Imagineering a Sustainable Workplace Future · sustainable are crucial in creating and maintaining this workplace ecosystem. I understand and welcome the approach the three scenarios

Towards Tomorrow's Sustainable Workplace:Imagineering a Sustainable Workplace Future

In Partnership with:

AuthorsProfessor John RatcliffeRuth Saurin

Project CoordinatorDr Marie Puybaraud

Contents: Executive summary by Dom Sherry, VP Strategy & Innovation, Johnson Controls

Keynote by Dr. Marie Puybaraud, Director Global WorkPlace Innovation, Johnson Control

Background

Exordium by Professor John Ratcliffe, Dublin Institute of Technology

Setting the scene

The sustainable workplace

The futures methodology & process

The sustainable workplace prospective

The strategic question

Drivers, issues and trends

Demographic drivers, issues and trends

Economic drivers, issues and trends

Governance drivers, issues and trends

Environmental drivers, issues and trends

Societal drivers, issues and trends

Technological drivers, issues and trends

Scenario logics

Nested scenarios

The Hive

The Eco-Office

Gattaca

The 10 big questions facing the sustainable workplace

The 10 possible answers facing the sustainable workplace

Propositum by Professor John Ratcliffe, Dublin Institute of Technology

Appendices

Participants

The global workplace scenarios

Partners

Research Team

References

1 © 2008 Copyright Johnson Controls Global WorkPlace Innovation

This report is for sale. No information can be reproduced without the authorisation of Johnson Controls

The Hive

The Eco-Office

Gattaca

Now

2007 2030

Jazz

Wise Counsels

Dantesque

Growth

Stability

Decline

-



Executive summary Dom Sherry, VP Strategy & Innovation, Johnson Controls

Johnson Controls hosted the second in a series of futures workshops aimed at anticipating the possible long term implications of the current global trends on the sustainability of our Workplaces and workstyles.

A diverse group of academics and Workplace practitioners spent a day looking at these global trends from a Workplace perspective. Following some provocative, scene-setting presentations, the drivers and issues were brainstormed. Ten themes were identified by the group and each considered against three very different 2030 scenarios discussed at the first workshop:

Hive (within Jazz) – where economic growth rapidly accelerates, driven by technological advances and deregulation. Major disasters cause knowledge workers to take refuge in home-working and the corporate office no longer exists.

Eco-Office (within Wise Counsels) – a stable, knowledge based, global economy based on collaboration and consensus, and focused on environmental balance and social progress. Eco-offices, similar to hotels, emerge, providing good services to improve quality of life and work and to attract the top talent.

Gattacca (within Dantesque) – a fragmented, disjointed and insecure world in which economic stagnation emphasises cultural and racial differences. The corporate hierarchical structure is now more prominent and the Workplace is similar to a production line in a manufacturing plant.

Debate around these scenarios led to consensus that some aspects of the future Workplace are more probable:

Individuals will be increasingly networked, connecting virtually and more loosely connected to corporate organisations

Formal working environments will need to be highly collaborative to facilitate the virtual networks

Workplaces must be: highly technology enabled environmentally friendly offer a sense of community balance physical security with a feeling of openness

Corporates will be socially and environmentally responsible The Futures ‘imagineering’ process, pioneered by the Dublin Institute of Technology,

is not intended to give answers but to open one’s mind to the opportunities – the journey is more important than the destination. The report takes you through the thought processes of the participants



Keynote Dr. Marie Puybaraud, Director Global WorkPlace Innovation, Johnson Controls

Having a set of common value and a common objective is key to drive sustainability in our organisation and make our workplaces more sustainable. The last three decades of policy making and regulatory changes were only the first step towards the implementation of a sustainable approach to the way we make business, but the role we play as human is core to making our businesses more sustainable. Another long term strategic vision, spanning over several decades, is what is facing us in relation to sustainability.

Prior to the preparation of this report, we engaged 37 of our global client corporations to give us their opinion about sustaining tomorrow’s workplace, 50% agreed that today their workplace reinforces the sustainability aspirations of their business while less than 40% are still not able to demonstrate any current investment in next generation energy efficiency solutions. More than 75% agreed that the environment and services have a positive impact on employee productivity and that the workplace represents the desired values and culture of the business. We know our corporate clients will also put more pressure on us, service providers, to deliver more sustainable business practices. Like us, 3/4er are actively investing in research into future trends and scenarios and nearly 70% are people focused rather than building focus when looking at service delivery. It is reassuring to know that a large majority (89%) are actively promoting environmental policies across their business operations, but that cost maybe a barrier to living the true values of sustainability. Actually less than 40% of the respondents positively encourage a comprehensive green travel plan in their workplace.

Can we continue to ignore the sustainability discourse? We have to accept we cannot anymore ignore climate change. Environmental issues are high on the corporate agenda. Workplace is playing such a big part in the consumption of energy worldwide, it reinforces the need to address sustainability at a corporate level. It is clear that changes in social demographics and cultural diversity will be a challenge in tomorrow’s workplace. The multi-generation layers will be more important, the Yers (Generation Y – 18-25years old) expecting a different working environment from the ageing employees (+50 years old) looking for more freedom and flexibility in the way of working. The Eco-Office scenario addresses this view. The fierce competition for talent will be more predominant on our organisation (85.7% agreed). Talent management combined with the growth of mobility and collaborative working is extremely well reflected in our results. The Hive is an excellent description of a very dynamic working environment made out of knowledge entrepreneurs, spread across a network. How will sustainability play an important part in this search for talent and retention of talent?

Our corporate clients are already planning for change and starting to embrace sustainability in their working environment. While the future of our workplace is still uncertain, 77% agree that multi-use office complexes will be commonplace and for 83% that flexible working will lead to the most significant value return. Our clients tell us that technology will not be a barrier to mobility and 66% agreed increased technology costs will not restrict the drive for mobility. Employees engagement emerges as potentially a solution to cope with what the future holds. 83.3% agreed that engaging employees with future workplace planning, strategies and solution development could provide an answer to sustain tomorrow’s workplace. Organisation are also realising that training and education for new working practices were lacking and that in the future the provision of these may be crucial.

Environmental legislation and governance will be more important than they are now and our corporate social responsibility will be more central to our business activities (89% agreed). 97.1% of our respondents agreed the challenging prospect of lacking energy supply and most likely increasing cost of supply will be one of the major challenges facing our workplaces in the future. A theme well developed by Professor Taj Oreszczyn when he describes the future as a Fuel Paradise: where energy replaces money.



90% of our clients agreed that to measure and report environmental performance will be a requirement, combined with actively pursuing alternative energy sources/solutions. In the context of an uncertain, more complex future for our workplaces, with an asset of employees asking for a different way of working, and more pressure to be greener, more environmentally sustainable, how do we sustain the workplace of Tomorrow?

By making it achieve the goals it was designed for - both today and in the future By ensuring it adapts to continue to meet the changing goals of the organisation By making it environmentally sustainable

This workplace ecosystem we talk about in this report brings together all the essential ingredients of facilities management, we know so well and manage so efficiently: corporate, social and ethical responsibility (CSER), human behaviour, physical infrastructure and solutions. Our corporate responsibilities for making our workplaces sustainable are crucial in creating and maintaining this workplace ecosystem. I understand and welcome the approach the three scenarios explore towards tomorrow’s sustainable workplace: investing in the future is all about making use of the technology and innovative solutions we already have to reach our objectives. It may not be the most “organic” way of looking at workplace sustainability, but let’s face the reality: we have already been too far in the way we deliver our business services and it is probably not possible to step back into time. But it is possible to optimise our current service delivery to drive our clients towards an energy neutral facility and a green, but agile, way of working and operating their facilities and managing their employees. John and Ruth are right to say that the solution lies within a ‘sustainable corporate development’. Frank Duffy is correct when he says that “conventional Taylorist office buildings are no longer a stable building type” and that such offices are more than likely to cause environmental degradation because they are the product of a supply chain which is uni-directional, feedback free, and antiquated in fashion.” We require a radical change in the way we manage our facilities and operate Workplaces for our clients. And our clients must change their mind set and move towards this corporate, social and ethical responsibility (CSER) we are all searching for.

Will the 21st century be a new type of economics, with a new kind of global economy, like John is predicting? The three nested scenarios are an exploration of all these possibilities and are leading our imagination to think about the best and the worse that can happen to our world of work. But more importantly it is leading you as the reader to consider the future the workplace and the role sustainability plays into it. I invite you to explore the scenarios, explore the 10 big questions we are facing and discover the 10 answers to these problems.

Marie Puybaraud [email protected]



Background

The changes now being experienced in the Workplace, driven by market pressures, changing demographics, employee expectations and new technologies, are impacting, be it negatively or positively, upon people, organisations and the environment. In order to react and respond to the outcomes of these changes, empirically, it has been noted that the Workplace needs to learn how to become more sustainable.

The impetus for delivering action on sustainability is accelerating worldwide. It has taken over 30 years for governments to actually set out clear strategies for what can be achieved and delivered. However, throughout successive documents, reports and consultations on sustainability, there is no clear strategy to deliver sustainable working environments and sustainable operations and services.

Nevertheless, an opportunity appears in the midst of this neglect. With few regulations governing sustainable practices, companies have great discretion and more importantly, opportunity, in choosing what issues to emphasize and act upon. Consequently, there is no stereotypical approach to designing a sustainability programme in a Workplace because the issues confronting each company can vary enormously. So, how can major corporations and government agencies begin to discover the strategic value of the sustainable Workplace? And can it be used as a tool for maintaining a competitive edge, achieving strategic goals and meeting environmental and socioeconomic goals more effectively?

In 2007, the report “Workplace Futures: A Prospective Through Scenarios” was completed and from this, an important research priority emerged. A re-occurring theme was highlighted throughout the document, whereby the need to develop a sustainable Workplace strategy has become critical in developing the sustainability concept.

Furthermore, the Global Workplace scenarios were used as a foundation to develop three different, but possible sustainable Workplace scenarios with each world of Jazz, Wise Counsel and Dantesque. Subsequently, The Futures Academy in collaboration with Johnson Controls has prepared this report.

This document aims to:

Set out a contextual background of the driving forces, issues, and trends shaping the evolution of the sustainable Workplace over the next 25 years

Provide a framework to stimulate thinking and encourage informed discussions concerning the direction of sustainable Workplace development

Highlight what are the major questions facing the development of the sustainable Workplace

Incorporate the findings of a Sustainable Workplace 2030 questionnaire, a number of selective strategic interviews, and the output of the futures workshop held at the RIBA, London, in November 2007



Exordium Professor John Ratcliffe

Everything, we know now, affects everything else, and small changes somewhere can have large impacts elsewhere. Those of us who qualified in the real estate business over 40 years ago, however, still have difficulty in seeing the ‘wholeness’ and understanding the ‘interconnections’ of the world. We were not trained to appreciate and capture the nature of systems and the dynamic of relationships, let alone express such thinking in terms of corporate policy, property markets and occupational production. Though familiar with market cycles, their movements and corrections, we are less well-versed in comprehending the character and consequences of cardinal change. The spirit of this study is to explore the driving forces of change that will affect tomorrows Workplace, and imagine how peoples perceptions are being transformed by the imperative of sustainability.

Sustainability is not just part of a market cycle, nor simply a significant event, it is a structural shift in how we think about and do things. Arguably, as part of this shift, we are moving from an ‘old economy’ to a ‘new economy’, and thus from old markets, means of production and methods of measurement to new ones. The old economy, for example, has been one based on cheap energy, high levels of mobility and the concept of closed systems. The new economy will most likely be based on contentious costly and capricious energy, with lower levels of physical mobility, greater degrees of connectivity and much higher standards of accountability.

At the macro-economic scale, the past century has seen capitalist economics deviate from its original ethical and social purpose, mutating into an amoral quest for financial gain at any cost. There is now a growing awareness that the relentless pursuit of profits and a preoccupation with the ‘single bottom-line’ poses a constant and burgeoning threat to civil society and the natural environment. As averred in Workplace Futures, the precursor publication to this, economics is complex. The challenge is to perceive the economy not as deterministic, predictable and mechanistic, but as a complex, process-dependent, organic and continually evolving system. Therefore, although I am not sure quite what form it will take, I confidently believe this century will witness the emergence of a new type of economics, with a new kind of global economy. One hopefully that places greater emphasis on systems thinking and a more holistic approach as a way of breaking out of the narrow prism of GDP and market pricing that presently dominates conventional economic policy and practice. ‘Triple bottom-line’ accounting, for instance, is one small step in the right direction.

Over the past few years, one driver above all others has emerged in successive ‘futures’ exercises we have undertaken in The Futures Academy at DIT, including this one, and that is the force of changing global values. Even in the facilities management field we are having to grapple, perhaps very superficially at first, with spheres hitherto considered alien or ancillary to the built environment – human motivation, cultural change, democratic values, civic virtues, individualism, self-expression, intergenerational perspectives, modernisation, natural capitalism and the like. This can be extremely taxing. But having at least an awareness of the broader driving forces of change – demographic, economic, governance, environmental, societal and technological – all of which contribute to a changing values system, I believe is increasingly essential in attaining sustainable development and, to echo the title and theme of this text in creating tomorrow’s sustainable Workplace.

On top of this, I am becoming hugely influenced by a growing movement towards a new kind of politics – one which breaks with several widely accepted, though largely unconscious, distinctions; such as those between humans and nature, the community and the individual, and the government and the market. It is best expressed as the ‘politics of possibility’ as opposed to the ‘politics of limits’. Such a politics of possibility is founded firmly on an explicitly pro-growth agenda which defines the kind of prosperity that is necessary to improve the quality of human life and tackle the ecological and environmental crises ahead.



This politics takes concrete form at the intersection of investment and innovation, with the continued emergence of the new creative class and the growth of new high tech businesses, both of whom, as professionals, we help house. It is a politics, moreover, that joins the individuals self-interest with the common good.

What then is the dream? For this study is part of a dream. Put very simply, it is the notion or ideal that we should unleash human power, not constrain it. We should focus firmly on invention, investment and imagination more than we do on limitation, regulation and control. The dream not the nightmare. Indeed, the dream I share is one where the world becomes more concentrated upon creating a new form of development with a new value system. One where economic growth is seen as a solution to the environmental hazards we face and not a problem. And one, where before answering “What is to be done?”, we must first ask “Who are we? Where are we going? What can we become?” In this context, and above all else, therefore, this study poses some pertinent questions for the future for those involved in the facilities management field, in achieving tomorrow’s sustainable Workplace.



Setting the scene

Sustainability is an intergenerational long-term concept, and in order to successfully propel towards this future it is necessary to incorporate long-term strategic vision. Consequently, visioning processes drawn from the futures field represent the main way in which inherent short-termism of traditional policy-making frameworks (which often impede organisations in their efforts to conceptualise and formulate long-term strategies for sustained corporate growth) might be overcome.

Sustainable development is emerging as a driving force underpinning how organisations operate in the 21st Century. It can be defined as being “multidimensional in that it incorporates many different aspects of living, from pursuing environmental protection and maintaining natural capital, to achieving economic prosperity and equity for current and future generations” (Kelly et al, 2005). However, the concept itself exemplifies complexity, subjectivity, ambiguity, and the norm. So, in order to deal effectively with this multifaceted notion, the main characteristics that are central to the understanding of sustainable development have been identified as follows (Martens, 2006):

1. Intergenerational attributes – Sustainable development occurs between generations, thus leading to a longer time-frame for sustainability policies, practices, and processes to specifically have an impact on the world. Consequently, it is a long-term phenomenon of between 25 and 50 years.

2. Different spatial levels – Sustainability plays out at different levels, ranging from the global to the regional to the local level. What happens at one spatial level might play out differently at another.

3. Multiple spheres of policy areas – Sustainable development encompasses three general policy areas of economic development, environmental protection and social equity.

4. Multiple interpretations – There are an increasing number of different definitions of sustainability which leads to diverse interpretations of the concept. Thus, it is currently an extremely contested policy and research area.

From this perspective, policy makers have begun to realise the value in embracing the sustainability ethic. And yet, in some areas, the concept continues to be advanced by political rhetoric which fuels, somewhat pejoratively, the continued debate surrounding the sustainability paradigm. Advocates of sustainable development believe it offers a way of responding to the conflicts between economic objectives and social and environmental imperatives, thereby becoming a catalyst for change towards the successful development of sustainable business activities (Tilley and Fuller, 2000). And yet, critics believe it sets limits on the developing world. Despite current industrialised countries polluting in large quantities during their period of development, they are now placing pressure on developing countries not to repeat the same mistake. Inevitably, this is seen as impeding growth as well as being somewhat hypocritical. Furthermore, it is contested that to consider the implementation of sustainable development as it is presently portrayed would mean a surrendering to pre-modern lifestyles.

Nevertheless, regardless of what view one takes, at present contemporary society is still deemed to be unsustainable in nature. The symptoms of this flawed trajectory include energy crises, air and water pollution, environmental degradation, congestion, ill-health and poverty. If the consequences of these symptoms are examined, it is evident that current social structures, human activities and short-term strategy frameworks cannot continue this way.

Sustainability, in its truest sense, is a horizon that may never be reached. Yet, out of necessity, it is the only way forward, and sustainable Workplaces are among the most important preconditions for guiding society in a sustainable direction.



