©Centre for Sustainable Action introduces investment opportunities for a sustainable future

©Centre for Sustainable Action is a cooperative created to support small to medium enterprises (SMEs) to embed sustainability within their business plans. 

We aim to support the wellbeing of entrepreneurs and business leaders to help achieve profitability and a social purpose through the development of products and services that are inherently sustainable. As a cooperative, we have the ability to raise £10 million in funding but we cannot do this alone we need the help of brilliant minds to make our mission possible. 

Join our #brilliant minds campaign at the Centre for Action to learn more register for the event by clicking on the link below.

REGISTER FOR THE WEBINAR

Management Systems and Performance Frameworks for Sustainability

My second book Management Systems and Performance Frameworks for Sustainability: A Road Map for Sustainably Managed Enterprises is now available! A through an in-depth exploration of quality management theory, this book proposes a "Sustainability Management Framework" as a structure for a balanced approach to developing operations strategy for corporate social sustainability (CSR). #SustainableStrategy This book is a development in sustainable theory showing you a road map of how to put it into practice. #FutureProof Receive your complimentary copy as part of your ©Diploma in Sustainability Strategy comment below to know more. http://ow.ly/icHT30jN5RK

Takata recall - Quality more than just an airbag of hot air

We often take it for granted in the 21^st century that if a product is presented in a “new box” or a service at “new location” quality is inherent or explicit. The case of Takata airbag recall refutes this premise.

Takata supplies automotive safety systems controlling 22% of the global automotive airbag market. The company’s mission statement emphasises their commitment to quality which is to “Develop innovative products and provide superlative quality and services to achieve total customer satisfaction”.

 

This emphasis on quality is reinforced by an organisational approach the “Takata Way” that supports open effective communication openly and effectively and an adherence to Sangen-shugi the exploration of three “realities” which is comprised of Gen-ba or going to the location of the activity/problem e.g. the factory floor, Gen-butsu looking at problem first hand and Gen-jitsu gathering the facts to make a decision - realitybased decision making.

Despite this organisational philosophy Takata finds itself asleep at the wheel. Its flagship automotive airbag has allegedly been linked with the deaths of at least five motorists and over 139 injuries. The problem being a product defect that is only realised during the deployment of the airbag resulting in the rupturing of the inflator, sending metal fragments that have fatally injured unsuspecting users it was intended to protect. Potential causes for the airbag defects range from poor product handling, incorrect gas specifications, humid conditions, faulty welding to malfunctioning manufacturing equipment. 

The company was fully aware of the potential for the airbag to rupture during deployment 10 years prior to the recall but opted not to face the “reality” subsequently requesting the destruction of in-house test results and disposal of any evidence in essence creating a climate of fear amongst employees. Top management rather than implementing corrective action chose a default strategy of “do nothing” focusing on the bottom line not the triple bottom-line.

This strategic decision has resulted in the recall of over 14 million airbags from 11 different automakers and the allocation of over $655 million for quality costs. The reputational damage suffered by Takata is contributing to investor unease arising from reduced profit outlook and customer dissatisfaction with market share set to decline to 11% by 2020. Fortunately Takata has decided to “wake up to reality” taking steps to refocus the organisation efforts on quality by constituting an expert panel to examine the quality and safety issues. Quality not perception is reality.

To learn more visit our website www.sustainabilitycsr.com 

Chief Sustainability Officer - Where's the beef Chief...

