While in the meeting rooms of policymakers, the discussion around green economy and creation of ‘green jobs’ is underway, there is a slightly different conversation about green jobs in the coffee shops and cafes.
“Good work-life balance. But limited impact.”
“We move two steps forward and three steps back sometimes when trying to drive corporate green transition.”
“We have no veto power on investment decisions, the company still needs to make money so the frontline business units have the final say even when the investment have adverse environmental impacts.”
“The corporate sustainability department primarily manages reputational risks, not environmental ones.”
The best way to create impactful green jobs is perhaps when the laws and regulations properly require compliance with stricter environmental standards. At the moment, a lot of compliance are around reporting requirements and yes you do get some kind of ‘green jobs’ but they are mainly the bean-counter sort. The solution-seeking sort will come when you begin to set up standards in environmental performance that companies have to meet.
There is no point propagating green jobs, trying to subsidise manpower for these jobs and using tax credits or other incentives to force companies to locate their sustainability or green functions in Singapore when there is no corresponding increase in environmental performance standards imposed on our corporates.
Better to spend the resources studying the suitable regulations to put in place. And then you can support the companies to meet them.
So it started when I was reading Cedric Chin’s writing about Morris Chang, and then about Texas Instruments dominating semicon industry through the invention of the Learning Curve pricing. Here is a situation where a large company basically finances its product into dominance by sacrificing some early profits as they expect lower prices to generate sufficient demand to increase utilisation of their machine, improving product yield through improvements in the manufacturing process.
This enabled Texas Instruments to dominate the industry as the anticipated increase in manufacturing yield (as a result of the ‘learning curve’), enabled more aggressive pricing, pushing out competitors, increasing market share for Texas Instruments, and thereby creating more scale advantages to drive more yield improvements. This is a remarkable use of financing to use scale economies to dominate the market. Essentially, most of the digital tech companies tries to use this as a means to eventually dominate a market of their niche.
The original idea of the learning curve of course came with manufacturing, and I believe this idea was applied at the scale of the entire industry in China when it comes to solar panels, Li-on battery architecture and now probably electric vehicles. By massively subsidising the products and creating demand not just domestically but also in foreign markets, China successfully increased utilisation of their capital equipment, improved their manufacturing capabilities and cement their advantage further.
While other markets are still focused on ‘costs’ of deploying solar, or using batteries, China took a different perspective, one that was driven by manufacturing capabilities and learning curve. I believe Japan had desired such an approach as well, having been subsidising certain markets and technologies, including development of hydrogen cars as well as residential hydrogen appliances (see ENE-FARM home use fuel cell system).
Sometimes when we wonder if we are too early into the market for something, when it comes to the government that is willing to orchestrate a strategy at that sort of industrial level, one can mobilise the resources to create the future rather than wait for the right time.
A few years back, I devoted a couple of blog posts to writing about ‘wicked learning environments’, a concept popularised by psychologist Robin Hogarth (see the posts here, here and here).
Some recent experiences working on various requests for proposals and tenders brought this concept back to mind. And I want us to think about it a bit more as we think about the culture that we are developing here in Singapore – in school, business and within organisations.
I ran into a situation where multiple organisations belonging to this larger mothership, who was originating various requests for proposals refused to entertain request for feedback on the proposals submitted. Basically joining the tender was a black box with rather binary outcomes; and when you fail, you couldn’t even take a lesson out of it. At times, non-constructive feedbacks were provided; such as ‘the competition was strong’, or that ‘we received many competitive proposals and decided not to go with yours’.
I was reminded of a story from a friend who had a really non-supportive reporting officer (RO). When she requested feedback on her performance, the RO said she was doing okay, but when the performance reviews came back, she was placed at either average or slightly below. The response she got from her RO about why she was placed in that performance grade was that her grade was ‘already not bad’.
Feedback is so important, but in Singapore, we are so conflict-avoidant that we refuse to think about it more thoroughly. We might even have experienced defensiveness during exit interviews when employees felt more free to voice out concerns or areas of improvement. The fear of mistakes borders on being completely irrational and the desire to run from the shame or perceived humiliation supersedes the willingness to learn from those mistakes.
