Why? (DP)

For our Environmental Liabilities Course, I recently revisited a project I worked on during my studies in San Francisco in 2010 with a human rights organization called POWER (People Organized to Win Employment Rights). The organization was established in 1997 to do exactly what their name suggests: advocate for the rights of individuals. When I volunteered with them they were working with a community in Bayview Hunters Point, a low-income community settled on the outskirts of San Francisco.

At the time, the community was facing gentrification. The city of San Francisco had neglected the area and it’s inhabitants for years; aware that violence, crime, and poor education defined the community. In addition, Bayview is home to a former naval shipyard that was declared a hazardous waste site by the federal government in 1989. The works of radioactive waste and air pollutants caused by coal and oil fueled factories have riddled the community with high levels of asthma and other respiratory issues. After years of neglect, the City of San Francisco decided to make Bayview their new project; making plans to build a new football stadium for their 49ers, build new “affordable housing” that the residents currently living in the community would not be able to afford, new parks, and community gardens. To those external to the community who lack understanding of the whole picture, this sounds like a great project. Unfortunately, there were multiple issues that would affect the residents that had deep roots in the Bayview community and their voices were not being heard.

The project intended to bring thousands of jobs with development but was unwilling to hire qualified members of the Bayview community to fill those positions. Frustrated as the community was with the gentrification process, this merely added fuel to the fire. Lennar Urban (the developing company contracted) was eager to develop in this are because the land was incredibly invaluable and cheap because of contamination and hazardous waste present. With out intentions to clean up the site, Lennar intended to develop the community, disrupting contaminants present in the soil and water further putting the community at risk for developing health issues. Residents were outraged and spoke out in public forums, held protests, strikes, etc.; acts which all fell on deaf ears. It took two grassroots organizations (POWER and Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice) to establish a case and ultimately sue the San Francisco Developing Department to achieve action. My frustrations and interests lie with the “why” element of this case?

 

Why does it take “others” to advocate for this community to initiate change? What is the community lacking that doesn’t allow them to successfully advocate for themselves? This ties into my desires to work in a capacity that allows and provides access to quality education and essential elements that are crucial to not only sustaining life, but succeeding in the life that each individual so chooses, regardless of socio-economic status.

 


Comments Off on Why? (DP) / 10 Jan 2013 por Cianna Walker Carrillo
IMSD /

DP: Water Crisis

On my first blog I discussed the importance of water conservation and how I became interested in the topic. I also discussed how collaborative work among governments, academics, industries, and organizations is essential to solving the water crisis. This blog will take a closer look at water security through the public–private partnership and their initiatives to solving the water challenge.

Taking a closer look at history, there is evidence that water scarcity has always been an issue that was answered by trade and commerce. Dry lands would import their supply from those regions that could supply. Today, water stress remains just as prevalent. A 2009 study by McKinsey & Company shows that in the next two decades the collective demand for water will be 40% higher than available supply. As the earth gets hotter and more populated, water shortages will impact life, as we know it, in many different ways. With more people to be fed, more food would need to be produced, therefore more water would be required in the agriculture industry; 70% of current freshwater withdrawals is already used for this purpose. The same goes for growing economies that depend on water for producing the energy used for industrial and urban development.  Any significant change in one sector can affect the others. For instance, in order to stop climate change, renewable energies are becoming more dominant, especially hydroelectric power that relies on freshwater. By 2030 hydroelectric power will be able to provide more than twice the amount of energy of their nearest rival, on-shore wind farms. However, this clashes with the agriculture sector because they would essentially both be fighting for the same resources. The nexus between water and development, economic growth, energy, climate change, and food is indubitable. Clearly, we need to steer away from the business-as-usual approach and look for a comprehensive economic analysis of the water challenge.

WATER-BUSINESS

Water security is an issue that will rise gradually, directly affecting different regions in the world causing a widespread of collateral damage. Currently, it is felt at a local level, which some governments lack resources and are too weak to deliver results and hence depend on private sector. Water will be a core part of global, national, and business agenda in the future. For this reason it is essential for business to take part in some way. Back in 2008 at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Kloster, the idea of water as a strategic issue for business was brought up and discussed for the first time. At the meeting, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon encouraged private-sector engagement and said “ business is becoming part of the solution, not the part of the problem” when addressing water challenge. It was in this meeting where Secretary-General also introduced the UN Global CEO Water Mandate, “a public-private initiative designed to assist companies in the development, implementation, and disclosure of water sustainability practices and policies.” This year at the World Water Week conference in Stockholm, the UN released a Corporate Water Disclosure Guideline that “offers a common approach to disclosure, putting forward metrics that can begin to harmonize practice and also providing guidance to help companies define report content.” Hopefully, these approaches will further tackle the lack of transparency that can be found on the economics of water resources.

