An analysis of data collected in the 2009 UC Davis Study of California Women Business Leaders suggests this may be so. The Study evaluated the presence of women at the very top of the 400 largest publicly held corporations in California. In an otherwise discouraging report of their minority status in the executive suite, this intriguing data point stood out.
To test the hypothesis that women are more apt to pursue eco-sustainable business practices, the UC Davis Study authors drew on information from two sources: Census data from their own study and a report by KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. and Newsweek Magazine which ranked the largest 500 U.S. firms on the extent to which they pursue eco-friendly policies. 62 of California’s largest 400 firms in 2009 were included on the list.
Here’s a summary of their findings: “Firms that had no women directors or executives had the poorest environmental performance. Firms that had both women managers and directors had the best environmental performance. Firms that had at least one woman director (but no women executives), and firms that had at least one woman executive (but no women directors) had environmental records in between these two extremes.”
Although the survey sample was small and it didn't evaluate for a correlation between better environmental performance and higher revenue, the results are still intriguing. Especially in California where “green” jobs are on the rise - up by 35.9% since 1995 according to a new study by public policy group, Next 10. The total number of jobs grew by only 13.3% in the same period. The study defines green jobs as those that develop new energy sources, save energy, conserve natural resources or reduce pollution.
If it’s true that women-led firms are greener as the UC Davis findings suggest, it will be a great travesty if women are as under-represented in the executive ranks of the growing clean-tech segment as they are in other industries.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
The "Maternal Wall": Sturdier than Ever
This month, two important studies revealed disappointing trends for women in business.
The first is the fifth annual UC Davis study of California Women Business Leaders: A Census of Women Directors and Executive Officers. The study examines the presence of women at the top of the 400 publicly held corporations in California. Among the key findings: Women hold just 10.6% of the board seats and top executive officer positions. 29.5% of the companies have no female board members or executive officers. Only 15 of the 400 companies have a woman CEO. And while San Francisco boasts the highest percentage of women directors (15.7%), its neighbor, Silicon Valley boasts the least (8.2%). Silicon Valley. Seriously!
In Europe, the data is even less encouraging. Here, women are [probably unknowingly] sacrificing career advancement for generous maternity benefits. A survey from Sweden’s Research Institute of Industrial Economics finds that the more weeks of paid maternity leave a woman gets, the less likely she is to break through the glass ceiling. In Britain, women are entitled to 39 weeks of paid maternity leave. A Swedish mother fares even better with 60 weeks of paid leave. But both are more likely to hit a “maternal wall” than their US counterpart who benefits from no paid leave.
Here’s the sobering data: Females account for 42.7 % of managers in US corporations while only 34.4% of management positions in British companies are held by women. And the numbers fall as the maternity benefits rise. Danish women enjoy 50 weeks of paid maternity leave but hold only 27.7% of management positions. So, although female executives in California still occupy few seats in the board room as the UC Davis study reports, they still have it better than their EU sisters.
No doubt, there are lots of ways to interpret the data from the Swedish study. But as the first decade of the 21st century nears its end, it’s beyond time to redress the gender imbalance and think differently. Paid or unpaid, a short break from the workforce shouldn’t invite retribution in the form of reduced opportunity.
After all, our business world is rapidly changing. There are more women in the workplace than ever. Our working lives are now extending into our 70s. Many of us—men and women—will experience bouts of unemployment, often for longer periods than a standard maternity leave. More will take temporary sabbaticals to pursue a passion outside of work. In this altered business world, the notion, therefore, that a short maternity absence from the workforce might punish a woman’s prospects and diminish her earning potential is absurd. Taking the time to nurture a newborn during its delicate first year of life is hardly an indulgence and should not carry career-limiting consequences.
