Archive for the ‘Book Reviews’ Category

Yunus, Social Business, and Elegant Roots

Monday, June 7th, 2010

Creating A World 150x200 I just finished reading Creating A World Without Poverty by Muhammad Yunus, the gentleman who created micro-credit and won a Nobel Peace prize for his micro-credit work in Bangladesh. The book is the most inspiring business book I have ever read. Part One, especially, created a one-person think-tank brainstorm in this head.

Dr. Yunus is a visionary AND he’s a hands-on practitioner committed to transforming his homeland through outside-the-box thinking, flexibility and effective implementation. Brings to mind a modification of the old Sinatra refrain from New York, New York: “If he can do it there, we can do it everywhere.”

Do what? you might ask. Use business to tackle social problems. Micro-credit is an inspired notion and an effective reality. ElegRoo supports micro-credit through the totally great KIVA.org.

But we at ElegRoo are taking a lead from Dr. Yunus beyond micro-credit. In Creating A World Without Poverty, Dr. Yunus proposes the idea of “social businesses”, that is, businesses organized as for-profit enterprises, but whose sole goals are to achieve some social benefit. All profits are plowed back into the company. Investors receive no dividends, no profits whatever. They can expect to receive back their initial investment and will still own the company and direct its efforts.

A “social business” must compete head-to-head with ordinary for-profits by dint of the value of its products and/or services.

LuAnne Speeter reports that “[65%] of consumers believe businesses are responsible for having a greater social purpose beyond profit … that businesses have a shared responsibility to address and solve today’s social and environmental issues through a blending of social initiatives and business operations.”

But other attempts at formalizing business commitments to social issues, like B Corporations, are hybrids that attempt to serve two masters — social benefit and investor profit. Dr. Yunus predicts that, at some point, each of these hybrids will face a choice, and that investor profits will prevail. No such Hobson’s Choice can afflict a “social business” — investor profit motive is simply not present to diverge from the social benefit motive.

100% of the ownership of Elegant Roots agrees with these notions and believes also that the vision and mission for Elegant Roots [to promote social justice and eco-consciousness by providing a market for goods that further these goals] fits squarely within the notion of “social business” propounded by the good Dr. Yunus.

100% percent of the ownership has directed that ElegRoo management begin the process of formally converting Elegant Roots into a “social business.” Watch this blog for the ANNOUNCEMENT when the conversion is complete.

Born to Run — a Great Read

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

BornToRun at 72 This is a great book! Don’t be put off by the notion that it is some kind of technical running book or aimed only at crazed running fanatics. It’s not.

Born to Run, by Christopher McDougall, has all the elements of a great story — colorful, larger-than-life characters, adventure, joy, heartbreak, courage, heroism, lurking danger, the wisdom of indigenous peoples, the warmth of rural Mexicans, the openness of Americans, all in an other-worldly landscape and wrapped in a quest worthy of any mythology. Nearly every chapter is a cliff-hanger.

And — it’s NON-FICTION!

The locale of much of the story — the inaccessible Copper Canyon region of Mexico’s Sierra Madre — is home to the Tarahumara people as well as Mestizo farmers. This is the region of the town of Norogachi — the little town where the exquisite jewelry of Julio Pagliani is made — by the same people who populate the great story in Born to Run.

Julio Joyas Bracelet iFan 496x700 From Born to Run: “The Barrancas are a lost world in the most remote wilderness in North America, a sort of a shorebound Bermuda Triangle known for swallowing misfits and desperadoes who stray inside. Lots of bad things can happen down there, and probably will; survive man-eating jaguars, deadly snakes, and blistering heat, and you’ve still got to deal with ‘canyon fever,’ a potentially fatal freak-out brought on by the Barrancas desolate eeriness. The deeper you penetrate into the Barrancas, the more it feels like a crypt sliding shut around you. The walls tighten, shadows spread, phantom echoes whisper; every route out seems to end in sheer rock. … Little surprise that few strangers have ever seen the Tarahumara homeland–let alone the Tarahumara.”

But into the Barrancas is where the good people of Julio Pagliani go in order to help the people of the Barrancas utilize their traditional beading techniques to create striking jewelry for the outside world and bring it out to support the traditional lifestyles of these remote peoples. This, too, is courageous in its own way — courage in support of social justice.

