Know how success is measured!

Hard work will not always bring success, particularly if your efforts are not fully aligned with how you are measured.

It sounds obvious to say it but one of the key requirements before commencing your conservation journey is to have a clear understanding of the objectives that you are trying to achieve. It is not uncommon to find teams investing resources into applying conservation measures without a tangible grasp as to what criteria they are being measured against, in many cases the clarity of the goal itself will be a key determining factor as to whether it will be achieved.

By way of an example, a recently encountered case highlights the issue perfectly. A facilities team, managing a large building, had been working year round towards waste reduction targets and had conducted some great work. They had phased out single use plastic bottles from vending machines and numerous other areas, they had introduced Styrofoam / polystyrene recycling facilities as opposed to the old approach of sending it to landfill and food waste was being composted, again avoiding the old approach of sending it landfill. All of the work they had conducted was a meaningful contribution to a well rounded conservation program. Working on behalf of the client, I was tasked with evaluating their performance against contractually specified targets. The target simply stated that the facilities management team must 'reduce total waste, by weight, by 10% per year against a 2019 baseline.'

Here was the problems that arose, all of the initiatives implemented resulted in waste being processed in a more favorable manner for the planet, but nothing resulted in a reduction in the total weight of the waste. Further complexity was introduced as the Polystyrene recycling efforts they had implemented has good supporting data, however this focused on volume rather than weight, demonstrating that the site teams were not overtly conscious of the target. The client was reasonable and accepting of the fact that the original target was poorly written and welcoming of a proposal for revised targets that encourage appropriate behaviors. The new long term target is specified as no greater than 15% of waste, by weight, going to landfill, with incremental targets that transition from the current position to this goal over 5 years.

Similar misalignment is seen in energy conservation programs where the objective relates to carbon reduction, particularly across multi-country operations. If facility A is in a country where 100% renewable energy is purchased and facility B is in a receives their power from a coal fired plant, the carbon intensities of the buildings will be significantly different. There will be no business case for reducing consumption in facility A, while facility B requires significant focus. It will never be the wrong thing to do to decrease consumption but if you are not clear on how you are measured it would be easy to work hard but not achieve the defined objective.

One could opine that the real issue at play here is with the inappropriately defined targets that had been set and of course, where possible, these should be realigned however this does not remove the need for the the teams tasked with delivering the any objectives to be clear eyed about how their success is measured.