The first is the fifth annual UC Davis study of California Women Business Leaders: A Census of Women Directors and Executive Officers. The study examines the presence of women at the top of the 400 publicly held corporations in California. Among the key findings: Women hold just 10.6% of the board seats and top executive officer positions. 29.5% of the companies have no female board members or executive officers. Only 15 of the 400 companies have a woman CEO. And while San Francisco boasts the highest percentage of women directors (15.7%), its neighbor, Silicon Valley boasts the least (8.2%). Silicon Valley. Seriously!
In Europe, the data is even less encouraging. Here, women are [probably unknowingly] sacrificing career advancement for generous maternity benefits. A survey from Sweden’s Research Institute of Industrial Economics finds that the more weeks of paid maternity leave a woman gets, the less likely she is to break through the glass ceiling. In Britain, women are entitled to 39 weeks of paid maternity leave. A Swedish mother fares even better with 60 weeks of paid leave. But both are more likely to hit a “maternal wall” than their US counterpart who benefits from no paid leave.
Here’s the sobering data: Females account for 42.7 % of managers in US corporations while only 34.4% of management positions in British companies are held by women. And the numbers fall as the maternity benefits rise. Danish women enjoy 50 weeks of paid maternity leave but hold only 27.7% of management positions. So, although female executives in California still occupy few seats in the board room as the UC Davis study reports, they still have it better than their EU sisters.
No doubt, there are lots of ways to interpret the data from the Swedish study. But as the first decade of the 21st century nears its end, it’s beyond time to redress the gender imbalance and think differently. Paid or unpaid, a short break from the workforce shouldn’t invite retribution in the form of reduced opportunity.
After all, our business world is rapidly changing. There are more women in the workplace than ever. Our working lives are now extending into our 70s. Many of us—men and women—will experience bouts of unemployment, often for longer periods than a standard maternity leave. More will take temporary sabbaticals to pursue a passion outside of work. In this altered business world, the notion, therefore, that a short maternity absence from the workforce might punish a woman’s prospects and diminish her earning potential is absurd. Taking the time to nurture a newborn during its delicate first year of life is hardly an indulgence and should not carry career-limiting consequences.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Innovation....with a little help from the Yente
Yael Weiss calls herself a Yente. Only instead of matching couples, she scouts for promising biotech innovation then marries it to opportunity at pharma giant, Merck, where she serves as director, licensing and external research. Here she’s infusing the old drug discovery R&D model with new flair by providing Merck with early access to brilliant ideas from the outside to accelerate their product development initiatives.
Weiss was the spirited warm-up speaker at the Women in Science luncheon held earlier this month by the Bay Area Chapter of Israel’s Weizmann Institute. She didn’t just graduate from the Institute with a Ph.D. in molecular genetics, she also grew up on its campus, shadowing her scientist parents as they pioneered their own inventions. She holds an M.D. as well. And although she practiced medicine briefly, she found a more fulfilling path at Merck where she blends her passion for new therapeutic discoveries with her love of medicine.
The drug discovery process remains frustratingly long and expensive so it’s no surprise to see Merck exploiting all avenues to augment its R&D. But, by turning to expert scouts like Weiss, Merck is vastly expanding its talent pool while simultaneously providing opportunities to emerging entrepreneurs.
It’s a model supported by serial entrepreneur Judy Estrin who delivered the keynote address at the lunch. Today, said Estrin, the world is harvesting the innovation seeds that were planted 15-20 years ago—by entrepreneurial scientists like Weiss’s parents. But, in a sobering assessment of the current landscape, Estrin worries that we’re not planting nearly enough seeds to keep our edge. She fears an innovation deficit that will seriously impact future generations by diminishing our global competitiveness. To Estrin, there are several types of innovation: breakthrough innovation, like the discovery of DNA; incremental innovation—inventions that enhance existing technologies, and orthogonal innovation, applying existing discoveries for use in a different way.
While Estrin’s concerns are shared by many, it’s impossible not to be optimistic. Certainly we could benefit from an innovation “Marshall Plan”. But it’s hardly likely in today’s acrimonious political climate. Meantime, organizations like Weizmann are marching ahead with their own Marshall Plans. They’re incubating innovators who are seeding invention across the world—scientists like Orna Man—the Institute’s 2008-2009 Postdoctoral Fellow who was recognized at the lunch for her ground-breaking genetic research. And at the other end of the pipeline, Yentes like Weiss are linking the innovators and their research to commercial opportunities.
