GC - finanzasostenibile.it...Laresponsabilitàcome#vantaggio# compevoperleimprese# Milano, 3...
Transcript of GC - finanzasostenibile.it...Laresponsabilitàcome#vantaggio# compevoperleimprese# Milano, 3...
La responsabilità come vantaggio compe33vo per le imprese
Milano, 3 settembre 2015
Marco Frey
Comparative Analysis:GC LNs’ activities
Consiglio Direttivo, 20th of April 2015
Temi
1. Responsabilità e sostenibilità 2. La necessità di un nuovo modello di
sviluppo 3. Sostenibilità, responsabilità e
compe33vità dell’impresa 4. Nuovi business models
La responsabilità delle imprese
Le imprese possono/devono nel fare business impegnarsi a perseguire obiettivi sociali e ambientali oltre che economici?
Responsabilità sociale d’impresa e sostenibilità
Per Joseph S3glitz la CSR è:
“A business contribu3on to sustainable development”
Corporate sustainability and responsibility (Corporate ci3zenship)
CSR in una prospeLva CE
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business opera3ons and in their interac3on with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (European Commission, 2001).
• CSR “can play a key role in contribu3ng to sustainable development while enhancing Europe’s innova3ve poten3al and compe33veness” (European Commission, 2005)
Nuova definizione e obieLvi della CSR “New defini3on of the concept, for which CSR is “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society [...]; To fully meet their corporate social responsibility, enterprises should have in place a process to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights and consumer concerns into their business opera3ons and core strategy in close collabora3on with their stakeholders, with the aim of: • Maximising the crea3on of shared value for their owners/shareholders and for their other stakeholders and society at large; • Iden3fying, preven3ng and mi3ga3ng their possible adverse impacts.”
Communica3on from the Commission -‐ A renewed EU strategy 2011-‐14 for
CSR. Bruxelles, 25.10.2011 COM(2011) 681 final 6
CR
ES
CIT
A E
CO
NO
MIC
A
EQ
UIL
IBR
AT
A E
DU
RA
TU
RA
TU
TE
LA E
VA
LOR
IZZ
AZ
ION
E
DE
LL’A
MB
IEN
TE
PR
OG
RE
SS
O S
OC
IALE
E
MIG
LIO
RA
ME
NT
O D
ELL
A
QU
ALI
TA
’ DE
LLA
VIT
A
I PRINCIPI ISPIRATORI DELLA SOSTENIBILITA’
Equità infragenerazionale
Equità intergenerazionale
An unsustainable world
LA GREEN ECONOMY: La definizione dell’UNEP e il
decoupling dell’OCSE • Il Rapporto “verso una green economy” del 2011 la definisce
“come un’economia capace di produrre un benessere, di migliore qualità e più equamente esteso, migliorando la qualità dell’ambiente e salvaguardando il capitale naturale”.
•
9
L’ecoefficienza dell’industria italiana (per unità di prodo>o) – 2008-‐2012
32 — Greenitaly Rapporto 2014
-20,3
5,1
-8,9 -6,8 -7,7
recupero materia emissioni atmosferiche
produzione ambientale
-10
-20
-30
-40
40,0
30,0
20,0
10,0
0,0
&ŽŶƚĞĞůĂďŽƌĂnjŝŽŶŝƐƵĚĂƟƵƌŽƐƚĂƚĐŽĐĞƌǀĞĚĞ/ƐƚĂƚ
