AboutWorkEcology

Is Genzyme Really Downsizing or Building an Ecosystem to #sustainnow?

As a Massachusetts resident, I have been following the story of Genzyme back to Sept. 2001 drawing on my understanding of the ecosytem that surrounds a corporate balance sheet and the intersection of a business game with government, people and non government organizations.

While I have not worked at Genzyme, I have developed an opinion that Genzyme operates a culture lost in its past success based on a founders passion and has not adapted itself in an ecosystem that can sustain itself and influence a health ecology around the globe.  Genzyme is operating in the tradition of any company responding to "Wall Street" ups and downs and has shaped its agenda to sustain.

This is no surprise.   Most US based companies that mustered fast growth profits based on a tradition of investment that limits its focus on ROI for shareholders rather than a triple bottom line. Most of the companies and economic decision makers perpetuate a corporate culture based on historical success profitable until a harmful event occurs. The response to the harmful event become the roadmap for the future.

Genzyme has experienced this kind of event. June 2009, a virus outbreak in its Allston MA manufacturing plant resulted in steep delays of production of drugs critical to the treatment of people with Gaucher or Fabry Disease. The initial response shut down this plants operations. In the months that followed, it became clear that Genzyme had not developed manufacturing production systems that  prevent  hazardous exposure. The delays to correct the problem indicated Genzyme did not have skill and competence in applying the systems and processes for manufacturing that comply with FDA requirements or are standard practice for a mature and stable company with profit.  By April 2010 the FDA levied a $175M fine on Genzyme for the event and poor response. 

The incident and the lack of quality response that follows is smaller scale than the impact of the BP Oil skill, but reflects the ongoing types of drama that occur when a profitable company grows in size and does not put systems in place to respond strategically to the requirements of GRI, GRI or ESG metrics.

Most of the ongoing drama's in industry today and years past reflects this viscious cycle. The State of Massachusetts where I lived has not been successful in breaking its this destructive pattern.  I saw this pattern form in the mid 80's with the demise of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC).  In 1986,  DEC stood strong with 160,000 employees globally.  Then through the dysfunction of its CEO, Ken Olsen, who did not believe personal computing was the new wave, DEC began a cycle of destruction and downsized over the next 5-7 years from 160,000 employees globally to fewer than 35,000. DEC was then acquired by Compaq.   Compaq was absorbed by Hewlett Packard and the drama continues with a focus on CEO behavior and ethic that has resulted in HP dismissing its past two CEO's; Carly Fiorina and Marc Hurd.

On the brighter side, I view Genzyme can shift away from this vicious cycle because of the current progress by 7700 companies that comprise the membership of the UN Global Compact.  

Genzyme today stands at a door of possibility to sustain its company by adopting the action research practice of the UN Global Compact and can learn from the progress of companies, e.g. Danisco and Sanofi Aventis and the results they have achieved from defining a a steep CSR/Sustainability Agenda.

In this particular case, Sanofi Aventis happens to be a company that offered an unsolicited bid to Genzyme which was refused and is now rumored to be positioned to be conversing with Genzyme Board of Directors, e.g. Carl ICann; who are open to selling their stock to Sanofi Aventis.

Whether on its own or merged with Sanofi Aventis, the solution for Genzyme to sustain is to organize itself to view the Genzyme economy as a participant in an ecosystem that can sustain if it shifts its attitude and perspective to adopt a global agenda for sustainability from which to survive. If Genzyme economic decision makers embark on embedding sustainability as part of a global agenda, they could even influence a struggling state that has had massive economic decline and job loss and shift the US challenging experience of a declining economy.

  If Genzyme can begin now with review of Sanofi Aventis, 2009 CSR report. Sanofi Aventis has had significant progress in implementing its steep commitment to CSR, as reported in its recenlty released 2009 CSR report. This could be the simplest gesture of getting on track that Genzyme could initiate now.

