Lead Out Loud
Lead Out Loud is the must-listen podcast from Warwick Business School that brings industry and academia together in conversation.
Tune in to gain actionable strategies, fresh perspectives and the confidence to lead with vision, adaptability and purpose.
Lead Out Loud
Episode 8 | The Anti-Zoo Activist Who Became a Zoo CEO
When Dr Sharon Redrobe OBE first sat in the boardroom as CEO of Twycross Zoo, she was told the reason they were losing A MILLION POUNDS a year was 'they were a charity'.
She disagreed, saying they were actually 'a badly run charity'. From there, someone who once protested the very existence of zoos then saw the power in what they stood for in terms of mission and conservationism.
In this month's Lead Out Loud podcast, we've paired Sharon with Associate Professor of Strategy and Sustainability, Frederik Dahlmann - an academic at Warwick Business School who loves focusing on how companies tackle global sustainability issues in the way they do business.
Also in this episode:
- Why Money isn't a DIRTY WORD in charities.
- Was GREENWASHING inevitable?
- How much it costs to FEED A TIGER.
Discover more on Leadership at the Warwick Business School website.
Follow us on LinkedIn for our Core Insights newsletter here.
Help make the podcast even better. Click here to share your feedback.
Sharon, could you explain how you
SPEAKER_01:ended up where you are today and what that journey looks like? Doing Edinburgh Zoo straight off the bat, my first week I was vasectomising a lynx, which was pretty cool. And it's not a secret, when I went to Twycross, it was losing a million pounds a year. And that's really classic in a lot of charities. They get stuck on this hamster wheel of there's not enough money, so there's no point planning. Finally then, best animal-related song?
SPEAKER_02:I want to be like you. Perfect answer. Welcome to Lead Out Loud. Today on the podcast, we're talking about leadership with purpose. And I'm joined by Sharon Redrobe, OBE, former CEO of Twicross Zoo and the leading voice in animal welfare and conservation, along with Dr. Fred Dahlman, Associate Professor of Strategy and Sustainability at Warwick Business School. So welcome to both and thank you so much for joining today. Before we start about balancing our missions with our monkeys, let's kick things off with our rapid resume. So these are seven quickfire questions for us to get to know you a little bit better. Fred, we'll start with you. Tea or coffee?
SPEAKER_00:Tea.
SPEAKER_02:Coffee. Emails or phone calls?
SPEAKER_00:Emails.
SPEAKER_02:Emails. Working from home or in the office?
SPEAKER_00:I enjoy working from home.
SPEAKER_02:From home or the forest? Standing desk or sitting?
SPEAKER_00:Standing desk.
SPEAKER_02:Sitting, sorry. Time for breakfast or on the go?
SPEAKER_00:Time for breakfast.
SPEAKER_02:On the go. Messy desk or organised desk?
SPEAKER_00:Organised chaos.
SPEAKER_02:Messy. If you weren't doing this job, what would you be doing?
SPEAKER_00:Sports and so forth.
SPEAKER_02:Chasing monkeys through the forest. What was your first connection with the natural world?
SPEAKER_00:Spending time on holidays on the beach.
SPEAKER_01:Nice. I think it was, and it's naughty, so don't do this now, kids, catching tadpoles and watching them grow. And the best animal-related
SPEAKER_02:song?
SPEAKER_00:With some reflection, I'm the walrus.
