There is a profound change going on in business attitudes as seen in several business publications recently. A growing focus for companies is on conservation of energy and other natural resources (i.e., water, raw materials, etc.) they depend on for their product. Lately, there has been relatively great volatility in the global supply and demand of many of these, meaning risks (both cost and even business survival – of not being able to make your product in a reliable manner at a reliable cost) are real and potentially significant. For most industries, costs for energy and natural resources are a greater percentage of overall business costs than ever. Controlling these costs – or at least keeping them stable – are of growing concern.

What is driving this price and availability volatility? Our global economy. Currently, we have about 7 billion people on Earth, but of these about 1 billion are “like us”: high energy and resource users. If you are reading this article, you probably are using a smart phone, personal computer, printer, or some combination of all three. And if you own and use these, you probably also own and operate one or several TVs, music systems, automobiles, go on frequent trips, and can control your comfort (heating and cooling) with the touch of a few buttons both at home and at work. Yes, you are a high energy user. There is nothing wrong with this. We work hard and deserve to use and enjoy the latest technologies. But this comes at a cost. According to the demographers who study this, by 2050 we will have about 9 billion people on Earth, but of greater concern is that we will triple the number of people who are high energy and resource users, over 2 billion additional middle class people in less than 40 years. Why? Because of economic growth in the BRIC countries. This is not a theoretical exercise based on a computer model. We are seeing frequent reports of large numbers of people in China, India, Latin America, etc. trading in their bicycles for automobiles, their multifamily, poor housing accommodations for larger, single family, climate-controlled homes, etc. This drives up global demand and prices for all of us gasoline, water, building materials, etc.

However, the resources that everybody on Earth needs to prosper and grow into this lifestyle (energy, drinking water, chemicals, cement, plastics, food) are, for the most part, finite. Therefore, based on discoveries of new sources and availabilities of such resources, both shortages and gluts of these resources have and will continue to occur, affects resource availability and price and the very the operations of any company or plant. For example, natural gas prices are currently quite low in the U.S. because of new sources being successfully exploited. Oil and coal, the fuels of choice in most of the developing economies, leads a growing global demand that will cause their prices to increase for all. Companies dependent on oil and coal to supply heat for processes or comfort will likely be hit hard in the bottom line by future volatility in energy prices and perhaps even availability of the fuel.

Therefore, your role as EHS or Sustainability Manager may need to change in the coming years as companies recognize the importance of conserving usage and diversifying sources. Instead of protecting your company’s emissions and discharges from violating rules and from damaging the local environment and worker and public health and safety and counting carbon and other parameters, your role may also include managing the needs of these valuable, dwindling resources. The less dependent your company is on energy, water, etc. (i.e., the less needed to produce the same amount of product), the lower your company’s costs and business risks are. Similarly, the ability to diversify your sources of energy, water, raw materials, etc. (i.e., ability to combust more than one fuel type, multiple agricultural raw material sources and areas for fresh water) will result in a much lower risk of not having a key resource available and to keep manufacturing your products consistently and to meet your business goals.

For example, I worked on a project several years ago for a U.S. manufacturer which wanted to build two new manufacturing plants in Southeast Asia making certain consumer products. One of their major concerns was the source of energy to power large boilers to produce the large amount of heat needed for prodution. We investigated sources of energy easiest available in that country, including renewable sources, and modeled likely long-term prices. We recommended (and the client accepted) designing the boiler system to combust one fossil fuel and one renew-able fuel source (local, easily regrown trees) for these new plants. These are the most available long-term energy sources, and will reduce their risk of running low on energy.
Business leaders are beginning to acknowledge this critical challenge. Therefore, your role in your firm may grow to include managing critical resources. You may need to keep track of the availability and of prices of these resources and contribute to determining and implementing strategies for your processes concerning usage of natural resources to conserve their use and diversify sources.

Management of natural resource usage does not only involve minimizing your direct dependence on those that you need to make your product, but also should include minimizing their need for use in your products used by your customers. For example, if your products force your customers to have to use (and spend) more on energy to operate them, then your customers will begin to investigate alternatives that are more energy efficient. Conserving resources by your products makes them more competitive.

So watch out for the new buzzwords of resource management being important to a well-being of a company given their growing relative costs. Provide the technical expertise and work with your business professionals to reduce costs and risks for long-term gains.

CCES has the expertise to help your company manage your energy, water, and natural resource needs; to evaluate future needs and devise cost-effective strategies to reduce your dependence on these finite resources, while diversifying them, as well, to provide your company greater manufacturing flexibility and reduce business risk.

April 3, 2012

Well, the first quarter of 2012 has come to an end, meaning the release of surveys and other studies of sustainability in 2011. The MIT Sloan Management Review Report was recently released (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/feature/sustainability-strategy/). According to their survey, corporate sustainability programs grew markedly in 2011. About 70% of nearly 3,000 executives surveyed said that sustainability was on the management agenda in 2011 and will probably remain so permanently. Two-thirds of those managers surveyed said that sustainability-related strategies are not just “nice” or even adding on to profit, but are necessary to stay competitive. 24% of those surveyed meet their criteria of “Embracers”, companies that have incorporated sustainability in the management agenda, have a business case for sustainability within their company, and feel that sustainability is necessary to stay competitive. About 31% of those surveyed meet their criteria of “Harvesters”, companies that have begun a sustainability program and realize the business case, but have not made it a far-reaching or permanent part of the culture.