Sanofi Avenits' virtual report provides an audio presentation Christopher A. Viehbacher, CEO, Sanofi Aventis outlines in less than 2 minutes Sanofi Aventis clear commitment to its steep global mission to improve the health of as many 6.8B people walking the planet.  The strategy includes addressing present and future public health agenda,  increasing innovation to R&D and opening the company to merger acquisitions and building infrastructure to make the world a better way to live.

Genzyme's auditor is Deloitte Touche, who authored the CSR Sustainabililty Framework for adoption by the UN Global Compact membership. I must admit, I find it ironic that I have seen nothing in the Boston or national investment press about how an agenda of Sustainability is an opportunity for Genzyme. I did one last quick "internet" search at Foley and Lardner, LLP search engine that brought me to an archive of articles on Genzyme at the Mass High Tech Press Outlet.

How is the EcoSystem that surrounds Genzyme Responding?

If you take the time that I did last night to trace through 2 years of press dating back to June 16, 2009 - you can view some serious glitches in the the system of regulation that surrounds Genzyme based on the American tendency to respond to issues in business by evoking "laws of fear" or fall back on the drama of the shareholder reports authored by investment sites and legal authorities that Genzyme is leading itself into a corner to end up with a "hostile takeover." Yesterdays headline in the Boston Globe announced a 1,000 person layoff. If you read closely in the fine print, there is no immediate threat of a 1,000 person pink slip day of layoff. The threat of layoff was defined as a workforce reduction over the next 15 months of 1,000 employees.

The other feed to Genzymes instability has been it price per share dance since 2008. With the outbreak of viruses that contaminated the Allston plants drug production of Fabrizyme and Cerazyme that Genzyme's stock value fell from its all time high of $80 a share in 2008 to an all time low of $47.16 this Spring.  With the press buzz regarding the Sanofi Aventis offer the stock climbed slightly above $70.00 a share by the end of July 2010. This would make any company ripe for a merger acquisition.

In contrast to share value, Genzyme profits in 2009 of $422.3M on $4.5B in sales sustains its position as a Fortune 500 company. So the $175M FDA fine paid from profit seems to have sparked more harmful activity rather than inspire a change to leadership based on ESG investment practices.

Biopharm has been slow to move into a Sustainability framework beyond the metrics of corporate citizenship, green building and volunteerism. Genzyme is proud of its  Green Building Corporate Headquarters in Cambridge, MA.   But none of this allays my continued concern as a person who residees in the United States in Massachusetts where Genzyme is head quartered. Successful Biopharm of the 90's is no longer the path for success today.  Matthew Emmens, CEO made this clear in his presentation last April at Babson College Conference for the Life Sciences.

The ecosystem that surrounds Genzyme is a system of defeat perpetuating the economic downturn in Massachusetts that also swells throughout the United States. Genzyme lives in a system of government, regulation and economic development that is faltering on a federal and state level and does not speak the speak of a company living in a global economy. The FDA views this fine cutting into their profits as a constructive step. This makes me wonder why the FDA could not have simply asked that these funds of profit be directed to resources that correct the problems and steer Genzyme to a sustainable future?

The tradition of response in the United States to catastrophes of this kind, is to fire a CEO, fine a company or make the company directly responsible for the harm it has caused its consumers.  Massachusetts now stands to have another decline in its job census the the Massachusetts High Technology Council and our State Leadership has failed to alter.

I could not find  through my screen to the "Internet," anything that showed me that Genzyme has formed productive partnerships with government and NGO economic development leaders to breath life into a regional and global ecosystem in the economy of suppliers, patients, distributors through out is global geography.

The most popular news outlets reporting on Genzyme are perpetuating the tradition of reporting that focused on lost profits, hostile take overs, lost jobs, and a stock valuation that is unsteady and emotionally reactive.  A human side to this story was brought to life by reporters, who interviewed patient families about their history of loyalty, but I could find no story on how Genzyme was going to assure a response of quality for the production and supply maintenance of the drugs these families have come to rely on. .

 

Can Genzyme find an Ecosystem to Regroup ?

