Cutting down emissions by 40%
Last updated on 9 September 2011 – 07:46am
Proton sends 1st batch of electric cars for evaluation
By ZUHRIN AZAM AHMAD
PUTRAJAYA: Proton has presented the first batch of the much-awaited Electric Vehicle (EV) to the government for evaluation before mass-producing them for the public.
The batch comprises three Saga EVs and five Exora REEV or Range Extender Electric Vehicle.
The presentation is also the first phase of the Fleet Test Vehicle Programme, a joint effort between Proton, Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (KeTTHA) and Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI).
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak received the vehicles from Proton chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Nadzmi Mohd Salleh at the Perdana Putra building here on Wednesday.
It was also witnessed by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who initiated the national car.
The Exora REEVs would be used by the Prime Minister’s Office, KeTTHA, MITI, Ministry of Transport (MOT) and Ministry of Finance (MOF).
Three ministries – KeTTHA, MITI and MOT had also been given the Saga EVs for evaluation.
Proton has targeted 2013 to offer the vehicles to the public.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/9/14/nation/20110914174850&sec=nation
This is not really a new news. It's been like more than a month since this is out in the public .. and the company that I am investigating has a directive to the whole Group to comply to this policy in their email on 15 August 2011, less than 5 days after the government issued the direction.
Friday August 12, 2011All govt offices to keep air-cond temperature at 24??C from now
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?sec=nation&file=/2011/8/11/nation/20110811150156
(The video can be seen here: http://bcove.me/rc6xwgq7)PUTRAJAYA: All government offices have been ordered to set their air-conditioner temperature no lower than 24 degrees Celsius to give nature a helping hand and to cut electricity bills.
The new regulation is expected to be implemented immediately although the circular on the matter will only be issued by the office of the Chief Secretary to the Government later this month.
Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Seri Peter Chin said the order would be extended to the private sector by 2013.
He said a new Bill on energy conservation was being drafted to compel the private sector to follow suit.
???It will be tabled in Parliament soon and we are looking at 2013 as the implementation date for the private sector.
???For now, the secretaries-general of all the ministries who are also the officers-in-charge of the buildings under their ministries must ensure that the air-conditioner temperature is set at 24 degrees Celsius and above unless under special circumstances,??? he told a press conference after attending a Green Technology and Climate Change Council meeting chaired by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.
It was also attended by Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Douglas Uggah Embas.
Chin said certain places like the ICUs and operation theatres in hospitals were, however, exempted from the ruling.
He said the meeting agreed that 24 degrees Celsius was a comfortable temperature for Malaysian climate.
???It is neither too cold nor too hot. In some countries, like China, they are required to set their (air-conditioner) temperatures at 26 degrees Celsius which is too hot (for Malaysia).
???So gone are the days when the ladies have to bring their shawls to the office,??? he said, referring to the common scene in many government offices where women staff covered their upper bodies with shawls due to the cold temperature.
Chin explained that for every degree dropped in air-conditioning temperature, the power usage would increase by between 4% and 7%.
He was unable to provide exact estimates on how much the Government could save with the move.
However, he said the ministry's Malaysia Green Technology Corporation building in Bangi which had already imposed the condition saved an estimated RM600,000 to RM700,000 annually on its energy bills.
???Offices in Putrajaya spend between RM30,000 and RM80,000 a month on electricity and about 40% of it is for air-conditioning,??? he said.
He added that the meeting also agreed that all bulbs in government buildings that need to be changed must be replaced with energy-efficient CFL bulbs or LEDs.
On Malaysia's commitment to reduce carbon emission intensity by 40% in 2020, Chin said the country has passed the halfway mark.
???To date, we have reduced intensity by 29.7 million metric tonnes and to meet the 40% target, we need to reduce it by 40 million metric tonnes,??? he said.
+++
Related news: Friday August 12, 2011Policy over temperature limit gets warm reception
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/8/12/nation/9288938&sec=nation
PETALING JAYA: The latest policy to set a temperature limit on air-conditioners in government offices has received the thumbs up from various organisations.
Consumers Association of Penang president S.M. Mohamed Idris lauded the move but called for the policy to be implemented in the private sector immediately instead of in 2013.
???There is no need to wait. The policy should be extended to industries and the commercial sector while individuals should also practise energy-saving steps on their own accord,??? he said.
He added that the people should also learn to switch off electrical appliances such as televisions and lights when they were not needed to avoid depleting the country's energy resources.
Water & Energy Consumers Association Malaysia secretary-general Soon Weng Lian said the move was timely as there was a need to reduce energy consumption.
Soon said the construction of future buildings must also take into consideration the need for natural ventilation and shade if the energy-saving move was to be further extended.