The World Economic Forum also introduced a Water Initiative that brought together different corporations to raise awareness on water issues, to help develop new analytics, and to promote public-private partnership. Some of the thirteen companies who joined are: Cisco Systems, Nestle SA, PepsiCo, Rio Tinto, SABMiller, Uniliver, and The Coca-Cola Company. This initiative was supported by governmental organizations including US Agency for International Development and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. Each of these companies has dedicated time and money into creating different initiatives and programs within their organizations to build awareness and develop solutions for the water crisis.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has also been tackling the water crisis for over a decade now and has had several important outcomes. Two of these are the Global Water Risk Mapping Tool and the Water Programme Leadership Group, which groups companies like: Accenture, DuPont, IBM, ITT, PepsiCo, Siemens, and Unilever.  The Global Water Tool “ helps companies and organizations map their water use and assess levels of corporate risk across their global operations and supply chains.”  Graham Mackay, CEO of SABMiller explains that “leading businesses have put in place water strategies with challenging efficiency target, however, water scarcity is a complex issue and acting alone is not enough.” This is why working with NGOs and other stakeholders to gain improved insight into local water resource risks and developing new partnership models to provide solutions is essential to solving the problem’

A quick-look- PepsiCo:

In September of 2010, PepsiCo released a Water Stewardship document that acknowledges the enormity of the water crisis and the companies approach to “positive water balance in operations in water-distress areas and provide access to safe water to three million people in developing countries by 2015.”  This will be achieved by minimizing the impact that current businesses have on the environment and by collaborating with industry peers, governments, academia, nongovernmental organizations and communities. PepsiCo has partnered with numerous organizations to help solve the problem “by constantly looking within its operations to identify solutions to make it a more water-efficient company; and then reaching out into their value chain by seeking ways to help their business, suppliers, community partners find ways to use less water more efficiently.”

A former colleague of mine, Dan Bena the previous Director of Sustainable Development for PepsiCo and currently a Board member of the US Water Alliance, discusses sustainable water practices for a global corporation on a podcast hyperlinked to his name.

Also see: The Changing face of Water Stewardship: It’s about much more than philanthropy.

 

Conclusion

Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut solution for solving the worldwide water challenge.  The solution will be dependent on many different aspects: political, cultural, geographical, etc. It’s evident, however, that all sectors must work together to reach the common goal. A long-term goal needs to put in place and practical steps need to be taken from an individual level to organizations. I specifically believe that businesses will be the key to making much of this work because they have the financial support to create and establish the changes that are needed both within and outside of the company.

Whether a company chooses the CEO Water Mandate for endorsement or chooses to join the Water Leadership Group of the WBCSD, it is clear that collaboration is crucial to succeed in its search for solving, or at least diminishing, the water crisis.

For further reading, I recommend Water Security.

Below is the video of the World Economic Forum discussing a comprehensive first look at “Water Security: The Water- Food-Energy-Cimate Nexus”

Click here to view the embedded video.


Comments Off on DP: Water Crisis / 05 Jan 2013 por Micaela Rossetti
IMSD /

Economic Growth, American Politics and NeoLiberalism

Over the Holidays, I have found myself having several conversations regarding Microfinance: its benefits, its costs, the theory behind its popularity, the practical results on the ground, and why so many people – especially in the US – believe that helping the small entrepreneur will innately help the rest of the population.

The latter specifically became a rather heated discussion in my household as it feeds directly into the Republican vs. Democrat debate.

My mother, a devout Republican and small business owner in the US, is a firm believer that by hurting small business, you will inevitably hurt the working class. Businesses are what provide jobs and security to the working class. If businesses have to pay higher taxes or are unable to acquire capital, they will be unable to support their workforce. Therefore, if the government would be less restrictive on business, America could “get back to work” and pull itself out of the recession. This idea was concisely expressed by Terry Paulson, Republican political columnist, during the recent election:

Romney/Ryan will incentivize investors and entrepreneurs to get America working again… Instead of raising taxes, Romney/Ryan will cut taxes and spending while increasing federal revenue when more companies are making a profit, more people are working, and wages are growing. It’s time for free enterprise to do what Washington can never do–create jobs, jobs, jobs!