No where have I found in the reports, a "tale of meaningful use," where Genzyme is adopting the priniciples modeled through strategy and action similar to the approach led by Kathryn Winkler, Chief Sustainability Officer for EMC.  Aman Singh, Vault.com CSR and Diversity Editor interviewed me last April on how I perceived Kathryn's  CSR role and why this is different response than most companies as to how they approach the green, csr or sustainability practices.  In my interview with Aman, I pointed out that

"Kathrin's skill of engaging the EMC workforce into the vision of sustainability is based on a simple premise: 'corporate sustainability is really about business survival: Take the long view, or your business won't survive in a failing global society or environment. Long-term sustainability affects customers, employees, suppliers, neighbors, partners, governmental bodies, and civil society. If we make our business choices based on how we interact with those stakeholders, then we are promoting sustainability."

This view of engagement, which I teach in a program to my leadership clients hold high regard for the social network that surrounds an economy of resource that serves all stakeholders with a global view that we now live in a time of business, work and living that requires values, principles and infrastructure that sustains health, environment, and planet. Without this view, we will continue to perpetuate a more rapid stream of destruction as evidenced by the BP Oil Spill and the increasing number of hazards impacting the health of the environment and people.

What is in the future for Genzyme?

I chose not to approach Genzyme's current situation by writing a tale of woe that predicted more failure or advised a Sanofi Aventis purchase or merger.  I cannot directly influence  Henri Temeer, CEO of Genzyme and its Board of Directors  on what strategy to follow.  Ultimately the market will see a future for Genzyme, whether it remains standing on its own as a Fortune 500 global company or merges with another global biopharmaceutical leader.  Ultimately Genzyme still has time to chose its own future if they are prepared to act to #sustainnow that exercises precaution.

 

Cordially,

Lavinia Weissman

Lavinia Weissman is an ecologist and sustainability leadership coach with a practice based in Boston MA. Through her practice, Lavinia draws on people representing all sectors of thought to build ecological approaches to work and the economy to sustain health and the environment.  Her imagination and passion is to empower practical and concrete strategies of action that exercise precaution.

About Lavinia's Approach to her Work.

Lavinia's  practice draws on knowledge of ESG, CSR and Sustainability pracitces and the system of network that  surround this subject matter expertise based. She is a capacity builder who draws on  social network analysis and to develop deliberately designed methods of educationthat lead cultures of change through the convening of people to learn to do and act sustainably.

Lavinia is available to guide the imagination and development of thinking from a practical view for anyone who choses to navigate the chaos at the present time and find a personal path that is more productive to assuring the eco system is nourished and lives so employees, patients, shareholders and economic regions can survive.

WEAnnounce- UC Berkeley Green Chemistry Initiative 042310

 

This letter came to my desk today from my colleague, Meg Schwarzman, MD, MPH, read about Meg at this previous entry,

Two Women Making REACH Simple as SIN 

It is a note associated with this WorkEcology Insight Note 020910.

Dear Colleagues,

Registration is now open for the second in the workshop series sponsored by Cal/EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Centers for Occupational and Environmental Health (COEH) at UC Berkeley and UCLA:

California Green Chemistry Workshop - Indicators of Ecotoxicity Hazard and Exposure Potential
May 10 and 11, 2010
David Brower Center, Berkeley CA

 

Senate Bill 509 requires Cal/EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to evaluate and specify the hazard traits, toxicological and environmental endpoints and other relevant data to be included in California's Toxics Information Clearinghouse.  The Clearinghouse will be constructed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control and will include traits related to human health, ecological toxicity and potential for exposure.  This workshop explores indicators of ecotoxicity and exposure potential for inclusion in the Toxics Information Clearinghouse.

To obtain a copy of the agenda or to simply register, please send your name, email address and affiliation to: elina.nasser@ucla.edu

Regards,

Megan Schwarzman

--

Megan Schwarzman, MD, MPH
Research Scientist

Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry
Center for Occupational and Environmental Health

School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

Loading...

