In our discussion of talent planning and development, growing and retaining talent includes hiring, onboarding, and training, as well as offering an environment that optimizes talent potential. The process covers incentives to culture and key business practices. In relation to sustainability, it also includes new areas of accountability and new performance values. While this process undoubtedly sounds familiar to you, I wish to emphasize that even with the best investments in talent, sustaining a mission-based business over time is hard: the business grows, the sustainability movement evolves, and customer preferences change. In addition, bold changes in business models can often drive a company into uncertain territory, and companies can lose their way. We've seen executives at high-growth companies like Satyam Computer, Tyco, Computer Associates, and Enron convicted of fraud, misuse of company funds, or worse.

In the case of sustainability, there is a temptation to engage in “greenwashing,” which is the practice of painting a company's actions as much greener or sustainable than they really are. Checks and balances are a necessary part of good governance, and good governance is a product of shared accountability, business controls, and strong ethics. In this chapter, I will discuss values in relation to the new sustainability curriculum.

Changing the Way You Do Product Design

Product design is one of the most important considerations for sustainability. A complex product with unusual materials may make it hard to service, repair, or recycle. Certain choices may increase the use of limited resources, extend a supply chain, or challenge end-of-life disposal. As noted earlier, Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard created a series of design standards that have been codified into the Patagonia YC Scorecard. The scorecard is used to review and score new product options on issues such as simplicity of design, functional use, and ease of repair. This is a test for success. The scorecard is based on a ten-point scale and scored by several design team members. The average scores from the team serve as a way to examine how the products measure up in their “functional, social, and environmental performance.