ŶĂůŝnjnjĂŶĚŽŝůůŝǀĞůůŽĚŝƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĞĂŵďŝĞŶƚĂůĞĚĞŝĐŽŵƉĂƌƟŵĂŶŝĨĂƩƵƌŝĞƌŝŽǀǀĞƌŽů ĞĐŽͲŝŵƉĂƩŽϯůĂŵĞĚŝĂƐĞŵƉůŝĐĞ;ƐŝŶƚĞƐŝͿĚĞŝƋƵĂƩƌŽŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌŝ;ŝŶƉƵƚĞŶĞƌŐĞƟĐŝĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝĂŵďŝĞŶƚĂůŝƉƌŽĚƵnjŝŽŶĞĞƌĞĐƵƉĞƌŽĚŝƌŝĮƵƟͿƉƌĞŵŝĂůĂĮůŝĞƌĂĞůĞƩƌŽŶŝĐĂƐŝĂƌĞůĂƟǀĂŵĞŶƚĞĂůůĂƉƌŽĚƵnjŝŽŶĞĚŝĂƉƉĂƌĞĐĐŚŝĞůĞƩƌŝĐŝƐŝĂŝŶƌĞůĂnjŝŽŶĞĂůůĂĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚĞƉŝƶĂǀĂŶnjĂƚĂ/ŶƚƵƫĞĚƵĞŝĐŽŵƉĂƌƟů ŽƫŵŽƌŝƐƵůƚĂƚŽğĨƌƵƩŽĚĞůůĞƉĞƌĨŽŵĂŶĐĞŝŶƚĞƌŵŝŶŝĚŝĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŝŶƋƵŝŶĂŶƟϰĞƉƌŽĚƵnjŝŽŶĞĚŝƌŝĮƵƟϱEĞůƉƌŝŵŽĐĂƐŽĂůƚƌŝƌŝƐƵůƚĂƟĐĞƌƚĂŵĞŶƚĞĨĂǀŽƌĞǀŽůŝƐŽŶŽĚĂĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƌĞĂŶĐŚĞĂůůĂŵĞĐĐĂŶŝĐĂŶĞŐůŝƵůƟŵŝĂŶŶŝĐŽŶƚƌĂĚĚŝƐƟŶƚĂĚĂƵŶĐŽŶƟŶƵŽŵŝŐůŝŽƌĂŵĞŶƚŽĚĞůůĂƐŽƐƚĞŶŝďŝůŝƚăĚĞŝƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŝ
ϯWĂƌƚĞŶĚŽĚĂůůĂƌŝĐŽƐƚƌƵnjŝŽŶĞĚĞůůĞƐĞƌŝĞƚĞŵƉŽƌĂůŝƉĞƌƐŽƩŽƐĞnjŝŽŶĞĚŝĂƫǀŝƚăĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĂğƉŽƐƐŝďŝůĞĞůĂďŽƌĂƌĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚŽƌŝĚŝĞĐŽͲŝŵƉĂƩŽƌĂƉƉŽƌƚĂŶĚŽŝĨĞŶŽŵĞŶŝĂŝůŝǀĞůůŝĚŝĂƫǀŝƚăƉƌŽĚƵƫǀĂĚĞŝĚŝǀĞƌƐŝĐŽŵƉĂƌƟŵĂŶŝĨĂƩƵƌŝĞƌŝĞĚĞĐŽͲƚĞŶĚĞŶnjĂǀĂůƵƚĂŶĚŽůĂĚŝŶĂŵŝĐĂĚŝŵĞĚŝŽƉĞƌŝŽĚŽĚŝƋƵĞƐƚƵůƟŵŝ/ƐŝŶŐŽůŝǀĂůŽƌŝƐƟŵĂƟƐŽŶŽƐƚĂƟƌŝĐŽŶĚŽƫŝŶƋƵĂƩƌŽĐůĂƐƐŝEĞůƉƌŝŵŽĐĂƐŽŝůŵĞƚŽĚŽĚŝƐƵĚĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶĞğƌŝĐĂĚƵƚŽƐƵŝƋƵĂƌƟůŝŶĞůƐĞĐŽŶĚŽƐŝğŝŶǀĞĐĞĚĞĐŝƐŽĚŝƐƵĚĚŝǀŝĚĞƌĞůĞǀĂƌŝĂnjŝŽŶŝƉŽƐŝƟǀĞ;ŝŶƐĐĂůĂĚŝǀĞƌĚĞͿŽŶĞŐĂƟǀĞ;ŝŶƐĐĂůĂĚŝƌŽƐƐŽͿĂƩƌĂǀĞƌƐŽůƵƟůŝnjnjŽĚŝŵĞĚŝĞĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞϰWĞƌůĞĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŝŶƋƵŝŶĂŶƟƐŝğĚĞĐŝƐŽĚŝƵƟůŝnjnjĂƌĞůĂƐŽůĂĂŶŝĚƌŝĚĞĐĂƌďŽŶŝĐĂƚƌĂůĞŵŽůƚĞƉůŝĐŝĚŝƐƉŽŶŝďŝůŝŐŝĂĐĐŚĠĂŶĐŚĞƌŝĐŽŶĚƵĐĞŶĚŽůĞĂůƚƌĞƟƉŽůŽŐŝĞŝŶƚĞƌŵŝŶŝĚŝKϮůĂƋƵĂƐŝƚŽƚĂůŝƚăĚĞůůĞĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝƉƌŽǀŝĞŶĞĚĂƋƵĞƐƚĂǀŽĐĞϱ>ĂŶĂůŝƐŝƐƵŝƌŝĮƵƟğƌĞƐĂƉŽƐƐŝďŝůĞĚĂůůƵƟůŝnjnjŽĚĞůůĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂnjŝŽŶŝĚĞƌŝǀĂŶƟĚĂůDh;DŽĚĞůůŽhŶŝĐŽĚŝŝĐŚŝĂƌĂnjŝŽŶĞĂŵďŝĞŶƚĂůĞͿĐƵŝƐŽŶŽŽďďůŝŐĂƚĞůĞŝŵƉƌĞƐĞĮŶŽĂĚŝĞĐŝĂĚĚĞƫĞƚƵƩĞƋƵĞůůĞĐŚĞƉƌŽĚƵĐŽŶŽƌŝĮƵƟƉĞƌŝĐŽůŽƐŝĂƉƌĞƐĐŝŶĚĞƌĞĚĂůŶƵŵĞƌŽĚŝĂĚĚĞƫ
36 — Greenitaly Rapporto 2014
DĂƚƌŝĐĞĚŝƌĞůĂnjŝŽŶĞƚƌĂĐůĂƐƐŝĚŝĞĐŽͲŝŵƉĂƩŽĞĚŝĞĐŽͲƚĞŶĚĞŶnjĂĚĞŝĐŽŵƉĂƌƟŵĂŶŝĨĂƩƵƌŝĞƌŝŝƚĂůŝĂŶŝ
basso
medio-alto
medio-basso
alto
eco-tendenza
meccanica,mobili e altre at-
apparecchi
alimentari, bev-ande e tabacco
mezzi di trasporto
metallurgica
chimica, gomma, -
li non metalliferi
sistema moda
legno, carta e stampa
petroliferi
Fonte: Unioncamere, Fondazione Symbola, 2014
Porter • A growing number of companies known for their hard-‐nosed
approach to business—such as GE, Google, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Nestlé, Unilever, and Wal-‐Mart—have already embarked on important efforts to create shared value by reconceiving the intersec3on between society and corporate performance.
• The purpose of the corpora3on must be redefined as crea3ng shared value, not just profit per se. This will drive the next wave of innova3on and produc3vity growth in the global economy. It will also reshape capitalism and its rela3onship to society.