From Protest to Exercising Precaution - ElectroMagnetic Radiation Exposure

Note to my readership, to post a comment click on the title of this article and Typepad will offer you capability to comment from Typepad, Twitter and Facebook.  Comments are reviewed before they are posted.

Cordially,

Lavinia Weissman

______________________________

From Protest to Exercising Precaution - ElectroMagnetic Radiation Exposure

Hollywood and San Francisco are taking the headlines this month with Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco proposing radiation exposure labels be placed on cell phones; while Oprah has created a No Phone Zone on her website and television show dedicated to reporting on the dangers of cell phones that include dangers of use while driving in addition to reports on radiation levels.I know sometimes it takes a public figure to suffer with a problem like Ted Kennedy who died like Attorney Johnny Cochran of a glioma tumor often viewed as caused by EMF exposure. Larry King gave fame to Dr. Devra Davis on his talk show re: EMF and exercising precaution. These activities proved once again that if you want change in the US, use the mainstream media.

Someone tried to add to this list of fame for the "good of the cause," Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, founder of the Brundtland Commission and author leader for the Earth Charter and Precautionary Principle as a poster child, when it was announced, that Gro was EMF sensitive and did not permit anyone to come into her office with a cell phone.But a combination of my perseverance which some associate with me being patient and others define as my being stubborn led me to ask a question that no one wanted to answer:

"Why can't we create innovation and scientific response through manufacturing that will exercise precaution?"

EMF All Star Line Up

My first article on "Cell Phone Health Hazards: Threat and Opportunity," for Leading Ideas, Strategy+Business On line was published in 2006.  This was after my participation and investigation into the hazards of EMF and Non Ionizing Radiation.  My report introduced links, people, players in industry and non profits who were engaged in what is now described the post modern environmental movement where

1. Scientific researchers argued with each other on the validity of studies and published conflictual reports that often turned into arguments even the intelligent consumer could understand;

2. The philanthropists who funded the causes gave their support and funding to purist scientist who were investigating the growing impact of EMF exposure through cell phones, cell antenna placement on school building, firehouses and apartment buildings through out major cities; the idea was to fund a growing public media with quality scientific knowledge and intelligence that educated the public on the harm and potential harm of EMF exposure;

3. A growing group of citizens who formed a voice on listservs and exceptionally funded medical related non profits. Some of these scientists were hired to do studies or write reports and recommendations for communities and school systems on how to exercise precaution;  one person successfully started a personal consulting to home owners on how to reduce risks. 

Many of these people are intelligent people who had experienced harm personally or within their family.I ended up dedicating a specific email, subscriptions@workecology.com (which I no longer read). This email overflowed and was filled with conflicting reports, ideas on how people should and cannot communicate and pleas from people to assure that legislative policy was authored in the US, with the belief that

1. It would ultimately take new legislation and policy to protect people from harm and that quality scientific research could not be funded by corporations directly to insure accuracy of research and a style of reporting that could impact change;

2.  Eventually you could read between the lines or through contact learn about the personal stories of researchers who were obstructed at NIH or in academic settings and more; and a view that this cause had to counteract the lobbyists and attorney's hired by Corporate America. The view was American and did not recognize the global nature of the business and how EMF was a global issue and not an American cause.

3.  Then I developed a close friendship with two amazing people on line,Eileen O"Connor, Exec. Director of Radiation Research Trust and publisher of ReWire Me Emagazine and Dr. Olle Johansson, a dermatologist and researcher on EMF at  the Karolinska Institute.  With simple communications and following their work, I learned more rapidly and gained an understanding of possibility that can grow out of a community that does not operate based on the rules or opinion that

• Government is not doing its job;
• Corporations are greedy
• And if you are not a scientist established in a credentialed network funded by the top foundations, you can't make a difference. After all, "who the hell are you?"  (Side bar: I did get that question in an email to me once)

Let's leap forward now to 2010 and how this year is shaping re: EMF exposure and related cell phone use and check on the relevance of my question today and where my thinking was at when I wrote my first article for Strategy+Business.The question remains for me how do we incubate innovation that can reduce the risk of EMF exposure and educate people to this very complex area of science that would lead to many forms of "exercising precaution?"

