Author: abrahamwien18

Green Is the New Black: Levi’s, Nike Among Marketers Pushing Sustainability

Posted on January 29, 2015 by abrahamwien18

View the original article here

Responding to a consumer behavior shift By Joan Voight

Levi’s boasts of designer jeans made out of used plastic bottles. Nike tempts runners with knitted sneakers that it claims cut manufacturing waste by 88 percent. These products may be the tip of a marketing iceberg, as new research shows a growing pool of global consumers are demanding that mainstream brands be sustainable.

“It’s not about offering a niche green product,” said Jonathan Kirby, vp of global men’s design for Levi Strauss. “We’re working to build sustainability into everything—from the cotton fields to our supply chain, to our stores, to our designs across product lines.”

Case in point: Each pair of Levi’s Waste<Less collection of jeans, launched in Spring 2012, is made from about eight recycled plastic bottles, Kirby said.

Nike takes a similar approach with the FlyKnit shoes it debuted last year, which are marketed as a high-tech advancement using yarn instead of leather uppers for a better fit and a reduction in waste. “FlyKnit is a great example of our innovation and commitment to products and services that are better for athletes, our planet and our investors,” said a company rep. “We’ve seen a strong response from runners and it’s safe to say it’s going to be a big [sales] year for FlyKnit.”

Numbers confirm that shoppers are increasingly seeing green. More than a third of global consumers, including 40 percent of millennials, view style, status and environmentalism as intertwined, per a 2013 survey by brand consultancy BBMG. These consumers love shopping and overwhelmingly desire responsible consumption. “For them, sustainability has changed from being ‘the right thing to do’ to being ‘the cool thing to do,’” said Raphael Bemporad, BBMG’s chief strategy officer.

Target is tapping into the trend with its “Sustainable Product Standard,” unveiled earlier this month. Household cleaners, beauty and baby products that pass the standard will be advertised with the “Choose Well” designation and get unique product placement, said a company rep. “This new standard is a first step toward sustainable innovation in our full product assortment,” she said.

In contrast, consumer goods companies like Unilever, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble are playing catch-up, with green initiatives focused mainly on the supply chain, said Bemporad.

J&J, for instance, recognizes 34 of its consumer items as sustainable through an in-house “Earthwards” evaluation, which includes R&D, marketing and the supply chain. The plan is for “marketing to leverage Earthwards’ claims for brands, such as Neutrogena and Johnson’s, in ways that relate to the products’ core benefits,” said Paulette Frank, vp of sustainability for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies. “We’re still learning how to communicate and engage with consumers on our product sustainability improvements,” she added.

But the CPG giants risk becoming outdated as green design and marketing become the new normal in their categories. “It’s the ratchet effect,” said Nigel Hollis, chief global analyst at brand consultancy Millward Brown. “Look at the way Method spurred Clorox to launch the Green Works products. Once one brand in a category incorporates sustainability in a way that benefits the consumer at a fair price, it is tough for competitors not to respond in kind.”

Improving Indoor Air Quality the Easy Way

Posted on January 29, 2015 by abrahamwien18

Environmental Leader, 5/2/2014
View the original article here

The natural first step most building managers take when they suspect that their building is causing health problems is to find the root cause and remove, replace or fix the problem. However, there are often more direct and less costly ways to attack poor indoor air quality, LEED trade magazine EDC reports.

Among these ways:

Use fewer chemicals. Cleaning chemicals, whether green or not, impact the indoor environment and using less will, naturally, lessen the impact. Janitors and other cleaning staff are wont to mix more chemical with water than necessary, according to EDC. This can be eliminated by installing an automatic dilution system.
Using greener chemicals can help, too. Look for products that have been independently tested and bear ecolabels such as UL’s Ecologo or the EPA’s Design for the Environment program. These are a better bet for those wanting to buy VOC-free or low environmental-impact chemicals.
Check vacuum cleaners. Vacuum filters are the one piece of equipment that can most contribute to indoor air quality improvement. By selecting advanced filtration filters and changing them regularly — twice a year is usually adequate — you can make drastic improvements.
Train workers on green cleaning. Many custodial workers don’t use environmentally friendly products in the right way. Implementing a training plan or sending workers to a green cleaning training program can overcome this problem.
Educate building users. Educating all those who use the building on the best ways to improve indoor air quality is the best way of making sure all building users are playing their part.

The global revenue for the indoor air quality monitoring and management market, driven by new building standards and regulations as well as a rebounding economy, will grow 80 percent to $5.6 billion by 2020, according to a forecast from Navigant Research released earlier this week.

The developed markets for indoor air quality-related HVAC markets remain sluggish — a holdover from the 2009 global recession. However, the North American market will become more robust this year. Europe will follow a similar trend but will not begin to recover until late 2014, the report says.

The Alphabet Soup of Transparency Tools

Posted on January 29, 2015 by abrahamwien18

How do EPDs, HPDs, and PTDs fit into LCA?