SPEAKER_02:I want to be like you. Perfect answer. So I wanted to get our conversation properly going today by talking about leadership in those purpose-driven organizations. And so how that brings that kind of different sort of pressure in quite a different way. And then what I imagine is a very real sense of reward at the end of it. So Sharon, could you explain how you ended up where you are today and what that journey looks like? Because presumably it was driven by that sense of purpose in the first place.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. Yeah, I was going to say tortuous journey, but it wasn't tortuous in the sense it was painful. It was just almost there was no plan, but there was a master plan, you know. So I think when I was very young, read James Herriot books, wanted to be a vet, but at the same time read Jane Goodall's books and wanted to go to Africa and live with chimpanzees, you know. So I was very conflicted, if you like, but ended up kind of doing a hybrid, so happy days. So I went down the route of becoming a vet. I think I had some fantastic lecturers who knew I had no interest whatsoever in dogs, cats, sheep, pigs, horses, cows. And I always remember my equine viva, where you're being examined about horses, and I was stalling a little bit, and the professor just went, for God's sake, Sharon, just imagine it's stripey. And that was how I took my attention, really. So they all knew I was going to go down there. a kind of exotic zoo-y wildlife arena. And I spent all my summer holidays, not at dairy farms like you're supposed to, but at Chester Zoo or going to America and learning more over there as well. So then blagged my first job, Edinburgh Zoo, Edinburgh University was advertising for a lecturer and Edinburgh Zoo, but you needed five years experience. So obviously I'd been at uni five years, So I applied, got an interview and plugged my way into the job. So I think, so usually when I'm talking about these things, I'm going to go for it, just go for the job because I think that probably changed my life. So I was straight out of vet school. I was lecturing, which was crazy. I'd spent loads of time in the States and nobody was yet lecturing in this area in the UK. So I wasn't really competing with anyone, if you like. And then doing Edinburgh Zoo straight off the bat. My first week I was vasectomising a lynx. Which was pretty cool. And then I don't know how long you want for this bit.
SPEAKER_02:I'm interested then. So that's how it all kind of got going. And so what was your approach then? Like what was still keeping you going and taking those chances and jumping on those opportunities?
SPEAKER_01:I think I wanted to... I wanted to make a difference and I was really interested in the state of the natural world and wildlife. And I didn't particularly want to work in zoos. I was quite conflicted. And at one point, you know, I had pink hair and I was marching, you know, on the streets of London to close down zoos. And it's kind of... easy to be that antagonistic when you're a student. I'm not taking away from it, but, you know, the world is complex and the solutions are complex. And that kind of knee-jerk that I had, which was close all zoos, sadly, you know, looking at the situation, the wild situation, there is a role for zoos to act as orcs. You know, obviously bad zoos would be shut down. That's like saying, you know, if a hospital's bad, you know, close all hospitals. That's not necessarily the solution. And it's not easy. But I think, you know, we're in the middle of the great extinction crisis. It's driven by humans. Probably if zoos didn't exist now, we'd be inventing them as some kind of sanctuary. And I wish we could kind of undo all the stuff that happened in Victorian times and circuses and what have you. So I was conflicted, but then ended up working in zoos so I could... I guess, work and help the animals I wanted to and be part of a conservation story and then had one foot in the wild as well when I got involved with chimpanzees and gorillas in Cameroon, which I was then involved with for nearly 20 years. Amazing.
SPEAKER_02:And so, Fred, thinking about Sharon's kind of journey and process and what she's been on then, how do you find it when connecting the purpose with a passion and then figuring out what that looks like in practice in the world of work?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, thank you. I think it's really fascinating to hear you story and your background starting out campaigning against the existence of Zoom and then later on deciding actually my best role is to be within an organization and try to make it work in the best possible way. So sometimes we obviously have students who feel passionate about issues and causes of a wide variety of ways and maybe lesser within the business school but certainly across the university and you then have to advise them on their roles and options for career pathways and very often we say, well, maybe it's better if you're inside some of these organizations organizations, business or others to try and change them for the better. If you have a better understanding of what's going on, what the issues are, then maybe it's time for you to step up. And we have seen quite a lot of that in companies around the world where employees were standing up, making the case, standing outside the gates and campaigning for the companies to take action, to be bold and demonstrate leadership. Now, obviously, it's a much more complex situation with job uncertainty, but I think my broad sense is that yes if if the more students are aware of environmental issues social issues and so on if they can bring that into the workplace rather than feeling they have to leave it at home then it's perhaps also more likely that either joining companies and organizations that already are looking for those individuals or where there's increasingly going to be a role for them
SPEAKER_01:that's exactly why i moved into management because I was a vet for 20 odd years. I know, because I only look 17, but in my head. But I was a vet for 20 odd years, and then I got that frustration of what I felt was lack of leadership in the sector being absolutely driven by animal welfare and animal conservation, which aren't the same things, but they both need to be done. And I think I went on a leadership course when I was at Bristol Zoo and Bristol Uni, and my eyes kind of opened a bit of actually, you know, I love the vet work, but I could do so much more if I was in a leadership position. So that started my journey to chief exec.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, and kind of be at the front of the change and hopefully kind of the passion that you have follows through with people that you can then lead, right? But what can you do from the other side?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, exactly. And I think there's only so much I could do as the vet. I might be on the senior management team, but I'm pigeonholed, if you like, in the clinical dollop, which is great, but I just felt I'd been there, done that after 20-odd years. And once you're in the management stream and then the leadership positions, you can start to... lead the ethos of the whole organisation and that's what I really wanted to do was demonstrate you can have a conservation led and minded zoo that is doing some real good as well as being led well with business principles and not going bust because that's what everyone gets concerned about again with charities and with zoos and those kind of business models is that if you do all this you'll go bust and I really wanted to demonstrate no you can be both financially stable and successful and do great conservation and charity work. So that was kind of my next project, really. Yeah,