Weiss was the spirited warm-up speaker at the Women in Science luncheon held earlier this month by the Bay Area Chapter of Israel’s Weizmann Institute. She didn’t just graduate from the Institute with a Ph.D. in molecular genetics, she also grew up on its campus, shadowing her scientist parents as they pioneered their own inventions. She holds an M.D. as well. And although she practiced medicine briefly, she found a more fulfilling path at Merck where she blends her passion for new therapeutic discoveries with her love of medicine.
The drug discovery process remains frustratingly long and expensive so it’s no surprise to see Merck exploiting all avenues to augment its R&D. But, by turning to expert scouts like Weiss, Merck is vastly expanding its talent pool while simultaneously providing opportunities to emerging entrepreneurs.
It’s a model supported by serial entrepreneur Judy Estrin who delivered the keynote address at the lunch. Today, said Estrin, the world is harvesting the innovation seeds that were planted 15-20 years ago—by entrepreneurial scientists like Weiss’s parents. But, in a sobering assessment of the current landscape, Estrin worries that we’re not planting nearly enough seeds to keep our edge. She fears an innovation deficit that will seriously impact future generations by diminishing our global competitiveness. To Estrin, there are several types of innovation: breakthrough innovation, like the discovery of DNA; incremental innovation—inventions that enhance existing technologies, and orthogonal innovation, applying existing discoveries for use in a different way.
While Estrin’s concerns are shared by many, it’s impossible not to be optimistic. Certainly we could benefit from an innovation “Marshall Plan”. But it’s hardly likely in today’s acrimonious political climate. Meantime, organizations like Weizmann are marching ahead with their own Marshall Plans. They’re incubating innovators who are seeding invention across the world—scientists like Orna Man—the Institute’s 2008-2009 Postdoctoral Fellow who was recognized at the lunch for her ground-breaking genetic research. And at the other end of the pipeline, Yentes like Weiss are linking the innovators and their research to commercial opportunities.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
A New Shade of Green Employees
Yesterday, at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis predicted that hiring for “green jobs” will pick up over the next 12 months, but it will be some time before these jobs become a large part of the US economy. Secretary Solis was referring of course to the alternative energy industry. But this narrow definition of “green jobs” may need to be adjusted. Because, as capitalism converges with environmentalism, a “green” priority will soon be attached to all job descriptions, making every employee—especially within large corporations—a “green” worker.
This trend was discussed at last week’s SDForum event on “Where the Enterprise is Going Green”. Panel participants included: Matt Denesuk of IBM Venture Capital Group, Chris Erickson of ClimateEarth, Chris Farinacci of Hara Software and Amrit Williams of BigFix. Cisco's senior manager of sustainable development, John Hailey, and Hewlett-Packard's marketing manager, Green Business Technology Initiative, Ann Marie Feldhusen, also contributed to the discussion.
So, where is the enterprise going green? It turns out everywhere. And it’s not happening incrementally, nor is the movement confined to the enterprise alone. It extends across the value chain as companies mobilize to build products that deliver economic and environmental value to customers. This is challenging the entire workforce to think green—all the way from sourcing raw materials to designing, developing, marketing, packaging and delivering the product to customers. And in the common push to maximize operational efficiencies, the trend is also inspiring vendors and customers to share best practices.
Companies like Cisco and H-P are leading by example. Cisco’s Hailey described how his company is greening its 66,000-person/600-building enterprise through an array of sustainability initiatives, while delivering technology that furthers its customers’ eco-agendas. By using one of its own products, the TelePresence videoconferencing solution, Cisco has slashed corporate travel costs by more than 40 percent—inspiring customers through invention and by example to reduce their own carbon footprint.