What is especially telling are the corporate motivators to become more sustainable. The factor that was said to be the greatest motivator is the belief of customer preference for sustainable products and services (41% of those surveyed). Political pressure (35%) was next, followed by resource scarcity/price volatility (30%), competitors’ sustainability programs (28%), and stricter requirements from customers along value chain (26%).

A study by McKinsey & Company shows that energy efficiency is particularly profitable. Their study shows that proper energy efficiency programs that will generate an internal rate of return of about 17% and would result in meeting a significant percentage of the greenhouse gas emission reductions needed to meet Kyoto Protocol targets. If just the profits were reinvested into other greater cost strategies, then total Kyoto goals can be met at no net cost. These days a 17% return on investment is too good to ignore. This is a study by a leading global business management firm. This and additional studies prove that being more sustainable is not a cost sink, but improves the bottom line of business and society as a whole, driving further growth.

CCES technical advisors can help you start a sustainability program from scratch or to move it along more smoothly to implement feasible projects to generate direct business benefits for your company and for your stakeholders. Others see the value and are doing it. Contact us now.

Becoming more sustainable or “going green” has been shown to be economically beneficial in a number of ways (see my article on the 9 Purely Business Reasons to Go Green). One pitfall that holds back some companies is the upfront costs. Although a smart sustainability program will provide ROI over time, many companies are hard-pressed in these tough times to find funds available to make the initial investment. The good news is that there is a growing number of governmental and non-governmental funds which will pay subsidize part or even all of the upfront costs of some sustainability and energy-reducing programs. These incentives are in the form of:

• Income tax deductions or credits
• Exemptions from sales tax
• Accelerated depreciation

Your company may qualify for a number of these programs. In some cases, the credits or grants derive from funds that you have already contributed to (i.e., taxes or a charge by your local utility). Therefore, you may be getting back your own money. So there is no reason not to pursue multiple incentives if you qualify for activities that will also be beneficial. But don’t wait, as some expire.

Sustainability and Energy Incentive Programs

What types of activities are covered by incentives?

• Lighting upgrades;
• Upgrading your boilers or installing cogeneration;
• Adding more insulation;
• Installing alternative energy sources;
• Using recycled products in your manufacturing; and
• Installation of equipment to reduce air emissions or wastewater discharges.

Be sure that you have the need for any of these upgrades and make sure your design qualifies for an applicable incentive.

There are a wide variety of incentive programs offered by the IRS and by state and local governments. Thorough research into what is available is important. Not all states offer programs. Many states offer tax benefits, such as credits or treatment of equipment as an expense (and not dealing with depreciation). Many state programs provide direct grant money to a company for investing in an energy upgrade. The company still has to front the funds for the upgrade, but they know that if the installation is successful they will receive a percentage of the investment or a lump sum. It is critical to totally understand the program and what is expected to qualify. Forms need to be completed. In addition, it is preferable to hold meetings to ensure that the expectations of all sides are understood.

Some states offer tax credits and/or sales tax exemptions for the purchase of certain equipment containing a high content of recycled materials. Some offer credits for purchasing advanced pollution control equipment. Some programs offer incentives in the form of tax credits or direct grants for brownfield remediation and development. Such activities, however, must be overseen and approved by the USEPA and/or the state agency.

There are also private companies or NGOs that offer incentive programs, as well. One example is energy service companies (ESCOs) which offer to pay the entire upfront, capital cost of a solar system for your roof (if it qualifies) and will maintenance the unit and supply your building the electricity you need at a discounted price to enable them to sell back electricity to the utility or to others.

Preparing for Incentives

Take the next steps on securing available incentives. Planning is the key and is more likely to succeed compared to “shoehorning” an unplanned project into a program. Be sure you understand the requirements of an incentive program by reading the literature or website. Contact CCES, as we can help evaluate potential programs, too. Given the complexities of some of these programs, it is important to involve your Legal and Financial Departments in these reviews and discussions, as well. A joint understanding and joint decision are necessary to gain maximum benefits.

Additional Thoughts

Remember, the best laid plans for energy or other environmental programs do not always succeed. Despite planning, you may not actually achieve the goal you intended. For example, in the UNFCCC CDM program of GHG emission reductions, 30% of projects do not reach their GHG emission reduction goals. So do manage expectations, but also to heighten the chances of success, bring in a qualified outside technical consultant to assist. CCES has the expertise to help.

Finally, in evaluating the costs of a project, remember to focus on all of the requirements of the incentive programs. Many require intensive paperwork, as well as monitoring and other “proof” that goals are met. In some cases, goals must be maintained in the longer term, too. Make sure that your calculations of costs include long-term recordkeeping and reporting of key data.

