Orange Sparkle Ball has officially received a Transportation Innovation Zone (TIZ) Permit for piloting the autonomous robotic pickup of food waste for composting in the Corktown region of Detroit in partnership with Ottonomy and Scrap Soils with support from Brother Nature Farm.
Recently some of our teammates had the privilege of attending the Georgia Tech School of Industrial Design LaunchPad event. LaunchPad is an end-of-semester showcase where both graduate and undergraduate students display their remarkable projects crafted throughout the semester.
Join OSB’s Ashley Touchton and Hannah Ranieri with Idea Overflow Podcast hosts Dan Perotti and Patrick Payne to hear about OSB’s founding, the story behind the name, their individual career journeys, to forming a relationship with DroneUp, speaking at SXSW 24, and receiving permitting and funding to pilot an autonomous drone pick-up pilot in Detroit, Michigan.
While inclusivity and diverse representation are necessary in all fields, they are especially crucial when designing for change. We asked several of our OSB team members to share their thoughts on building inclusive innovation ecosystems and their potential benefits to stakeholders.
Our retreats afford the team a few days to focus on new ideas and working on the business as a group. In 2023, we held our retreat in founder Meaghan Kennedy’s hometown, Manistee, Michigan. The team stayed and met in The Ramsdell Inn, in Manistee’s victorian downtown, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Join OSB’s Ashley Touchton and Hannah Ranieri with Idea Overflow Podcast hosts Dan Perotti and Patrick Payne to hear about OSB’s founding, the story behind the name, their individual career journeys, to forming a relationship with DroneUp, speaking at SXSW 24, and receiving permitting and funding to pilot an autonomous drone pick-up pilot in Detroit, Michigan.
In this series, we discussed climate change from a multitude of vantage points: academia, organizations, corporations, governments, and individuals. We intend to show how each group is distinct in its influence but ultimately interconnected and reliant on each other to propel lasting climate action.
Regardless of size, every entity is made up of people. Whether it be a community garden led by a few individuals or a larger initiative supported by thousands, people’s desire for climate action is determined by their personal position on the matter. This position is determined by three key factors (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
What they regard as truth
How they see themselves as individuals and society members
How they deal with social issues
What they regard as truth
People surrounded by ideologies suspicious of climate research might feel that sustainable policies and guidelines challenge their beliefs and lifestyles and are less likely to regard climate science as true.
Advocating for climate science is more difficult when surrounded by non-believers who influence local laws and climate policies. Arguing doesn’t tend to get us very far on these issues, but climate science advocates should try to stay resolute amidst these agonizing conversations.
Denial is a reaction due to fear of the unknown. Starting a conversation with those who deny climate change by providing facts about the issue is a great way to introduce the topic, and framing the facts in a compassionate, community-focused way can propel mutual understanding. Even still, only engage in these conversations when you feel secure and respected by the other party.
How they see themselves as individuals and society members
In the United States, people tend to think on the basis of individual impact and personal capability. Culturally, Americans believe that they control their own destiny and are ensured liberty and personal freedoms as a basic right. This can be a motivating and freeing feeling, but when trying to improve systemic challenges, individualism can feel limiting as problems feel too big to conquer.
How people see themselves as individuals is important because it determines how they perceive their impact on the environment. The amount of pollution reduced when one person ditches their car and commutes by bus is negligible. However, the influence that one person might have on their social circle, when they share their commute-decision with others, can cause a ripple effect of sustainable choices that lead to greater impact.
Decisions, such as the bus commute example, are called contagious behaviors. This is because people are likely to adopt them after seeing them in practice by someone else (Mic). Other examples include participating in peaceful protests, hosting climate conversations, and posting your sustainability efforts to social media. Rather than solely trying to minimize one’s own carbon footprint to fix the climate crisis, collective action recognizes climate change as a problem that requires the contributions of the whole community and not just a small group.
When tackling climate change, it is important to avoid an individualistic mindset, and rather think about actions in terms of the greater community. How can you challenge norms and inspire others to adopt more sustainable habits? Are there any environmental problems you can call out to make the people around you more aware of the issue? As a member of a larger entity such as a company or organization, how can you make environmentalism more integral to the discussions being had in the spaces where you have influence?
