The government has the opportunity to serve as the testing ground for innovative policy changes in order to gather data and provide a working example that can be used as leverage to convince an undecided public. Apparently, most executives in federal agencies support sustainable initiatives but also say that the agencies themselves have found little success in implementing them.
According to a study recently conducted by the Deloitte group that surveyed executives in over 33 different federal agencies, the majority believe that sustainability (which means what exactly?) is valuable and should be pursued, but the same majority also believes their respective agency’s efforts to promote and implement sustainability is inadequate with few measures to show as progress. This creates a frustrating stumbling block from an outside perspective that causes proponents to wonder why we are so low on results if we are so lush with support.
Most of the surveyed executives say that they are already pursuing greener goals in their personal lives outside of the office, characterized most often by turning off the lights when not in use, using more energy efficient appliances and equipment, and recycling or buying products with recycled content (all affirmed by over 75% of respondents). Over half also included turning off electronics, printing fewer pages and reducing waste.
Virtually all of the federal executives surveyed said that implementing sustainability in government agencies was either very or somewhat important (96%). Perhaps more importantly, 86% of respondents said the prime reason to be more sustainable was a sense of obligation because it was perceived as the right thing to do. This could point to government employees collectively achieving a critical mass of supporters, or jumping the chasm, that is necessary to help sustainability move from a trend into the realm of cultural norms.
At the same time, that same “sense of obligation” fell to number four when asked for the prime reason that agencies ultimately end up implementing sustainable practices. The top two were cost reduction and because of a mandate. Again we arrive at a confusing paradox. Although everyone apparently thinks that not only is sustainability important, but that it is our responsibility to practice it, they still need cost benefits in order to change the way they work or be told to do so by a superior. Most of those surveyed could not list even three sustainable measures that their agency has implemented with 12% not knowing if anything was implemented at all. I suppose it is good that 58% of the survey sees those results as inadequate.
So what is the reason for the disconnect? What are the obstacles impeding progress? According to the survey, it’s lack of funding—listed as the number one reason according to 40% of respondents. Personally, I think this is nonsense. There are numerous measures that can be taken in an office setting that cost nothing but still provide meaningful benefits. What this says to me is that too many people have a view of sustainability that is too narrow, perhaps only including renewable power, energy efficient machinery and greener buildings. On the contrary, the third, fourth and fifth reasons make a great deal of sense:
- (3) No clear decision maker/lack of coordination
- (4) Not an agency priority
- (5) Lack of commitment or involvement by agency employees
This seems to strike more of a chord with the real issues at hand.
Finding a problem is often much easier than finding ways to fix it. The piece of the survey that I found most reassuring was actually how the federal executives ranked what was needed to change the trend. The majority (58%) agreed that better education and training in sustainability coupled with more extensive employee engagement and participation would yield better results. I could not agree more. I continue to argue that ignorance is a greater obstacle than apathy. The study particularly notes that one executive said “once understanding the wastefulness and having an alternative, he decided to act more sustainably.” One thing we are not short on is alternatives.
If education and updated options is what these groups say they need, then that is not difficult and we should be providing it. Not utilizing a willing group of federal agencies is a wasted opportunity that could serve as a valuable asset for spreading sustainable efforts throughout the country with greater speed and success. The government (from municipal to federal) can be a prime testing ground to test drive new measures and gauge their effectiveness. By the time these practices reach the public sector, they can already be vetted, refined and perfected. Conversely, having a government that cannot gain traction on these issues reflects poorly on an administration that has chosen to make sustainability more of a priority than many of its predecessors.
Photo Credit: treehugger.com