www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

…but see tax and red tape as barriers to environmentalism

(This press release sourced from is4profit) Small businesses believe going green can boost their bottom line – but see tax and red tape as major barriers to becoming more environmentally friendly, according to Forum of Private Business research.

Just 10% of business owners responding to the Forum’s latest environmental panel survey have done nothing to reduce steep utilities costs while 41% have streamlined business processes, 28% have reduced energy usage and the same number have embraced more energy efficient equipment.

While 77% of respondents disagree that being green is impossible in the present economic climate 52% argue that green taxes inhibit their ability to invest in reducing energy use and 75% believe that environmental legislation focuses on the needs of larger businesses rather than small firms.

In all, 52% of the small businesses surveyed believe they cannot become more environmentally friendly until they are able to be more profitable.

The Forum’s Chief Executive Phil Orford said: “Small businesses see the benefits of green practices and technologies to the environment and, given rising energy costs, to their bottom lines. They are clearly taking steps towards introducing them but the lack of adequate support from the Government and utilities providers is frustrating.

“We need better information about the choice of support and equipment that is available, and incentives to help business owners embrace environmental processes and trade more sustainably locally, regionally and internationally, rather than ever more taxation. Small businesses should be at the forefront of thinking about the green agenda.”

The impact of industry practices and environmental policies

Just 8% of respondents believe regulators have been effective in protecting them from the ‘bad practice’ of utilities providers, while a significant 87% believe there should be one single government department responsible for utilities regulation and funding schemes.

Further, 38% of panel members have used or recommended to their staff national or local environmental initiatives introduced by the Government, such as the Cycle to Work scheme, while 48% have not – with 63% reporting they have not sought support from government agencies or organisations such as Business Link.

While 33% of respondents believe ‘green’ energy providers are markedly more expensive than traditional suppliers and are therefore not worth considering, 38% disagree with this.

In all, 78% think that using local suppliers is environmentally responsible. However, 76% believe that to effectively manage resources it is necessary to be able to measure energy usage.

While 65% of the small businesses surveyed believe that the cost of energy is more important than maintaining a continuous supply, 43% disagree. In addition, 66% report that introducing measures to guard against extreme weather conditions such as flooding and fire is less important than securing the best returns for their businesses at present, with 31% disagreeing with this.

Controlling costs

A total of 38% of respondents have taken proactive cost control steps by switching utilities suppliers, but few businesses are using environmental consultants with over half of respondents (54%) indicating they do not believe they are appropriate for their businesses.

Other methods of cost reduction being explored by Forum members include tightening up administrative (31%) and travel (35%) processes as well as reducing purchasing procurement costs (45%) – with some businesses benefiting from the Forum’s Buying Support Agency.

While 53% said they receive no support in reducing bills from their energy suppliers, 29% said this depends on the provider concerned. A total of 15% reported that they do receive support.

A total of 73% of respondents focus on ‘common sense solutions’ to reducing waste but 31% only begin to assess how to reduce energy costs when they receive a bill or contract renewal form, while 16% use meters to identify poorly functioning equipment or inefficient processes.

Smart metering and green technologies

While half of all respondents believe there are no barriers to using meters, 64% of those with metering issues identified cost as a major concern.

Others cited poor information and a lack of government leadership as responsible for a lack of confidence in meter suppliers – few firms trust that suppliers or utilities regulators will prevent unit prices from rising following the introduction of smart meters.

Some 20% of respondents believe smart metering is not appropriate for smaller firms, either due to the lack of an economy of scale, difficulties in installation because their property is terraced, listed or rented, or because the type of electricity supply they use renders metering inappropriate.

The inconvenience of changing to meters and even of them inhibiting core business functions were also mentioned as reasons why some respondents are hesitant about installing them.

While 24% of panel members would consider installing energy generating equipment, such as wind turbines or solar panels if there were more loans or grants to help them to do so, 20% said they do not believe it is their decision to make because they rent their premises, the property is listed or they are trying to sell it.

However, some businesses renting properties would be interested in receiving information about how tenants and owners can benefit from such improvements – 11% would like to know more about green technology so that they can maximise their use of it. Just as important for many respondents is accurate information about the costs and pay back terms involved.

In all, poor information (20%) and cost (15%) are seen as the biggest barriers to greater investment in environmental services and technologies.

