A Fresher Washing and Drying “Sustainability” Cycle

A number of you have pointed out an error in one of the illustrative examples in my white paper The Four Dimensions of Sustainability. Perhaps I focused too much on green washing and whitewashing, but didn’t pay enough attention to clothes washing.

I quote clothing as an example of a product that does not have a 'product in-life' carbon footprint. However, I was wrong. It has been pointed out to me that when you wash and dry your clothes you consume energy and generate emissions. According to the Citizens Action Coalition Education Fund in Indiana, "appliances such as your refrigerator, clothes washer and dryer, dishwasher and electronics (TV, computer, audio and video systems, etc.) account for about 20% of your household’s annual energy bill.” Further, "by using a clothesline instead of your dryer, you can save 1,016 pounds of CO2 annually.”

Washing and drying clothes can add up to 5% of the carbon footprint of an average household

Moreover, as far back as April 2007, Marks and Spencer over in the UK realized this and started to encourage their customers to wash clothes at a lower temperature. "From today, Marks & Spencer will encourage its customers to help reduce their impact on the environment by lowering their washing temperature to 30°C, saving around 40% energy per wash. Independent tests also show that around 70% of M&S clothes(ii) can be effectively washed at 30°C, without any significant reduction in performance of everyday washes. Over the coming months, Marks & Spencer will re-label almost three quarters of its clothing ranges to include the words ‘Think Climate – Wash at 30°C’ on the garment care labels.”

Therefore, the next draft of my paper will not include this example!

Should business invest in renewables while the rules are shifting?

I wrote earlier on my blog a post Signs of An Inflexion Approaching highlighting changes in carbon accounting rules for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.

These can be a tough times for businesses that have been first movers. Rules change, and what seemed like the right decision at the time suddenly looks less so going into the future. A carbon neutral position can become invalidated or seemingly regress by either a company or a government entity, such as the recent example of the US House of Representatives abandoning plans to make their offices carbon neutral.

But that is not how we should be judging. It is the actions of the businesses and governments that stepped into the fray before things were clear that have been the catalysts to crystallize the landscape and help facilitate decisions on rules and frameworks.

The investments of these first mover organizations will not have been wasted. These companies and other organizations will be able to inform policy and rulemaking and will be ahead of their competitors both in adapting quickly, based on knowledge and experience, to the new rules.

And enlightened government will ensure that rule and their timescales for introduction do not penalize first movers. I see this in the timescales for the new EPA rules for Green Power Partners that allow companies to adjust before the rules take effect.

Some businesses will have to sacrifice a little pride and revisit carbon reductions in the light of a new framework - but this is the worst case.

The ground is going to continue shifting for some time before rules become clear. But businesses should not wait. Renewables decisions should of course include scenario planning as would any other business decisions, but they should go ahead where they make commercial sense. And government should recognize the valuable contribution of first movers and the damage it would do to other potential actors if the whole market is paralyzed into inaction until all the rules are clear.

This post was originally featured in Greenbiz.com

Guest Blog Post: EMC

Greenwashing? Or Greenbashing?

In his March 4 blog entry, Kevin quite rightly points out the frequency of accusations of greenwashing, which are coming fast and thick in the blogosphere as well as the more class media (905,000 hits on Google and 539 books on Amazon). He suggests that companies can "avoid the label by taking the right actions on sustainability." That would indeed be true if accusations of greenwashing were actually correlated to taking the wrong actions in the majority of cases. But I'm not at all sure it's true.

First of all, let me go on record as abhorring companies that knowingly "spin" their messages to sound as though a product or action is environmentally friendly when it is anything but. They confuse the market, invite cynicism, and generally make a bad name for all companies that are trying to do the right thing. Nor do I have a lot of sympathy for complete ignorance and am happy to denounce claims that bamboo cigarette holders will save the planet.

But there are other less worthy targets for the label. There is the slightly naïve company (or, more likely, marketing communications person) who is genuinely proud of positive steps that were taken in their own right, but hasn't looked at them in the greater context of materiality. I'd rather see us teach these folks then publicly castigate them. But OK, so public humiliation may not be pleasant, but it is educational.

What about the more aggressive companies that push the edge of the envelope, by necessity running up against the untested and controversial, and then getting slapped down for their efforts? I can just see the execs at peer companies saying "Thank goodness it wasn't my company out there in front". Yes, people were educated by the criticism, too. They were taught that taking risk is a really bad idea if you don't want to end up on the front page of the paper.