The sustainable workplace

Corporations can no longer ignore the sustainability discourse. Changing public behaviour towards the environment, an emerging political shift towards quality of life issues and increasing institutional support for sustainable development are impacting upon the way business activities unfold (Tilley and Fuller, 2000). Additionally, Workplace strategies are changing, whereby the focus is shifting from a place-centric to a people-centric strategy. This type of strategy centres on the nature of the work people do, and how Facilities Management can support it effectively.

High performance Workplaces like this can make a significant contribution to boosting productivity, improving profitability and creating the competitive edge. Collaboration, knowledge and immediacy are primary focus points in this Workplace (Mitchell-Ketzes, 2003). What is more, they can also reflect some attributes of sustainability. Can, therefore, this Workplace encourage sustainability within the corporate network?

What is the sustainable Workplace? It is a Workplace ecosystem that supports and integrates people, process and places while incorporating sustainability principles into an integrated Workplace strategy, such as:

Greater social responsibility Greater ethical responsibility Improving health and safety at work Supporting an efficient organisation Maximising human capital Improving the natural working environment

To achieve this level of change towards a sustainable Workplace or business milieu, innovation and perhaps incentive-based compensation is required. The adoption of these ideas can play an important role in an organisation’s ability to reorganise its places of work. Therefore, innovative Workplace strategies are needed to add both value to the organisation and adapt to current market conditions and the surrounding environment.

According to Frank Duffy of DEGW, some major challenges, however, exist, that need to be overcome before the development of the sustainable Workplace is successful. As major ‘step changes’ occur, such as the emergence of ubiquitous ICT technology and the climate change issue, Frank states that “conventional Taylorist office buildings are no longer a stable building type. In fact, such offices are more than likely to cause environmental degradation because they are the product of a supply chain which is uni-directional, feedback free, and antiquated in fashion. An opportunity exists here to develop the supply chain as a user-friendly and important mechanism to promote the successful development of the sustainable Workplace”. Furthermore, he went on to state that “due to the increasing pressure surrounding the sustainability debate, fewer buildings, used intelligently and intensively will emerge as an important step change that will make a significant contribution to the long-term survival of the planet”.



Throughout the spheres of influence, such as the United States (US) and Asia, the sustainable Workplace trajectory is gaining momentum in both of these regions. In the US, sustainability is moving from corporate real estate towards a commercial real estate phase. And a major trend emerging is the demand for green buildings, particularly in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Businesses, in particular are demanding these types of efficient office because they can achieve class A status, which is necessary to gain competitive advantage. Major challenges, however, are primarily seen in the private sector. The financial pay back takes longer for building owners with lease agreements. Leases can be short-term, between 3-5years and if energy efficiency in buildings is invested in and the start-up costs are high, the owners rarely benefit since they no longer hold tlease on the premises and don’t see the economic and long-term benefits of the investment

There is a mis

he

.

match of commercial incentives. In

rient.

up

odel

Asia, sustainability is driven by corporations and governments. It is in response to the positive publicity on the issue in the European and American regions which is filtering into the OCorporate social responsibility is a key driver that reinforces the Asian sustainability agenda. Tax incentives, however, must be developed for corporations so as the organisations can stepto the challenge of sustainability. A major challenge, however, is the hybrid push-pull mthat is used here.

If one takes the emerging markets of India and China, there is a conflict between economic expansion and success and achieving this at a sustainable level. Which is more important? Or can both be done? Also, so as to achieve sustainability on a major scale, an increasing level of innovation is needed, in order to cater for the ever increasing population in the region. Otherwise the infrastructures in different countries will not be able to control the demand for such products, like energy and water. In terms of the sustainable Workplace, there are think tanks being formed, but not a lot of actions have been taken in order to harness the sustainable Workplace.

Businesses are a critical part of the solution towards sustainability. However, businesses cannot bring about changes themselves; government action is required to regulate them and financiers are needed to reward moves towards sustainability. Therefore, to engage in sustainability effectively, it is necessary to move beyond the ‘business as usual’ model, since there is nothing usual about the situation the planet and humankind is in (IUCN, 2006). At the organisational level, it is important to be aware of the different key elements that make up sustainable Workplaces which, in the end, can help guide society towards reaching its goal towards sustainability.



They include:

It is becoming increasingly accepted that the above-mentioned elements of a sustainable Workplace are highly interrelated at each and every scale of an organisation. Ultimately, these processes will become increasingly intertwined in corporations, and management will become an even more complex undertaking. This awareness has secured the need for ‘sustainable corporate development’ to be placed high on the business agenda.

However, the paradigm of sustainability itself embodies new sources of complexity and uncertainty into the process. By recognising that the Workplace is a complex adaptive system subject to dynamic change, conventional planning and management approaches are beginning to give way to, or at least be supplemented by, alternative approaches which encourage vision, creativity, strategy and democracy. In addition, sustainable development can be complemented by the use of a futures approach in order to address the threats and opportunities that fall under the long-term scope of sustainability.





Professor Bob Grimshaw



The futures methodology & process

The concept of ‘futures’ is encapsulated in the idea of trying to make things happen, rather than guessing what might happen. Using this concept, and the business of discovery, organisations and individuals have to embrace uncertainty, and continually review a wide range of policy options. There is a growing realisation, in all areas of life, that the future is not fixed. The notion that the future can be ‘shaped’ or ‘created’ has gained currency over the past decade, and is increasingly the basis upon which organisations of all kinds make their plans.

A Futures Approach

The futures approach using scenarios offers links between the future people want with the present people now have. When individuals are given the opportunity to look ahead, new concepts like sustainability become less of a threat and a distraction from the present and more like a doorway into a new world. Corporate visioning is an attempt to generate momentum for change, and a core element for success is to develop a widespread culture of leadership to promote continual self-improvement. In this way, it is suggested that visioning becomes a change agent, which has to manage public participation, generate flagship ideas, and establish benchmarks for success and trigger goal-setting. Key to this is the development of scenarios.

In this report, so as to achieve the long-term vision towards a sustainable Workplace and raise the issues of common concern that are often over-looked in the conventional short term view, a causal layered analysis (CLA) futures technique was adopted and adapted by The Futures Academy. A better understanding of the sustainable Workplace was generated by exploring the problem spaces within sustainability using a layered analysis for the creation of alternative futures. The layers explored were as follows:

Empirical Unpack the Sustainable Workplace and Cluster Themes Interpretative Identify underlying forces and reasons, using the DEGEST classification

(Demography, Economy, Governance, Environment, Social, Technology) Exploratory Analysis of Worldviews, Cultures and Values

Once the critical driving forces and emerging issues and trends on the subject of the sustainable Workplace were identified, three possible and plausible scenarios were produced, with the purpose of preparing for the future. Additionally, these sustainable Workplace scenarios were nested from the original global Workplace scenarios, whereby the global scenario frameworks were used to create three different types of Workplaces in each world. And finally, ten questions were identified that the development of the sustainable Workplace faces over the next 25 years.



‘Prospective Through Scenarios’

Set the Strategic Question

Determine the Driving Forces

Categorise Trends and Issues –Casual Layered Analysis

Establish Scenario Logics

Create Alternative Nested Scenarios

Answer 10 Big Questions Facingthe Sustainable Workplace

Divergence

Emergence

Convergence

Prescription

Prognosis

Diagnosis

Source: Ratcliffe and Sirr (2003) The Futures Academy

Once the critical driving forces and emerging issues and trends on the subject of the sustainable Workplace were identified, three possible and plausible scenarios were produced, with the purpose of preparing for the future. And finally, ten questions were identified that the development of the sustainable Workplace faces within the next 25 years. Though there are many variations of any theme, the stages in Figure 1 are typical of a prospective through scenarios process.

The ‘Prospective Through Scenarios’ process is becoming more popularly applied across Europe in a variety of strategic settings:

It requires organisations to perceive creatively what is going on in their environments. It requires them to think through, in an imaginative way, what their environment means

for them, and then demonstrate the readiness to act decisively upon this new knowledge.

Most of all, however, it demands them to determine what they wish their preferred future to be.



The sustainable workplace prospective These scenarios have been nested from the first set of global Workplace scenarios available in Appendix.

Global Workplace scenario One: Jazz

THE HIVE: Agility, anonymity and access

“the networked hive Workplace structure”

Global Workplace scenario Two: Wise Counsels

THE ECO-OFFICE: A radical form of industrial democracy and corporate re-engineering

“a new work style, from a knowledge revolution to a wisdom revolution”

Global Workplace scenario Three: Dantesque

GATTACA: The rise of the corporate office

" a ‘swarm’ society, grouped together on the basis of shared interests and commercial affinities”

WARNING: This is not an authoritative document. It represents the findings largely from the participants of the Futures Workshop. The information is believed to be

correct, but cannot be guaranteed, and the opinions expressed constitute our judgement as of this date and are subject to change.



Professor Chris Francis, University of Surrey, UK



The strategic question

Resulting from the workshop, and supported by a number of strategic interviews, the strategic question is set as:

What might the future of the sustainable Workplace be like by 2030?

Drivers, issues and trends

Although there exists an endless list of important drivers of change impacting on the global Workplace, it is essential to identify what the most influential of these might be, and how they might interact to propel change in different ways. In doing this, an understanding is required of the various forces that are driving change. These are characterised under the ‘six-sector approach’ (DEGEST) and include:

1. Demography

2. Economy

3. Governance

4. Environment

5. Society

6. Technology

Sequentially, these forces will then propel the storylines described in a particular plot for our nested scenarios: The Hive, the Eco-Office and Gattaca.

Once these driving forces of change have been identified, a number of issues and trends are considered using different spatial levels: Empirical, Interpretative and Exploratory. They will impact considerably on the sustainable Workplace environment and will affect the strategic question in some shape or form. It is readily recognised that there is interconnectivity between sectors and between spatial levels in a complex world where “everything affects everything else”.



Demographic drivers, issues and trends “We cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction

unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.” Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Executive Director, UN Population Fund (UNFPA)

Demographic sustainability has become a key dimension underpinning a sustained and concerted development effort in order for the Workplace to adapt and survive in the 21st Century. In order to achieve this, Workplaces must become inclusive, sustainable, and promote a more flexible and adaptable working environment. However, shifting demographic patterns are also posing major challenges that the sustainable Workplace will face over the next twenty five years or so, in terms of economic growth, social exclusion and national identity. Behind this rationale toward demographic sustainability a number of drivers, issues and trends have been considered.

EMPIRICAL Lack of focus on people; Support the health and well being of

employees; Encourage knowledge interactions

between the diverse generations; People in Asia want the same lifestyle

as the USA and Western Europe- not enough resources to support this, how do we resolve this?

The future of sustainability is the hands of our children;

Distributed Workplaces are becoming increasingly popular in order to gain access to the top talent across the world;

Facilities Management will become ‘facilitators of work’ management;

How many products do we need to own, are there other ways to facilitate this?

The engagement of the family can make a difference in creating the sustainable Workplace;

Employees working from home when young families reside there.

INTERPRETATIVE Demographic challenges producing

significant economic pressures such as income inequality;

Education of the younger generations in whole systems of sustainability and behavioural changes emerging;

Availability of water is going to have a huge impact on sustaining global demographics;

The population is changing due largely to immigration and higher fertility rates among minority ethnicities;

Expectations of working environments is changing and to attract and retain talented staff, Workplaces need to offer flexible working arrangements and work/life benefits;

Employee participation at work is necessary to avoid both physical and psycho-social working environments at work;

With increasing competition, industries and corporations will need to continue to show their value-added;

Poor countries are losing out on family planning benefits, effecting economic growth and a sustainable population growth.

EXPLORATORY Fear of Individualism and difference; Lack of understanding on how you

impact the environment you work in – people need to take responsibility;

The future is uncertain, people need reassurance to trust the actions that will be taken now;

How does industry and individuals begin to shift mental models?

Lack of women’s power in under-developed countries where they have the capacity to direct their own lives?

The population/consumption debate – “the world has enough for everyone’s needs, but not for everyone’s greed”, (Ghandi);

Is consumption in industrialised countries the villain, or is it population growth in developing countries impacting on the sustainable issue the most?



Economic drivers, issues and trends “The planet should not be used as a warehouse of resources to serve humanity's selfishness”

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, 2007

The current economic system is defective and inconsistent because it is based on the notion of perpetual economic expansion on a finite planet. Assessing economic progress towards sustainability involves the analysis of the current availability of goods and services, but also the long term capacity to provide for human needs. The forces of globalisation and the entry of new investors and new capital into the market have led to significant changes in economic activity, particularly the Workplace. Can the Workplace be sustainable if the economic system is based on the premise of profit? A number of economic drivers, issues and trends have been identified that will either hinder or develop the sustainable concept:

EMPIRICAL There is a challenge between cost of

sustainability and payback, the cost of doing it;

Short term financial performance corporate strategy;

Rapid change in business environment leaving Workplace unable to keep up with this pace;

Slow adoption by companies of balanced performance management models such as the triple bottom line or the balanced scorecard – financials still rule;

Path dependency theory says that businesses often do not want to adapt because they are already too committed to a particular course of action; this sort of inertia might be problematic, even though the need for flexible adaptation to creating a sustainable Workplace might be critical;

Can a strategy for economic change support sustainable change?

Investment in green issues should become a valid business case;

Equate sustainability to profit; Business will only value energy and

carbon when it pays the REAL price, (i.e. with externalities accounted for);

Number of foreign and indigenous jobs lost and created.

INTERPRETATIVE Emergence of China and India onto

the Global marketplace becoming massive consumer markets;

An extreme boost in environmental efficiency needed if classic product selling approach continues within ‘Chindian’ markets;

greater demand for and limited supply of energy, water, other vital resources such as intellectual resources;

Introduction of sustainability measures into the procurement of facilities;

Pressure from markets and consumers to meet guidelines, legislation and best practice standards;

There is a pressing demand for governments to initiate ‘green’ legislation;

Stakeholders and clients are becoming more educated in the area of sustainability;

FM will be increasingly about: (1) maintaining business continuity (individual as well as company), and (2) carbon accounting and reduction;

Credit market turmoil and rising oil prices could spur an increase in global unemployment by an estimated 5 million persons in 2008*

Growing amounts of new or additional funding for sustainable development

Employee exploitation, child labour and sweatshops, particularly in developing countries;

Triple bottom line approach quite the contentious issue;

Financial markets lag behind the steady integration of sustainability factors in economic life due to financial markets being institutionally programmed to deliver short-term maximization of financial returns;

EXPLORATORY Lack of proper accounting, where social

and environmental costs are often not incorporated into current economic systems;

Questioned levels of commitment, will organisations invest in being green?

The dominant model in economics promotes growth in the physical scale of economic activity which is traditional neoclassical economics;

Alternative worldview is ecological economics which focuses on the “dynamic and spatial interdependence between human economies and natural ecosystems”;

Are you a neo-classical or an ecological economist?

The economic or energy primacy debate will have a huge impact on which way the economic system will develop over the coming years;

Businesses have a social contract with society and the environment, and in effect a fiduciary responsibility;

The concept of socially responsible business and shareholder democracy can be models for successful business;

Economics and sustainability: Conflict or Convergence?

Note: * http://www.sustainableeconomics.org



Governance drivers, issues and trends “As once government's objectives were economic growth and social cohesion, now they are prosperity,

fairness and environmental care Prime Minister Gordon Brown addressing WWF (19 November 2007)

A well–designed system of Workplace governance can provide an effective platform to deal with issues, initiatives and questions raised within the framework of the sustainable development imperative. However, today it is not as easy as that because, today, agents of governance have more things to manage, with more constraints; more levels and connections in the decision process and more voices and expertise to capture. The following are a number of drivers, issues and trends that have been identified to capture the essence of sustainable Workplace governance:

EMPIRICAL Inertia to change; The continued ‘middle management

blackout’ – middle managers not being given the support or training to enable change;

Self interest; Lack of political backing for

sustainable initiatives; Conflict between the day-to-day and

continual awareness of strategic imperative;

Need for providing political leadership that will be prepared to treat the environment as seriously as going to war;

Leap from legislation to behaviour -can it be done? Process alone will not make a difference;

Political systems need to take the long term view required for environmental sustainability;

Learn lessons from the past that centrally-led, social and economic models rarely, if ever, work;

Short time frame requires urgent action;

Need to talk across different functions or factions or supply chain. IT/HR/FM = different languages but common measures.

INTERPRETATIVE Increase in the representation of

traditionally under-represented groups in trade union membership;

Leadership suggests the existence of more inclusive organising strategies and democratic structures;

Political influence and/or political involvement of companies;

Companies are still not involving the workforce in sustainability issues;

Strategy should be ‘kit of parts’ not dictated;

Sustainability not only imperative, but it is needed for creativity/innovation - how do we bring them together in a common agenda?

Movement towards socially responsible business leadership;

Transnational corporations will grow in power and become subject to increasing scrutiny;

Companies are still finding it difficult to drive sustainability throughout their organisations;

Organisationally, sustainability has moved up the corporate hierarchy in many European firms;

Discrimination and inequality still exists in the Workplace

Disclosure on corporate responsibility reporting has gained momentum during the last couple of years.