This is a massive problem for our culture. And Singapore is worse for such behaviours – where juniors are expected to silent dissenting voices, sometimes to the extent of surrending their thinking ability in exchange for harmony and masquerading that as ‘respect for elders’.
How can we move faster and progress if we want to enable Singapore to make the leap towards a better future?
I wrote another post with the same topic but from a different angle 2 years back. You can find it here.
I’ve been fighting against the prevailing culture for the past decade of my career. And for those who blame things on culture and act like it cannot be changed, they are being delusional. I have a few examples to show:
How did we get from flagging for a cab on the street to punching our mobile phone screens to hail a cab?
How did we get from ‘solar power’ is too inefficient and there is not enough space in Singapore to targeting a 2GWp solar by 2030?
How did we get from being in kampongs where we helped each other and lived for generations in a house to thinking that our financial lives depend on getting BTO, then selling it after MOP and then upgrading non-stop over our adulthood?
While it takes time, culture can be changed. It also takes identifying some loose bricks in the existing edifice to overhaul the structure of our prevailing culture. Energy transition is one tough one to crack, but that said, our region in Southeast Asia has already moved quite a bit from the days of coal-fired power generation. Yes there was a bit of attempts to catch on with the hype around hydrogen but the dollars and sense prevailed at least for now.
So I’ve been toying with the idea of doing a lot more content to teach all of us about energy transition and to be able to learn together. There is a whole lot of de-stigmatising, trying things out, and unlearning our previous biases to be able to move the culture a bit and accelerate the transition. There’s a question of format, level of engagement, how to manage and nurture a community and so on. I guess I’ll have to dive in head first.
Despite being a Christian, I’d probably confess to living most of my life like an atheist, and for most of us in the modern world, that is perhaps the case. As we send our reports and deliverables to clients, we don’t start praying to God for Him to grant favour in the eyes of our clients. At the same time, before we start our meetings to make crucial decisions, it’s not like we ask the Lord to grant us wisdom to decide the right course of action in a corporate prayer. Beyond prayer, more often than not, we are petty with the way we approach our suppliers, and potentially quite transactional on many interactions.
If we had been in a more agriculture setting, surely after tilling the land and sowing the seeds, we would have prayed for good weather and for patience to arrive upon harvest time. Each day as we work the fields we’d ask the Lord to bless the work of our hands. And when if we were to be waiting in the market for someone who needs our produce to pass, we might ask for customers, and we might deal with them with greater kindness than we would when chasing a customer for bill payment.
I don’t know if it’s the environment, the (false) sense of self-sufficiency and control that leads us to act this way. But we often enjoy acting like we are in control; and we are glad for the assurance from others’ false sense of control over circumstances and happenstance. We have lost the security and comfort that we can have in the embrace of God’s grace and His provision. And each time we practice that modern day ritual of self-reliance and independence from nature and from God, we weaken our faith so much.
Popularised by Warren Buffett, the idea of business moats is simply some kind of persistence or stickiness in demand that businesses have, which can keep them going. Basically it is really anything that helps to reduce competition to a business. This is important in the real world though we tend to celebrate competition in economics. Business moats are actually necessary for innovation, and avoiding a race to the bottom.
Moats are largely about maintenance of a profit margin. The stronger the moat, the higher the margin would be but having a moat itself makes a lot of difference. In fact, we tend to worry in economics about moats because we think it creates high margins. That’s not always true. You could have low margins as a moat itself – because being able to keep your costs low would keep competitors at bay. The point of moats is more about the persistence of the margin.
The most significant problem with competition is that you are in a dynamic environment that keeps you on your toes. Now you may think that is a good thing. But if we keep having to compete with competitors who are just diverting your customers easily through one-off gimmicks and popping up in different places, dislodging your margins here and there, it is not going to make a significant dent in your profits, but it certainly takes up your attention and ability to consider longer-term growth and innovation.
