Environment magazine 59

Summer 2015 ■ ISSUE No.59

MAGAZINE

CRONER’S

Recycle, recycle, recycle!Engaging Generation Z

2 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015

Environmental Management Courses

IEMA accredited

For advice and information contact - Annalisa ChristieTel: +44 (0) 1225 386405 Email: [email protected]

www.bath.ac.uk/iem/

Do you work/want to work in Environmental Management?Join our flexible CPD or Graduate Programmes in Environmental Management at the University of Bath

Our programmes are:

MSc courses start April/Oct

We are the most experienced and respected health & safety specialists in the business. Whether it’s preparing your health & safety policy, carrying out a risk assessment or help with a strategic initiative such as improving health & safety standards across multiple sites, you choose what you need from our comprehensive mix of services centred on our consultants, practical online tools, health & safety management systems, audits and advice lines.

We can also help you obtain OHSAS 18001 certification.

Visit www.cronersolutions.co.uk or call us on

0800 634 1700

Whensafety matters

Rely on us

Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 3

Recycling

Contents

Front cover:Recycle, Recycle, Recycle! See page 7. Bridging the generation divide. See page 10.

Designed and typeset by Croner, a Wolters Kluwer business

Printed by Uprise Print.

Published by Wolters Kluwer (UK) Limited, 145 London Road, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT2 6SR.

Tel: 020 8547 3333.

Website: www.croner.co.uk

Email: [email protected]

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the publishers.Although great care has been taken in the compilation and preparation of Croner’s Environment Magazine to ensure accuracy, the publishers cannot in any circumstances accept responsibility for errors or omissions. Only Acts of Parliament and Statutory Instruments have the force of law and only the courts can authoritatively interpret the law.The opinions expressed in this magazine are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the publisher.UP/ENVI-MI15059 ISSN 1472-5037Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer (UK) Limited

Development Editor:Ceri PickeringEditor:Kevin WhittenEmail: [email protected]:Email: [email protected] Director:Michèle Wheaton

Our Editorial Advisors:

John Barwise BSc, AIEMA CEnv is a certified Environmental Auditor and registered EMS trainer. He is former Head of the Environmental Policy and Research Unit at the Robens Institute, University of Surrey. For 15 years John has worked at his own consultancy, Quality of Life.

Jeff Cooper BSc, MSc, FRGS, FCIWM was the Producer Responsibility Policy Manager for the Environment Agency until 2009 and now works as an independent consultant specialising in renewable energy projects from waste. He is President of the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) and chaired ISWA’s Technical and Scientific Committee from 2000 until 2008.

Jon Herbert BSc, ARSM is a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) and has been a director of ISYS International. He is a former communications manager and investment advisor and has written on environmental issues for many years.

FeaturesJust three words — Recycle, Recycle, Recycle! ............. 07

Bridging the generation divide ......... 10

How to make workplace lighting more effective ................................ 13

Sustaining success through supply chains ................................ 16

RegularsPolicy briefing: Down to earth .................... 04

Focus on: Taking the lead on sustainability ................. 19

Viewpoint: Cold comfort from pie charts .......................... 22

Supply chains

“Staff want to work for companies

who care”

“Healthy workers who harbour no grievances are more productive”

07

16

The generation divide

“The new generation is interested in why

rather than how”10

Summer 2015 ■ ISSUE No.59

MAGAZINE

CRONER’S

Recycle, recycle, recycle!

Engaging Generation Z

Policy briefing

Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 54 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015

Down to earthIt may just be possible to both have our

cake and eat it when it comes to the environment and living standards.

After years of well-meant but fruitless talk at world summits, several recent studies have examined the brass tacks of what is needed to secure a green future – and we need to act quickly.

The first positive indication comes from a modelling study led by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). It finds that, with sweeping changes to agriculture, transport, fuel and food, it should be possible to bring carbon emissions rates linked to global warming down to safe levels and maintain or even improve living standards.

Where there’s will there’s a way. The next challenge is to find the will.

Like the curate’s eggHowever, there is bad news. The Natural Capital Committee has warned the Government that England’s natural environment is now seriously deteriorating, so much so that it is damaging the UK economy and business prospects.

Once again firm action could provide an answer. The independent advisory group has also told ministers that with the forecasted rise in population growth, a strategic 25-year investment plan is now essential to halt “decades of decline”.

Interestingly, the world’s wildlife parks and nature reserves generate an income of £800 billion from 6 billion tourists every year but only enjoy an investment in the natural

environment of £10 billion annually, a Cambridge University research

team has found.

There is medium-term worrying news, too.

Another study has shown that extreme meteorological events triggered by the cyclical La Niña climate phenomena in the Pacific will increase wild weather events around the globe dramatically. Until now, La Niña’s devastating effects

have occurred on average once every

23 years. That could be reduced to 13 years,

scientists now believe. The change is linked to

global warming.

And if further evidence was needed that the world is on a perilous course,

carbon dioxide records from millions of years ago suggest that we have been here

A recent study showed that the world can cut carbon and still enjoy the good life. Meanwhile, as a declining UK natural environment damages the economy and models predict more extreme weather, fossil records prove that we’ve been here before. Jon Herbert looks at the nitty-gritty.

Policy briefing

Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 54 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015

before. Research carried out by a UK-led team and published in Nature concludes that dire predictions made in the last year by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will prove to be correct.

New evidence recovered from the shells of ancient fossil plankton shows that the global climate moved from cool to warm – and back again – many times some 2.3 to 3.3 million years ago.

The ultra-long-term good news from the research is that eventually global warming trends are reversed — though at that point mankind may be just another footnote in the fossil record.

Reasons to be cheerfulIf there is a small note of comfort for policy planners, it is that the heavy floods of 2013/2014 have caught the public’s imagination and convinced people that climate change is for real and an urgent cause for action.

However, other topical issues have also been the public forum. Despite a call from the Environmental Audit Committee for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in UK shale rocks to recover natural gas because of “huge uncertainties” – particularly carbon emission effects – MPs have voted for trial drilling to go ahead in Lancashire, albeit with 13 new environmental conditions to be met before extraction can go ahead.

Drilling for oilThe recent swift fall in oil prices is largely the result of an over-investment in bringing new reserves on stream. Long-term predictions are speculative. The ageing North Sea oil basin could be in swift terminal decline.

The Royal Dutch Shell Group has responded to depressed prices by announcing a cut-back of some $15 billion in exploration investment over the next three years. The group’s full-year 2014 earnings were $19 billion, compared with £16.7 billion in 2013. Shell says it also sold off $15 billion of its assets in 2014 before markets weakened. However, it is being careful not to over-react to the oil price slip.

So far so good for those who oppose prolonging the use of fossil fuels.

Nevertheless, Shell plans to press ahead with its once shelved plans to drill in the Arctic this summer, despite environmental protests, if it can obtain permits and beat legal objections. The $1 billion programme in Alaska could be fraught with difficulties. It has been described by Shell’s chief executive, Ben van Beurden, as the equivalent of “running the North Sea out of New York”.

Shell sees Alaska as “by far the largest unexplored and undeveloped liquid resource on Earth”. In parallel, the global hydrocarbons giant has backed a resolution from activist shareholders to test whether its business model meets the pledge by the world’s nations to keep global warming down to no more than 2°C by the end of the century.

The Shell CEO has rounded on critics calling for fossil fuels to be left in the ground, accusing them of “peddling naive and impractical solutions to climate change”. He has urged fellow industry leaders to be “more assertive” in debates over the future of energy. However, he noted that the oil sector had its own credibility problem, adding that too many energy industrialists have been slow to acknowledge global warming.

One other concern for campaigners, this time in the agricultural sector, is proposed new rules published by the European Parliament allowing governments more power in deciding whether genetically modified crops (GM) should be grown. The aim is to break years of deadlock. New legislation would mean that any new GM crops will still have to undergo the European risk approval process. However, once deemed safe, individual countries can then decide for themselves whether to go ahead with planting.

But MPs say the approval system is “fundamentally flawed”. A Science and Technology Committee report from Westminster says the system assumes GM plants pose greater risks than conventional plants, but this is not backed by scientific evidence. The report calls for GM crops to be regulated on their characteristics, not their production method.

“It’s a wonderful world”A more detailed look at some of the issues above could be helpful. DECC is behind a

contemporary model for the world’s energy, land and food systems designed to walk-the-walk that nations have been talking about at major summits for many years.

It’s very down to earth. The Global Calculation model uses data reviewed and verified by international experts to consider pragmatic routes for meeting the no-more-than-2°C global warming target governments have agreed needs to be met to prevent climatic disaster.

