Tropophilia

Lesson 1: Share. In this case, 31 patents that electronics manufacturers Sony, IBM, Nokia, and Pitney Bowles have released free-commons style through the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Eco Patent Commons. The patents cover a wide variety of sustainable industry practices from packaging without stryofoam (using recycled cardboard instead) to recycling old cell phone parts and a bunch of other processes I can’t even begin to explain (but that I’m sure are great).

I’m intrigued by this collaboration, but it calls to mind another model for innovation in corporate environmental sustainability; the second model, I believe, holds more potential for large shared gains across sectors.  In the fantastic new book Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High Impact Nonprofits, the authors describe Environmental Defense’s work alongside corporate behemoths like McDonald’s and FedEx to eliminate styrofoam packaging on Big Macs and replace 30,000 trucks in FedEx’s shipping fleet with hybrids within the next ten years. The trick? Environmental Defense retains rights (in lieu of consulting fees) to the patents they create with their corporate partners.

From Forces for Good (p. 56-57):

“‘The innovation can’t belong to the company,’ says Gwen Ruta, director of corporate alliances [for Environmental Defense]. ‘Whatever comes out of this, we’re going to knock on the competitor’s door and ask them to do the same thing.’ She cites recent tests of hybrid truck fleets by United Parcel Service, the U.S. Postal Service, and Frito-Lay, who are all now following the FedEx model, just as other burger chains copied McDonald’s packaging.”

In the first model of innovation, profit-driven companies willingly sacrifice the first-mover advantage that comes from their sustainability patents. In the second model, a purpose-driven nonprofit retains the rights to patents, giving a corporation incentives (good publicity, temporary advantages over competitors, etc) to be the first adopter of new cost- and emissions-reducing innovations while still encouraging broad adoption of sustainable practices throughout entire industries.

The difference is a matter of who we trust to spread best practices in corporate social responsibility: corporations looking for any advantage over their competitors or nonprofits driven by concern for the environment.

I have trouble believing that, in the Eco-Patent Commons model, companies will voluntarily forfeit highly profitable sustainability innovations. The types of patents seen thus far are–as far as my non-technical analysis can surmise–more eco- than cost-conscious process improvements. Participating companies therefore have no real disadvantage by participating in the patent commons: they’re sharing good ideas, sure, but they’re not losing money by handing profitable secrets to their competitors. Comparatively, when Environmental Defense works with a company to save resources/energy or reduce pollutants/emissions AND cut costs, the company can’t withhold the innovation from their competition because they don’t own the idea.

What do you think? Am I too cynical of the patent commons model, or too optimistic about the corporate-nonprofit partnerships pioneered by Environmental Defense? I’d love to hear other thoughts on this, as I’ll be the first to admit I could be completely wrong with my observations here.

Full disclosure: the organization I work for is a partial funder of Environmental Defense; however, the views expressed above and throughout my postings on this site are mine alone and are in no way intended to represent the views of my employer.