12
Business & Society
Quali relazioni tra sostenibilità e competitività
Env/CSR Man. Practices
Env. /CSR Performance
Competitive Performance
Positive influence
Positive influence
Primary Stakeholder
Secondary Stakeholder
Regulation
Institutional theory
La teoria istituzionalista enfatizza il ruolo delle pressioni sociali e culturali che influenzano le pratiche e le strutture organizzative nelle imprese (Scott, 1992). Di Maggio ePowell (1983) sostengono che le decisioni manageriali di adozione iniziative ambientali possono essere influenzate da tre meccanismi istituzionali, ovvero pressioni: coercitivi, “mimetici” e normativi. Questi meccanismi creano un diffuso e comune set di valori, norme e regole che danno luogo ad un “campo organizzativo” che coinvolge un sistema di attori ( ottenimento di una legittimazione sociale)
La regolazione
Porter e Van der Linde (1995) sottolineano che“properly designed environmental regulation can trigger innovation that may partially or more than fully offset the costs of complying with them” Come vedremo occorre considerare diverse categorie di strumenti di politica ambientale, in funzione della loro logica (e.g.: “Polluter Pays Principle” vs. market-oriented approach) o del grado di cogenza: direct regulation (command and control), economic instruments and soft instruments
I consumatori
Source: Attitudes of Europeans towards building the single market for green products – Eurobarometer 2013
La pressione delle associazioni
Tre diverse prospeLve… …con focus diversi:
• Cosa determina il vantaggio compe33vo delle imprese?
>>> Il paradigma Stru.ura-‐Condo.a-‐Performance • Come condurre l’impresa a condizioni che garan3scano una migliore performance compe33va?
>>> La catena del valore e le strategie di Porter • Cosa supporta la creazione e il mantenimento del vantaggio compe33vo?
>>> La Resource Based View
Gestire bene la sostenibilità rende • La leoeratura manageriale ci mostra che con una
ges3one responsabile dell’impresa possono migliorare:
Il clima interno
Le vendite e l’export
Redditività
Il posizio-namento VALORE
Persone più motivate e competenti, maggiore produttività..
Minori rischi e costi, continuità del business, ….
Elevata immagine e reputazione, affidabilità, ..
Qualità, efficacia dei processi
Le strategie compe33ve di Porter:
Secondo quali logiche è possibile orientare in senso socio-‐ambientale le strategie compe33ve per garan3re il raggiungimento e mantenimento delle performance?
Consideriamo le tre strategie compe33ve di Porter:
1. Leadership di costo 2. Differenziazione 3. Focalizzazione
La Resource-‐Based View ridefinisce il conceoo di compe33vità:
• Il vantaggio compe33vo di un’impresa non dipende dall’intensità delle forze seooriali e dalle conseguen3 strategie di base individuate da Porter, ma dalle caraoeris3che e capacità dell’impresa stessa, vale a dire dalla sua dotazione di risorse.
>>> Per avere un reale effetto sulla competitività dell’impresa, allora, le performance ambientali dovrebbero essere in grado di migliorare le risorse a disposizione dell’impresa. E’ possibile che ciò accada?
Resource-‐Based View
• Finanziarie • Fisiche • Umane • Tecnologiche • Reputazionali • OrganizzaDve
Vediamo solo alcuni esempi di effetti positivi legati all’eccellenza nella gestione della sostenibilità
Secondo l’originaria formulazione di Grant (1991) le risorse su cui si basa la competitività dell’impresa sono di 6 tipologie:
Risorse Finanziarie Le garanzie fornite dalle imprese che gesLscono in modo corre>o le problemaLche ambientali e sociali possono offrire accesso privilegiato a fonL di finanziamento e, quindi, aumentarne la disponibilità
Risorse Fisiche Le imprese eccellenL so>o il profilo socio-‐ambientale sono in grado di migliorare la propria capacità di uLlizzare le risorse uLlizzate come input nei propri processi produOvi
Physical resources
• Gusmerotti et al., The role of negotiating tools in the environmental policy mix instruments: determinants and effects of the Environmental Agreement, Journal of Cleaner Production (2012),
Risorse Tecnologiche L’a>enzione nei confronL della sostenibilità spinge a sviluppare innovazioni che hanno un impa>o posiLvo anche sulla capacità tecnica-‐tecnologica complessiva dell’impresa
Risorse Organizza3ve Il perseguimento di obieOvi legaL al miglioramento delle performance sociali e ambientali dell’impresa può supportare processi di riorganizzazione interna e di razionalizzazione delle modalità di lavoro
Le strategie ambientali coinvolgono l’intera organizzazione
The Corporate Sustainability Value Chain Identifying Shared Value