By Christopher Curtland , Buidlings, 3/17/2014
View the original article here

Green certification shouldn’t feel like a game of Scrabble, but if you pursue certain tools, you’ll score a bonus in sustainability.

There are a growing number of acronyms in the industry, so it’s important you don’t get them jumbled. Learn how Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), Product Transparency Declarations (PTDs), and Health Product Declarations (HPDs) differ.

Lifecycle assessment (LCA) is factored into all three, and they could help you achieve LEED status or other designations.

Declarations of Disclosure

EPDs, HPDs, and PTDs were developed by SCS Global Services to effectively promote transparency, accuracy, scientific credibility, and comparability across several interior products.

While there is some overlap among the tools in terms of ingredient disclosure, they vary in how they report the impact of those ingredients on lifecycle, occupant health, and other criteria.

EPDs are summary reports of product-related environmental impacts based on a cradle-to-grave lifecycle assessment. HPDs are disclosures of product content and potential health hazards from chemicals of concern.

“There are two types of EPDs – basic for those seeking LEED v4 credits, and ‘full transparency’ EPDs that provide more comprehensive information based on advanced LCA,” says Stowe Beam, managing director of SCS’s division of environmental certification services. “HPDs enable companies to communicate the safety of potentially hazardous chemicals.”

PTDs are for products that undergo a health hazard assessment. They go a step beyond HPDs by disclosing intentionally added ingredients, including heavy metals. They acknowledge materials on six authoritative lists (see below) and indicate whether the ingredient level triggers an exposure warning notification based on the content.

“It’s a marriage between ingredient and exposure disclosure,” says Dean Thomson, president of the Resilient Floor Covering Institute. “PTDs also detail recycled content and VOC emissions.”

How to Use Them to Your Advantage

Think of these tools as nutritional labels for interiors products. They are all voluntary, so if a manufacturer has pursued them, you can feel confident in their commitment to sustainability.

Instead of using these designations as the basis for an apples-to-oranges comparison, they’re more apt for comparing Red Delicious to Granny Smith. The tools may seem the same at first glance, but their differences outweigh the similarities.

Ingredients and Health Risks

PTDs reference several hazardous materials identified by these six authorities:
International Agency on the Research of Cancer Terminology
National Toxicology Program
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
California Proposition 65
EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory
REACH Substances of Very High Concern

After digesting the alphabet soup of disclosure, ask yourself three key questions:

How is the product being sourced and delivered? Shipping a sustainable product overseas likely defeats its purpose.

How will the product be used? Cleaning solutions, wear and tear, room temperature, and moisture can significantly affect a product’s performance.

What happens at end-of-life? If a manufacturer offers recycling and disposal services, that’s a bonus. You don’t want the product to end up in a landfill.

And remember, these tools are meant to make your life easier, not harder.

“EPDs, PTDs, and HPDs present a product’s ecological impact in a way that is

easy to comprehend,” explains Dave Kitts, vice president of environment at flooring manufacturer Mannington. “Lifecycle assessments are very detailed and granular. They have a scientific feel and are hard to understand. These tools standardize environmental information for an average reader.”

Chris Curtland is assistant editor of BUILDINGS.

A Commitment to Action: Taking Recycling to the Next Level in the United States

Posted on January 29, 2015 by abrahamwien18

January 13, 2014

Elisabeth Comere
Director, Environmental and Government Affairs
View the original article here

When asked why recycling is so important, my response is simple: it is integral to business. Recycling is a fundamental requirement to uphold competitiveness and reputation as responsible and innovative companies.

For decades, companies and their respective trade associations have invested in various recycling initiatives aimed at recovering their own used packaging and printed paper products. While initially such efforts reaped measurable recovery benefits, very little progress has been made in the past 10 years. We, too, have seen firsthand the benefits of a carton-specific voluntary approach through our own efforts and that of the Carton Council. However, future carton recovery progress relies on addressing the infrastructure, promotional, and harmonization needs that affect the recovery of all packaging and printed paper materials.

Discussion is ongoing among brand owners, packaging manufacturers and other “producers” regarding how to substantially increase material recovery and recycling in the United States via cross-sector collaboration. While it has not led to much action to date, the forums for discussion have kept the conversation alive and have succeeded in elevating the knowledge and awareness level of all stakeholders through the process. The dialogue exposed the risks of inaction as well as the opportunities inherent in a robust recovery system.

Discussions have also led to extensive research conducted by multiple organizations to develop an understanding of the nuances that impact recovery success. AMERIPEN, for instance, has collected data and developed findings regarding what works best to dramatically improve recovery in cities across the US. AMERIPEN’s study combined with other research efforts have laid the groundwork by defining what needs to be done. It is now clearly understood that effective recovery requires a comprehensive set of best practices – optimized infrastructure, effective promotion and education, incentives, policies aimed at boosting recycling participation, and sustainable program funding. Implementing best practices in all of these areas is unreasonable to ask of local governments and is more than any one material sector can bring about on their own.