A tribute to the Cisco “green team” that brought TelePresence from concept to commercialization. They may not fit the conventional description of “green workers”, but their contribution to greening America’s enterprises is immediate and enormous.
This trend was discussed at last week’s SDForum event on “Where the Enterprise is Going Green”. Panel participants included: Matt Denesuk of IBM Venture Capital Group, Chris Erickson of ClimateEarth, Chris Farinacci of Hara Software and Amrit Williams of BigFix. Cisco's senior manager of sustainable development, John Hailey, and Hewlett-Packard's marketing manager, Green Business Technology Initiative, Ann Marie Feldhusen, also contributed to the discussion.
So, where is the enterprise going green? It turns out everywhere. And it’s not happening incrementally, nor is the movement confined to the enterprise alone. It extends across the value chain as companies mobilize to build products that deliver economic and environmental value to customers. This is challenging the entire workforce to think green—all the way from sourcing raw materials to designing, developing, marketing, packaging and delivering the product to customers. And in the common push to maximize operational efficiencies, the trend is also inspiring vendors and customers to share best practices.
Companies like Cisco and H-P are leading by example. Cisco’s Hailey described how his company is greening its 66,000-person/600-building enterprise through an array of sustainability initiatives, while delivering technology that furthers its customers’ eco-agendas. By using one of its own products, the TelePresence videoconferencing solution, Cisco has slashed corporate travel costs by more than 40 percent—inspiring customers through invention and by example to reduce their own carbon footprint.
A tribute to the Cisco “green team” that brought TelePresence from concept to commercialization. They may not fit the conventional description of “green workers”, but their contribution to greening America’s enterprises is immediate and enormous.
Monday, July 13, 2009
InterSolar 2009: Pragmatism Trumps Exuberance
This week, San Francisco plays host to a simultaneous staging of the annual SEMICON West and InterSolar tradeshows.
But the mood isn’t great. Semiconductor equipment providers are finding it hard to shake the gloom that clouds the sector, while the sparkle that glossed the solar industry seems to have lost a little luster since last year’s show.
Still, with San Francisco showcasing so much remarkable innovation this week, there’s reason for optimism. For more on what to expect at the shows, TechFluential asked Andy Skumanich, Ph.D., a former Applied Materials executive and Business Development VP at solar start-up Innovalight. Now, as CEO of SolarVision Consulting, he charts strategies for technology companies parlaying their innovation in the solar space.
The following is a summary of our conversation.
TF:Funding of solar-related companies has taken a hit this year. According to Q2 data from the Clean Tech Group, solar saw its lowest level of investment in over three years. Does this suggest that the days of massive $100-200 million capital infusions into PV companies are over?
AS: The days of unfettered large-scale spending are indeed over. Now, investors are more savvy and more aware of how the market requirements have to match with the technology. The best example is for low-efficiency thin film. Today, investors are saying that unless the technology can provide about 10% conversion efficiency, we’re not interested. That’s a far cry from the early days (2 years ago) when the investment decision rested simply on a company’s ability to make something that converted light into electricity.
TF: On a related note, are stimulus dollars pouring into the coffers of local PV companies yet? And how many are taking advantage of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program?
AS:Not yet, but it’s starting. So far this year, multiple funding opportunities have opened. But because of the overwhelming demand, and the review process, even the January close date funding programs are just now being published. The Government is trying to balance getting out a large amount of support while doing so with a measured review. It’s possible that the pace will pick up in the next couple of quarters.
As for the number of companies taking advantage of the Government-matching development funds and the DOE Loan Guarantees, I can say from my experience that if a company is NOT applying for something, they are in the minority. They all know about the resources. Academic institutions are also well appraised and pursuing their options as well.
TF:What topic(s) will likely dominate the discussions at InterSolar?
AS:Two topics will likely dominate the discussions: (1) just how bad is it going to be this year for PV, and (2) how far along are we coming for grid parity.