Inside-Out Influence on SocietyEmplo ee ed cation and job
! Financial reporting practices! Governance practices! Transparency! Use of lobbying
! Relationships with universities! Ethical research practices "#$%$&'()*'+&,#-,)(%.&/01-2
! Product safety
! Employee education and job training
! Safe working conditions! Diversity and discrimination! Health care and other benefits! Compensation policies
L ff li i
M
SupportActivities
Firm Infrastructure(e.g. Financing, Planning, Investor Relations)
Technology Development(e.g. Product Design, Testing, Process Design, Material Research, Market Research)
Human Resource Management(e.g. Recruiting, Training, Compensation System)
ValueM
SupportActivities
Firm Infrastructure(e.g. Financing, Planning, Investor Relations)
Technology Development(e.g. Product Design, Testing, Process Design, Material Research, Market Research)
Human Resource Management(e.g. Recruiting, Training, Compensation System)
M
SupportActivitiesSupportActivities
Firm Infrastructure(e.g. Financing, Planning, Investor Relations)
Technology Development(e.g. Product Design, Testing, Process Design, Material Research, Market Research)
Human Resource Management(e.g. Recruiting, Training, Compensation System)
Value! Procurement practices
! Layoff policies
InboundLogistics(e.g. Incoming
Material Storage, Data
Collection,
Operations
(e.g. Assembly, Component Fabrication,
OutboundLogistics
(e.g. Order Processing,
Warehousing
Marketing& Sales
(e.g. Sales Force, Promotion, Advertising
After-Sales Service
(e.g. Installation, Customer Support,
arg
in
Procurement(e.g. Components, Machinery, Advertising, Services)
Value
What buyers are willing to pay
InboundLogistics(e.g. Incoming
Material Storage, Data
Collection,
Operations
(e.g. Assembly, Component Fabrication,
OutboundLogistics
(e.g. Order Processing,
Warehousing
Marketing& Sales
(e.g. Sales Force, Promotion, Advertising
After-Sales Service
(e.g. Installation, Customer Support,
arg
in
Procurement(e.g. Components, Machinery, Advertising, Services)
InboundLogistics(e.g. Incoming
Material Storage, Data
Collection,
Operations
(e.g. Assembly, Component Fabrication,
OutboundLogistics
(e.g. Order Processing,
Warehousing
Marketing& Sales
(e.g. Sales Force, Promotion, Advertising
After-Sales Service
(e.g. Installation, Customer Support,
arg
in
Procurement(e.g. Components, Machinery, Advertising, Services)
Value
What buyers are willing to pay
Procurement practices "#$%$&34)3#45.&67)+8&+'394.&
69(:+)6,&8)'*9(8-.&;4)6)(%&,9&
:'4*#4-2
! Use of particular inputs "#$%$&'()*'+&:<42
! =9(-#4>',)9(&9:&4'?&*',#4)'+-! Disposal of obsolete products,
Service, Customer Access)
,Branch
Operations)
Warehousing, Report
Preparation)
Advertising, Proposal
Writing, Web site)
Support, Complaint
Resolution, Repair)
Primary Activities
,Service,
Customer Access)
,Branch
Operations)
Warehousing, Report
Preparation)
Advertising, Proposal
Writing, Web site)
Support, Complaint
Resolution, Repair)
Primary Activities
,Service,
Customer Access)
,Branch
Operations)
Warehousing, Report
Preparation)
Advertising, Proposal
Writing, Web site)
Support, Complaint
Resolution, Repair)
Primary Activities
! @#656+)(%! Disposal of obsolete products! Handling of consumables"#$%$&*9,94&9)+.&;4)(,)(%&)(A
! Customer privacy
! Transportation impacts"#$%$&#*)--)9(-.&69(%#-,)9(.&
+9%%)(%&49'8-2
! Emissions and waste! Biodiversity and ecological
impacts! Energy and water use! Worker safety and labor
relations! Hazardous materials
! Packaging use and disposal "#$%$&06B9('+8C-&6+'*-7#++2
! Transportation impacts
! Marketing and advertising "#$%$&,4<,7:<+&'8>#4,)-)(%.&'8>#4,)-)(%&,9&67)+84#(2
! Pricing practices "#$%$&;4)6#&8)-64)*)(',)9(&'*9(%&6<-,9*#4-.&
'(,)69*;#,),)>#&;4)6)(%&;4'6,)6#-.&;4)6)(%&
;9+)65&,9&,7#&;9942
! Consumer information
DE =9;54)%7,&FEEG&H&I49:#--94&0)67'#+&J$&I94,#4FEEGDEED&K L)>#4;99+&M<**),&"N4'(-:94*)(%&N#67(9+9%52&O =M@$;;,
! Hazardous materials p p! Consumer information
! J>#45&'6,)>),5&)(&,7#&>'+<#&67')(&,9<67#-&9(&69**<(),)#-&)(&,7#&+96',)9(-&?7#4#&'&
69*;'(5&9;#4',#-$&N7#-#&)*;'6,-&6'(&3#&;9-),)>#&94&(#%',)>#$
Sostenibilità e stru<ura organizza>va
L’influenza della sostenibilità sulla compe33vità delle imprese
Fonte: Indagine SIM
Quali sono i vantaggi competitivi conseguiti dalla Sua azienda (Indagine SIM)?
Focalizzando l’attenzione su specifici strumenti lo studio EVER (2006) ha evidenziato che il principale vantaggio competitivo ottenuto dall’adesione ad EMAS riguarda l’incremento degli intangible assets in particolare la corporate reputation. Meno rilevanti appaiono invece i benefici in termini di performance economiche e incremento dell’efficienza.