During our discussion, I could not stop thinking about how similar this “mantra” is to that of NeoLiberalists.

NeoLiberalism stems from “Classic Liberalism” which was founded by the “grandfather of Economics”, Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations. Sound familiar? Remember the “Invisible Hand”?

The “Neo” in Neo-Liberalism comes from a rebirth and development of these classic ideas during the Cold War by several economists including, an notable economist named Milton Freidman.

Defined by its basic principles, NeoLiberalism theory states:

Following this logic, at the international level NeoLiberalism theory argues:

Sounds good, right?

For a lot of people, NeoLiberalism makes sense. It is what I learned during my studies at UCLA: economic models prove its “efficiency” and the global capitalism in which we live today was built from its ideas. Famous political leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher subscribed to it and organizations such as the WorldBank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were built around the theory:

If we let the markets run freely, business will grow and economic benefit will “trickle down” to the bottom of society. Free market competition is the best way to promote growth and alleviate poverty:

But, has this really worked? Has NeoLiberal theory helped the poorest groups get “lifted out” of poverty?

If we look at global incomes published in 2008, we see that there is a dramatic problem is income inequality:

In a report done by the World Bank in 2008, almost half of the world, about 3 billion people, lived on less than $2.50 a day. 80% of the worlds population lived on less than $10 a day.

In the US, where trade liberalization and capitalism has, arguably, been the least regulated compared with other “industrialized” countries, the divide between the rich and poor is the highest :

However, interestingly Americans believe that the income distribution is much more equal than it really is:

The perception is that the bottom two-fifths of the population (the purple and light blue quadrants) are doing vastly better than they really are.

Here’s a graph showing the change in incomes for the top 1% and the bottom 99% of Americans since the 1970s.

The average income for the top 1% has increased nearly threefold, whereas the income of the remaining 99% has decreased slightly.

So, where is the “trickle down” effect we were promised by following the NeoLiberal Model?

We have grown the world economy as a whole, but what about the individual wealth of the average person? Why are we following a model that allows for such deep inequality? And what does our future look like if we continue to follow the same path?

Some food for thought….

For a more detailed explanation on these ideas, you can watch this lecture given by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize recipient in Economics:


Comments Off on Economic Growth, American Politics and NeoLiberalism / 02 Jan 2013 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /

DP: Climate change, human development and responsible investment

In my second post I have introduced the linkage between climate change and sustainable development. I would like to add now another piece of this puzzle: the role of the private sector and the need of a responsible investment.

During these months I have been reading articles and documents on climate change and development and I have been evaluating different theories and solution approaches that several professors and experts of sustainability and economics have shared.

Tariq Banuri and Hans Opschoor (2007) say that “the main failing of the climate discussions is that they have not viewed climate as a development problem” and that a “linkage of climate change to development policies will make development more sustainable”.
In addition other studies (Pacala & Socolow 2004, Stern 2006) confirm that technological knowledge could represent the solution to reduce the GHG emissions by 80% over the century, but the fragmentation of the activities and the lack of a development-oriented policy have brought disappointing results so far.

I believe that all the theories and the different proposals evaluated so far, like slowing down the economic growth, de-carbonizing the South, sharing the carbon budget, the urgency of an international policy framework and a responsible and innovative way of using technology are strongly related to the new role the private sector should have and to a responsible investment the private sector should encourage.

In the Business Action for Africa Report, Koffi Annan, Former Secretary-General of the UN and Chair of Africa Progress Panel, talks about the need of a more sustainable and more equitable economic system where developing countries should be included into the global system and part of the international institutions. In addition K. Annan points out that the current crisis could be an opportunity for the developing countries to implement new low-carbon models and be pioneer and innovator in the de-carbonization process.

In order to achieve these goals a new type of investment is needed, based on renewable energy financing and able to integrate climate change into development strategies.

Mark Bowman, Managing Director SABMiller Africa, talks about the private sector challenges to upscale the efforts in those areas that require an important financial assistance like climate change. Bowman explains that in order to overcome the upcoming challenges a new relationship between development partners, private sector and investors is needed and should be based on shared financial resources and shared risks.

It is clear the private sector has a key role in the international development and the corporate responsibility enables corporates to engage development organizations and to increase the development impact of social business practices. In addition a responsible investments could create employment and new business opportunities in underestimated markets while CSR practices would demonstrate a responsible business conduct to the different stakeholders.