And then there's the "whitespace" situation in which a company is doing something relevant and material, so gets chastised for something else they haven't (yet) done, even if it's far less material. Perhaps we shouldn't publish anything - but then how to defend to your stakeholders why you were bypassed by all those "100 Best…" lists and responsible investment indexes?

I was asked during a panel session recently whether private industry was "doing enough". Nope, we're not. Not by a long shot. But constant media attacks on those that are trying isn't going to speed up progress.

Maybe the critics should start applying the test of materiality to their own diatribes.

Kathrin Winkler is Sr. Director, Corporate Sustainability at EMC Corporation, where she has a history of taking on entirely new roles in which she has to fill in the interstices between more traditional functions. Kathrin (aka "Kate") took on the full-time sustainability position in July of 2008, and maintains her own blog Interconnected World where she documents her personal and professional journey. These views are her own and do not necessarily represent those of her employer.

Smart Trade with Four Dimensions

This week, I will be presenting my Four Dimensions of Sustainability framework at a Women in International Trade Association (WIIT) event on climate change and its international implications. The Honorable Branko Terzic will join me in the discussion. He was a speaker at a British American Business Association energy and environment event I organized in DC last year. He is both a knowledgeable and entertaining speaker. Monica Dorhoi of World Bank will moderate the discussion.

I encourage my readers in the D.C. area to attend this event. It will occur on Friday, April 3 at 12:30 p.m. at the Ronald Reagan International Center.

How Sustainable is Train Travel?

It is Thursday afternoon and I am on an Amtrak train on my way back from speaking at the Ethical Sourcing Forum in Manhattan. I just took a look at the Arrive magazine in the seat pocket in front of me and it was the March /April "Special Green Issue". It is pretty good for a seat pocket magazine and includes a well written feature on the challenges and opportunities of wind energy.

One thing took me by surprise. In the editorial, Joe Boardman, President and CEO of the publication, explains that rail travel is about 17% more energy efficient than air travel and 21% more efficient than automobiles on a per passenger mile basis. I had been sitting here on the train thinking how green I was being going from DC to NY by train rather than flying or driving. 17% and 21% is better than nothing, but it doesn't seem that much better in the grand scheme of things. I had thought the train would be 80% or 90% better - after all, it doesn’t have to get off the ground and I always understood that to be the most energy intensive part of air travel.

According to Freight on Rail a UK based partnership of the rail freight operators, per tonne carried, road transport will requires between 4 to 7 times more energy than rail. – The case for rail, Railfuture 2004. That is more like I would have expected.

Does anyone know where the 17% comes from or how to reconcile these two data points?

Teleconference: Obama Administration’s Priorities in Energy & Environment

Next week we will have a second complimentary British American Business Association teleconference with an overview of the Obama Administration's stated priorities in Energy & Environment and the implications these will have.

Our speaker will be Christine Tezak, a well-respected analyst in the energy industry, and until recently Senior Vice President, Energy and Electric Utilities Analyst, at Stanford Group Company’s Policy Research Group. Christine will be addressing renewable portfolio and what it means for those who sell and buy power, pollution control rules, what do new standards portend, climate change and regulation of carbon dioxide and smart grid and transmission infrastructure - and leaving time for Q&A - all in one hour!

As before, I am extending complimentary participation to readers of CSR Perspective. Click here to register and to download audio and webinar information. Where you are asked to enter your BABC Chapter enter 'CSR Perspective'. I hope you are able to join us.

Organic food industry: Is it enough?

Sustainability of the food industry is a hot topic right now. After being largely ignored for years, the White House has now vowed to encourage a more nutritious and sustainable food supply. This is encouraging news for advocates of organic and locally grown food. But are 'organic' and 'locally grown' food sustainable answers to feeding our global population?

In the same way that carbon emissions are a common measure for tackling climate change, what measure should the food industry use to ensure that micro-efforts will be sustainable if replicated on a macro-basis.

I noticed a very interesting factoid in 'Lets Grow America' in the March/April issue of Mother Jones. The article is a fascinating illustration of the complexity of sustainability in just one industry sector. The item that caught my attention states, "In 1940 one calorie of energy produced 2.3 calories of food. Today it takes 10 calories of energy to produce each calorie of food sold at supermarkets."

My initial instinct is that if it takes more calories to create the product than the product provides then it is inherently not sustainable. That may not be the case if an unlimited supply of a renewable energy source is one of the inputs. But this metric still intrigues me.

Do you know what the target should be or other comparable measures that you would like to share?