How they deal with social issues
Some individuals are more likely to respond to social issues than others. This can be for social, cultural, or personal reasons. People who haven’t been directly or majorly affected by the impacts of climate change might feel less of a sense of urgency in the matter. Climate change predominantly affects lower-income communities that don’t have the infrastructure to defend against extreme weather events (EPA Report).
Wealthy CEOs don’t push climate practices forward because they don’t feel the gravity of the issue in the same way other people do. Therefore they will continue to perpetuate bad practices that cause environmental damage because they don’t see the benefit in changing their practices at the risk to their bottom line.
On the other hand, individuals greatly impacted by the climate crisis might struggle to deal with the reality of climate change as well. It can be overwhelming to process social issues like climate change, leading some to avoid discussing it altogether. Not everyone needs to be a climate activist or expert. That’s why it is important to lean on the experts and people committed to this work in order to push climate action forward.
Even if you don’t have the bandwidth to lead an initiative, think of the smallest step you can take toward climate action. Who are the people in your community pushing the climate conversation forward? In your organization or company, is there a team of people committed to assessing climate change and your company’s impact? If not, who can you raise this concern to that will have the power to implement change?
In Conclusion
The conversation does not end here. Be on the lookout for more of our work in the sustainability space.
Writing and illustration by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice.
When we think about climate change, it’s easy to feel hopeless. The greater entities that influence our daily lives, such as corporations and governments, seem to have a stronghold on the path forward for climate action since their influence is so resounding. They inform our everyday decisions, for example: how we recycle, how our food is packaged, and the cost of solar-paneling our roofs. But individual people also have the power to influence the systemic issues that propel climate change, particularly through collective action. In fact, by getting everyday people involved throughout the process, communities can build resilient and established networks that will be pivotal in adapting to moments of instability.
A resilient community network needs a local champion to unite and lead the group. This group can tackle local politics, development and planning, or even grassroots initiatives to improve the local environment.
For example, a small group in the town of Wellington, UK applied for seed funding so they could build a community garden and wildlife habitat in an abandoned part of their neighborhood. In a report to the Resilience program team member Helen Gillingham underscored how simple it was to get the initiative off the ground (Resilience).
“Sometimes people look at us and seem to imagine we are a massive group with huge knowledge and experience. But we’re not! You only need a few people to lead on projects and then a lot of people who are willing to help and to fit that in around their work.”
- Helen Gillingham
Finding a group of enthusiastic people to initiate a project is an important part of building sustainable communities. Change starts with people who have unique perspectives and creative solutions. In fact, solutions developed by community members can grow into government-funded initiatives. In Wellington, the district and town council bought 63 more acres of land to build a green corridor after the community's initial action (Resilience). Sometimes all that is needed is momentum and a project framework to spur further development.
Being a champion for local, sustainable development is as much social activism as it is environmental. For years, communities of color in the United States have not had access to nature, with 74% of them lacking significant natural areas or green spaces, compared to 23% of predominantly white communities (The Wilderness Society).
Environmental activist Leah Thomas is another great example of how a single person can propel change on this issue. As the founder of the Intersectional Environmentalism organization and author of a book with the same name, Thomas believes that environmental action must amplify the contributions of individuals from all backgrounds and abilities.
By understanding that climate change does not impact every community equally, Thomas has started this organization to make climate action more inclusive and accessible. Her organization provides consulting and support to fashion brands, non-profits, and other companies, helping them raise awareness and expose the public to the contributions all different types of people are making in this space.
Additionally, Green Heart Louisville is a Kentucky-based organization monitoring air quality in Louisville, a city with a large black and white population. Friend of OSB Dr. Natasha DeJarnett is working directly with this team, investigating how an increase in green canopies will decrease pollution and benefit the local community. The advisory board for this project is composed of local members who work alongside researchers like Dr. DeJarnett to make sure the project’s evolution supports the needs of their community.
Intersectional environmentalism means more people can feel included in the growing movement to protect the planet. Community members of all kinds need to raise their voices and champion the perspectives of marginalized groups who have been historically ignored, making space for different perspectives in the ongoing climate conversation.