Malaysian Employers Federation executive director Shamsuddin Bardan said the Government had to be mindful that there were certain operations, such as a company's server room, that required the room temperature to be lower than 24C.
He hoped the Government would study the policy carefully before implementing it to ensure companies were not penalised unnecessarily.
Fomca president Datuk N. Marimuthu said individual consumers could also play a role by switching off electrical appliances when not in use instead of putting the items on stand-by mode.
Real-World Tips for Instilling Green Values in Your Corporate Culture (Hierarchical vs social power)
What draws me most to this article is this statement "Change can take place in the absence of initiating jolts, may be infused in everyday organizational life, and led by insiders who need not hold hierarchical power".
This is one of the fields within an organisation that exist without formal hierarchical power position, instead this is more of social power relation.Real-World Tips for Instilling Green Values in Your Corporate Culture
Conventional wisdom holds that the best way to bring about sweeping culture change is to jettison old ways and jolt the existing culture into a new reality.
Anyone who has experienced corporate life in America in the past decade knows that method brings mixed results and often a lingering resentment that can foul efforts to repair the damage.
This can be particularly harmful for companies trying transform a traditional corporate culture into one that values sustainability — a construct in which employee engagement is essential.
"We suggest that such change can take place in the absence of initiating jolts, may be infused in everyday organizational life, and led by insiders who need not hold hierarchical power," management experts from Oregon and Boston universities say in research that's now available from the Network for Business Sustainability.
Use of creative, "liminal" space is the key, the researchers say. Liminal spaces can be anywhere or any occasion that allows employees to get together to talk about new ideas.
Coincidentally, the study complements a research project by Johnson Controls, whose latest look at workplace trends examines growing expectations for collaboration — and the lack of enough workspace today that is designed for teams.
The study by management profs and a doctoral candidate concluded that:
- Change can be fostered in everyday activities such as meetings or training programs. But to work, the interactions must occur in "safe places" for people to brainstorm and experiment with new ideas.
- Company officials, consultants or others viewed as authority figures need not run the show. In fact, it may go over better if a respected insider facilitates. "Insiders who understand the current culture are successful change agents because they can connect new ideas to current value," the researchers contend.
- It's not necessary for employees to unlearn existing cultural elements in order to adopt new ones.
The research from Johnson Controls was led by Marie Puybaraud and dovetails a project she headed last year that produced a widely read study on what Gen Y wants in the workplace.
The current study, released today, is based on a survey of 1,700 experienced workers and interviews with 26 experts in the industrial, technology, finance, oil & gas, and life sciences sectors.
Johnson Controls found that professionals, like the generation entering the business world, have growing expectations for collaboration in the workplace. Collaboration has become a watchword across industries and if companies hope to stay ahead of the curve and business trends, they need to provide space and technology for staff to convene face-to-face and virtually.
The findings underscore that "one-size-fits-all workplace environments are less effective than those that are built for purpose," Puybaraud said in a statement.
A summary of the research by the management professors is available for free download from the Network for Business Sustainability (pdf). Johnson Controls' full study and an executive summary (pdf) are available free from the company.
An inspiring interview with the top management of Baxter Internation on their eco-sustainability journey.
View from the C-Suite: Baxter International CEO Robert Parkinson
Baxter International Inc. is a $12.8 billion Fortune 500 healthcare products company headquartered near Chicago, Illinois. Baxter manufactures and markets products to treat hemophilia, kidney, and immune disorders as well as other chronic, acute medical conditions. The company employs approximately 48,000 in more than 100 countries.
In 2010, Baxter was named the leading medical products company by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the ninth time, and was recognized by Corporate Knights as one of the 100 Most Sustainable Companies.
GreenBiz.com's Heather King recently spoke with CEO Robert Parkinson and VP of Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability Art Gibson about the integral tie between the healthcare industry and the health of the planet, the unique challenges of medical product reuse, and the impact of Kaiser's recently announced supply chain scorecard.
Heather King: What are the business reasons Baxter is committed to sustainability?
Robert Parkinson: As a global healthcare company, Baxter takes seriously the health of the planet. It is within this context that we look at our business and challenge ourselves as to how Baxter can utilize its assets, expertise and influence to best contribute to a more sustainable world.
We have aligned our business and sustainability strategies. Baxter's executive-level Sustainability Steering Committee, established in 2006, leads the company's efforts to integrate sustainability into our long-term strategic planning as well as our daily activities.
Art Gibson: In fact, our commitment to sustainability spans more than three decades. Early on, the company realized that taking a responsible approach is not only the right thing to do, but also makes good business sense. It drives financial savings, helps attract high caliber, diverse talent, differentiates the company and enhances its reputation.