While Oprah and Mayor Newsom are using an effective proven method of education and publicity as we did for dealing with the growing harm of tobacco in the 1980's - EMF exposure is everywhere and something individuals and even small communities cannot control.

Will labels on cell phones, talk shows and web articles from Dr. Oz make a difference. Of course they will. So does all the work of the modern environmentalists who protest, debate, research and write for hours and send out hundreds of press releases. I can honestly say I have witnessed a history of over 10+ years of press releases and articles in media back to the start of Louis Slesin's best reports at Microwave News. Time Magazine and Whole Earth catalogue have long recognized the thoughtful magazine quality of this website.What has changed? and what is needed for response:

A few years back, I interviewed a physician specializing in oncology at a hospital who had reported his concern on EMF. I called him after the interview, to find out how he talked to parents about radiation therapy when the only choices were radiation therapy or a death sentence for a child.I had seen someone quote him as saying how toxic EMF was and I knew he was an oncologist. This remarkable man conversed with me in email and talked about the role he served as a physician and the privilege it was to educate parents on what they need to know to make decisions.At this time, I can acknowledge the American Post Modern Environmental Movement that I am often so at odds with for their dedication on improving the accuracy of reports and information to the public. This much I can do.

Yet, with the recent reports from Copenhagen 15 and Davos, I continue to see so many say we need a new role for government and corporations are not dealing with climate change let alone what I report on that is medically related and so important to improving health around the world.I am still asking my same question how can corporations, government officials and representatives of the non profit voice work together and form incubation centers of innovation that have a much great impact in a shorter span of time than has passed since 1981 when Louis Slesin began Microwave News.I offer my hub or learning and links internationally to any investors who want to fund innovative solutions to the growing use of wireless technologies for communication and health care and all that is associated with this.

If the press has showed us anything at the present time in the world of environment and health, the old system described by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the The Breakthrough Institute, we need a new contract for to build change in response to environment and health destruction that is a social contract that assures financial security and the resources to achieve the innovations we need to respond to toxicities, e.g EMF from a much more rigorous discipline of strategy and action than most of our educational institutions are currently mentoring our next generation of workers.My hats are off to any politician and Hollywood icon that want to educate the public and we need more resources to support the education and activity of our new workforce with job creation to step up and respond. 

It seems that is my personal mission and the path I am on. Even when I quit this mission I am guided by others to step up to the plate and invite others to join my network hub and weave their activity into our non-monetary incubator to create an industry and scientific responsive innovation to reduce the harm of EMF exposure.

Europe is once again ahead of the United States. Their Parliament chose to exercise precaution and rather than to author  "laws of fear". The EU Parliament's recommended levels of toxicities that will push the manufacturers to innovate in the context of exercising precaution based on the recognition of conflicting science and significant amount of reporting.

In the US we need more progressive and precautionary exemplary action like this and less time spent on arguing how to change our government or operate from an environment of no trust accusing all companies guilty of greed before we give them the education on opportunity.

EMF for me is up close and personal. It took me 2 years to find out that pesticides and EMF were the ultimate cause of complicating my health and bringing me near to kidney and liver failure. I have since suffered numerous other setbacks due to EMF exposure from Cell and Cable Antenna located on the roof of the apartment building I lived in up to 2007 in Boston MA.  I have not found it easy to be public about this and formed a practice in life of quietly taking care of myself even when an real estate management event forced me to move.

Within the next few weeks, I am going to produce an entry on the opportunity of moving from a Culture of Law of Fear to a Culture of Legislative Possibility that I believe can create  a tipping point of sustainability.

Please join my readership if this is something you value in your life or invite me to help you on projects you care about.  Just write me at Linkedin.com and invite me to be a contact through coregroup ampersand workecology.com.