SPEAKER_02:because when you're looking at the relationship between, you know, strategy and then sustainability and how people can implement that for the greater good, I would imagine that it's those kind of apprehensions that people have about, you know, are we going to end up losing money as a result of this? So what does that kind of look like in the world today?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I guess if you're looking at the private sector, then it's a completely different ballgame in many respects insofar as that they believe very often that the primary purpose of existence is all about making profits and looking after environmental issues and social issues is sort of a secondary concern. At best, that this is falling in line with compliance with rules and regulations or because some stakeholders like investors or employees care about it. so the trade-offs and the tensions are even bigger for charities for for non-profits obviously you go into this because you do want to um have an impact of some form and and so the the philosophy of existence if you like is completely different you do want to do you do things because there's a greater good at the heart of the existence of that that organization entity um so i think but the tensions are the same as you say you do want to you have to be financially sound and successful in order to do what it is you're trying to do, conservation, education. And where I sort of see the dial moving is that increasingly more and more private sector organizations and businesses, they understand that these things don't necessarily have to be sort of driving a wedge in between these issues that are pulling apart. But actually, the more they can integrate them in a strategic and sound and effective way, the more likely it is that they're both achieving both. But you do have those trade-offs sometimes, short-term, long-term, things you do in your main operations versus things you do in the supply chain, who you buy from, how you engage your customers and suppliers. All that takes time and effort and knowledge. So there isn't an easy answer, but to me, looking at all of these issues collectively is the only way to do it properly.
SPEAKER_02:And how long do you think it's been since that shift that you're talking about where, you know, you had the previous leadership that you would look at and think, you know, this isn't just a business. It doesn't have to be just that, that kind of pushed you to want to go into that management. How far have we come, do you think, since then in society? I
SPEAKER_01:think it's still there, which is why I'm doing it as a consultancy. I think... When I went into Twicross, and it's not a secret, when I went into Twicross, it was losing a million pounds a year. It had no CapEx development programme, no development programme, had no money. And I remember sitting round the table with the turnaround CEO and the business leaders that were the board of this charity, mulling over the issues and basically saying the problem is it's a charity. and the money was being spent on animals and this, that and the other. And I said, no, actually the problem is it's a badly run charity. So I really, I get the tension, but I think there's too many charities and charitable organisation forgetting about money. And money is not a dirty word in charities. It's an enabler. You cannot do your mission centric stuff if you don't have enough money. So you have to be mindful of your revenue streams, your customers, all your customers, the humans and the animals and whatever. Because if you go bust, you can't do anything. And that's what I really enjoyed that tension. Because obviously my DNA is animal welfare and conservation. But I really hit the books and studied hard on the business side because if you don't have the money, you can't do it. And the first thing I did when I sat down with the staff and the board, because they took a massive risk on me because I helped them in the initial turnaround and then they wanted a really experienced business CEO to come in and run it. And I said, you need someone who can hold the tension and who can hold the room. I know how close we can go with animal welfare and conservation, but I'm learning on the job of it. obviously on the business side but that's what they brought yeah um so the first thing i did was sit down with the staff and say the first thing i'm doing is not building a massive monkey house i'm building soft play because the customers will come in for the soft play it's much cheaper i can't afford a big monkey house i can't afford a soft play frame if anybody with young kids knows they're a license to print money you know and then we got the money and then we can start building fantastic animal habitats and then we can start doing great conservation so it's People aren't stupid. I think it's explaining to your customers and your staff what you're doing with the money. And you can do it all, and then you need to plan. And these are like basic business principles, aren't they? You know, if you fail to plan, plan to fail. And that's really classic in a lot of charities. They get stuck on this hamster wheel of there's not enough money, so there's no point planning. Don't plan a£50 million project when you've only got... hound in the bank you know but if you don't have a plan you can't go and sell the plan to stakeholders and fundraise and you know and you you can't you can't gather that energy so it's you know i loved all that stuff and i think that's almost my vet background you know sick animals sick organization you know break it down exactly break it down how do you fix it get everyone on board have a plan um but also you know and be decisive
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, because that was the thing that occurred to me ahead of today, is if you're outside looking in and you're someone that's never given much thought to a zoo as a business, the seasonal visitors and the food bills were the two things that occurred to me. I don't know about you, but I mean... Is it fair to ask you how much it costs to feed a tiger or something?