Unfortunately big quantity of money are used for different purposes and the majority of the current investments are driven by the economic growth or private interests instead of human development and environment.

Just few examples of how money are spent currently worldwide:

-440$B represents the US Defence Budget while only 21$B is the budget for saving the Amazon

-more than 3000$B are spent in wars and arms while 103$B is the value of the foreign aid

Is this a responsible investment?

Source: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net

The current flows of money


 

 

 

 

 

Using proper investments for mitigation and  climate change adaptation would give instead a chance to reach a more sustainable development and improving the human welfare.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC (2001) confirms that “adaptation can complement mitigation in a cost-effective strategy to reduce climate change risks; together they can contribute to sustainable development objectives”.

Adaptation strategies are necessary especially in the more affected countries: the developing ones.

Stern (2006) estimated an annual investment of tens of billions in the developing countries for adaptation but climate change funds are limited, there is no budget or frameworks in place about this important issue so how to solve the problem?

I believe one feasible solution is given by the world collaboration.

Private institutions could apply the recent “sharing economy” trend to the development area and shift from compete to collaborate and share resources and funds to reach common goals. Companies should integrate the worlds “sustainable development” while developing the financial strategy (not only when writing their CSR nice and optimistic reports) and should invest in creating new innovative and long term partnerships with development institutions, aimed to reach a sustainable and more equal world instead of being exclusively focused in economic growth and profit.

Investments are necessary and why not using them for social and development issues also? for “fixing” the human impact on the environment? for  adaptation to climate change effects?

Having in mind that climate change is an urgent sustainable development issue, I believe it is still possible to “change for good” and a responsible investment would represent indeed a possible solution.


Comments Off on DP: Climate change, human development and responsible investment / 02 Jan 2013 por Veronica Recanati
IMSD /

Marketing: my video CV!

Here my first video cv!

I have decided to do something different and to involve my friends and former colleagues in this marketing project.

A huge thanks to all of them who have accepted to be part of this adventure and realized amazing videos.

 

My Video CV :)

 

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

 

Special thanks to Holly Cayzer (Andorra), Marco Proserpio (Italy), Dani Bosch (Spain), Fabrizio De Grandis (Italy), Federica Matta (Italy), Letizia Guida (Italy), Raffaella Cicalese (Italy), Sonia Scala (Italy), Ester Muller (Brasil), Imran Dewan (UK), Patrick Siffert (Switzerland).

 


Comments Off on Marketing: my video CV! / 29 Dec 2012 por Veronica Recanati
IMSD /

DP – Microfinance: The Grameen and BRAC Experience

Two of the most widely recognized Microfinance Institutions in the world today are both located in Bangladesh.

The Grameen Bank was founded by Mohammed Yunus in 1976. Since then, they have loaned nearly 13 billion US Dollars to almost 4.5 trillion borrowers. In November of 2012, the bank had 8.4 million active borrowers with more than one billion US Dollars in outstanding loans. The Grameen Bank’s repayment rate for all its loans is nearly 97%.

The Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) was started in 1972 as a relief organization following the War of Liberalization.  In the early 1970s, BRAC began lending microcredit to landless people in some of its development projects.  In November of 2012, BRAC had 5 million active borrowers with outstanding loans totaling 725 million US Dollars. BRAC has a repayment rate of 99.36%.

In Bangladesh, the poor account for an incredible one fifth of the total loan portfolio for the entire country.

Both microfinance institutions (MFIs) follow a similar structure in the way that they lend to their borrowers; they provide “solidarity group lending” in which loans are given to individuals of the group.  In order to receive a loan from one of the institutions, you must be part of a lending group. Every member is accountable to, and liable for, all the other group members’ loans.  Given that the poorer communities in Bangladesh lack financial capital or assets that can be used as collateral for loans, these lending groups act as a form of “social capital”:

These organizations have become increasingly powerful and important to the economic environment in Bangladesh. Given their financial statistics they seem to be doing rather well.  But, are they having the desired economic impacts set out by their organizations? 


These questions have been recently been raised regarding the Microfinance model.  Much criticism has been directed toward these two organizations specifically because of their long history in the sector, their exponential growth and popularity, and their apparent financial success.