Cosmic – Risulta3 della correlazione
Workplace-related CSR Community related CSR
Market related CSR
Codes of Conduct
Benefits employ. Staff_evaul Intern._initiat Local_comm CSR Report SC_agreem
GSCM_env GSCM_en vethcert
Turnover -0.3187*** 0.1929*** 0.0293 -0.3217*** 0.1228** 0.1711*** 0.0547 0.0294 -0.2093***
Demand,traditional,customers
0.0713 0.1239** 0.0611 0.0505 0.0991 0.0807 0.0325 0.0789 0.1080*
Demand,new,customer
0.1767*** 0.0219 0.0495 0.2232*** 0.0795 0.0983 0.0958 0.0315 0.2590***
Mkt
per
f
Business,attraction,
0.5660*** -0.3150***
-0.0143 0.5826*** -0.1881** 0.0654 0.1684** -0.0127 0.5255***
Technical,innovation,
0.1724*** -0.0723 0.0154 0.2265*** 0.0250 0.1716*** 0.2332*** 0.0924 0.2591***
Inn
ovat
ion
pe
rf Organization
al,innovation 0.3872*** -0.0875 0.0443 0.3949*** 0.0863 0.1629*** 0.0672 0.1441** 0.3923***
Personnel,motivation,
-0.2796*** 0.1721*** -0.0103 -0.2775*** 0.0743 0.0939 0.0603 0.0974 -0.1429**
Personnel,productivity,
-0.3345*** 0.2320*** 0.0862 -0.3737*** 0.1330** 0.0096 0.0462 0.0546 -0.2943***
Reputation 0.0047 0.0772 0.1005 -0.0489 -0.0239 0.0022 -0.0632 0.0808 0.0361
Relation,with,stakeholder
0.3831*** -0.1261** -0.0273 0.3253*** 0.1596** 0.0831 0.1100* 0.1758*** 0.3110***
Inta
ngib
le p
erfo
rman
ce
Relation,with,credit
0.0207 -0.1789***
-0.0043 0.0323 -0.0499 0.1303** 0.1139* 0.1505** 0.1634**
*** p < 0.01 ** p < 0.05 * p < 0.1
…risulta3 della correlazione…
Workplace-related CSR Community related CSR
Market related CSR
Codes of Conduct
Benefits employ. Staff_evaul Intern._initiat Local_comm CSR Report SC_agreem GSCM_env GSCM_en veth
cert Turnover -0.3187*** 0.1929*** 0.0293 -0.3217*** 0.1228** 0.1711*** 0.0547 0.0294 -0.2093***
Demand traditional customers
0.0713 0.1239** 0.0611 0.0505 0.0991 0.0807 0.0325 0.0789 0.1080*
Demand new customer
0.1767*** 0.0219 0.0495 0.2232*** 0.0795 0.0983 0.0958 0.0315 0.2590***
Mkt
per
f
Business attraction
0.5660*** -0.3150***
-0.0143 0.5826*** -0.1881** 0.0654 0.1684** -0.0127 0.5255***
Technical innovation
0.1724*** -0.0723 0.0154 0.2265*** 0.0250 0.1716*** 0.2332*** 0.0924 0.2591***
Inno
vatio
n
perf
Organizational innovation
0.3872*** -0.0875 0.0443 0.3949*** 0.0863 0.1629*** 0.0672 0.1441** 0.3923***
Personnel motivation
-0.2796*** 0.1721*** -0.0103 -0.2775*** 0.0743 0.0939 0.0603 0.0974 -0.1429**
Personnel productivity
-0.3345*** 0.2320*** 0.0862 -0.3737*** 0.1330** 0.0096 0.0462 0.0546 -0.2943***
Reputation 0.0047 0.0772 0.1005 -0.0489 -0.0239 0.0022 -0.0632 0.0808 0.0361
Relation with stakeholder
0.3831*** -0.1261** -0.0273 0.3253*** 0.1596** 0.0831 0.1100* 0.1758*** 0.3110***
Inta
ngib
le p
erfo
rman
ce
Relation with credit
0.0207 -0.1789***
-0.0043 0.0323 -0.0499 0.1303** 0.1139* 0.1505** 0.1634**
*** p < 0.01 ** p < 0.05 * p < 0.1
55 — Greenitaly Rapporto 2014
/ŶĐŝĚĞŶnjĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚƵĂůĞĚĞůůĞŝŵƉƌĞƐĞĞƐƉŽƌƚĂƚƌŝĐŝƚƌĂůĞŝŵƉƌĞƐĞĐŚĞŝŶǀĞƐƚŽŶŽŝŶƉƌŽĚŽƫĞƚĞĐŶŽůŽŐŝĞ
ŐƌĞĞŶĂĐŽŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĐŽŶƋƵĞůůĞĐŚĞŶŽŶŝŶǀĞƐƚŽŶŽƉĞƌƐĞƩŽƌĞĚŝĂƫǀŝƚăĞĐůĂƐƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶĂůĞ
5,0
0,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
45,0
50,0
55,0
imprese che investono nel greenimprese che non investono nel green
19,6
30,2
44,3
23,7
5,4
12,9 11,5
34,0
48,4 47,1
36,3
24,8
20,7
29,7
23,1
7,4 7,33,5
9,4
14,4 14,8
24,0
1-9
dip.
tota
le
ŝŶĚŵ
ĂŶŝĨĂ
ƩƵ-
250-
499
dip.
500
dip.
e o
ltre
ƉƵďůŝĐƵƟůŝƟ
ĞƐ
50-2
49 d
ip.
ŝŶĚƵ
ƐƚƌŝĂ
10-4
9 di
p.
ƐĞƌǀŝnjŝ
ĐŽƐƚƌƵnjŝŽŶ
ŝ
Fonte: Centro Studi Unioncamere
RAPP
ORT
O 2
014
ISBN 978-88-90-7535-9-6
RAPPORTO
2014
I Quaderni di Symbola
N U T R I R E I L F U T U R O
57 — Greenitaly Rapporto 2014
ŵĂƐƐĂĐƌŝƟĐĂ ĨĂĐĞŶĚŽůĞǀĂƐƵůůĂĚŝīƵƐŝŽŶĞĚĞŝĐŽŶƚƌĂƫĚŝƌĞƚĞƐǀŝůƵƉƉĂŶĚŽĐƵůƚƵƌĂĚŝŝŵƉƌĞƐĂĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚăŵĂŶĂŐĞƌŝĂůŝŝŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƟƐƵůƚĞŵĂĚĞůƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉĞƌĚŽƚĂƌĞŝƉŝĐĐŽůŝŝŵƉƌĞŶĚŝƚŽƌŝĚŝƋƵĞůŬŶŽǁͲŚŽǁŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌŝŽĂĚĂīƌŽŶƚĂƌĞůĞƐĮĚĞĞŝĐĂŵďŝĂŵĞŶƟŝŶĂƩŽϭϮ
/ŶĐŝĚĞŶnjĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚƵĂůĞĚĞůůĞŝŵƉƌĞƐĞĐŚĞŚĂŶŶŽƐǀŝůƵƉƉĂƚŽŶƵŽǀŝƉƌŽĚŽƫŽƐĞƌǀŝnjŝƚƌĂůĞŝŵƉƌĞƐĞĐŚĞŝŶǀĞƐƚŽŶŽŝŶ
ƉƌŽĚŽƫĞƚĞĐŶŽůŽŐŝĞŐƌĞĞŶ ĂĐŽŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĐŽŶƋƵĞůůĞĐŚĞŶŽŶŝŶǀĞƐƚŽŶŽ ƉĞƌƐĞƩŽƌĞĚŝĂƫǀŝƚăĞĐůĂƐƐĞĚŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶĂůĞ
0,0
20,0
10,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
imprese che investono nel greenimprese che non investono nel green
20,6 21,1
28,8
13,5
8,1
20,217,6
20,8
27,6
45,348,5
21,6
27,8
19,4
13,6
8,2 7,73,9
8,7 9,8 10,1
14,9
1-9
dip.
tota
le
ŝŶĚŵ
ĂŶŝĨĂ
ƩƵ-
250-
499
dip.