It is such long-term thinking that a business moat creates, which can support the maturing of a system. Yes, other institutional factors contribute to the growth and development of markets. But pure ‘perfect competition’ in the manner it is traditionally thought isn’t one of them. Many developed countries and markets have that sort of dynamism and competition. Just go to a weekday market in a mid-sized town in Africa. But that in itself does not produce the sort of progress that capitalism is touted to produce.
What underlies the success of market capitalism is ultimately the ability not just to accumulate capital but to be freed of that savage competition to engage in more medium to long-term strategic competition. And that is enabled by business moats.
I realise I’ve never written on artificial intelligence. GenAI swept the world quite a bit over the past 2 years and of course, the consciousness of it in the market since ChatGPT was made available for public use had driven Nvidia’s stocks up insanely.
I had realised that since I’ve got a collection of writings in the public domain from since 2009, it would not be hard for me to train an LLM to be able to almost think and write like me at least to the extent of views, ideas and information I have expressed.
The truth is I’ve somehow avoided using AI to do my work; rather, I’ve been using it more to gather and synthesize information, help me identify blindspots and figure out perspectives I might have missed. I know that what we have observed in the publicly available tools is just displaying a fraction of their potential and capability but I feel that ultimately, we are still hitting back at the same constraints that holds us back as humans. Resource.
AI continues to suck up computing power, materials and energy in order to work. This is almost silly to the extent that we are feeding machines copious amount of energy in order to produce output that pale in comparison with a human being. ‘Biological energy’ so to speak, is far superior and we already have the human brain that allows all of us to perform at a far higher and more meaningful level. Of course there are lots of ethical and safety issues confronting us as we develop AI further, and I’m not decided whether we should necessarily stop the developments – all I can say is that we are getting distracted by AI.
We are embarking on an almost insane hype in the market for AI while ignoring the greater problem that confronts mankind today – climate change. And we ignore it at our peril. AI, like the many other engineered geopolitical crises, are chipping away at our attention, energies and resources to deal with the things that matters much more.
I really believe we can do so much better with the struggles and challenges in this world if we had not been distracted by these things. I have no doubt AI is going to be important and influential, but along with a lot of other innovations that have radically changed our lives, it may only serve to exacerbate problems that are still not well appreciated by us, while taking away resources to solve the problems that are apparent today.
Having worked in consulting across cultures, I have begun to recognise some cultural behaviours when buying consulting across different countries and the attitudes towards consultants. Having advisors is nothing new; the monarchs of ancient times have had advisors to support them for as long as they existed. These advisors offered more than just advice, insights or knowledge that leaders did not possess (or did not think they possessed).
They offered assurances when it was scarce. Soothsaying, contrary to what people might think, actually means telling the truth; with ‘sooth’ being an old English term that meant truth, as opposed to ‘soothe’, which means to calm. And the advisors also provided perspectives that during times of wiser monarchs, could contradict the conventional wisdom or call out the folly of the leaders.
So if we distil it down to the value that consultants provide today:
Knowledge of what may not be known to the client: this is when consultants are selling their expertise, and familiarity with a topic area that clients are not familiar with
Assurance of a particular course of action, decision, or information: this is when the client needs something verified, checked, validated and confirmed. The confidence and conviction of the advisor matter here as well, compared to those who hide behind jargon and ‘expert lingo’.
Sparing partner or challenger to ideas: consultants can be valued in bringing new perspectives, especially an outside-in view of things thereby co-creating more valuable solutions or decisions with the client.
I begin to recognise that Asian firms especially with rather paternalistic leadership tend not to use consultants the way the West use them. So for example, when it comes to knowledge, the Western clients may appreciate specific subject matter expertise that comes through years of experience and in-depth research. In contrast, Eastern clients may value knowledge of implicit/unwritten local rules and norms rather than expertise in a more technical subject. The more institutionalisable the knowledge set is, the less likely an Eastern client would appreciate it as worth paying for.
Western clients see assurances from consultants as important while Eastern clients prefer to take the risks of not having check through things by themselves. This might have something to do with the way trust is formed. In Asian societies where getting things verified can be read as a sign of mistrust, it is challenging to value such independent checks and perspectives. The very deed of using independent validation can almost be an insult.
