Everyone is talking about green skills — the need for more green skills development, and the value green skills can bring to the conversation.
The hype is not entirely a bad thing. It gets attention. The problem occurs when this attention is short lived — as is everything with our social media brains these days — the potential impact is diluted.
Instead of encouraging action, people are left confused as to what green skills actually are. In an effort to appear more relevant they might simply add the jargon to their job title or lists of expertise. After all, aren't green skills relevant to every aspect of operations in an organisation?
The broader definitions of Green Skills support this. Green skills are seen as anything that helps to reduce environmental harm or works towards more sustainable resource use. Defined like this even an office manager could claim to have green skills by initiating paper or glass recycling. The challenge with this approach is that it doesn't really help hiring managers find the green skills they really need.
We've been recycling for decades and it hasn't had the impact it was supposed to. Not because waste management can't get it right, but because it's treated as a band aid — a linear rather than circular system. Production doesn't slow down, neither does consumerism or extraction.
The problem is that markets don't fully support recycling. Recycled plastic can become more expensive than virgin plastic, as an example, and in the end economics dominate. More extraction, more production, more waste.
So, when the call goes out for green skills, it's because organisations are realising there's more to sustainability than ticking off an ESG report and putting out recycling bins for collection. What's needed are system changes and people with the skills who understand what that looks like. Hence the move towards circularity.
Even if you understand why green skills are needed, the solution isn't simple. In many cases, the focus of specific green skills can be very specific and new. This may not align with the skills that were traditionally needed. The end result is that reviewing skills based on what's listed in CV's may discount candidates who could potentially be a good fit.
For decades the CV has been used as the gatekeeper for determining a candidate's suitability for a role. It seemed logical — a short summary of skills and experience. A showcase of expertise, with an assumption that if it's well articulated, it's an indication of a top candidate.
AI has effectively removed this simple advantage. A simple prompt creates CV copy which most people will admit is far better than anything they could have put together. For people seeking jobs in a highly competitive working environment, this can be a breath of fresh air. With the ability to better articulate their work experience, you significantly improve your chances of landing the roles you want. Sadly, there's a down side to this.
Generative AI is generic in its approach, because that's how LLM's are trained. They also have a habit of latching onto buzzwords like green skills and using identical wording. It makes individuals sound great. It also makes everyone sound the same. Despite what the CV's say, hiring managers are discovering that not everyone has the green skills needed.
How do hiring managers differentiate skilled candidates now?