The Forum is calling on the Government to:

• Think small first when producing environmental policies affecting businesses: including ensuring policies and regulations are simple, proportional and clear to give business owners the greatest opportunity to understand and, where appropriate, implement government policy.
• Incentivise the green agenda: rather than simply introducing taxes to persuade business owners that the green agenda is more than a revenue raising exercise with little in return, such as by providing environmental support structures that are more readily accessible to small businesses.
• Clarify the business case for energy efficient technology and provide better information on the choices available: while small firms see the importance of metering and measuring energy use, there are practical difficulties relating to the installation and operation of meters and green technologies.
• Support businesses that adopt green measures early: including rewards for large-scale property improvements such as tax relief and soft loans – giving these businesses the confidence to make further investments in low carbon infrastructures. The Green Investment Bank should be able to support micro-generation schemes to improve the nation’s energy security.
• Support a local agenda: with better support for and promotion of local schemes, closer links between small firms and the communities in which they operate including allowing retailers to use Energy Performance Certification to show off their green credentials and creating a local green agenda to ensure that regenerating high streets is done in a sustainable manner, reducing the barriers put in the way of businesses by planning departments.

is4profit has further business advice articles that may be of interest in their green business section.

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}
We’ve had an interesting email from the Make Wood Work campaign.

In essence, the UK Government’s Renewables Obligation (RO) policy encourages the use of bio-mass burners for electricity generation with financial subsidies. Whilst, from an environmentally-friendly point of view, biomass burning creates energy from waste materials, the forest products industry is concerned that using wood for bio-mass burners will damage their industry.

They have a good point. If the waste material from the wood industry is used for biomass burning then it is being diverted away from the recycled wood industry where collected waste wood is used to created further products. If biomass burning is encouraged then the wood will be burnt and the capacity for the energy industry to a) be heavily subsidised and b) burn vast amounts of timber is not only a worry for the forest products and wood panel industries, but also for the environment, for local economies and for the greater social good too.

By using wood and waste wood in products, there is greater environmental good with the carbon being “locked up” in the products and reused and recycled, stimulating initiatives to find further ways to innovatively use waste wood. The biomass energy industry would simply burn the timber and produce greater carbon emissions than the waste wood recycling and reprocessing industries.

Basically, the government’s well-intended renewables obligation policy is distorting an “already fragile wood supply and demand balance in the UK”. You only have to look at Channel 4 News’ report Timber prices up as power plants boost biomass use to see what the subsidised energy industry is having knock-on effects elsewhere by voraciously burning timber.

So, quite simply put:

RO means wood and waste wood go stright to burners to generate “renewable” energy. Wood, that takes 30/40 years to grow, is burnt. Waste wood is burnt. Wood and waste wood are simply destroyed.

A rethink of RO means wood goes to the wood products industry and actually makes useful products. More people are gainfully employed in business and industry and there is innovation in creating from wood and waste wood.

We’re not against biomass energy as it does have the potential for energy production from sources that would not otherwise be of any use, but to use wood and waste wood is a short-sighted and destructive path.

For more information take a look at the Make Wood Work campaign website, their video is particularly interesting.

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}
In an article that kicks off by cramming in a dizzying glut-fest of as many marketing buzzwords as possible, Ethical Corporation have written an interesting piece about how social media appears to be driving sustainability in big business these days.

If you can wade your way through the jungle of marketing terms such as brand managers, brand transparency, brand value leadership, brand gatekeepers, strategic differentiation and brand equity, there’s an interesting look at how the world appears to be changing in the light of social media.

What this new episode boils down to is that we seem to be seeing a transformation in business as we see greater transparency through social media.

Kit Kat Killers

One great example of transparency resulting from social media is how Kit Kat slapped a Fairtrade logo on its products, an act of blatant greenwashing, conning consumers into thinking Kit Kat was a responsible brand and appealing to ethical consumers.

But, back in 2010, when Greenpeace accused Nestlé, owners of the Kit Kat brand, of duplicity the eyes of the world then focused on Nestlé, their products and the “little green lies” they told.

Kit Kat products are made using palm oil and, without sustainable sourcing, the demand for palm oil causes deforestation. Deforestation for palm oil, in Indonesia for instance, destroys the habitats of Oran-utangs, and Oran-utangs are an endangered species. How could a popular global product boast “Fairtrade” credentials when its drive for profits were guilty of destroying forests, and killing threatened species in Indonesia? (See the Greenpeace feature on palm oil)

So Greenpeace went on a crusade against Nestlé and Kit Kat, rebranding the product Nestle Killer. Particularly effective, was Greenpeace’ hard-hitting Give the Oran-utang a Break campaign.