And, into the Barrancas go Christopher McDougall’s cast of thoroughly engaging characters.

I highly recommend Born to Run; and I highly recommend that you support the peoples of the Barrancas in their traditional arts. Enjoy their beautiful jewelry, designed by the folks at Julio Pagliani and rendered exquisitely by the peoples of the Barrancas using — and preserving — traditional skills. Learn more about Julio Pagliani here.

Ecological Intelligence, Pt. 3: Radical Transparency Lost in Translation

Monday, October 5th, 2009

This is the third in a series reviewing Ecological Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. (Part 1 and Part 2) ecointelcover

Ecological Intelligence should really have been titled “Radical Transparency”. The central theme of Ecological Intelligence is how radical transparency can and will change everything. When consumers can know the footprint of a product — not merely the carbon footprint — but the full enviro-footprint of every stage from extraction of materials, to converging of materials to production to packaging to shipping through use and disposal for every component of every product (at least for mass produced products) than consumers will begin choosing the better choices from an environmental perspective. Companies, to survive and thrive, will begin to respond to the consumer clatter and make better products. Hence, less impact on the environment.

Goleman suggests the same will be true on other values — social justice like labor practices. And health issues.

This process, Goleman argues persuasively, is not only the best, most effective, most powerful way to effect change — it’s the only way to real change.

Goleman holds up as perhaps the most promising example of Radical Transparency at work, the Good Guide, a beta site accumulating an impressive amount of data about many products — though it’s just a beginning — and assigning to a product an overall Good Guide rating based on three composite scores: Health, Environment and Society — roughly translated to Nutrition/Health, Environment, and Social Justice. All the issues of what is “Good” are reduced to three numerical scores on a scale of 100.

Good Guide has done an impressive amount of work which yields impressive results, especially given its self-proclaimed “beta” status. And it envisions even more: Imagine strolling the supermarket aisles, using a phone app that scans a product bar code and instantly retreives these three simple scores — or simpler yet, one overall score that tells you which is Good, which is Better, which Best.

Sounds simple? Too Good to be true? My take: this is too much information funneled to such a fine laser point that one is blinded by the light.

With regard to the eco-issue like Life Cycle Assessments of a product, I defer to the scientists in an almost religious way. When it comes to the Social Justice issues, they are so complex in the ways that human interactions, institutions, emotions, and behavior can be, that they are nearly imponderable. Policies versus practices. Good intentions versus unforeseen consequences.

But with regard to health and nutrition issues, the science is nearly counterproductive and what remains is largely political. On the issue of nutrition and health, I’m an amateur, but I try to follow it — personal interest, you might say. But following the science as filtered through the media is a little Alice in Wonderland. There’s the slow food movement, the whole foods movement, vegans, traditional medicine (which, after years of warning us against the evil Saturated Fats is showing a chink in even that claim.)

It’s not hard to eat a clean, healthy diet, once you decide what you believe in.

Reducing all the issues to a single 2-digit number really becomes absurd — wool-over-the-eyes stuff. Here’s an example.

I wrote to Good Guide with a query. Here’s the gist of what I wrote, with bracketed phrases newly added:

“When I learned of your service in Ecological Intelligence, I was really excited because it sounded like the scientific version of what we try to do anecdotally at Elegant Roots. But when I went on your site today, I was disappointed at how some of the ratings. [case in point -- the Yogurt ratings]

“You’ve given Silk [soy] Yogurt a 9.5 on nutrition though it has ingredients that include Cane Juice (read “sugar”), Unmodified Tapioca Starch, Dextrose (which the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says to cut back on. Tricalcium Phosphate, and ??Natural Flavors?? [whatever they are].

“You’ve given Yoplait Lite Smoothie an 8.4 on nutrition with ingredients including Fructose (per CSIP: ‘large amounts increase triglyceride (fat) levels in blood and, thereby, increase the risk of heart disease. Large amounts consumed on a regular basis also may affect levels of such hormones as insulin, leptin, and ghrelin, that regulate appetite, thereby contributing to weight gain and obesity.’), Modified Cornstarch, Gellan Gum, Potassium Sorbate, Added To Maintain Freshness, and !!Artificial Flavor!!, Tricalcium Phosphate, and Sucralose.