HK: How is Baxter integrating sustainability into its product development effort? Can you give an example of a sustainable product innovation?
RP: From product planning through the entire product life cycle, we are integrating sustainability into product development. We are also implementing green principles into our manufacturing and operations.
A
G: For example, Baxter includes Product Sustainability Review (PSR) during the early stages of the product development process. PSR is a two-step assessment of a product's projected environmental, health and safety impacts.
Since 2005, Baxter has used PSR to evaluate all new medical devices that reach the concept stage of development, and currently has several devices under review. This year we're expanding the use of PSR into our BioScience business. Baxter also completes life cycle assessments of certain products to further differentiate products based on environmentally efficient design.
We have achieved recognition for certain products. These demonstrate the value of our PSR approach. Our FLEXBUMIN [Albumin (Human)] product and our XENIUM+ synthetic dialyzer both received Carbon Reduction certification from the Carbon Trust. Certification is based on a verification of carbon reduction through carbon footprint analyses and Baxter's ongoing commitment to carbon footprint reductions.
HK: Historically, the medical products industry has provided single use products for both economic and hygienic reasons. Is the "green movement" impacting the industry's and Baxter's approach? Will we see more reusable products going forward?
AG: The responsible treatment of healthcare products at the end of their useful life is an emerging issue worldwide. The appropriate approach varies by type of product. For example, many of the electronic medical devices Baxter sells, such as automated systems used for home dialysis therapy, are well suited to repair and refurbishment after the original customer has finished using them. Other products, such as intravenous (IV) bags, cannot be reused but may be responsibly recycled to recapture materials for other uses.
We have several initiatives in Ireland, for example, in which Baxter partners with waste management and recycling firms. In 2010, Baxter provided waste-collection services to more than 700 home patients in Ireland. Some of the waste collected is used to fuel furnaces in an Irish cement factory, reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill.
We continue to look for opportunities to test the economic and logistical feasibility of more efficient waste management. This includes products made from recycled materials that can be reused in the medical supply chain, such as plastic pallets made from mixed IV bags or packaging for product transport.
HK: This past spring, Kaiser Permanente announced a supplier scorecard in an effort to pressure medical product suppliers to adhere to certain standards for sustainable products, packaging and operations. Some view the announcement as having similar impact as Walmart's scorecard has had in the consumer packaged goods industry. How will this affect Baxter and your industry peers?
AG: There clearly is impact. Customers, governments and other stakeholders are increasingly interested in the materials and chemical substances used in products and packaging. We believe that both suppliers and companies benefit from efforts to drive a sustainable supply chain. We have to anticipate and respond to a growing volume of regulatory standards, as well as the evolving expectations of customers such as Kaiser.
Since a single product may contain many components from numerous suppliers worldwide, we ourselves are implementing a product stewardship software application to manage environmental and other information related to new and existing products. These tracking and information systems will enable Baxter to better understand, manage and optimize product environmental performance and meet the needs of customers like Kaiser.
HK: Water conservation and the responsible management of wastewater is a primary focus area for Baxter. What are your most significant wins with regard to water?
??
AG: Baxter closely manages how it obtains, uses, treats, re-circulates and discharges water. We have a corporate goal to reduce water usage 35 percent indexed to revenue by 2015 from a 2005 baseline. We used 10 percent less water in 2010 than in 2005 in absolute terms and 31 percent less indexed to revenue.
The company's overall water usage continues to decline, driven by water conservation projects such as in our Singapore facility. In 2010, our "Green Committee" optimized cleaning processes in that facility, saving 14,000 cubic meters of water during the year. Baxter identifies these types of opportunities through formal energy assessments, water value stream mapping, water balances, and facility-driven initiatives.
As a global company, water issues vary significantly by location. Baxter
used the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Global Water Tool to evaluate the availability of renewable water resources at the company's 40 largest water-consuming locations, representing approximately 92 percent of the company's total water use. Ten of those sites are located in water-scarce areas, eight in water-stressed areas and 22 in water-sufficient areas.
We plan to conduct further analysis to understand the full water risk at each location. Additionally, we are expanding our water risk evaluation to also consider regulatory, geopolitical, economic and social factors that can impact water access and use. Based on this information, the company will develop a more comprehensive water risk management strategy, and set more rigorous water conservation goals.
HK: What does Baxter's sustainability future look like ten years out and how will you measure your success? What do you anticipate as the greatest challenges as you continue on this journey?
RP: Baxter operates in an increasingly challenging business environment. This has motivated us to intensify our efforts to become more innovative, productive and efficient. Sustained financial strength is critical to our ability to achieve both our business and sustainability goals, and to fund innovation, which is the real key to creating solutions for today's and tomorrow's challenges.
