Articles

When venture capitalists are more tolerant of failure, the successful companies in their portfolio tend to be more innovative.

In 2009, the business concerns with sustainability intersected with an urgent global economic crisis.

Many companies are taking the first incremental steps toward sustainability, such as energy conservation and recycling. That's a good start — but going further can yield significant competitive advantage.

Sustainability is the buzzword du jour, but how do you actually go about achieving it? Well, it’s clear there isn’t a one-size-fits-all strategy. Look at five companies, and you will see five different paths, each particular to a specific company’s market and problems. Take Nike Inc., whose brand is synonymous with cutting-edge design. Redesigning the athletic shoe to cut down on material became a core element of its approach to reducing waste. But what works for Nike might not exactly work for a company like start-up electric vehicle supplier Better PLC, LLC, which is rolling out electric car recharging stations. How does it pursue sustainability? By identifying the countries most receptive to its cutting-edge idea. General Electric Co. takes yet another approach, seeing sustainability not only as a cost-savings measure within the company (cut energy use, and emissions and costs go down) but also as a solution to sell to other companies–hence, its $17 billion ecomagination unit. Mining giant Rio Tinto, in turn, looks at it through a social lens, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sees sustainability as a challenge to revamp the practices of its more than 100,000 suppliers. In short, sustainability is less a target than an approach, which is why it is continually being refined. As companies ramp up understanding, they also push the envelope of what can be accomplished. Though it takes investment and commitment, the rewards are seen in cost savings, new products, customer engagement and employee commitment. In this way, sustainability becomes a competitive advantage.

MIT Sloan Management Review's Business of Sustainability survey and thought leaders interview project identified numerous management challenges presented by the new competitive landscape that sustainability pressures is creating. Perhaps the biggest challenge, though, is how to build the "business case" for investing in a sustainability-related project--even when you believe that the project addresses a significant opportunity. What do executives need to know about sustainability as a business proposition? Interviewee Amory Lovins, co-founder of Rocky Mountain Institute, co-author of Natural Capitalism Creating the Next Industrial Revolution and recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant," argues that executives labor under several pernicious misunderstandings about how sustainability affects business--the worst being that sustainability efforts have to cost a company, when in fact, says Lovins, they nearly always increase profits. How does one begin to build a persuasive business case for undertaking sustainability-related initiatives? Map your flows and costs of materials and energy, says Lovins; you will find fiscal "leaks" that can be fixed, with direct bottom-line benefits. He also points out numerous side benefits of sustainability-related efforts: gains in innovation, labor productivity and appeal as a collaboration partner. Those benefits, he argues, will exceed the direct ones.

Recent research explores the interdependencies between various approaches to innovation.

The irony: We know less about the sources of value in the economy than we did 25 years ago.

Successful innovation--the kind that leads to customer engagement and profits--is rare and hard to achieve, or so one might conclude from observing the results of many companies' innovation efforts. Some have tried investing intensively in research and development. But the author recently studied public companies representing almost 60% of global R&;D expenditures and found that above a certain minimal level, there is generally no correlation between R&;D spending and financial metrics such as sales or profit growth. For many companies, developing new products is hit-or-miss. But according to the author's research, successful innovation is not magical. It comes from careful attention to a small number of important criteria. The key question isn't how much to spend, but how to spend. The author introduces a "return on innovation investment," or ROI2, methodology that correlates directly with organic growth and links innovation spending with financial performance in ways that can lead decision makers to generate higher, more reliable returns on innovation and R&;D. The ROI2 approach is based on a series of innovation studies conducted during the past seven years with companies in the consumer products, health care and chemical industries. To become more effective, a company needs to diagnose its innovation practices and capabilities. The diagnosis can be quite different from one company to the next, and that is why adopting industry benchmarks doesn't work. The individual innovation profile represents the value and quality of a company's innovation portfolio and can be clearly expressed as an "innovation effectiveness curve." This curve lets companies plot annual spending on innovation projects against the financial returns from those projects--and "solve for growth."

The recent economic downturn has left many organizations in a quandary. Just several years ago, the major issue was winning the so-called "war for talent": how to attract, motivate and retain the best and the brightest. But then the current recession turned that thinking upside down. Now, many organizations are scrambling to figure out how best to restructure and cut costs without jeopardizing the valuable human capital that they built during the prior period of growth. To help such companies, the authors have developed a framework that integrates the seemingly paradoxical practices of talent management and downsizing. The framework looks at two important dimensions. The first is the type of downsizing, either reactive or proactive. The second dimension of the framework is the approach to managing employees, either control-oriented or commitment-oriented. Those two dimensions--type of downsizing and approach to talent management--can be combined to form a two-by-two matrix consisting of four quadrants. Each quadrant represents a different strategy, with a distinct philosophy, focus and key HR and downsizing best practices. The authors contend that there is no "one size fits all" approach to downsizing and that managers need to devise the approach that makes the best sense for their particular company, depending on its position in the matrix's quadrants.