“Meanwhile Nancy’s Nonfat Organic Plain Yogurt gets only a 7.0 for nutrition when all it is made from is nonfat milk and yogurt cultures. That’s it.

“And Straus Whole Milk Yogurt, made only of Pasteurized Organic Whole Milk and Living Yogurt Cultures, gets only a 4.8!

“Merely because it is whole milk and has some saturated fat? It’s organic [from pastured cows]! And it’s a clean whole food. [Still, Good Guide scored it only Medium on sugars despite that it has no sugar except that which occurs naturally in milk. [Naturally occurring Sugar, bad. Saturated fat, bad. Modified cornstarch, fine. added fructose, no prob.]

“Obviously these ratings are full of subjective judgments not based on conclusive science. It casts doubt on all the ratings. Please help me understand.”

I never received any response.

Maybe this simple is too simple. Not all these issues are reducible to quantification despite the best efforts of talented scientists.

One kind of transparency leads to a new kind of opacity. The tyranny of too much information simplification.

Right now I’m diving into a plain, organic yogurt despite the obvious health risks.

Later.

Ecological Intelligence, Part 2

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

I find myself wanting to quibble with Goleman. Maybe it’s because I’ve cast myself as a “book reviewer” and I’m under some obligatory contentiousness. Or maybe I’m just argumentative by nature — but when Goleman introduces the subject of Life Cycle Assessment (more on LCA later) by the ancient chariot story and concludes that the chariot is merely an illusion, I’m in full quibble mode.

The Visudhimagga, a 5th century Indian text, we are told, poses a riddle: “precisely where is what we call a ‘chariot’ located? Is it in the axles, wheels, the frame?” The answer is “nowhere” since what we mean by “chariot” is a mere temporary arrangement of its components: “It’s an illusion.” Until it runs over you; then your pain says “that was no illusion.”

I prefer the representation of synergy presented by George Leonard in Mastery. Leonard uses the example of the radio, another amalgam of parts, to suggest that the schematics of the radio are every bit are “real” as the functioning radio (and better in the sense that schematics are easier to modify and more effective at transmitting the details of the notion). And, if the schematics are as real as the radio, then the idea of the radio is also as real.  For LCA, there is power in Leonard’s presentation.

Every product we purchase is comprised of many components, each with its own set of industrial processes for extraction, synthesis, packaging, shipping, combining, and disposal. Each process for each component has a measurable environmental impact.  For the glass jar for pasta sauce, for example, there are 1,959 distinct component processes. For the Zulu baskets offered by Elegant Roots, for example, there are far fewer; there is the native grasses harvested by hand, the ilala palm leaves harvested by hand, the fruit and vegetable dyes harvested locally, yes, by hand, and there is the hand weaving — all accomplished in the weaver’s locale. Of course, the one-of-a-kind museum quality basket by Laurentia Dlamini exists in another category from mass produced glass pasta sauce jars. The same is true for the hand-brushed yak down, hand-knitted into a soothingly soft, undyed baby hoodie by Shokay.

For industrial products, though, the LCA can show us the true effects of what we buy and use. Even recycling warrants scrutiny, simply so we see the effects of how we’re doing things. If LCA information were available to all of us, we’d see that “green” and “eco-friendly” are charged terms. “Greenwashing” is the labeling a product “green” by focusing on only a single, or very few, of the hundreds or thousands of a product’s component processes.

The danger of Greenwashing, Goleman suggests, is that we are lulled into thinking we’ve done all we need to do if we buy an organic cotton t-shirt. That’s paternalistic. And it makes the good the enemy of the perfect. Just give us the information, we can deal with it.   This fear is, “don’t feel good about what you’re doing because it can never be enough.”  But every little thing we do when multiplied by a billion makes a difference. And feeling good about doing one thing, under the principles of positive reinforcement, should encourage us to do more good things — feeling good is a strong positive reinforcer, so we will repeat the behavior. So, hey, feel good all the time.

Want to feel even better, buy organic cotton shirts for baby that are not bleached or dyed. EvokeBaby’s Grow with Me Set

Buy Less But Buy Better. That’s the motto at ElegRoo.

I’m finished quibbling with Goleman. Let’s end on a note of complete agreement: “Green” is best used as a verb. “Green is a process not a status.” We’ve got to be thinking about “greening” every step in a product’s value chain.