Like with everything else related to climate action, there is no “one size fits all” approach to being an active participant in a sustainable community. If you are interested in supporting your community’s climate initiatives, find opportunities near you by contacting your local non-profit organizations.
Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice.
Illustration by Hannah Ranieri, Design Strategist.
Reflecting on our experience supporting startup and corporate partnerships has given us insights into scaling sustainable technologies. We are sharing some of those insights that we have developed over the years to spark ideas in others or give context to the current landscape of sustainability as it relates to business and innovation.
Here are 3 strategic opportunities that make environmentally-sustainable technology implementation successful.
Assess areas of opportunity, then start small.
Hannah Ranieri has been an innovation and strategy consultant for OSB since 2021. She has worked in the food service space to guide pilots that implement carbon-neutral food delivery across the country. In her experience, many of the obstacles to implementing sustainable technology within an industry are not shortcomings of the technology.
“For sustainable technology like autonomous delivery or compostable packaging, the technology solutions exist, but most corporations do not have the business model or existing infrastructure to integrate these new solutions. By piloting, we are able to gradually chip away at those existing barriers and prove the feasibility and necessity in an incremental way,” Ranieri.
For startups and corporations alike, pilots can be invaluable. Pilots allow us to test, at a small scale, the feasibility of the technology. Many times new technology can seem promising but isn’t actually suitable in a real-world scenario. So, before dedicating significant money, time, materials, and energy to scale technology across an industry or organization, conducting a series of small tests beforehand can be financially savvy and environmentally resourceful.
Even so, there is a lot of background work that goes into starting a pilot. “Typically, we begin with a market landscape scan to identify and understand the types of technology that exist, existing legislation/regulations, key partnerships within the space, relevant trends, and existing opportunities. With that background information, we look at how this technology could apply to our client’s business and identify potential use cases. We’ll make a roadmap of how we want to strategically test use cases. From there, we’ll identify interesting/innovative startups in the space and structure pitches and deal flows to hear their proposals for what a pilot could look like. Once we pick one, or several, we’ll begin piloting,” Ranieri.
Lean on what makes the technology different and communicate it simply.
Sophie Becker has been a design innovation strategist for Orange Sparkle Ball since 2020 and has experience working with alternative energy startups. She knows many companies in this industry default to greenwashing practices that highlight sustainable values, without explaining what differentiates their technology.
“Making sure that companies in this space are able to differentiate themselves and have impact requires benchmarking both competitors and the market landscape. Once you have that baseline understanding, then you can strategically examine how to position the client. Where will they stand out? What are their differentiators?” says Becker.
Distinguishing what makes the technology stand out is important, but translating those differentiators into an easily understandable offering is equally important. To ensure constructive partnerships between startups and corporations, the values and vocabularies used to explain the technology and its differentiators must be clear enough for both parties to understand. That’s where strategic translation, the work we do at OSB, becomes important. By understanding the points of view of the start-up and corporation, we help to contextualize the startup’s technology within the broader scope of the corporation's organization.
“Being generalists, we are great facilitators since we can see outside perspectives and translate ideas and language between groups. Startups can often be so in the weeds of their offerings that they don’t grasp that everyone else isn’t even clear on the basics of their products. We can come in, take the time to understand, and then translate it more broadly. You don’t want a [partnership] to fail because of a simple communication error,” Becker.
Utilize change management strategies to guide all stakeholders.
Diego Pérez has been an innovation and strategy consultant for OSB since 2017. In his role, he has worked with food service organizations to guide the implementation of sustainable packaging. When integrating new technology, Diego has seen the success of creating a roadmap and accompanying toolkit for all in the organization to use.
“This approach provides a collection of tools, steps, and strategies that when used collectively, can be very effective for implementing new programs, projects, initiatives, and proof of concept pilots.”
This approach provides clarity on the project and action steps for all stakeholders. Because we are always introducing something new, we utilize this approach to keep all stakeholders on the same page when implementing a technology that's never been used in the organization before.
“When we think about roadmaps and toolkits, we are looking to bridge the gap between implementation and practice. This change management approach provides an action plan so people know what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and why to do it, as well as what language to use. Sustainable goals can be obtained by providing a well-thought-out plan that can be understood and followed by all stakeholders,” says Pérez.