Many microfinance critics believe that microcredit does not have significant impact in reducing poverty, but simply acts as more of a “consumption stabilizer” by reducing the shocks of natural disasters, illness, and seasonal hunger.  They argue that “in the absence of other measures or more dynamic growth processes, (microcredit) can amount to no more than a redistribution of incomes among the relatively poor, rather than an overall increase in incomes of the poor”. This benefit is significant for poor households; however, it is not the benefit of “increased wealth” that both the Grameen Bank and BRAC argue come from their microfinance programs.

Additionally, there is some evidence that microcredit is causing over-indebtedness for many Bangladeshis. Aminur Rahman, in his research done analyzing the impact of the Grameen program on its borrowers found that “many Grameen borrowers used their savings and household assets for weekly installment payments on microloans. Pulling resources from households, and diverting funds from consumption needs to loan repayments, causing further hardship to members of poor households…”  He also found that “bank employees used group pressure to ensure borrowers timely repayment of loans and to achieve high loan recovery rates.  Such pressure compelled many borrowers to ay installments by recycling loans (i.e. paying off old loans with new ones); this contributed to increasing household debt.”

These instances typically occur more frequently for households that are below the poverty line. In the book Livelihood and Microfinance: Anthropological And Sociological Perspectives on Savings and Debt, Rahman argues, “microcredit has the potential to improve household conditions and living standards particularly for borrowers living over the poverty line. But microcredit can also have negative consequences for the poorest households, such as increasing debt burden.”


Microfinance is a loan, and loans are a debt. When you are in debt, you are more vulnerable.

This “prescription” for poverty eradication can be very dangerous for those living in “extreme” poverty.

In fact, many Microfinance institutions have a hard time reaching the poorest populations due to their high vulnerability and most dire situations. The Grameen and BRAC “group solidarity system” makes it hard to include the poorest groups; many group members are not willing to include very poor borrowers within their lending groups because they are too risky.  Additionally, extremely poor households often cannot afford to pay the registration fees, or attend to weekly meetings and training sessions, required in order to be part of these programs.

Some critics believe that when MFIs scale up their organizations and become too big, they can lose their focus on their mission and on the customers. When they “over-reach”, they can move away from their target market.  BRAC began by first lending to landless people in rural Bangladesh.  However, as they have grown, it seems they have lost sight of the extremely poor, and begun to focus more on those slightly above the poverty line; they are much easier to finance.

So, what is the economic impact of microfinance on poor households?

It is definitely very dependent on the specific situation of the family that chooses to borrow.  Microfinance institutions must not be too quick to believe that it can help any family increase their income. Microcredit is not a blanket prescription to help people improve their economic situation, as many MFIs including the Grameen Bank and BRAC argue. This theory can be a very dangerous when applied to real communities; it may actually do more harm than good.

When we look at the research and real world assessments, it seems that the Grameen Bank and BRAC have been a bit to idealistic in their expansion, and have forgotten to focus on the specific economic situations of those that they claim to be helping.


Comments Off on DP – Microfinance: The Grameen and BRAC Experience / 28 Dec 2012 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /

Doha: Islands on Climate Change

Shiva, a deity in Hinduism known as the god of destruction, is also known to bring transformation and balance. His role is not only to create destruction but to restore balance to a situation; whether it be physical or emotional, and transform this situation that was imperfect. Through this belief, it is evident that Shiva does not destroy arbitrarily, but rather purposefully and in some ways, constructively in order to create beneficial change.

Shiva’s purpose in the world makes me think of our path that we pave towards environmental degradation. Sadly, after the conferences in Doha a few weeks ago, it seems that our leaders continue to weave our destination by inaction. The question is: will we continue down this path of environmental degradation to a point of re creation of our planet, or will we be lead to irreversible damages?

The hopes for the Doha conference would that our leaders would finally go beyond merely recognizing the climate change is happening and that there are limits to our environment. The hopes were that our leaders would finally be at the stage to take bold action on implementation measures and enforcement.

“This conference comes in the wake of disasters that offered an alarming glimpse at what life on a warming planet looks like. A failure to build on the progress we have made at this critical juncture could be a set back from which we may never recover. If hard decisions to dramatically cut emissions are not made now, developing countries will be forced to confront adaptation and damage on a previously unimaginable scale.”

This statement comes from the AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) in which represent many of the island nations that will and are being dramatically affected by climate change.

But for many, such as AOSIS, the hopes were dashed by the end of the Doha Climate Change Conference, the anticipation surrounding the outcomes of the conference make me question just how far we have gone or perhaps how far we have digressed. As more GHG are emitted into our atmosphere, drastic changes in weather, sea level rises and more, how can we possibly be creating a better future through the destruction? I remain hopeful, but critical of the actual road that we have taken.