The conclusions are radical but achievable, the study says. It projects that forests around the world will have to expand by 5% to 15%. Crop yields must rise too. Many millions of electric cars must also replace hydrocarbon-powered vehicles by 2050. Concerted action is the tricky bit. Carbon dioxide emissions from the roads must fall by 90% for the model to work!

On the food front, diets around the world will also have to change. They will either have to be very high in vegetables, or meat will have to be raised through intensive farming.

Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey stresses that decisive action has to be taken now. The global calculator is an extension of DECC’s 2010 UK calculator and is being offered to other governments in the run up to the crucial United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 in Paris.

The aim of the December 2014 summit will be to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate action from 195 of the world’s nations. The event will bring together 20,000 delegates, and similar number of guests, plus 3000 journalists.

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius has warned that world security, as well as the environment, is at risk. “Without sounding too grandiose, the survival of the planet itself is at stake,” he commented recently. “You have rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans, immigration sparked by climate change, droughts that are much more severe.”

He added, “And then there’s an aspect that we don’t talk about much: the impact on security. If you have climate degradation,

6 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 76 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015

Policy briefing

global security as a whole is degraded, there is immigration, and the fact that we fight over resources, be it oil or water.”

Wild children!El Niño and La Niña (boy-child and girl-child) are mammoth climatic events in the Pacific where large volumes of warm water that alter the sea level either cross, or don’t cross, the ocean eastwards to the coast of South America.

This is increasingly seen as part of a fundamental mechanism determining extreme world weather.

Scott’s doomed return journey from the South Pole and Germany’s World War II problems with the Russian winter, it is suggested, may have been caused by cyclical variations in the Pacific. During the Ice Age, it is thought that few El Niño events occurred. Global warming could mean almost perpetual El Niño events abutting South America. These could conceivable cause intense droughts over the world’s “lungs” – the Amazon Rain Forest.

Researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) now predict that El Niños and La Niñas will become much more frequent. La Niña is known as the cold phase and El Niño the warm in this complex deep ocean phenomena that is still not understood precisely.

The latest research, from a team that includes scientists at Exeter University, as well Australia, China, the US and Peru, has now identified a doubling of the rate of cold La Niña events.

Green and pleasant landTo help halt the decline of England’s natural environment, hundreds of thousands of new hectares of woodlands and wetlands would have to be created. However, the benefits would be multi-million pound gains in flood prevention and better UK health, the Natural Capital Committee has found.

Committee chairman Professor Dieter Helm notes in the committee’s third and final report that the wellbeing and future economic prospects of the UK’s urban and rural communities now rest on what can be achieved.

The report says pollution reduces productivity and causes 40,000 premature deaths every year. It adds that more investment in urban green spaces will improve the physical and mental health of city dwellers.

In response, Defra points out that it has helped to create more than 150,000 acres of field margins, wetlands and woodlands. Woodland cover is at its highest level for 700 years, the department adds. However, the latest recommendations will be analysed, with a further response later in 2015.

The Government has largely made a rod for its own back. It established the committee in 2010 as part of its commitment to leaving the environment in a better state than it found it. It is, therefore, now obliged to abide by the conclusions. The committee’s overall thoughts are that bad news can be turned into good news if the 25-year programme is put into place.

Shadow environment secretary Maria Eagle says implementing the report’s recommendations could “save our NHS millions”.

What the Earth tells usMeanwhile, long ago, in what is now known as the Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs, the earth warmed and cooled regularly. Scientists have now taken samples of plankton fossil shells and drawn environmental profiles, which have been cross-referenced to CO2 records derived from minute bubbles of the ancient atmosphere trapped in ice cover cores that have been recovered from the north and south poles.

Once the expansion and retreat of the highly reflective ice-caps is taken into account, the researchers say that the effect of carbon dioxide in global temperature changes can be shown to have been identical not only during the cold Pliocene and warm Pleistocene eras, but also extremely similar to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) predictions of what is happening at the moment, based on a vast analysis of scientific papers into climate change.

In the Pliocene, atmospheric temperatures were often several degrees higher than in the modern pre-industrial age. At the same time, CO2 levels of 350 to 450 parts per million

(ppm) then now compare with the 400 ppm reached in recent years.

The aim of the study is to discover how the present climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide – a factor known as climate sensitivity. The conclusion is that this is a linear relationship. The rate of warming does not accelerate as temperatures and CO2

levels rise. The implication is that the IPCC’s forecasts are likely to be accurate today.

Further environmental issuesThere are further research findings. The international think-tank, Chatham House, says that an “awareness gap” about the climatic impact of emissions from livestock could jeopardise climate change countermeasures. Meat and dairy are two of the fastest growing agricultural subsectors, it says, and account for 14.5% of world emissions. They are equal to those generated by transport.

Meanwhile, statistics show that 2014 was the hottest year for at least 250 years.

Other research has discovered that 11 million cubic kilometres of “old” water exists hidden beneath the Earth’s mantle and could create more oceans of the future.

On New Year’s Day 2015 it was also noted that 368 different types of plants were in bloom, compared with the 20 or 30 that would normally be expected. Gorse is meant to flower in April or May, not January!

Studies into unexpected climate change effects continue. Q

Jon Herbert was, until early 2009 Director of ISYS International.

He is a former communications manager and investment advisor. He has written on environmental

issues for many years.

6 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 7

Recycling

Managing waste across any business can be a time consuming and costly process. The commercial sector alone

produces over 85 million tonnes of waste each year — 12.5 million tonnes of this waste is paper and cardboard according to the Confederation of Paper Industries. Recycling one tonne of aluminium saves seven tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) being emitted into the atmosphere. One tonne of CO2 is equivalent to emissions produced from driving 2800 miles.

What is clear to all companies, no matter their market sector, is that better waste management is not only a critical component of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), but also a commercial imperative that can’t be ignored.

The overall management of waste across the workplace is fast becoming a board-led initiative, which isn’t surprising as landfill charges will see rises of nearly 20% over the next five years. As a cost centre, reductions in waste production and more agile attitudes

to how waste is managed and disposed of, will increasingly become important components of every business’s strategic planning.

The cost of wasteIn its report into waste management, The Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply stated, “The true cost of waste is not simply the cost of discarded materials — it encompasses inefficient use of raw materials, unnecessary use of energy and water, faulty products, waste disposal of by-products, waste treatment and wasted labour. The actual cost of such waste for the UK companies is typically 4–5% of turnover, and can be as high as 10%.”

The idea of a paperless office is the ideal that many office managers aspire to, and they see recycling as a major component of that ambition. The reality is somewhat different, with many office managers attempting to create a “paper light” office instead. This has the knock-on effect of vastly reducing the levels of recycling that are needed. And a reduction in the use of paper has a commercial component. PwC has calculated that a reduction of paper usage can improve productivity by as much as 30%.

According to an extensive new survey by Oki Systems (UK), printing and paper still play a surprisingly important role in office life — with many businesses having little control over who is printing what — and why. Out of over 2000 respondents, an overwhelming 92% carry out some kind of printing daily, with nearly half (45%) printing more than 10 pages each day.

“We’re not suggesting that companies suddenly enforce draconian rules to stop workers printing what they need to. However, it’s frustrating to see this wastage when, by taking expert advice from a managed document solutions provider, gaining control and adopting some straightforward measures, organisations can

Just three words — Recycle, Recycle, Recycle! With new legislation, an abundance of services and a drive to raise the importance of recycling in the workplace, a perfect storm has arrived, which can transform your enterprise’s attitude and approach to waste management. Dave Howell reports.



cut their printing costs by up to 30%,” says Graham Lowes, UK Marketing Director, Oki Systems UK.

All businesses produce a wide variety of waste. There is a legal requirement that is your business’s duty of care to produce, store, transport and dispose of your business waste without harming the environment. Check that your waste is transported and handled by people or businesses that are authorised to do so, and complete waste transfer notes to document all waste you transfer, and keep them as a record for at least two years.

Because waste across a business will include a wide variety of different types, from paper to food, which can create major issues if your business has canteen facilities, for instance, this poses major challenges that business managers must address. Airports are a good example here. Over a third of the 6000 tonnes of waste produced at Stansted Airport each year is generated inside the terminal and 203 tonnes of this is made up of food waste.

Says environment and utilities manager, Kathy Morrissey: “By 2015, we have set ourselves a target to recycle 60% of our waste and send zero waste directly to landfill. We have also signed up to a BAA group target of 70% recycling by 2020.”

The pressure on premises managers to comply with all the current legislation that impacts on the waste their businesses produce, the directives to improve CSR and also the internal benefits that a robust recycling initiative brings place recycling itself high on the agenda for strategic planning.