Conclusion
Ultimately, strategy is vital to implementing sustainable technology. Not only does it help get the technology to market, but it also helps get stakeholders on board to try something new that might feel risky.
“I think the main way strategy can support eco-conscious innovation is by making it more easily digestible to people who are risk-averse. By creating a roadmap for strategically testing use cases within an overarching initiative, it’s more actionable and directional and can help outside stakeholders understand more clearly how they may fit into the process,” Ranieri.
It's easy to forget that behind every new, sustainable technology, there was a strategic process that helped that technology get to the market. This is the work that we do at OSB, and we are proud to continue accelerating sustainable startups and challenging corporations to prioritize sustainability in their practices.
Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice.
Illustration by Hannah Ranieri, Design Strategist.
A largely undisputed fact in the scientific community is that human activity accelerates climate change, and the ramifications of this are causing extreme weather conditions that put populations across the globe at risk of food scarcity, displacement, and disease (NASA).
However, academics and researchers haven’t come to a consensus on what they should do with their scientific insights. Some scientists feel that their only responsibility is to come up with the data, and contributing any more would be succumbing to the humdrum of politics, which can immediately soil their reputation as biased and take focus away from their actual work.
In addition, there are climate-change professionals with experience as data analysts, visualization experts, infographic designers, and journalists who make it their whole life’s work to communicate complex scientific data to everyday people. Bearing all this in mind, why then, should scientists be morally responsible for sharing information with the public and advocating for climate change?
In short, scientists and researchers have credibility, which makes their perspectives influential in society. Hearing straight from the people doing the research, in a way that is digestible and engaging, inspires the public. Emily Zheng, a former public health innovation analyst for OSB, tells us that speaking in a common language is the first step scientists and researchers need to take to bridge the gap between data and discourse.
“In academia, we fall into this trap of using language or terminology that reflects the degree of education to which we have achieved. But then we forget that not everyone has had that privilege. Some [research] never leaves the academic community, and I challenge the academic institution to not only train their students how to relay information to the common people but also use it to take action.”
To Emily’s point, students in academic institutions should be trained to speak to the public in a way that is informative and useful, so the future generation of scientists feel like they can and should contribute directly to public debate. One of the three pillars of the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists is responsibility. The ethical code states that scientists have a responsibility to, “...discuss the issues that science raises for society, [and] listen to the aspirations and concerns of others”.
We have seen research stimulate discourse before. American marine biologist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962, a book on the harm of pesticides on wildlife biodiversity and health, that left a huge impact on how America views pollution and climate change. Before her book was published, no government on the planet had a department or ministry of the environment (Academic Matters). Following Carson’s book, protecting the environment from toxic chemicals has become a common-sense issue that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversees.
What stalls climate action is the gridlock of many seemingly conflicting elements: science and politics, supply and demand, equity and limited resources. Academia alone cannot create the framework to protect communities vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis. Ultimately, scientists and researchers must stimulate conversation within academic and non-academic communities. When academics empower people of all education levels with their research, they build bridges of understanding that can be the first step to social change.
Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Research by Emily Zheng, Public Health Innovation Analyst Intern. Illustration by Sophie Becker, Design Innovation Strategist.
U.S. residents have a carbon footprint four times the international average (Nature magazine). It's no surprise considering how the U.S. government incentivizes the burning of nonrenewable fuel for energy, despite the environmental repercussions, as we discussed in our last blog.
Every region of the world has different social, economic, technological, and regulatory barriers that make their environmental impact unique. Even still, in investigating the efforts of the world’s most sustainable communities, we determined commonalities that could serve as a blueprint for U.S. cities that struggle to reduce their environmental impact.
Across the board, all the sustainable communities we investigated emphasized the importance of having community members at the forefront of climate action. The residents of the Brickland community in Singapore participated in the Towards Sustainable Living: Role of the Community and Consumers workshop, which gave them leadership skills to lead local climate action. These workshops were led by Nanyang Technological University students and served to “connect and engage residents with interests in sustainability to channel… initiatives [from the] ground up within the community” (EurekAlert). Workshops teaching project management skills enable locals to spearhead culture shifts through their own sustainability projects.The value of workshops in building sustainable communities is further understated in Stockholm Sweden’s Royal Seaport community.
