Source: Walmart

Walmart has been a real sustainability leader in recent years and deserves lots of credit for it. But to my mind, this picture has nothing to do with its sustainability leadership nor, for that matter with sustainability. Indeed, to me it depicts an inherently unsustainable dynamic: prices the spiral endlessly downward while sales continue to rise. I am pretty sure there is a lower limit on prices, and an upper limit on sales for that matter.

Contrast Walmart’s “loop” with this depiction of the “Circular Economy,”, from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation:

This is a vision of a truly sustainable system.

Now, the comparison isn’t exactly fair, because Walmart is an enterprise, and its “productivity loop” depicts its own operating model, while “The Circular Economy” depicted above is an entire economy. But it is worth thinking about what the future of sustainability demands of a retailer like Walmart, after it has wrung environmental and economic inefficiencies from its own operations and from its suppliers. How will it need to adapt its model to fit with and support a sustainable economic ecosystem?

Any thoughts?

New York City (April 20, 2012) – Green Research, the New York-based corporate sustainability research and advisory firm, today released an analysis of the sustainability consulting industry in the Asia-Pacific region. The analysis indicates that compared to sustainability consultants globally, consultants working in the Asia-Pacific region are more active in the construction, waste management and utility industries than their counterparts globally.

“Manufacturing is the sector that keeps sustainability consultants busiest around the world,” said David Schatsky, principal analyst at Green Research and author of the report. “But we see do see some regional differences in focus.”

Forty-three percent of sustainability consultants in the Asia-Pacific region have recently worked in the construction industry, compared to 33 percent globally. In utilities and waste management industries the figures are 33 and 31 percent compared to 23 and 21 percent among consultants globally.

The analysis, based on a proprietary global survey of sustainability consultants that drew 1,548 responses from six continents and 69 countries, focuses on responses from 108 consultants working in the Asia-Pacific region. Partners including Eco-Business.com and the International Society of Sustainability Professionals assisted in promoting the survey to respondents in this region.

This new analysis reveals that sustainability consultants in the Asia-Pacific region have much in common with their counterparts globally. Educational and professional backgrounds are similar, for instance, and the data shows that consultants around the world are generally optimistic about their business prospects despite a common top challenge: most consultants say prospective clients often lack adequate budgets.

The report reveals some differences apart from the types of industries hiring consultants. A significantly greater percentage of Asia-Pacific consultants are involved in technical projects such as carbon accounting and life cycle assessment compared to their counterparts globally.

The research is now available for free download at greenresearch.com. For more information, please contact David Schatsky at +1 646-783-8337 or info@greenresearch.com.

Contact: David Schatsky | info@greenresearch.com |+1 646-783-8337

###

That’s unfair. Most of the companies we work with are very thoughtful about their use of offsets and credits. The better ones recognize that their first order of business is to improve their own environmental performance as far as economically possible.

Many companies now have goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to use renewable energy. But companies sometimes find achieving those goals through operational changes challenging. As they work on tuning their operations, closing the gap by purchasing credits and offsets is a completely defensible alternative–as long as it doesn’t become an execuse for inaction.

From: Annual Sustainability Executive Survey, 2012

Green Research recently conducted a major survey of senior sustainability executives at large companies in North America and Europe. According to the study, about half of the respondents’ companies will be purchasing RECs in 2012 and about as many will purchase green power. Thirty percent will purchase carbon offsets. Despite all this, the buyers are troubled about those products:

• More than a third said it was very or extremely important that they have greater confidence in the quality of the credits or offsets they buy
• 25 percent felt strongly that they needed to communicate better about why they use them
• 27 percent said they need to reduce their reliance on them.

Because of these concerns, in recent years, some companies have backed away from offsets and RECs. In 2011, for instance, computer maker Dell announced that it had ended its purchases of RECs for the purpose of classifying its operations as carbon neutral. Nike and PepsiCo stopped buying RECs and carbon offsets in 2010. The reason: to focus on direct investments that will accelerate their use of alternative energy sources. That’s great, if a company is savvy enough to know how to carry out such direct investments. Until that point, supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy via offsets and credits is a fine alternative.

What do you think?

Thomas Friedman asked Secretary Chu what he would want to work on if he were just coming out of school today, a freshly minted Ph.D. Rather than choose a particular scientific or technological focus, his choice was “systems.” He cited the Toyota Prius as innovative system created from existing technologies.

That’s a pretty interesting answer.

Systems thinking is the key to unraveling some of our toughest challenges, particularly those related to energy and environmental sustainability. Everyone from scientists and technologists to individuals to corporate managers to policy makers ought to beef up their systems thinking skills.