With regard to the first, even though the industry is staggering out of the double-barrel hits of the global economic crisis and falling off the cliff of the PV drop in Spain, companies are not on their feet just yet. There is substantial uncertainty about what the eventual size of the PV market will be this year. But, speculation by industry experts suggests that we’ll be doing well if we are flat from last year. And there may even be a drop-off. Of course, there are companies that will do well--because of their momentum and market positioning, First Solar being the prime example. However, many companies have taken a hit and are hurting.
On the issue of grid parity, the more than 30% drop in module prices is a “good” thing one might suppose. In fact, the current levels actually bring us closer to the historical trend curve. Prices had shot up from that dropping price trend curve in the previous 2 years due to high demand and low poly availability. Now, however, there is reduced demand and extra capacity. So, the industry is reaching the lower targeted costs, albeit in a painful way, which brings the reach to “nominal” grid parity that much closer.
However, grid parity is a simple term for a complex entity simply because of the high upfront costs for PV installation. The biggest impediment for PV implementation currently is the tight credit market. I personally know of specific installation attempts in Germany and other locations where the project is not getting the right up-front funding. So, grid parity really must reflect the complex financial requirements and configurations needed to address the up-front expenditures.
Recently, I talked with a property development firm that had the most unusual combination of circumstances that allowed for “grid parity” installation. They had: (1) lots of roof space, (2) the proper appetite for the various tax credits and incentives, (3) the in-house expertise to navigate the financial complexities, and (4) a tech-savvy in-house team. They became their own PPA. That is quite the combination, but it reflects the gap between just having low $/W product and actually having that product on roof-tops generating grid-parity electricity.
TF:Beyond PVs, what’s happening in the solar value chain? Are you seeing any specific technologies taking root?
AS:Actually, it’s exciting to see the breadth of exploratory technologies from my vantage point. If anything, the notion that there’s not much left to do in c-Si wafer-based PV is completely wrong. There are interesting developments in all aspects of the c-Si value chain which run the gamut from elegant and quite promising (SiGen’s new mode of wafer exfoliation), to evolutionary but valuable changes, such as improved production standards and more deliberate module testing. In all likelihood, the various technologies are all running ahead, and there will be a lot of good developments for the foreseeable future. We really do have the attention of the country’s best-and-brightest, and that’s a tremendous opportunity for both the PV community and our global community.
TF:Do you see similarities between the emergence of the solar value chain and what happened in the semiconductor industry when IC manufacturers began outsourcing for critical process technologies more than 30 years ago?
AS:There are many parallels between the solar and semiconductor worlds and this overlap makes for fascinating comparisons and contrasts. But that would take us beyond the question at hand. The question about outsourcing of critical process technologies is not yet happening in solar. In fact, for the companies that I’m in regular contact with (including many of the top 15 global companies), the opposite is true. They are more concerned about maintaining their competitive advantage by keeping that very element (their process knowledge) in-house and carefully guarded. The PV manufacturing companies see themselves as defined by their technology capabilities so there won’t be any of that outsourced for a good time to come, unlike the current IC sector.
TF:Are there particular semiconductor process technologies/tools that are proving a natural fit for PV manufacturing applications?
AS:The two worlds are really quite different in terms of what drives the tools. Whereas the IC world is driven by increasing complexity and reducing dimensions with 100s of wafers-per-hour throughput, the solar PV world is driven by ideally reducing complexity and increasing dimensions (size of cells), but having multiple thousands of wafers-per-hour throughput. This mis-match—namely the need to drive production to the stratosphere, not the dimensions to the atomic level--is what catches many IC refugees off-guard. The most common cross-over from ICs to Solar is really in “best-practices”. An interesting example can be found at SunPower, where in the early days as part of Cypress Semiconductor, they indeed benefited from being in the IC environment to implement the latter’s methodologies and rigor.
But the mood isn’t great. Semiconductor equipment providers are finding it hard to shake the gloom that clouds the sector, while the sparkle that glossed the solar industry seems to have lost a little luster since last year’s show.
