January 31, 2012

Though some US municipalities are beginning to address it, climate change adaptation or how an entity will cope with the likely incremental increases in temperatures and precipitation (both greater rainfall and droughts) is not discussed much in board meetings or other strategic sessions. The trends are real and no longer something that can be delayed to a future generation. A recent Weather Channel survey showed twice as many all-time high temperatures compared to all-time lows. Certainly the news is full of stories of greater intensity hurricanes, tornados, and storms occurring more often.

But there is action on the global front about climate change adaptation. The Global Adaptation Institute has developed a Global Adaptation Index (GAIN). The U.S. is ranked 8th in the world with a particularly high “readiness” quotient because we already have a well-developed business infrastructure. Many countries that are smaller, more geographically vulnerable, or have fewer safeguards have a much lower GAIN ranking.
Industries and companies are addressing adaptation in future plans – some to strategize to minimize disruptions and some as an opportunity for enhanced business. Here are two examples from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Network Rail, which overseas railroad operations in the UK, studied the operational impacts of increased heat and precipitation and issued a report last year. They identified several issues in the future that would need to be addressed, such as employee and passenger heat stress (reducing the former’s productivity and requiring more frequent railway efforts for the latter); an increase in railroad track buckling (requiring more frequent speed restrictions throughout the system); and increasing frequency of storm surges and flooding (risking the efficacy of certain trackside equipment and damaging stations and tracks and embankments and their equipment). With this information, Network Rail will identify particular regions of concern and develop strategies to reduce losses in these catastrophic cases (i.e., raise certain equipment above ground).

BASF has been conducting research in several areas related to climate change and is slowly introducing new products, such as crops that can adapt to more extremes in temperature and rainfall, a polymer that can help a dike resist the forces of braking water, and a polymer that can sit in the soil and absorb, hold on to, and gradually release rainwater in regions that get little rain, but get high volumes when it comes. These and other products will eventually be commercialized to help many countries and individuals adapt to climate change and also help their business bottom line.

CCES and our experts can help your company assess the worthiness of potential green building projects for your existing and new buildings with a proper gaps analysis.

Green building has had its ups and downs lately. Many professionals complain about the USGBC’s LEED standards, ranging from it’s too expensive and difficult to get certification to it does not truly result in sustainability. The number of projects in the LEED pipeline has reportedly stagnated lately. Some have talked about putting out new competing standards or simpler ones that will gain interest from more building owners.
But green building and LEED are here – at least for now. Here are some trends that have been reported to occur in 2011 and likely to continue into 2012.
1. The Economy – With the real estate industry and new building construction still stagnant, the focus of green building has shifted to the greening of existing buildings. Owners of existing buildings believe that there is “more bang for the buck” of upgrades to meet LEED requirements with a payback in terms of raising revenues (rents) and property values.
2. Recognition of water issues. Given the growth in extreme weather events in the last few years, there is growing awareness of the issue of flooding and stormwater control, which can be addressed by green roofs and rainwater recovery systems. In some parts of the U.S., there is a growing fear of water shortages. Therefore, water conservation technologies will grow in popularity.
3. Outdoing conventional energy savings. To make a splash and to respond to rising energy prices, more building owners are considering alternative energy, not just wind turbines and solar cells, but geothermal and aquifer air temperature control systems, too. If appropriate, designed right and with the right incentives (government and utility), such a technology can reduce energy bills substantially, a major cost for tenants and make the “green” buildings very competitive.
4. Performance, not design. Given the investment in smart technologies and design, it is important to demonstrate that these systems actually work in real time as advertised and designed. It is not enough to just purchase an advanced technology. Commissioning and other testing is needed and insisted on to demonstrate that it is actually performing as assumed. The USGBC and other entities are waking up to the need for continual superior performance.
5. Government buildings – Governments are becoming one of the biggest segments for green buildings, ranging from the US Army in Afghanistan to the federal government making a bona fide effort to build new or refurbish to LEED standards, as practical, to a growing number of school systems retrofitting “green” for the health and well being of students and teachers. A growing number of local government policies mandate “green” initiatives in new govt buildings.
CCES and our experts can help your company assess the worthiness of potential green building projects for your existing and new buildings with a proper gaps analysis.