Baxter is in a unique position to make an impact due to the industry we are in, our strong global presence and reputation, the sustainability progress we have made and the experience we continue to gain. While we have made great strides in many areas of sustainability, we clearly need to improve in others.
??
What is ISO14001 .. the spirit of being certified with IS14001 .. among other things.
Is ISO 14001 Certification Still Relevant?
My first exposure to ISO 14001 was characterized by the words of a cynic and skeptic of the value of the global standard for environmental management.
"What does it mean to be certified?" he said, repeating my question rhetorically. "It means you can pollute to the ends of the earth, as long as it is well documented."
Needless to say, the statement was a sarcastic hyperbole, since any polluter is at least held to account on legal and regulatory thresholds that affect the jurisdiction they operate within. But his remark highlighted a widespread perception of ISO 14001: Although it is capable of giving businesses a clear sense of where they're at in terms of environmental performance, no intrinsic "moral compass" of environmental responsibility is built into the standard.
Launched 15 years ago as a guideline for measuring and monitoring organizational activities that impact the environment, the ISO 14001 standard is today a widespread benchmark for thousands of organizations around the world that want to communicate to the public and stakeholders that they are environmentally responsible.
While a paltry 14,000 certifications were registered in 1999, the year the standard was launched, more than a quarter-million organizations are certified today.
In fact, the popularity of ISO 14001 has been so prolific the standard has achieved nearly the same notoriety and respect as its parent, ISO 9001, the go-to standard for organizations that want to communicate their commitment to quality management.
The latter standard essentially shaped the former (both were developed by the International Organization of Standardization) and the form and structural core of the two standards is fundamentally the same: Where an ISO 9001-conformant organization will retain the documentation supporting procedures and processes that impact product quality, ISO 14001-conformant organizations will retain documentation on procedures and processes that involve any sort of impact on the environment.
Think air, water use, wastewater output, energy use: essentially any aspect of business that can generate impacts upon the environment around us.
The widespread adoption rates and respect ISO 9001 achieved in the late '90s in many ways spelled the inevitable success of ISO 14001 as a widely sought-after standard. And while many prized the standard for the simple fact it mirrored the structure and form of ISO 9001, others criticized it on that very basis.
And therein lies the rub.
For just as ISO 9001-conformant procedures and processes do not guarantee high-quality products and performance, by virtue of its very implementation an ISO 14001 environmental management system in no way guarantees an organization is committed to improving environmental performance, nor does it provably suggest an organization is proactive and responsible in any of its environmental endeavors.
That said, certification is not a bad step. Any business that has taken the steps — and they can be exhaustive — of deploying an ISO 14001-conformant environmental management system and achieved certification is worthy of applause. Like 9001, it can be difficult to attain and maintain, and requires ongoing adherence to nuanced requirements through detailed documentation as well as the actualization of processes and procedures described within the associated documentation.
But the perception ISO 14001 certification cultivates — the notion a certified organization is environmentally responsible — is at odds with the fact a certified business might not actually be doing much to improve environmental performance.
An ISO 14001-conformant organization does not an environmentally responsible organization make.
As the cynic mentioned earlier might have elaborated, an ISO 14001-registered power plant can emit excessive air pollutants and discharge vast quantities of toxic wastewater, as long as the emissions and discharges are well measured and described.
So there's a discrepancy between what ISO 14001 implies, and what it actually does.
Given the fact many organizations invest in ISO 14001 certification simply to improve brand image — that is, to boost the perception among stakeholders and the public at large it is committed to "green" business — questions surrounding what certification actually means ought to arise: Are we improving environmental performance? Are we minimizing our negative environmental impacts? Are we green?
And the short answer is no. Certification does not mean anything without a commitment to the principles of continuous improvement and environmental stewardship. And these are cultural elements that go far beyond what any specifications standard can describe.
However, ISO 14001 can be thought of as an excellent foundation for the "house" of an environmental program that leverages environmental metrics and KPIs to track, measure and analyze performance. In tandem, an ISO 14001 environmental management system with real-time environmental key performance indicators is a powerful combination.
Recall the term so central to quality guru W. Edwards Deming, a man who essentially fostered the whole premise behind quality management: Continuous Improvement. While it is bandied about all too often these days, the term describes something that is essential to all business operations: the simple fact that performance on all fronts ought to be improved, continuously.
Just as ISO 14001 was modeled after ISO 9001 — a certification to which "continuous improvement" is such a central theme — consider that it carries the same onus: Those who achieve ISO 14001 certification, those who monitor and measure the environmental impacts of their activities, are bound to the spirit of continuous improvement.
