There is a great article in the Economist at the moment about how people underestimate their energy consumption. They point out that people give too much emphasis to light bulbs and tweaking thermostats but forget large energy consuming devices such as heaters and dryers.
What is their suggestion to combat that? More of ‘Just the facts’: increased information and making energy consumption clearer.
How frustrating (and pointless) it is to read case studies which only have partial information, even though that’s mainly what case studies and articles should be about. ‘The innovative product with low toxicity’ (what about carbon?), ‘the building with zero carbon’ (what about embodied carbon and how do they define zero carbon?), ‘the 100% recycled material’ (downcycled, post consumer or post industrial?).
Yes, unfortunately that’s what many marketers, communicators and journalists love these days. The news, the gimmick, a story. But quick wins in one area often have the wrong impact in other areas.
I am not in favour of rules but I think it should be standard in case studies, advertisements and articles to add a link to the full story: the whole life cycle impact of a product. In a way this has happened with car ads, where they have to disclose the CO2/km. One easy way of promoting full product transparency is to include a link to the environmental product declaration (EPD).
I am not suggesting that every ad, article or case study should have a link to the EPD of the product, however those ones that are talking about how green the products are should have to justify their claims. This approach may get rid of some of the Greenwash we have thrown at us these days too!
I find it so frustrating when I am staying in a hotel and the only sign of sustainability is their note on reducing the amount of washing by reusing the towels. Unfortunately, this kind of singular and obvious thinking with regards sustainability is not unique to the hotel industry. Many companies are only doing that ‘one very obvious thing’.
The response on Treehugger by Pablo Paster to the question “What makes a hotel green?” last week had me thinking about this topic more. This is what I would like to see one day in a hotel:
1. a welcome note which explains what their carbon footprint is per m2 and per occupant and their target to significantly reduce it. This would include the things they have done so far to decrease the footprint with explanations for each initiative and the impact in overall carbon metrics. For example:
The proposed Song Jiang Hotel, China
I think it would be very effective to have hotels name all of their initiatives on paper otherwise they would tend to do only the most visible things even if the impact is small. By writing it on paper it would also reassure cynical clients like me! A real ‘Just the Facts’ approach that would eventually generate competition within the industry.
2. they should also do some visible but meaningful things as well such as:
What are your thoughts on this?
Earlier this week, the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra to you and me) joined the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Home Office in publishing real-time energy consumption data online. If you go to this page on their web site you can see a graph spiking up and down showing energy units used per hour and use over the past 24 hours at its main London headquarters building. It is also clever enough to disclose the energy cost per hour and carbon emissions.
Whether this is simply a gimmick or real progress towards full transparency – I think it is certainly a good start. The government has committed to cutting carbon emissions across all central departments by 10% by next May, so it will be interesting to what Defra does next (and which departments follow suit). It has already promised that as more data is collected, it will publish results for different time periods (use per week, month and year).
So, Defra is definitely making a move in the right direction, but it needs to look at more than just energy consumption. Real carbon transparency will depend on reporting total carbon emissions during the whole life cycle of a building – including the energy used to produce building materials and furniture (and carpet!). Also, it’s not just carbon emissions that have a negative impact on the environment. Hopefully, one day in the not too distant future, government departments will also report on waste production and water usage in a similar way.
In my opinion, the best way for the Government (or any organisation for that matter) to get reliable and validated information on its full environmental impact, including carbon emissions is to use Environmental Product Declarations and continue to provide just the facts.
Did you catch the latest research on sustainability and business from 02 and The Future Laboratory? It’s called “Harnessing Change: Preparing for Business in the Next Decade” – you can take a look here.
The Independent wrote about it over the weekend so I was keen to take a look for myself. It certainly makes a number of interesting points but, I’m sorry to say, also contains the dreaded ‘fluff’.
According to the findings, almost half of UK businesses plan to invest up to 50 per cent more to make their organisations more sustainable over the next decade. Fantastic, yes? Well, it definitely sounds impressive. But what exactly are they aiming to achieve with this extra investment? How much more is ‘more sustainable’? Are we talking a little bit more – or a whole lot more? It is all too easy for an organisation to make a commitment to be more sustainable, but without quantifying the improvement to be made it is, in my view, an empty promise. Kind of ironic given that the report author says this is precisely what will come under fire from legislators and consumers in the future! I want to see facts and figures – a commitment to reducing carbon emissions by X per cent. Something tangible.