SPEAKER_01:Well, this is what happened during COVID because everyone was going, well, there's a furlough scheme. Well, you can't furlough a penguin. Where's the line? I like that. We couldn't furlough the staff because the animals need fed and looked after. And food bills in a medium-sized zoo are easily 50k a month. So where's that going to come from? And if your only revenue stream are people through the gate, You need to make sure you can clear that. You can say as many wonderful things as you want, but you need to be able to feed the animals and pay the staff to look after the animals. And it is sad if you want to go into an animal career, you're not doing it for money because the salaries are not great. But you do need to be fair and you do need good people to stay in animal management roles as well. So it's balancing all that. And then that's only the day to day. If all you can do is feed the animals and pay for the staff. Where's your next build coming from? Where's your next renovation project? Where's your next payment for the flight? So they could go to Cameroon and look after and learn from wild chimpanzees and do some really meaningful work in the wild as well. So you need extra money to do that. So it does all come down to money. And I think it was the whole mantra of money is not a dirty word in charities. You have to focus on the money. Do not lose sight of your mission. So people don't like to say zoos are a business because it starts to sound like a circus. And we're not using the animals for money. It's the other way around. We're using the people, the visitors, to give us the money to do the good work for the animals. But you can't lose sight of the need for both.
SPEAKER_02:Do you think then, Fred, that from what Sharon's just said that people in those leadership roles in organizations who either stand by a mission or have this kind of broader purpose, or even those who are working towards being more sustainable, say, do you think that leadership or people in leadership roles in those organizations should be held to different standards or higher standards?
SPEAKER_00:Instinctively, I would say no. I think that the standards should be the same for all. I think whether it's a business or a charity, we all exist within the same why this sort of environment, natural environment, the social society and economy. And so therefore the expectations that we have on our leaders should be the same. And I think increasingly will be the same because we realize that without stable natural ecosystems, without stable democracies and economies, we can't operate one way or another as a zoo or as a business. So in that sense, leadership is more or less the same thing. Whether that's quite filtered through, I'm not sure yet. We're still working our way and working with our students and working with our companies in our research to get them to understand that. But essentially, I would say the skills that are required to manage organizations in the 21st century are becoming very similar. And I liked your example of the staging of projects where you say, well, in the first instance, we need to have a small project that brings in the revenues, which we then use for bigger projects subsequently. And I think that's exactly what many academics and others would say is that because often you have these tensions you need to become comfortable with them first of all you can't reject them outright well that's too difficult because it's scientifically complex or politically challenging you just have to embrace it jump at it and say well what can we do in the short term that will then allow us in the long term to build on this and how do we sort of see ourselves progressing over time what is the general direction of travel i think too many probably organizations, particularly in the private sector, lose sight of their purpose. That goes beyond the money. The money is the lifeblood of nothing else to keep things ticking over. But without some form of an all-star, some kind of an idea of why the organization should exist in the first place, whether it's to promote animal welfare and conservation or to provide product services that customers ultimately want to buy, When they lose that sight, then all things become much more complex and everything is relegated to short-term pressures. Yes, you can save lots of costs by getting rid of your staff effectively, but what's the point? Why do you exist? It seems like an obvious question to ask, but for many, particularly younger students going into business, sometimes forgets asking that question. Some do, some have a very sort of curious mindset and want to understand why should I be working for you rather than some other business that does in the same industry. But without that clarity from the top down, from boards and executives down to the organization, it becomes harder to really feel compelled to join them, to put in your best effort, to think creatively, becoming entrepreneurial. in the way that you've demonstrated and really trying to make the whole business work, whatever the business ultimately is. So yeah, I think leadership, good leadership increasingly recognises that, that there's a bigger picture which has to drive everything else and that the financial side is just sort of a means to that wider, bigger end.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, that's a nice way of putting it with the means. And so how is it that you can get people those individuals on board because, I mean, in Sharon's example, you just said, get out of the way, I'll do it.