Changing one’s ways or implementing new initiatives is difficult. It’s inconvenient. This seems especially true in the U.S. in recent years. Thus, the reluctance to implement smarter, cleaner strategies. Businesses in other nations have demonstrated that clean approaches – in operations and also in business strategies – have been successful in meeting the challenges of the global recession. Now there is a U.S. industry that can be a model for companies across the business spectrum to add value while addressing sustainability concerns, and that is the automobile industry.

For decades “Big Auto” did things the same old way, ignoring the fact that technology and consumer preferences were changing and that more people no longer wanted to drive gas guzzlers, whether because of rising gasoline prices or concern with the environment. Perhaps they thought they can affect consumer attitudes with advertising.

The results for U.S. auto makers were disastrous. By failing to be more sustainable, U.S. automakers weakened their bottom line and lost their lead position in global sales. GM was rescued from potentially going totally out of business by a federal bailout with oversight that insisted the company make the type of cars that people had requested for years. Chrysler, besides getting bailout money, was taken over by a European buyer, infusing their sustainability experience. While Ford was not bailed out, they were on the verge of bankruptcy and also began to build more fuel-efficient cars that they had been fighting for decades. Although some Americans are unsure about climate change, Big Auto finally learned that addressing sustainability helps consumers get more value from their car, which everyone supports. All 3 firms have improved sales and the bottom line. Even SUV sales have improved recently, but for models with better gas mileage.

Which other U.S. industries have not addressed changing technologies and consumer preferences and can use the U.S. auto industry as a model? One that comes to mind is the power industry, as major electricity producers have fought new regulatory initiatives and renewable energy. Power companies have the opportunity to gradually replace their oldest, dirtiest power plants with cleaner energy, but many appear reluctant to do so.

An example is the new draft mercury rules for power plants. The US EPA, after listening to industry and environmental sectors, crafted new rules with an economic analysis that estimates both avoided deaths and emergency room visits that could be caused by this rule, based on current scientific knowledge, and the overall national economic gain. Instead, power companies are lobbying against this bill and even pushing Congress to pass a bill preventing the US EPA from passing new rules. Some have intimated that plants may shut down and perhaps potentially deprive areas of electricity.

It may seem counterintuitive, but smart federal rules that represent compromises between industry and environmental groups and based on current health-based, scientific knowledge and economic analysis, may be the best thing for the power and all industries. Such efforts result in a “level playing field” for all companies and a more satisfied public, both in terms of health cost savings, energy independence, energy source choices and risk, and environmental concerns. With all the debate in the last few years about federal health care legislation and record health insurance costs, it is certainly non-partisan and in everybody’s interest to enact laws that can reduce factors that lead to fatalities and the need for health care, based on current knowledge.

There is also the case of “unwanted consequences” by squelching smart legislation. An example for all industries is federal climate change or “carbon” legislation, which did not pass Congress. Failure to enact uniform legislation does not mean that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not regulated. Instead they are regulated in a “quilt” of rules in different states, regions, and even cities. The Northeast U.S. has the “RGGI” rule for GHG emissions from power plants there, while California’s new AB-32 has demanding rules for many industries. And then there are rules that only indirectly affect carbon emissions, such as “green building” rules and renewable energy standards. Even federal GHG rules are not gone. First, the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 98) requires a variety of industries to report (not reduce) their direct emissions. Finally, the US EPA will be required to pass legislation to reduce GHG emissions through the Clean Air Act (CAA). Required? Yes. Several courts have ruled that GHGs are a “pollutant”, and the CAA requires the US EPA to regulate all pollutants. But, the CAA is not the ideal way to legislate reductions of compounds with no direct, health-based effects. Rules based on the CAA may impact some industries harder than others compared to specific GHG-based rules (theory of “square peg in a round hole”).

The writing is on the wall for many U.S. industries, including the power industry. Change positively with the times, seek consumer preferences, and work with new technologies and together with the government and there is a chance to benefit from the available transition to clean energy and benefit the bottom line. A New Year’s Wish for 2012.

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————–
This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on draft rules. CCES experts can assist you in strategizing to comply reliably with these new and other regulatory standards.