The social media campaign from Greenpeace had an instant impact with an increase in some very negative (buzzword alert!) brand awareness. The word spread far across twitter, when I was watching it at the time, and I remember how Nestlé and Kit Kat got a good public kicking with a sustained burst of activity from angry twitter users.

What the Ethical Corporation article failed to mention was the actual result. Written by a brand marketing professional the piece went on to describe how brand managers could, er, better manage their brands under the scrutiny of a world eager to prevent further lies, damn lies and greenwash.

The global Swiss brand published a press release announcing Nestlé open forum on deforestation, Malaysia. This was as a direct result to the Greenpeace campaign to which they closed on their own announcement Sweet success for Kit Kat campaign: you asked, Nestlé has answered. Nestlé also became a member of the Roundtable for Responsible Palm Oil.

Nike? Transparency?

The other “example” of social media driving greater transparency and sustainability, about Nike, is a bit weak. In fact it’s more of a brand-boosting piece about how Nike are using environmentally-friendly rubber and helping a few homeless people. It’s basically more about Nike’s Public Relations crusade than anything about transparency, sustainabilty and social media.

A global company as big as Nike should be doing far more than focusing on just two issues and then milking them for all they’re worth. As a “concerned citizen” their policy really doesn’t make the grade. You’ve only got to look at our piece last month on Big Brands Polluting Rivers in China. Whilst Nike allegedly restrict the use of hazardous chemicals in their manufacturing process, their suppliers are still pumping out polluted waste water. Nike are, by association, still contributing to the problem by continuing to source from suppliers who fail to clean up.

In Conclusion

The Greenpeace social media campaign is the only one that’s forced any transparency. If anyone has any further examples of how social media is forcing transparency and sustainability onto global corporations then I’d be happy to add them to the list.

Other examples of the power of social media in bringing about positive change are the “Arab spring” where the government of Egypt was toppled in a social movement, part-powered by social media.

But that’s not all about what sustainability is about is it?

Transparency should be applied to all brands, businesses and corporations, all their products. Everything they do should be sustainable from the source materials they use, to the energy they consume, and to the way they run their offices, make their goods, ship them to the public and how the products are dealt with after the end of their life.

In short, the complete product lifecycle and the institutions behind them need to look at every single process and make them ALL  environmentally-friendly, carbon-neutral, ethically-sourced, socially-responsible and utterly transparent.

It’s NOT about all the things that marketers and brand managers, at the end of the food chain, can do to seem in touch with their products. It’s about a grass roots culture of making EVERYTHING go green so that processes do not need to be fixed at the tips and go backwards but from the root, from the source. Only then will everything else fall into place.

</sermon over>

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}Tucked away on page 17 of this week’s Star Courier local newspaper is a little story about our Farnborough Airport (FAB)

It starts:

“Planes from Farnborough Airport might be pumping carbon dioxide into the sky but the airport itself has been praised for its green efforts.”

The airport has been awarded Airport Carbon Accreditation at a level coined as “reduction” level which the paper notes is “the second highest of four possible ratings.”

Being interested in the environment around here I looked up the Airport Carbon Accreditation scheme’s website and discovered that “reduction” level isn’t the second highest but the second lowest!

The first (lowest) level, mapping, is where the airport actually identify the sources of CO2 emission, calculate their carbon emissions, produce a carbon footprint report and have a 3rd party verify this, in this case the Carbon Trust.

The second level, where Farnborough Airport are now, is reduction which means they have successfully achieved the “mapping” level and have provided evidence of effective carbon management procedures. They have also shown that their reduction targets have been achieved, although what these targets are, we do not know.

The next stages that Farnborough Airport needs to achieve are optimisation, where they engage third parties in the airport in their carbon reduction, and finally neutrality, where the airport itself ultimately becomes carbon neutral over all the emissions over which it has control.

Whilst there’s much back-slapping going on at the airport for their achievement, there’s still a long way to go. As the airport’s environmental manger states in the newspaper article:

“…our next environmental challenge is to develop carbon reduction strategies in conjunction with our tenants and service providers.”

This is good as it will achieve “optimisation” level, although who the tenants and service providers are, I do not know. If this includes the old airfield buildings which are now part of the IQ Farnborough business park then I’d recommend somebody turns the lights of in the empty multi-story car parks at night when there’s nobody there!

The main question that still needs answering though is this: What is the airport’s carbon footprint and what is the carbon footprint of the flights coming in and out of Farnborough?