“Staff want to work for companies who care — whether about the individuals in their company or the environment,” Liz Ainslie, environmental consultant at Hosking

Associates told Croner’s

Environment Magazine. “By recycling properly and doing it for the right reasons, companies can demonstrate to staff that they listen.”

Waste championsHow waste materials are now managed in the workplace has a wider implication across the waste disposal supply chain. From 1 January 2015, anyone who collects paper, metal, plastic or glass waste must ensure

that those materials are collected separately from the rest of the waste stream and that they remain separate from other waste and material with different properties.

For facilities managers, this will mean paying more detailed attention to waste segregation. Add to this the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations 2006, and the Animal By-Products Regulations 2005, and waste management is now a multi-faceted operation that has many stakeholders.

Hosking Associates’ Liz Ainslie continued: “You also need to make recycling as easy as possible. Almost everyone in the UK recycles at home, but there is a psychological block to doing what you do at home in your workplace. So you need to be sure to make recycling easy with as few bins as possible. Then you need to educate staff about what you are doing and why — this is where having a small team of employees can help, by doing peer-to-peer learning. Finally, you need to continually educate and ask for feedback. If something isn’t working, you need to find out why and how to change it instead of having contaminated recycling being sent to landfill each week.”

Stansted Airport’s Kathy Morrissey comments: “Using incentives is a tried and tested method for us, which has driven a lot of our success, not just for food waste but for other recycling materials. We collect the high value goods, like cardboard, plastic bottles and glass, for free and use the cost that we charge for general waste to offset the recycling. I think it has really helped to drive behaviour change in the terminal.”

Clearly, for any recycling initiative to be successful there has to be full buy-in by

members of staff. A consultation period is vital before any decisions are made. The day-to-day operation of the recycling will need the full co-operation of everyone in the workforce. Their insight into potential issues such as the siting of recycling bins can be invaluable.

Says Alan Perkins, regional sales manager, Biffa Industrial and Commercial Division, “Securing employee buy-in is needed and will ensure waste is placed in the correct bin. Effective, front-end education from the waste management company is also key here. Biffa puts a strong focus on educating businesses and employees about good waste management practices from the outset. To keep costs down, it’s vital that recycling is not contaminated with the

Recycling

How to find a recycling contractorYou should consider the following key questions when searching for a recycling waste contractor suitable for your business’s recycling needs.

1. What materials could you recycle?

2. Are the materials that you have identified for recycling to be collected by the waste contractor, or do you need to drop them off at a recycling drop-off facility?

3. Does the recycling service provider cater for the size of your business? Put another way, is the service offered on an “on demand basis” or are collections scheduled?

4. How much storage space for recycling containers or bins does your business have?

5. How are the collections charged for? Is there an annual charge or a fee each time the container or bin is emptied?

6. What types of paper can be collected? Office paper only or mixed paper also? Is shredded paper acceptable or is a confidential recycling service offered?

[SOURCE: Wrap]


Recycling

wrong type of waste, as this means it will be collected as general waste, which will incur additional costs.”

Managing resourcesEvery company wants to recycle as much as it can, but what are the practical in-office issues that office managers face when implementing these systems? James Capel, managing director of Simply Waste Solutions advises:

“There is often a strong resistance to removing under-desk bins, as people then have to ‘store’ waste on desks and walk to a central point. There is also a lack of understanding of what is ‘recyclable’ using current infrastructure (eg does a coffee cup go in recycling or waste?) and so contamination issues could arise from the waste contractor, including additional charges. One other main issue is getting staff to adhere to policy, and effort required to continually communicate best practice.

“If the office space is rented, and waste containers are supplied as part of a service charge, then landlords cannot easily control what their tenants do (ie if they want them to do more segregation). Conversely, some tenants want to recycle but landlords do not want the ‘aggravation of change’, including, for example, the introduction of new internal bins that could require a lot of up-front cost.”

Nigel Thomas, regional sales manager, Biffa Industrial and Commercial Division concluded, “Business customers are increasingly aware of the need to recycle

more. Arguably, this could be due in part to pressure from staff or customers as well as

increased government legislation and zero waste initiatives. The secret

to good long-term recycling and waste management in any organisation is having an effective and well-thought-out waste handing solution in place — it’s important that a business’s requirements are assessed to correctly achieve this.”

The development of a more integrated waste

management system means going back to basics. This

begins with communication and education of the entire workforce.

Practical considerations include the positioning of recycling containers. How waste will be sorted and how and when waste will be collected. For business

managers, there is also an important health and safety component with the siting of recycling bins to consider.

Making the changes necessary to install an efficient recycling system across any business will mean a period of transition. If facilities managers spend time talking to their staff and choose the waste specialist they partner with carefully, this will result in a recycling system that meets all the necessary legislation and, at the same time, delivers the substantial cost savings on offer. Q

“You need to make recycling as easy as possible. Almost everyone in the UK recycles at home, but there is a psychological block to doing what you do at home in your workplace.”

There’s an app for thatRecycling across your business can also have a potential value. Often the focus on waste is how this can be effectively disposed of, but today there are moves for businesses to become more commercially active with the waste they produce.

The new Green Alchemist app provides the latest material prices, enabling businesses to find out how much their sorted recycling is worth on the waste stock market for as little as £9.99 a month.

Businesses can input their postcode and the weight of their recyclable materials to find out how much they are worth and either auction this material to waste couriers nearby or receive quotes for it to be collected. In turn, waste couriers can access the app for free for the first year to find businesses with sorted recyclable waste in their area and bid to buy or collect this material. The app’s auction facility can also be used to sell office furniture and electronic goods as well as recyclable materials.

London-based Element Green Recycling was launched in 2005. Its first product was the Green Pod, a bag designed to separate, store and transport recycled materials. Made from recycled plastic, the patented Green Pods are reusable and ideal for use in the home, at work, in hotel rooms and at caravan parks. They can be zipped up and carried to recycling points and centres before the individual pods are removed and emptied.

The Green Alchemist has been developed with funding from Ordnance Survey’s GeoVation. Chris Parker, Head of Ordnance Survey’s GeoVation programme said, “GeoVation Challenges seek innovative ideas that use geography to address real problems. We help support these ideas through funding and additional help.

“Green Alchemist was chosen as a GeoVation Challenge winner because we were excited by its potential to improve the environmental performance of businesses. The Green Alchemist app connects businesses to recycling companies through OS mapping, enabling them to recycle waste in a profitable way. We look forward to seeing how Green Alchemist develops.”

Dave Howell is a freelance writer, journalist and publisher. He specialises

in technology and business subjects. He can be contacted via his website, at

www.nexuspublishing.co.uk


In February 2015, 2Degrees reported in ITS Sustainable Business Trends Tracker that out of over 490 businesses surveyed across the UK and worldwide, over 47%

reported that engaging colleagues was one of the biggest challenges to driving forward their sustainability plans.

In some industries, the figure was even higher — in the property sector, engagement was highlighted by 56% of respondents — but overall, employee engagement was never far from top of the list of barriers.

This is not a unique result. Focus on employee engagement has long been a feature of sustainability programmes. In 2012, the Annual Sustainability Executive Survey found that 88% of firms had employee engagement as a major focus for their corporate responsibility programmes. With communicating to employees such a critical aspect of sustainability today, it

is worth looking at what communication means in 2015.

The big change for sustainable communication in 2015 is not one of technology or process, but rather one of people. The year 2015 is the year that those who were born in 1997 turn 18, and this cohort is symptomatic of a new mindset that could radically change the way that staff are involved in sustainability.

Generation after generation Generational theory has some history and is based on the assumption that the historical experience of a group of people born at the same time informs and is informed by their values and behaviours. In other words, people born into one generation, who share a common set of experiences, will respond differently to those born at a different time. Thus, the latter half of the 20th century was dominated by the baby boom generation.

In the UK, baby boomers born at the end of the World War II experienced rationing as a child, were adolescents in the 1960s, built a family in the 1970s, reached their peak employment in the 1980s and saw their contemporaries attain political leadership in the 1990s. Born as the largest cohort for many years, they retired at the end of the millennium richer than any previous generation.

For them, defining moments are the lunar landing, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Radio Caroline. Their experience is radically different from the generations that followed, for whom defining moments could be the launch of the Sony Walkman, the Miner’s Strike or their first mobile phone.

Today, we live in an age where four generations share a workplace, with people born in the 1950s sharing an office with those for whom that period is ancient history. Between them, there are few shared historical experiences. What for one generation is a critical formative moment


With companies increasingly relying on engagement programmes to achieve their environmental goals, it is more important than ever to understand who your employees are and why they don’t listen to environmental campaigns, says Simon Graham.