Forums like Alcoa’s Action to Accelerate Recycling and AMERIPEN have primed stakeholders for collaboration bringing the right people to the table and raising the right questions to facilitate action.

The New Ask

Industry is now rallying around a new call to action: create an organized coalition(s) of private and public sector representatives to create a scalable but phased systems approach to recycling. Building upon past learnings, this approach will leverage pooled resources and use a combination of tools to strategically address priority opportunities as opposed to a series of discreet pilot programs and projects.

Experimentation in Coalition Building

To support the move from talk to collaborative action, my company is launching projects in Tennessee and North Carolina that will target communities with customized action plans addressing multiple barriers to materials recovery performance. Depending on a community’s existing infrastructure and resources, we have identified the policies, practices and investment focus areas that will yield the greatest impact on recovery. Examples include recycling mandates or ordinances for variable-rate waste collection pricing, a transition to single-stream, roll-cart recovery systems, investment in optimizing processing facilities, working with state government to align policy and grant funding with local needs, and so on. We have estimated a total increase in recovery of over 220,000 tons if best practices and a robust outreach and education campaign are brought to bear on recycling programs across Tennessee.

We see our role in this experiment as the catalyst for collaboration. We are now building informal coalitions in Tennessee and North Carolina with key industry and government stakeholders to bring these system improvements to fruition. This experiment is testing a series of approaches on the ground to see what works at the local level allowing for replication elsewhere on a greater scale.

Aiming Higher: The SERDC Coalition

We now want to move forward with regional campaigns for collaborative voluntary producer initiatives – campaigns that build upon the learnings from state-by-state activities and stress best practices in packaging recovery to overcome funding constraints, infrastructure gaps and barriers to policy adoption.

In support of this idea, we took part in the Southeast Recycling Development Council’s (SERDC) Paper & Packaging Symposium this month in Atlanta. Involving over 100 participants, SERDC issued a straightforward call to action: Work together to recover more recyclables, of better quality, and quickly.

A common discussion thread was what distinguishes the SERDC initiative from past efforts and how that will bring about success. Key differences are that SERDC is an established organization of state government and industry partners and other key stakeholders – the influencers are already at the table. Research to inform priorities for the region has been conducted and the group is ready to move on building the organizational mechanism to transition from research to action.

SERDC recovery initiative partners intend to explore the optimum levels of engagement of public and private resources, expertise and funding. Given growing consumer expectations and the threat of government regulation, the risk of inaction surpasses the rationale for a laissez-faire approach. We all have a stake in the outcome of recycling performance in this country and will achieve more by combining forces than through disparate action. We call on you to commit to participating in SERDC’s coalition.

Elisabeth Comere is the director of environment and government affairs for Tetra Pak in North America, the world leader in packaging and food processing solutions. She joined the company in 2006 as Environment Manager for Europe where she helped define and drive Tetra Pak’s environmental strategy. She joined the North American operations in 2010, focusing on advancing Tetra Pak’s commitment to sustainability in the US and Canada, and she is active in various industry and customer packaging and sustainability initiatives. Elisabeth previously served as a political adviser to a member of the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, and headed the environment department of the Food & Drink Industry group in Europe.

Stimulating Innovation to Create More Sustainable Cities

Posted on January 29, 2015 by abrahamwien18

Andre Veneman is corporate director for sustainability and HSE with AkzoNobel .Environmental Leader, 11/12/2014
View the original article here

It won’t be long before the world’s population reaches nine billion and by 2050, 70 percent of the world’s population will live in cities. All around the globe, population explosions are putting city infrastructure under severe strain. And at the same time climate change is posing serious challenges.

How will we cope? Can our cities accommodate so many people?

Yes it can, but we have to do things differently. We have to use our ambition and imagination to more efficiently manage the world’s limited resources.

Ultimately, the future health of our cities – and the people who live there – will hinge on our ability to do radically more with less. We need more innovation, less traditional solutions, more collaboration and less introverted thinking.

The widespread idea that innovation is driven by a lonely genius, a specific department, or a special group of champion innovators is not the case. Instead, success hinges on organizing and driving innovation through a team effort and a strong sense of a shared mission.

For many businesses, this should start with building strong relationships between different departments.

The problem is that in large corporations there is often a strong inward orientation. The structures, rules and regulations in place can hamper the ability to establish open relationships — both within an organization and externally. Perhaps the biggest challenge that companies face is creating a more open and forward-looking mindset; that is, thinking beyond current business issues and immediate future horizons.

To engage in sustainable innovation successfully, companies need to be prepared to work in a much more collaborative way. This means working effectively across procurement, operations, marketing and sales functions, and by partnering with suppliers and customers. A strong alignment between sourcing, research & development and marketing, for example, is vitally important to delivering sustainable solutions that work commercially and provide a practical benefit to urban environments.

