IBM: Environmentally Responsible Leadership by Example

1.     

Environmentally-centric philosophies persist throughout American history dating back to Thoreau and Emerson who lived and wrote regarding man’s altruistic responsibility towards conserving nature. The present “green movement” today however, owes, in part, its origins to the awakening experienced by many after reading Rachel Caron’s seminal work Silent Spring, published in 1962. Beyond the individual philosophy and communal attempts at proselyting, there also came a recognition that everyone, including government and business had a social and moral responsibility to the environment.

In 1970, Pres. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency thereby establishing a regulatory body aimed at correcting a history of poor environmental stewardship. Push back against progressive programs is inevitable and industry, in general, will always resist imposed regulatory efforts, typically deeming such efforts to be unnecessary and reactionary. Yet, some businesses have chosen a proactive course and, in such a manner, creative their own regulatory policy beyond the dictates and capabilities of inefficient bureaucrats.  International Business Machines (IBM) stands prominently as such an example.

IBM’s current policy of environmental sustainability encompasses four areas comprised by environmental strategies, green branding, compliance management, and cost-efficient sustainability (Butner & Gregor, 2009).  Such a current course of action stems from IBM’s embracing of the fledgling “green movement” under the helm of Thomas J. Watson Jr in the late 1960s. One of their first enterprises established a hazardous waste management program, not just for themselves but also as a condition of business for its contractors (Stair & Reynolds, 2014). This foresight facilitated IBM to not just remain in regulatory compliance to but place themselves ahead of the politically-reactive wave of legislation that endured throughout the 1970 and 1980s.

In 1998, IBM suggested its supply chain contributors should implement international green initiatives. This suggestion has evolved from a suggested point of consideration to a mandate for those choosing to do business with IBM. In fact, IBM now requires their supply chain providers to “define and deploy an environmental management system (EMS), measure existing environmental impacts and establish goals to improve performance, publicly disclose their metrics and results, and “cascade” these requirements to any suppliers that are material to IBM’s products” (Winston, 2012)

Baring the fact that “the end goal is to protect and enrich the brand” (Butner & Gregor, 2009), IBM’s actions ripple well beyond the point of impact. From contractual mandates with supporting operations where IBM leverages compliances down the supply chain to their ongoing focused efforts to “reduce energy use, conserve water resources…and combat climate change”, other major tech players, such as HP and Dell, have followed suit, introducing product return and recycling programs, remanufacturing used goods, and pursuing their own energy efficient operations. IBM’s impact beyond their doors continued in 2004 with the launching of the Electronics Industry Code of Conduct, a policy whose very defining was predicted upon IBM’s Supplier Conduct Principles policy (Winston, 2012).

IBM early adopted a fiscally dangerous position of putting profits second. According to Thomas J. Watson Jr., “Corporations prosper only to the extent that they satisfy human needs. Profit is only the scoring system. The end is better living for us all.” His forward-thinking ideology illuminated responsibility beyond the board room and factories. In addition to Thomas J. Watson Sr.’s Basic Belief, Watson Jr. established a mission statement that purported corporate success was endemic of corporate responsibility. Over five decades later, IBM’s campaign of responsibility and stewardship remains the “tip of the spear” behind which others follow.

Reference List

Butner, K., & Gregor, J. J. (2009). Green and Beyond: Getting Smarter About the Environment. Somers: IBM Global Services. Retrieved from http://www.iaap-aggregates.org/sustainability/IBM-Environment.pdf

Stair, R. M., & Reynolds, G. W. (2014). Fundamentals of Information Systems (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Winston, A. (2012). IBM's Green Supply Chain. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/07/ibms-green-supply-chain.html

Kids and Coding

The premise of introducing computer science into early childhood education is far from a new idea. Radia Joy Perlman, working alongside Seymour Papert, began studying the cognitive impact of programing on children in 1974 using TORTIS ("Toddler's Own Recursive Turtle Interpreter System"). Posterior studies centered on the programming language LOGO. In 1984, two Kent State University researchers, utilizing LOGO, undertook a study that aimed at assessing “the effects of learning computer programming on children’s cognitive style…, metacognitive ability, cognitive development…, and ability to describe direction” (Clements & Gullo, 1984). The assertion of all of the studies engaged is to attempt to define, assess and quantify a conceptual notion referred to as educational transference or “learning transfer – the idea that learning in one context will automatically transfer across to others” (Buckingham, 2015).

Numerous more studies have come, gone, and continue to evolve. I would be remiss by not noting that “any benefits derived…can be to interactive experiences with computers…rather than to the programming per se” (Clements & Gullo, 1984), yet, as far as studies have concluded, “there is no published research reporting potential negative effects of the use of programming environments in cognitive and/or social development of children” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013). As such, I agree with Naughton’s premise that “tomorrow’s educated person will know how to program a computer” (Stair & Reynolds, 2014) considering that successive testing of children has produced replicable results documenting how “programming may affect cognitive style”. (Clements & Gullo, 1984). Additionally, these studies produce evidence that “supports the…value…in learning mathematics, in the improvement of thinking skills as well as in the development of problem solving strategies”. (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013).

John Naughton, professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University, remains a vocal champion of introducing computer science into early childhood education. As he purports, computer science has the inherent benefit of providing children with both an understanding of their networked world while additionally inducing “computational thinking, and it’s about…thinking recursively…and deploying heuristic reasoning, iteration and search to discover solutions to complex problems” (Naughton, 2012). However, the simple notion remains more complicated that just implementing such a course of action as “the availability of software programming environments is not enough…Experimentally validated teaching/learning approaches, documented best practices, learning resources, curriculum standards, professional development and support for teachers are also need” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013).

 Factually, and economically, speaking, the main deterrent thwarting the addition of computer science into elementary curricula “is not the availability of developmentally appropriate computer programming environments but rather the development of appropriately designed learning activities and supporting material” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013). Furthermore, “learning activities involving programming and targeted at children must be carefully designed so that they are meaningful and challenging…but also achievable” (Fessakis, Gouli, & Mavroudi, 2013) in order to maintain engagement.

Reference List

Buckingham, D. (2015). Why Children Should not be Taught to Code. Retrieved from dividbuckingham.net: https://davidbuckingham.net/2015/07/13/why-children-should-not-be-taught-to-code/

Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of Computer Programming on Young Children's Cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Clements/publication/232539181_Effects_of_Computer_Programming_on_Young_Children's_Cognition/links/0c96053626d4ec684a000000.pdf

Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem Solving by 5-6 Years Old Kindergarten Children in a Computer Programming Environment: A Case Study. Computers & Education, 63. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/38944358/2013_CE_FESSAKIS_GOULI_MAVROUDI_vF.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1478642061&Signature=4TufxIK%2BjwuRpCPVzEsKrM02OQ0%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DProblem_so

Naughton, J. (2012). Why All Our Kids Should be Taught how to Code. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/mar/31/why-kids-should-be-taught-code

Stair, R. M., & Reynolds, G. W. (2014). Fundamentals of Information Systems (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.