Archive for May, 2010


Sustainability Reporting Coming of Age?

The Amsterdam Global Conference on Sustainability and Transparency wrapped up a couple of days ago, and the website is a source of wonky sustainability fun. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), which advocates for transparent and reliable sustainability reporting and created the Sustainability Reporting Framework, produced the conference.

The event saw the release of Carrots and Sticks—Promoting Transparency and Sustainability, a study of mandatory and voluntary reporting trends worldwide produced by the UN Environmental Program (UNEP), GRI, KPMG Sustainability, and the University of Stellenbosch Business School that says government will be more involved in regulating sustainability reporting.

On balance, government oversight is a good thing—and the report shows sustainability reporting is coming of age. As Wim Bartels of KPMG Sustainability said, “Sustainability is a key business issue that needs a level playing field.” Representatives of sponsoring organizations also pointed out that:

  • Regulation will result in more rigorous sustainability reporting and increased transparency, sharpen companies’ focus on their sustainability performance, and help drive professionalism and universal standards.
  • Changing market conditions, information overload, and growing public demand for accountable use of resources require credible information and new management tools for reporting.

Mandated reporting is always burdensome in varying degrees, but it also raises the bar for global standards, even for voluntary reports. It means we’re all measuring the same things the same ways, backing up claims with credible information, and using the same language.

In other news from Amsterdam, the GRI announced its 2015 and 2020 goals, including a proposal to require all large and medium-size companies to report on their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance, or explain why if they don’t. GRI also released proposed G3.1 revisions to reporting content, and is accepted comments from the sustainability community through August 23.

Getting Energy Efficiency Out of the Granny Panties Zone

Why don’t energy efficiency technologies and strategies get people as excited as a Tesla roadster? On the face of it, duh. It’s the brains of it that make it a head-scratcher.

As the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy reported last year, economic data and the historical record suggest that “energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the needed greenhouse gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and the year 2050″ and “investments in more energy-productive technologies can also lead to a substantial net energy bill savings for the consumer and for the nation’s businesses.” In other words, energy efficiency is probably the single most effective greenhouse gas reduction strategy we have, and it saves you money. What’s not to get excited about? Are people that distracted by bright shiny objects?

Yes, we are. Advocates have been lamenting the unsexiness of energy efficiency for some time: it’s the granny panties of the green economy. Many see the solution in language—what we need is a new term, one less evocative of slide rules and more inspirational. I’m all for motivating, send-the-right-message language—that would typically be my go-to solution. But I think what we need here is something more physical.

Energy efficiency faces two obstacles that strike me as more serious than its nerdy name: invisibility and implausibility. The beauty and the downfall of many energy efficiency measures is that they work in the background, without anyone being aware that they’re happening. And the potential savings from these measures often inspire skepticism more than any other reactionremember how President Obama’s campaign opponents mocked him for suggesting proper tire inflation as a way to save gas?

People think that if a solution like that really were effective, it would already be standard practice—someone would have told us about it already. That assumption ignores the powerful forces of inertia and the culture of heedless consumption (most Americans haven’t worried much about saving energy because we haven’t had to—even the simplest strategies are easily missed if you’re not looking for them), but it’s powerful nonetheless.

I suspect that we need to make energy consumption a thing: people need to be able to see it happening. It has to come out of the background and be made concrete through web interfaces, dials, beeps, texts from your tires, whatever. That might compromise design simplicity (another efficiency value), or even slightly reduce energy savings, but what’s more effective—a theoretically perfect solution that few use, or something a bit too tricked out that gains mass acceptance?

It may pay to remember that out of sight often means out of mind.

Three Key Elements in Supporting Green Claims

We touch on support for claims in this blog with some regularity—it’s a key factor in communications credibility (and thus the Thinkshift Credibility Quotient™). But with BP’s epic greenwashing staring us in the face every day (remember the green oil company? beyond petroleum?), the credibility of green claims generally may be more suspect than ever. Now feels like the ideal time to unpack what it means to support claims.

Here are three major elements we look for:

Data or testimony from credible third parties. Support from any believable source (fully attributed customer testimonials, for example) can enhance credibility, but verification by a trusted third party is the gold standard. Eco-seals can be a good shorthand way to support claims, but be careful: They have to be well-recognized—if people don’t know what a symbol means, they’re not going to put a lot of trust in it—and they have to have real standards behind them.

Details. The support should be specific and detailed enough to be understandable—and verifiable.

Relevance. To be credible, support has to be relevant to the claim at hand. A great company recycling program isn’t support for a claim that a household cleaning product is green. Nor is a statement that the product is free of some chemical that no product of its type contains. (This is a reverse use of the old advertising ploy of highlighting some common product characteristic so that it appears to be a special feature of your product—Mad Men fans will immediately flash on “Lucky Strike—It’s Toasted.”)

Any time you can’t muster this kind of support is a good time to think about whether you should be making that claim.

Notes from Europe: Bicycles, Windmills, and a Volcano

Spending three weeks on vacation in northern Europe—mostly Amsterdam and Berlin—made me think about the ways we can pretty easily live a little “smaller.” Europeans live in smaller spaces, use less stuff, and reuse much more. They don’t seem as obsessed with green and sustainable as I thought they might be, but it could just be they don’t shout about it as much. They just do it, as they have been for years. For instance:

Bikes are a main form of transportation. Everybody has one, sturdy and utilitarian. In the city, bike paths are ubiquitous. And they aren’t in the road—they typically run between the sidewalk and parked cars. Makes it safer (for cyclists, anyway; I found it a bit perilous as a pedestrian).

Lights for public areas are on timers that switch off after 10 minutes. I’ve wondered for years why we don’t use these in our own apartment and office buildings.

Smaller appliances are the norm, like fridges that hold a week’s worth of groceries (or less) and washing machines that are smaller and front-loading. Air-drying clothes is common, and even families with children don’t always have a clothes dryer. (This is based on very limited observation.)

None of this is news to anyone who’s been abroad, but the climate change imperative threw it into sharp relief for me. In the bigger scheme of things, I also noticed that wind power is taking hold. Old windmills are an icon of the Netherlands, but new wind turbines are also becoming a part of the landscape. I saw some wind farms but was most impressed by the fact that many farms have their own wind turbines. In the northern part of the country it was amazing to see ancient farmhouses coupled with new turbines.

On the transportation front, cars are much smaller overall than on this side of the pond, but I still saw a lot of big SUV-type vehicles, and diesel is in wide general use. On the upside, most filling stations I saw sold biodiesel, and I saw not a few natural gas vehicles and fueling stations.

Finally, I spent my time away without my own computer or cell phone. And since the Iceland volcano kept me in Berlin an extra six days, I was almost unconnected for over three weeks. It was a little freaky, especially toward the end. But ultimately it felt great. Without electronic ties to where I came from, I felt more a part of where I was.