TAG recently won their call to increase traffic at the airport from 28,000 flights a year to 50,000. If you believe the figures over at How much CO2 is released by an aeroplane? then you can see that a small business jet, most of FAB’s traffic, might emit 1.766 kg/km whilst the average CO2 emissions for a car are about 166g/km or, or, to equate better, 0.166 kg/km according to these figures. That means that, on average, a car emits ten times less CO2 than a small 9-man business jet but there are far more cars on the roads around Farnborough than there are planes to and from Farnborough Airport.

Interestingly, from a sustainability point of view, if you take another look at those figures you’ll see that they believe fuel consumption of the light jet is 0.684 L/km whereas a car that does 30MPG achieves 0.094 L/km (By using this fuel consumption conversion calculator, this kilometres/litres to litres/100 km conversion calculator and a calculator. The same small business plane uses 7 times more fuel than a car and emits 10 times more CO2 – There are more local car trips than plane journeys but what is the average mileage of these cars vs these planes.

Summary

Whilst it’s commendable that TAG Aviation are trying to make Farnborough Airport (FAB) more environmentally-friendly, there still seems to be a very long way to go. I’d be interested to know when they believe they’ll be able to achieve a carbon neutral status for the airport but I’m extremely interested to see the figures for CO2 emissions from the planes and what they intend to do to rectify that problem. (Plant more trees?)

Air quality is another issue and I know that for a fact because I work within spitting distance of FAB. Some days the waft of avgas is overwhelming and i wonder what sustained periods of breathing those fumes in do to our health?

I decided last year to start investing some of my savings with Triodos Bank. As a green and ethical citizen I though that I’d vote with my “green” and give it to an ethical bank that would invest my meagre savings in a positive way. Whilst I’ve deposited the tiniest amount with them, I intend to move most of my savings to Triodos to ensure all my money is being looked after by and invested in sustainable causes.

So it was great interest today that I saw a press release from Triodos Bank – Hot on the heels of the RBS Customer Charter and the Natwest Customer Charter it seems that Triodos are about as pleased with RBS and Natwest as RBS and Natwest customers are! Here’s the Triodos press release:

Commenting on the RBS / Natwest customer charter, Charles Middleton, UK managing director at Triodos Bank, said:

“These service commitments should be bread and butter for all banks. Firstly, customers have a right to a basic level of service yet it’s clear that some banks continue to fail to deliver. Little wonder, then, that when asked, one in five (21%)  Brits could not find a single reason to recommend their bank*.

“Customers are entitled to expect more from their banks.  The customer service element should be a given but we believe the public should be asking for, and getting, more than this, for example, some sense of what their bank is doing with the money they entrust to it, and greater transparency on investment decisions.  Amazingly, 35% of UK banking customers think their money simply sits in a bank vault or benefits from occasional interest. Few realise how a bank may actually be using their money, and most banks don’t make it easy for customers to be more aware of this and give their opinion. However, 61% of people would like to be with a bank that shares their values.

“We urge dissatisfied customers to take action, approach their banks and demand not just a basic level of service, but more than this, including transparency on how they use savers’ deposits, so that the public can vote with its feet on issues that matter to them.”

A recent, separate survey among Triodos Bank customers revealed 94% of the ethical bank’s customers would recommend Triodos to others.  Other findings from Triodos customer survey among 1000 customers in February:

• 63% choose to save with Triodos as they know how their money is being used
• Less than 5% feel negative or indifferent about saving with Triodos, most customers are satisfied, happy, content
• 51%  trust Triodos to do the right thing
• 69% feel like they are doing the right thing by banking with Triodos

* Opinium Research carried out an online survey of 2,000 UK adults aged 18+ from 19th to 21st January 2011. Results have been weighted to nationally representative criteria.

Well, I wasn’t polled or interviewed but I can say, as a green, an environmentalist, cheerleader of localism, organic food fan, ethics ambassador, supporter of social responsibility & sustainability  etc etc etc that I feel 100% satisfied with the way Triodos Bank handle and invest my money.

Long may it continue

Just a little snippet for you, but an extremely important one…

We’re currently reading John Fagan’s excellent green handbook Managing4Good, a “guide to responsible and sustainable business” and we stumbled across this nugget of information in the quotation at the foot of page 27. In a case study of communications company BT the text in the illustration reads:

BT plc believes that the reputation it has gained as a result of its Corporate Responsibility activities is maintaining and building its market share in a competitive market. It estimates that corporate (social) responsibility accounts for over 25% of image and reputation impact on customer satisfaction.