SPEAKER_03:This is
SPEAKER_01:how it works. I did feel like, you know, I'm not a very good backseat driver, you know. If I really feel like I could do this or I want to show that this can be done in this way, then you've got to put your head on the block, haven't you, and apply for the jobs. Show yourself up and apply for the job.
SPEAKER_02:And when you said that, you know, they've already got the business bit, you know, that was where... world was at that point you said you know i can i can do this part
SPEAKER_01:yeah
SPEAKER_02:and in your consultancy capacity you must be meeting all sorts of different organizations in in lots of different stages of this am i right tell us a little bit about how that looks and the kind of people that that you're met with
SPEAKER_01:um well i think i think yeah again it depends um what box you put people into, or organisations into, but I think, building on what you just said, I think there is that cross-fertilisation of ideas and skill sets, which is really important. I mean, say, we're a charity, so charities operate like this, or this is a private business, though, and a private business operates like this. There is... It's breaking down those barriers. Both should be successful and both can steal ideas from the other. And I think that's what we're seeing now is a lot of synergy across the two. So purpose-driven businesses and financially savvy charities, you know, because all those things are important. And then I think they're kind of the value adds that employees feel that they're bringing to an organisation is more and more important. So they don't just feel like they're there earning some money and going home again. You know, they're not working down the mines anymore. They want to feel like... and doing something a little bit with purpose. I think they're split. I think from what I've seen with the next couple of generations are some people want to work in a really purpose-driven company you want to feel like that's in their DNA and they're not that bothered about the salary. Whereas others have a fantastic out of work life, you know, and the money is to facilitate that life. And I think both are perfectly valid. And those things change, you know, as you go through your life as well. And so you don't have to box yourself into, I'm only going to do this bit. So this sector, I'm only going to work for money or I'm only, you know. I think work-life balance is super important and we're always, we're more and more recognising that, I think. I was going to say as well, there's a saying in conservation that you can't do conservation on an empty stomach. And I think, you know, that's why a lot of the charities working in field, if you like, there's no point lecturing people about, you know, don't go for the elephants because they're destroying your crops you know if your children need fed and you're hungry you know you can't focus on anything else you haven't got that luxury so a lot of those animal charities are working a lot with the humans because that's where it needs to start and and in some level but not quite as you know uh worrying but you know When you're working in the UK, there's a basic hygiene factor of, am I earning enough money? And then what choices do I have? And I think jumping sectors can be really helpful in widening your mind, widening your skill sets, not closing down too soon on what I want to do. And bringing that commercially savvy experience you've got for working in corporates into the charity sector. I think some people, when they move into a charity sector, then their brain falls out. And they feel, I'm in a charity now, so I can't mention money. It's not about profit. It's all about the woolly stuff. So that's a great way to go broke, isn't it? We didn't employ you, you know, Mr. New or Mrs. New, head of marketing or whatever, to lose your brain. We brought you in for the synergy. Yeah,
SPEAKER_02:yeah, totally. And so, Fred, in your capacity then with students now, what does that look like in the bigger picture? And how do you kind of communicate that I don't know, need for balance, I suppose.