Royal Seaport, Stockholm is one of the largest urban development localities in Northern Europe (Stockholms stad). The city has laid out a Sustainable Urban Development Program that serves as a roadmap for the community's trajectory to reduce environmental impact. Royal SeaPort’s comprehensive program shows the importance of having a plan that substantiates actions made during development. For example, one tier of this plan is to “encourage participation and learning” among community members. To satisfy this, the city hosts workshops for local entrepreneurs and developers that communicate new urban development requirements (Stockholm workshop report). One such international innovation workshop was co-led by climate action organizations, private sector stakeholders, and the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth. The goal of the workshop was to “identify potential technical solutions for seasonal storage of electricity” and discuss innovative partnerships in this space (Stockholm Royal Seaport 2019 Sustainability Report). As Royal Seaport continues to grow, workshops empower city stakeholders to be adaptable and embrace infrastructural changes that reduce environmental impact.
Being adaptable is not just a trait specific to the Swedish city of Stockholm. As natural disasters become more volatile as a result of climate change, the sustainable cities we investigated underlined the need to design communities that are resilient to climate volatility such as dramatic changes in landscape and weather. A community’s resilience is determined by its ability to prepare for anticipated hazards and adapt to changing conditions through preparedness that focuses on prevention, protection, mitigation, response and recovery (National Institute of Standards and Technology). Similar to Royal Seaport, Uruguay has developed a comprehensive plan in response to the climate crisis. Called the National Adaptive Plan (NAP), it focuses on creating communities that can adapt to the extreme weather events using “urban greening” strategies (Relief Web). According to the plan, these NAP cities will develop resiliency solutions on a case-by-case basis through community workshops, communication strategy, and analysis of adaptation options. One example of a solution occurring in Uruguay’s coastal region is the offering of alternative “activities in coastal areas to mitigate the impact of sun and beach tourism” (Uruguay NAP).
Ultimately, every community has to self-determine the most reasonable way it can tackle climate change. Documenting this self-assessment in a holistic climate resiliency plan is a great way to start. Furthermore, hosting workshops to engage the community members who are impacted by changes in culture or policy can further solidify the plan and garner support. There is no one way to respond to the climate crisis, but being proactive and unified in the mission is the first step to building climate resilient communities. If you are interested in knowing how resilient your community is, explore this US climate resiliency map, by the Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center, to determine where your community might stand in the face of a crisis.
Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Research by Nia-Simone Eccleston and Emily Zheng, Public Health Innovation Analyst Intern. Illustration by Hannah Ranieri, Design Innovation Strategist.
Before there was technology to effectively harness renewable energy, crude oil and coal produced the power on which our economy still heavily relies (Environmental and Energy Study Institute). Not only is there a limited supply of oil and coal, but burning these resources for energy emits harmful gasses that accelerate climate change.
In the United States, abandoning these fossil fuels straight away would be impossible, but as the climate crisis continues to grow more inescapable, it's paramount that the government acts to subsidize, lead, and encourage the transition to alternative energy.
This is why understanding the government becomes imperative when determining a way to phase out fossil fuel consumption since, in the US, the government encourages the use of fossil fuels for all citizens and large corporations.
Rather than a single entity that can unilaterally create change, the government operates like a puzzle of interchanging bodies, composed of pieces like local committees and federal agencies, that have unique motivations and finite degrees of power with which to influence society.
Despite their differences, many of these governing bodies are influenced by lobbying. Entities with financial power such as large corporations can invest in lobbying strategies, pushing for certain bills to become law, and when these bills are relevant to the environment, they can have major benefits or consequences to climate action.
For example, ExxonMobil is one of the top emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the world (PERI). In their 2025 trajectory to reduce carbon emission, they claim to “continue support for sound policies that put a price on carbon.” However, In October 2021, the House of Representatives released a memo stating “less than 0.4% of Big Oil’s legislative lobbying over the last decade was on carbon pricing legislation” (Committee Analysis).
The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act of 2021 was an effort by the federal government to tax companies for every metric ton of their carbon pollution, but it did not pass through congress. A carbon tax such as this would negatively impact ExxonMobil’s bottom line because they would get charged for the pollution they create.