But the incentives are there and there is great opportunity for “free”, outside money to perform sustainability and energy projects that will provide long-term benefits you’re your company. CCES can assist you in evaluating programs to benefit you and to perform the necessary oversight to see it through and heighten the chances of success and maximize financial gains.

February 14, 2012

Occasionally, when I tell people at a professional or social event that I am a climate change engineer, I get scorn – from climate change skeptics. Perhaps you’ve met such people, too, when you identify yourself as working in the environmental or sustainability area. I divide such people into 2 groups: those idealistically anti-climate change or the environment and those who are unsure, but swayed by what they hear from political pundits. For the former, I simply change the subject. Nothing I say, no amount of proof will change their views. They are so convinced that they will deny proof as a conspiracy.

But for the other group the question really is: has it been proven that climate change exists and is a manmade phenomenon? Such questions are asked because they have heard from some who believe that climate change has not been proven.

The only response I have is based strictly on science. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this believe that manmade emissions of GHGs at least contributes significantly, if not is the main factor, to climate change. This is not a 51:49 majority of scientists or even a larger 70:30 majority. According to a recent UN poll, it is a 98:2 majority that agree with this contention. And for anything in any realm to get 98% agreement is very rare! Remember, these are scientists devoted to studying the topic, not TV pundits without scientific credentials who are out to stir controversy for ratings. If you were ill, who would you listen to, your doctor or a pundit? Scientists in the area are the ones we should listen to on matters of science. I can’t find the source, but I read of a study of papers published in refereed scientific journals. In the 10-year period from 1996 and 2005, there were about 950 such papers about climate change. Every one showed proof of the view that climate change exists and/or manmade emissions of GHGs causes this. Not one article in a scientific journal showed any proof of the opposite view.

Finally, let’s look at the logic. Scientists determined that GHGs are capable of capturing radiation and release the energy as heat back in the 19th century! The concentrations of these GHGs in our atmosphere have increased – by direct measurement. The increase of CO2, the most common GHG, corresponds strongly to the increased use of fossil fuels on the planet (such as proliferation of the automobile), and corresponds with the temperature rise we are all seeing in terms of climate change. These relationships have been determined by these scientists of the highest credentials to be strong.

Climate change skeptics are in many places, including the workplace, and may affect the opportunity to grow a “green” or sustainability program. Knowing how to answer such skeptics in an intelligent way is an important factor to keep your program growing.

CCES can help your company grow your sustainability programs and engender support from employees, stakeholders, etc. Contact CCES to help you see the benefits.

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.

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.

November 22, 2011

Thanksgiving and the year-end holidays are a time for big meals, family, etc. But we should always keep the thanks in Thanksgiving. Here are some statistics to drive home the importance of sustainability and for Thanksgiving. 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 and 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 Thanksgiving? 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.

November 1, 2011
More and more corporate upper management understands the picture that in these tough financial times, going “green” or being more sustainable is not an idealistic statement of millionaires or old hippies, but is smart business and engineering management. While technology can help reduce one’s energy use, water use, and waste generation, etc., ultimately for such a program to sustain long-term benefits for the company, its employees have to cooperate and make it a part of their everyday lives to work with these technologies. How can companies get employees and other stake-holders to keep their interest up in a sustainability program in the long term? There is no one answer to this question, but here are 3 possible strategies to engender cooperation.
1. Keep it Simple. The biggest source of opposition to such a program even among people sympathetic to its goals for the company and the Earth is that it involves more work. People feel overwhelmed at work more and more, that they are doing more with less support. And, of course, there is more and more involvement in home duties, as well. A company begins a well-intentioned “green” program and workers think that there will be more things they have to do (and paperwork to fill out) as part of their duties. So make it easy. At least start up with items that involve no work at all, such as installing motion sensors to turn off their lights or easily programmable thermostats (through a Smart Phone) for individual comfort. Minimize paperwork to prove compliance.
2. Make It Fulfilling. People, in general, get excited at the start of a new, interesting program like a “green” or energy-saving program, but lose that fresh feel for it in time. How can one maintain enthusiasm for (and compliance with) such a program? A good way is to develop a regular internal “newsletter” of some type to chart the progress of your program. Let employees know just how the company is benefiting from the “green” program – how much lower the carbon footprint is, how much less waste has to be disposed, etc. And, most important, how much money the company has saved by these initiatives. Perhaps the company can put back some portion of the money saved and return it to the employees in terms of a party or in a gift (i.e., provide each a free CFL or a free energy saving tips) to take home. Another idea is to set up on an Intranet site a forum for employees to ask questions, receive answers, and share experiences.
3. Reward and Punishment. Professionals say it works for mice and for children, so why not for adults, too. Some companies have included individual behavior as a goal on employee’s annual review and will get increased bonuses and other benefits from meeting these goals. It is critical, of course, to be very clear on what the goals are to be met and give the employees full direction on how to achieve these goals.
CCES can help your company prepare a smart, sustainability program with maximum financial benefits and engenders cooperation from your employees and stakeholders.