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 Christie
Tel: +44 (0) 1225 386405 Email: iem@bath.ac.uk
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
When
safety
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: croner@wolterskluwer.co.uk
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 1472-5037
Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer (UK) Limited
Development Editor:
Ceri Pickering
Editor:
Kevin Whitten
Email: kevin.whitten@wolterskluwer.co.uk
Advertising:
Email: sabrina.sully@spmedia.co.uk
Content 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.
Features
Just 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
Regulars
Policy 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
Down to earth
I
t 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 egg
However, 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
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 cheerful
If 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 oil
The 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 20156 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 land
To 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 us
Meanwhile, 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 issues
There 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.
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.

Recycling
M
anaging 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 waste
In 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 champions
How 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 contractor
You 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 resources
Every 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.
“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 that
Recycling 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

I
n 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 driven
In 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 leaders
While 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 out
While 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 apps
Members 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.
“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
T
here 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-win
We 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 LENI
A 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 factors
There 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 opportunity
The 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.
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
S
ustainability 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 sustainability
However, 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 points
Almost 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 sustainability
When 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 2015
Management 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-makers
One 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.
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.

Focus on ... Sustainability
A
s 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 challenges
And 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 messages
But 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.
Teamwork
Teamwork 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.
John Barwise MIEMA, CEnv
is Director of QoL Environmental
Communications Consultancy
and works with businesses
to promote best practice in
environmental management.

Viewpoint
O
ne 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.
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 7000
www.xlenvironmental.com/intl

LRQA: Training for
a Brighter Future
Our 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.

Environment magazine 59

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Environment magazine 59

Ähnlich wie Environment magazine 59 (20)

Mehr von Nexus Publishing

Mehr von Nexus Publishing (17)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Environment magazine 59