EXPLORATORY Good governance is required for

development and to address difficult issues of environmental degradation, poverty reduction and social cohesion – it has become a mantra for sustainable development professionals;

Global governance is influenced by five overarching metatrends converging to reshape society: cultural modernisation; economic globalisation; universal connectivity; transactional transparency, and social adaptation;

The changing nature of positions and directions of power – passing upwards to supra-national bodies, downwards to subsidiaries and sideways to networks;

The threat of widespread theocracies through widespread fundamentalist thinking will be ever present;

People and businesses will increasingly exhibit the behavioural characteristics of a ‘swarm society’, grouping together on the basis of elective affinities and shared interests;

Power shifts resulting from the explosive growth in influence of China and India are now tipping the power of the West on its hinges as the global governance structure of the G8 summit is being reformed or more, abolished.



Environmental drivers, issues and trends “In Nature’s infinite book of secrecy, A little I can read”

William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra.

The ecological impact of global and national policies and activities across industries and sectors is damaging the natural ecosystem. Additionally, the serious imbalance in productivity and in the distribution of goods and services is furthering the destruction of the global environment. The Workplace needs to adopt and promote principles of sustainability to combat these issues; however, in order to do so, drivers, issues and trends need to be considered to prevent environmental stewardship from lagging behind economic and social development:

EMPIRICAL Unsustainable transport systems; Current perception is to be sustainable

will cost more; It is necessary to retro-fit; Emphasis needs to be put on

management controls in order to contribute to green savings in buildings;

Carbon neutral footprints for businesses;

Does the sustainable Workplace need a sophisticated waste disposal system?

There will need to be a series of disasters before any real change in energy consumption becomes politically possible, (Which will be too late…);

People need to get involved and concerned about their carbon footprint;

Discord between what we do (particularly considering green practices at home) and what we say we do;

Being green should not disrupt the balance of profit, design and business – or will it always?

A sustainable Workplace has a very low energy use;

Make the right decisions for the right reasons, don’t follow the crowd;

Create a more health focused way of working;

Climate change affects the poorest people in the most affected parts of the world.

INTERPRETATIVE Exploitation of water resources; Increased cost and decreasing

availability of urban space is leading to more high rise buildings;

Landfill, recycling and taxation is being placed higher on national political agendas;

‘Peak oil’ will have a huge economic and environmental impact;

Increasing fear of climate change; Kyoto protocol sanctions being

imposed against countries who don’t meet their commitments – or are they?

Increased travel costs will provide financial incentives for step changes in ‘videoconferencing’;

Environmental education of individual actions equals the sum of the whole, mosquito scenario;

The global wind energy market is projected to continue expanding in 2008;

Impact of tourism and recreation; Green office programs can improve air

quality, reduce amount of waste to landfill and reduce resource consumption / conservation of resources and save businesses money;

Lack of sustainable transport infrastructure and funding;

Increasing urbanisation caused by influx of migrant workers;

Increasing consumer and peer group pressure for businesses to become more sustainable.

EXPLORATORY What is the accepted truth about the

environmental status of our planet? Lack of clarity around the term of

sustainability; Collective action or individual action

necessary to achieve balance between economic, social and environmental development?

Incentivisation versus Legislation The model of industrial growth in the

west has aggravated the impact on the earth’s ecosystem;

The challenge of environmental ethics; Instrumental/Utilitarian values (a value

we place on something because they are useful to us) versus Intrinsic/ Inherent values (the value something has just because it exists regardless of whether it has any instrumental value to us). Which is it, a car or a bird?

Do we live in a No-Problem world where we believe that there is no environmental problem that cannot be resolved by more economic growth, better management and technology? Or are we striving towards the view that a mixture of market-based competition, better technology and some government intervention can promote sustainable forms of development?



Societal drivers, issues and trends Any regeneration project that fails to put environmental and social benefits at its very heart is unlikely

to achieve anything more than a very short-lived spasm of spurious prosperity Jonathon Porritt (2007)

To date, many people have focused on sustainable development from a predominantly economic or environmental perspective. Particularly in the Workplace, the social dimension of sustainability has been somewhat overlooked, and many strategists and decision-makers have failed to adequately integrate this consideration into formal analysis. A number of drivers, issues and trends have been identified to demonstrate how this occurred and how it has been changing:

EMPIRICAL Selfishness of individuals and

societies is dominating behaviour (worldwide);

Can we force a change in behaviour through carbon accounting and/or carbon cards with energy quotas?

There is still a big need for social interaction;

Smokers have the most diverse social network;

Young families now living in a Workplace environments, such as the home, can make it difficult for the employee;

Teaching people different ways of formal communication;

Interaction and the coffee machine culture will be missed if smart offices increase alongside flexible working and distributed Workplaces;

Encourage users from different cultures to think and act as one company;

Time for equality at work; Ethical issues including human-rights,

community involvement, well-being safety, public health issues are critical;

Facilitate Workplace design, making the Workplace more open to encourage staff to change their values;

Be wary of trying to engineer social/Workplace interactions, enable but do not dictate;

Encouraging each individual to do their bit now and provide guidelines.

INTERPRETATIVE Increase in longevity; Health awareness (levels of heart

disease, cancer, stress-related illnesses);

Increased emphasis on quality of life, there is a shift away from materialism and an awakening of spirituality;

Global challenge requires global solution at an individual level;

Awareness of value of personal contribution and reward systems to encourage individuals is developing

Management styles are not changing as the Workplace changes, promoting poor leadership and management skills

The age of retirement is increasing and more people are of the older generation are staying longer in the Workplace – positively, wisdom, knowledge and experience is being passed on while negatively, a clash of ideas is inevitable between how it has always been done and how the younger generation want things done

Consumer power is forcing vendors to go green;

Increased social pressure to reduce commuting costs;

Corporate culture is constantly evolving companies are changing to an adaptive culture that is aligned to their business goals;

Employment opportunities are shifting towards jobs that require higher education;

Getting the best working together – using the knowledge network;

Corporations are buying specific talent from different locations, making stand alone corporations get smaller;

There is a need for greater personal/data security.

EXPLORATORY Purpose of work – why did people go to

work and what are we going to work for now?

Can democratic societies deal with the fundamental challenges of energy policies and reducing standards of living?

The bond and belonging social concept is demonstrating that, as the new economy emerges, it is undermining our ability to form attachments with people, places and companies;

Loyalty to an organisation is increasingly determined by social and place attachment;

Engagement of the community and the workforce;

Acceleration of urbanisation is changing the way people work all the time;

Younger generations need to understand more about the function of work, preparing them and getting the mindset right;

Attitudes of staff can have an impact on people’s experience of public transport;

Long-term relationships at work versus the disposable workforce which can ultimately undermine financial performance.



Technological drivers, issues and trends “Our new technologies, combined with our numbers, have made us, collectively, a force of nature - Al

Gore, 45th Vice President of the United States, 'An Inconvenient Truth' (2006)

Technological advances in the Workplace have been so aggressive during the past decades, that they have changed the way people work and communicate. Consequently, employees no longer require the need to be in a physical office setting; however, this is resulting in employees loosing out on face-to-face interpersonal skills and a deterioration of relationships in the Workplace. To achieve a sustainable Workplace goal it is necessary to balance social and interactive progression as well as technological development, to achieve environmental and economic goals. A number of drivers, issues and trends have been examined in order to raise awareness of the negative and positive aspects of this sector.

EMPIRICAL Sustainable technology is having a

positive impact on the decline of business travel;

Embrace technological innovation in home/office/mobile;

Introduction of energy efficient technology in a complex system;

Get affordable high-quality technology for the office and Workplace that people will use;

Publish technical feedback from robust processes with clear measures, costs and values;

Think of the workspace as a resource that you use on a ‘pay as you need’ basis - the shared office;

Awareness and knowledge sharing uses technology in the right way;

Visual displays of carbon footprint in real time needed;

Monitoring technology is a priority Reasonable return on investment of

technological investments; Disseminate the effects of building and

facilities in order to reduce costs, carbon output and energy consumption;

The need for an appropriate performance measurement system, in order to avoid the notion that you can’t manage what you can’t measure.

INTERPRETATIVE Newly advanced holographic

technology is being developed that will power a new generation of pocket-sized digital video projectors;

Improved technological advances are encouraging flexible working;

Technology is driving higher productivity and efficiency;

Research and development of new alternative forms of energy;

Access to real-time data using web 2.0 and web 3.0 is progressing;

FM is becoming a business enabler by providing communication tools;

The call for ‘smart’ thinking, design and development is particularly relevant to the technology sector;

Is technology used as a way to get more work out of people?

Intergenerational differences in technological use, e.g.: conventional technology, no longer fits the bill for younger generations; the mobile phone is now a texting device, not a speaking device, and businesses are accommodating their use in order to survive;

The penetration of the internet in many businesses is not yet fully developed, yet, the internet is near maturity and advances are made every day.

EXPLORATORY Technology is an enabler and educator; Fighting the ‘fear’ of technology will

improve our sustainability; Growth in the power and influence of the

media; Building block for international business

and empowering non-state actors; Rethink the existing values and

structures of Workplaces as they are not compatible with new technologies;

Technology breeds crime, in terms of terrorism, drug-traffickers, hackers and cyber-attackers;

The manifestation of the information explosion term which describes the abundance of published information and the effects of this profusion of data;

Technology has changed the way business and living is done, in terms of creating a globalised business communication together with Internet shopping, healthcare, education, culture and entertainment;

The continued lack of co-ordination between facilities, technology and human resources.



Scenario logics

In this report, the following scenario logics were adopted to create three possible scenarios:

Economy 2: High Growth versus Low Growth

Work/Life Balance: The Individual versus The Corporation

Establishing scenario logics is crucial to the development of scenarios. Scenario logic or themes are the organising principles upon which the scenarios are structured. They connect the present to a specific scenario end-state or outcome, for any ‘future history’ must make sense ‘today’.

From the insights and expertise of facilities management specialists (gathered from key players and clients of Johnson Controls) the following logics were identified:

Political Culture: Dictatorial versus Democratic The emerging workforce: Skilled versus Unskilled Governance: Bureaucracy versus Creativity Success in the Workplace: Collaboration versus Competition Workplace Identity: Independent versus Branded Economy 1: Management Economy versus Service Economy Economy 2: High Growth versus Low Growth Work/Life Balance: Individual versus the Corporation

Additionally, three possible plausible scenarios were nested from the original global Workplace scenarios, whereby the scenario frameworks that produced the Global Scenarios Jazz, Wise Counsels and Dantesque were used to create three different types of Workplaces within each of the global worlds, namely:

The Hive The Eco-office Gattaca

Figure 2: Scenario Logics for Sustainable Workplace Futures

Low Economic Growth

High Economic Growth

The individual The Corporation

Hive

Eco-Office

Gattaca



Nested scenario one: The Hive The Hive was developed from the first global Scenario Jazz

As major disasters strikes our society, homeworking became a welcoming refuge arranged as bubbles to form building blocks for international commerce which empower a new era of entrepreuneurialship. With a revolutionary technological advance in neuro technologies, a new working environment provides the knowledge worker with the ability of controlling the workspace from a neuro-headset. By 2025, climate change had turned on its heels, and upon the emergence of the networked hive Workplace structure, transport use went into decline as this type of distributed Workplace encouraged all actions to occur under one roof. The work/life balance debate is now resolved and what emerges from this is a more committed and productive workforce.

Summary of global scenario one Jazz:

“Complexity managed by ‘marketising’ decision processes”

The Jazz scenario assumed an unprecedented acceleration of economic growth, relentless pressure for short-term gains and fierce competition on a global scale, driven by rapid technological advances and further market integration. It is a world where entrepreneurship, innovation and individual responsibility are favoured. Give and take is keenly attuned to the opportunities of the moment and at the same time alert to ways of incorporating long term values into strategies for commercial success. Free market reforms have moved governments everywhere to downsize, deregulate and privatise.

The Hive

During the past two decades, fundamental shifts in the advances of information and communication technologies and further global market integration have spearheaded the drive towards a dynamic, inclusive and knowledge-based economy and society. However, the outbreak of the global pandemic of avian flu between 2007 and 2010 left a legacy, a new Workplace structure, called ‘the hive’ and by 2030 the corporate office no longer exists. By responding and adapting to the dangers of the pandemic, and the changing competitive world environment, corporations have become more agile and responsive in their operations.

The option of telecommunicating work from mobile devices becomes the norm when the first outbreak occurs. Home working offices on-line become extensive, as there is a resonating sense of sheer panic taking place, which in turn creates the networked hive, with high connectivity and interactivity between members. Knowledge workers begin to work in areas, known as bubbles, which integrate home, work and social life together which becomes an exchange of thoughts, ideas, innovation, and work/life balance, and is protected by a protective shell called the hive. Agility, anonymity and access become the emerging themes in this workspace, which impacts hugely on the work/life balance, environmental protection and societal inequity.

During the 2010s, ‘smart’ thinking, design and development became particularly relevant to the technology sector as the demand for customised accommodation and facilities increased which changed the dynamics of the hive over time. Consequently, virtual reality tools began to play an integral role in corporate planning and development. This trend formed building blocks for international commerce and empowered a new era of entrepreneurialship. By 2020, the bubble Workplace environment had become a permanent setting for knowledge workers. Consequently, it was possible for corporations to focus on efficiency and Workplace innovation as a new alliance between facilities and strategic management emerged. Shifting management structures within corporations changed radically while a declining number of low-skilled jobs, due to growth of IT in the Workplace, led to the demise of the corporate office, whereby facilities had become synonymous with the home.

In 2008, a milestone marking a revolutionary technological advance occurred, with the unveiling of a neuro-headset that enables the wearer to play games simply by thinking. By 2015, microchips were being implanted into everyone in the hive, including babies. As a result, the Workplace materialized into a place where the mind and thoughts of people had become much more attuned with technology. This gave rise to the knowledge worker controlling the workspace from a neuro-headset in this environment. Everything is faster and more reactive. The traditional Workplace thus becomes a memory, whereby furniture is not now essential for work because it is made of devices such as screens, i-pods and televisions. Furniture is only necessary for employees and families to sit and sleep.



One knock-on effect from this development is that the facilities management sector becomes the key actor in this environment. FM becomes the hive queen. The queen is the entire heart of the hive operation, and being mechanical in nature, allows all the data that is controlled, stored and disseminated through the medium of a support desk. FM gives instructions on how processes and places work within this environment.

The notorious IT militia group, Terror One, emerged as a major threat with the onset of this technological revolution. Organised crime of international dimensions finds a relatively safe haven for conducting its global operation in the permissive and technology rich environment of the hive. In 2018, a series of IT terrorist attacks by Terror One were launched on hives across the world, harming competitive advantage gained by electronic data interchange and e-commerce. These attacks disrupted the daily lives of the knowledge workers as electronic black-outs affected all types of complex technological systems. These hives were under attack, but responded by behaving in an infinitely adaptable manner. Furthermore, the chaos and damage was minimised through good change management and persistence, thus continuing the progress of globalisation of trade, markets and business operations.

Since the shift from a globalised industrialisation trajectory to an emerging knowledge society at the beginning of the 21st Century, climate change had turned on its heels. By 2025, the impact of this new Workplace structure encouraged people to realise that climate change is harmful and that through awareness and positive action this massive threat against humanity could be diverted. Upon the emergence of the networked hive Workplace structure, transport use went into decline as this type of distributed Workplace encouraged all actions to occur under one roof. This gave rise to a new level of corporate social responsibility, which would, moreover, raise the level and degree of self regulation and accountability in the market and eventually lead to the right balance in productivity and in the distribution of goods and services. Furthermore, by 2030 a strong movement towards a ‘marketisation’ of the environment emerged, as external costs of emissions, waste management and environmental damage are quantified in order to protect the planet and the people that live on it.

As environmental stewardship takes off, and people reflect upon and appreciate their natural environment, so too begins the true understanding of the work/life balance. The hive is now the vessel in which working arrangements are incorporated into people’s daily lives. The work/life balance debate is now resolved and what emerges from this is a more committed and productive workforce. Despite this, by 2030, a new social debate becomes apparent. The social inclusion debate.

On the one hand, the role of the family has gained importance again in the developed world as the nuclear family regains recognition as an important social value. Divorce rates drop as people spend more and more time with their families. Yet, on the other hand, physical and social interaction and activity begins to deteriorate because people become too attached to technology and form small gated communities, forgetting the fundamental purpose of survival - physical social interaction, and ‘bridging and bonding’. As a result of this, community spirit is weak and families continue to feel isolated, now, more than ever. To add to this, the creed of individualism, coupled with a lack of social spirit has led to a rise in crime of quite alarming proportions.



Professor Taj Oreszczyn, UCL, UK



Nested scenario two: The Eco-Office The Eco-Office was developed from the second global scenario Wise Counsels.

