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.

June 21, 2011

I recently came across something that made me really worry – about my profession, my country, and my planet. I was driving through rural Pennsylvania, when I came across a segment on a radio show that was a review of a video game of race cars. The reviewer was very excited and praised the “real life” game action. But then he said: “The game even has neat features for the environment,” he said. “Why, you can create race tracks that have mud, snow, or trees, whatever environment you want! This may be the 1st environmentally friendly video game ever!”

I was blown away. This is what the “environment” means to young people; the opportunity to create a scene in a video game with mud, snow or trees? And the reviewer said this proudly. It 60 second commercial spot; it was a detailed review. My worry is that young people listening to this review (I assume it can be read on the web, too) will begin to think that is what the environment is and just a few clicks can change the environment and isn’t that cute. What will our future hold if people think of the environment as a decoration to look at (and drive cars through) and nothing more?

And I’m even more concerned being in our great land because a democracy only works with an informed electorate. However one feels about the environmental, it should at least be based on an intelligent scientific and economic view and not based on a skewed version of what the environment is. I’m concerned with our long term approach.

But I want to end this blog with some good news, though. More and more schools across the nation are introducing environmental education into their curriculum. More schools, cities, and counties are building environmental centers for hands-on learning. Although I worry about the level of support and training of those leading the efforts, this at least is positive. We should all support such activities locally.

And environmental education is hitting the airwaves. Where I live (Westchester County, NY), a local radio station has just started a show devoted to green projects. WFAS (1230 on the AM dial, www.wfasam.com, streamed online) has the show on Saturdays at 12 noon, hosted by my good friend, Bill Bobenhausen, an award winning architect and LEED-AP. Give it a listen and encourage your friends too, so more such shows can get on the air to truly educate ourselves and young people and show off good projects!

CCES can help you in your educational program communicate environmental and green goals and accomplishments to your target audience inhouse or outreach to others.

February 1, 2011

Because of the recession and other factors many companies relegate environmental concerns below most other management areas. EHS is considered “back office”. Keep a low profile; just make sure we comply and don’t get fined. Some either accept this as reality or embrace this as being steady, low risk, and keeping the status quo.

The reality is that being an underappreciated service within your company is not good for your company’s growth and viability, for EHS, or for your career. As a corporate “step child”, EHS may not get the budget you need to do your job, detecting and addressing any potential non-compliant situation proactively, in a professional manner. Perhaps things are so bad that EHS may not be given the resources to even do the basics and your operations may become non-compliant or on the brink. This results, of course, in you being blamed should an incident occur or an inspection formally reveal non-compliance, even though you may not have been given the proper resources. In addition, morale among staff may decline making it more difficult to achieve group goals. Plus proposals for necessary future new equipment or projects are turned down.

How can one rescue this situation and raise the profile of EHS in the corporate culture?

All companies have a distinct “culture”. The thinking of the last couple of decades has been: “change the culture”. However, growing research and evidence shows that this is difficult to achieve and may backfire. Corporate traditions, procedures, “culture” have been forged for years, even decades, and often by the most powerful authorities. Trying to change established ways is often resisted by people throughout the corporate chain.

Therefore, the best approach is to raise the visibility of EHS working within the culture you have now. How is your company set up in terms of decision making? Are broad decisions made by a single corporate leader or small coterie of Senior VPs? Or is your company more decentralized and decisions made at the facility, branch, or dept level? Understand the answer to this question and work within your framework to raise EHS’s profile. For example, if budgetary decisions are made by senior VPs, develop a relationship with a potential sympathetic leader and educate him or her on the importance to the company of a strong EHS Dept, and the business and reputational risks of a reactive department. Even cite for this person incidents like the BP Deepwater Horizon incident last year and what it cost them financially and reputation-wise, and others. A strong EHS Dept could detect and prevent impactful tragedies from occurring at your facilities. Provide data on what your needs are to do the job and their direct value. Help this powerful person represent EHS interests at upper-management meetings. If your company is more decentralized, work with a particular dept or facility that already has understandings of EHS and make them a model for what a successful facility can do for the bottom line and reduced risk, and publicize this internally for the understanding of other, less understanding facilities.

Take the initiative and good luck!

Feb. 28, 2010
A recent survey by National Real Estate Investor shows that green building in commercial real estate is growing significantly. Over 88% of developers and 86% of corporate executive stated that green design is as or more important than it was before the current economic slump. According to the US Green Business Council, LEED certified projects in terms of number of projects and total square feet rose over 90% in 2008 compared to 2007, despite the onset of a serious recession.

The reason for this increase despite the need to invest extra funds up front during a recession is purely economic. A green building is a major driver for buyers and for tenants. It is recognized that “green” buildings will result in significant savings in energy usage for the prolonged life of the building. A 2009 McKinsey study stated that cumulatively energy efficiency upgrades to buildings on a national level will return more than double the upfront cost by 2020. Buyers and tenants also recognize that healthier surroundings contribute to greater productivity and fewer sick days.
While green is the way to go for these and other reasons, it is also important for a company to properly communicate green achievements. A recent study published by Maddock Douglas called “Map Change 2010” takes a recent survey by Climate Counts of several hundred companies in diverse industries using a rating system based on 22 criteria and compared them to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion of perceived environmental achievements. The report showed a number of companies had environmental images that were very different from what they had achieved. For example, the shipping company DHL had an actual achievement rating of 68, but a perception rating of only 16. And a number of companies had positive perception that was much greater than achievement. For example, the Hyatt Hotel chain had a perception rating of 72, but an achievement rating of 12. Wendy’s food chain had a perception rating of 64 and an achievement rating of 2.

What explains these discrepancies (besides the fact that Wendy’s offers a salad bar)? Of course, opinion polls and other yardsticks for green achievements may be flawed given the complexity of what is truly green. But also a key is the message the companies are putting out. Given the recent backlash in the U.S. media questioning the validity (by some) and the cost of addressing climate change during a recession, it is critical that the message getting across to the public be less the gains for the planet, but how green will improve the actual product (i.e., those building benefits listed above). I’m no communications expert, but perhaps DHL should get the message across that their green initiative results in reduced energy use, which gets packages to people quicker (just a suggestion). Like many things, one’s green program has to be presented as a value-adding proposition. How has being green affected the reliability of the company? You should use your green program to show increased vitality, passion, and efficiency of your company.