Bridging the generation divide


could be for another either ancient history or a passing fad for the young.

Practically, this means that we cannot assume that everyone in a workplace shares the same values. Thus, when we engage with staff, we need to connect to them using tools and language appropriate for their generation. Similarly, understanding their generational aspirations will help us to set our own expectations of how they will respond, and hopefully enable more of them to connect sustainability with their own values and lifestyle.

X, Y, Z…Specifically, let us look at this new generation. Born at the turn of the new century, the latest people to leave school and university are very different from their predecessors. The previous generation, those born in the 1980s and 1990s, is termed Generation Y, or less predictably, Millennials by Howe and Strauss (creators of the Strauss–Howe generational theory). They are, according to the New York-based Advertising Agency Sparks & Honey, the most researched generation ever.

Born between the launch of the Walkman and the iPhone, they are defined by technology — indeed their generation already includes a number of technology billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame. Like Generation X born in the 1960s and 1970s, they are financially astute but unlike that generation, they are

born into a world that had just discovered environmental disaster and was dropping into recession. Often part of families experiencing divorce for the first time, they are less racked by insecurity.

While for a baby boomer, a typical reading book may be Just William, and Generation X would reach for a self-help book, Millennials would rather author their own videos; they prefer YouTube to the written word and creation to the passive consumption of another’s thoughts.

Purpose drivenIn contrast, while it is very technologically adept, the defining features of the next generation, termed Generation Z, are neither based on technology nor ideology. For this generation, relationships are a key driving force, often facilitated by social media, but also the rebirth of the extended family, and so members of this generation have networks that are more diverse and international than ever before.

They also desire meaning. According to research by Sparks & Honey, members of Generation Z are more likely to want to be a positive agent for global change than their predecessors and more likely to choose a job with a company that is more sustainable. In fact, over 60% want to change the world for the better,

a significantly higher proportion than the 39% in the previous generation.

A survey of Generation Z undertaken by Salt last year found 74% said that business should lead on sustainability and a staggering 45% ranked a company’s sustainability activity as an important a consideration as salary when looking for employment. Critically, those who belong to this generation are more likely to study a company’s actions to ensure that it lives up to its green claims through the myriad of social media at their fingertips and respond actively if they see something that they do not like.

Peers and leadersWhile it is more connected than any other generation, and more likely to suffer from a peer pressure to have the latest communication method, Generation Z is also very keen to work independently, and critically, individuals see themselves as leaders rather than followers. A study by Millennial Branding found that 61% would rather be entrepreneurs than employees after leaving college and 72% want to start their own business, and many of them aim to create enterprises with a social purpose. This combination of a desire to change the world and to create new solutions could be exactly what business needs to solve the huge challenges ahead.

Prioritising in a complex world Generation Z is composed of media-savvy individuals who are used to managing many inputs. According to Sparks & Honey, where previous

generations were content to juggle one or two screens, Generation Z is

comfortable with up to five. This gives its members an edge in being able to juggle priorities and skills that help them to avoid the dreaded information overload that has beset many others.

It may be that Generation Z will be able to cope with the increasing complexity

of business sustainability and understand the


“Today, we live in an age where four generations share a workplace, with people born in the 1950s sharing an office with those for whom that period is ancient history.”



interrelationship between environmental, economic and social factors more than its predecessors. At the same time, this means that individuals are less likely to respond to a long-term narrative, as attention spans shrink.

Communicating to members of this generation requires simple messages that align with their values and demonstrate what they can do now to respond. While it may have been adequate in the past to have a campaign that demonstrated how the return on investment of an environmental project would improve profitability, the new generation is more interested in why rather than how and may be more inspired by how the programme transforms the world for the better than facts and figures.

Reaching outWhile obviously there are limitations to generation theory, as there are with all models, insights like these can help inform any programme that aims to involve staff in sustainable business. Using the wrong tools or language will often repel rather than attract, and so it is important to empathise with employees, whatever generation they are part of, and design engagement programmes that meet their needs.

Sometimes that could mean using a particular medium or combination of media to present a series of messages. Sometimes it means setting reasonable expectations for how members of a particular generation may respond to a particular cause or project.

For example, to engage with Generation X or Generation Z will require very different methods. Generation Z respond well to multiple media campaigns based around peer networks, using many different platforms around a simple values-driven message.

Images, particularly films, have proved very successful in reaching the more recent generations, but this has now almost extended to the elimination of writing altogether. Emoji or glyphs can be used to break up even the shortest piece of text.

Growing up with appsMembers of Generation Z do not want to be shown what to do and so the initiative should give them plenty of scope to create their own solutions, which will often use cutting edge technology. This is a generation that has grown up with smartphones and apps, and for many, these are what TV was for Generation X. Much of the language and imagery that has dominated sustainable

campaigns for decades no longer shares a cultural heritage with employees.

The message of guilt that has so often dominated sustainable campaigns does not attract the more recent generations, while the focus on frugality, which resonates so much with the baby boom generation that grew up with rationing, needs to become one of self-sufficiency to appeal to Generation Z, too.

Members of Generation Z could be a massive agency for sustainability. Their combination of moral purpose, desire to be change-makers and their ability to manage complex issues could be a source of huge strength for any business.

They are not passive recipients and so environmental staff engagement programmes that reach out to them are more than simply communication. They are a way to unleash a new generation that can radically recreate business in a sustainable mould. Empowering the upcoming generation to be those change makers, able to transform business to truly become responsible will be a key task for all those involved in corporate sustainability in the years ahead. Q

“Members of Generation Z could be a massive agency for sustainability. Their combination of moral purpose, desire to be change-makers and their ability to manage complex issues could be a source of huge strength for any business”

Simon Graham is an environmental strategist and sustainable innovator, whose staff engagement

programme was recipient of a Guardian Sustainable Business Award for Innovation

in 2013 and Zero Waste Award in 2014.


Lighting health-checks

How to make workplace lighting more effective

There are two key questions that organisations have to ask about their lighting. The first is: Do you know how good your existing

lighting performance is? And the second is: How much more potential do you have to improve it?

When the answers to these questions are known, “where you need to be” can be compared with “where you are at the moment”, and a lighting improvement strategy and action plans can be positioned to help close the gap and deliver more energy-effective lighting in the workplace.

Lighting typically accounts for 10–30% of the total energy consumption cost of buildings.

Lighting health-checks can be used as part of an Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) type energy audit, an ISO50001 energy review, or as a general performance check for the working environment to identify where energy performance improvement opportunities exist.

Energy effective lighting: think win-winWe define “energy effective” lighting as the optimum level of lighting service that delivers best overall value to the organisation and its business plan. This represents “where you need to be.”

This typically takes into account the impact on work productivity, reasons for enhanced lighting, security and safety requirements, operation and maintenance costs and overall energy and environmental performance.

By undertaking the health-check against this measure, we can easily identify ineffective lighting installations and thus recognise the opportunities to improve lighting performance overall to deliver increased energy savings, reduced costs and to generally give a better overall working environment.

This often translates into multiple business benefits, a win-win for the organisation.

High level assessment using LENIA quick initial assessment of “where you are at the moment” can be done by comparing your metered lighting energy consumption to industry benchmarks measured in kWh/m2 per year. This requires dedicated electrical sub-metering on lighting circuits, which, quite often, isn’t installed.

An alternative technique is to make use of a LENI (Lighting Energy Numerical Indicator) calculation. LENI is also measured in kWh/m2 per year. It was originally introduced by the European Standard for lighting energy performance in buildings, BS EN 15193 in 2007. There are “quick” and “comprehensive” LENI methods available that give an indicator of the efficiency of an entire lighting installation, including its controls. The LENI number for each functional space can be compared to industry benchmarks or prescribed limits provided by requirements such as the Building Regulations UK Part L (BRUKL).

James Brittain, director of the Discovery Mill, has teamed up with his associate Kristina Allison from Lighting Enterprises to explain what is meant by lighting health-checks to help organisations answer some key questions.


For example, a 10,000m2 HQ type office building, located near London, spends £60,000 a year on energy for lighting (12% of its total energy bill). This building is used for approximately 3000 hours a year with an average illuminance of 300–500 lux across the treated floor area. For this level of use, the actual “in-use” consumption of 60kWh/m2 per year is quadruple the industry benchmark of 15kWh/m2 based on modern lighting standards — costing the organisation £45,000 a year more than current good practice.

We find this to be quite typical of many buildings. By truly understanding lighting performance and lighting requirements, many organisations can deliver significant energy savings and other benefits from improving their lighting systems.