A collaborative approach will make it possible to not only uncover exciting new ideas but help those ideas reach market faster than what would be possible through traditional models.

At AkzoNobel, we believe in establishing a collaborative, welcoming environment where ideas can be explored. When people have an idea, they are encouraged to reach out to anyone in the network to pursue the opportunity.

For example, on a flight home from a meeting, Peter Greenwood, a business development manager, came up with the idea to add colloidal silica to paint to enhance its self-cleaning properties. When he returned to the office, he reached out to another department to explore the idea. Before we knew it, a cross-departmental collaboration had developed between AkzoNobel’s Specialty Chemicals and Decorative Paints Business Areas resulting in a coating that can last up to 16 years, 25% longer than a standard product.

These types of collaborations are encouraged among senior level management. Of course, linking up departments is not enough on its own. They need to be aligned and focused on identifying sustainable solutions that customers need. Our company has a strong track record of creating innovations that benefit not only our customers but urban environments across the globe.

Sometimes, the insight to enhance urban environments comes from unexpected places. Our research and development team, for example, observed animals in nature to determine how they withstand cold and prevent ice from forming in their bodies. That insight led to Ecosel AsphaltProtection, a fully biodegradable additive for deicing brine. It works by slowing the freezing process, resulting in soft, slushy ice, rather than hard, abrasive ice.

There are many opportunities for businesses to develop commercially viable and sustainable product offerings that could make our cities more enjoyable, liveable and resilient. The key to success lies in the business model and in making the right connections: engaging effectively across the whole value chain and working in an open way open way with external stakeholders such as city councils, urban planners, NGOs, businesses and universities.

Companies can play an important role in safeguarding the future health of our cities. The world is changing and businesses must change with it to provide innovative products that make the world a better place.

10 sustainable innovations: from solar-powered suitcases to floating classrooms

Posted on January 28, 2015 by abrahamwien18

Laura Storm, the guardian, Wednesday 29 October 2014 03.00 EDT

View the original article here

The 2014 Sustainia Awards, chaired by Arnold Schwarzenegger, attracted more than 900 submissions for projects and technologies representing 10 different sectors from food, fashion and, city development to transportation and healthcare. Collectively, these projects are deployed in more than 84 countries.

The runners up for the award are showcased here and the winner will be announced in Copenhagen on Thursday 30 October. The ceremony will celebrate these innovations ahead of the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) anticipated report on climate change, due to be finalised 31 October.

Food finalist: Netafim (Israel) – gravity-powered irrigation

Netafim offers low-tech irrigation. Photograph: Netafim

Netafim is behind a low-tech irrigation system for smallholder farmers in developing countries which increases and secures yields while saving water and cutting costs. It drips precise quantities of water and nutrients right at the root zone of crops while an elevated tank distributes the water using gravity.

This minimises the need for electricity and investments in infrastructure. The UN estimates that 500 million smallholder farmers provide over 80% of the food consumed in the developing world. Irrigation systems are vital to sustain agriculture as it addresses water scarcity and soil erosion. The solution is commercially viable with a payback-time of about a year, making it fit for microfinance projects.

Transportation finalist: 8D technologies (Canada) – bike sharing app

Spotcycle bike-sharing app. Photograph: 8D Technologies

As a mode of transport, the bicycle is one of the lowest emitter of greenhouse gases – even with the CO2 emissions of the food you need to power a bike. This helps explain why bike-sharing systems are being adopted increasingly by cities. The Spotcycle app from 8D technologies aims to make bike-sharing more convenient and smartphone-friendly. The app locates nearby bike stations and communicates availability, maps out bike paths and helps with navigation. The app is already in sync with cities in North America, Australia and Europe.

Buildings finalist: Advantix (USA) – air-conditioners which use saltwater

Advantix’s saltwater air conditioning system. Photograph: Advantix

Air conditioners use about 5% of all electricity produced in the US. As a result, 100m tons of carbon dioxide are released each year. Advantix’s air conditioning system uses saltwater which means it needs 40% less energy than normal systems. Whereas air-conditioning systems normally chill the air to remove humidity and then reheat it in a highly energy-intensive process, Advantix’s air-conditioners funnel the air through non-toxic fluid saltwater instead. The process dehumidifies the air without the need for re-heating.

Fashion finalist: I:CO (Switzerland) – textile recycling

An I:CI clothing drop-off recepticle. Photograph: I:CO

Clothes are often discarded after the first or second life cycle, and apparel accounts for up to 10% of a western consumer’s environmental impacts. Through an advanced take-back system, I:CO works to keep apparel, footwear and other textiles in a continuous closed-loop cycle. Used shoes and clothing are collected in stores and retail outlets, where customers are financially rewarded for depositing their used items. Once collected, the textiles are sorted according to more than 350 criteria for designation. Used clothes can be labeled suitable for: second-hand sale, recycling into fibres and paddings for new products, or upcycling.