It’s the beginning of the calendar year, a time when many environmental professionals begin to gather their 2011 environmental data to generate reports that your regulatory agencies require. How much fuel did your stationary combustion sources burn in the past year? How many times was a certain condition exceeded in the past quarter? Were there any accidental releases this year? If so, were they addressed promptly? Data used to determine your facility’s compliance status vis-à-vis all applicable environmental requirements has the end game: “Did we have any violations to result in NOVs (Notices of Violation) or fines this year?” Environmental compliance was seen by management as a back office operation to minimize costs, and not as an integral part of conducting business. Data had limited uses, but never studied to optimize practices or to understand its effects on company business prospects. No fines? You’re fine.

But forward-thinking businesses are now thinking differently about environmental metrics. Customer and shareholder preferences, regulatory pressures and process optimization require detailed environmental and sustainability data. New environmental software exist to make the gathering and analytical processes easier and smoother. Environmental metrics must be taken more seriously now to give direction to where your firm is heading. ISO 14001 and its companion guidelines and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have been major drivers in this movement.

Every company or facility has individual needs and systems and cannot be pigeon-holed into a single approach. However, there are some universal values to ponder. One is the critical need for planning. One must spend significant upfront time to determine what data needs to be collected and what is the value of such measurements – not just to EHS, but to other departments and stakeholders (customers, government, etc.), too. For example, you may collect fuel usage data to compute emissions, but that data is also useful to your Production and Business departments. You don’t want to waste your time and resources collecting useless data. In this effort it is critical to involve the right people from other departments, such as IT, Finance, Production, etc., so everyone is on board with the data, how it’s collected, and its potential meaning. Make sure that your data adds value to achieving everyone’s ultimate goals. Make sure collection and treatment methods are consistent with those used by other departments or company facilities, as well as with global standards, so your data and results are not questioned.

You and your company will benefit in 2012 if you can devote some time to assess and optimize your environmental or sustainability data planning and gathering system. This is a good time to begin meeting with IT and other department reps to overhaul your environmental data management system, to modernize it, and add business value.

CCES has the technical experts to assist you in assessing your environmental or sustainability data and to recommend ways to bring more value to the data available. Our experts are familiar with a number of different software to manage your data reliably and save you time and money.

January 4, 2012

It’s the beginning of a new year. Just as people develop personal new year’s resolutions for self-improvement which, we hope, we’ll stick to, people should develop company or professional new year’s resolutions, too. What can you do to improve your effectiveness for your company, which will, as a result, make yourself more valuable to your company (when hard decisions have to be made) and benefit your company to, at least in part, put off those potential hard times? Maybe more important, what can you do for your firm that has measureable value, so you can point to the effort and say “I saved the (company/department/facility) $X last year and here’s the proof.”? Working for big firms, that was always a stumbling block for me. I felt I had achievements beyond my goals to benefit my company, but had trouble putting it into undeniable dollars and cents metrics. What can you do to help yourself professionally this year? I maintain one area that meets these criteria is to work to improve the company’s energy efficiency, whether it’s your own or your department’s or entire company’s energy profile. You can demonstrate real gains and translate them into financial savings and other benefits.

An energy efficiency assessment of operations has many advantages – from a business point of view – for any company, big or small. Of course, one such advantage is cost savings. An energy efficiency assessment and implementation of “low hanging fruit” is just about guaranteed to save your company money. One way to achieve this is to work with your Purchasing Department to institute a policy that all new equipment purchased has the Energy Star label, if applicable. This joint EPA/DOE program ensures that you will be saving electricity or fuel use compared to the typical equipment of that type. A lighting study also has a strong return on investment.

But do note that while improving the efficiency of your operations vis-à-vis electricity usage is positive, another item to examine is conservation. Are there areas/times where operations using electricity can be eliminated altogether? While it is a pain to request people shut off lights or computers in areas they are leaving, look into requesting movement sensors that will turn off lights automatically if there has been no movement for a certain amount of time. Reducing usage by 20%, 50%, or more is great, but reducing usage by 100%, even for a short amount of time, is even more powerful.

Besides direct monetary savings, helping to institute an energy efficiency program for your company has other benefits, such as meeting greenhouse gas emission reduction, goals, raising employee morale, and improving the productivity of your company. After all, how does a company best beat the competition, by being more efficient?

CCES has the technical experts to assist you in assessing your energy usage and in recommending strategies to be more efficient and reduce usage. Our experts can also translate those strategies into implementation and into determining real financial savings and gains.