500
dip.
e o
ltre
ƉƵďůŝĐƵƟůŝƟ
ĞƐ
50-2
49 d
ip.
ŝŶĚƵ
ƐƚƌŝĂ
10-4
9 di
p.
ƐĞƌǀŝnjŝ
ĐŽƐƚƌƵnjŝŽŶ
ŝ
Fonte: Centro Studi Unioncamere
ϭϮ> ŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶnjĂĚĞůůĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚăŵĂŶĂŐĞƌŝĂůŝ ŝŶĐĂŵƉŽĂŵďŝĞŶƚĂůĞğƉŝĞŶĂŵĞŶƚĞƌŝĐŽŶŽƐĐŝƵƚĂĂ ůŝǀĞůůŽ ŝŶƚĞƌŶĂnjŝŽŶĂůĞĞƐŽƩŽůŝŶĞĂƚĂĂŶĐŚĞĚĂůůK^;ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞƚƚŚĞŝƌŵĂŶĂŐĞƌƐĂƌĞĂďůĞƚŽůĞĂƌŶĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĞǁƐŬŝůůƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽƌĞƐƉŽŶĚƚŽƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚĂŬŝŶŐƉůĂĐĞǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŝƌƌĞĂůŵƐŽĨƌĞƐƉŽŶƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵŽƌĞŐƌĞĞŶͲŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚŵĂŶĂŐĞƌŝĂůĐĂƉĂĐŝƟĞƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƚŽŵĂŬĞĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƵƐĞŽĨƚŚĞƐŬŝůůƐƚŚĞŝƌƐƚĂīŚĂƐŽďƚĂŝŶĞĚK'ƌĞĞŶ:ŽďƐĂŶĚ^ŬŝůůƐdŚĞ>ŽĐĂů>ĂďŽƵƌDĂƌŬĞƚ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶƐŽĨĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐůŝŵĂƚĞŚĂŶŐĞϮϬϭϬƉĂŐϮϳͿ
RAPP
ORT
O 2
014
ISBN 978-88-90-7535-9-6
RAPPORTO
2014
I Quaderni di Symbola
N U T R I R E I L F U T U R O
59 — Greenitaly Rapporto 2014
ĨĞƌĞŶnjĞĚŝƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞƐŽŶŽƐƚĂƚĞƉĂƌƟĐŽůĂƌŵĞŶƚĞĞǀŝĚĞŶƟŶĞůĐĂƐŽĚĞůůĞWD/>ĂŐƌĞĞŶĞĐŽŶŽŵLJƌĂƉƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂŶƵŽǀŽŽƐƐŝŐĞŶŽƉĞƌŝůŵĂĚĞŝŶ/ƚĂůLJ ŐƌĂnjŝĞĂĚƵŶŵŽĚŽĚŝƉƌŽĚƵƌƌĞĚŝǀĞƌƐŽƉŝƶĂŵŝƐƵƌĂĚĞůůĂŶŽƐƚƌĂƐƚŽƌŝĂĞĚĞůůĞŶŽƐƚƌĞĐĂƉĂĐŝƚăĚŝĐŽŐůŝĞƌĞŝĚĞƐŝĚĞƌŝĚĞŝĐŽŶƐƵŵĂƚŽƌŝĞĚŝĚĂƌĞůŽƌŽƵŶĂƌŝƐƉŽƐƚĂŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůĞƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůŝnjnjĂƚĂ
/ŶĐŝĚĞŶnjĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚƵĂůĞĚĞůůĞŝŵƉƌĞƐĞĐŽŶĨĂƩƵƌĂƚŽŝŶĂƵŵĞŶƚŽŶĞůϮϬϭϯƌŝƐƉĞƩŽĂůϮϬϭϮƚƌĂůĞŝŵƉƌĞƐĞ
ĐŚĞŝŶǀĞƐƚŽŶŽŝŶƚĞĐŶŽůŽŐŝĞŐƌĞĞŶĂĐŽŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĐŽŶƋƵĞůůĞĐŚĞŶŽŶŝŶǀĞƐƚŽŶŽƉĞƌƐĞƩŽƌĞĚŝĂƫǀŝƚăĞ
classe dimensionale
0,0
20,0
10,0
30,0
40,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
imprese che investono nel greenimprese che non investono nel green
18,8
21,9
25,8
19,3
15,316,9
14,9
26,9 27,6 27,6
30,029,631,1
23,5
19,7
11,5 11,312,112,615,0
20,8
17,5
1-9
dip.
tota
le
ŝŶĚŵ
ĂŶŝĨĂ
ƩƵ-
250-
499
dip.
500
dip.
e o
ltre
ƉƵďůŝĐƵƟůŝƟ
ĞƐ
50-2
49 d
ip.
ŝŶĚƵ
ƐƚƌŝĂ
10-4
9 di
p.
