensions rather than value and utility.

If you’re a sustainability « nerd » like myself, I strongly urge you to read this thesis since it talks a lot about change management and the fact that some strategies can be « competence-destroying » and thus increases the resistance from some sectors or employees. Furthermore, it enlarges the boundaries of the organisation to encompass outside stakeholders.

I’ll probably write more on the subject this summer.

 

Brand, marketing and social acceptability

| simon_robert

I’ve been reading a lot lately about brand and marketing. About the foremost reason why CEOs will start CSR or sustainability strategies. They often say that it is an image issue or a marketing issue. I believe they are right but that the level is wrong. We should ask: « why do we NEED a sustainable brand »? The answers could be stakeholder or shareholder approval as a really broad statement. But when you come down to the basis of it, it’s about social or societal acceptability. We should ask questions like « what is our brand », « why should it change », « what are the risks of not changing », « what are the opportunities of changing ». But the most important question in any case would be « how do I change my business to be able to change my brand ». In todays fast moving environment, we need to walk the talk. If you ask your marketing team to start a social acceptability campain but you don’t change anything, you’re in for a boatload of problems. The first hypothesis I make here is that some of your stakeholders find you or your product unnacceptable or else you wouldn’t need this campain. Well if you’re trying to paint yourself blue but you’re really red, your stakeholders could be insulted that you’re trying to convince them that red is blue… And you don’t need someone like me saying that a reputation can be destroyed fairly quickly.
So beware of people selling your business marketing-based societal acceptability campains. Your perceived gains can be high, your risks are gigantic. And even if it works, your stakeholders will eventually see through the fact that you’re still the same old business that hasen’t really taken into account their preoccupations. THEN, you’ll need help. And it’s going to cost you a lot more.

The triple bottom line dilemma

| simon_robert

The New York Times recently released an online article intitled: « To Be Good Citizens, Report Says, Companies Should Just Focus on Bottom Line ». I suggest you read it since it has many interesting facts.

I’m always in the middle of discussions between professionnals who talk about the importance of KPIs and the tripple bottom line. On the other hand, and to some in this article, the social responsibility of business is to make profits as stated by Friedman. Well to surprise a few, I would have to agree with Friedman…

Obviously, I couldn’t go and argument on the article he made in the 70’s since I’m myself propably going to have matured in the next couple of years and be able to improve what I’m writting these days. So I can’t argument on a statement made 40some years ago.

I would like to start on the premise that the societal responsibility of business is to make profit. But what is profit? Seems like a pretty stupid question, I agree. But bear with me a bit. Why was money invented? Here is what Wikipedia tells us about money:

Money is any object or record, that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context.[1][2][3] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment.[4][5] Any kind of object or secure verifiable record that fulfills these functions can serve as money.

But the question was: what is Profit?

In economics, the term profit has two related but distinct meanings. Normal profit represents the total opportunity costs (both explicit and implicit) of a venture to an entrepreneur or investor, whilst economic profit (also abnormal, pure, supernormal or excess profit, as the case may be monopoly or oligopoly profit, or simply profit) is, at least in the neoclassical microeconomic theory which dominates modern economics, the difference between a firm‘s total revenue and all costs, including normal profit.[1] In both instances economic profit is the return to an entrepreneur or a group of entrepreneurs. Economic profit is thus contrasted with economic interest which is the return to an owner of capital stock or money or bonds.

And thus I believe that the societal responsibility of business is to make profits, although the monetary aspect of it is suppose to be a translation of value creation between entities. I would not state that Creating Shared Value (CSV) surpases Sustainability as Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer present it in their Harvard Business review article. I would say that CSV is sustainability. One model among others. Although Porter and Kramer present it with their usual brilliance.

But lets keep this short enough. Money is the translation of value from one entity to the next. Profit is the gain that can be made when exchanging values between entities. This gain is depends on the perception of value by the entities. Thus if we consider money as a medium of value, a single bottom line is enough if we are able to translate externalities as well as direct gains in monetary terms. Utopian you say? Well Rio Tinto in its Social Risk Analysis tool gives a monetary value to its social acceptability. Althoug imperfect since it is a decision making tool, it is an example of what can and should be done.