Wow!

Let’s just highlight the important bit of that snippet shall we?

…corporate (social) responsibility accounts for over 25% of image and reputation impact on customer satisfaction.

So there you go, folks, having a socially responsible and sustainable business is a winner with customers and accounts for a quarter of your image and reputation.

Thanks for the headsup to is4profit, the business advice website, who pointed out John Fagan’s book.

So we’ve had Google Chrome, Google Buzz, Google Wave, Google Labs, Google Docs, Google Mail and now Google Wind Farms.

OK, not really, that last one we made up, but it might as well be real seeing as Google, the search giant, has invested $38.8 million in a wind farm (approximately £25.3 million). Apparently this is the first time that Google has made a “direct investment in a utility-scale renewable energy project”.

It also seems that Google has taken a long time to act in directly investing in clean energy since we reported, way back in 2007, on Google’s Renewable Energy Goal. Back then the philanthropic arm of the behemoth, Google.org, was talking up its RE<C project: Renewable Energy cheaper than Coal.

Now considering the carbon footprint of a Google search, which was quoted as being a wild stab between 0.2g and 7g for every search, it’s about time Big G did something to clean up its own act. Back in January 2009 there were an estimated 200 million searches daily on the Internet, so if that was all on Google we can only estimate between 40,000 and  1.4 million metric tonnes of carbon emitted daily in the process of  powering the machines that power search.

So this investment by Google, albeit late, is very welcome. The wind farm, developed by Next era Energy Resources is purported to develop  around 169.5 megawatts of power or enough to power 55,000 homes (Is that American homes or British homes? Remember that per capita electricity consumption in the US is around 1460 watts per person when compared to 667 watts per person in the UK  but is an almighty 3152 watts per person in Iceland whilst the world average consumption is 297 watts per person. Source. But that’s a whole topic for discussion on another day)

We’d be interested if anybody’s done the maths to work out just how many Google rack servers this wind farm in North Carolina will power, so if you have any idea we’d be really pleased to hear from you.

Whilst listening to a Radio 4 podcast on the lack of lending by banks to SMEs, I came across the story of a firm called 2K Manufacturing. The broadcast was about the firm’s difficulty in securing a loan from a major UK bank in order to expand the production of their Ecosheet product; It was this Ecosheet that really caught my attention.

2K Manufacturing’s Ecosheet is an environmentally-friendly alternative to plywood. By using low-grade post-consumer waste plastic products 2K are not only keeping this waste from the incinerator or land-fill but also reducing the need for imported plywood.

Mainly used in building & construction, hoarding etc Ecosheet has many other advantages over plywood:

• Generally lighter than plywood
• As strong as plywood
• Similar cost to plywood
• Ecosheet is impervious to rain & damp so it can be stored outdoors, weathers really well and can be jet-washed!
• It is made in standard sizes
• Both sides of Ecosheet are “A” faces (whereas plywood has just one)
• Ecosheet can be recycled at the end of its own useful life
• Ergo it is a totally sustainable solution

Just take a look at Ecosheet around the refurbishment of Marks & Spencer in Stall Street, Bath; The hoardings have been vinyl-wrapped with graphics but the installation is totally weatherproof and sustainable.

So builders, construction firms, civil engineers etc… It’s well worth checking out the green alternative to plywood. I hope the big DIY and builders merchants start stocking this product too – it keeps low-grade plastic waste out of land-fill and the incinerator, it stops trees from being cut to supply demand for plywood and it is good for the environment and 2K Manufacturing, a UK small business.

It was pleasing to see the news this morning that Triodos, the environmental & social investment bank, are doing well.

According to Third Sector, the charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprise website, Triodos Bank has increased lending & investment by 73% over the last year.

In 2008 Triodos Bank lent just over £200 million whilst in 2009 that had increased to nearly £250 million. The bank has increased future loans from an expected £30 million to around £150 million.

Triodos Bank’s customer base has grown by about 15% over the last year as greater numbers of clients have sought to invest in environmental and socially-beneficial causes (not to mention ethical and sustainable investments too).

Triodos Bank’s growth areas have included offshore wind projects and waste processing facilities plus organic farming and food projects. Scotland and Wales have seen the greatest increases in the amount of lending.

Personally, I’ve been mulling over getting an account with Triodos Bank for a number of years, but I think now is the time to get started