The other interesting thing was a brief, low-key but mind-blowing presentation by Mitja Hinderks in which he explained how his little organization is going to cut global CO2 emissions by 25% with an innovative new design for an uncooled internal combustion engine that, compared to today’s engines, will have a fraction of the parts, a multiple of the efficiency, and could be swapped in and out of vehicles like a cartridge.

For those of us working to promote green business practices, it can seem self-evident that these issues are important. It follows that the language we use in messaging is frequently assertive, reflecting that assumption. But is that the most effective way to get our target audience to take action?

In the January 2012 edition of the Journal of Marketing, Ann Kronrod, Amir Grinstein, and Luc Wathieu say that it depends entirely on the target audience. Their research in Go Green!! Should Environmental Messages Be So Assertive?? shows that imperative language can be a very effective means to reach people already persuaded of a subject’s importance, but—here is the critical part—can actually decrease compliance among those people for whom the importance is not clear. In other words, assertive language in environmental and social justice messaging can be doing more harm than good, depending on who is on the receiving end.

This is particularly interesting given that this same team reports that in an examination of real slogans from http://www.ThinkSlogans.com, environmental slogans were nearly three times more often assertive than a random mix of slogans for consumer goods (57% vs. 19%). Examples used of such imperative messaging included Greenpeace’s “Stop the catastrophe” and Denver Water’s “Use only what you need.”

According to Kronrod et al, “The drawbacks in assertive phrasing have been extensively documented by researchers in communications, consumer behavior, and psycholinguistics. The overwhelming evidence accumulated thus far is that assertiveness interacts with consumers’ drive for freedom in a counterpersuasive manner.” In other words, nobody wants to be told what to do unless they already intend to do it.

The good news: research shows that a softer approach, acknowledging the difficulty of compliance, or simply suggesting/encouraging a behavior choice instead of demanding it (“You could bike to work once a week” vs. “Bike to work once a week!”) is considerably more effective, because it recognizes the perceived conflict between personal agendas and public good.

Another effective approach when messaging an audience that’s less committed to an environmentally friendly agenda is to first elevate the importance of the issue before making any requests. Showing a film clip, or photos that highlight the importance of the given issue can do this.  Once an issue is perceived as important, the audience is then more likely to be persuaded by assertive language.

This brings us to the flip side of these findings. For an audience that is already committed to the importance of an issue, softer language can be irritating, as the message is perceived to be out of line with the urgency felt.

My takeaway: it’s critical to align language to perception. The authors of this study note that it’s still unknown whether assertive language in green requests leads to long-term effects on behavior. Until then, we can at least meet people where they are for an immediate impact, without jeopardizing future credibility. What do you think??!!

Bonnie J. Wallace is a freelance writer living in Los Angeles, specializing in responsible business. She holds a Sustainable MBA from Bainbridge Graduate Institute as well as a strong belief in business as a tool for transformation. When she’s not writing, Bonnie enjoys exploring ways that art can create community, and performing her supporting role as a stage mom.

Many of the leading manufacturers of medical equipment have certified one or more of their buildings using the LEED system. Medtronic is among those that have used LEED. But it also piloted another standard, called Green Globes, and it liked it so much it will be using the system again for new and existing construction.

Green Globes, developed and promoted by The Green Building Initiative (GBI), is a LEED competitor. The GBI says the Green Globes  certification criteria overlap with LEED criteria by about 90%. Medtronic itself identified an 85 percent overlap in its initial Green Globes pilot.

They key advantagesof Green Globe: reduced time and reduced cost. GBI and Medtronic both say the cost of obtaining a Green Globes certification is significantly lower than for LEED. GBI says it’s 30 percent of the cost of LEED certification. And it’s much less time consuming. Rather than painstakingly compiling documentation, submitting to the U.S. Green Building Council and waiting for a verdict on certification, Green Globes provides an online interactive tool that captures key information and guides users through the process, showing you in real time how you are scoring and suggesting opportunities to improve your rating. When you are ready, GBI sends a certified Green Globes auditor to walk through your facility, check your work, and sign off on your certification.

LEED supporters could make the case that it may be easier to falsify information using the Green Globes approach than the LEED approach. But if a building owner is really interested in improving operational efficiency, they’d have little reason to do so.

Green Globes has already been used to certify hundreds of buildings in the government, commercial, residential and hospital sectors, and has been recognized as a green building standard by 22 states so far, according to GBI. Nonetheless, it doesn’t have anywhere near the name recognition as LEED does, and that fact will doubtless be crucial in some projects.