IT Finalist: Fairphone (Netherlands) – A smart-phone with social values

Fairphone conflict-free phones. Photograph: Fairphone

Through development, design and production, social enterprise Fairphone works to create positive social impact in the consumer electronics supply chain – from responsible mining, decent wages and working conditions to reuse and recycling.

Fairphone began by redesigning the processes behind the production, making phones that use conflict- free minerals and are assembled in a factory with a worker-controlled welfare fund. To date, Fairphone has sold nearly 50,000 phones from its first two production runs.

Health finalist: We Care Solar (USA) – solar suitcases giving life

The Solar Suitcase provides lighting for medical professionals. Photograph: Solar suitcase

Preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth claim 800 lives daily and 99% of cases happen in developing countries. We Care Solar has created a sustainable solution. The Solar Suitcase provides solar electricity for medical lighting, mobile communication and essential medical devices for rural areas and humanitarian settings. This enables safe and timely obstetric care, which ultimately improves maternal and neonatal outcomes. Additionally, the innovation allows emergency surgeries to be conducted around-the-clock in rural hospitals. The Solar Suitcase has been introduced to more than 600 healthcare facilities in 20 countries.

City Finalists: Wecyclers (Nigeria) – Pedal-powered recycling

Wecyclers collectors. Photograph: Wecyclers

In Lagos, Nigeria, Wecyclers is fuelling social and environmental change by enabling people in low-income communities to make money from unmanaged waste piling up in their streets.

It is a response to the local waste crisis; the municipal government collects only 40% of city garbage. The Wecyclers initiative has deployed a fleet of cargo bicycles to pick-up, collect and recycle garbage in low-income neighbourhoods. Families are encouraged to recycle their bottles, cans and plastics through an SMS-based programme. For every kilogram of material recycled, the family receives Wecyclers points on their cell phone. Families can then redeem points for goods such as cell phone minutes, basic food items or household goods. The initiative adds to the local economy by hiring personnel locally.

Resource finalist: Newlight Tech (USA) – carbon-negative plastic

Carbon-negative plastic. Photograph: Newlight

With its novel technology that converts greenhouse gases into plastic material, AirCarbon has disrupted the market by replacing oil-based plastics with a sustainable product that is competitive in both price and performance. It is made from a process where carbon in the air is captured and used in manufacturing. AirCarbon uses pollutants as resources to make products otherwise made from oil. Products made from AirCarbon are carbon-negative even after calculating the emissions from the energy used in production. AirCarbon is currently used to make chairs, bags and cell phone cases.

Education finalists: Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha (Bangladesh) – school boats combatting climate change

Floating school rooms. Photograph: Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha

More than one million Bangladeshis could be displaced by rising sea levels by 2050. One consequence is that children cannot attend school for long periods of time, making it harder for them to escape poverty. By building a fleet of solar-powered school boats, the Bangladeshi initiative Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha has secured year-round education in flood-prone regions of Bangladesh. Each floating school boat collects students from different riverside villages, ultimately docking at the last destination where on-board classes begin. Solar lighting makes the schedule flexible, which provides for additional educational programs in the evening. Shidhulai’s floating schools model has been replicated in Nigeria, Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam and Zambia.

Energy Finalists: Opower (USA) – personal energy-efficient expert

Utilities use Opower to share money-saving insights with custumers. Photograph: Opower

Through use of big data, Opower has given energy utilities a new way of engaging with customers in order to improve energy efficiency. The software solution combines cloud technology, big data and behavioural science to produce data analyses and personalised information on how to save energy. To motivate reductions in energy consumption, utilities use Opower to share money-saving insights with custumers. Opower can also show households their energy usage compared to neighbours; an effective method in motivating people to save energy. Opower has enabled savings of over 4TWh of energy, which is equivalent to $458m (£283.1) in bill savings.

Laura Storm is executive director at Sustainia

10 sustainable innovations: from solar-powered suitcases to floating classrooms

Posted on January 28, 2015 by abrahamwien18

Laura Storm, the guardian, Wednesday 29 October 2014 03.00 EDT

View the original article here

Food finalist: Netafim (Israel) – gravity-powered irrigation

Netafim offers low-tech irrigation. Photograph: Netafim

Transportation finalist: 8D technologies (Canada) – bike sharing app

Spotcycle bike-sharing app. Photograph: 8D Technologies

Buildings finalist: Advantix (USA) – air-conditioners which use saltwater

Advantix’s saltwater air conditioning system. Photograph: Advantix

Fashion finalist: I:CO (Switzerland) – textile recycling

An I:CI clothing drop-off recepticle. Photograph: I:CO

IT Finalist: Fairphone (Netherlands) – A smart-phone with social values

Fairphone conflict-free phones. Photograph: Fairphone

Health finalist: We Care Solar (USA) – solar suitcases giving life

The Solar Suitcase provides lighting for medical professionals. Photograph: Solar suitcase

City Finalists: Wecyclers (Nigeria) – Pedal-powered recycling

Wecyclers collectors. Photograph: Wecyclers

In Lagos, Nigeria, Wecyclers is fuelling social and environmental change by enabling people in low-income communities to make money from unmanaged waste piling up in their streets.