As a radical form of industrial democracy and corporate re-engineering took place, a new work style emerged, wherewith the employees were given a greater voice in how to improve business outcomes through hard times. By 2012, the eco-office emerged as the primary workspace and work style across the globe. Sophisticated and innovative ICT appeared, which enabled more employees to have the option of telecommunicating their work from outside the office. Eco-offices, similar to hotels were created, that provided good services to improve quality of life and work and to attract the top talent. The emergence of new Workplace structures, life-long learning and corporate culture appear to lead the direction from a knowledge revolution to a wisdom revolution

Summary of Global Scenario Two: Wise Counsels

“Harnessing the knowledge economy for sustainable development”

The Wise Counsels scenario assumed global economic stability and an effort to attain environmental balance and social progress. Institutional improvements worldwide facilitate sustainable development. It is a world where collective, collaborative and consensual action is favoured. Negotiation is the name of the game and policy making and decision making has become increasingly delegated and expert. Knowledge has become the key resource. The most important property is now intellectual property, not physical property. It is the hearts and minds of people, rather than traditional labour that are essential to growth and prosperity.

The Eco-Office

Since the beginning of the 21st Century, the process of sustainable development has rapidly gained momentum, driven by a stable global economy and a strong international political agenda for change with increased emphasis on consultation, partnership, local and regional governance and environmental justice. This development trajectory towards sustainability in it truest form transpired as a result of the significant rise in global greenhouse gas emissions between 2010 and 2030 which led to ice cap melting and a significant rise in sea levels, which saw widespread flooding in coastal areas along the Atlantic and Pacific seaboard in 2023. Subsequently, global concerns for sustainability began to focus on two main objectives:

To make cities and other human settlements healthy and liveable places for their inhabitants; and

To control trans-boundary effects of pollution and to stop the degradation of the global ecosystem.

With this awareness and understanding trickling down into Workplace management and the downturn of the global economy in 2009, companies, threatened with the possibility of bankruptcy, realised that in order to survive it was necessary to rethink, relearn, redirect and remanage themselves. From this, a radical form of industrial democracy and corporate re-engineering took place. Employees agreed wage cuts in return for increased profit share, management salaries were cut, employees were given more control, encouraged to self manage and discourage uniformity. As a result of this, a new work style emerged, wherewith the employees were given a greater voice in how to improve business outcomes through hard times in addition to performing multiple roles during the crisis, which gave rise to a greater knowledge of the operations of the business.

Collective, collaborative and consensual action was favoured. Long gone were the days of traditional autocratic style management. These successful management structures began forging broader, outward-looking strategies, with the launch of the ‘profit with principle’ campaign in 2011, in which promoting a healthy work/life balance and encouraging environmental actions in order to create the sustainable company was possible. By 2012, the eco-office emerged as the primary workspace and work style across the globe.



Within this eco-office environment, the facilities management sector plays a key role. While this work environment materialised, sophisticated and innovative ICT appeared, which enabled more employees to have the option of telecommunicating their work from outside the office, bringing with it, both benefits and issues. Following this shift, one issue the FM struggled to deal with was the transition towards a virtual business world. The move to virtual business was gearing towards a decentralisation of a company’s operations, and hence facilities. The difficulty here was individually, the staff still required space, and their dispersal meant that many of the support functions that a single building normally provides had to be duplicated for each individual or delivered at distance. This was not feasible, particularly where collaborative and creative work became critical for high performance business success.

Consequently, in order to attract the top talent back to this centralised environment, in 2014 Workplace design was developed to cater for all the employees needs, and eco-offices, similar to hotels were created, that provided good services to improve quality of life and work. This new approach to Workplace development had begun to embody smart growth principles, driven by a primary need to think globally and act locally in preservation and conservation of the environment, cultural and historical heritage, development of the economy, social cohesion, equity and quality of life.

By 2016, a digital company card was developed for workers who travelled frequently. It allows employees to go into local communities and check into office spaces as well as encourage them to use the amenities there, such as hairdressers, coffee shops, child care facilities, and the outdoor open space. This led to the development of employee villages, made up of eco-office blocks that promote sustainable transport initiatives, integrate biodiversity plans in design, and create an awareness of the importance of work/life balance by focusing on three main goals, namely: Accessibility, Adaptability and Alliances. Subsequently, the facilities manager became increasingly competent in managing complex organisations

Following the World Summit on Corporate Accountability in 2015, these corporate communities began to incorporate and integrate environmental and social considerations into their Workplace practices. The main target areas of the programme included travel, energy, water, general resources, self-sustainability, waste, procurement and education. However by 2025, with the exponential growth of the Chindian Economies, some renegade corporations, lost sight of the long-term benefits of sustainable Workplace design and the ‘profit with principle’ campaign. They relocated to Asia as a new hub of industrial activity, driven by the availability of a rapidly increasing low-wage labour force, unregulated environmental standards, negligible corporation tax rates and pliable political regimes.

Despite this and the climate change catastrophe of flooding across the globe, the Chinese and Indian governments, driven by heads of state across the world, were soon encouraged to re-evaluate their policies on sustainability, and Workplace sustainability in particular. A wave of transformations had begun to take place, slowly but surely, and the eco-office employee community concept developed in that region.

Freedom and knowledge emerge as key priorities in this society, and by encouraging people to take risks and be comfortable with change, a transformation is realised, not only in the way people work, but also the way people live. In addition, the emergence of new Workplace structures, life-long learning and corporate culture appear to lead the direction from a knowledge revolution to a wisdom revolution.



I

Niki Bey M.Sc. (Mech.Eng.), Ph.D IPU Product Development





Nested scenario three: Gattaca Gattaca was developed from the global scenario three Dantesque.

As the corporate society became a power to be reckoned with, corporations emerged as an all fearing entity. Businesses and people start to exhibit characteristics of a ‘swarm’ society, grouping together on the basis of shared interests and commercial affinities. By 2020, the corporation is established and advertised as a fully integrated, self-managed real estate and personnel investment trust that focuses on the acquisition, development, ownership, and management of property, processes and people that inspire success in trade, the markets and business operations. FM primary focus is on access and information protection and not the Workplace as such, subsequently, resulting in a degradation of work ethics and health and safety procedures.

Scenario Three: Dantesque

"Social reaction over rapid change”

The Dantesque scenario assumed global economic stagnation, cultural difference and insecurity. Emphasis on distrust, retrenchment and reaction leads to widespread social unrest, conflict and environmental degradation. Instability is rife across the globe as regions become increasingly disjointed from each other. Racism is on the rise and ‘each to their own’ is the attitude that dominates this world.

Gattaca

The twenty years or so from 2010 witnessed advances in information and communication technologies, and concentrated economic growth in prosperous regions have led to a global inequity, whereby poverty and frustration leaves the majority of nations feeling isolated and ignored. By 2030, driven by demographic imbalances and widespread social unrest, law and order becomes an issue of personal and corporate responsibility through the mass surveillance of society, called ‘Big Brother’ surveillance using various systems including ID cards, electronic tagging, DNA database monitoring, CCTV tracking and GPS tracking. From this heralds the rise of the corporate office, otherwise known as the corporate machine. It has become a dominant feature on the global commercial and social landscape.

After the devastation of the 2010 terrorist attacks, which saw the devastation of the physical infrastructure of the Gattaca and Shell corporations, the corporate society became a power to be reckoned with. Using technology such as finger printing and retinal and genetic identification to control access and information, corporations emerged as an all-fearing entity. Long gone were the days of swiping ID cards and presenting ink signatures and illegal genetic discrimination. This mindset is driven by threat against capitalism and an ‘each to their own’ attitude begins to dominate the globe, driven by an increasing mistrust and disillusionment with failing political and governing structures. Individualism and the freedom of speech are long forgotten values, and technology has become the number one threat to human rights. People have no chance of careers in a society that now discriminates against genes instead of gender, race or religion. DNA now plays the primary role in determining social class.

By 2014, transnational corporations become the engines of growth and the centres of political power. Businesses and people start to exhibit characteristics of a ‘swarm’ society, grouping together on the basis of shared interests and commercial affinities. The world is becoming localised and is further exacerbated with the introduction of high personal taxation and low corporate taxation to attract investment, causing further anger and resentment amongst the working public whilst intensifying the gap between rich and poor.

As a result of this, by 2015 regional workforce strikes are rampant in an effort to create rights for workers. These strikes fall on deaf ears and, subsequently, it now becomes illegal for employees of corporations to join any trade union. These trade unions go underground and an undercurrent of revolt begins to emerge. Consequently, it placed greater power in the hands of the corporate machine while revealing their great influence upon their respective governments.

Employees are not protected by external forces, and in the aftermath of the economic collapse of 2018, find themselves working 60+ hour weeks for minimum wage, which has been set by the Global Corporate Forum, in order for the economy of the corporation to survive and make a profit.



By 2020, the corporation is established and advertised as a fully integrated, self-managed real estate and personnel investment trust that focuses on the acquisition, development, ownership, and management of property, processes and people that inspire success in trade, the markets and business operations. The facilities management sector within a corporation of this magnitude has become the integral part of its operations. However, its primary focus is on access and information protection and not the Workplace as such, subsequently resulting in a degradation of work ethics and health and safety procedures.

The facilities chief executive is now a member of the executive board, and is second in command in order to hold this position an educational background of science and property is a requirement in order to develop genetic expansion further, to protect the corporation entity. Within the workspace of the corporation, the hierarchical structure is now more prominent than ever and the Workplace is similar to a production line in a manufacturing plant. Ideas, thoughts, work collaboration and job satisfaction no longer exist in the vocabulary of those who work within the corporation, except in the executive suites of the facility.

Another consequence of the ‘each to their own’ attitude is the shelving of the green agenda. Environmental degradation is at its highest and society and political institutions and the corporation have lost all belief in the sustainability agenda; short-termism prevails as people struggle and the ethos becomes ‘survival of the smartest’.



Professor Michael Pitt, John Moore University, UK



The 10 big questions facing the sustainable workplace

Once the scenarios were presented, the next stage of the process was to identify any significant policy fields or themes that emerged throughout the workshop session. Subsequently, the participants were then asked to create 10 big questions facing the future development of a sustainable Workplace strategy. These questions would proactively address the range of uncertainties and certainties addressed in each of the scenarios. Following the workshop, further environmental scanning was completed and the ten questions were researched extensively and answered. In doing this, challenges, opportunities and threats have emerged in the present day which will inevitably have an impact on the successful development of the sustainable Workplace.

The ten questions posed are as follows:

1. How can we move from a world of information, regulation and blame to one of awareness, responsibility and wisdom?

2. How can we promote a proper knowledge and awareness of the sustainable imperative by means of education through the different generation?

3. How best can legislation incorporate incentivisation towards adopting sustainability?

4. How can we create a collaborative leadership framework to initiate a sustainable strategic vision?

5. How do we create sustainable behavioural change, where people genuinely want to have a positive impact on the environment?

6. How will the concept of the sustainable Workplace be changed/shaped to accommodate emerging markets and the consequent cross cultural markets/ challenges?

7. Do we live to work or work to live?

8. Can sustainability be made financially viable?

9. How does the FM community make sure that the communication channels and processes are in place and working properly?

10. How can we implement sustainable technological innovation to provide an integrated work culture towards a positive impact on people, planet and profit?

These ten big questions will be explored across ten themes and each leading towards providing an answer to these questions.



Theme one: Responsibility, accountability & blame

The world is undergoing dramatic changes at the beginning of the 21st Century. Currently, it is a melting pot of change and complexity drastically affecting both humanity and the environmental system. Globalisation, new technology and changing demographics have been key driving forces underpinning this change and have, consequently, challenged corporations to consider responsibility in a new light. As a result of this, they are constantly relearning, redirecting and remanaging themselves. But how can we move from a world of information, regulation and blame to one of awareness, responsibility and wisdom?

Arguably in the beginning, the power of large corporations has dominated and influenced how businesses and markets impact and affect, pejoratively, on social processes throughout the world. An indisputable example of this negative power is the emergence and success of markets that trade, invest, and use scarce resources within a complex global system, which has led to an ever-increasing social divide between the fortunate few and the deprived billions. However, paradoxically, corporations who want to succeed in today’s global market economy should realise that, in order to do so they should harness and develop the latent demand available in these poor countries. In effect, they have one of two choices:

1. They can take, exploit and oppress the people in these countries

2. They can act in their own self-interest and strategically view these people as future customers and by creating jobs and wealth assume responsibility for improving their education, health and general welfare

Both of these scenarios are possible. Which one comes to pass will be determined primarily by one factor: the willingness of big multinational companies to enter and invest in the world’s poorest markets (Collier and Fuller, 2005).

By way of market trends today, either option is a likely action. However, there is a gaining momentum surrounding the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Two new empirical reports by IBM and the Economist Intelligence Unit, suggest that companies are improving their growth in value by way of taking CSR practices seriously and implementing them across their operations (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2008). CSR is a new phenomenon where “firms have an obligation to protect and improve welfare of the society and its organization, now as well as in the future, through its various business and social actions, and ensure that it generates equitable and sustainable benefits for he various stakeholders” (Sharma and Chahal, 2006).

This theme emerged at the same time as environmental reporting systems were being developed. CSR and sustainable development thus became entwined. As research and action into sustainability moved from infancy and descriptive stage towards its implementation stage (Tilley and Fuller, 2007), so did CSR. Currently, the concept of CSR is growing more than ever and being driven by changing expectations and the concerns of stakeholders, employees, investors, customers and society at large; increased transparency of business activities through the media and ICT, as well as environmental degradation caused by commercial activities. It is emerging as a strategy whereby the combination of proactive short-term financial goals with long-term sustainable corporate brand building will produce the most successful organisations of the future. It is argued by Adams and Zutshi 2004) that substantial gains are produced by adopting a CSR approach within an organisation, namely: better recruitment and retention of employees, improved internal decision-making and cost-savings; improved corporate image and relationships with stakeholders, and improved financial returns.

Behaving in a socially responsible manner is now being identified as an emerging requirement to protect the long-term survival of companies. Nevertheless, it has been reported that many developing countries have inadequate legislation to protect the environment, the workforce and local communities, when it comes to controlling the negative impacts of multinational corporations; thus reinforcing the fact that the



companies must take responsibility themselves within the areas they operate otherwise environmental destruction, social inequity and a bad corporate image is imminent. It has also been suggested that the world is moving from an age of regulation towards one of responsibility and wisdom. Despite this, it is not as easy as it sounds and a number of challenges continue to make this transition difficult. According to Markku Wilenius (2004), real action and not just principles and values within an organisation, will be required to develop a strategy towards the age of responsibility and wisdom. Otherwise corporations will continue to: only focus on financial indicators of performance; breed a sense of ignorance towards an holistic working approach; work in the same circles and only hear ‘yes’ to their solutions and, finally, think that ethical and social issues are for other entities to resolve. In order to move towards an age of responsibility, it is essential that an efficient and transparent CSR reporting system is created. Furthermore, it has been argued that unless we change the way of the past and the present, the future will stay the same, moving us away from the age of responsibility and wisdom (Ibid).

Furthermore, this transformation towards an age of responsibility and wisdom will not become reality unless the stakeholder’s expectations are heeded. As mentioned earlier, it is their expectations and concerns that are driving the growth in CSR within the corporate world. Nowadays, they are having an increasing influence on how corporations do business by their changing attitudes and expectations. In developed countries, the stakeholders are beginning to apply pressure on their companies to relearn, redirect and remanage themselves in order to promote a healthy image to the market and society alike. This is achieved through public and private initiatives and legislation. However, the current CSR corporate discourse is centred on the ‘do no harm’ principle, which demonstrates flaws in the CSR strategy. Yet, with the emergence of such trends as social inequities, environmental degradation and economic stagnation, there is now no excuse to do nothing and stakeholders have developed ‘multi-stakeholder convened global governance frameworks’ in order to promote and act upon stakeholders changing expectations towards society and the environment (Warhurst, 2006).

Another challenge includes the issue of changing corporate behaviour. Corporations behave a certain way in complex market systems, because they see themselves competing against everyone else. Subsequently, their primary responsibilities become narrow and focused in order to protect themselves within a highly competitive and complex market place, with increased levels of risk. This results in the avoidance of legislation and encourages them to become increasingly responsive to consumer demand at any cost. In an effort to change behaviour, Deborah Doane (2005) argues that it is necessary to go beyond CSR and reform the complex market system by changing the “personal behaviour of consumers, managers and leaders, redefining the purpose of business to service society’s needs and significant social innovation”. The current marketplace is defined by the ‘winner takes all’ attitude which does not accommodate awareness, wisdom and responsibility because it is ungoverned and free. Current market mechanisms intensify social inequalities further and threaten our very quality of life. It seems that the current marketplace and sustainability are not compatible, and being a good corporate citizen has never been so challenging. So what should be done?

The answer is threefold:

First, transform the marketplace into an arena where organisations can be responsible without losing their competitive edge

Second, a framework needs to be developed which incorporates everything discussed above that will identify and explain the roles and responsibilities that are freely lacking in this marketplace

And third, a futures approach is a powerful tool to help generate a better understanding of the opportunities and risks that corporations face against uncertainty, as well as providing a basis for setting up long-term strategic planning



Theme Two: Knowledge awareness and education

In the words of Albert Einstein, “the significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them”. But another way to achieve a sustainable future vision, a long-term effort to transform education at all levels, is critical to a mindset change necessary to promote a proper knowledge and awareness of the sustainable imperative. A shift in thinking, values and actions is a prerequisite. But how can we promote a proper knowledge, and awareness of the sustainable imperative, by means of education through the different generations?