Counting the people factorsThere are two simple tests we use to assess the people factor requirements for buildings.

First, we look to measure the actual utilisation of the space by using people or occupancy counters. This can be done relatively simply by introducing temporary monitoring into buildings as part of the health-check review.

Even though our buildings are available for use 365 days a year, in practice many are only used from Monday to Friday during core working hours. The 3000 hours a year for our example office building is equivalent to 125 days a year, which equates to 34% overall utilisation for the building. When we take into account the fact that average total occupancy at any one time for this type of building is typically 45–65%, this utilisation falls to less than 20%. This means that, on average, our lighting systems in the UK are needed for less than 20% of the total time. Often, we find that lighting systems are left “on” for significantly longer periods than needed.

Second, we also look to speak directly to building users, whenever possible, to ask for their feedback on what they think about their lighting; this often includes asking about the levels of artificial lighting, day lighting and about opportunities to improve the system overall. We do this through simple discussions and interviews or further investigations, if required, by using a simple batch-type questionnaire.

During a recent building user questionnaire survey at an airport, lighting was identified as the most liked aspect of the working environment. The airport recognises

that its buildings are critical to delivering their business plan but they need to save more on running costs. Lighting has been targeted as the next key opportunity to make significant energy savings. We estimate that there are over £200,000 of energy savings available through replacement and upgrading the fittings and by introducing better lighting controls. We believe that many of these projects will repay the money invested in them over a period of between 1 and 3 years.

Lamp and luminaire checks Once we have analysed the people factors, we move on to look more at the lamps and luminaires, initially in terms of the service that’s been provided.

We know the types of lamps used can significantly impact on occupant health, wellbeing and productivity.

Offices are now quite often re-lamped with cooler bluer-coloured fluorescent lamps or LED luminaires. This is because research has shown that this increases the perception of brightness resulting in increased alertness and mood. This is related to the “colour temperature” of the lighting and is measured in degrees Kelvin.

The amount of, and quality of, light delivered is also a key factor. We look to take measurements using a “lux” meter at various points on the working plane and consider the results in terms of the task being undertaken and the people doing that task.

People in their forties, for example, may need twice as much light as those in their twenties to work at their optimum productivity. Some tasks need a good reproduction of colour and so lamps and luminaires with better colour rendering characteristics need to be employed.

Having reviewed the service levels, we can then assess performance in terms of efficiency and costs. To do this, there are a number of factors we need to take into account.

• Any overprovision of light levels means that the system is working harder and producing more light than it needs to.

• Consider the overall design approach using general and task lighting as appropriate.

• The type of lamp, luminaire and associated control gear or drivers will significantly impact on energy consumption and performance.

• The effective useful life of the installation is determined by “lamp life” (fittings failing outright) or “lumen life” (the degradation of light output below effective levels).

• The light-output ratio of the luminaire is a factor. If the reflectors, for example, don’t surround the lamp adequately, this can lead to significant losses in effective light output.

• The frequency of cleaning and dust left on luminaires also impact on effective light output maintenance costs of re-lamping and cleaning regimes.

• Are there opportunities for greater harnessing of natural daylight, for example, by using daylight blinds?

Even though the use of LED is often compelling, we don’t

believe that a “blanket approach” should be

taken for replacing existing systems with LED. A stated life of 50,000 hours

is significantly more than the

average 12,000 hours for a standard fluorescent lamp. It is important to think about useful life and the length of time the LEDs will maintain at least 70% of their rated lumen output (L70). Retrofitting for LED needs to be carefully thought about and a whole life cost assessment of the differing options, using the same timescales, can be an important part of the health-check review.


“Offices are now quite often re-lamped with cooler bluer-coloured fluorescent lamps or LED luminaires. Research has shown that this increases the perception of brightness, resulting in increased alertness.”


On-demand energy performance“Energy effective” lighting is a pragmatic measure of performance based on current requirements, assumptions and technology.

We often think of ultimate energy performance as being the point when we are absolutely confident that a system is only using what it needs — we call this ultimate level of service and performance “on-demand”. It’s the ideal scenario and is very hard to reach, and is about pushing boundaries and finding new ways of doing things.

By understanding the potential “on-demand” energy performance of a lighting system, we can further analyse how much more potential there may be to save energy and think about the actions that will help to deliver even better value, both tactically in the short term and strategically in the medium to long term.

The opportunity to get closer to “on-demand” levels is often related to the use and performance of lighting controls.

A health-check would normally look to map the lighting zones within a building with a schedule of the controls, sensors and settings employed and would include a review of their appropriateness and performance. This is a useful output of a health-check in itself.

Aspects of controls we look at would normally include the following.

• Sufficient levels of switching to enable luminaires to be switched on and off, as well as their ability to control specific areas being illuminated. Often assigning responsibility is a good way to ensure lighting is switched off in shared spaces when they’re not in use.

• The ease of use of available switches, looking at their positioning in terms of accessibility and proximity to lighting circuits. A multi-switch panel should have clearly labelled individual switches to avoid lights being turned on by mistake or when not needed.

• The use of programmable time switches to switch lighting and lamps off when it is anticipated that there is sufficient daylight or when space is normally unoccupied.

• The use of light sensors to monitor lighting levels and automatically switch off or dim down lights when they’re not required. Constant illuminance control can be an effective way of controlling light levels in a space that benefits from good daylighting. Intelligent lighting controls should be user friendly and easy to use.

• The use of presence detectors and occupancy sensors to avoid lighting being left on when a space is unoccupied. Depending on operational requirements, it may be more appropriate for lighting to dim down to a set-back level if no-one is present in the space at the time. Systems may include passive infrared (PIR), temperature and/or microwave sensors.

Opportunities to save energy can often be found by challenging the existing control strategies and settings.

When we looked at the lighting performance of an underground railway station, we found a T8 florescent lighting scheme was running continuously 24 hours a day, consuming over 100,000 kWh of electricity a year. By using people counters we found that the average utilisation of the space was less than 20%. Taking into account opportunities for upgrading the lamps and controls, the potential short-term savings opportunity was estimated at 50%, with a further 25% available in the longer term through better control of lighting for the space.

We also often find modern lighting controls that are no longer performing to their original design intent. Specifying a continuous approach to system commissioning is a key part of the on-demand energy performance philosophy.

Lighting health-checks — the opportunityThe future of lighting is rapidly heading towards LED technology as the dominant source of artificial light used in buildings. New lamps and luminaires are being developed, increasing in light output and

falling in price, making it a great opportunity to upgrade your lighting at the moment.

Because of the rapid pace of lighting product development, we now recommend that it is prudent to undertake a lighting system health-check at least every three to five years.

We can find that replacing an installation that is 10 years old with today’s technology can potentially halve the overall operating costs, improve the lighting quality and may lead to payback in less than 3 years, at which point it begins to contribute to the bottom line.

As the total cost of lighting is usually a fraction of the cost of the wage bill, there are usually also people reasons to improve installations as well to improve the overall working environment.

Recommendations of a health-check are application specific and focus on the actions that will make the biggest difference. This should include delivering a continuous optimisation of energy performance in the longer term. The object is to make systems “fit” and then make sure those lighting systems stay fit.

Once you’ve undertaken a health-check, and made the changes as required, you can be confident that your systems are “energy effective” — fit for purpose, fit for your customers and fit for the planet. Q


James Brittain is an energy management consultant with over 20 years’ experience

in industry. As the Director of the Discovery Mill, he specialises in Energy

management through people.


Supply chains

Sustaining success through supply chains

Sustainability is a journey involving the entire supply chain. For most organisations, it is a path-finding exercise of learning, changing and

adapting in exchange for the rewards of extra efficiency, smaller environment footprints and social impacts, optimum resource use and greater profitability.

In principle, sustainability makes excellent sense. It has even been described as a lens for inspecting operational efficiency, innovating better products and capitalising on new markets.

Energy is an example. By raising energy efficiency and using more green energy along the supply chain, companies support legally binding government carbon reduction targets. At the same time they can cut their own fuel bills — although much depends on renewable energy being cheap enough.

Waste is another example, particularly when seen as a valuable resource. “Cradle-to-grave” sustainable supply chains are kinder to people and communities around the world. Why ravage the earth for raw materials when recycling and using attractive

substitutes can result in better products, less disruption and a healthier bottom line?

The costs of sustainabilityHowever, sustainability also has costs. As the world population continues to grow and consume, the question increasingly asked is whether true sustainability is achievable. Governments set ambitious legal frameworks to reach environment and social goals. These create level competitive playing fields on which everyone has to meet the same acceptable minimum standards. However, by raising the bar at all they increase basic costs.