SPEAKER_00:How do we communicate this? Well, there's lots of case studies and examples. There's models and theories and the rest that you would expect in academic teaching. But maybe almost more to your point, how you're looking to private sector skills and bring them into the nonprofit sector. There's also the reverse, where in some of my teaching, I try to provide students with access to tools and frameworks that are used, almost have been developed by the nonprofit sector around creating impacts, logic models, theories of change. These are really interesting ideas that have been widely sort of trialed and tested, also adopted by government and others, whenever we're trying to change things, we recognise the situation that we want to address. How do we actually go about this? Recognising that society is complex, that customers are fickle and so on. And so, to me, there's a great deal to be learned in both directions. And we try to give students not just access to the traditional private sector models and theories, but actually also show that In other fields, there's some really interesting work that's being done that you may be able to apply that helps you to think about the world around you, helps you to structure your analysis, whatever report you need to write, and so that you can provide advice to seniors, line managers, and others to say, well, if we're trying to roll out, say, a new piece of technology, if we're trying to speed up the renewable energy transition, whatever it might be, how do we actually do this? Because Standard theories often are quite limited in their assumptions as to how change works. It's all about how do we as a company compete against other industries and competitors, and there's some very narrow assumptions around roles of economic values and maybe quality. Once you go into those broad issues, how do you even get society to adopt a new piece of technology? How do you even get customers to embrace new forms of making products, say fashion or otherwise? Then you really have to start to think in ways that are fundamentally different to what business schools historically used to teach.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, and anything new is obviously terrifying and puts everybody on edge. Or it's exciting. Well, that's it. It depends on which side of the line you are. It is a kind of jolt, isn't it? There's any approach to change, and certainly through doing the podcast and anybody I've met, what everyone agrees on is the second that you mentioned change to an organisation, everyone's kind of clinging on and bracing themselves in a panic. But I think that's absolutely right. If you're kind of excited by that, what does that mean? What is our potential now? Yeah. it's
SPEAKER_01:like those phrases that you can paint on your wall you know yes the the most dangerous phrase to an organization is we've always done it like this yes oh we looked at that five years ago it didn't work yes well that was five years ago yeah you know loads of stuff's changed you know since then so yeah i think and charities tend to be long-lived so you know that's what i'm advising a couple of charities now and you know they are not about build build a company up you know sell it in five years for loads of money and go and live in the Bahamas. You know, they are about set something up for 50 to 100 years potentially. So you have to have that short-term fixed view very quickly, but also like rapidly layer that with 10 and 20 year plans. And that's the difficulty because it's two conversations at once, but that's what I like, you know, but it's attracting those sorts of people that like change and like to be pivoting and finding solutions kind of all the time. Constant,
SPEAKER_00:right? We could do a lot more with this sort of long-term thinking in the private sector. I think too much is driven by short-term needs and short-term fear of losing out or displeasing investors and others when, in fact, what's really required is this long-term purpose vision that then drives changes and justifies why we're making an acquisition or why we're launching a new product or otherwise. And that builds that momentum. So, I think long-term thinking is something that where we're struggling if you like in the private sector to get them to embrace that more in the same way perhaps as other sectors do
SPEAKER_01:i think it's what it's what you reward isn't it that drives that drives what people do i mean it's all about bonuses and one year budgets that's really tough um and obviously when i'm advising um zoos and kind of wildlife charities they've often got a physical place, and that will need constant redevelopment. So that's your 20-year plan straight away, because you're not going to do a major build every year. Where's the money and the effort? And it's going to be carnage anyway. So every major build is every five years, but you need several. By the time you've done four of those, the first ones are 20 years old. So they'll need renewing. So when you start plotting it like that, it suddenly becomes clear that, of course you need your one-year budget but that's kind of really artificial you need to do that but actually because you've got a 20-30 year plan for the site and to keep it going and constantly refreshed you know you need that longer-term vision of what you're going to do and and how much work you're going to do in the world but in the meantime you know things can change on the planet you know super quickly in the next 20 years we're going to see sadly a lot of a lot of change because climate change is now coming. I think we're locked in, you know, this way up the film, aren't we? So, you know, there is going to be a huge amount of change with temperature changes, availability of water and that kind of thing. So, you know, what are all the conservation organisations doing? Are they still stuck 20 years ago when it's kind of, you know, we're going to fence off a bit of Africa and call it our project? You know, is that really good enough? Are we really going to make any effective change? And or is that area going to flood anyway? So it's mapping some of the really scary climate change stuff now onto the conservation vision. I wouldn't like to call that exciting. I think it's really super depressing and I'm trying to not always go down the negative route and everyone goes, well, there's no point doing anything. But it's being realistic and mapping that on so that we can stand up and say we're about to make some meaningful change or we do know what we're going to do when these things start to happen.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's, and I like the concept of mapping it out as well, because we're talking about plans and having strategies in place. But I think the idea of mapping is, you know, you know what's ahead, right? You can have a pretty good
SPEAKER_01:guess at what's coming. I've always been saying carbon net zero 2030, which sounded like a long time ago. It's 2025 now. So that's only five years. Yeah. You know, so all these numbers that have been rattling around for ages seemed like... So very distant. It did. And I was going to
SPEAKER_02:ask you about that, actually, because just with this duo of guests, I couldn't not ask. It's fantastic. Well, exactly. I couldn't not ask. The concept of greenwashing is something I hear all the time, constantly, because I'm in news, right? So it's all the time. And I used to think that I knew what it meant. Now I think the people using the term don't know what it means either. And I wonder whether in this weird place of financial instability, climate change, wanting more of a purpose for some generations, others going a different way, and all this mess that we've kind of lost sight of what weight those terms carry, you know, net zero, like you said, and what they contribute to that conversation. So, I mean, I just wondered whether you had any views on it. I mean, it's certainly overused for one.