ƐĞƌǀŝnjŝ
ĐŽƐƚƌƵnjŝŽŶ
ŝ
Fonte: Centro Studi Unioncamere
RAPP
ORT
O 2
014
ISBN 978-88-90-7535-9-6
RAPPORTO
2014
I Quaderni di Symbola
N U T R I R E I L F U T U R O
The Innovation Bottom LineHow companies that see sustainability as both a necessity and an opportunity, and change their business models in response, are finding success.By MIT Sloan Management Review and The Boston Consulting Group
FINDINGS FROM THE 2012 SUSTAINABILITY & INNOVATION GLOBAL EXECUTIVE STUDY AND RESEARCH REPORT
In collaboration with
RESEARCH REPORT
WINTER 2013
8 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
S P E C I A L R E P O R T T H E I N N O V A T I O N B O T T O M L I N E
pany fixed leaks, installed sensors on urinals and reduced toilet water capacity. In addition, rainwater harvesting, low-flush toilets and waterless urinals are installed in all of its new stores.
Nestlé developed a cost model innovation in a novel point in its value chain. The company realized how to use coffee grounds — a by-product of its manufacturing process — to help power its facto-ries. Instead of treating coffee grounds as waste, Nestlé discovered that burning them can generate steam, which is used in many of its factories. Some 60% of the steam the company uses now comes from burning coffee grounds, significantly reducing Nestlé’s reliance on natural gas. In addition, in over 20 years, the company was able to divert 1.24 mil-lion tons of coffee grounds away from landfills.
At the other end of the spectrum, Interface, the world’s largest manufacturer of modular carpet, de-veloped a powerful revenue model innovation through a service offering with some similarities to Zipcar’s. Its FLOR line offers a system of carpet squares that customers can combine and assemble to create rugs, runners or wall-to-wall designs. In 2003, it began to offer its carpet tiles as a service. Under this model, the company maintains the carpet for custom-ers throughout its life — from installation to replacing tiles to recycling at the end of the carpet’s use.
Apparel manufacturer Patagonia used its sus-tainability message to bolster its value-proposition innovations with a provocative brand-building campaign. In 2011, it took out a full-page ad in The New York Times with the surprising headline: “Don’t Buy This Jacket.” Consumers were asked to sign a two-part pledge online. In signing the pledge, both consumers and Patagonia agreed to reduce con-
sumption and waste by only buying items when needed, repairing items when they break and recy-cling products at the end of their useful life. If the company didn’t have credibility in sustainability, the ad could have backfired. The company did, however, and the campaign generated significant buzz. But it also achieved its most important aim: reinforcing Patagonia as a high-quality brand that offers durable, long-lasting products.
Making Sustainability Efforts HappenLike any major business initiative and opportunity, sustainability-driven innovation requires adroit change management skil ls and innovative approaches to organizational governance, leader-ship and employee engagement.
Our research found that top management attention is central. Sixty-one percent of compa-nies that have changed their business model and have sustainability as a permanent fixture on their management agenda say they have added profit from sustainability. (See “Top Management Agenda,” below.)
Former CEO of Campbell Soup Company Douglas Conant made sustainability a focus. He argues that a company’s CEO must make sustain-ability a priority to keep it from falling off the radar and becoming a risk. At Campbell, he advanced what he calls an “abundance mentality” — challenging people not only to create shareholder value but to do it in a way that simultaneously helps build a better world. This abundance mentality is not unique to Campbell. Leadership can unleash it by putting sustainability opportunities front and center. Conant did so personally, making a point of frequenting company discussions on sustainability. “As I did this, sustainability became part of people’s everyday conversation and thinking,” he says. “It be-came part of the fabric of doing your job.”
At telecommunications company Sprint, sus-tainability is a board-level agenda item. In 2012, the
TOP MANAGEMENT AGENDAMore than 60% of companies that have changed their business model and have sustainability as a perma-nent fixture on their management agenda say they have added profit from sustainability.
Is sustainability on the agenda of top management?
Percent saying sustainabilityadded profit
38%61%
Yes No
Alcune risposte
14 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW
S P E C I A L R E P O R T T H E I N N O V A T I O N B O T T O M L I N E
The Survey: Questions and Responses
About the ResearchFor the fourth year, MIT Sloan Management Review, in partnership with the Boston Consult-ing Group, conducted a global survey, to which more than 4,000 execu-tives and managers responded. The analysis in this report is based on a smaller subsample of 2,600 respondents from commercial enterprises, with respondents from academic, governmental and nonprofit organiza-tions excluded. The respondents’ organiza-tions are based around the world, and a wide variety of industries are repre-sented. The sample was drawn from a number of sources, including MIT alumni, MIT Sloan Man-agement Review subscribers, BCG clients and other interested parties.
In addition to these survey results, we inter-viewed practitioners and experts from a number of industries and disciplines to understand the practi-cal issues facing organizations today. Their insights contributed to a richer understanding of the data and provided ex-amples and case studies to illustrate our findings.
As a matter of termi-nology, we used “sustainability” to cover environmental, economic and societal topics. Respondents had a simi-lar view. We asked respondents, “What factors does your organi-zation consider as part of sustainability?” and asked them to choose all that applied from a list of options. A clear major-ity selected economic sustainability (63%). Environmental and corporate social respon-sibility issues, increased emphasis on long-term perspective and em-ployee health and well-being were in the next tier.
1: Of the following, which are the primary business challenges facing your organization over the next two years? (Please indicate top 3 in order of significance, with 1 indicating the most significant.)
Responding effectively to threats and opportunities of globalization
Responding effectively to threats and opportunities of sustainability
Responding effectively to disruption of our business model
Increasing operating speed and adaptability
Profitably acquiring and retaining customers
Attracting, retaining and motivating talented people
Reducing costs and increasing efficiencies
Growing revenue
Innovating to achieve competitive differentiation
46%
39%
37%
25%
20%
17%
15%
48%
45%
1%
35%
53%
52%
61%
62%
Safety issues
None of these
Customer health and well-being
Increased emphasis on long-term perspective
Employee health and well-being
Corporate social responsibility issues
Environmental issues
Economic sustainability of the organization63%
35%
2: Which of the following does your organization associate with sustainability? (Please choose all that apply.)