Later.ecointelcover3

Ecological Intelligence Review, Part 1

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

ecointelcoverWelcome to a running review of Daniel Goleman’s newest book, Ecological Intelligence: How knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We buy Can Change Everything.

What’s a “running review”? I’m going to post impressions as I read the book. Not chapter-by-chapter necessarily, but a series nonetheless, a serialized book review. You can discover it with me.

In service of full disclosure, I’m starting with a positive bias toward the book. I always hear good things about Goleman’s most famous books — the Emotional Intelligence series, but I’ve not read any. More influential on creating my favorable bias is the almost shockingly parallel themes seemingly presented in Ecological Intelligence to those around which we conceived and designed ElegantRoots.com, or ElegRoo as we affectionately call it.

Here goes — chapter 1. Goleman begins with “Our world of material abundance comes with a price tag, a toll on the planet, on consumer health, on the people whose labor provides our necessities and comforts. Every thing we buy and use has a history and a future, largely hidden from us. Like a shadow attached to everything we buy, there is a web of impacts from extraction and/or concoction to manufacture, transport, use and disposal.

This premise is undeniable. When it comes to our purchases, we are ignorant of the consequences of our choices. If we recycled our aluminum soda cans and our plastic water bottles, as we should, we have recognized a need to mitigate the consequences of our purchases, but still, we don’t really know the consequences of either our purchase or our recycling efforts. The reason for our ignorance isn’t nefarious.

“Ingenious combinations of molecules, never before seen in nature, concoct a stream of everyday miracles.” But the processes of extraction, production, transport, disposal, etc, were largely created in an innocent time when we could afford to be blissfully ignorant of the adverse impacts of these processes. This leaves us with a material legacy inherited by the decisions and inventions of a now past industrial age. Yesterday these processes might have made utter sense, but no more.

We can no longer afford to leave the chemicals and processes unexamined.

Here’s an example:  Melamine, the hazardous chemical that poisoned our pets in the US and poisoned babies in China, makes its way into baby formula in North America. Tests of the formula packaging and containers come back negative. So, how could melamine move from farm fields to formula? Officials are uncertain, but suggest “that milk from cattle exposed to cyromazine (an insecticide) may contain melamine.” That theory still does not explain how melamine wound up in samples of soy milk that Health Canada also tested. Last year, Stephen Sundlof of the U.S. Food and Drug Association assured the public that low levels of melamine, such as those found in the Canadian formula, are “safe” for infants. Reported by Julie Karceski. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4709

Can we afford any longer to leave unexamined the processes we’ve created to bring infant formula or soy milk to the shelves of our supermarkets?

In Ecological Intelligence, Goleman looks at “the sense in which we can, together become more intelligent about the ecological impacts of how we live — and how ecological intelligence, combined with marketplace transparency, can create a mechanism for positive change.”

This is what ElegRoo is all about. We’re concerned with ecological impacts as well as social impacts. We provide transparency as fully as we can through our Designer Profiles and “our four Ws”. We want to lead a commercial revolution that teaches consumers to ask Who, What, Where, Why and then vote with their purchasing dollars to better “align our decisions with our values.”

Goleman introduces a transparency more clinical and scientific than ElegRoo is presently capable of offering. He calls it calls “radical transparency.” The science of Industrial Ecology combines chemistry, physics, and engineering “to quantify the impacts on nature of man-made things.”

This next wave of information “will reshape the marketing environment” creating massive shifts to greener, cleaner technologies and products.

But is Goleman engaging in prediction, argument, wishful thinking, or naivete? Or a bit of each? There’s always a lot of resistance to change. Lots of resistance to taking responsibility (see global warming “debate”). Even many who accept the need for change are hooked on the convenience that blissful ignorance seems to allow. On the plus side, there seems to be more movement all the time toward green concerns. Let’s hope it’s not another example of main stream big business co-opting green concerns into just another trend to be discarded in its turn with all the other fashions.

Goleman hits another concept that deeply tracks what ElegRoo is all about. “The business rule of thumb in the last century — cheaper is better — is being supplemented by a new mantra for success: sustainable is better, healthier is better, and humane is better, too.”

This fits perfectly with ElegRoo’s theme that people should “Buy less, but buy better.”