UNKNOWN:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:Well, I think it was a sign of the fact that there was growing awareness, which was a positive thing. So more and more companies realized the environment and other issues matter, and so we should be doing something about this. Now, the flip side to that was that also a lot of organizations, businesses in particular, realized there might be a shortcut to it, which is to say more rather than to do anything about it. Pretending, giving the veneer, giving the impression that your organization was taking these issues seriously was an easy and cheap way to maybe attract customers, to attract investors, and to pretend that you had that sort of understanding of what society wanted. As with the growth of digital technologies and other information sources, we've obviously become wiser. We were able to challenge and call out when companies are making claims about their products, about the services that clearly aren't true, all the way down to regulators issuing fines for misleading marketing claims, essentially. So, in some ways, that's a good thing because we sort of ratchet up the, if you like, the penalties for pretending and giving the impression they were doing something when, in fact, no significant impact on the environment positively was happening. But we're also seeing the reverse now where more companies, as a result of feeling or worried about making false claims, doing what's known as green hushing. So they may continue what they were doing before substantial efforts to decarbonize their energy sources or engaging in environmental protection efforts, but not saying much about this. And that too has risks because as good as it might be for the wider perspective of the planet and society, It may lead to a situation where you feel like we better keep this on a low profile. We don't shout about this too much. And you may end up maybe losing customers or other stakeholders who would have wanted to learn or you want to understand what it is you're doing. So it's a fine line. And I think, as always, probably the right answer lies somewhere in between saying what you're, making claims that are backed up by some form of evidence, scientifically or otherwise, but not over, making overly exaggerated statements either. So it's an interesting time we're living in for political and other reasons, and so companies are trying to figure out what's the right thing for us to do now. Do we just keep on doing what we were doing before, but just not put it front and center on websites or investor reports?
SPEAKER_01:I think greenwashing was inevitable when the conservation crisis and the climate crisis became mainstream. Then it became a topic and people wanted to address it and they either addressed it properly or they pretended to. So greenwashing. I think the tragedy is then when people's pockets are hurting, like I said, you can't do conservation in the wild if people are hungry. You can't do proper climate conservation. change solutions in the Western world if people are worried about a cost of living crisis. And then we have the rise of woke as a term of abuse. So green hushing is a great term. So people, maybe companies, organisations are still doing the right thing and have a long-term strategy and vision for that. And they're keeping it quiet. It's such a shame. I think we have to We have to address it head on. I think the greenwashing still goes on. I think I heard you say it's not as common now or it's not. Totally is. You know, I'm in the soap business as well now with One Foot and we do have natural and organic soap and we have a lot of competitors, including some very big famous names that are absolutely greenwash and use words like natural and plant-based when it's not actually true. And there's little asterisks on it where they go, this isn't the word that we should be using. It's nonsense. And you kind of hope that the consumer is better educated and the internet was meant to solve all problems and it hasn't. So people can Google or what have you and find the truth, but they're being swamped by all these messages still. So it's really hard, I think, advising companies and organisations just to stay true to theirself because at some point the truth will out and then it's a scandal and that will hurt you. So decide what your long-term mission, vision, strategy is around this stuff and stick to it and don't ever be caught in a lie. I think that's... That's true certainly in charities where we always think it's about, you know, can you sleep at night with these decisions? But it should be true in corporates as well. I think the challenge is it's short term. So you see, you know, big CEOs lose their job over a big corporate scandal and they pop up at another corporate, you know, six months later. Can't solve the world because I don't yet run the world. But when I do... We'll watch this space, right? We would have some of that truth come out. And I hope we certainly see people searching a lot. more and calling companies out a lot more
SPEAKER_02:yeah