The 21st century has seen the emergence of a new chief on the block - the Chief Sustainability Officer. A well heeled recruitment consultancy recently produced a report heralding the arrival of the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) to the "C suite" along with the emergence of sustainability and corporate social responsibility to the strategic agenda. Sadly the recent spate of high profile resignations US and in UK the imprisonment of former members of parliament for unethical conduct paints a less rosy picture of the importance of social responsibility  amongst the business and political elite.
The concept and use of the prefix "Chief" is a truly American phenomena in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth the term Director is preferred. Therefore depending on the corporate culture of your organisation Chief Executive Officer or it's British equivalent Managing Director is used to describe the same role.
 The tribe of the corporate suite or "C suite" in the last 20 yeras has undergone an extraordinary expansion of "Chiefs" such as Chief Information Officer average salary £76000 responsible for the development and implementation of information technology strategy within the firm but so also does the Chief Technology Officer average salary £86000 and who can forget the Chief Web Officer. The aforementioned chiefs have emerged through the proliferation of the information technology, internet use and dare I say the lack of insight amongst some Chief Executives Officers in the 1990s to envisage the change being created by a then very young Internet.
Information technology concerns aside the "C suite" has seen it's share of exotic "Chiefs" such as Chief Visionary Officer, Chief Customer Officer and Chief Creative Officer. In terms of their value added contribution to strategic growth the question can be asked Where is the beef chief?
There is a danger that the new chief on the block the Chief Sustainability Officer may go the way of some of the other chiefs a mere title consigned to irrelevance. Sustainability is the key opportunity facing corporations in the 21st century and by nature should be the sole domain of the Chief Executive Officer as the firm's principal strategist. The advent of the Chief Sustainability Officer is an attempt to delegate the sustainability agenda and normalise it's role within existing paradigm of the corporate structure. Sustainability by its very mandate to incorporate the survival of future generations into present economic decisions is by nature inherently disruptive. The dynamics of the corporate structures are not designed to adjust to disruptive change. In order for sustainability to take root in organisations we need more sustainability warriors and champions not any more chiefs. As simple as it may seem lets make the philosophy of sustainability chief in the new capitalist model for the 21st century.

To learn more about Sustainability/CSR visit www.sustainabilitycsr.com

ISO 26000 Standard - defining good corporate governance

Image via Wikipedia

Public concern over the increasing disparity amongst the rich and poor, gender inequality, human rights, climate change and environmental degradation has elevated sustainability and corporate social responsibility from the realm of public relations to the core of progressive business strategy. The recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is testimony to the financial and reputational risk that can befall CEO’s and their organisations that fail to put sustainability at the heart of business decisions.

Historically the International Organisation for Standardisation (known by its French acronym ISO) efforts have been focused on issues surrounding quality, product specification and information technology management. Therefore it was late in understanding the shift in the debate as to the role of business in society from being catalyst of economic growth to also enablers in the development of society as a whole. This concept of the role of business beyond profit making was crystallised in the Brundtland Commission’s definition of Sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This definition subsequently influenced the development of the “triple bottom line” approach whereby business performance can no longer be viewed exclusively from the lens of economic performance but must also include social and environmental performance criteria as part of any evaluation of its effectiveness (Elkington 1999, Savitz and Weber 2006).

In 2002 sensing the growing need for comprehensive guidance on social responsibility the International Organisation for Standardisation began work on developing the ISO 26000 standard. To ensure that all stakeholders’ views and concerns were included in the developmental stages of the ISO 26000 standard its working group included well known non-governmental organisations such as the Consumers International and the International Organisation for Employers. Support was also enlisted from other sustainability initiatives such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the UN Global Compact whose sustainability framework established a decade earlier includes over 8700 participating organisations. Well known NGOs such as Amnesty International and the World Wild Life Fund (WWF) International also contributed to the development of the ISO 26000 standard, however both organisations have since refocused their attention to other initiatives.

The ISO 26000 standard builds on the Brundtland definition of sustainable development by defining social responsibility as the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment, through transparent and ethical behavior that

• contributes to sustainable development, including health and the welfare of society
• takes into account the expectations of stakeholders
• is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behaviour; and is integrated throughout the organization and practised in its relationships

This definition confirms the interconnectedness of social responsibility and sustainability as core operational concepts with the ISO 26000 standard. To incorporate social responsibility and sustainability within its business operations organisations are required to define their priorities in respect of the following core subjects:

• Organisational governance – the systems, structures and processes whether formal or informal by which an organisation makes decisions in regards to social responsibility and sustainability.
• Human rights – are accepted norms regarding the sanctity of life such as civil, political, economic, and social rights which it is implied that an organisation should actively support and respect.
• Labour practices – are policies and procedures regarding the selection, recruitment and retention of labour including subcontractors and their ability solicit the assistance of external bargaining or develop their own bargaining mechanism within the organisation
• The environment – the ISO 26000 standard encourages organisations to review its impact on the environment from a global perspective by improving the its environmental performance using the precautionary approach, sustainable procurement techniques, environmental risk management, climate change adaptation, adoption of clean technology and eco-efficiency programs.
• Fair operating practices – this core subject encompasses the ethical values of the organisation in respect of its dealings with other organisations e.g. competitors, suppliers and government authorities in areas such as anti-corruption and fair competition.
• Consumer issues – are all activities that communicate and reduce risk, improves product performance and longevity, increase sustainable consumption of products and services during all stages of its lifecycle from material extraction, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and recycling or disposal.
• Community involvement and development – are activities in which the organisation participates that strengthens the civic institutions from which the organisation gains its wealth but also builds a bond between the organisations internal stakeholders i.e. owners, shareholders, employees, suppliers, subcontractors and its external stakeholders in the community and the wider society.