Still, with San Francisco showcasing so much remarkable innovation this week, there’s reason for optimism. For more on what to expect at the shows, TechFluential asked Andy Skumanich, Ph.D., a former Applied Materials executive and Business Development VP at solar start-up Innovalight. Now, as CEO of SolarVision Consulting, he charts strategies for technology companies parlaying their innovation in the solar space.
The following is a summary of our conversation.
TF:Funding of solar-related companies has taken a hit this year. According to Q2 data from the Clean Tech Group, solar saw its lowest level of investment in over three years. Does this suggest that the days of massive $100-200 million capital infusions into PV companies are over?
AS: The days of unfettered large-scale spending are indeed over. Now, investors are more savvy and more aware of how the market requirements have to match with the technology. The best example is for low-efficiency thin film. Today, investors are saying that unless the technology can provide about 10% conversion efficiency, we’re not interested. That’s a far cry from the early days (2 years ago) when the investment decision rested simply on a company’s ability to make something that converted light into electricity.
TF: On a related note, are stimulus dollars pouring into the coffers of local PV companies yet? And how many are taking advantage of the DOE Loan Guarantee Program?
AS:Not yet, but it’s starting. So far this year, multiple funding opportunities have opened. But because of the overwhelming demand, and the review process, even the January close date funding programs are just now being published. The Government is trying to balance getting out a large amount of support while doing so with a measured review. It’s possible that the pace will pick up in the next couple of quarters.
As for the number of companies taking advantage of the Government-matching development funds and the DOE Loan Guarantees, I can say from my experience that if a company is NOT applying for something, they are in the minority. They all know about the resources. Academic institutions are also well appraised and pursuing their options as well.
TF:What topic(s) will likely dominate the discussions at InterSolar?
AS:Two topics will likely dominate the discussions: (1) just how bad is it going to be this year for PV, and (2) how far along are we coming for grid parity.
With regard to the first, even though the industry is staggering out of the double-barrel hits of the global economic crisis and falling off the cliff of the PV drop in Spain, companies are not on their feet just yet. There is substantial uncertainty about what the eventual size of the PV market will be this year. But, speculation by industry experts suggests that we’ll be doing well if we are flat from last year. And there may even be a drop-off. Of course, there are companies that will do well--because of their momentum and market positioning, First Solar being the prime example. However, many companies have taken a hit and are hurting.
On the issue of grid parity, the more than 30% drop in module prices is a “good” thing one might suppose. In fact, the current levels actually bring us closer to the historical trend curve. Prices had shot up from that dropping price trend curve in the previous 2 years due to high demand and low poly availability. Now, however, there is reduced demand and extra capacity. So, the industry is reaching the lower targeted costs, albeit in a painful way, which brings the reach to “nominal” grid parity that much closer.
However, grid parity is a simple term for a complex entity simply because of the high upfront costs for PV installation. The biggest impediment for PV implementation currently is the tight credit market. I personally know of specific installation attempts in Germany and other locations where the project is not getting the right up-front funding. So, grid parity really must reflect the complex financial requirements and configurations needed to address the up-front expenditures.
Recently, I talked with a property development firm that had the most unusual combination of circumstances that allowed for “grid parity” installation. They had: (1) lots of roof space, (2) the proper appetite for the various tax credits and incentives, (3) the in-house expertise to navigate the financial complexities, and (4) a tech-savvy in-house team. They became their own PPA. That is quite the combination, but it reflects the gap between just having low $/W product and actually having that product on roof-tops generating grid-parity electricity.
TF:Beyond PVs, what’s happening in the solar value chain? Are you seeing any specific technologies taking root?
AS:Actually, it’s exciting to see the breadth of exploratory technologies from my vantage point. If anything, the notion that there’s not much left to do in c-Si wafer-based PV is completely wrong. There are interesting developments in all aspects of the c-Si value chain which run the gamut from elegant and quite promising (SiGen’s new mode of wafer exfoliation), to evolutionary but valuable changes, such as improved production standards and more deliberate module testing. In all likelihood, the various technologies are all running ahead, and there will be a lot of good developments for the foreseeable future. We really do have the attention of the country’s best-and-brightest, and that’s a tremendous opportunity for both the PV community and our global community.
