Energy industry transparency

I saw some new research that shows that UK opinion forming approval of biofuels is pretty high (56%), but could be much higher (92%) if concerns are addressed. But – one wonders whether the energy industry is sufficiently open and transparent to address these issues and take advantage of this opportunity. 

·         Scientists are at the top of the trust hierarchy with 83% support.  They are followed by NGO’s at 48% and Government at 38%.

·         Biofuel producers and specifically oil companies are flagged as the least trustworthy source (only 10% support) for information on biofuels.

 

Here is a question: Do you believe transparency helps an organization stay relevant to its stakeholders? Do you think the interchange of ideas and criticism helps an an entire industry to change? 

·         92% majority agreed / strongly agreed that if their concerns were addressed they would be happy to use biofuels. 

Society depends on certain industries for our wellbeing. Banking and Automotive are two examples. Energy is a third. Given there’s no “central planning” for the industry, how do we citizens know the industry’s strategic direction is in alignment with our long term interests? How can society penetrate the veil of PR and brand advertising to know what’s really going on? Can transparency help de-bunk some of the myths? 

·         59% strongly disagreed with the statement that they were ‘not bothered’ as long as the fuel in their tank is cheap and doesn’t damage their car. The ‘cost over conscience’ theme is not as all pervasive as some suggest.

·         Cost viability features only third to impact on food production and natural environment as primary concerns over biofuels.  Both of these primary concerns are easier addressed than some of the more amorphous ‘GM’ / ‘interference in nature’ themes that exist. 

I believe the web 2.0 movement could be harnessed to help the energy industry meet our needs. Conversely, unless that industry harnesses our collective wisdom, we will have another failure, like banking and automotive. 

I have a colleague (David Kenning) who believes that wisdom is the new high-value good. Not knowledge, but wisdom. He makes a distinction between theoretical and practical wisdom. Theoretical wisdom is when Ram Dass teaches you the pleasure of serving others. Practical wisdom is about understanding that chickens will inevitably come home to roost. 

That’s the great thing about the web 2.0 movement. It’s about harnessing the collective smarts of all of us. These crowds of independent people, collaborating together, create a higher level of wisdom. 

We are inevitably running out of oil. Low investment in alternatives, and public ignorance in bio-fuels land use and nuclear waste will hamper quality discourse and development. 

We recognize these kinds of train crashes from our work in conflict zones. Extreme environments reveal tendencies which are harder to spot in the “civilized” world. Like peace-making, an industry is a multilateral process, and this process is often dysfunctional. Groups act individually, and form their own coalitions and try to guide the public discourse toward their own interests. Some actors have the incentive to block collective discourse – their interests are better served by disorganization. Usually the bigger picture is invisible to the players, and completely opaque to the citizen. To complicate things, strategic industries are full of technical issues which are exploited to mislead an ignorant public.

 

In a multilateral system, how do the players learn about the issues and context as others see that context?

 

Here are five principles: 

1.                  Someone must play the trusted interlocutor and broker. All parties must feel this entity (or person) is suited to convene the right debate, that this entity cannot just act to further their own interest. Academia often fills this role. Some commercial entities are granted “permission” to convene the industry.

2.                  Any participant in pursuit of a grand “unifying theory” should not be fully believed. No a-priori theories can explain the irrationality and diversity that you find in an actual theatre. It is our experience that absolutist models exclude parties and interest in favour of the theory.

3.                  There has to be a way for “sectarian” groups to interact and understand each other. The key is to create environments where the other parties’ context – as they perceive it – can be understood and shared. It is our experience, from conflict zones and also geo-political spheres, that some kind of multi-party deliberative process is essential.

4.                  General ignorance needs to be addressed thrugh creation of a learning environment. The population at large must have access to information and must be aware that there are no absolutes. Journalists absolutely have their own views, biases, even agendas. That does not mean they are not to be trusted. It becomes imperative to throw open access to information.

5.                  Disruptive players, if their purpose is simply to prevent discourse, have to be managed. 

What matters is transparency, and a multilateral knowledge and relationship building process. And transparency cannot be a trite tip of the hat anymore – industry has to be seen to be transparent rather than just talking about it. Knowledge is not about the content – it’s about the networks of contributors who test and improve that knowledge, round it out. 

The energy industry has an opportunity to profit from the fallout in other strategic industries, and radically open the debate about alternatives, and the industry’s own strategy, so that the market can address the shortfalls. 

Source: Opinion Leader Research Reputation Thermometer, Feb 27, 2009