The ISO 26000 standard does not provide a prescription for social responsibility by highlights key areas which define corporate social responsibility excellence. Organisations should adapt the standard to suit its size, mission, values, cultural and regulatory environment. This tailored approach ensures that stakeholders are engaged for their opinions using communicative means that are beyond mere consultation on issues regarding the centrality of social responsibility to the organisational strategy but importantly their as stakeholders role in implementing sustainability and social responsibility within the organisation.

The interdependence of each core subject is embodied in the holistic approach to social responsibility and sustainability espoused by the ISO 26000.

The holistic approach to sustainability also implies that any organisation embarking on implementing the core subjects of the ISO 26000 must conduct a gap analysis of its existing performance regarding social responsibility and the requirements of the standard to determine the relevance of the each core subject to the stakeholders within its competitive environment. Therefore also ensuring that the relative emphasis placed by the organisation on each core subject will vary regionally e.g. businesses that operate in Bangladesh and India that are implementing social responsibility may place greater emphasis on issues surrounding Labour practices and Community involvement and development due to the socioeconomic environment that exists on the Indian sub continent.

The organisation having understood which core subjects are relevant to its stakeholders then proceeds to integrate social responsibility into the fabric of the organisation through policy development, the establishment of sustainability targets, sustainability awareness raising campaigns, transparent reporting of the organisational performance in a manner that is timely and balanced.

The use of social responsibility reporting as tool for benchmarking and communicating sustainability performance is another key requirement of the ISO 26000 standard. Recently there has been a proliferation of corporate social responsibility reports by companies in the United Kingdom which has spurred the creation of various reporting schemes such as the Global Reporting Initiative – a voluntary scheme that seeks to measure an organisations sustainability performance facilitating comparisons within and across sectors. The ISO 26000 standard has cross referenced its framework across existing corporate social responsibility initiatives such as the GRI thereby ensuring its applicability to all organisations irrespective of reporting requirements.

Safety and Environmental practitioners are already burdened with the management of ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems; ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems and OSHAS 18001 Safety Management Systems may view the ISO 26000 standard as an unwelcomed distraction from other technical issues. As with any organisational change initiative senior management commitment and support is paramount as the implementation of social responsibility policies may be in direct competition for resources with other business initiatives at a time where budgets are constrained. Therefore the business case for sustainability and social responsibility must be developed, however despite these challenges using the ISO 26000 standard as a template for implementing sustainability and social responsibility can provide organisations with following benefits:

• No certification costs - the ISO 26000 standard is not yet a certifiable standard
• Easy integration with existing standards e.g. ISO 14001 and OSHAS 18001 using the holistic approach to sustainability social responsibility
• Reduced reputational risk arising from poor labour practices and unethical conduct
• Enhanced brand and product image
• Incorporates the criteria of existing corporate social responsibility schemes such as the GRI and UN Global Compact
• Facilitates good corporate governance ensuring that senior management adopt a long term outlook to decisions making
• Develops and improves stakeholder engagement and building trust with the organisations immediate community
• Improves environmental efficiency and resource use within the organisations supply chain
• Improves organisational safety and builds employee morale
• Facilitates organisational innovation

The parallel concepts of sustainability and social responsibility are evolving areas of management taught and practice, this is reflective in the rather broad approach of the ISO 26000 standard. The ushering of the ISO 26000 on the global stage has not been without its controversy with some nations viewing the new standard as a potential barrier to free trade or a threat to their national sovereignty in terms of its support for human rights. Organisations that do not subscribe to such myopic views will use the framework of the ISO 26000 standard to create new competitive models and produce products and services that not only sustain corporate growth but contribute to the development of society.

