Sustainability must be exactly defined - then lived up to.
Tim Myers - CEO Norwood
Sustainability. It’s a word that I recall as first emerging in the mainstream vernacular at around the turn of the century. At that time I was living just outside Washington DC on the East Coast of the US. I distinctly remember one of our then competitors running an advertising campaign which focussed on the apparent sustainable nature of their product. The product in question was a plastic cladding designed for the exterior of houses. The product we were selling was a radiata pine product, grown and manufactured in New Zealand Aotearoa, that targeted the same market. Our campaign also claimed superior sustainability.
Who was right? Unfortunately, the answer was ‘both’. One product, produced by ‘cracking’ hydrocarbons, was manufactured 250 road miles from the major metro markets on the Eastern Seaboard. Our product, manufactured from sustainably grown, FSC certified radiata pine had to travel 12,000 sea miles to get to the same market. This was the focus of the competitor’s campaign, and it worked. The question as to which offering was more sustainable was lost on the consumer who evidently felt less guilt simply by association with the word itself.
Fast forward fifteen years and the word sustainability has transitioned from being a buzz-word used in marketing collateral to a regular feature in mainstream higher-purpose conversation. Sustainability must be the starting point of any decision making, any new venture consideration or proposal. Is it sustainable? Table stakes for onward progression. Our executive team is engaged and driving this key message. And hence our attraction to The Aotearoa Circle’s mission. There is a palpable urgency which I’m sure aligns directly with the aspirations of the growing list of partners.
The days of a consumer simply accepting the sustainability claims of a product they purchase are long since over. My experiences back in the early 2000s simply would not repeat today. A plastic product with a flimsy sustainability story would quickly fall apart under even simple scrutiny. And the reality is that the radiata pine product we were selling, and the story behind it, may well have suffered the same fate. Today we simply cannot risk being found out. Our claims, particularly as they relate to food quality, must be exactly what we say they are. If we’re claiming a sustainable food production system then we better define exactly what that means from a consumer perspective, and then ruthlessly pursue outcomes that exceed those expectations. And we can’t do that alone.
At Norwood we talk about the agricultural eco-system or the food production system that we participate in. Knowing where we fit and how our role contributes to the higher purpose (highest quality, most sustainable food production system in the world) is important at a number of levels. Firstly, and possibly most importantly, understanding where we fit goes hand in hand with a sense of a collaborative effort. And this consideration is one of the unique features of The Circle. There is a strong and growing coalition of partners (many of whom have a significant impact on New Zealand’s natural capital) who understand and appreciate the sense of common purpose. We perform many different functions, but there is a general sense of connectedness. From our perspective that is not only exciting, but more importantly absolutely critical if we are to successfully balance the requirements of our environment and wellbeing with those of our economy. And of course they are intrinsically linked.
And a wide cross-section of coalition partners is also critical. People of Māori decent and women remain woefully underrepresented in New Zeland Agriculture. I was at an industry meeting a few weeks ago and of the forty odd attendees there wasn’t a single woman. The emergence of the Maori economy, and the concept of kiatiakitanga has the potential to become a powerful and very positive influence. Building capability within our organisations that can identify opportunities for us to participate and to ultimately add value needs to be a priority.
At a societal level I personally feel as though we have some ways to go if in fact we are genuine about really collaborating. I hope the word ‘collaboration’ isn’t this decade’s equivalent of where ‘sustainability’ was all those years ago – another buzz word. Competition is a very effective counterweight and all too often our attempts to collaborate come unstuck the moment we are confronted with the potential for a competitor to benefit from our actions. Which is also why we feel a tremendous sense of hope that The Circle’s aspirations will act as a unifying influence which will enable us to rise above the constant focus on our everyday commercial objectives. As a relatively new country we’re too small to risk not leveraging our collective strengths.
And the notion that we’re too small to make a difference is nonsense. We’re sick of the depressing rhetoric that focusses on our low contribution to total global emissions. If a little country can lead the way, then the challenge is there for others to follow. Just ask those behind the women’s suffrage movement.