"Spirit" is the operative word there, for while many organizations will secure ISO 14001 certification, many will present their certificate as a totem of their respect for the environment. Some, however, will actually honour the spirit of the standard and commit to continuously improving environmental performance: to minimizing negative impacts on the water we drink and the air we breathe.
How Are Companies Putting Sustainability Standards to Work?
As Joel Makower highlighted back in February of this year, sustainability standards, particularly those that represent the broad spectrum of indicators within sustainability, are needed and becoming increasingly common.
But the unanswered question is this: Does a company's investment in implementing a sustainability standard have tangible business benefits? The question remains no matter whether a company is exploring a product certification, operational system, investor ranking or set of supplier requirements.
To try to dig up an answer to this increasingly pressing question, I set out to speak to a few industry leaders about the sustainability standards they had implemented. In defining the term "standard" in this realm, I included product certifications, sustainability rankings, operation standards and supplier standards.
What I found was that, regardless of whether the company's experience in standardization was focused on the supply chain, on consumer-facing green labels or on broad industry rankings, some key themes emerged:
- The usual reason for creating or utilizing a standard was to clarify a fuzzy concept and create differentiation;
- The flip side of this is that standardization begets commoditization, and in some cases it isn't clear if these standards are a good use of scarce resources and attention;
- We should beware of trendy "declarations" or rankings that may not truly demonstrate environmental or social benefit.
Why Utilize Standards?
When a company creates or utilizes an industry standard, it requires time and financial investment. A champion inside the company has to make the business case to the organization's leadership that the standard will be accretive to the brand or produce some beneficial business result.
The champion then has to learn or teach the standard to affected stakeholders within, and outside, of the organization. The standard then has to be implemented, and product or operational changes made.
Invariably, there is then marketing cost to explain the standard or communicate benefits to consumers or other stakeholders. A company should also be transparent about the status of a standard's implementation within the company — and its value chain.
This seems like a lot of work. So why bother?
As anyone working in sustainability or corporate social responsibility can attest, explaining what it means to offer a "sustainable", "green", "responsible" or otherwise environmentally or socially beneficial product or service is an uphill battle. These words have many interpretations. When trying to communicate intentions, requirements and accomplishments — specific, measurable clarity is essential.
Next page: How Clorox, Bonterra Vineyards and AMD Put Standards to Work
For instance, when Clorox launched its Green Works line in 2008, it recognized that there were 5,000 new products each year that call themselves natural. Consumers needed a way to sort through the claims and understand what they were really buying.
Clorox first partnered with the Sierra Club to review its formulas and then earned third party certifications, in 2009 from the EPA through its Design for the Environment (DfE) program, and in 2010 obtained the Natural Products Association's Natural Home Care standard.
"We sought out third-party certification for our Green Works product line, because we felt this helped build trust from the consumer," said David Kargas, Sr. Group Manager, Public Relations at The Clorox Company. "Third party certifications like the ones from the EPA and the Natural Products Association help give consumers peace of mind that products that say they are natural truly are."
Ann Thrupp, Manager of Sustainability and Organic Development at Fetzer/Bonterra Vineyards, feels that USDA Organic is still a differentiator in the wine industry — and in Northern California is relatively inexpensive to achieve.
Organic methods also contribute to product quality, and the certification (which Fetzer has held for 20 years for the Bonterra brand) is so intertwined with the brand that it would be difficult to tease out the benefit of the certification from the demand for the Bonterra brand itself. The Fetzer winery also is certified by the California Certified Sustainable Winegrowing program (CCSW).
Although the benefits of that particular certification program are less clear in the market currently, Thrupp commented, some buyers are paying attention to sustainability standards as well, so it makes sense for their company to have third-party verification of their track record of using comprehensive sustainable approaches.
Another example of the benefit of standards for clarification is in the supply chain. "Standardization begets commoditization," says Tim Mohin, Director of Corporate Responsibility for AMD. "And while I don't know if the industry is ready for broad sustainability standardization, it is very helpful for areas that are complex, such as in the supply chain, where conformance is necessary."
Does adherence to standards allow companies to reap the benefits of sustainability?
Mohin points out, though, that the commoditization that accompanies broad sustainability standards is not necessarily conducive to business advantage. "The alignment of CSR with specific strategies, operations and products of a given company almost defies commoditization. Creating differentiation can create specific business benefits."
Next page: The Walmart (and Kaiser Permanente) Example
It seems that being the first to the table, even simply within an industry, can be that differentiator and potentially drive costs out of system. For example, purchasing decisions made by Kaiser Permanente's Environmentally Preferable Purchasing program in 2010 alone will result in $26 million in annual purchasing and operational savings, including 5 million Kwh of energy conserved, 300 tons of plastic waste eliminated, and substantial reductions in consumption of hazardous metals and toxic chemicals.