Big Society or Self Preservation Society

Image via Wikipedia

As I discuss with my colleague the collection of funds for Help for Heroes a popular UK charity, I briefly reflect on the potential demise of the " Big Society". Prime Minister David Cameron announced on the 16th July 2010 the beginning of a new era in the social contract between the UK government and its citizens the "Big Society". In his Big Society speech Mr. Cameron envisaged the empowerment of charities, citizens, private businesses and community organisations to innovate, manage and deliver public services. Community empowerment, social action and public service reform underpin the philosophy of the Big Society. David Cameron fully understands that economic stability can only be sustained by social stability so he issued a clarion call for the creation of a new approach to national development the "Big Society".
In the eight months since that famous speech why is the Big Society failing? It is failing in the three main galvanizing areas which the Prime Minister outlined in his Big Society speech Decentralization, Transparency and Financing. 


Decentralization
The Big Society has its own peer Lord Wei ex-McKinsey consultant and Oxford graduate with a desire to finance social change using bonds and mutual funds. The Big Society has its own government office - the Office for Civil Society... herein lies a recipe for red tape.

Transparency
In its inception the Office for Civil Society issued a press release outlining its contribution to the government austerity measures by cutting its budget to the voluntary sector and social enterprises by £11 million. However this openness does not extend to disclosure of operating costs and budgets for either the Big Society project or the Office for Civil Society.

Financing
With government contributions to the voluntary sector falling victim to budgetary cuts; the severity of these measures has as affected some Local Authorities disproportionately one such local authority Liverpool City Council has lost £100 million in area based grants has opted out of the Big Society pilot program and has joined instead the "self preservation society". There is always the option of using Lord Wei's model of  raising bonds and other financial instruments to support financial capital with free social capital or was it the the other way around.

In contrast Help for Heroes a grassroots charity that was established by a HM forces veteran and his wife to provide support to servicemen and women wounded since 9/11 is committed to transparency its financial performance is available on the website's homepage and sustainable financing without exploiting its social capital - a vast network of volunteers which includes celebrities such as David Beckham and Jeremy Clarkson. Help for Heroes is an example of the "Big Society" in action without being political... surprisingly they are not affected by budget cuts.

Food Glorious Food - is the question of food shaping a new world order?

Image via Wikipedia

During the past fortnight we have witnessed the toppling of despotic regimes in Tunisia and the continued crisis in Egypt one of the world's oldest civilizations. In each situation the populace were forced to protest against increasing food prices which subsequently mushroomed into protests of other societal ills ranging from unemployment to basic human rights.
The UN's December bulletin announcing the highest increase in its Food Price Index peaking at 214.8 points fell on the deaf ears of Western donors distracted by annual Christmas and New Year celebrations. This apathy was also fueled by the preoccupation of Western governments with domestic policy austerity measures to the detriment of not only Foreign Policy budgets but also aid programs to Africa, India and Latin America. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that world cereal output will drop by 1.4 percent to 2.23 billion metric tons whilst demand will increase by 1.8 percent to 2.26 billion metric tons thereby creating the first cereal deficit since 2008.
The crisis in global food supply is exacerbated by environmental shocks ranging from floods in Pakistan, Brazil and Australia with drought in Argentina. Lets not forget the case of nuclear armed Pakistan is acute as that country is facing terrorism arising from Taliban insurgent incursions from neighboring Afghanistan and Taliban sympathizers from within its own populace not withstanding flood devastation, population displacement with its consequent food shortages. The  Philippine's one of the world's biggest importers of rice has increased the retail price of rice in December by 8% despite a quarter of its population living on $1.25 a day according to World Bank estimates. To add to Philippine misery its cereal harvests have been decimated by a combination of drought and flooding.
A recent report by Foresight a UK government future's think tank argues for fundamental change to the existing approach by global society to food and the management of the food supply chain. The report unsurprising indicates that the world's food supply chain is unsustainable which has lead to a situation where a billion human beings are hungry, another billion are the "hidden hungry" and of course there are the billion of us who are never hungry. This global disparity has led to flash points which flare in regions within which there already existed social and political tensions concerning issues of disenfranchisement  and distribution of wealth. Especially Tunisia which for the past 30 years has been viewed as a cheap holiday destination and in some cases second home locations for the global middle class or Egypt another popular tourist destination which until recently was hailed in the business press as the "new mecca" for the call center outsourcing industry in each case little regard was given to the social or economic conditions within which the faceless population survived, I think it unlikely that the other leg of the three legged sustainability stool - the environment - was even considered in the strategic planning of multinationals who have invested in Egypt within the past five years - its no wonder civil society has collapsed as there was investment but not sustainable development.
As international middle east "experts" and political strategists ponder on live television the consequences of western inaction from their Cairo hotel studio whilst being fed from the sandwich buffet from the hotel bar I wonder if Egyptian children in villages along the Nile can ask for more dinner .... did I hear correctly did they ask for more?