Finally, when it comes to having a sparing partner, the typical harmony-loving, and conflict-avoidant Asian culture would really struggle with the idea of paying someone to challenge you. In fact, leaders might instead assert the power of their wealth/influence over people so that they would not be questioned.
In this sense, Asian cultures tend towards getting advisors who can provide knowledge that is undocumented and unavailable in the public domain, and are often independent individuals with the specific gifts of being able to reveal ‘truth’ to the client. They also prefer that the knowledge advisors gain about the client cannot be easily disseminated. And as far as possible, they only care about knowledge that cannot be institutionalised.
This means that it is incredibly challenging for most professional, western-chain consultants to survive solely from serving a pool of Asian clients. If anything, they usually have to ‘survive’ off the big multi-nationals who are growing into new, and perhaps opaque markets, or needing more capacity support. In other words, consulting has grown out of an increasingly international market, yet not overly uncertain because surely some stability is necessary for consultants to be deemed to have accumulated enough lessons and experience to share.
Random musings as I continue to build up my knowledge and capability of managing a consulting practice.
These days I more often talk about biofuels and bioenergy than hydrogen. Mostly because I believe that bioenergy is the best scaffolding that is available in the market for commercializing hydrogen for renewable fuel use massively.
I moderated a panel at AlterCOP 29 last year, where I help to spark some discussions about what hydrogen is good for and what could help hydrogen be a solution for decarbonisation, if at all.
There hasn’t been too much changes in fundamentals since we had that discussion but we know that a lot of bad news about hydrogen have plagued the industry since the start of this year.
Most recently, McPhy, the electrolyser manufacturer liquidated with most assets taken over by John Cockerill. One of the chief issues is that the industry has grown so much on the back of anticipated and realised policies without improving its commercial case over the same period of time.
As a result, the solution continues to be commercially challenging and expectations of handouts from government have reduced the drive to improve commercial case.
It’s been a while since I’ve written and since coming back from a SAF conference last week, the challenges faced by the entire ecosystem continues to weigh on my mind. The most obvious challenge in the fact that producers (energy companies or feedstock suppliers venturing into SAF production) and users (airlines) diverge sharply on their views of what is a price that the market can exist and perpetuate at.
To me, this is a symptom of underlying issues including the fact that SAF mandates are crudely determined with a volumetric blend, and that more often than not, the mandates could just force all airports to try and adopt SAF as opposed to starting with some key nodes and rolling out to the minor airports. Or the mandates could just be fulfilled by airlines at the level of their fleets. Or in the case of domestic carriers and flights, all of the flights for that year of reporting. This allows airlines to meet the mandates flexibly. And the market can then optimise for the logistics of delivery as well.
Another issue with the volumetric blending mandates is that typically there’s a threshold of emissions reduction that the fuel must meet to be considered SAF, and the users will purchase just the cheapest one available. That means that producers are not incentivised to produce any fuel better than the mandated threshold. This throws up questions: whether you could blend a bit of A1 Jet fuel into a SAF with much lower carbon intensity than the threshold and then call it ‘neat SAF’? Tricky. And controversial.
At the end of the day, what are regulators and the economy trying to achieve? Decarbonisation. Is aviation important enough for policymakers to focus their attention? Yes and no. Yes because it is hard-to-abate and if no regulations are in place, they will just keep going and spew more carbon into the air. But no because ultimately, aviation emissions are only 2.5% of the global emissions. The proportion will surely grow as the rest of the economy decarbonises; so most of the approach now essentially is to throttle that aviation emissions growth.
Will throttling aviation emissions growth destroy aviation demand? Surely without a doubt. Should we do that only in places where there’s substitutes which are low-carbon (such as trains and electric transportation)? Perhaps. For individual government and agencies making decisions, ultimately, aviation is really not a huge area compared to most other carbon-emitting industries. There’s perception that aviation will have higher willingness-to-pay but I don’t think that should necessarily be the excuse to push the emissions reduction on them.
Again, those are just my opinions and musings for the week.