It is argued across sustainable focused literature that education plays a profound and pivotal, but often neglected, role in making the vision of a sustainable future a reality. How so? The role of education in today’s society prepares most of the professionals who will eventually develop, lead, manage, teach, work in and influence current organisational and governance institutions. Education plays a critical role in creating, disseminating and imparting culture, knowledge, skills and values of society from generation to generation. Additionally, this unique educational system stimulates freedom of thought and diversity of skills to develop new ideas, create platforms and seek opportunities to engage in societal experimentations, for example, in sustainable living.

There are several levels of education through which sustainable development can be promoted. One such level is, adopting the sustainability education imperative in primary and secondary schools (Higgs and MacMillan, 2006). In doing so, students begin to understand and respond to complex environmental and social issues at very early ages. Furthermore, students begin to incorporate sustainability concepts into their behaviours, whereby it becomes second nature to live sustainably. However, the leadership of sustainability education lies in third level education and its institutes. Many of them, nowadays, are incorporating and fostering sustainability principles and practices into fundamental decisions about purchasing, building design and operations which impact society at all levels in a positive manner. It is here that the youth of today are empowered to become future policy makers, sustainable development leaders and the most powerful consumers in our societies.

Schools and universities are only one part of the larger community, yet universities can become an area’s catalytic economic engine. Therefore, the manner in which they carry out their daily activities is an important demonstration of ways to achieve environmentally responsible living and reinforce desired values and behaviours in the whole community. Consequently, partnerships are being created between local communities, educational institutions, and workplaces, whereby education, public facilities and services, and a good public transport system are promoted and invested in by these institutions. In many cases, teaching, research, operations and relations with local communities are thought of as separate activities. This is not the case. From this perspective, by investing in the community, a healthy society emerges and, consequently, a capable workforce develops. It is argued by Pablo Paster (2007) that an investment in a community is an investment in the foundation of an organization. A healthy community is one step towards an equitable society, a healthy environment and a strong economy.



From a completely different perspective, it is argued also that school buildings and Workplace property and facilities can play their part in addressing challenges surrounding issues of sustainability. Keith Alexander (2007), emphasises that “it is widely accepted that properly designed, user friendly buildings go a long way to encouraging people to learn, which are also supported by service providers who think and act long-term and beyond their own immediate geographical and interest boundaries, and who involve users and local residents in shaping their policy and practice”. Assessing this concept for a new environment requires a facilities manager to develop a strategy for providing facilities that respond to and support continuously changing technology, the learning organization and Workplace developments. There are key facilities management questions yet to be answered within the education business debate - should FM be a business or a community-based approach? Are the processes so fundamental to education and community that new models of FM are needed that are driven by public interest?

Going beyond the traditional classroom, the organisation is another level where the concept of life-long learning is critical to the sustained growth of the company and the economy. However, the notion of organisational learning has been ambiguous, difficult to comprehend and unfamiliar. To date, most training and educational professionals have focused their efforts on individual and not organisational learning. This trend emerged because of the lack of effective and efficient schools and corporate training programmes, and because of this the orientation toward individual learning has seemed appropriate and complete. It now appears, however, that it may no longer be sufficient (Forman, 2004). Organisational learning is increasingly important for businesses striving to succeed in an ever-changing and extremely competitive economic environment. A dynamic learning strategy is required that will harness the knowledge of its employees and is an integral component of the firms strategic plan. It demonstrates how a learning environment empowers employees to develop imaginative strategies and innovative practices (Kirkwood and Pangarkar, 2003)

Nowadays, many companies, particularly entrepreneurial companies, exist and strive upon active learning and constant knowledge acquisition. In a competitive marketplace, it has been argued that companies which successfully implement learning strategies have the best opportunity to survive. Otherwise, companies become marginal competitors and the competitive success is negligible. Thus, intellectual capital is emerging as a driving force underpinning new styles of competitive strategic value for corporations, driven by the new globalised economy, world situation and the changing nature of work. Companies such as Google, Microsoft, Vodafone, Amazon and Intel place the value of their company upon investors' perceptions of the potential of the knowledge that these companies hold, namely intellectual capital, such as knowledge and skills that have been built up over time, as well as information about customers, techniques, products and markets and, moreover, an appetite for future learning. These employees now work in teams, informal groups, and in multiple roles which span offices, divisions, and countries. Furthermore, technology now not only facilitates personal productivity but group and team interaction in ways hardly imagined a decade ago. In this changed environment, there needs to be a way to discuss cumulative learning among individuals in teams, communities, and organizations.

From this perspective, the term `learning organisation' has emerged and is described by Ian Herbert, (2000) as “a process by which individuals, and the organisation as a whole, develop and use their stock of knowledge.” It can both teach and learn from itself. Or, put another way, it harnesses and applies the brain power of everyone in the organisation. The learning organisation puts people and knowledge at the centre of the organisation. Can organizational learning (OL) enhance the process of recognising and pursuing new corporate ventures such as adopting a sustainable Workplace strategy? This type of learning provides a major impetus to strengthen performance and further growth through strategic renewal. It strengthens an organisations ability to recognise opportunities and helps equip them to effectively pursue new ventures. Furthermore, OL emphasises improving practices and expanding into new arenas by creating new knowledge (Senge, 1990).



Theme Three: Legislation vs. incentivisation

Nowadays, companies face the challenges of a changing environment, driven by unprecedented advances in market integration, business communications and environmental protection. Companies are increasingly aware of corporate social responsibility, which can be of direct economic value, and improved corporate branding. Nevertheless, activities carried out by businesses across the global complex market system continue to exert considerable pressure on the environment and social systems. As a result of this, legislation has become critical in order to deal with this global issue. But How best can legislation incorporate incentivisation towards adopting sustainability?

Rules aimed at preventing pollution and repairing the damage company’s cause to the environment, as well as measures to invest in human capital, health and safety and managing change, are also in place to promote the development of environmentally and socially friendly industrial activities. However, while governance structures at all levels of society try to enforce these mandatory rules and regulations, they have found that creating an effective strategy for integrating sustainable development into industrial policy cannot be based on legislation alone, and that a large part of this work must stem from market-based and voluntary approaches.

Across each sphere of influence, legislation and incentivisation are seen very differently and used in a different manner. For example, the European Union (EU) has an objective to separate the economic development of businesses from the environmental and social damage that their activities cause, by ensuring a high level of protection without compromising business competitiveness. The EU has instruments that favour this development and they include mandatory legislation, incentives, and measures aimed at facilitating business activities. Legislation currently implemented in the EU is manifold and varied. Additionally, incentives offered in the EU present businesses with numerous funding possibilities in the form of co-financing or loans through various financial instruments and programmes, such as research and technical development framework programmes. Other financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank (EIB) or the European Structural Funds also offer incentives.

From the perspective of the organisation, European action aims to facilitate businesses' activities by following and adopting best practice methods from instruments such as European standardisation or the Best Project. Moreover, the EU has developed instruments to improve the regulatory and management frameworks in which businesses develop. Voluntary initiatives taken by businesses as part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices play an important role in integrating social and environmental concerns into business strategies and action. These initiatives demonstrate the business sector's commitment to sustainable development, innovation and competitiveness. However, with all these measures in place, commitment still remains an issue. Although in the UK, the current Labour government has repeatedly called on to issue social and environmental reports, the vast majority of British companies have failed to respond. This is clear evidence that the ‘voluntary’ approach is no longer sufficient. Additionally there is a scarcity of incentives, which greatly reduces the chance that all companies report openly in a comparable manner to stakecurrent market system that outweighs competitover co-operation (European Commission, 2007)

China, on the other hand, is the fastest growing

holders. This is a result of the ion

.

ts

n the t supply

ns, a

nies

the bottom’, with Workplace

economy in the world. For some, China represenall that is problematic about competition iglobal economy. For that reason, the vasof cheap labour, tax enforcement of regulatioand minimal labour and human rights, make China magnet for socially irresponsible multinational corporations and a troubling model for compaseeking to attract foreign investment and developdomestic enterprise.

China has emerged as a leading symbol of the global ‘race tohealth and safety conditions and environmental degradation from business activities as examples of the downward pressures created by China’s development model on all producers in the global economy (O’Rourke and Brown, 2003).



Furthermore, contrary to global trends, there is a trend gaining momentum in the US

gislation and incentivisation towards an

re

y

p

whereby a declining number of corporations reporting on their social and environmental impacts is emerging. Meaning corporate social responsibility reporting amongst US companies is on the decline, which suggests a fundamental role for the EU to implementpolicy that would counter this trend. (European Commission, 2008) European Commission CSR Green Paper Consultation.

To date, the answer to how best incorporate leeffective sustainable strategy is somewhat unclear. Responding to this issue, research shows that by adopting three key principles for incentive and sustainable mechanism development, it will improve organisational conditions, activities and strategies. These atransparency, accountability and verification (O’Rourke et al, 2003). The business world has become subjected to increasingly greater scrutinover the last 20 years. The trend for better corporate governance and accountability has focused attention on the responsibilities an organisation has towards its stakeholders grouand to the environment and society in which it operates. Therefore, greater organisational transparency is required to achieve a greater practice of sustainability reporting (Miles, 2008). Additionally, corporations need to support independent mechanisms for verifying standards are met, particularly in regions where corporate self-monitoring and government inspections are not credible yet (O’Rourke et al, Ibid).

Finally, accountability and corporate reporting ould be applied by adopting the triple

shbottom line corporate reporting system. This type of reporting recognises all stakeholders, from communities to consumers. However this can only be meaningful when all companies report to an agreed upon standard within their given sector, and appropriate to organisational size. There should be a call for mandatory social and environmental reporting within this context. Without such regulation, companies that report will continue to do so based on loose and incomparable standards. For those where there is little incentive to do so, the risk of following the US trend of declining numbers of corporations reporting is exacerbated. Therefore, what is the best driver for the creation of ‘better’ organisations, i.e. more sustainable Workplace strategies? Sound regulation with proper incentives? Or should the market be left to decide?



Theme Four: Strategic vision & collaborative leadership

Around the world, local and national governments are faced with tightening restrictions on resources, with simultaneously increasing demand for effective and accountable services, coupled with diminishing public trust. Many government policies have led to unsustainable results; nevertheless, national governance structures have assisted in fostering the concept of sustainability successfully. Consequently, there is now a call for businesses, governments and civil society leaders to develop a new type of collaborative and innovative leadership in order to address the current major challenges, namely globalization, terrorism, climate change and water conservation. So, how can we create a collaborative leadership framework to initiate a sustainable strategic vision?

“If we are interconnected and the world is interconnected, the only way for the world to work is to have a set of common values. We have no option but to work together” (Blair, 2008). National collaborative leadership is mirrored at the Workplace level because there has been a significant organisational shift from traditional command and control leadership models to collaborative styles. This is a result of increasing pressure on Workplace professionals to focus on sustainability. Collaborative leadership in the Workplace encourages change in culture and structure to eliminate any fear or uncertainty that might inhibit workers from assuming responsibility for making decisions, taking risks, and learning from their mistakes. The process of building trust enables people to function more effectively and for the organisation as a whole to become more than just the sum of its parts. Even though the specifics of collaborative leadership vary from organisation to organisation, there are three conditions that must exist for it to thrive (Molloy, 2002):

1. Individual and organisational learning, as well as stewardship of the learning process by leaders;

2. A set of values to guide the company in building a vision, developing strategy, and designing plans;

3. A distributed power model.

One of the challenges of this type of leadership is that it takes time to produce results through organisational change, and therefore tends to result in a lack of systematic thinking about how the concept of sustainability can be applied in the Workplace. From this perspective, an organisational tendency seems to concentrate on “searching under the lamp-post”, which means focusing on what is most easily measured rather than on what has the biggest impact (Harrison et al, 2004).

Sustainability planning and leadership demands a more integrated, holistic and synergistic approach which involves a wide range of stakeholders taking responsibility. It is now becoming more common for facilities managers to take up leadership roles in developing and implementing sustainability strategies because:

Many of the available competitive advantages exist in the areas governed by the facilities department

Generally facility managers are the first to see the potential for greater competitiveness through waste reduction, space management and IT development

Sustainability endeavours tend to be outside traditional job descriptions, reflecting upon the trend that companies do not involve the workforce in sustainability issues

At a time when organisations are struggling to find the right balance between the classic top-down hierarchy and the modern ideal of a leaner, flatter, and more participatory culture, leaders face a critical question: Is it possible to loosen our grip on power, while actually enhancing our ability to get things done through others? The answer is "yes," provided the organisation’s needs and challenges are identified and tackled. Up to now, facilities managers are challenged in this area because they have yet to align their operations at strategic level. The facilities management department is seen as a cost centre rather than a source of profit. Nevertheless, the facilities manager is suitable for taking on more responsibility in terms of sustainable development implementation since their duties touch upon several of the most critical areas for finding competitive sustainable advantage, including energy and water use, building design, supplier management, carbon reduction strategies, logistics systems and facility cleaning/maintenance strategies (Juniper, 2005).



Additionally, employee participation is very important in terms of delivering collaborative leadership to the sustainable Workplace. Employees should be actively involved in the planning and implementation stages of new initiatives. In doing this, the potential rewards are enormous.

The results can generally produce innovative Workplaces that promote sustained business performance and sustainable behaviour. This is achieved by harnessing individual strengths of the skilled worker and creating the feeling staff made a difference (Danish Confederation of Trade Unions, 2004). By using these collaborative methods, it improves the efficiency and efficacy of an effective sustainable Workplace strategy. Collaborative leadership represents consensual, dynamic change aimed towards a sustainable future.

In addition to this, a set of sustainability leadership capabilities have been identified in order to lead an organisation towards the sustainability development trajectory, and they are (Sustainability Leadership Institute 2008):

1. Indicators that foster the fundamentals of sustainability:

Sustainability needs to be made relevant; Problematic situations and uncertainty are the norm Applying different sustainability frameworks to suit the need of particular

organisation’s context and culture Using whole systems thinking as inter-reliant connections exist

2. Indicators that encourage sustainable development:

Incorporate conversations and actions into personal integrity; Draw on different voices and perspectives Create spaces for and partake in constructive conversations Invite experts to be collaborators Form dependable relationships

3. Indicators that reflect the organisations execution of the sustainability strategy:

Positive organisational dynamics make things happen Disseminate and distribute information and knowledge Consider opportunities and risks at all times Use and control resource output for optimal impact Maintain energy and momentum

4. Indicators that reflect the individual’s execution of the sustainability strategy:

Personal reflection and individual learning; Learn through experimentation, trial and error; Awareness of changing patterns and human change processes; Understand power dynamics.



Theme Five: Changing behavioural & the societal mindset

Throughout the years, people have developed preconceived notions that environmentally sound practices are unachievable, too expensive, have little impact on the bigger picture, and are not successful. Misinformed individuals can severely limit the success of sustainable development. Therefore, the cornerstone of sustainability is behavioural change. Sustainability requires individuals and businesses to act in a manner to reduce waste, to increase water and energy efficiency and to prevent pollution as well as sustain society in an equitable manner. Up to now, most sustainable initiatives use education and advertising to create public awareness and to change attitudes, however, research suggests that providing information alone has little or no effect on people or businesses behavioural change (Waller, 2002). Therefore, how do we create sustainable behavioural change, where people genuinely want to have a positive impact on the environment?

So what is the best way to achieve behavioural change? In general, it is believed that people have inertia towards change, which encourages resistance and conflict within a change process. However, this is seldom true. What is true is that people resist imposed change. What can be done to avert this? It is possible to help people review their current behaviour, consider other options and learn skills that enable them to behave differently. When positive results are produced and the new behaviours are seen to work, attitudes, beliefs and values begin to change. Following this, what is the next step in creating sustainable behaviour? Some advocates argue that social marketing is one of the paths to take. This type of process is the systematic application of marketing concepts and techniques, to achieve specific behavioural goals for a social and public good (French and Blair-Stevens, 2006). It has been suggested that social marketing can promote sustainability. Furthermore, it has been noted that it is an effective approach for behavioural change. It contributes to social change, particularly by focusing on health behaviour, social behaviour and sustainable behaviour. It wins people over by empowering and motivating them to do what’s right (Hastings and Gordon, 2008).

In order to create behavioural change towards a sustainable thinking process it is necessary to identify the barriers, be they internal or external, which inhibit this change process. The internal barriers of an individual’s change process include lack of knowledge about the subject area, non-supportive attitudes, or an absence of motivation. The barriers in the external environment include the changes that need to be made in order for the behaviour to be more convenient, such as providing recycling waste disposal or affordable incentives such as subsidising public transport so that cars are not needed to go to work. Once these barriers have been identified, there are a number of tools that can be used to promote positive and effective behavioural change, namely commitment, prompts, communication, and incentives. These tools are important and are generally most useful when used in combination with one another (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). In the end, behavioural change will only occur if people really want to change.

Sustainability is a far-reaching concept that needs to be interpreted and translated to make sense in the Workplace level. It is difficult to pin down, but once grasped. It becomes a source of inspiration that ensures a broad perspective on strategic development efforts. The tools mentioned above can be applied in this setting to promote a behavioural change process in the Workplace. Additionally, skills development is paramount to Workplace sustainability. People who do not feel competent doing their own work will lack the resources to work on other issues.