“Cheaper is better” leads to two consequences: we buy too much because we can; and “cheap-as-possible” things are ultimately unsatisfying — like a bag of chips, you eat too much because you never get satisfied. “Buy less, Buy Better” would have people buying things that have meaning because they had meaning to the people who designed, created, crafted, and delivered them. Take a handmade Zulu basket or a lavender spa set made by the family who grew the organic lavender. Meaning lasts. At Elegant Roots, we strive to offer gift choices that are as meaningful to recipient and creator as the sentiment of the giver.

Enough about Chapter 1 (all of 11 pages long).

Later.

Ecological Intelligence

Friday, May 1st, 2009

Something new for something special: a running book review for a book that appears it might be a manifesto for Elegant Roots.

Cynthia and I first heard about Daniel Goleman’s new book before it could be called by name — when he was still writing it. This was well before Elegant Roots was up and functioning. We went to NY to scout for our first products and met jewelry designer Stephen Estelle, a French and Tibetan speaking Montana Buddhist cowboy educated at the Sorbonne. Fascinating person. Striking designs. Great story.

We explained our Elegant Roots concept to Stephen — eco-friendly and socially responsible gifts presented with Story — transparency. By telling the story of the product and designer, we wanted to make personal connections between gift maker, gift giver and gift recipient.

And we wanted to foster nothing less than a commercial revolution where consumers would want to know, would demand to know, the Who, What, Where, and Why of a product — aware that they “vote” with their dollars on issues of environment and worker conditions. And “voting” on a product purchase should be based on enough information that they could have peace of mind in their selections — informed consent.

Stephen asked if we had heard of Daniel Goleman. Cynthia knew right away — he had written the book Emotional Intelligence, a favorite of hers. Well, Stephen said, Daniel is writing one right now about how consumers need to know the back story of what they buy.

Months passed as we worked hard to get ElegantRoots.com up and running. We’re kicking ourselves now, but we never tried to contact Daniel Goleman to see where our ideas might overlap and what synergies might be presented.

Then, this April, we saw Daniel interviewed on TV about his new book: Ecological Intelligence. The subtitle got us excited about the book and its parallels with Elegant Roots: “How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything.” Exactly!

I’m going to start Daniel’s book tonight and I will blog as I go through it — a running book review.

Check it out.

The American Dream, Part 2 — What is it?

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

In a world where Wall Streeters get billions in bonuses without regard to performance, a presidential candidate can’t even remember how many homes he owns, and a baseball player gets a quarter of a billion dollar contract, what is The American Dream? Is it the potential to become obscenely wealthy?

“Lacking a hereditary upper class, [and channeling Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and Carnegie], Americans have typically looked in the mirror and asked, Why not me?” says Jerry Adler in “Why There Won’t Be a Revolution.” http://www.newsweek.com/id/183718

But, often you hear The American Dream associated simply with the opportunity to own one’s own home. Is that simple but profound dream The Real One?

John Zogby, the pollster, has written a book called The Way We’ll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream. Oddly enough, Mr. Zogby spends no time either identifying what The American Dream is, or how it has been, or will be transformed. Still, The Way We’ll Be has a lot of tidbits about our attitudes.

Zogby International has asked the following question of Americans for the past ten or so years:

Which best represents your life goals:

(A) I believe the American Dream means material success. It is possible for me, my family, and most middle class Americans to achieve.

(B) I believe that you can achieve the American Dream through spiritual fulfillment rather than material success.

(C) I believe the American Dream means material success. It exists but is more likely to be achieved by my children and not by me.

(D) I believe I cannot achieve the American Dream whether material or spiritual. Nor can most middle class Americans.

Zogby calls those who answer (C) “deferred dreamers” and those who answer (D) are the “dreamless dead.” (C) and (D) combined consistently represent 15% to 21% of respondents.

36% answer (A). 36% for (B), too, whom Zogby calls the “secular spiritualists.”

But isn’t something missing? Aren’t there more vectors at work than “material” and “spiritual”?

What became of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? These cover more than materiality and spirituality; these cover opportunity, security in one’s home and pursuits, and individuality in electing what to pursue.

Maybe we have to look back to the Declaration of Independence to find what The American Dream was and, so, what it has become.

Next time.