SPEAKER_01:i think i think green hushing is a term it's such a shame it even exists that people are almost ashamed of having these ideas but they don't want to be accused of of woke yeah because certainly in america and in certain parts of europe that's become you know like i say it's become a term of abuse and that's just polarized these discussions we should all care yeah it's not fluffy and woolly we should all care about whether we're going to have enough oxygen to breathe you know there's eight billion people plus on the planet we're actually above carrying capacity it's not difficult we're an intelligent species we have the science and we have the knowledge as a species um but you know we have this group think going on where we just want the next best car and the next best mobile phone and sod the planet you know i think continuing to have this dialogue yeah and voting is and encouraging politicians to make the right decisions for us long term. Obviously, because of the living crisis and people having jobs, we need to make sure there's enough money to go around, there's enough food to go around. But we have to look at the finite resources on the planet and what we're actually going to do in the next 20, 50 years. And that does not mean going to Mars. Always wanted to be an astronaut. That's a different podcast. But, you know, that is not the solution either. You know, let's fix the planet we're on.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. And it's interesting, isn't it? Because I think that, I mean, by no means, has greenwashing gone anywhere? I think what I just mean is that the use of the term has been changed into this insult phase that you were talking about with that concept of being woke. So it's exactly that, isn't it? And, you know, with all the other state
SPEAKER_01:of the world. I think people are proud to say they're not into green issues. That's shameful. Yeah. Well, you're proud that in three generations time, there might be mass starvation and, you know, and huge heating problems. And, you know, we might actually go through an extinction crisis ourselves. It's like, oh, that's someone else's problem. Or let's not trust the
SPEAKER_02:scientists. Crazy. Yeah. And, you know, everything being on a scale, it doesn't have to be I am or I'm not,
SPEAKER_01:right? Yeah, it's too binary, I think. It's way too binary. I do. But it's trying to find, we need to have more nuanced debate in leadership and politics. And that's what's hard because it's almost like the Internet's pushed people into yes, no meme arguments, you know.
UNKNOWN:Yes.
SPEAKER_01:we've lost some of that balance and that sense. I keep having to hope, you know, another three, four years, common sense will prevail and we'll have a shift in worldwide leadership.
SPEAKER_02:Well, guys, I would encourage now then if we could head to the bottom line of today's episode. So we've covered a lot of ground and I'd be really interested if you are capable of picking one takeaway from what we've spoken about today, everything from the mission behind leaders and how to do that effectively to bringing different sectors together and taking inspiration. I mean, what would you say?
SPEAKER_00:So, essentially, you call it the bottom line. Obviously, famously, John Atkin referred to it as the triple bottom line. Then, 20 years later, he said, actually, I'm not sure this was the right way. He withdrew his idea. He said it needs a product recall, and maybe the idea of the triple bottom line hadn't been picked up in the way that he had anticipated or intended, that effectively most companies still reverted back to the financial bottom line, ignoring social and environmental dimensions. So, interesting sort of development in its own rights. Is the triple bottom line feasible, effective for organisations and others? We certainly look at this in our modules and our teaching and we try to get students, we try to give them a bigger sense of the impact that organisations can have. And so impact by definition can be both positive and negative. And we need to move to a world where any type of organisation, private or non-profit, recognises that the sort of financial mechanism that allows them to exist, that allows them to drive their impact, obviously, is necessary.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah, thank you so much for that. And Sharon, what would your bottom
SPEAKER_01:line be today? I think make the right thing to do a non-negotiable. You know, it shouldn't be a conversation. I was watching some TED Talks last night, love a TED Talk. And Sir Ken, education, he was leading with a load of Americans were asking teachers in Finland, how do you deal with your dropout rate? And they said, what dropout rate? You know, because they'd nailed it so much. It wasn't an issue. They didn't have a dropout rate. And that's what you need to look at. Why are you even looking at the problem? You shouldn't have that problem. And I, you know, and I think for me, you know, people, planet, profit, or however we're going to draw that together, we shouldn't even be trying to balance that. It shouldn't be, are you gonna look at planet or you're going to look at profit well of course you're going to look at planet because it's where we all live you know and that so it should be non-negotiable it should be not a conversation of course we're going to do the right thing of course we're going to look at um whether we're using finite resources too fast whether we're heating the planet too fast whether we're um not looking forward to sustainability as fast as we should we should just be doing that and then we should be managing profit over here non-negotiable
SPEAKER_02:No, thank you so much for that thought. That's great. Well, again, thank you both for joining me today. I've had a wonderful chat. And it's been a pleasure to have you.