TF:Do you see similarities between the emergence of the solar value chain and what happened in the semiconductor industry when IC manufacturers began outsourcing for critical process technologies more than 30 years ago?
AS:There are many parallels between the solar and semiconductor worlds and this overlap makes for fascinating comparisons and contrasts. But that would take us beyond the question at hand. The question about outsourcing of critical process technologies is not yet happening in solar. In fact, for the companies that I’m in regular contact with (including many of the top 15 global companies), the opposite is true. They are more concerned about maintaining their competitive advantage by keeping that very element (their process knowledge) in-house and carefully guarded. The PV manufacturing companies see themselves as defined by their technology capabilities so there won’t be any of that outsourced for a good time to come, unlike the current IC sector.
TF:Are there particular semiconductor process technologies/tools that are proving a natural fit for PV manufacturing applications?
AS:The two worlds are really quite different in terms of what drives the tools. Whereas the IC world is driven by increasing complexity and reducing dimensions with 100s of wafers-per-hour throughput, the solar PV world is driven by ideally reducing complexity and increasing dimensions (size of cells), but having multiple thousands of wafers-per-hour throughput. This mis-match—namely the need to drive production to the stratosphere, not the dimensions to the atomic level--is what catches many IC refugees off-guard. The most common cross-over from ICs to Solar is really in “best-practices”. An interesting example can be found at SunPower, where in the early days as part of Cypress Semiconductor, they indeed benefited from being in the IC environment to implement the latter’s methodologies and rigor.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
To Tweet or not to Tweet....if you're a CEO
A recent survey conducted by UberCEO, laments the lack of engagement with social networking tools by Fortune 100 CEOs. Among the findings: 2 have Twitter accounts, 13 maintain Linkedin profiles and 19 have a personal Facebook page. No executive maintains a blog.
The survey doesn’t reveal if the CEOs previously used the tools and ultimately rejected them. Neither does it evaluate how competently their companies are integrating social networking into their corporate marketing strategies. Nonetheless the data is interesting and provides a useful benchmark to compare against future findings.
That said, it’s quite a stretch to suggest that the absence of a personal blog, a Facebook page or a frequent Twitter stream might make a CEO appear “disengaged, disinterested and disconnected” to customers.
The CEOs I know that don’t maintain Facebook pages are far from disconnected. And their stakeholders generally know it, even without a reminder tweet. In today’s grim economy, the “conversation” (as we communications pros like to call it) continues unabated. It’s happening live in customer boardrooms across the globe where corporate chiefs are fighting to close deals on advanced technology in a cruel industry downturn. Time- and- budget-strapped? Certainly. Disengaged? Hardly.
And they’ve been blogging for years—just not externally. Instead, they’re wisely using this tool to engage candidly and frequently with employees—inspiring confidence and more recently, preserving morale in deeply volatile times.
So before we dismiss as “social networking laggards” those that are not personally a-Twitter, it’s fair to consider that maintaining an online identity may not be the smartest use of their time. Indeed, the Fortune 100 CEOs might already have reached that conclusion. And for many, especially those that operate in diverse cultural and geographic selling environments, blogs, Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter may not be the most relevant mediums to personally communicate with those that influence the success of their business.
The survey doesn’t reveal if the CEOs previously used the tools and ultimately rejected them. Neither does it evaluate how competently their companies are integrating social networking into their corporate marketing strategies. Nonetheless the data is interesting and provides a useful benchmark to compare against future findings.
That said, it’s quite a stretch to suggest that the absence of a personal blog, a Facebook page or a frequent Twitter stream might make a CEO appear “disengaged, disinterested and disconnected” to customers.