Resource finalist: Newlight Tech (USA) – carbon-negative plastic

Carbon-negative plastic. Photograph: Newlight

Education finalists: Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha (Bangladesh) – school boats combatting climate change

Floating school rooms. Photograph: Shidhulai Swanirvar Sangstha

Energy Finalists: Opower (USA) – personal energy-efficient expert

Utilities use Opower to share money-saving insights with custumers. Photograph: Opower

Laura Storm is executive director at Sustainia

Monetizing Sustainability Investments for Business Decision Making

Posted on January 19, 2015 by abrahamwien18

Tod Christenson, John Platko, Antea Group, 5/27/2014

View the original article here

Today’s sustainability investment options are extensive and broad ranging, including relatively straightforward efforts (e.g., energy conservation projects) to multi-year/multi-stakeholder initiatives (like those that target social and environmental improvements deep within an organization’s supply-chain). While doing any or all of these could yield significant benefits, it is often unclear which will generate the greatest, most enduring value. Faced with this dilemma, leaders often struggle to understand which choices are best and how they should evaluate the many alternatives to ensure the most effective, efficient and sustainable decisions are made.

One way to improve would be to encourage better, more quantitative analyses that examine the full costs and benefits associated each investment in sustainability, combined with an analysis of which could make the greatest contribution for the business, the environment and society simultaneously.

While most understand that “when the economics work, the social and environmental benefits last,” many barriers remain for those wishing to accelerate the pace and effectiveness at which sustainability initiatives are funded and implemented, including:

the lack of a demonstrated link between sustainability and business value;
failure to communicate the strategic potential of such efforts in a way investment decision-makers can understand and appreciate; and
not leveraging proven, familiar processes (that other company functions have applied) to accelerate decision-making and scale solution implementation.

Accenture’s 2013 CEO survey (UN-Global Compact – Accenture CEO Study 2013: Sustainable business and the pace of change) seems to agree, reporting that 37% of 1,000 top executives feel that the lack of a clear link to business value is a critical factor in deterring them from taking faster action on sustainability. It should be noted that this percentage is increasing: in 2007, just 18% reported a failure to trace such a link and in 2010, this figure rose to 30%.

Our experience confirms this trend, as we regularly note good projects that do not receive sufficient (or any) investment as these initiatives are perceived as failing to deliver competitive business value.

From our vantage point, there are two principal challenges that need to be overcome for sustainability to be viewed as a more critical contributor:

First, the “equations” for presenting business cases do not sufficiently include all the benefits of investing in sustainability – specifically, these efforts should include an accounting of potential contributions such investments could make in terms of:

Offsetting of risk (brand risk, reputation risk, supply/commodity risk, regulatory risk, etc.);
Delivering efficiency gains; and/or
Adding revenue/market share (via innovation and/or building brand/reputational equity).

Without accounting for and quantifying all these dimensions, sustainability investments risk appearing less important than other business investments and hence are perceived as not carrying as much “strategic weight.”

Second, sustainability departments are generally not equipped to build and pitch multi-dimensional business cases – this requires a combination of strategic, financial and political skills rarely found among these practitioners. Challenging questions are being posed, and few confident answers are being provided:

Are we realizing value expected from existing, funded sustainability initiatives?
We have many sustainability investment choices, but which ones are the best for our business?
How confident are we that our actions will yield the tangible and intangible benefits promised by the business case?
Do we understand the true business impact and cost of doing nothing?
How do we increase the reliability and credibility of our business case analyses, and therein, how can we increase the confidence of our sustainability investment decision-making?

Value Creation: Business & Sustainability

Linking sustainability to value creation is becoming a new imperative for business leaders. As such, investments in sustainability must be more connected to both business and societal benefits, improving management of risks/costs and stimulating growth and/or innovation, while simultaneously helping companies better meet societal and environmental expectations and obligations. When building the case, leading organizations are increasingly articulating associated sustainability benefits within a clear and simple framework, one that illustrates how these investments can better protect, strengthen, and/or advance the business.

Frequently, benefits of this sort are intangible, uncertain and generally difficult to quantify in ways that are credible and agreeable to all decision-makers. Determining the appropriate level of analysis, who must be engaged, what input is required, etc., is often a challenge requiring innovative, clever leadership, clear process and strong cross functional engagement to ensure success. Commonly, those that pursue such efforts ensure they always ask:

Am I using the right vernacular, do I understand, and more importantly, use terminology and methods familiar to financial and other decision-makers, or am I only talking in “sustainability speak?”
Have I considered all relevant costs or benefits (tangible or intangible) in my analysis?
Have I engaged the appropriate internal domain or functional experts to gather data, experience and methods needed to build a credible, monetized investment analysis?
Have I accommodated and considered future variability and other possibilities that could impact decisions or outcomes?