By using these tools, employees can gradually change their working patterns to a sustainable one. For a transformation to occur in the Workplace, firstly individuals must realise that the sustainable Workplace is a very broad subject area.



It embraces (Jackson and Suomi, 2002):

Features of the community where the business takes place; Business organisation and its impact in the community; Characteristics of the building where people work; Equipment, furnishing and finishing of the physical place; The interaction between people within the Workplace; Interactions with the environment.

And secondly, they must identify the barriers that hinder Workplace sustainability. They are as follows:

Behavioural change must come from the individual. By using different techniques such as education, advertising, community level and Workplace initiatives, both the individual and organisation can make the transition from a traditional non sustainable entity to one of innovation and change. Another original idea is theatre production, which has proven to encourage change in the Workplace by changing the familiarity of the work environment, which enables employees to modify their familiar behaviour.



Theme Six: Emerging markets and cross cultural challenges

Globalisation has become one of the most discussed and controversial driving forces of the 21st Century. The development of this world economy, combined with advances in transport and communications technology, has made the world a much smaller place. People from different countries, cultures and circumstances have now come together to communicate, meet and above all to do business. Consequently, cross-cultural markets and challenges are emerging. Such cultures can enrich and strengthen Workplaces, communities and cities; but they can also be a source of division and a basis for exclusion. With the increase of religious, cultural and ethnic diversity concurrent with a rise in globalisation and capitalism, the issue of understanding and managing cultural diversity has become a prominent one on the international agenda. How will the concept of the sustainable Workplace be changed/shaped to accommodate emerging markets and the consequent cross cultural markets/ challenges?

Within the dynamic fabric of commerce, globalisation is affecting how business is executed throughout the world. Furthermore, it presents opportunities in order to gain competitive advantage and market growth but also introduces unparalleled challenges that the organisation, Workplace and employees face on a daily basis. Nevertheless, if these opportunities are embraced, companies will develop and grow, as well as harness the potential demand at an international level.

Over the past decades, British, European and American firms have led the attack on how business should be accomplished on the worldwide stage. However, with the emergence of some of the world’s largest economies, such as China, India, Brazil, and Mexico, it is no longer a regional playing field for the select few economies. What emerges is a global stadium that accommodates the fittest economies who are competing to gain momentum in the global market place as well as improving their knowledge society. In order to succeed in this emerging cross-cultural economy, a requirement of cultural sensitivity is necessary to gain a competitive edge (Prahalad and Hammond, 2002).

The ability to negotiate with international partners is enormously important, not only to widen the personal cultural horizon but also to accomplish a successful international business deal. Doing business within foreign economies not only depends on the prospective outcomes for both parties, but is also subject to the effects of powerful cross-cultural management. In order to achieve a cross-cultural management style model within international organisations, managers and executives are now investing heavily in providing staff with language lessons in order to establish themselves in international markets as well as providing cultural sensitivity training to address issues such as etiquette, protocol, communication styles and negotiation approaches.

Evidently, these businesses are now beginning to appreciate that greater cultural sensitivity will help them to create longer and more prosperous relationships. Nevertheless, cross-cultural improvements are slow to take off because unfortunately a subconscious sense of cultural superiority still seems to exist; one that assumes the rest of the world does business like us. However, organisations will continue to trade across borders that require cultural sensitivity, meaning a sense of empathy, flexibility and creativity informed by cultural knowledge will undoubtedly prevail (Kwintessential Ltd, 2008).

On a more negative note, sometimes inertia to change and a lack of cultural sensitivity in the Workplace can be problematic, but also go hand in hand. This is due to the inherent stability associated with organisational culture; this stability stems from the stabilising patterns of key elements such as values, behaviours, rituals and climates. Despite this, the implementation of sustainable social structures within the Workplace can encourage change for the better. However, it is important to note that organisations embarking on these learning and development processes, such as negotiation and etiquette training, must acknowledge the challenge of stability, learning and change. Otherwise there will always be a large group of people who are willing to pay a high price for stability within the cross cultural context, such as inequality and racism in the Workplace (Callan, 2007).



Furthermore, a change in culture of an organisation in the way it sees and treats itself and its customers, may well be achieved with no investment other than a shift in management attitude and direction, which may cost nothing other than a confrontations with a few of the office diehards. And also by using a sustainable Workplace strategy, it can help change people’s perceptions and actions overtime as each step towards sustainable development is deliberate and proactive. It also creates awareness of ethical issues that are becoming mainstream, such as human rights, well being, safety and public health issues.

Finally, organisations will only become cross-cultural ambassadors by learning to be more acceptable and flexible, acquiring a profound respect for the differences that separate us as well as learning from their mistakes. Since the Workplace is changing from a place centric to a people-centric domain, human capital is becoming increasingly important in the knowledge Workplace. Corporations want to attract and retain the top talent from all over the world and in order to achieve this they must create socially acceptable structures within the Workplace. A number of elements have been identified, in which consideration is required when drawing up a cross-cultural strategy in a Workplace. They are as follows:



Theme Seven: Quality of life (work / life balance)

Nowadays, the work/life balance conundrum is well established in the business lexicon. It has progressed from being a parents’ or carers’ concern to a concept that is relevant to the entire workforce. So, what is work/life balance? It is about people having a measure of control over when, where and how they work. It is achieved when an individual’s right to a fulfilled life inside and outside paid work is accepted and respected as the norm, to the mutual benefit of the individual, business and society (The Work Foundation, 2008). However, do we live to work or work to live?

How has this debate arisen with such ferocity? Over the past 25 years, there has been a significant intensification of work, driven by globalisation, unprecedented advances in information and communication technologies and structural changes, such as the deregulation of the Workplace, which have altered the terms of competition between businesses in order to attract both indigenous and foreign direct investment.

Trust, long-term loyalty and a sense of corporate community have been diminished by a performance culture that expects more and more and offers little security in return. Thus, a large share of the blame falls on employers who foster a long-hours work culture egged on by a consumerist culture and a political will that has ‘elevated the work ethic to unprecedented heights and thereby reinforced the low value and worth attached to parenting (Work/life Balance Centre, 2008).

Working cultures differ in many nations. The American corporate drive pushes employers harder than ever before; the European approach is based on the importance of the European social fabric, namely the welfare of children, the quality of life and the cohesion of communities and families; while the UK approach lies somewhere in between this points (Bunting, 2004).

Across this range, research still suggests that the work/life balance will become an increasingly important issue. Nowadays, more and more women are entering the labour market, there is an ageing population and people are continuing to demand that their employers promote an improved work/life balance. Furthermore, a survey completed in 2006 showed that graduates prefer greater flexibility to how much remuneration they will receive from their prospective employers (High Fliers Research, 2006)

Should businesses care about adopting this type of strategy? Or should their primary focus be on competition, profit and performance? Research suggests that employees are extremely valuable to organisations across the world because employee costs are often at least 50 percent of an organisation’s expenditure, with replacement costs generally being quite high depending on the seniority or the technical skill of the level. In other words, overworked, overtired and overstretched employees cost employers money and do not add benefits to organisations, because those who are pushed to new unprecedented heights of work, create higher rates of absenteeism, become a less motivated, satisfied and equitable workforce, productivity is reduced as workers become tired and irritable, where mistakes and a reduced customer service is experienced (The Work Foundation, 2008).

As boundaries continue to blur between work and personal life and work/life policies and practices struggle to keep up, there are guidelines to achieve the right balance. It must be remembered, however, that there are no real quick-fixes.



Work/life policies are not sufficient for long-term sustainable changes unless accompanied by broader changes in organisational cultures and practices. One possible answer is to strategise organisations towards more flexible and distributed working arrangements. If an organisation invests in clear, dynamic, sustainable work-styles, a work/life balance could be achieved. In order to realise this, mparticularly, facilities managers will need to foster several elements within the overall organisational strategic goal.

ost

They are as follows:

The work/life balance debate is by no means a universally accepted tool. There is still a long way to go, yet a great distance has been travelled. There is still a long way to go to convince employers that new ways of managing the working day can be good for business.



Theme Eight: Trade vs. Sustainability? Profit vs. Planet?

Currently, the concept of sustainability is gaining momentum in the global business arena. Empirical research suggests that going ‘green’ is the way of the future for companies, particularly in the real estate and construction sectors, and that these industries around the world view sustainability as critical to their business and value added performance, and are willing to pay a premium to help their companies become more sustainable. Furthermore, sustainability is now a mainstream business practice (Corenet Global and Jones Lang LaSalle, 2007) However, from these results, a challenge has emerged that these industries face in terms of sustainability survival; the gap between the real cost of sustainable real estate solutions and the perceived costs, with many companies unaware that the cost of sustainability has come down. But, in the context of today’s economy, can sustainability be made financially viable?

While sustainability is the current buzz word, there are still a number of arguments that support and oppose the question of sustainability becoming financially viable. Some advocates believe sustainable development is positive, in that it is viewed as a means of being a little kinder to the environment and potentially lowering some corporate costs. However, if sustainability is looked at in the true sense of the word, it is defined in terms of the corporation and people using as few resources as possible and limiting the depletion of resources. But, unfortunately, some critics believe this creates a contradictory model. As long as the economy is based on the constant expansion of consumption, sustainability will remain presumably a buzz word.

Critics also suggest, on the one hand, that larger incumbents may find that their decisions around sustainability are framed more in terms of a trade-off between short term profits and sustainable development, which helps them dismiss the idea that sustainability is beneficial to the corporation. However, on the other hand, it seems it is easier for smaller innovative organisations to design their entire business and brand around a set of coherent sustainable values, because they are generally new and do not have the challenge of retro-fitting existing organisations. This could possibly result in smaller firms leading the way towards sustainability without the cost and trade off issue, and also applying a competitive business strategy. Consequently this would force larger players to follow (Howard, 2008).

Furthermore, people’s perceptions continue to remain a barrier towards sustainable management because of their preconceived ideas about environmentally sound practices being too expensive. In reality, environmental start-up costs for Workplace sustainability programs may need to be accommodated, yet ongoing costs can be recuperated through savings on operational costs. And yet unfortunately, these savings are rarely put back into the business to cover the original set-up costs of other sustainable programs (Waller, 2002).

Workers are now weighing environmental issues more heavily in the context of healthy work environments. Therefore, if there is a healthy work environment where social and environmental conditions are considered, it is more than likely to lead to increased productivity, improved recruitment and retention, lower rates of absenteeism, reduced overheads and a more motivated and satisfied staff, resulting in improved rates of return for business in all of its contexts, namely profit, people and planet.

Moreover, there is an obvious need to encourage awareness and education towards the financial benefits for developing the sustainability agenda. But research suggests that:

Sustainable business models are more valuable in terms of business performance than short-term focused ventures because the value of any venture depends on expected returns and risk associated with returns.

Sustainable businesses have less risks associated with their future earnings and this is because companies who adopt the measure triple bottom line accounting reduce uncertainty.

Overall corporate branding improves if they follow the trajectory of the main drivers in pursuit of sustainability, namely: long term profitability, sensitivity to customers and third-party stakeholder’s needs, and the consensual need to alter the resource footprint of today’s society.

Additionally, the framework’s natural capitalism1 cradle to cradle2 and triple bottom line3 reporting can be adopted and integrated into organisation’s strategy in order to become competitive as a sustainable enterprise.

1 Natural Capitalism is a set of trends and economic reforms designed to reward energy and material efficiency and to remove professional standards and accounting conventions that prevent such efficiencies (Hunter Lovins, 1999). 2 Cradle to Cradle Design is a scientifically based, peer-reviewed process used to assess and optimize materials used in products and production processes in order to maximize health, safety, effectiveness, and high quality reutilization over many product life cycles (MBDC, 2008). 3 Triple Bottom Line means expanding the traditional reporting framework to take into account environmental and social performance in addition to financial performance.



These approaches in the broadest sense can capture the whole set of values, issues and processes that companies must address in order to maximise the positive impacts of their activities and generate added economic, social and environmental value especially (Juniper, 2005).

Sustainability will eventually become a fundamental part of doing business for global enterprises. Additionally, reducing the impact these enterprises have on the world will soon become urgent and it is how these corporations get there that is important. While several businesses have adopted compelling and significant corporate responsibility and sustainability initiatives, not enough of those efforts have paid off.

With the laws of capitalism, money will flow to the places in the economy where it can get the highest returns. Therefore, the question is whether sustainability efforts will provide a higher return. On the demand side, there is an increased demand for sustainable products. On the supply side, many of the sustainable initiatives serve to lower costs. Hence, many sustainable initiatives work due to capitalist forces. In addition, if we deplete resources too quickly, the shortage of supply relative to demand will raise commodity prices, which will make conservation issues more financially viable. As always, the question is not about sustainability, but profitability. The laws of capitalism will dictate which sustainability efforts endure.



Theme Nine: FM – a silo effect?

The workplace ecosystem, made up of people, place and tools, is experiencing rapid changes in terms of how it supports the nature of work and the persons within it, driven by both internal and external forces, such as rising expectations of users, increased market pressures, employees expectations and the changing nature of work. How does the FM community make sure that the communication channels and processes are in place and working properly?

Upon these changes occurring, a new overarching environment for Facilities Management teams has emerged: a holistic and integrated framework. This framework can be made up of strong cohesive teams under the control of a centralised cross disciplinary core such as design, construction, equipment, corporate facility management, engineering, and bulk purchasing.

This allows for the cross-pollination of knowledge, experience and ideas, to ensure objectives, talent and diligence are harnessed, in order to create long-term, high-performing facilities. However, one of the major challenges within the Facilities Management sector that delays the development of this goal is the ‘silo effect’ where each team or department has a sole focus and there is no integrated partnership between sections but only a number of disparate groups.

Pivotal to this new holistic approach, are the critical Workplace strategies which integrate information technology, human resources and real estate, to produce work environments that add value to the bottom line through their ability to support work process and the behaviours that drive best possible business results (Mitchell-Ketzes, 2003). However, one significant aspect missing from these integrated strategies is the communication link that is necessary in order to engage employees’ support and enthusiasm for change.

Effective and engaging communication is well recognised as a key skill for managers, particularly during times of change and transition. For the facility manager, the success will be measured by the effectiveness of the workspaces which they are responsible for designing and implementing within the organisation. That success requires the ability to communicate the vision, build coalition, inspire and engage others to support changes occurring in the facility (Kleasen and Foster, 2002). The importance of communication, both internal and external, should never be underestimated. Developing an effective communication strategy will encourage a transition from traditional to agile workspaces without the debilitating ‘silo effect’.

A communication strategy is developed and incorporated in the overall innovative Workplace strategy to ensure the dissemination of all available information to the employees and customers of the business, in order to:

Forge a sense of community Establish a shared understanding of the facilities management strategy and the

implementation of its plan Maintain links with customers, suppliers, employees and employers Raise awareness of the issues and provide accurate information and guidance Publicise strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats Create dialogue and a common language among the people within an organisation



Furthermore, innovative Workplace strategies are essential in maintaining a level of control for the facilities managers during periods of change in the ecosystem of the current organisation. Since the Workplace is now becoming increasingly “distributed, connected and adaptable, flexible, service, and enabled, and moves seamlessly between space and cyberspace is not only the source of huge competitive advantage; it may now be a matter of enterprise and organisational survival (Joroff et al, 2001). Therefore, emphasis should be placed strategically on top-down and bottom-up communication, effective facilitation and leadership of the change process.

Consequently, a sustainable Workplace strategy can lead to positive impacts on this type of Workplace which in turn will impact on business performance by creating value added to the organisation. It is created by shifting the emphasis from place to people and then through a series of interventions into the way workspace has traditionally been perceived, planned, designed and measured.

Facilities Managers need to continue to be able to adapt to changes in the Workplace ecosystem, by incorporating communication and innovative Workplace strategies into their overall strategy to achieve optimal business performance and use the workspace as a high-performance business tool.



Theme Ten: Implementation of technological innovation

Information communication technology (ICT) and mechanisation are dramatically transforming the fabric of the work ecosystem environment around the globe, becoming more pervasive in several industries and also in recreation and normal home life and living. How can we implement sustainable technological innovation to provide an integrated work culture towards a positive impact on people, planet and profit?

Pervasive technologies simultaneously facilitate the instantaneous transmission of information, the intense concentration of people and movement within extending urban environments, whilst allowing regions to control global business and service networks across international boundaries. It is now possible for images to be broadcast in all directions, blurring the barriers between the local and the global, and promoting national cultural identities through language and ethnic groups that have spread across the world.

A key challenge for facilities managers today is to determine how integrated work cultures are responding to the challenge of the ‘information society’ from an international perspective in order to achieve a positive impact on people, planet and profit. To date, the knowledge-driven economy is producing a knowledge management model that has become the key in order to achieve and maximise competitiveness. Across the economy, innovative businesses are operating in an increasingly information-intensive manner, combining knowledge and technology to enhance the management of their core operations, their supply chains, their business support and their customers.

Moreover, as globalisation and new types of mobile communication technologies present new models of Workplace, the facilities manager’s role continues to become broadened to new dimensions never experienced before. Different types of businesses are emerging and traditional organisations are completely re-inventing themselves. Work is no longer nine to five; global organisations are always open for business. Access to information, speed and flexibility have become key success criteria for global enterprises. Therefore, increasingly, with the advent of wireless technology, smart-boards, haptic technology, and video conferencing, organisations will move outside of the physical container of their own buildings into larger organisational networks across cities, countries, the region or the world.