ExxonMobil’s positioning shows how corporations can claim to support climate policies publicly, but behind closed doors are lobbying against any innovative climate action that gets in the way of their bottom line. In fact, in the United States, 70% of government subsidies in the energy sector support fossil fuel consumption, basically making fossil fuel a more accessible resource, a plus for Big Oil (Nature Journal).
Government is not only influenced by lobbying, but also the nature of political elections. The switch to alternative energy requires long-term investment and collaboration from all levels of government, but politics does not always work that way.
Politicians hold positions for a limited time, so citizens tend to vote them in based on their ability to make short-term, definitive changes. As a result, there is little political incentive to endorse alternative energy legislation when compared to other social issues.
Ultimately, a lot of factors interplay to give us the energy infrastructure we have today, and while the science is clear that we need to change the source of our energy system, the way to solve that is not so straightforward.
Despite the fact that we have the technology for renewable power, fossil fuel is so ingrained into current infrastructure that social, economic, technological, and regulatory barriers make the switch both timely and costly (Seetharaman).
To protect people from the impact of the climate crisis, we need to build momentum for positive action within government and society, even if it means just influencing one powerful person or group at a time.
Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Illustration by Sophie Becker, Design Innovation Strategist.
In the previous blog, The Movement Towards Corporate Circularity and Sustainability, we discussed economic circularity as it pertains to large businesses and corporations. However, corporations are not solely responsible for the climate crisis. In fact, opportunities between emerging socially driven platforms and profit-driven companies create the potential for scalable, sustainable solutions.
The Loop initiative, launched in 2019 as a derivative of the social enterprise Terracycle, has partnered with Kroger to mitigate the need for single-use packaging in the retail grocery industry (Loop). Social enterprises can help reorient large corporations towards economic circularity, an economic system that minimizes waste and maximizes reuse during all phases of operation.
A social enterprise can be thought of as a hybrid between a non-profit and a standard business. It utilizes market-based, profit-maximizing strategies to address socio-environmental problems (Social Enterprise Alliance). A form of socially-conscious capitalism, social enterprises are businesses, large or small, that are motivated by sustaining revenue and targeting specific social objectives (Investopedia).
In Kroger’s 2020 sustainability report, the company aims to “transition to 100% recyclable, compostable or reusable Our Brands packaging by 2030” (Kroger). Loop advances Kroger’s sustainability goal by shipping brand-name products in durable packaging that the consumer can send back to a facility to be cleaned and reused for another shipment. They provide packaging for products of major brands such as Febreze, Tropicana, and Gillette (Loop).
The 2020 Acumen report asserts that social enterprises can further corporate sustainability by providing “concrete and measurable progress” through social impact measurements. Impact metrics are any way companies quantify the influences manufacturing, distribution, and disposal of a product have on society (Harvard Business Review).
Loop claims to assess their impact through “Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) on transportation, product use, cleaning and more, and have them independently reviewed by third party agencies” (Loop Impact). More testing and pilots will have to be done to determine if the material, transportation, and disposal of Loop’s durable packaging is actually more environmentally friendly than the single-use model (WasteDive). However, Loop’s vice president of research and development claims that the Loop business model resulted in a 35% reduction in global warming potential (WasteDive).
Social enterprises like Loop further their sustainable progress by connecting impact metrics to United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In fact, social enterprises are 37% more likely than corporations to do so (Acumen Report). The Loop initiative supports SDGs 11 and 12: Sustainable Communities and Responsible Consumption, respectively. By extension, partner companies like Kroger can advance these goals as well, contextualizing their impact metrics to a universal sustainability framework.
Loop is still in the early phases of implementation, and it is still unclear how far-reaching their impact will be in solving the single-use waste issue. However, even small efforts are going to make a difference, in the next blog we will discuss the ramifications of companies who don’t make an effort to protect the environment.
Writing by Nia-Simone Eccleston, Design Strategist Apprentice. Illustration by Sophie Becker, Design Innovation Strategist.
In our work, we often see people talking about nearly identical ideas but using different words. Terminology, even when using common words, can often lead to miscommunication and failed impact. It is with this realization that the second installment of our series on sustainability is focused on examining this popular word: 'sustainable'.