Innovators Are Creating the Case for Sustainability Today

Ultimately, value-adding sustainability investments protect, strengthen and/or advance business endeavors while simultaneously improving the environment and society’s well-being. Clearer demonstration of such value creation capability is becoming more common as innovative organizations repurpose standard management and strategic tools to deliver a more compelling case for sustainable investment and action.

As a consultant to private industry for more than 30 years, Tod Christenson partners with clients to develop and implement fit-for-purpose and innovative solutions to drive sustainability across the entire value chain. He has unique skills and expertise in the areas of strategic thinking and planning methods, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, organizational diagnosis and coaching, and benchmarking.

John Platko has nearly 30 years of business, sustainability, environmental, health and safety leadership experience. His client engagements involve the development and implementation of strategies, plans and programs that emphasize simultaneous creation of business, environmental and social value for private sector clients operating domestically and internationally. John has led projects in more than 40 countries in North America, Latin America, Europe and the Pacific Rim. He is a founding member of the company’s sustainability practice; a leader in Antea Group’s Accounting For Sustainability – AA4S decision-support service; and the primary architect of iEHS, the company’s web-based environmental, health, safety and sustainability information management platform.

10 Smart Building Myths Busted

Posted on January 19, 2015 by abrahamwien18

May 6, 2014 by Lee O’Loughlin

View the original article here

Smart buildings are a no-brainer and more affordable than most building owners and investors realize.

Smart buildings have been proven to save energy, streamline facilities management and prevent expensive equipment failures. Yet, to many property owners and investors, the value of smart buildings remains a mystery. The fact is, in most buildings, we can demonstrate a strong business case for strategic investments in smart building systems and management technologies.

Not everyone is aware that the tremendous advantages of today’s affordable smart building management technologies easily justify the cost. The following are 10 myths about smart buildings, along with the facts:

Myth #10: Smart Building Technologies Are Expensive.

Myth Debunked: Smart building technology investments typically pay for themselves within one or two years by delivering energy savings and other operational efficiencies. One smart building management pilot program we worked on, for example, generated a positive return on investment within several months.

Myth #9: Smart Buildings are Only About Energy.

Myth Debunked: A smart building management system often can detect when a piece of equipment is close to failure and alert facilities personnel to fix the problem. Knowing the right time to repair or replace equipment extends machinery life, and reduces facility staff, operations and replacement costs. More dramatically, smart building management systems can prevent full-scale building system failures—potentially embarrassing to a Superbowl stadium host, but life-threatening in a hospital or laboratory.

Myth #8: Smart Buildings and Green Buildings are the Same Thing. Myth Debunked: Smart buildings maximize energy efficiency from building systems and ensure air quality, while a complete “green” sustainability program includes strategies beyond building automation systems. So, while “smart” and “green” features may overlap, they are not identical concepts. The Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA) explains the difference in Bright Green Buildings: Convergence of Green and Intelligent Buildings, a comprehensive report authored with Frost and Sullivan.

Myth #7: Industrial Facilities or Laboratories Can’t Become Smart Buildings.

Myth Debunked: All types of buildings—whether residential or commercial—can be built or retrofitted to become highly automated and smart. Even highly specialized facilities such as laboratories can be outfitted with smart building technologies.

Myth #6: Smart Buildings Can Only Be New Buildings.

Myth Debunked: Some of the smartest buildings in the world are not new at all, but have demonstrated the return on investment in smart technologies. The Empire State Building, for example, has exceeded projected energy savings for the second consecutive year following an extensive phased retrofit begun in 2009.

Myth #5: Smart Building Technologies are Not Interoperable.

Myth Debunked: In the past, building automation equipment and controls were designed as proprietary systems. However, affordable new technologies, such as wireless sensors, now make it possible to gather data from disparate systems produced by any manufacturer.

Myth #4: Smart Systems Don’t Make a Building More Attractive to Tenants.

Myth Debunked: Anything that improves energy efficiency, reduces occupancy cost and improves productivity is valuable to tenants, as numerous studies and surveys attest. Tenants and their advisors increasingly expect smart building features such as zoned HVAC, sophisticated equipment maintenance alert systems, and advanced security systems. As reported in JLL’s October 2012 Global Sustainability Perspective, smart systems provide benefits for tenants—and tenants recognize the benefits.

Myth #3: Without a Municipal Smart Grid, a Building Can’t Really Be Smart.

Myth Debunked: It’s true that smart buildings gain functionality when supported by advanced electrical grids installed by municipalities and their utility company partners. But even without a smart grid, owners and investors can draw a wide range of benefits from smart buildings and a smart building management system that can monitor entire property portfolios.