An obvious example is where governments are currently spending heavily to kick-start renewable power sources on the assumption that green energy will become an established way of life.

When subsidies are finally removed, however, if costs remain high, will companies and countries slink back to their bad old polluting ways? Low oil prices are also making green energy less competitive. It may be very tempting to revert back to fossil fuels, including dirty coal in some parts of the world, if a new generation of wind and nuclear power prove to be too expensive.

Austerity could also alter the attitude of buyers. Customers may be unwilling to pay the added costs of sustainability on consumer goods.

But this is negative thinking. Companies have every good reason to pursue sustainable goals for the competitive edge and short- and long-term cost savings that they can bring.

Practical starting pointsAlmost all companies are part of a long supply chain that may have its raw material root in distant developing world countries. How can small-to-medium sized companies tackle sustainability, green their own supply chain, and become a competitive part of someone else’s green supply chain?

There are benefits, challenges and roadmaps for business sustainability. Jon Herbert looks at costs, hurdles and possibilities.


Supply chains

A major criticism levelled at companies in general is that executives and senior managers do not understand, or provide the leadership needed to set real sustainable goals. As a result, the eagerly anticipated returns on investment (ROI) do not materialise. Despondency sets in and the focus slips … along with progress.

Fundamental changes currently being finalised in the implementation of the international environmental management standard, ISO 14001, seek to address this very problem.

Bearing in mind the potential cost savings that can be achieved, sustainable decision-making deserves an input equal to that given to developing and launching new products or services. This raises the concept of working towards a sustainable rate of return on investment — SROI — as well as ROI.

In cases where procurement strategies either endanger, or are hostage to, supply conditions, sustainably-minded company leaders might want to take a wider strategic look at the alternatives.

Here, an example is the clothing industry, which depends on the cultivation of cotton in regions where increasing water shortages damage crops, plus employee livelihoods and wellbeing. Sustainable thinking might look for answers in better technology, supply sourcing or even alternative products.

Pragmatic sustainabilityWhen it comes down to brass tacks, what practical areas can companies consider when planning for the century ahead, a time period in which the world population is on track to double (current growth is circa 1.14% annually) and the Earth’s available resources per person could fall by 50% or 75%?

There are a number of important commodity, utility and activity areas. They include adopting more cost-effective and energy-efficient processes, pollution-free water management and low carbon or even zero-carbon transportation of people and goods. Also tackling waste by reducing, recovering, reusing or recycling it combined with responsible disposal.

Raw materials often arrive as over-packaged secondary products from remote suppliers. However, the hidden or embedded energy, carbon, water, waste and labour involved in their production is part of the purchaser’s own sustainable footprint. This applies to everyone in the supply chain.

Another key area is communication, which covers a multitude of sins and virtues. It is important to share good ideas about water, waste, materials and transport management.

Collaboration is the corollary of good communication. It is about not only one-way education but also the two-way flow of useful knowledge and shared experience. Staff working at the sharp end are often in a better position to know where leaks and losses are made than boardrooms.

Health and safety: physical, mental and emotional wellbeing are core to sustainability. Healthy happy workers who

harbour no grievances are apt to be more productive and

co-operative.

Throughout long supply chain, workers taking home decent living wages to communities not blighted by pollution, water deprivation, or the scourge of exploitation, are likely to be positive business assets. What goes around comes around. Shortcuts are the antithesis of sustainability, potentially damaging reputation, goodwill and bottom-line performance. They are what they are – shortcuts.

In more detail

Energy Power, fuel and energy present the largest opportunity for businesses to be environmentally, financially and socially more successful. Buildings still account for some 40% of world energy needs —

electricity is used for heating, cooling, lighting and operating equipment. Conservation — using less of the stuff in the first place — is recognised as the main gateway to cost savings. Efficiency is more difficult and ranked second.

Free energy audits from utility suppliers can provide low-cost, best practice solutions, plus rebates.

Daylight lighting, followed by florescent bulbs, and increasingly, LED (light emitting diodes) raise illumination efficiency, while cutting energy use. Movement-detecting sensors help further, particularly in areas used infrequently.

Setting thermostats to 26°C in summer and 20°C in winter and using high star-rated electrical appliances can help to optimise heating and cooling efficiency. Process equipment, computers, monitors and electrical systems should be put to optimum settings; stand-by equipment needs to be unplugged. Reducing the sheer amount of machinery also goes a long way towards cutting energy consumption.

Water Commercial — office, factories and public

buildings — demand for water is often a large component in a modern

community’s water use.

Fixing leaks that result in millions of litres being lost in the UK each year and installing saving fixtures can cut water use by 50%. Although the UK has seen substantial rainfall in the last few years, in line

with climate change prediction of more warm and wet winters, drought conditions could return again quickly, as they did half a decade ago. More droughts on a scale with the dire water shortages of 1976 have been predicted.

Meanwhile, treatment, transportation and energy costs make water efficiency crucial to sustainability. Water recovery, and taking advantage of washroom and bathroom grey-water, can raise water efficiency.

Resources Buying in materials, using them effectively and being mindful of general waste management is only part of the problem. In the bad old days importing low-cost commodities no matter how they had been produced did not count against a business and its financial needs. Today it does.


Supply chains

Buyers have sustainable responsibilities to look back along procurement chains and be able to report accurately on how sustainably raw materials are being produced. Do fair trade concepts apply? Are health, welfare or environmental impacts caused by primary manufacture or extraction? No one likes “sweatshop” allegations for both moral and business reasons. Are local resources at the point of supply being depleted? Do neighbourhood communities receive any compensation in kind?

Transportation The price of oil hit a record high in July 2008. Today, for complex reasons of excessive exploration and reserve development versus actual demand in post-recession economies, petrol and diesel prices have slumped — including shale oil exploitation in the USA.

This does not mean that car-use pooling, walking, public transport, cycling and intelligent route planning are not important. Low oil prices and high carbon and particulate emissions are a poor mix. Minimising even cheap travel is important. Optimum vehicle size and the use of hybrid vehicles are more efficient and cuts pollution.

Locating a business near to public transport routes, especially if car parking is a problem, saves money and carbon. A majority of firms now trust employees to work honourably from home over the internet, saving time and fuel.

Waste Millions of tonnes of waste are generated by offices each year. Recycling it cuts raw material demand and emissions. Electronic documents are almost carbon-free – except for the generation of a tiny amount of electrical power. Some materials can be composted.

Many plastics and cans can be recycled. Better design can reduce material off-cuts. Packaging can be reduced. Regrading material by-products saves resources, money and haulage costs. Waste minimisation cuts retreatment costs.

Communication The advantage of good communications is that it is inclusive and involves everyone. Explaining the aims of sustainability internally and externally, asking for bright ideas, sharing knowledge and thanking everyone for taking part creatively brings dividends. Partners, clients and customers

working remotely can have a profound joint input to sustainability, both in promoting innovation and cutting out malpractices.

Good communication is about making everyone feel part of the team. This leads on to collaboration, which in the context of contemporary global enterprise context is far-reaching.

Collaboration Close collaboration across long distances is an idea whose time has come, largely because of the instant power of the internet. Everyone is now a stakeholder with the power to make or break an organisation’s sustainable footprint.

Locally, having on-site green-teams is helpful, especially if backed by weekly meetings that have a formal agenda and shared responsibility that creates pride and ownership.

Health, safety and wellbeing Providing healthy workplaces and residential communities results in bonuses in reduced absenteeism, lower insurance premiums, greater staff satisfaction, greater productivity and a reduced turnover of skilled trained employees.

Everyday factors that some companies take into account include advice on healthy living, well-located cycle sheds, more natural lighting and providing enough fresh air.

ISO 14001 changes in 2015Management standards play a part in ensuring effective sustainability. ISO 14001, the international standard for developing and implementing environmental management systems (EMSs), is being

revised and realigned with the wider principles of sustainability.

From mid-2015 onwards, the full life-cycle impacts of a project will become a primary consideration. Supply and value chain performance will be a key factor. Stakeholder interests and social responsibilities will move to centre stage. There will also be a definite push towards adaptation to climate change.

Much of the responsibility for change will fall on senior management. Executives have been identified as the people with the power to make the commitments and decisions needed to deepen and broaden environmental responsibility in a wide global context. Many have often had a limited role in the operation of a company’s EMS. Now their leadership skills will be

called into play.

When ISO 14001: 2015 is introduced, senior managers will have a high-profile role that will be audited closely. They will be held directly accountable for success and their ability to demonstrate good environmental credentials. In effect, the revision represents a mind-set change. This means that rather than simply working within the environment and limiting potential damage, companies will be encouraged to see themselves as an intrinsic part of the global environment.