Says Rachael Baker, Environmental Supply Chain Manager at Kaiser Permanente, "Our program clearly signals the market with our purchasing requirements and contributes to cost-neutral or cost-saving decisions. We then work hard to document our savings and share these success stories with others because we can influence suppliers to create healthier products ever more rapidly if additional buyers incorporate similar requirements."
This takeup by others in the industry is evidenced through Kaiser Permanente's Sustainability Scorecard. Since late 2009, this scorecard has required detailed environmental data disclosure by all of Kaiser Permanente's suppliers of medical equipment and products (representing $1 billion in annual spending)
and is now being adopted by Kaiser Permanente's key supply chain partner and others in the health care industry to influence $10 billion in annual purchasing.
Other company-led leading standards such as Walmart's scorecard and other supply chain initiatives (said to have derived $140 million in supply chain savings for WalMart in 2009 alone) have also demonstrated that there are real dollars to be gained in creating and implementing standards, particularly in the supply chain.
On the product side, I asked Clorox whether they felt the use of the DfE label or other certification bought them market share. The sense was that the real market driver for GreenWorks was the decision to focus on being a cost-competitive product for the mainstream — one that worked just as well as less environmentally friendly products. The certification itself may not have been the market driver, but it was necessary in order to maintain credibility and therefore have the right to derive revenue in the mainstream market as a differentiated product.
Are Standards Meaningful?
Where there is a great need for standardization in sustainability, or at least transparency, Mohin argues, is in sustainability ratings such as DJSI, FTSE4Good, Corporate Social Responsibility Index, Newsweek, Corporate Responsibility magazine and many, many others. Recent efforts such as those by SustainAbility to "rate the raters" help clarify what these ratings really tell us. There is a wide variety of criteria and entrance requirements (including, in some cases, a "pay-to-play" model) in the ratings world that brings to question the validity of many of the rating schemes.
Tim Mohin of AMD and I also had an interesting conversation about the state of sustainability standards, particularly as they relate to consumer-facing products, and how helpful they really are in reducing risk to society and the environment.
There is a movement to say that products are "free of" some chemical or other perceived hazard. Mohin calls this the "X-free movement." "But any toxicologist will tell you that hazard x exposure = risk. We are spending millions on the hazard part, and are doing much less to understand exposures or explain to consumers what the real risks are."
I recently gave a presentation with my colleague Julie Panko of ChemRisk on chemical footprinting of products [PDF]. This very concept was explored as an extension of our understanding about the true lifecycle impact of products. We cannot simply extrapolate a products' impact on society, the environment, or any individual, family or community by doing an LCA or claiming that the product is free of a certain chemical.
So in this sense, standards are not always helpful in determining true sustainability impact — particularly when it comes to products. So what is an appropriate response for a company, given this reality?
"We have to be proactive in the face of uncertain science", says Mohin. "For instance, radio frequency of electronics is a hot issue right now. There is a lack of science and information, and the science that exists is conflicting. What if this changes? If there is a risk, we want to be the first to know."
Ann Thrupp at Fetzer/Bonterra raises another important point. "One of the biggest dilemmas in food is that there are a huge number of sustainability certifications — and no one can agree on what they should be. Consumers get sick and tired of the confusion. For instance, a group effort like the Sustainability Consortium is good in that there is collaboration, but the group can't reach any kind of consensus. So efforts like this may ultimately be a waste of time. It is so hard to define sustainability — it is contextual and involves continual improvement. Standards don't allow for that."
The Bottom Line
So it seems that where a standard exists or can be created, it can lend credibility and simplification to complex problems such as supply chain compliance, and sometimes even drive cost savings. There is potential to differentiate your product through a standard especially if you are leading your industry in doing so.
But simply adhering to a standard or certifying won't always create value, and the standard it isn't an end in itself. The end is in improving environmental outcomes and safety for humans and other living beings. And in that quest, it pays to be proactive; and to spend precious sustainability development resources on those areas that will have most impact.
Why CSR Reports Are a Useful Tool for Greening Your Business
Let's be honest. Creating an environmentally sustainable business is a challenge. There are several factors that go into the green equation, from water and energy use to ecological impact, but the idea is to start somewhere and, often times, the best way to start is by tracking the sustainability footprint of your own company.
Twelve years ago, Ford Motor Company began releasing its annual sustainability report, designed to both highlight the company's progress in sustainable practices and also show us where our efforts could be improved. Over the years, we've seen significant progress in reducing vehicle emissions, increasing the volume of sustainable and recycled materials used in manufacturing, and putting fuel-efficient vehicles on the road, among other things.