The CEOs I know that don’t maintain Facebook pages are far from disconnected. And their stakeholders generally know it, even without a reminder tweet. In today’s grim economy, the “conversation” (as we communications pros like to call it) continues unabated. It’s happening live in customer boardrooms across the globe where corporate chiefs are fighting to close deals on advanced technology in a cruel industry downturn. Time- and- budget-strapped? Certainly. Disengaged? Hardly.
And they’ve been blogging for years—just not externally. Instead, they’re wisely using this tool to engage candidly and frequently with employees—inspiring confidence and more recently, preserving morale in deeply volatile times.
So before we dismiss as “social networking laggards” those that are not personally a-Twitter, it’s fair to consider that maintaining an online identity may not be the smartest use of their time. Indeed, the Fortune 100 CEOs might already have reached that conclusion. And for many, especially those that operate in diverse cultural and geographic selling environments, blogs, Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter may not be the most relevant mediums to personally communicate with those that influence the success of their business.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
"Green" buildings: good for your health
Seriously. But that’s not all. Studies show that they also make employees happier and more productive. Consider this example from Australia’s beautiful city of Melbourne. At the 500 Collins Street address, the first and oldest refurbished building in Australia to receive a Green Star rating, employee healthcare costs sank by 44%. Billable hours rose by 7%. And, typing performance soared by 49%. Amazing how a 50% improvement in fresh air rates can produce such tangible and important ROI.
Closer to home, Adobe in San Jose isn’t just making employees healthier; the software giant is also using 37% less energy at its Green headquarters, while reducing its water usage by 41%. It’s also diverting 94% of its waste.
This was some of the information shared at Green Tech Media’s recent Green Building Summit in Silicon Valley by a group of passionate eco-materials entrepreneurs and engaging energy-efficiency thought leaders.
Contrary to popular belief, buildings emit substantially higher amounts of Co2 than the better-known pariah, cars and light trucks – 52% versus 9% respectively. And they’re voracious consumers of power, swallowing more than 40% of the country’s energy. According to James Sweeney, director of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University, energy consumption at the average commercial building breaks out like this: 25% lighting, 13% space cooling, 12% space heating, 7% ventilation, 7% electronics, 6% water heating, 4% refrigeration, 4% computers, 2% cooking and 13% other. 7% is unknown.
Not surprisingly, the national drive to improve building efficiencies is catalyzing the emergence of start-ups offering a rich array of eco-building materials. From ultra-high-efficiency windows, to novel new engineered soils composites, these innovative companies are catapulting what were once niche technologies and products into today’s mainstream. But the leaders of these companies are under no illusions that their products will succeed on the strength of a new eco-conscious mindset. They know that in order to win, their products must be cheaper and better.
Closer to home, Adobe in San Jose isn’t just making employees healthier; the software giant is also using 37% less energy at its Green headquarters, while reducing its water usage by 41%. It’s also diverting 94% of its waste.
This was some of the information shared at Green Tech Media’s recent Green Building Summit in Silicon Valley by a group of passionate eco-materials entrepreneurs and engaging energy-efficiency thought leaders.
Contrary to popular belief, buildings emit substantially higher amounts of Co2 than the better-known pariah, cars and light trucks – 52% versus 9% respectively. And they’re voracious consumers of power, swallowing more than 40% of the country’s energy. According to James Sweeney, director of the Precourt Energy Efficiency Center at Stanford University, energy consumption at the average commercial building breaks out like this: 25% lighting, 13% space cooling, 12% space heating, 7% ventilation, 7% electronics, 6% water heating, 4% refrigeration, 4% computers, 2% cooking and 13% other. 7% is unknown.
Not surprisingly, the national drive to improve building efficiencies is catalyzing the emergence of start-ups offering a rich array of eco-building materials. From ultra-high-efficiency windows, to novel new engineered soils composites, these innovative companies are catapulting what were once niche technologies and products into today’s mainstream. But the leaders of these companies are under no illusions that their products will succeed on the strength of a new eco-conscious mindset. They know that in order to win, their products must be cheaper and better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