To learn more about quality, safety and environmental management visit www.sustainabilitycsr.com 

MBA in Sustainability or Sustainability MBA - can sustainability be taught?

Image via Wikipedia

Today I had a cursory Google search for the words "sustainability MBA" which yielded quite surprisingly over a million sites. Since the development of the first MBA program by Harvard University over hundred years ago the content of MBA courses have reflected the changing landscape of business. In my own brief career I have seen the inclusion of quality and lean management principles into the core curriculum which was intended to provide MBA candidates with generalist management knowledge to function effectively as future CEO's and business leaders. The business school fraternity decided to differentiate the MBA "product" by adding specialisms ranging from human resource management to the European MBA without altering the philosophical approach to teaching the subject and science of management which was and still is being dominated by "Friedman fundamentalism" i.e. the role of business is profit making.
Then came the "Dot Com" era when some of my fellow MBA classmates sought to make their fortunes by working for small internet start-ups for little pay but with share options which could yield astronomical returns if the company's IPO was the darling of the investors. In hindsight it seems naive but true but then the bubble burst and we were all given a reality check. As MBA's we rationalized the "Dot Com" bubble with even some bestsellers along the way, if you don't write a book and make a buck then being qualified to act as CEO is not a bad fall back position.
However the lessons of the Dot Com era were quickly forgotten until the Financial Crisis and fall of Lehman Brothers the scene on the evening news of highly sophisticated but dazed MBA's leaving Lehman Brothers, London offices with there belongings in cardboard crates sent warning signals across the global business community.
So the Business Schools again did their market research and re-branded providing course offerings in business ethics, corporate governance, corporate social responsibility and now the MBA in Sustainability, inviting NGOs, green activists and labour leaders to conferences in effect elevating the entire environmental and social activist community to the status of management gurus.
Therefore it can be perceived sustainability has been hijacked by Business Schools as another flavor of the month with no fundamental shift in the philosophical principles being taught to new MBA's. At a recent "sustainability" research conference I attended I inquired if anyone new the carbon footprint of the event only to receive smiles of amazement but strikingly no real answer not even a crude guess.
From an academic perspective we do not know enough about our planet or how human impact from industrialization affects our planet but what we know is that there is a relationship between environmental degradation and human suffering and it is this effect that we must address as MBA's. Therefore it may be considered premature by academia to anoint MBA's with the mantra of sustainability gurus of their organisations. If this premature repositioning of the MBA as a "Sustainability MBA" or "MBA in Sustainability" is a case of I say tomato... you say "toomaytoe" the MBA as a useful qualification may loose some of its appeal to young graduates who may be inclined to pursue post graduate qualifications in environmental sciences.
However I firmly support the efforts by business schools to influence the sustainability agenda through instruction and training in the core MBA program not as a bolt on subject or specialism..... which if the recent sentiments of leading bank officials are a window into the collective conscience of their boardroom, business academia has an enormous challenge.... but then how can you challenge your major patron...

ISO 26000 - New approach to management systems or a new competitive barrier

Image via Wikipedia

Reflecting on the major stories of the past 15 days of the New Year - floods in Australia and Brazil, shooting of public officials in the US state of Arizona with its relaxed approach to firearms, extravagant bankers bonuses, food riots that led to the overthrow of a dictatorship in Tunisia - there are common themes such as climate change, ethics and human rights which all fall under the vast umbrella of social responsibility.
Into this foray at a critical time in 21st Century history enters the ISO 26000 Guidance on Social Responsibility: that explains all we currently know about corporate social responsibility & sustainability delivered in 120 pages of diagrams and illustrations. The International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) whose traditional focus has been on engineering and scientific issues felt compelled to lend clarity to the existing proliferation of CSR reporting schemes and standards and began work on the ISO 26000 standard in 2002.
The ISO 26000 standard builds on Brundtland definition of sustainability and interprets its approach through an understanding of the interconnectedness of sustainability and corporate social responsibility. The approach to sustainability and corporate social responsibility is based on an organisation defining its priorities in relation to the core subjects of the standard which are organisational governance, human rights, labour practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues, community involvement and development.
The standard clearly describes best practice guidance for each core subject yet avoiding being prescriptive. In my opinion the ISO 26000 standard in its present form cannot be a certifiable standard as its 120 pages of potential criteria will be a certification auditors nightmare and thankfully the ISO committee has not indicated any intention of pursuing this option at present. Sentiments expressed by emerging economies such as India on the inclusion of labour practices as a core subject is being perceived as a competitive barrier to trade and in the case of China the use of human rights criteria as a potential indirect attack on its national sovereignty.
If recent events are any indication of potential future threats to governments and organisations, visionary political and business leaders will embrace the principles of the ISO 26000 standard  to create new competitive models and produce products and services that not only sustains growth but contributes to the development of a socially responsible society.