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 15
3: Which sustainability trend(s) do you see as most critical for your company over the next 3 years? (Please indicate the top 3 in order of significance, with 1 indicating the most significant.)
51%
14%
28%
52%
78%
37%
Food security challenge
Water scarcity
Waste and waste management
Energy scarcity and energy price volatility
Climate change
Scarcity of and limited access to raw materials
4: Has your organization's business model changed as a result of sustainability?
I do not know10%
No42%
Yes 48%
64%
5: What elements of the business model has your company changed in connection with sustainability? (Please choose all that apply.)
56%
51%
46%
37%
30%18%
24%
25%
29%
30%
35%
No business model change
Product/service offering
Value chain processes
Organizational structure
Cost model
Target segments
Revenue model
40% 64%
Average of allAverage of respondents with changed business model
6: What factors have led to changes in your business model? (Please choose all that apply.) (Only those who answered "Yes" on Question 4 are considered)
None of the above
Meeting demands of existing employees
Maintaining "license to operate"
Competing for new talent
Stricter requirements from partners along the value chain
Customers willing to pay a premium for sustainable offering
Owners’ demands for broader value creation
Legislative/political pressure
Competitors increasing commitment to sustainability
Resource scarcity
Customers prefer sustainable products/services52%
39%
38%
37%
36%
30%
29%
27%
20%
17%
3%
I do not know
10%
No42%
Yes 48%
Sostenibilità e business models
Es. ZIPCAR Car sharing
Elemen3 del
business model
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 5
Long-established companies are also putting the sustainability bull’s-eye in their sights and seeing it as a core business driver. PepsiCo, for example, de-fines its business as “Performance with Purpose.” For the global food and beverage company, finan-cial performance is tightly linked to achieving social and environmental goals in human, environmental and talent sustainability.1 The pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers Squibb sees sustainability as funda-mental to its future growth. “It is really core to our business,” says Susan Voigt, vice president for envi-ronment, health, safety and sustainability. “We define sustainability for our company as helping pa-tients prevail over serious diseases in a manner that contributes to economic growth, social responsibil-ity and a healthy environment.”
Nonetheless, hitting the bull’s-eye is still fraught with challenges. Almost half (46%) of our survey respondents find it difficult to quantify the intan-gible effects of sustainability, and 37% say it conflicts with other priorities. Forty percent report that higher operational costs take away from profit, and 33% cite increased administrative costs con-nected with sustainability programs as another profit drain.
However, many companies are profiting from their sustainability efforts and changing their busi-ness models to generate that profit. We call them Sustainability-Driven Innovators. They comprise
23% of our survey respondents. In this year’s report, we focus on these companies and how sustainability is adding to corporate profits.
Section IThe Hallmarks of Sustainability-Driven Innovators
Business model innovation is the bottom line of Sustainability-Driven Innovator success. In stark contrast to managers who say sustainability is not adding to
profits, those who say that it is are more than twice as likely to report that sustainability is driving busi-ness-model innovation. As Michael Bremans, Chairman of Ecover, a manufacturer of eco-friendly cleaning products, puts it: “Sustainability means that you are continuously looking at innovation and improvement. You shouldn’t think of it as a best or finished solution. It’s a process that requires con-stant attention and commitment.”
Business-model innovation looks beyond product, service or technology advances. This dimension of in-novation explicitly addresses the fundamental choices a company makes about what it is offering to whom — its value proposition — and how it leverages its value chain, cost models and organization to deliver that value (see “A Framework for Analyzing Business Models”).2
A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING BUSINESS MODELSIn our survey, when respondents answered questions about sustainability and their business models, we
-
VALUE PROPOSITION:What are we offering to whom?
OPERATING MODEL:How do we profitably deliver the offering?
TARGET SEGMENTS: VALUE CHAIN:
Which customers do we choose to serve? demand?
What do we do in-house?
What do we outsource?
PRODUCT OR SERVICE OFFERING: COST MODEL:
What are we offering customers to satisfy their needs? value proposition profitably?
REVENUE MODEL: ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:
sustain and enhance our competitive advantage?
Cambiamen3
MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 15
3: Which sustainability trend(s) do you see as most critical for your company over the next 3 years? (Please indicate the top 3 in order of significance, with 1 indicating the most significant.)
51%
14%
28%
52%
78%
37%
Food security challenge
Water scarcity
Waste and waste management
Energy scarcity and energy price volatility
Climate change
Scarcity of and limited access to raw materials
4: Has your organization's business model changed as a result of sustainability?
I do not know10%
No42%
Yes 48%
64%
5: What elements of the business model has your company changed in connection with sustainability? (Please choose all that apply.)
56%
51%
46%
37%
30%18%
24%
25%
29%
30%
35%
No business model change
Product/service offering
Value chain processes
Organizational structure
Cost model
Target segments
Revenue model
40% 64%
Average of allAverage of respondents with changed business model
6: What factors have led to changes in your business model? (Please choose all that apply.) (Only those who answered "Yes" on Question 4 are considered)
None of the above
Meeting demands of existing employees
Maintaining "license to operate"
Competing for new talent
Stricter requirements from partners along the value chain
Customers willing to pay a premium for sustainable offering
Owners’ demands for broader value creation
Legislative/political pressure
Competitors increasing commitment to sustainability
Resource scarcity
Customers prefer sustainable products/services52%
39%
38%
37%
36%
30%
29%
27%
20%
17%
3%
I do not know
10%
No42%
Yes 48%