But a sustainability report is all about incremental improvement, and business leaders who aren't reporting may be losing a big opportunity to showcase sustainability efforts.
A sustainability report reminds stakeholders of the progress companies are making, and also gives businesses a roadmap for their future in sustainable business. Another reason for companies to really engage in a detailed yearly sustainability report is that it keeps us all honest, transparent and striving for improvement, especially as all can see our yearly progress.
This week, we release our 2010/2011 report, titled "Blueprint for Sustainability: Driving Change," offering the public a comprehensive look at our progress on environmental and social issues.
The report provides updates on Ford's progress in key areas of operations, product enhancements on vehicle safety and societal concerns including water usage and supply chain management. It is also important to take a look at areas deemed to be critical issues moving forward. Each company really has the power to focus on the areas that matter most to their company and industry. From one sustainability practitioner to another, it's not easy to measure these efforts and analyze their success, but it is vital to knowing where your business stands in the green spectrum, and where you need to go next.
As you continue to invest in sustainable business practices, pull together your own sustainability report. The findings will help you gauge where you are in the greening processes and determine where you want to be in the future. Remember, greening a company is undoubtedly a challenge, but it's a welcome one with a positive impact both inside and beyond your company's front door.
Ford is on its 12th annual sustainability report, so our content and details are pretty in-depth, and it has been great to see improvement over the past years. Businesses just starting out with reporting though should not worry about historical context right off the bat — the fact that your business is starting the process is something that will interest and impress both internal and external stakeholders. Start small with targeted analysis and specific reporting, and you can expand from there.
Once business leaders are ready to expand their reporting, some great guidelines for building a credible sustainability or CSR report can be found here. I urge businesses to participate in and be proud of their sustainability reporting, I know we are.
Read more here for what CEOs think about sustainability. –> http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-un-global-compact-reports.aspx
An Inside Look at How CEOs View Sustainability
Many business leaders have approached us giving markedly different assessments of the opportunities they see and the challenges they face since last year's CEO study on sustainability by the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and Accenture.
It is clear that there is no unified view of sustainability, let alone a single snapshot of progress. There are real differences in attitudes, approaches and obstacles from sector to sector. What is clear, however, is that CEOs believe environmental, social and governance issues are becoming increasingly material to business performance and future success, and a growing number of companies are looking at the growth and innovation opportunity it might promise.
Today, Georg Kell, UNGC executive director, joins me and Sander van 't Noordende, Accenture's group chief executive of management consulting, as we unveil seven industry deep-dive studies based on the most comprehensive CEO survey on sustainability in business to date, spanning 766 CEOs across the globe.
We are launching these studies on Sustainability 24, a global online experience which brings together hundreds of leaders from the private and public sectors for a series of debates and discussions on business and sustainable development.
There's no surprise that, at this relatively early stage for more commercially driven sustainability at scale, most industries see the main opportunity in enhanced trust, brand and reputation. Fully 85 percent of banking CEOs, and 75 percent of those in consumer goods, report that enhanced brand, trust and reputation will be an important opportunity presented by sustainability over the next five years.
Significantly, we are also beginning to see sustainability issues reshaping demand across industries, leading CEOs to perceive their response to these challenges as a core part of their growth and innovation agenda. Seventy-nine percent of consumer goods CEOs, for example, see the consumer as a primary stakeholder in driving their action on sustainability: Consumer electronics companies Philips and Siemens now view a significant proportion of their revenues driven by products and services which help consumers address their own environmental impact.
Similarly, 67 percent of automotive CEOs, and 61 percent of those in banking, report an important role for the consumer in shaping their response to sustainability challenges: For the automotive sector, consumer demand for new mobility solutions will provide new waves of growth, and banks' response to sustainability challenges will play an integral role in rebuilding public trust in business.
Our industry analysis suggests that some sectors may be ahead of the pack when it comes to integrating sustainability into core business. Eighty percent of utilities CEOs, for example, report their company has embedded metrics to track sustainability performance, ahead of the cross-industry average of 64 percent. Similarly, 83 percent of CEOs in the energy sector and 81 percent of those in infrastructure say their company measures both positive and negative impacts of their activities on sustainability outcomes, a finding which suggests sustainability performance management capabilities are beginning to take root in leading industries.
Perhaps most interesting is the clear performance gap that has opened up between ambition and execution in the integration of sustainability. For example, while many CEOs recognize that a true commercially driven approach to sustainability can only be achieved by instilling the right knowledge, skills, attitudes and behavior at every level of the organization, companies are not meeting their ambition with practical action. Ninety-five percent of automotive executives believe that companies should invest in enhanced training of managers to integrate sustainability into strategy and operations, but just 52 percent report that their company already does so.