The Governors are ungovernable - Can banks be socially responsible?

Image by World Economic Forum via Flickr

We have entered into another bankers bonus season again the face of the fat, greedy banker lining his pockets with the earnings of usury drives most bank customers with a since of outrage. Since the financial crisis banks in terms of public trust are now third from bottom just above the media and insurance companies. As the custodians of our money we require banks to produce as much profit for our savings and pensions, few of us rarely questioned how these financial gains were accrued prior to the recent financial crisis. Our current paradigm of the pursuit of profit and expressions of wealth... bigger cars and even bigger houses placing demands on bankers to service our desires. The profit ethos is not congruent with sustainable principles, therefore when we observe bankers requesting the payment of £2 million bonuses they are only demanding their due as stipulated by employment contractual arrangements - financial engineering has more market value than real engineering. Prime Minister David Cameron's call for bonus restraint may do little to solve the problem in a scenario where society and bankers value short term profit taking approaches on investment decisions. Sustainability requires us to incorporate the needs of future generations in investment decision making, such a concept defers instant gratification i.e. profit taking if it is not in societies best interest. Its been part of the UK Pensions Act that environmental, social issues are reviewed as part of good governance. The issue is that the governors need to be governed probably by CSR Regulations as in France. The fear of "micro managing banks" is a legacy of the Friedman disease. Our options as a society are to encourage our bankers to pursue good governance in society's best interest i.e. fund sustainable development or we become governed by market forces i.e. a return to the summer of 2008 - a future bank bailout on an even unimaginable scale....

Enviropig and other GM food superheroes coming to a store near you

Image via Wikipedia

If it smells like a pig, looks like a pig, sounds like a pig, eats like a pig then its a pig... rings true in all cases except in the case of Enviropig. Enviropig is a leap in biotechnology which combines an enzyme genome found in the bacterium E. Coli and mouse DNA to produce an altered pig that can digest phosphorus which is contained in the corn, barley and cereals that comprise its diet. "Ordinary" pigs cannot digest phosphorus therefore high levels of phosphorus is found in pig waste which at the industrial levels at which pigs are farmed increases the risk of phosphorus entering the rivers, lakes and watercourses. Phosphorus entering into inland fresh watercourses stimulates the growth of algae which depletes the oxygen in water killing fish and other aquatic life.
The phenomena of aquatic dead zones has resulted in stringent environmental regulation being applied to pig farming with the US adopting a "zero discharge" policy allowing no nitrogen or phosphorus run off from farming operations. Farmers attempts comply with environmental regulation by introducing phytase as a dietary supplement to reduce the phosphorus content in pig excrement in conjunction with the containment and treatment of pig waste has contributed little benefit for the level of investment accrued, making the development of Enviropig a welcomed breath of fresh air.
Our planet's population currently stands at 7 billion inhabitants depending on your religious persuasion or vegetarian dietary preference that leaves just over 6 billion human beings that would include pork, ham and bacon in their diet. Therefore Enviropig can contribute to the mitigation of environmental impact, however is it necessary to farm pigs at our current industrial levels? or should we adopt a balanced diet that includes mainly vegetables, fruit and other plant food as it will help save our planet and is good for our health?
If Enviropig is to become the pig of the future will "ordinary" pigs be relegated to zoos or altogether eliminated by an industrial breeding program? Are we entering into a much larger Orwellian phase of human existence where "All pigs are equal but Enviropig is more equal than others". Can Enviropig fly?