Myth #2: Smart Buildings Are Complicated to Operate.

Myth Debunked: Combined with a smart building management system, a smart building is often easier to operate and maintain than a building that lacks automated systems. A smart building management system can integrate work-order management applications; pull equipment repair and maintenance data into performance analytics; and pinpoint equipment issues to a degree not humanly possible. For example, a smart building management system can diagnose a programming problem that has been undetected for 15 years, enabling facility managers to resolve a recurring equipment malfunction.

Myth #1: Smart Buildings Are a No-Brainer.

Myth NOT Debunked: This myth isn’t a myth at all — it’s actually true. As affordable new technologies are adopted, tenants are beginning to expect smart building features—and owners and investors are beginning to realize the return on investment in smart systems.

Leo O’Loughlin is senior vice president of Energy and Sustainability Services at JLL, the global professional services and investment management firm offering specialized services to clients that own, occupy and invest in commercial real estate. With 20 years of energy and sustainability management expertise, Leo helps clients incorporate energy and sustainability concepts into operations and project management, reducing energy consumption, utility expense and carbon emissions. He specializes in creating and analyzing project structures for energy efficiency, central utility plant and energy services outsourcing programs, managing the multi-disciplinary development of energy infrastructure assets and retrofit projects. He also manages business development, commercial structuring, financial and technical analyses and implementation of energy-related projects. Previously, Leo was an executive at several leading California energy companies. He holds an MBA from San Diego State University and a BS in mechanical engineering from Purdue University.

Energy Efficiency Saves Billions

Posted on January 19, 2015 by abrahamwien18

May 5, 2014 By John Finnigan

John Finnigan, Senior Regulatory Attorney, EDF

View the original post here

Energy efficiency is a proven value. In Ohio alone, energy efficiency programs have saved people a total of $1 billion since 2009. What’s more is that these savings far outweigh the costs to implement Ohio’s energy efficiency programs, which amount to less than half of the total savings. Yet Ohio utilities and large industrial companies want to kill it. Why? Because they lose when customers use energy efficiency programs.

One would think that the billions in customer energy savings would easily trump the utilities’ and large industrial companies’ efforts to kill energy efficiency. But we live in challenging times. The utilities and large industrial companies are spending big money on this issue, and they might win the day unless we can convince our elected leaders to save energy efficiency.

Since 2009, Ohio law has required utilities to meet energy efficiency goals by offering energy savings programs, which have proven to be wildly successful. A recent study from Ohio Advanced Energy reviewed all Ohio utility energy efficiency programs since they began in 2009. The study found that these programs have saved customers $1 billion to date and will save a total of $4.1 billion through existing programs. Much greater savings will be available if utilities continue to introduce new programs.

These energy savings are happening not just in Ohio, but all over the country. A March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period (including 170 Ohio programs). The researchers found that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity. The programs cost $5.2 billion and will save 353,585 gigawatt hours of electricity, valued at over $25 billion, as illustrated below:

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, The Program Administrator Cost of Saved Energy for Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs, page 20 (March 2014).

Utilities and large industrial companies have a strong motive to kill these programs, just as horse and buggy makers might have wished to kill the automobile. Utilities make money by selling more electricity, so when customers use energy efficiency programs to lower their electricity bills, the utilities lose revenue. Large industrial companies can afford to hire full-time engineers to design custom-tailored energy savings programs, so they don’t want to pay for the utility programs. These large companies have a powerful competitive advantage over smaller companies, who can’t afford this and rely on utility energy efficiency programs to save money.

The utilities and large industrial companies are throwing big money at this issue and working in several states across the US with well-funded corporate interests, such as the Koch Brothers, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council to overthrow these energy efficiency programs. They won in one state, when Indiana repealed its energy efficiency goals in March, and a similar bill, SB 310, which would freeze any additional energy efficiency mandates after 2014, is being debated in the Ohio state legislature right now.

The irony is that when Ohio utilities file their annual energy efficiency reports with the Ohio Public Utilities Commission, they wax eloquently about energy efficiency’s benefits. AEP said its 2015-2019 energy efficiency plan will save customers “approximately $1.5 billion and create over 4,000 new jobs.” DP&L said that “[f]rom 2009 through 2012, DP&L’s residential and business programs helped customers save 659,605 megawatt hours of energy, or enough energy to power 54,967 homes for a year.” And FirstEnergy reported that its customers save two dollars for every one dollar the company spends on energy efficiency programs.

If the utilities were acting in their customers’ interests, they would issue public statements of support for the current energy efficiency goals. But the utilities are simply acting in their own self-interest and so they are working behind the scenes to kill energy efficiency.

Hopefully common sense will prevail in Ohio and energy efficiency will remain intact.

This article was republished with permission from EDF.

John Finnigan is a senior regulatory attorney with the EDF.