It has become more and more evident the two players to this game. On one hand we have the so-called ‘developed’ countries that will now pay the developing countries in order to help build up infrastructure to fight climate change. This however should be looked at quite critically. This money that will go to developing countries vulnerable to climate change such as island nations will go to the development of preventative actions and preparedness programs, however does not minimize the fact that the developing countries are still the largest emitters of GHG. To put it bluntly what the developing countries are doing are paying their “eco-sins” and putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

Tensions and emotions ran high when it came to many of the island nations. One of such from the Philippines envoy, Nade­rev Sano.

“Open your eyes to the stark reality we face. It’s about what is demanded by 7 billion people. No more delays. No more excuses. Let Doha be remembered as the place where we found the political will to turn things around.”

His plea I believe was one that underlined the failure of the Doha conference to truly bring relief and action to climate change. Although we can continue to hope for the best outcomes from these conferences, I don’t believe that we should wait around for them to create change.

The fight against climate change has begun, and not in the conference halls of Doha nor Kyoto, but within classrooms, campaigns and on the streets. We have to remember that when the people lead, the leaders will follow, and coming from small islands in the middle of the Pacific; vulnerable of sea level rise, natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes; it will take these island communities to join together in order to make the push needed to bring our leaders into action.

Because if not, do we really want to sit around and wait to see if our climate change experts were right in their predictions?

 

 


Comments Off on Doha: Islands on Climate Change / 18 Dec 2012 por Ivory McClintock Kealani Pan
IMSD /

A brief story about me.

Hello my name is Juan Gerardo (some people call me Juan, my friends and family call me Gerardo and others call me JG, but I’m the same person :) ). I will share a brief story about me and how I got here.

From an early age, I was fascinated with nature. While other kids were playing video games or watching television, I wanted to go hiking and exploring outdoors. These activities became my favorite things to do. Since I couldn’t go to these places on my own, I started to involve my family in these adventures. When I learned that “Ecology” was the study of all living things and their relationship to the environment, I was so happy to know that I could, someday actually, study something as amazing as nature and its “little bugs”. Not only was I intrigued by nature, but I also developed early in life my entrepreneurship spirit. I was constantly dreaming about creating a company and hiring many of my friends. Most of the companies I dreamed up, while playing, didn’t work out because, as my grandfather told me, “I was paying all my friends too much money and I was going out of business”. As a child, it was very important for me to give my friends a good salary, meaning lots of candy, because I knew that they would be happier and would work more. From that early beginning as an entrepreneur interested in the environment, I went on to study biology at the university and do research on the “little bugs” that I found so interesting as a child. I have also taken business courses because I have never lost my dream to one day create my own company that combines my love of nature with a sustainable product.

Right now I feel the drive to pursue a new goal in my career where I can use my knowledge in the biosciences and blend it together with the new knowledge in business that I have acquired during my recent studies in biotechnology. When I started to study more about how most bio-companies work, I was disappointed to find out that most of them are not more efficient and eco-oriented as other companies from other sectors, even though they have a greater understanding of nature and its resources. Once I realized this, it was clear to me that learning the basic principles of business sustainability management and developing a business activity that is socially responsible would become a key aspect of my professional future. This desire has brought me to do the IMSD at EOI,classes have already started and I have met eighteen truly exceptional and unique classmates, from different parts of the world. I’m happy; I think that I have come to the right place.

 


Comments Off on A brief story about me. / 15 Dec 2012 por Juan Machado Sanchez
IMSD /

DP: Acknowledging the truth: our fault as Homo sapiens

The current state of disequilibrium in which humanity finds itself, is largely due to the decline of a social, economic, political, cultural and spiritual model, which is demonstrating its ineffectiveness in establishing an environment conducive to perpetuate our existence in a harmonious and sustainable manner with our planet.  In other words we have failed big time!

The Homo sapiens sapiens, have been around this planet for more than 100.000 years, long enough to get hold of the entire planet. It is very interesting that our species is defined as sapiens, meaning “wise” or “capable of knowing”, referring to our human condition as “rational animal”, an distinctive character that distinguish us from all other species. However, being honest and objective, I don’t think we have used our ability to think and learn properly, looking at the way we have damaged our own environment putting at risk our own survival. This is without even talking about the damage we have done to so many animals and plant species that have led to its extinction. This is another lesson in how our man-centered society has failed; you just have to ask the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty about our performance as a society.