December 28, 2011

Like everyone, I have thoughts and wishes for 2012. Besides personal ones for me and my family, I have one I wish to share with you, my fellow environmental professionals. My wish for 2012 is that we go back to the way it was about a decade ago or so and live in a society that makes decisions based on facts and science rather than based on innuendo and to please those who yell the loudest or have the best lobbyists. Need an example. There are many. But just a few days ago I was watching a political discussion show and a “panel” of experts declared the EPA as “out of control” because of their new draft mercury rules, without speaking of what those rules were. They conveniently did not mention that the rule contains an analysis showing a net economic benefit to our country of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, they can critique the analysis; that’s fine. But to criticize a rule just because it’s a rule and not its merits is what I am talking about.

We should make decisions for our society and our country based on the best science, and not worry so much about pleasing constituencies. Decisions should not be made based on short-term gains (for the next election cycle), but, instead, for the long-term benefits for the most people. Yes, in all decisions (i.e., new rules, allowing a project to move forward or not), some people or some businesses get hurt and some prosper. But if these decisions are transparent, based on science and not hearsay, and made for long-term benefits, then businesses and people have a chance to adjust positively to even those decisions that may initially have adverse impacts. In the last decade, so many societal decisions have been made (and even more delayed or avoided) based on pleasing a small (either loud or wealthy) constituency, and this should be ended.

And I hope that businesses, governments, and other institutions begin in 2012 to be more innovative and take more smart risks. I detect in these past few years (especially since our recession) organizations have hesitated to make logical, wise decisions. The status quo is easier than doing something new or different, even if likely to be beneficial. The fear of what may happen to decision makers because of a decision maybe failing to meet all goals is paralyzing growth in this country. I hope that organizations will stop blocking otherwise logical plans that are not quite perfect and use smart analysis to fix and improve a bad situation – if it happens. It is only with a changing approach like this that U.S. businesses can innovate, become more competitive, and save money at the same time; and governments, universities, etc. can better serve its stakeholders.

I’m hoping that in 2012 all science-based professionals, such as the readers of this blog, begin to get greater respect and recognition than the non-science educated people whose decisions affect our companies, country, and our careers.

Let me know your thoughts!

I hope you, your family, friends, and colleagues have a Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous 2012 from CCES. And I hope we can be part of the coming year for you, as well.

December 2011

The year-end holidays are a time for big meals, family, etc. But we should always keep the thanks in Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, etc. Here are some statistics to drive home the importance of sustainability and for the holidays. You probably heard the news story about a month ago that the Earth’s population has just reached the 7 billion mark. But there is another statistic that did not make the news even more sobering. According to the IPCC, of the 7 billion people a little over 1 billion live “like us”. That is, we eat 3 full meals a day, own our own car (and maybe more than 1 and a boat, too), have a roof over our heads where we can easily burn fuel or use electricity with a click of a button to control the temperature, go on vacation, and use many “things” to make life easier (i.e., TVs, smartphones, laptops, etc., etc.). And even if some of these billion plus people do not physically have all of these, it is only by choice. Yes, we in the U.S., Canada, Western/Central Europe, Japan, Australia, and parts of other countries are all high resource and energy users. This is not a guilt trip. We have been given this opportunity to have access to these. They are affordable, so we consume and use.

But this statistic leads to two important points. According to several demographers, the expected world population in 2050 – less than 40 years from now – is expected to be 9 billion. OK, what’s a couple of billion more mouths to feed, particularly if most will live on subsistence diets, will not own cars or climate-controlled homes, take vacations, etc.? But the kicker is that it is believed that by 2050 the number of people who will be “like us” will increase from a little over one billion to 3 billion! 2 billion additional people will live in bigger homes, drive cars, use laptops, refrigerators, clothes washers, TVs, smartphones, etc. This will occur mainly in the “BRIC” countries as they grow and people move to the middle class. We are already seeing many people in China giving up their bicycles and buying their first automobiles, where both the infrastructure (the roads) and the environment (the air) are not ready for this big increase in automobile usage. Therefore, sustainability is a must for us. How can we refuse these additional 2 billion people having seen how “we” live to live “like us”, too? But how can we provide the extra energy, water, and resources for all of these new items for these additional 2 billion people? We must redouble our efforts to be sustainable or our natural resources will be so scarce as to put us in another recession (or worse) or lead to war or protests.