I think the report falls down by not asking respondents more specifically about their sustainability targets over the next ten years. However, what it does do (and rather well) is set out what it calls a ‘sustainable path to profit’. This makes a lot of sense to me and resonates with what we as a business are already doing and seeing results from.
1). Investment in innovation
I couldn’t agree more. At InterfaceFLOR sustainable innovation has led to our two best-selling products. These account for 11 per cent and 14 per cent of our European sales respectively.
2). Driving internal advocacy to think long-term
Absolutely! The progress we have made to date just wouldn’t have been possible without the right training programmes and the right culture of sustainability. We have created a culture of contagious optimism, where everyone across all functions of the business contributes to sustainability and achieving our long-term Mission Zero goal.
3). Investment in new technology
Yes! New technology is the key to disrupting and entering new markets, creating new business opportunities. In the case of InterfaceFLOR, technology innovations such as our Cool Green machine – which enables us to recycle waste from the manufacturing process back in to our products – have helped us improve the sustainability of our products.
4). Forging stronger ties with local communities
I concur that collaboration with third parties will generate new solutions to sustainability. But not just with the general public as identified in the report – also with customers, suppliers, entrepreneurs, innovators, universities, etc. Let’s face it, not all the smartest guys on the planet work for you so it’s important to spread your net.
5). Lobbying for more rules and guidance from government
In my view, any business genuinely committed to sustainability will be lobbying in the future (hopefully more than the 30 per cent of survey respondents who say they intend to do so!). Take a look at InterfaceFLOR’s own lobbying efforts here http://tiny.cc/zocx7
With increasing transparency, hiding behind NGOs (which 20 per cent of businesses say they will set up) just won’t be an option.
So, those are my thoughts. What do you think? Have you started down the sustainable path to profit – and what has your experience been?
What a remarkable thing is wikileaks! I’m still trying to understand the power of transparency and whistleblowing. What Wikileaks does is taking transparency to the maximum, that’s why is so powerful. Well, it’s involuntary transparency, which makes it even more interesting.
Instead of the typical boring CSR report, 3-times distilled like these new vodkas, by the usual Corporate Affairs directors and the lawyers, can you imagine how great would be to read the drafts with the tracked changes? That would give you much more information on the performance and policy of a company that the final polished report. And what about reading the drafts of the assurance statements? That would be at least more fun than reading the normal ones…
Maybe one day we’re lucky and wikileaks get this stuff from a big company…
I get so cold in supermarkets, especially in summer when there is big difference between outside temperature and the inside. All due to the fact that there are no doors in chiller cabinets. Why? Because supermarkets think customers might be slowed down. Well, certainly, some customers like me, have the opposite effect, rushing to avoid getting cold!
Refrigeration is a big thing. The vast majority of supermarkets in the UK still uses HFCs, which has 3,800 times more global warming potential than CO2. There has been a lot of campaigning in the UK on this issue . My personal campaign is on putting doors on chiller cabinets in order to save around 20% of energy and stop getting colds in supermarkets.
I’ve been ill all the weekend so I devoured all the news programmes, from Skynews to AlJazeera. Thankfully it was a good weekend for Spanish sports (Contador, Alonso) and for environmental news. The whole BP issue is getting more and more interesting with new angles everyday. Now the new angle is the allegations that BP tried to ‘buy’ scientists. In the contract it was a clause where of confidentiality for 3 years. See contract at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_07_bp_contract.pdf
I’ve always wondered what level of bias second-party services can give. Let me explain, first-party is own claims, second-party is paying an organisation to verify a claim and third-party is a process where the verifier is the same for both parties). For example, first party in this case would BP making a claim, second party BP paying the scientist to do research and third party both BP and the US government paying a third party to do the research.
I don’t believe in second-party assurance schemes. What credibility can have the assurance of an organisation that is paid from a company? From assurance in CSR reports to private organisations giving labels (after paying a fee), I don’t think is credible. Even less credible are those organisations that do both the consultancy and certification. Third-party assurance is the key. For example, for labels that means having the same rules for everybody that want to apply. Having a certifier who is accredited by a accreditation entity. That is what IBU does for EPDs.
http://bau-umwelt.de/hp481/Environmental-Product-Declarations-EPD.htm
They have calculated the carbon footprint of each of their meals and have managed to reduce the footprint compared to similar meals, mainly by eliminating the meat which is where most of the impact is. Their marketing focuses on the difference in CO2 and they call it ‘Carbon Credit’, which the customer accumulates in a sort of loyalty card.