From this trajectory emerges the trend of distributed Workplaces, which are Workplaces that are in more than one location within a city, country, or region depending on the work process and work life preferences of individuals and organisations (Harrison et al, 2004).

The challenges here are how the facilities managers can bring about workplace changes effectively. In effect, Workplace change management has become more established as a distinct service because of this changing knowledge-driven economy and emergence of new types of working. It continues to grow in importance. However, the major challenge for the service is now to move outside of its traditional focus, the physical work environment, to include virtual environments and hybrid physical and virtual environments that will require additional skills and new tools specifically dealing with the application of collaborative and other IT tools and issues relating to developing trust and community in virtual environments.



Those businesses who adapt successfully to virtual working practices, technology can harness the potential of a worthy cyclical process of effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. However, those that don’t succeed can risk an increasingly unbridgeable technology gap leading to rapidly outdated business processes, in addition to the prospect of re-engineering and re-sizing the company. One challenge is that when staffs are working individually they still require space, and their dispersal means many of the support functions a single building may have previously provided will have to be duplicated for each individual or delivered at distance also, which may be a less efficient way of providing support for the business (Hinks, 2002).

In essence, the sustainable solutions represent a trade-off between the economy and the efficiency of scale and the competitiveness of technologically derived flexibility. Can this be sustainable in the long term? It depends on the company. However, the flexibility of the virtual world is effective in the short term for entry to new geographic markets, to follow transient customer bases without moving.

Major drivers, such as the sustainable development imperative and emerging innovative technology may or may not lead to sustainable work environments. Technology, however, should be used to inform and empower people to help create an integrated work culture towards a positive impact on people, planet and profit.



The 10 possible answers facing the Sustainable Workplace

1. How can we move from a world of information, regulation and blame to one of awareness, responsibility and wisdom?

Organisations must behave in a socially responsible manner to protect the long-term survival of companies. Our world is shifting from an age of regulation towards one of responsibility and wisdom. There is now no excuse to do nothing and we must move away from the ‘winner takes all’ attitude. Organisations must promote and act upon changing expectations towards society and the environment. One key answer lies in changing corporate behaviour and becoming increasingly responsive to consumer demand.

2. How can we promote a proper knowledge and awareness of the sustainable imperative by means of education through the different generations?

Yes education can promote a proper knowledge, and awareness of the sustainable imperative. While most training and educational professionals have focused their efforts on individual, it is now imperative to focus on organisational learning. A shift in thinking, values and actions is a prerequisite. Education plays a critical role in creating, disseminating and imparting culture, knowledge, skills and values of society from generation to generation. As sustainability move at the core of the culture of an organisation, organisation learning strengthens an organisations ability to recognise opportunities and helps equip them to effectively pursue new ventures, of which sustainability is one.

3. How best can legislation incorporate incentivisation towards adopting sustainability?

There is a scarcity of incentives. But by adopting three key principles for incentive and sustainable mechanism development, it will improve organisational conditions, activities and strategies:

Greater organizational transparency is required to achieve a greater practice of sustainability reporting

Corporations need to support independent mechanisms for verifying standards are met

Accountability and corporate reporting should be applied by adopting the triple bottom line corporate reporting system

There should be a call for mandatory social and environmental reporting within this context.

4. How can we create a collaborative leadership framework to initiate a sustainable strategic vision?

Sustainability and collaborative leadership demands a more integrated, holistic and synergistic approach which involves a wide range of stakeholders taking responsibility. Collaborative leadership in the Workplace encourages change in culture and structure. The facilities manager is suitable for taking on more responsibility in terms of sustainable development implementation. The collaborative leadership must foster the fundamentals of sustainability and encourage sustainable development, while reflecting the organisation execution of the sustainability strategy. But employee participation is crucial for delivering collaborative leadership to the sustainable Workplace. The framework must reflect the individual’s execution of the sustainability strategy.



5. How do we create sustainable behavioural change, where people genuinely want to have a positive impact on the environment?

While we know people resist imposed change, we also know that people have inertia towards change. The cornerstone of sustainability is behavioural change process in the Workplace. Behavioural change must come from the individual. Social marketing may be one of the paths to take to create sustainable behavioural change but it is necessary to:

identify the barriers (internal and external) that inhibit this change process promote positive and effective behavioural change change the familiarity of the work environment

6. How will the concept of the sustainable Workplace be changed/shaped to accommodate emerging markets and the consequent cross cultural markets/ challenges?

Organisations will only become cross-cultural ambassadors by learning to be more acceptable and flexible, acquiring a profound respect for the differences that separate us. The Workplace is changing from a place centric to a people-centric domain and corporations who want to attract and retain the top talent from all over the world will have to create socially acceptable structures within the Workplace. The implementation of sustainable social structures within the Workplace can encourage change for the better. Organisations must acknowledge the challenge of stability, learning and change. Human capital is becoming increasingly important in the knowledge Workplace and a number of elements are required when drawing a cross-cultural strategy in a Workplace:

Human factor Human resources Link to Community Talent management

7. Do we live to work or work to live?

There is no clear answer. As boundaries continue to blur between work and personal life and work/life policies and practices struggle to keep up, organisations must develop guidelines to achieve the right balance. The work/life balance debate is by no means a universally accepted tool. Employers still foster a long-hours work culture egged on by a consumerist culture and a political will. Work/life policies are not sufficient for long-term sustainable changes. Organisations must strategise towards more flexible and distributed working arrangements.

8. Can sustainability be made financially viable?

With the laws of capitalism, money will flow to the places in the economy where it can get the highest returns. As always, the question is not about sustainability, but profitability. The laws of capitalism will dictate which sustainability efforts endure. On the demand side, there is an increased demand for sustainable products. A healthy working environment is more than likely to lead to increased efficiency and well being in the Workplace. On the supply side, many of the sustainable initiatives serve to lower costs. Hence, many sustainable initiatives work due to capitalist forces. However, in the long term, sustainability can be made financially viable if combined with the right strategic approach and right behavioural approach.



9 How does the FM community make sure that the communication channels and processes are in place and working properly?

Facilities Managers need to continue to be able to adapt to changes in the Workplace ecosystem, by incorporating communication and innovative Workplace strategies. Developing an effective communication strategy will encourage a transition from traditional to agile workspaces without the debilitating ‘silo effect’. The objective is to produce work environments that add value to the bottom line through their ability to support work process and the behaviours that drive the best possible business results. Therefore, emphasis should be placed strategically on top-down and bottom-up communication, effective facilitation and leadership of the change process. A sustainable Workplace strategy can lead to positive impacts on this type of Workplace which in turn will impact on business performance by creating value added to the organisation.

10 How can we implement sustainable technological innovation to provide an integrated work culture towards a positive impact on people, planet and profit?

While organisations will move outside of the physical container of their own buildings into larger organisational networks, they will have to embrace new technological innovations. Innovative businesses are operating in an increasingly information-intensive manner, combining knowledge and technology to enhance the management of their core operations, their supply chains, their business support and their customers.

Technological Innovation should be used to inform and empower people to create an integrated work culture towards a positive impact on people, planet and profit.

Technological Innovation should harness the potential of a worthy cyclical process of effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability.

The sustainable solutions represent a trade-off between the economy and the efficiency of scale and the competitiveness of technologically derived flexibility



Propositum Prof. John Ratcliffe

The Workplace of tomorrow will have to reflect this sustainability imperative as the historic separation between competitive strategy and social awareness breaks down. The conventional office building is no longer a stable building type as the impact of ubiquitous, powerful and reliable information technology creates radically new dimensions of spatial and temporal connectivity. The Workplace of the future will have to be even more flexible and adaptable to facilitate intra-company transformations, optimise intensity of use, increase the possibility of mutually beneficial interactions between companies, and promote the growth of embryonic businesses.

The global context for business continues to change at an unprecedented rate, and few deny that sustainability will be a key driver of change on the corporate world at every level and across all sectors over the next 50 years. Currently, our prevailing economic system is hardwired to externalise as many costs as possible, thereby imposing social and environmental imposts on society at large. This will have to alter as the institutions of global capitalism find themselves ever more under siege. There is already a growing realisation that the interests of shareholders, both public and private, are best served by companies that maximise their financial performance by strategically managing their economic, social, environmental and ethical performance. In this way, the Workplace of tomorrow will have to reflect this sustainability imperative as the historic separation between competitive strategy and social awareness breaks down. Some leading companies are already talking about corporate citizenship as the central part of their mission, giving sense, purpose and direction to their planned progress towards sustainability. This corporate citizenship can be built on four cornerstones: business conduct – how they treat associates; environmental stewardship – how they treat the world around them; people practices – how they treat their employees; and community involvement – how they interact with the communities around them. Furthermore, conversations, consultations and communications over the years with an old friend, and leading thinker in the field of office design and space planning, Dr. Frank Duffy, who has contributed significantly to our work with Johnson Controls, have led me to suggest the following thoughts in respect of tomorrow’s sustainable Workplace.

The conventional office building is no longer a stable building type as the impact of ubiquitous, powerful and reliable information technology creates radically new dimensions of spatial and temporal connectivity.

In the production of commercial offices there will be a switch of accent from the present ‘supply chain’ approach to a ‘demand chain’ attitude whereby occupying end-users are better able to procure the working environment they desire to undertake their business in terms of time, quality and cost, and those involved in the delivery process rewarded accordingly.

There is an obsession with ‘new build’ over ‘reviving old’, when new developments represents only about two per cent of stock; with ‘more’ rather than ‘less’, when fewer buildings more intelligently and intensively used would be a more sensible solution; with ‘large’ not ‘small’, as office buildings have become bigger and cruder over the past century; with ‘prescriptive’ as opposed to ‘emergent’ building forms, which become fragile and vulnerable to the mono-functionality; and with ‘centripetal’ rather than ‘dispersed’ patterns of urban development consequent upon an addiction to centres and resulting in a neglect of civic space and public realm elsewhere. These fixations need to be reversed.

The Workplace of the future will have to be even more flexible and adaptable to facilitate intra-company transformations, optimise intensity of use, increase the possibility of mutually beneficial interactions between companies, and promote the growth of embryonic businesses. Recalling Stuart Brand’s insightful book ‘How Buildings Learn’, the most successful buildings (and cities for that matter) will be those that have the capacity to accommodate multiple interventions by users over the years in a welcoming an graceful way.

Somehow we have to develop a mind-set that views sustainability of the Workplace with a longer and wider perspective, and escape from the insular disposition of seeking superficial and singular solutions to such issues as energy performance through box-ticking methodologies like BREEAM and LEED, however useful, in part, these building rating techniques may be.

Above all perhaps, for the most immediate future, what we have to do is to develop and apply even more imagination to envision what the new world of universal connectivity will mean for tomorrows Workplace so as to help sustain business, society and the planet itself.



Appendix A: Participants

Johnson Controls and The Futures Academy, DIT, would like to thank the following participants who took part in the Futures Workshop in Johnson Controls HQ, Farnborough in May 2007 and completed and returned the survey questionnaire:

Professor Tadj Oreszczyn The University College London, UK

Professor Chris France Director of the Centre for Environmental Strategy, Surrey University, UK

Dr. Niki Bey DUT, Sweden

Professor Michael Pitt Liverpool Jones Moore University, UK

Professor Bob Grimshaw The University of Western England, UK

Dom Sherry Johnson Controls, EMEA

Ken Raisbeck Johnson Controls, EMEA

Peter Ferguson Johnson Controls, EMEA

Karen Howells Johnson Controls, EMEA

Dr Marie Puybaraud Johnson Controls, EMEA

Philip Lewis Credit Suisse, EMEA

Rob Wright Diverse Notion, UK

Emeric Denis Johnson Controls, EMEA

Jerry Scott Johnson Controls, EMEA for BBC

Catherine Gall WorkSpace Futures, R&D, Steelcase, EMEA

Santa Raymond

Dr Anne Marie McEwan The Smart Work Company, UK

Professor Alexi Marmot University College London, UK

Paul Foster IBM, EMEA

Paul Bartlett OPN, UK

Paul Caulfied BP, UK

Julie Cooke Johnson Controls, EMEA

Bob Ellis CSC, EMEA

Martin Bell Johnson Controls, EMEA

Professor John Ratcliffe DIT, Ireland

Ruth Saurin DIT, Ireland

Strategic interviews with:

Deb Roberts Johnson Controls, Asia

Clay Nesler Johnson Controls, US

Professor Frank Duffy DEGW, UK



Appendix B: Global workplace scenarios Scenario One: Jazz “Complexity managed by ‘marketising’ decision processes”

This scenario assumes an unprecedented acceleration of economic growth, relentless pressure for short-term gains and fierce competition on a global scale, driven by rapid technological advances and further market integration. It is a world where entrepreneurship, innovation and individual responsibility are favoured. Give and take is keenly attuned to the opportunities of the moment and at the same time alert to ways of incorporating long term values into strategies for commercial success. Free market reforms have moved governments everywhere to downsize, deregulate and privatise.

The ‘global village’ of 2030 offers competitive market economies propelled by expanding globalisation, advances in business communication and rising literacy rates. Innovative incentive systems have been developed to get workers to work. A fair pricing system has been created to allocate properly the limited supply of resources and goods. Activities are increasingly traded across information highway networks. Consequently, E-business has exploded onto the scene with the development of advanced and innovative information and communication technologies (ICTs).

Companies adapted to this changing competitive world environment by becoming agile and responsive in their operations. This has had a knock-on effect in the Workplace. More employees now have the option of telecommunicating their work from the mobile office known as the ‘Club’. Home working offices on-line have become extensive. Knowledge workers have begun to choose where they live and work, and demand customised accommodation and facilities which is changing the dynamics of the house. International trade and investment has moved towards efficient, supportive and facilitative locations, changing the concept of facilities management. Corporations have been ebbing away from locations perceived by business as bureaucratic and synonymous with high costs. From 2007, centralised ownership of resources and services became a thing of the past because it promoted inefficiency, corruption and nepotism.

By 2015, the exclusive focus on trade and investment leads to environmental degradation and social neglect. Following this transformation, international businesses believe they cannot operate against the greater good for long as the global civic society becomes distrusting of multinationals who let environmental and social standards drop. After the market downturn of 2020, major companies re-evaluated themselves and ‘leaned out’ their entire organisation in an effort to become more efficient and more productive. The global trade union, One World, was established in 2025, because the individual became the dominating characteristic of the free market Workplace as entrepreneurs and contingent workers grew in numbers. Despite great improvements in the free market, the increasingly complex marketplace is characterised by its vulnerability to certain illicit activities.

Europe has become a strong cut-throat trading bloc. The European economies have become more competitive and flexible. European businesses compete for high-value products and services, the best and brightest minds and managerial talent. However, due to mass consumerism throughout the EU, its societies are becoming fragmented more than ever, and political unification has been placed on the back-burner.



Scenario Two: Wise Counsels “Harnessing the knowledge economy for sustainable development”

This scenario assumes global economic stability and an effort to attain environmental balance and social progress. Institutional improvements worldwide facilitate sustainable development. It is a world where collective, collaborative and consensual action is favoured. Negotiation is the name of the game and policy making and decision making has become increasingly delegated and expert. Knowledge has become the key resource. The most important property is now intellectual property, not physical property. It is the hearts and minds of people, rather than traditional labour that are essential to growth and prosperity.

It is a secure world in 2030, a shared responsibility. The greatest competition is being fought in the global arena of ideas, learning and innovation. Development has become the first line of defence for a collective eco-social, economic, security system that takes prevention seriously. Ecological modernisation has topped the agenda of most nation states, where the ‘greening’ of markets is achieved using taxes, incentives and better information to account for the environmental costs of development activity, so encouraging technological innovation to improve resource efficiency and decouple economic growth from environmental degradation and social decay. The perceived need for strong and positive actions led to a new global consensus that welcomed technological solutions, sanctions and more direct control of the market, to ensure that environmental values and social cohesion were preserved. The effective creation, use, and dissemination of knowledge became key to this success. The success of enterprises, and of national economies, became increasingly dependent on the information infrastructure that gathers and utilises knowledge. By 2020, cities, communities and organisations, particularly in Europe and Asia, began to harness the knowledge economy and society with the development of advanced ‘univer-cities’ and ‘employee villages’.

The univer-city is a remarkable development offering opportunities to live and learn in healthy well-designed communities. It has become the showcase for innovative and creative approaches to equitable education, work, connectivity and sustainable planning. The role of the facility manager has grown within this city. Facilities have been consolidated to provide value added services to all sectors, government, health, education, recreation, justice, police, and social services. From these cities, workers at all levels in this 21st century knowledge society have become lifelong learners, adapting continuously to changed opportunities, work practices, business models and other forms of economic and social organisation. This new approach to knowledge and Workplace development is driven by a primary need to think globally and act locally in the preservation and conservation of the environment, development of the economy, social cohesion, equity and quality of life.



Scenario Three: Dantesque "Social reaction to over rapid change”

This scenario assumes global economic stagnation, cultural difference and insecurity. Emphasis on distrust, retrenchment and reaction leads to widespread social unrest, conflict and environmental degradation. Instability is rife across the globe as regions become increasingly disjointed from each other. Racism is on the rise and ‘each to their own’ is the attitude that dominates this world.