Market-makersOne of the most forceful arguments made for sustainability and green supply chains is that they force businesses that until now have externalised the true costs of emissions, landfill waste and damage to biodiversity to recognise and internalise the full costs of production.

Far from being an imposition, sustainability spurs on innovation and the development of better products and services. The wholesale adoption of new ways of working will unlock new ways of creating value, say proponents.

Two forces must come into play to make this happen. The first is action on the part of business as ultra-efficient suppliers. The other is gradual changes to market framework rules that match and mould the expectations of customers who create demand as buyers. Q

Jon Herbert has been a Director of ISYS International. He is a former

communications manager and investment advisor. He has written on

environmental issues for many years.

Croner’s Environment Magazine ■ Summer 2015 19

Focus on ... Sustainability

As society struggles to tackle some of the world’s most challenging social, environmental and economic problems, the finger of blame

inevitably points to a lack of leadership. International organisations such as the UN and the World Bank have done much to build consensus between civil society and the business community about what needs to be done, but progress has been frustratingly slow. What role do business leaders have in finding sustainable solutions? What role should they have?

It is still the case at international conferences that some keynote business leaders will preface their bold commitment to environmental protection and sustainability, by proclaiming they are not members of the “brown rice and sandals brigade”. It is as if they want to distance themselves from those social and environmental pioneers who first raised the alarm about the dire state of the planet and its people, and instead claim the credit for whatever piecemeal solutions they decide works best for them.

Other business leaders take the long view and see the sustainability challenge as an opportunity to change the way they do business with society. Rather than trying to disenfranchise campaigners, they seek to engage with all their stakeholders, from employees to NGOs, investors, governments and consumers, as a way of building consensus around what they can and should be doing to build sustainability into their business models.

Organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and others have been highly effective at holding businesses to account for actions that work against the interests of society and the environment, with notable successes on pollution, biodiversity and cheap labour in developing countries.

Addressing the challengesAnd the message is starting to get through: instead of being part of the problem most businesses want to be seen as part of the solution, and there is a growing number of business leaders starting to seize the initiative. Others are still unwilling or unable to get involved and the number of business leaders actively promoting sustainability across all industry sectors remains depressingly small.

A survey commissioned by the United Nations Global Compact, ahead of its Leaders Summit in New York in 2013, showed that while business leaders are aware of the perilous state of the planet, many do not believe the conditions are in place for them to do much about it.

The survey, CEO Study on Sustainability, undertaken by Accenture Sustainable Services, revealed that just 32% of CEOs think that the global economy is on track to meet the demands of a growing population within global environmental and resource constraints. Of the 1000 CEOs surveyed, a clear 67% majority do not believe that business is doing enough to address global sustainability challenges.

On the plus side, CEOs say that “sustainability will transform their industries; that leadership can bring competitive advantage; and that sustainability can be a route to new waves of growth and innovation”. But many business leaders admit they are struggling to make the business case for sustainability and their main stakeholders, consumers, investors and governments are failing to provide the incentives.

Government policies influence the way businesses respond to sustainability. Elected governments that proclaim a clear commitment to sustainable development

The question of leadership looms

large as the world attempts to get to grips with a raft of social and economic issues. John Barwise looks at the role of business leaders and whether they are doing enough to support the global effort to find sustainable solutions for the 21st century.

Taking the lead on sustainability


Focus on ... sustainability

have a mandate from the electorate to do something about it, especially those that claim to be “the greenest government ever”, as the Prime Minister has said.

Mixed messagesBut businesses are receiving mixed message about those commitments. Recent revelations that the UK Government’s Export Finance (UKEF) agency has allocated £1.13 billion to support fossil fuel energy operations overseas, compared with just £3.6 million for green energy projects, sends the wrong message to businesses and their investors about the Government’s policies on climate change and its wider commitment to sustainability.

The lack of consistent national and international policies on climate change, resource management and other global issues is one reason why “business as usual” persists in commerce and industry. Perhaps it is hardly surprising that the Accenture report concluded that while CEOs see a role for business in promoting sustainable development, “their responsibilities to the more traditional fundamentals of business success, and to the expectations of markets and stakeholders, are preventing greater scale, speed and impact”.

But the pressure on business leaders to play a more active role in sustainable development is beginning to gather momentum. At last year’s Leader’s Climate Summit, the World Bank called on the business community to support carbon pricing as a way of lowering fossil fuel emissions. The campaign, Put a price on carbon, has so far attracted the support of more than 1000 businesses and investors worldwide.

The question is whether those leaders who aspire to the principles of sustainability have the leadership qualities to deliver best practice across their business and supply chains.

The Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) has come up with a number of traits that characterise those leaders committed to putting sustainability at the heart of their business. These include emotional intelligence, a willingness to innovate and be radical, an inclusive style, and a strong vision. According to CISL director Polly Coutice: “A leader is someone who crafts a vision and inspires people to act collectively to make it happen, responding to whatever changes and challenges arise along the way.”

Mars Inc. is one of the largest chocolate and confectionery companies in the world and relies substantially on a range of global resources for is food products. This is what CEO, Barry Parkin, refers to as the company’s “value chain”. Earlier this year Parkin introduced new business models aimed at reducing deforestation in the company’s beef, soy, paper and pulp supply chains, as part a wider commitment to biodiversity, minimising the carbon footprint of its supply chain, and respecting human rights. But Parkin thinks that new business models must

also be built on collaborative rather than competitive principles. In an interview with The Guardian’s Jo Confino, he said:

The simple fact is that it is highly inefficient to work competitively in sustainability space. We’re trying to solve global issues – the same issues, and if you’re trying to solve them in our own separate ways it’s very inefficient. We are getting hung up on the old business model [where] you compete on everything, and the new business model, which has sustainability at the heart of it, has to be built on different sustainability principles.

Richard Little, senior consultant with Impact International, a leading management development consultancy and signatory to the UN Global Compact, shares this view, and says the old business model is no longer sustainable because it is “rapidly destroying its own base of natural capital and generating increasingly serious social, environmental and economic problems”. In his recent position paper Sustainable Enterprise, Little says: “The individual business leader is as likely as anyone else to understand all this and to want to do

something about it, but the costs and risks of the kind of change involved are a significant barrier for many.”

Little points out that business drivers to support sustainable development, such as regulatory controls, resource efficiency and environmental management, will only work when employees and other stakeholders are committed to the process. According to Little, the transformational journey to sustainability requires business leaders to be fully committed to the task and engaged in open dialogue with those involved in the process.

Company culture Steve Zaffron, CEO of business consultancy firm, Vanto Group, and co-author of the business performance book, The Three Laws of Performance, also believes that sustainability works best when it is embedded in the company culture and habits of employees, but says this process takes time.

From his experience of working with some of the world’s leading Fortune 500 companies, including Apple, GlaxoSmithKline, Reebok BHP-Billiton and others, Zaffron thinks that improving company performance comes from investing in what he refers to as “people technology”. Using one of Vanto Group’s clients as an example, Zaffron explains how the company was encouraged to invest in staff development, focusing on how people perceived their roles and how they worked together.

The process of engagement took three years but proved effective in transforming the business into a collective culture where management, staff and their unions all


Focus on ... sustainability

worked together to improve and sustain business performance. “A culture like this,” says Zaffron, “is inherently self-sustaining because it lives in the employees.”

Mount Sustainability Ray C Anderson, founder and CEO of carpet company Interface, was one of the early pioneers of leadership for sustainability who understood the collective and contagious power of employee engagement. In his book, Confessions of a Radical Industrialist, Anderson recalls an incident 20 years ago when, looking down from his office window at the smoke stacks, discharge pipes, barrels of oil and truckloads of scrap leaving his premises, he realised for the first time that his

hugely successful carpet manufacturing business was on a collision course

with nature.

Anderson describes the experience as his “spear in the chest” epiphany: “I stood

indicted as a plunderer, a destroyer of the earth, a thief

of my grandchildren’s future. And I thought, My God, someday what I

do here will be illegal. Someday they’ll send people like me to jail.”

Anderson set up what he called “Mount Sustainability” and the “seven faces” that must be climbed “one step at a time” to become a business fit for purpose in the 21st century. Anderson’s leadership and determination to succeed inspired everyone at Interface. In his view, employees at every level in the business were more knowledgeable and better placed than he was to make the company’s sustainability mission succeed. He encouraged everyone to get involved and leveraged their skills and expertise to put Interface on a path to sustainability. His key message to staff was to be innovative and not be frightened to make mistakes.