A great approach which is based on JUST THE FACTS!
I went to one of the most famous restaurants in London. They claim to be ‘the first totally eco friendly’ restaurant in London. With that claim, ‘bad start’ I thought. Let’s see whether they can substantiate this claim.
All their branding is about natural and organic products. No mention to carbon footprint. No consideration given to the fact that meat has several times more footprint than vegetables. Then I ordered a coke and of course they don’t have it, big American multinationals don’t fit into the organic and green movement. Well … if you look at the facts, you might be surprise to know that the water efficiency of coke is better that other drinks. I still haven’t found any research that proves that edelweiss flower or another of these fringe drinks that are served by fringe eco restaurants have less impact that coke. And wine has even more impact, but if you call it organic it’s ok. So in their winelist they had organic wine of course … all the way from New Zealand!!!!
If you want to be green, please cut the fluff and show me the facts. Do a proper analysis on your products and impacts. And then take actions that show progress rather than pretending everything is fine.
What is coming in green building technology? This is the part that I like: insulation that adjusts to outside temperatures, a building that changes to shade itself and tracking stems of occupancy or indoor air quality.
See this article on the subject at Forbes.com
What I don’t like: most of the green case studies are still focused on a good story, a new technique or a gimmick. When talking of a green building we should be talking of hard parameters like kg CO2 per occupant per year, kg CO2 per sqm, etc. JUST THE FACTS…
Are you confused with the vast amount of eco-labels out there? I’ve just come across this website where they have tracked more than 300 ecolabels. You can search alphabetically as well as filter by region or sector. Fantastic stuff! Worth a visit.
“InterfaceFLOR demonstrate a holistic and sophisticated approach to climate change which is rooted in a 16-year history of addressing sustainability issues. Groundbreaking product innovation is evident across the business and embedded throughout all operations, with employees at multiple levels fully engaged in ‘Mission Zero’”
Abyd Karmali, Managing Director & Global Head of Carbon Markets Bank of America, Merrill Lynch
View InterfaceFLOR’s track record in awards
These are some of the categories to measure environmental impact in an LCA (Life Cycle Assesment) and the units of measurement used.
More information about LCA and product environmental performance
The EU adopted a recast of The Directive on energy performance of buildings (2002/91/EC) on 18 May 2010. This was done in order to strengthen the energy performance requirements and better organise its provisions.
Buildings account for around 40% of energy consumption and 36% of CO2 emissions. As much as 80% of the operational costs could be saved through integrated design solutions.
View the current state of low energy buildings across Europe.
Within days, the European Parliament could ban illegal timber from entering the EU market — but powerful companies stand in the way.
Forests are the habitat and life source of many peoples and are essential in preventing climate change, but while there is high demand for timber, illegal logging thrives, killing species, and fuelling corruption and organized crime.
The European Council has just voted for harsh penalties and criminal sanctions for importers of timber harvested illegally in other countries. But now the Parliament has its say, and some MEPs from member states with large timber industries, are threatening to water down the crucial controls.
The petition will be delivered to MEPS as they go into vote on the legislation on July 7th. We only have a few days!
So how does an EPD look and what does it contain? It fully discloses all of the ingredients and raw materials. There is no way to hide chemicals or components. It also discloses where the raw materials come from, and of course the full environmental impacts across various categories including all life cycle stages. See an EPD
We have just launched our Let’s be clear campaign. It’s a call for transparency on environmental claims. It includes our commitment to full product transparency and having an EPD for all our products in Europe before 2012. Check out the website for more info.
Let's be Clear
Carbon footprint and other studies with limited impact coverage
A prominent example of impact-coverage related limitations is the case of Carbon footprint calculations where exclusively climate change related greenhouse gas emissions are considered. Such an initial limitation can be fully justified, if the overall environmental impacts of the analysed product (and its competing products) are by far dominated by climate change impacts or if all other individually relevant impacts such as Eutrophication and Acidification are very closely and positively correlated with Climate change. Otherwise such limitations in the initial settings can result in inadequacy for comparisons (e.g. if two compared products clearly differ in their environmental impacts in other impact categories).
(extracted from The ILCD Handbook)
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.interfaceflorcutthefluff.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.interfaceflorcutthefluff.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.interfaceflorcutthefluff.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.interfaceflorcutthefluff.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.interfaceflorcutthefluff.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Twitter]](http://www.interfaceflorcutthefluff.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://www.interfaceflorcutthefluff.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)