If we don’t put monetary value on externalities, it as if if navigate in a troubled sea with no idea of where we are and what the weather will be…

Evidently, I don’t have the perfect solution to translate every externalities in monetary terms and thus have a single bottom line. I believe that the leadership of organizations is still responsible for that. We need, at this point, management tools that help our leaders create value (in a broad perspective). I don’t believe that we should report on these measures since they are not solid and can be challenged. I do believe we, as manager, need to take externalities into account so we can reduce risks, create opportunities and yes, make profits.

Wisdom beggets sustainability

| simon_robert

I was once faced with a difficult task…

I went to see a knowledgeable person. I was told every bit of information I needed to know. But still, no solution.
I went to see an intelligent person. I was given an algorithm to solve my problem but it was hard to grasp and I couldn’t quite link it to my organisations concrete issue.
I went to see a philosophical person. I was told which was the perfectly ethical thing to do but it went further then the specific issue at hand.
I went to see a wise person. I was told that since I had the knowledge, the intelligence and the philosophical grounding, I was probably the best person to answer my questions.

Wisdom beggets sustainability.

Le pilotage stratégique du développement durable

| simon_robert

Une démarche de développement durable pour des organisations passe nécessairement par un regard stratégique sur nos opérations. La difficulté d’opérationnalisation vient souvent du fait que la plupart des organisations sont formées de silos fonctionnels qui rendent les synergies stratégiques difficiles. De plus, cet exercice demande une réévaluation des outils de gestion afin de maximiser la cohérence de cette démarche et donc, optimiser notre retour sur investissement et éviter le piège de la démobilisation par une démarche inégale qui engendre des objectifs pouvant parfois être contradictoires.

Voici un lien vers une présentation que j’ai effectuée pour le réseau des conseillers en management du Québec (). C’est sous un format #prezi si cette nouvelle formule vous intéresse.

http://prezi.com/bperrrmucb5t/le-pilotage-strategique-du-developpement-durable/

http://prezi.com/bin/preziloader.swf

Le pilotage stratégique du développement durable on Prezi

 

Linear strategies are out!

| simon_robert

Foremost, the term « strategy » is overused.

If it doesn’t feel like a long term war being fought on multiple fronts and that you have to adjust or tweek details to make sure everything is working out, it’s not a strategy. It can be a pretty good projects which is strategically important… but not a strategy in itself. I say this because this tendancy to call every project a strategy brings its load of problems.

Someone recently asked me to explain the strategy I use at work. I had to pull a piece of paper out and draw my strategic map, I had to explain a bit the « Kaplan and Norton » model and say that I expand the « client perspective » to include all stakeholders. That being said the person told me that simple is better… I agree when it comes to « objectives », but not necessarily strategies. We live in a complex environment with many variables and this environment is filled with complicated people. Sustainability, or the « science » behind it comes from the understanding of that system and the ability to influence it for the greater good.

The persone then said, I want to know how to get from point A to point B. Also a valid question… If I’m physically going from somewhere to somewhere else. Humans don’t naturally « think » in a linear pattern. I believe our minds work more like « cloud computing ». That is why our subconscious is so important and why, when we take a break, we often find our solutions.

So we have this matrix comprised of complex and complicated things. Our understanding and our scheme of thoughts differ from one another and this reality is everchanging. Did I tell you that a Fortune study showed that only 10 % of strategies deliver the intended results? They probably show a simple way to get from point A to point B and don’t necessarily take into account its stakeholders.

Let me come back to my comment on the danger of everyone thinking that their projects are strategies. If those projects are thought as strategies, they take this place in the managers mind who, in turn, may not develop « real » strategies to win the war.

I’ll finish by saying that strategies are rarely, if ever, linear although their objectives might be and that they evolve in time. By evolution I mean that a 5 year strategy might be different from when first formulated if you have the correct KPIs and you made adjusments to adapt to your environment along the way.