In the way that Green Globes is challenging LEED I see a parallel with how web-based software changed traditional enterprise software. The only way to acquire enterprise software used to be to install costly packaged software and undergo the time and expense of implementing and integrating it on site. Web-based hosted alternatives disrupted this model, lowering costs and speeding implementations. This feels like what is happening with Green Globes.

I think there is room for another standard here. What do you think?

New York City (April 4, 2012) – Green Research, a New York-based corporate sustainability research and advisory firm, today released its latest benchmark of corporate environmental sustainability goals, this one analyzing the medical equipment and supplies industry, a large and profitable industry where the top 10 companies generate over $100 billion in revenue annually. The study found that sustainability in this industry focuses to an exceptional degree on waste management. While only a minority of firms in the industry set public, quantitative sustainability goals, more of those goals are focused on waste management than on any other objective, more even than reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which tops the list in most other industries. “Reducing waste and diverting waste from landfills is a key imperative in this industry,” said David Schatsky, principal analyst and founder of Green Research. “It has even emerged as a new revenue opportunity.” The report highlights two companies, Stryker and BD, that have created businesses that reclaim, reprocess, recycle or remanufacture used medical products, helping hospitals reduce their own waste burden and creating a new revenue stream in the process. But companies are still missing significant opportunities.

The study found that just four of the 10 largest manufacturers of medical equipment and supplies have announced any public environmental sustainability goals at all. It also found that while these companies’ sustainability, citizenship or social responsibility programs are generally concerned not only with environmental issues but also social, ethical and other issues as well, when it comes to setting and disclosing specific, time-bound, quantitative goals, they tend to limit themselves to environmental goals. In the environmental dimension as well as the social dimensions, companies in this industry could go further in setting and declaring specific goals for themselves. The companies covered in the study are Baxter International, BD, Boston Scientific, Covidien, Medtronic, Smith & Nephew, St. Jude Medical, Stryker, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Zimmer Holdings.

Among the other findings:  As in many industries, significant environmental impacts in this industry occur outside a company’s four walls, in its supply chain or in customer use or product end of life. Eight-seven percent of the sustainability goals companies have set, however, are focused on internal operations. Setting supply chain sustainability goals is a missed opportunity in this industry. Green Research also benchmarked how the medical equipment makers present information about their sustainability programs on their corporate websites, focusing on six communication elements including the use of the corporate website homepage, sustainability contact information and reporting of key data.  Of the measures tracked, Baxter and Medtronic provided the most comprehensive information. Baxter provided all six elements, while Medtronic provided all but one: it did not engage a third-party assurance provider.

The medical equipment and supplies sustainability goals benchmarking research is available online at greenresearch.com. To learn more about the research, please visit greenresearch.com or contact David Schatsky at 646-783-8337 or info@greenresearch.com.

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is not just for new construction anymore. In fact, the U.S. Green Building Council reported in December 2011 that LEED-certified existing buildings had exceeded LEED-certified new construction for the first time, and by 15 million square feet no less. Economic and environmental improvements are being seen by retrofitting existing building operations to meet the LEED standard, including in the area of waste management.

Following are the ways companies can incorporate waste management practices into gaining LEED certification on existing buildings:

1)      Prerequisite: A Solid Waste Management Policy
Requirements: A company must maintain a written policy detailing the waste streams under their control, and the procedures for reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfill or incineration.
Tips for Achievement: As a prerequisite, this policy must be in place before a company can even begin to apply for waste management credits.

2)      1 Credit: Waste Stream Audit
Requirements: Conduct an audit of all building “ongoing consumables” wastes (low cost per unit items that are regularly ordered and disposed of), and use to create a baseline that will show opportunities for increased recycling/re-use.
Tips for Achievement: If a company has done the work to create a comprehensive solid waste management policy, they’ve probably already come pretty close to doing a full waste stream audit. However, make sure all opportunities are identified and acted upon.

3)      1 Credit: Ongoing Consumables
Requirements: Maintain a waste reduction and recycling program for items regularly used and replaced in the course of business (Ex: cardboard, plastic, glass). 50% of ongoing consumable waste streams must be recycled to qualify for this credit, and 80% of portable dry cell batteries must also be recycled.

Tips for Achievement: The great thing about this credit is how easy it is to set up. Nearly all waste service providers will include consumables recycling programs to some degree, so work with them on recycling containers, employee training, and program development.

4)      1 Credit: Durable Goods
Requirements: Maintain a waste reduction and recycling program for items that are not regularly purchased or require capital expenditure (Ex: electronics and appliances). 75% of durable goods waste streams must be recycled to qualify for this credit.
Tips for Achievement: Consider donation of still functioning electronics or appliances to charity groups, schools, or Habitat for Humanity. For non-functioning items, the growth of electronics waste and recycling has been exponential in the last few years, and plenty of service providers are available to businesses.