There is mass migration towards rich regions in an effort to find a better life as well as an increase of illegal immigrants across borders. This system of inequitable and immoral capitalism presents a tight-fisted callousness towards minority groups, while the poor and illegal immigrants become scapegoats as is evident in the growing number of sweatshops across Asia, Africa and parts of South America.

It is a fragmented world in 2030. Economic growth remains concentrated in prosperous areas, while poverty and frustration leaves the majority of nations feeling isolated and ignored. The rising tide of wealth is occurring in a small number of nations while the growing concentration of this wealth is in relatively few hands. Consequently, the gap between high and low income countries has intensified and continues to persist and widen. It is driven by high unemployment, declining physical infrastructures and corrupt governance structures in developing areas. There is a rise in healthcare problems, and a great concern about the potential for plagues as outbreaks of virulent mutations of malaria occur in fetid slums in 2013.

National security and foreign policy become matters of urgency. The spread of transnational crime increases. Terrorists use organised criminal groups to move money, men and materials around the globe. Following the devastation caused by terrorist attacks in 2017, which left 5,000 civilians dead, the agricultural sector and supply chain networks were left in chaos. Governments, politicians and businesses fuelled and capitalised on this fear and anxiety. Areas such as the insurance industry, those parts of the real estate industry that source gated communities, facilities management and the CCTV industry are the commercial enterprises that begin to make a profit on fear.

From this fear, and the increase of ghettoisation, the popularity of gated communities increased. By 2020, a socio-economic divide has appeared between those who can and those who cannot afford to live in gated communities. Subsequently, these communities become known as exclusionary, elitist and anti-social. Access is controlled by gates, entry codes, key cards and security guards, serviced with CCTV tracking. This has caused anger and resentment in the outside world while exacerbating social exclusion. Cultural differences, inward-looking attitudes and anti-immigrant sentiment have intensified, causing racism to amplify.

As a result of this, environmental issues are left on the back-burner even following the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and the signing of the ‘Montreal Agreement’ in 2012 relating to water conservation. These policies are ignored as natural resources are stretched and peak oil finally occurs. By 2023, the dark predictions of climate change are much nearer to the truth than the optimistic ones. The effects of these crises begin to ‘trickle down’ into commercial and industrial sectors. Now, in the corporate world, widespread insecurity over jobs and pay continues, where employees are running scared, striving to compete in a global labour market. It is becoming a jobless future based on trends at the beginning the 21st century. Rising unemployment coupled with revolutionary technological change have fostered Workplaces to down-size and re-engineer, with part-time jobs, temporary jobs and job-sharing replacing full- time work. People began to socially isolate themselves and move away from public life, adopting a more individual approach to daily life as a result of a lack of faith in collective organisations and actions. Consequently, the house became more of a home, so to speak. It provided a basis for home working, with new advanced technological capabilities, as well as a safe haven from the violence and fear in the outside world. It also provided an integrated system for entertainment and social interaction.



Appendix D: Partners

Key Sponsor: Johnson Controls, Global WorkPlace Solutions

Johnson Controls Global WorkPlace Solutions is the leading global facilities management solutions provider. With over 50 years experience in the facilities management business, Johnson Controls has the expertise to deliver comprehensive Workplace strategies that support your global facility portfolio.

Our approach to facilities management outsourcing is unique. We work with our clients to understand their business needs and then we create tailored solutions designed to meet those needs. We are accountable for implementing our solutions and then for guaranteeing the outcomes promised by our recommendations. What we deliver are comprehensive solutions that are good for our customers' organisations.

Global WorkPlace Innovation (GWi) is the research and development programme of Global WorkPlace Solutions and aims to drive innovation and thought leadership in workplace solutions, globally; support customers’ needs and deliver advanced solutions. GWi also aims to challenge the status quo, leading change and delivering added value through innovation excellence.

Contact: Dr. Marie Puybaraud, [email protected], +44 (0) 7966 563 167

The Futures Academy

The Futures Academy at Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) was established in January 2003 to provide both a research and consultancy forum for promoting and encouraging the concept of ‘future-proofing’ policy and strategic decisions. Although formed under the auspices of the DIT, the Futures Academy is not exclusively an academic exercise. With staff of high quality professional and academic backgrounds, the Futures Academy is a very pragmatic, down-to-earth research and consultancy service. Through the experience of its staff, it recognises the need for government and industry alike to be provided with useful, practical, comprehensible information which can make a positive difference to everyday policy and practice. The creation of the Futures Academy in Ireland furnishes Irish public and private sectors with expertise and networks within which to develop and instigate future-proofing in their own disciplines and industries.

Contact: Professor John S. Ratcliffe, [email protected], +353 1 402 3711 and

Ruth Saurin, [email protected], +353 1 402 4041.

DIT

The Dublin Institute of Technology is a comprehensive higher education institution, fulfilling a national and international role in providing full-time and part-time programmes across the whole spectrum of higher education, supported by research and scholarship in areas reflective of the of the Institute’s mission. DIT has proven itself to be one of the most popular institutions of higher education in Ireland and the reasons include excellent student support facilities, an ethos that encourages active learning, dynamic course content, and its tradition of academic excellence alongside professional relevance.



Appendix E: Research Team

Professor John Ratcliffe D. Tech., MA [Urban & Regional Studies]. BSc [Est. Man], FRICS, FSVA

John Ratcliffe is a chartered planning and development surveyor with almost forty years experience as a consultant and academic in the fields of urban planning and real estate development. Currently he is Director and Dean of the Faculty of the Built Environment at the Dublin Institute of Technology, which is the largest university level institution in the Republic of Ireland, and Founder and Chairman of The Futures Academy there. He is also an Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Salford and the University of Lincoln as well as an Associate of the futures consultancy Outsights in the UK.

The author of a number of books and numerous other publications on land use and development matters, John Ratcliffe has also acted as a consultant to national and international organisations and agencies in both the public and private sectors. In the public sector, these include the World Bank, the UNDP and the European Investment Bank; and in the private sector, American Express, Electricitiée de France, Lafarge, Grosvenor Estates and Johnson Controls. He was the initial Chairman of the Policy and Practice Committee of the Urban Land Institute [Europe] and the founder of the Greater Dublin ‘Prospectives’ Society. He has extensive international experience and spent over ten years in the Far East.

Over the past decade he has acquired a particular expertise in the futures field, with special reference to the sustainable development of city regions. He has recently been involved in: collaborating in a major European project concerned with Improving the Quality of Life in Large Urban Distressed Areas [LUDA]; conducting a Dublin Vision 2020 exercise on behalf of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce; advising the Dublin Regional Business Alliance and the Dublin City Centre Business Association in respect of strategic planning; and providing assistance to various development agencies in several European countries. He has also acted as a consultant to a range of corporate enterprises in their long-term strategic thinking and planning. Most recently he has been commissioned to undertake a Strategic Visioning Exercise “Twice the Size” exploring the sustainable growth and development of the Irish Gateway Cities for the National Development Plan.

A special interest of Professor Ratcliffe at the moment is the nature and development of responsible business practice, with particular reference to the real estate and construction industries.

In August, 2005, John Ratcliffe was elected to the position of Secretary-General of the World Futures Studies Federation, the global body for professional futurists.

Ruth Saurin BA, PG Dip, MSc

Ruth Saurin is a postgraduate researcher in The Futures Academy in the Faculty of the Built Environment, Dublin Institute of Technology. She is currently involved in a project that focuses on the facilities management industry in Ireland using new research technologies drawn from the futures field. In addition to this project, Ruth has participated in a number of research projects relating to energy scenarios and was heavily involved in the publication of the documents Nuclear Energy: friend or foe and Why Renewables Need Nuclear, which explored the potential for nuclear power in the future of the global energy scene. Ruth has a background in international business and sustainable development with a keen interest in urban and organisational environments.



Dr. Marie Puybaraud, PhD, PG Cert, BSc (Hons), MBIFM

Marie Puybaraud is Director of Global WorkPlace Innovation (GWi) for Johnson Controls Global WorkPlace Solutions. Marie joined Johnson Controls in 2004 and has managed the GWi Johnson Controls R&D Programme since 2002, leading around 15 annual projects to successful completion and disseminating all the findings both internally across the global business and externally through marketing and communications activities. Global WorkPlace Innovation aims to make a fundamental contribution to understanding today’s and tomorrow's workplace challenges, monitoring trends and sourcing innovative ideas and concepts, as well as systems, to improve the way we work, how we collaborate within our workplaces. Marie obtained her PhD in July 2001 and was awarded the MacFarlane Medal for best doctorate of the year, excellence in research and major contribution to research.

Marie has more than 13 years of track record as an active researcher in the field of the built environment, spanning over a career in academia leading a postgraduate course in facilities management and teaching across Europe, in Asia and developing a global network of partners she collaborates with on research projects. She also continuously publishes articles in the press and specialist journals on her research projects, particularly in the field of workplace, mobile working and flexible working. A regular speaker at both national and international conferences and writer, she combines her expertise and corporate experience to transfer knowledge to the audience. Throughout the years working for Johnson Controls, she has played a significant role to develop stronger relationships with clients through the R&D activities, building their trust and engaging in innovation her colleagues and corporate clients worldwide and members of the research network. Knowledge management is core to her success and a continuous activity.

Marie started her career in FM in 1998 as the Course Director of the MSc in Facilities Management and leading the Facilities Management Research Group at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, where she built up a strong reputation for the master course in the UK and internationally as the largest distance learning course. Prior to this she was a Lecturer in Construction Management at Oxford Brookes University (1996-98) and Lancashire University (1994-95). She also worked closely with BIFM and was an active member of several BIFM Regional Committees. She is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Facilities Management.



Appendix F: References

Bibliography:

ADAMS, C.A., and ZUTSHI, A. (2004), ‘Corporate social responsibility: why business should act responsibly and be accountable’, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 14 No.3, pp.31-9.

ALEXANDER, K. (2007), ‘Sustainable Facilities: Facilities Management for Schools’, In Salford and Spinningsfield Research Hotel proceedings, Manchester, 2007.

ALEXANDER, K. (1997) "Redefining the Workplace" Facilities Management: European Practice 1997 Arko: The Netherlands

BLAIR, T., (2008), ‘World economic forum annual meeting speech’, [Electronic] http://www.insnet.org/ins_headlines.rxml?id=5995&photo Date accessed 20.02.08

CALLAN, S., (2007), ‘Implications of family-friendly policies for organizational culture findings from two case studies’, Journal of Work Employment and Society, Vol 21 No.4, pp673-691.

COLLIER, J., and FULLER, T., (2004) ‘Corporations, ethics and global futures’, Futures, 37, pp111-116.

Corenet Global and JoNes Lang LaSalle, (2007) ‘Sustainability perceptions and trends in the corporate real estate industry Survey’, [Electronic] www.corenetglobal.org Date accessed 07.02.08

DANISH CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS, (2004) ‘Towards the sustainable Workplace? Reflection report’, Denmark: DCTU.

DOANNE, D., (2005), ‘Beyond corporate social responsibility: minnows, mammoths and markets’, Futures, Vol. 37, No. 2-3, pp. 215-229.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2007) ‘The New Economics Foundation Response to the EU Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility’, [Electronic] http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/nef_en_011204.htm Date accessed 19.02.08.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2008) ‘Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility Green Paper’, [Electronic] http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-dial/csr/greenpaper_en.pdf Date accessed 19.02.08.

FORMAN, D. (2004) ‘Changing Perspectives From Individual to Organizational Learning’, Journal of Performance Improvement,[Electronic] http://www.highbeam.com, Date accessed 20.02.08

HARRISON, A., WHEELER, P., and WHITEHAD, C., (2004), The Distributed Workplace – Sustainable Work Environments, London: Spon Press

HERBERT, I. (2000), ‘Knowledge is a Noun, Learning is a Verb.(knowledge management and organizational learning)’, Journal of Management Accounting (Britain), [Electronic] http://www.highbeam.com Date accessed 20.02.08

HIGHFLIERS RESEARCH, (2006) ‘The UK Graduate Careers Survey, 2006’, [Electronic] http://image.guardian.co.uk/sysfiles/Education/documents/2006/04/26/survey.pdf. Date accessed 21.01.08.

HIGGS, A. L and MACMILLAN, V. (2006) ‘Teaching through Modelling: four schools’ experiences in sustainability education’, Journal of Environmental Education [Electronic] http://www.highbeam.com Date accessed 20.02.08

HINKS, J (2002) ‘The transition to virtual: The impact of changes in business operations on facilities management’, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol 1 No. 3, pp 272-282

HOWARD, L., (2008), ‘How Sustainable Is Sustainability in a For-Profit Organization?’ Bridges Ventures [Electronic] http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5834.htmlAuthor Date accessed 20.02.08



JACKSON, P., and SUOMI, R., (2002), eBusiness and Workplace Redesign, London: Routeledge.

FM Journal, 2001 JUNIPER, C., (2005), ‘Sustainability Implementation and Leadership for Facility

Managers’, International Facilities Management Association. IFMA World Workplace Paper, October.

KIRKWOOD, T. AND PANGARKAR, A (2003) ‘Workplace learning -- beyond the classroom: how a learning environment empowers employees to develop imaginative strategies and innovative practices’, CMA Management Journal [Electronic] http://www.highbeam.com, Date accessed 29.02.08

Kleasen and Foster, (2002) ‘Communication strategies for the transition of employees to an open work environment’, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol 1, No. 3

KWINTESSENTIAL LTD, (2008) ‘Cross Cultural Barriers’ Article’ [Electronic] http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/cultural-services/articles/cross-cultural-barriers.html Date accessed: 10.02.08

MCKENZIE –MOHR, D (2000), "Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to community based social marketing", Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 No.3, pp.543-50.

MILES, S., (2008), ‘CSR and accountability’, In OISD Oxford Brookes Sustainable Development Conference proceedings, Oxford, 2008

Mitchell-Ketzes, (2003), ‘Optimising business performance through innovative Workplace strategies’, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol 2, No.3, pp 258–76

MOLLOY, J., (2002), ‘From Command-and-Control to Collaborative Leadership: An Interview with Iva Wilson’ [Electronic] http://www.pegasuscom.com/levpoints/wilsonint.html

Date accessed 21.02.08 O’ROURKE, D., and BROWN, G.D. (2003) ‘Experiments in Transforming the Global Workplace: Incentives for and Impediments to Improving Workplace Conditions

in China’, [Electronic] http://nature.berkeley.edu/orourke/PDF/IJOEH_ORourke.pdf PASTOR, P. (2007) ‘Sustainability in the Workplace’, Unpublished MBA Thesis,

School of Management, Presidio School, San Francisco. PRAHALAD, C.K. and HAMMOND, A., (2002) ‘Serving the World's Poor, Profitably -

The Payoff for Investing in Poor Countries’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80, No. 9. SENGE, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency SHARMA, R.D., and CHAHAL, H., (2006) Implications of Corporate Social

Responsibility on Marketing Performance: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Services Research [Electronic] http://www.highbeam.com, Date accessed 15.02.08

SUSTAINABLE LEADERSHIP INSTITUE, (2007) [Electronic]http://www.sustainabilityleaders.org/leadership/ Date accessed 15.02.08

THE WORK FOUNDATION, (2008) ‘The Good Worker’ [Electronic] http://theworkfoundation.com/Assets/PDFs/job%20satisfaction.pdf Date accessed 15.01.08

THE WORK LIFE BALANCE CENTRE, (2008)’Work/life Balance – An overview’ [Electronic] http://www.worklifebalancecentre.org/nickhalpinl.php date accessed 15.01.08

TILLEY, F and FULLER, T, (2000) ‘Foresighting methods and their role in researching small firms and sustainability’, Futures, Vol 32:2, pp149-161.

WALLER, S., (2002), ‘Walking the walk’ - Workplace sustainability policy, program and actions within the state government of Western Australia. State Sustainability Strategy Sustainability Policy Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet, WA Discussion Paper.

WARHURST, A., (2005), In COLLIER, J., and FULLER, T., (2004) ‘Corporations, ethics and global futures’, Futures, 37, pp111-116.



WILENIUS, M. (2004), ‘Towards the age of corporate responsibility? Emerging

challenges for the business world’, Futures, Vol 37, No. 2-3, pp133-150. WORK FOUNDATION SURVEY, (2003), WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT, (2008) ‘CSR

Practices Can Lead to Increased Profits, Two New Reports Find’ [ONLINE] http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectI, Date accessed 15.02.08

http://www.oursouthwest.com/news/quotes1sd.htm - quotes



For further details: Please contact:

Dr. Marie Puybaraud

Director Global WorkPlace Innovation Johnson Controls, Global WorkPlace Solutions

+44 (0) 7966 563 167 [email protected]

www.globalworkplaceinnovation.com

Johnson Controls Ltd Tower 1, Royal Pavilion Aldershot, Hampshire, GU11 1PZ

Artwork and Design:

Adam Bushnell, Design & Production Specialist, Johnson Controls, Global WorkPlace Solutions, EMEA

[email protected]



Documents

Imagineering a Sustainable Workplace Future · sustainable are crucial in creating and maintaining this workplace ecosystem. I understand and welcome the approach the three scenarios