Leadership & Innovations – Hallmark of GPP in Asia-Pacific

I was looking recently at the most trending article on LinkedIn Today, that brings articles from top 150 Influencers, and was not at all surprised to find that “11 Simple Concepts to Become a Better Leader” by Dave Kerpen, was the second most trending article. Can you guess how many people viewed this article? Hold your breath - 1.8 Million! I don’t think anybody (least of all me!) would dispute selection of must have qualities for becoming a better leader by Dave Kerpen, Founder & CEO of Likeable Local and NY Times Best-Selling Author. But for me, I think what makes a leader stand out is her ability to anticipate and respond to change. This single attribute has distinguished leader – individual, organization, or nation – from followers. Examples are all around us to see. It was Amazon, which realized potential of online bookstore, innovated Kindle and the rest is history. Apple innovated iPhone that disrupted smartphone market then and is still the highest revenue grosser from smartphone business now.

Such examples of innovation is not limited to development of new products or services. Sweden has envisioned becoming leading supplier of green technology in 5-7 years and is making efforts (such as making machine/system with clear information about its carbon footprint) to realize those dreams. The decision to mandatory print product’s carbon footprint on packing would stimulate industries to take innovative measures to reduce product’s footprint on its own. Many governments in the past/future have taken/would take innovative public policy measures to find innovative solutions for delivering effective and efficient public services. The same was very much evident during recent Green Public Procurement –Ecolabeling Workshop held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in December 2015. In this workshop, participants from Asia-pacific presented their GPP implementation experiences. It was clear from their presentations that there is no single model for GPP implementation and that different countries have developed their own model to suit their political, institutional, cultural or political setting. No doubt, there were certain commonalities in approach, such as adoption of Eco label; but a closer look at their GPP frameworks leaves hardly any doubt in mind that they innovated in the process for mainstreaming sustainability in procurement decision. I will come to these innovations in later paragraphs. But the fact that they adopted GPP policy in response to sustainable development and climate change challenges has already put them in leadership category in Asia-Pacific.

Contrast it with situation in South Asian countries – India and her neighbors. Except Bhutan, no country in the region has adopted a green public procurement policy, although these countries are not much different from countries in South-East Asia or North-East Asia. For argument’s sake, one may say that Japan, South Korea and China are way ahead and other countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines are smaller. These countries may be smaller in size but not necessarily have fewer challenges. Even if we don’t want to compare with these countries, can we put aside China’s progress in this area and attribute this to her political setting? We can’t take shelter in democratic system of polity for every ill we face in India. Similarly we can’t attribute all progress in China to their political system. Had this been the case, all countries with similar political system in the world would have been much better off today. Give China the credit they rightly deserve!

Coming back to innovations in implementing green procurement policy, Japan has fully developed Eco-Mark label. But Government GPP policy allows public agencies to set GPP criteria less stringent than that of Eco Mark criteria. This flexibility in choosing GPP criteria gives public agencies enough latitude to ensure competition among wider group of vendors. Malaysia and South Korea present unique examples of innovation in incentivizing early adoption of GPP policy by government agencies. They have star-rating system for measuring performance of government agency and GPP is one of the criteria. Smart move, you will agree! It is interesting to learn that Thailand Green label was promoted by private body but adopted by national government to use as GPP criteria. This underscores importance of collaboration among stakeholders. Going forward, China’s representative narrated that one of the main success factors for China’s GPP policy is issue of GPP guidelines jointly signed by Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Environment. China’s example further strengthened the importance of bringing all stakeholders together starting with policy formulation stage. All put together, I think GPP in Asia-Pacific exemplifies what Steve Job said, "Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower". 

It is apparent that they have taken different innovative approach for mainstreaming GPP and Eco labeling in respective countries. One need not start with very comprehensive programme that no one could follow. Similarly, GPP policy need not be a static document but a dynamic actionable document, making changes and revisions as per needs of stakeholders. You just need to leverage existing program, which is already running in your country and build on that. For example, the stated aim of Eco Mark Africa is that African products attain environmental profile that makes them competitive in international market and secures expanded market access at national, regional and international label. This could provide a very good starting point to build case for GPP policy in any African nations. But then, you need to have a leader who could visualize such opportunity and dream of taking country’s products to international market on strength of sustainable competitive advantage. Do you have it in you to be that leader?