What can we conclude from this rich seam of data? A growing number of CEOs indicate that sustainability is becoming part of their innovation and growth agenda.
And while most CEOs are placing sustainability at the core of their strategies, many are struggling with execution. As we demonstrate today with the participants in Sustainability 24, cross-industry conversations are more common in sustainability than in most other business areas, and we believe that executives in every sector can learn from others as they turn ambition into action on the journey to a new era of sustainability.
Why the CIO Should Be Your Sustainability Champion
A recovering economy, rising energy costs and increased energy consumption are driving the need for a more environmentally conscious organization. But who is the best qualified person to lead the charge for a greener, more sustainable business?
While some of the world's largest companies have established the position of Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO), many companies have yet to identify a point person for their sustainability efforts. When these companies look to fill the CSO role, they might want to consider looking in an unlikely place: the office of the CIO.
Across many industries, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) may be a natural choice to lead corporate-wide sustainability initiatives. And for those companies that already have CSOs, CIOs are well positioned to partner with CSOs to ensure their success.
As green IT has expanded from buying more energy-efficient servers and data centers, to finding ways to optimize lighting, monitor green house emissions and even implement new technologies to improve business processes, the CIO's role has expanded to encompass innovative strategies that deliver cost savings and energy efficiencies across the company.
The CIO is ideally positioned to work on corporate sustainability initiatives. The CIO already works with every department within a corporation and understands how to optimize the business processes that make the organization work. IT is tasked with eliminating waste and inefficiency within these everyday processes and, in turn, can work to eliminate waste and inefficiency in energy and resource use.
IT is often equipped to do address enterprise-wide change initiatives, such as launching a sustainability program, having built that experience leading transformational initiatives such as ERP and CRM implementations.
Technology such as online portals, video conferencing and remote, mobile access make telecommuting feasible and reduce the need for business travel, thus minimizing the company's carbon footprint. Efficient use of technology can also dramatically reduce the use of paper, which is both costly and a drain on staff time.
Additionally, application portfolio rationalization reduces the need for servers and associated hardware, further minimizing the organization's carbon emissions. This broader view of green IT goes far beyond data center operations. By leveraging IT capabilities to streamline business processes and reduce waste, it can deliver maximum environmental and cost-reduction benefits.
How the CIO can make your CSR reports more valuable
But sustainability encompasses much more than just the environmental impact of a business. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), considered to be the gold standard in sustainability reporting, defines sustainability as a triumvirate that not only encompasses the company's environmental impacts, but also its economic and social impacts.
In addition to environmental performance indicators, the GRI framework addresses how a company treats its employees, addresses customer needs, impacts local communities, and acts in an ethical manner on dimensions such as its competitive practices, anti-corruption, human rights, child labor, and diversity. This triple play of sustainability balances the needs of the people, planet and the company's profits to create long-term shareholder value.
The idea of operating in a sustainable way, and being able to report on it, is becoming increasingly engrained in the way companies conduct business. In 2010, the number of companies with corporate social responsibility (CSR) information on their websites jumped to 81 percent from 75 percent the previous year. In 2010, nearly 1,800 organizations used the GRI's framework in a published sustainability report.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of organizations are publishing company rankings based on their sustainability measurements, including the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the CRD Analytics Global 1000 Sustainable Performance Leaders and FTSE4 Group's FTSE4Good Index Series.
As a result, sustainability reporting has become a key differentiator for businesses.
This trend towards increased disclosure and reporting leads to one of the most important roles for the CIO and IT in a company's sustainability journey: implementing new frameworks, strategies, technologies and tracking and reporting tools to help measure and manage a sustainability program.
IT has a vital role in gathering information, creating capabilities and tracking progress against these goals. Through developing the integrative technology that can monitor and collect data and analyze the company's sustainability performance, IT has the ability to chart performance and make recommendations in order to maximize efficiency.
No matter the motivation behind companies beginning to look at the sustainability efforts of their organization, the growing trend of setting sustainability goals and tracking against them has undoubtedly led to more sustainability conscious organizations worldwide.
Using the tools and expertise of this naturally tech-savvy department, companies can appeal to the needs of all its stake-holders, enhancing their social impact while minimizing their environmental footprint, and driving down cost and inefficiency.
The CIO can often help organizations broaden their sustainability efforts to cover the environmental, economic and social impacts, leveraging cross-functional relationships across the company to ensure the success of these initiatives. So the next time your organization thinks about who's going to lead the sustainability charge, consider looking to the office of the CIO.
For more information, please see the Cognizant paper "Beyond Green" The Triple Play of Sustainability." [PDF]
Green Information Systems & Environmental Sustainability 