And, how does that initial statistic relate to the holidays? If you are reading this article, you are most likely in the one billion out of 7 who live a high energy lifestyle. No matter what may be troubling you (and I am sure that it’s legit), always be thankful that you have access to 3 full meals a day, a comfortable home, means of transportation, access to the Internet, TV, and gadgets galore, etc. Be thankful that you are not part of the 85% of the world’s population that do not have access or cannot afford all of these pleasures.

Happy Holidays to you and your family from CCES.

On Dec. 2, 2011, the USEPA released for public comment draft changes of final rules for reconsideration for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers under the MACT Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) program. These will be 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD (“5 D’s”) for boilers at major sources for HAPs and Subpart JJJJJJ (“6 J’s”) for boilers at area (non-major) sources. The difference between the two rules is that major sources are generally industrial sources already emitting significant quantities of HAPs from other sources, while area sources, such as office buildings, shopping malls, hotels, universities, churches, apartment buildings, etc., emit little HAPs from other sources.

The revised draft rules continue the requirement that hundreds of thousands of oil-fired boilers ≥10 mmBtu/hr maximum heat input conduct regular tune-ups and meet emission limits. The draft rule adds temporary, residential, and electric boilers to the 6 J’s exempt list and states that boilers at dwellings of farms and of universities are residential.

A tune-up that meets federal Boiler MACT requirements is composed of the following:

(1) Inspect the burner, and clean or replace any components of burner as needed.
(2) Inspect the flame pattern, as applicable, and adjust the burner as necessary to optimize flame pattern, consistent with manufacturer’s specifications.
(3) Inspect the air-to-fuel ratio system; ensure its proper function and calibration.
(4) Optimize CO emissions consistent with manufacturer’s specifications. Measure effluent concentrations of CO and O2, before and after adjustments are made.
(5) Maintain onsite a biennial report summarizing the information above.

The due date of the initial tune-up of a subject boiler has been delayed 1 year to March 21, 2013. Seasonably-operated and oil-fired boilers ≤5 mmBtu/hr may perform tune-ups every 5 years, instead of every 2. New boilers no longer require an initial tune-up.

The required one-time energy assessment must include:

(1) A visual inspection of the boiler system,
(2) An evaluation of the facility’s energy needs, inventory and specifications of systems using energy from boilers, and O&M procedures,
(3) A review of available architectural and engineering plans, facility operation and maintenance procedures and logs, and fuel usage,
(4) A list of major energy conservation measures, their energy savings potential, cost, and return on investment.

The new draft rule pushes back the energy assessment due date to March 21, 2014.

Some proposed emission limits have changed, too. For coal-fired boilers in 6 J’s, the CO emission limit was raised from 400 to 420 ppm; for mercury from 4.8 to 22 lb/TBtu.

How will this affect your boiler operations? While the rule’s implementation will be delayed, the USEPA has not changed their approach, meaning your company may need a new method to operate your boiler equipment. If you don’t use this already, it will be critical to put in writing and develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) for your boilers, based on manufacturer’s specifications, instead of doing “what makes sense” or “what we’ve always done”. Training of personnel to follow the SOPs will be important. Recordkeeping of operating parameters, changes and upgrades will need to be clear.

This may mean forging a relationship with your boiler manufacturer’s rep., who can help you develop your SOP and training and troubleshoot to improve your boilers’ efficiency. Of course, this is good news, as this will save your firm fuel use and, of course, money.

And this means that if you do not have an experienced energy professional in-house, then you will need to find a reliable company to perform the biennial audits and the one-time energy assessment. There is a growing number of professionals in the energy engineering area, as rules and incentives exist to become more energy efficient. A good place to start is with the Association of Energy Engineers (www.aeecenter.org). They have certification programs for Certified Energy Managers (CEM) and Certified Energy Auditors (CEA) who have the training to perform tune-ups and energy audits.

USEPA will take comments on the proposed rules for 60 days from Federal Register publication, and believes that final Boiler MACT rules will be published by April 2012.

See more about Congressional efforts to slow down implementation of the Boiler MACT in this blog from another organization:  http://hub.am/rO5qw3

Get more useful information in our blog: www.CCESworld.com/blog
———————————————————————————————————————

This Environmental News for You is meant to provide background on the draft amended Boiler MACT rule. CCES experts can assist you in strategizing to comply with these new standards and in performing the required tune-ups and energy assessments.