TeamworkTeamwork is everything and the results, in just a few years, were remarkable – greenhouse gases cut by 82%, waste cut by 66%, water by 75%. At the same time sales increased by 66%, earnings doubled and profit margins were increased. The summit of Mount Sustainability for Interface is zero emissions by 2020 — which is an incredible challenge for a company whose primary materials include petro-chemicals.

Paul Polman, CEO of multinational consumer goods group Unilever, and chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WBCSD), recognises the power of employee engagement, arguing that the role of leadership is about “unleashing other people’s energy”. Polman says this comes from buying into a sense of purpose which must be part of a CEO’s business model. In an interview with McKinsey’s Rik Kirkland, he said: “Business is here to serve society. We need to find a way to do so in a sustainable and more equitable way not only with resources but also with business models that are sustainable and generate reasonable returns.”

Polman says there are no quick fixes but argues there is one emerging force that is beginning to make a difference: “What many people forget is that we have an emerging power to make fundamental shifts in the state of the world — the power of youth,” he said. “The youth of today, by the way, are 50% of the population in emerging markets and 100% of its future population. Their imagination, their strength of purpose, their genuine concern are all things that attract me to young entrepreneurs. Yet we don’t always harness that power, and too often we exclude many of the young from the most important issues. We want to change that.”

Forum for the Future has nearly two decades of experience working at board level with some of the most influential and pioneering sustainability leaders. CEO Sally Uren believes sustainability must be embedded at the very core of a business strategy if it is to survive in the long term, but argues that sustainable leaders are still thin on the ground. “Truly visionary leaders such as Paul Polman [Unilever] and Ian Cheshire [Kingfisher] remain few and far between, but the world

cannot wait for these once in a generation individuals to come to our rescue. We need to stoke the fire, and ensure that tomorrow’s leaders internalise sustainability and long-term thinking from the outset.”

The emphasis on engaging young people in sustainable leadership is attracting a lot of attention. Organisations such as Forum for the Future, Impact International, CISL, Cumbria University and a host of other education institutes and sustainability management groups now run a range of leadership and sustainability courses to support the next generation of leaders and entrepreneurs.

Sceptics might argue this is passing the burden of responsibility on to the next generation, others would say it is about investing in the future. Either way, most would agree that the current trajectory of resource consumption, global warming and social inequality is unsustainable and today’s leaders in business and civil society need to do more to reverse these trends. As Ray Anderson puts it — no one wants to be accused of being a thief of their grandchildren’s future. Q

John Barwise MIEMA, CEnv is Director of QoL Environmental

Communications Consultancy and works with businesses

to promote best practice in environmental management.


Viewpoint

One can’t help but notice that the price of oil plummeted by more than 50% in under seven

months and over 60% from the peak of $144.

I have watched this unfold with interest — is this a good thing or a bad thing for society as a whole? What’s causing this particular reduction? How long will it last? What does this tell us about how the next few decades on the “bumpy plateau” of oil production will unfold? What does this mean for mitigating climate change?

Digging around, there doesn’t seem to be much clarity at all and analysis appears to be no more than a guessing game. The Economist states that four key factors affect oil price reduction but doesn’t tell us how much or in what way: The factors are i) low demand; ii) maintained production in Iraq and Libya despite regional issues; iii) the increase in supply in America; iv) Saudi and the Gulf States refusing to sacrifice their position in the market to restore the higher prices. On the other hand, back in 2014, a price crash was predicted from the singular act of the Mexican President opening Mexico’s oil, gas and electricity industries to private and foreign companies.

The range of post hoc guessing games going on is not very comforting. When you dig deeper, it appears that at the heart of the matter is the same old story — that the emotional whims of traders are at the heart of the issue. This has been demonstrated time and again in the past; just the threat of a pulling of the American mandate on ethanol reportedly drove down corn prices by 30% overnight.

When President Bush made an announcement in 2008 about the possibility of the Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratorium expiring, oil prices dropped by 8% while he was talking and did not recover (although the expiration never materialised). In 2010, a drunken banker single-handedly caused an eight-month high in the price of oil by spending $520 million of his firm’s money without permission — resulting in losses to the firm of $10 million.

Behind these speculations are real effects: in the UK, where the price tag of commodities like corn include a lot of non-product cost (eg promotions, packaging, or tax in terms of fuel in Europe), we feel the effect but we are buffered. For those at the sharp end in developing countries where their

weekly staple is a sack of raw grain or their fuel is heavily subsidised, a sharp fall may bring a week of joy, but a sharp hike can be devastating and long-term uncertainty is debilitating for any kind of development.

Behind the oil price fall is a similar but more pervading story. One analyst indicated that “a $20-per-barrel fall in the price raises global GDP by 0.4%”. In our world, where our livelihoods are locked into a requirement for perpetual GDP growth, that is a massive impact. However, due to emotional caprices behind these prices no one knows where they will go next — anything from an $11 long-term average to a rebound to over $100 in less than six months is predicted.

So that means that our wellbeing is currently (regrettably) dependent on the high use of oil and other commodities, and the price of those goods is unstable and relies on the emotive reactions of a few. Not only is this lack of certainty unsustainable for livelihood development, but we need a long period of higher price certainty to invoke and sustain an infrastructural transition of the scale and

depth needed for a low carbon society — commensurate to climate science demands.

For some, the market fluctuations in oil price are of no threat to our energy future — one director from McKinsey cheerfully states that when oil prices were high they

“encouraged innovation: finding new sources of supply, such as oil sands in Canada and shale in the United States. Basically, when oil prices went up, so

did the interest in alternatives and their economic viability. There is no reason

on Earth — or under it — to expect that dynamic ever to change.”

That might sound like a jolly fine situation to some who don’t understand climate change (or peak oil) but the way I read it, America, and the world are locked in to a dangerous pendulum — if prices are high, clean energy industries start to grow but at the same time organisations are lured into producing energy from expensive oil reserves that were not viable with a low oil price (due mainly to the low production based Energy Returned on Energy Invested; tar sands can be up to $100 a barrel to produce with an EROI of about 5:1 and — in 1919 oil was 20:1 and it is now about 10:1).

This production of low grade oils increases the supply which, in turn, supports a reduction in prices which then puts these expensive industries out of business. In turn, this reduces the supply and so it goes on. This could be the rocking horse effect we live with for decades (with of course a few global instabilities in critical regions to add to the effect) — from dirty to dirtier energy sources and back again while a fragile renewable energy industry emerges in the background, slowly, and at the very same time the most dirty types of fossil fuel extraction flourish.

I am not happy with my future in the hands of a dirty rocking horse and some emotional bankers. In this context any comfort I get from pie charts with a growing renewable energy wedge just doesn’t seem that comforting really. We need a hard cap on global emissions and soon because then at least whatever craziness plays out beneath that threshold is not going to destroy the long-term wellbeing of humanity. Q

Cold comfort

from pie charts

Dr Victoria Hurth lectures at Plymouth University, is a UK

lead expert for ISO Sustainable Development in Communities

and a board member of Tradable Energy Quotas.


The strength and expertise to insure the Environmental Liability Directive

XL Insurance is a registered trademark of XL Capital Ltd and the global brand used by its insurance company subsidiaries.

The vast majority of General Liability policies currently do not cover liabilities arising from the ELD

The new XL Insurance Environmental policy includes ELD coverage as standard, and includes– Preventative measures– Primary remediation– Complementary remediation– Compensatory remediation

Our team of Environmental specialists and consultants offers a dedicated underwriting, loss prevention and claims service, enabling the design of environmental insurance solutions to complement your own risk management practices

The ELD is in the process of being implemented in the UK now. Call our Environmental underwriting team to make sure your company’s financial exposures are covered

0207 933 7000www.xlenvironmental.com/intl

LRQA: Training for

a Brighter FutureOur trainers are knowledgeable, down to earth experts and practicing assessors.

They draw examples from their experience to bring learning to life and illustrate

how it can be applied practically in your organisation. We’re recognised worldwide

for our technical expertise and choosing LRQA shows you set the highest standards.

That’s why our training leaves the rest in the dark.

LRQA Training courses take you from your first steps in EMS, through Internal Auditor and Lead Auditor, on to Environmental Systems Manager and beyond.

“Overall a well presented course.

Delivered by an experienced and

Knowledgeable tutor.”

Kevin Camplin, BAE Systems

Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Limited (LRQA) is a subsidiary of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited

Follow us on Twitter @LRQAUK

Call 0800 328 6543 quote CRON113

www.lrqa.co.uk/greencourses

LRQA Business Assurance

Improving Performance, reducing risk.