One reason of why we have failed is that, our society as we know it today was founded on precepts of competition and struggle for “the survival of the fittest” (I’m sorry for Charles Darwin, who could not foresee the misuse that humanity has made of his theory of evolution), criteria that separate us from other animal species, in addition to creating significant differences within our own species. We are programmed to be parts of a whole, living in society, but with the intrinsic need to be independent entities and establish hierarchies based on dominance over the weak and the generation of power groups that manage the collective fate. These ideas and foundations have led us to become what we are today, unbalanced societies unable to recognize the common elements that define the human group. Terms such as belonging, inclusion, union, which form the basis to define the summary statements have been largely forgotten and have been replaced by negative values such ​​as selfishness, antagonism, separability which aggravate the dynamics of human relationships and those of their habitat.

Today we hear about a paradigm shift and the need for a new sustainable model for society, however; it seems unlikely that humans change their ways and disarm the neural network formed by hundreds of thousands of years. We are experiencing the “curse of knowledge” (a term coined by Robin Hogarth), natural disasters, environmental degradation, the emergence of new epidemics do not receive the same consideration as the falling markets and stock exchanges, we are convinced that the latter allows us to deal with the first, providing us with the financial resources necessary to generate new technologies that will allow us to adapt the environment, to alleviate our health conveniently by fighting diseases and to increase our life expectancy.

Can we really change? Can we overcome the differences and work together to solve the problems we have caused?

In the next post, I will discuss some current efforts and actions to change this course, stay tuned! :)

 


Comments Off on DP: Acknowledging the truth: our fault as Homo sapiens / 15 Dec 2012 por Juan Machado Sanchez
IMSD /

DP: Sommerfield was right, complementarity is the key!

I am convinced that if there is a way to reverse the course of the current global crisis is through three key bridges, we need to build: One is called Complementarity, the second is called Co-working and the third is called Open innovation. In this blog post I will share some thoughts about the first bridge: complementarity. Please bear with me on this one because people think it’s obvious but somehow nobody uses it.

“Complementarity” is a word that is meaningless if not applied as the action of adding value to the whole forming an improved whole. So I hope you are still reading after this, now I will give you an example of this by telling you a true story.

It is possible that many people outside the scientific discipline has not ever heard of Arnold Sommerfeld (A.K.A AS) or may never have heard of his work. But the best example of the application of the complementarity is seen in Sommerfeld great contribution to the atom theory formulated by Bohr. This controversial theory attempted to explain how electrons can have stable orbits around the nucleus, which not only contradicted classical Newtonian mechanics, but also to classical electromagnetic theory formulated in the nineteenth century. So do you get the picture? Bohr vs. Newton and his gang (followers), not easy…

Would you keep reading if I tell you that Sommerfeld discoveries have helped explain the reasons for our existence?, and has helped to establish the foundations of one of the most revolutionary disciplines of all time, Quantum Mechanics! Yes, the one that tries to explains the origin of the universe!

Sommerfeld introduce the concept of non-circular orbits (elliptical orbits) for the electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. This explains the behavior of electrons and the difference of energy levels. For a none-scientific reader this might not ring any bells but it is huge!

What is the take away of this story?

That unlike the competition principle, complementarity can generate solutions to support an established idea adding new elements capable of redefining and improving what already exist. Consider for a moment the potential of this principle, imagine a game play that is not based on the “win” or “lose” scenario, like most games; but the purpose of the game is to add value to your posture, your idea, your strategy. You may not find immediately sense to this concept, because we face an entrenched system of competition.

Building this bridge called complementarity will have a huge impact on society if applied. The Sommerfeld approach was different, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel; he found a way to add value to the Bohr model and in this way he added value to humanity.

If you are interested in building the aforementioned bridges, stay tuned for the next blog post. :)

 


Comments Off on DP: Sommerfield was right, complementarity is the key! / 15 Dec 2012 por Juan Machado Sanchez
IMSD /

« Anteriores
Siguientes »

Este sitio web utiliza cookies para que usted tenga la mejor experiencia de usuario. Si continúa navegando está dando su consentimiento para la aceptación de las mencionadas cookies y la aceptación de nuestra política de cookies, pinche el enlace para mayor información.plugin cookies

ACEPTAR
Aviso de cookies