December 13, 2011

The majority of the corporate sector has not jumped on the bandwagon to go “green”, despite the evidence that doing so has many direct positive financial benefits. A major reason, I believe, is that the decision makers (CEOs, CFOs, etc.) are older and do not have a comfort level about sustainability. They did not learn about it in their MBA or other programs. That’s changing as nearly every MBA program now offers courses on sustainability in business. Decision makers tend to be conservative and do not want to risk possible negative impacts on a company’s bottom line and/or reputation. So they sit and wait to see how others have done with their programs. Below are some concerns corporate executives have expressed, and potential ways to overcome them.

Other articles have demonstrated significant reductions in expenses achieved by reducing one’s energy usage, a major part of a green program, money that goes directly into corporate profits. While CFOs acknowledge this, these types of efforts are generally not recognized by the press. While a newspaper often publishes articles showing how profits or sales of a company rose or dropped significantly, when was the last time an article was published about the decrease in energy usage or even in expenses? Lesson: Determine ways to positively reinforce energy gains for the decision makers.

Public perception also plays a role in corporate thinking. In a 2010 study by Harris Interactive, only 16% of American consumers said they believe most or all businesses are committed to ‘going green’ and there is high suspicion of company claims of success. This attitude perhaps resulted in another result of the poll: 71% of executives surveyed stated that they were hesitant to invest in a green program because of “consumers’ unwillingness to pay a premium for green products or services.” While consumers tell pollsters they are concerned about the environment and are willing to pay more for a “greener” product, results at the store level say otherwise. Therefore, “green” is really a secondary concern to shoppers behind performance and convenience of product usage. Lesson: Make sure that “green” products retain all of the advantages of conventional ones and say so on its label and literature.

There is also a general distrust of companies and their marketing claims, and that extends to “green” claims. This may cause companies to hold back on communicating real sustainability achievements for fear of a backlash. Lesson: Be transparent and complete in your communications; make sure there are “takeaways” (i.e., the proper metrics, such as GHG reductions); communicate by all avenues possible (social media) to different audiences; give credit to others; do not overdo the impacts of your efforts.

CCES experts can help you develop the most cost-effective sustainability strategic options; catalog these efforts to best frame and express your sustainability successes through the proper metrics; and to communicate them in diverse ways to different audiences for you to get the maximum gain for your executives and stakeholders.

December 6, 2011

Many companies are beginning some sort of sustainability program, recognizing its financial benefits. While many companies are instituting programs, many do not realize the importance of developing metrics and properly communicating progress. What type of data needs to be collected? Should sustainability be communicated at all or should it be delayed until after most goals are achieved? Many companies, big and small, wrestle with this problem. Overall, it is best to develop some form of communication, to demonstrate goals and progress, whether it is a formal Corporate Sustainability Report (CSR) or a few paragraphs in the corporate newsletter or website. Such a report is an opportunity to communicate your program’s existence to diverse stakeholders and others who have an interest to engender further support.

The report does not have to be lengthy or complex. In fact, small may be better as it has a better chance to get read. Know who your audience is. Who will read the report and what do they care about? Will it be employees, management, customers, business partners? What are they looking for? What are their expectations? Therefore, don’t just write down some goals and background, but do some planning to identify the issues of importance to meet their expectations.

The most important take-away for a reader of a CSR report is data for that is what people will remember. While you may have implemented some good new projects (upgrading your HVAC system, lighting, new windows, etc.), merely describing these does not impress; people will shrug their shoulders. What does resonate with most audiences is data, goals and achievements. So your CSR or few paragraphs should include how many tons of GHGs were reduced (or percentage) and the equivalent of how many trees were planted or cars taken off the road. This is what will impact your readers. Also, talk about the future and goals (i.e., “we’re ahead of pace to meet our goals”). Don’t forget to mention the sustainability team and give credit in print, from upper management support to those in the field.

Now, the next challenge is to get your CSR or section of a broader report read. Use communication tools, like your company’s website and social media to get your message across of your program’s progress, particularly to customers, employees, investors, and other interested parties in the specific places they read, such as in specific Linkedin Groups, in the sustainability, financial, and manufacturing areas.

CCES technical experts can help you not only plan the steps of a sustainability program, but can also develop the necessary data to give it meaning. We can also assist in helping you write your CSR report or other communication.