On another quick, carbon-y note, check out this story on sun.com about how a department of the UK government’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) - essentially the EPA of the UK - saved a pile of money and reduce their carbon footprint by 260 tons per year by implementing Sun Ray technology.
|
|
|
|
It's always exciting to see tangible proof that progress is being made. This week, we published our first mid-year update to Sun's most recent CSR report. This feels like progress for a couple of reasons. First, it shows that after 2.5 years and 3 CSR reports, we're starting to see reporting as an on-going part doing business. Granted, our indefatigable Director of CSR, Marcy Lynn, continues to have to earn that adjective a little more often than anyone would like, but she's definitely getting results!
The mid-year update is also another step along the path towards greater and greater transparency. We've had nothing but positive results from sharing both the victories in and challenges to our sustainability efforts, and I expect that will continue. In the best of all worlds, other organizations will find our experiences helpful in their own CSR programs.
Please check out the update and give us your feedback (yes, the comments are open). Also check out Marcy's blog for a great perspective on this important milestone.
|
|
|
|
Last week I was lucky enough to travel to Ontario, Canada.
Lucky? To be in Canada? In Winter? Definitely!
I was invited to Waterloo, Ontario to speak at Sustainable Waterloo's first educational breakfast meeting. Sustainable Waterloo is a not-for-profit organization that guides corporations in the region towards a more environmentally sustainable future by facilitating collaboration between industry, local government, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations. The Executive Director and co-founder, Mike Morrice, took some inspiration from the Bay Area's Sustainable Silicon Valley.
Some of my California friends thought I was a little nuts to head off to Toronto in winter, but I had a feeling it would be a great trip - I wasn't disappointed. Mike, his terrifyingly energetic volunteer team of event organizers and the SW Board were terrific hosts, but the event itself was the real fun. How could it not be a good time when more than 170 people show up at 7:30 AM on a snowy and frigid morning? Though I have to say, that level of commitment on the part of the audience gave me a dose of performance anxiety! The attendees were unbelievably enthusiastic and engaged, and I was out in the hallway talking with many of them long after the event was over.
Overall, a great time, and I'm grateful to the folks at Sustainable Waterloo for having me there. I'm looking forward to watching their organization grow, and I'm hopeful that there will be future collaborations between SW and SSV, the Business Council on Climate Change, and many other like-minded groups. I'm convinced that by working together, we stand a lot better chance of successfully tackling huge challenges like climate change.
|
|
|
|
This is a cautionary tale about how a bad business practice can torpedo years of work building an image (and, hopefully, the accompanying reality) as a sustainable company.
How could they not see something this obvious? How could their corporate image makers not see this hypocrisy staring them in the face every time they visited one of the stores? Some theories:
- Like many (or most) companies, Starbuck's prioritizes environmental initiatives based both on size of impact and on pay back period/cost reductions - a completely reasonable approach as a for-profit company. Because water is not correctly valued (meaning it's way too cheap given how scarce and necessary it is), even a policy that wastes huge amounts of it doesn't register as a priority.
- No one bothered to quantify the impact of the policy as the company continued to grow. I don't know how long this has been the rule, but the impacts were somewhat limited when the chain had only a few dozen outlets. With more than 15,000 today, any global policy affecting resource use is huge.
- While the corporation recognized that they were using a lot of water and have been looking at how to reduce consumption, they hadn't put 2 and 2 together regarding root causes and corrective action needed.
What's sad is that even the "health reasons" justification for the policy falls flat, given that one of the primary culprits in causing poor health around the world is the lack of fresh water.
Just goes to show that even when you get used to thinking about and presenting your company as one on the path to sustainability, it's wise to always ask "what else can we do?" It's a journey, not a destination.
|
|
|
|
action activism air alternative animals at&t biodiversity burningman carbon change china climate climatechange co2 communication conservation critters csr culture cyrus datacenter dave depletion douglas earthday earthhour2009 eco economy efficiency emissions endangered energy environment events evolution fail floods funny gas gases genome ghgreduction gorillas green greenhouse greenmarketing greenwashing hybrids interspecies irony leaders living livinggreen mammal marketing media metrics midwest miley muskrat nasa nature net2 new ngo obama offsets oil olympics openeco packagingatrocity plasticwaterbottles platypus prices quality reporting resource species starbuck's sun sunray sustainability suv taking tranparency transit transportation video waste web whales wildlife zealand
This theme brought to you by the Sun Green Team.
Go Green!