5)      1 Credit: Facility Alterations and Additions
Requirements: Divert at least 70% of facility alterations/additions waste from disposal in landfills or incineration.
Tips for Achievement: Having written policies describing construction materials that can be recycled, identifying waste haulers that will incorporate recycling and re-use, and requiring contractors to identify how they will reduce source materials are ways to achieve this credit before a facility alteration is even planned.

Anna Munie is a freelance writer currently working within the fields of sustainability and environmental health and safety management. She has 10 years of experience in hazardous waste management and is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM). When not developing sustainability programs and making sure the Ph.D.’s in her research department don’t blow themselves up, she competes nationally with her horse Lucky in the sport of reining.

The data allows us to construct a profile of sustainability consultants, with information about consultants’ educational and professional backgrounds, the industries they are working for most, what types of projects are most popular and so on. The report is useful for consultants and the companies that hire them. The data is also very relevant to recruiters, organizations offering education, training and certification to sustainability consultants, and media companies and event producers who are targeting these folks. (You can download a free copy here.)

Misreading the Data

The study got some nice coverage in the media, but some of that coverage took a perspective that may be misleading. One piece, for instance, led off with this statement: “Some 49 percent of sustainability consultants believe business conditions are somewhat or very strong today even though just 26 percent of them work full-time in sustainability, according to a survey by Green Research.” This statement seems to suggest that sustainability consultants are underemployed—only a quarter are really working full time, after all. That’s not my reading of the data, however.

If you’ve worked as a consultant you know that it’s rare to spend 100 percent of your time doing billable work for clients. Senior consultants and managing consultants especially tend to spend a large share of their time on business development. Most consulting companies track the “utilization rate” of their consultants, and successful ones tend to achieve average utilization rates of around 80 percent. In our survey, just 20 percent of respondents reported a utilization rate at their company of 80 percent or more.

Consultants Spend Non Billable Time on Business Development and Internal Projects

How Consultants Spend Non-billable Time

When consultants are not consulting for clients, what are they doing? We asked that question, actually. A majority are working on business development or on internal projects. Some are in training or catching up with administrative work. That’s typical and healthy.

The consulting business is challenged by the fact that clients are often lacking budget, needing education and slow to make decisions. But a growing number of companies are getting serious about defining strategies and are starting to work on improving their environmental performance. This will be create demand for good sustainability consultants for years to come.

New York City (March 13, 2012) – Green Research, the New York-based corporate sustainability research and advisory firm, today released a new report featuring the results of the world’s first global study of consultants working in sustainability and corporate social responsibility. The study was conducted via an online survey fielded with the support of media partners globally. The survey drew 1548 responses from six continents and 69 countries. The report, “Global Sustainability Consultant Survey, 2012,” finds sustainability consultants optimistic about their business prospects. Forty-nine percent of consultants surveyed say business conditions are somewhat or very strong today and 62 percent expect a strong business environment six months from now. “Sustainability consultants are generally upbeat about business conditions,” said David Schatsky, principal analyst at Green Research and author of the report. “Consultants working in Asia-Pacific countries are the most upbeat of all. But challenges loom as well.”

The study found that many professionals have been drawn to the sustainability consulting field in recent years. The data reveal that 40 percent of the consultants entered the field less than three years ago. According to the report, a combination of factors has contributed to the influx of professionals to the field. These include the dislocations caused by the 2008 financial crisis and ensuing recessions, which prompted some professionals to become independent consultants, and growing awareness of sustainability challenges and interest in helping to solve them.  Of course, the field has well established firms and highly experienced consultants as well. Forty percent of sustainability consultants have been working in the field for at least 5 years; about half of those claim 10 years’ experience.

The report suggests that the influx of new consultants may be putting downward pressure on consulting incomes. Among US-based consultants, the median annual income is $70,000. Three-quarters of consultants earn $97,500 or less annually but incomes as high as $310,000 were reported. In the US the incomes of sustainability consultants are comparable to the salaries reported in 2010 by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for management or operations research analysts.

The report also examined the industries, business areas, and technical areas consultants were most active in over the prior year. More consultants worked in manufacturing than any other sector. Strategy and planning projects were more common than projects focusing on specific business or operational areas such as supply chain or facilities. Green Research believes that as the field matures, consultants will need to couple strategy expertise with expert industry and functional knowledge.

The research is now available for download at greenresearch.com. For more information, please contact David Schatsky at +1 646-783-8337 or info@greenresearch.com.