Posts filed under ‘Greenhouse Gas Reduction’
How to green your ride…safely
Cut your carbon footprint with today’s transportation tip from NAEM’s Green Tips Guide, an employee engagement handbook:
http://www.youtube.com/NAEMorgTV#p/u/29/kYmh1hNnf0A
Do-it-yourself EHS MIS: An interview with InterGen’s Mark Chrisos
In 2008 InterGen launched a proprietary, internally built system to track its environmental, health and safety (EHS) performance. We spoke with Mark Chrisos, Director of Health, Safety, Security and Environment, to learn more about the benefits and challenges of doing it yourself.
The Green Tie: Why did you decide to build your own system?
We originally had a system that was an off-the-shelf system and it became very cumbersome and labor intensive. We took the best attributes and decided to take a home-grown approach.
The Green Tie: What do you like about your new proprietary system?
One of the things we didn’t have with our old system was the ability to instantaneously enter data. To address that, the IT designers developed an incident reporting system that allows the site user to enter an event right away. (We own power plants across the world so when something happens, we all want to know about it quickly.) That event is then instantaneously sent to a selected group of people within our company through our internal e-mail system, with a timeframe based on the severity of the incident.
In the health and safety area, for example, a lost time incident needs to be entered within that shift, but whereas an unsafe act or condition could be entered by the end of the week. So we try to prioritize incidents and act on them based on that priority. It also allows us to make a comment back or an email back to check in and find out what’s going on. So it really makes our job easier on the incident side.
The Green Tie: Before you created your ‘BITS’ system, InterGen used multiple tracking systems. What are some of the benefits associated with streamlining your efforts?
The operations team, the maintenance team and the HSE teams work very closely together, so the new system allows us to enter incidents related to equipment, health and safety environment and even now, security. The plant teams can use this one system to add an event, to search an event, to look at monthly data, to look at reports, all in one screen.
Often times if there’s an equipment failure, it might have health safety or environmental implications. If you have a machine that uses oil and that machine fails, for example, you might have a spill around the equipment. With this system, you can track that both ways. All this then rolls up in a monthly report that we can generate based on location or by the fleet for everything going on in the company.
The Green Tie: Has the system changed your safety culture? If so, how?
I think the culture is changing based on the fact that people are now very comfortable reporting all incidents. For the past several years, we have emphasized that we need to collect data to track it because the more data we have, the better off we’ll be.
The new system encourages reporting system and makes it easier for us to trend data. People love to report things now but they expect us to report back to them with the results. So we provide feedback via trending on a quarterly basis and we develop programs, procedures and processes based on the trends that we see.
We can now track incidents by body parts, for example. If we see a bunch of eye injuries, we’ll be able to investigate that issue and look at whether our safety glasses program is working. And all the coordinators on the site-level appreciate it that we’re looking at it from a corporate or fleet approach and offering recommendations on how to address these issues.
The Green Tie: What were some of the challenges of putting a system like this together?
The first thing is internal cost. After that, it’s a matter of getting employees focused, making it a priority, and keeping up with it. And we found that if you don’t keep up with it, it’s not going to work. Every year, we do a survey of users to ask them what else they’d like us to track. We then issue an update once a year.
Teaching employees how to use it is another consideration. We’ve learned that if you don’t do the proper level of training, people are not going to use it. So we have a full-time IT/training coordinator and we work together on each year’s release. We have video conferencing with everybody; and we have a test site they can try out before it goes live. All these things are important to get people comfortable with it.
The Green Tie: If you could do it again, what are some of the things you would do differently?
What I think we learned is if you spend more time in the design phase it will save you time with the updates. We have far fewer changes this year than last year, but I think it’s important take a lot of time to chart out the plan. Getting more people involved also could have helped make the process smoother. Often times people who are unfamiliar with the issue can help catch things you overlook.
To learn more about InterGen’s internally built system or to discuss the latest trends in management information systems (MIS), join NAEM in San Antonio March 2 and 3 for the 2011 EHS MIS Conference.
Sustainability is an evolution, not a revolution
Carol Singer Neuvelt
As it is with the beginning of any cultural movement, the conversation about sustainability has been largely driven by the “aspirationalists,” who have sold the big idea through thought pieces, green marketing and plenty of green business symposia.
To hear this version of the story, it would seem that the green economy is upon us and that companies are funding sustainability like never before. Although I personally believe that we are reaching a cultural “tipping point,” the less exciting truth is that there is a long road ahead.
Last year’s survey of CEOs by McKinsey & Co. and Deloitte Consulting is a good reminder of this, as Steven Ramsey pointed out at the 2010 Forum. While the majority of CEOs surveyed for the study said sustainability was important to building corporate reputation, less than one-third said it was integrated into their company’s core business practices. So while the notion of sustainability may be gaining buzz, there is still a great deal of internal momentum necessary for transformational change to occur.
What I do know from watching our members lead change within their companies over the past two decades is that environmental, health and safety (EHS) leaders have earned a seat at the C-level management table. Having moved from project execution to program management, they are demonstrating the strategic value of their work to an organization’s broader aspirations.
Yet even in this first-generation of sustainable companies, the approach has been more of an evolution than a revolution.
In most cases, companies have looked within their current systems to identify those initiatives that contribute to sustainability. In our 2009 survey of the NAEM’s corporate members, for example, we found traditional EHS priorities, including waste reduction and pollution prevention, energy (climate risk) management, worker health and safety initiatives were for the first time identified as sustainability programs. While this may not seem newsworthy, the effort to take a fresh look at business management processes through the lens of sustainability was a real shift.
In a 24-7 news cycle, the appetite for information is insatiable. Real process change, however, does not always lend itself to a press release. It’s important to keep people inspired by the possibilities, but substantive improvements require incremental steps and often take several rounds before results are worth talking about. It may not be what the aspirationalists expect, but it’s a more accurate reflection of what’s going on.
The current business ecosystem has taken 200 years to evolve and our awareness of sustainability as a business management concept is just beginning. Responsible companies want to make this change, but they also need time to define what it means for their business, understand what goes into it and communicate accurately about it.
What do you think about how well sustainability has been adopted within companies? Is there a disconnect between the progress you hear about in the news and what you see day-to-day?
Understanding Renewable Energy Certificates
Steve McDougal
Renewable energy certificates are a vital tool for offsetting a company’s carbon footprint, but there is still plenty of confusion about how best to use them.We caught up with Steve McDougal, Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business Development for 3Degrees Inc., and asked him to shed some light on the subject.
GT: What is a renewable energy certificate (REC)?
SM: A REC is proof or verification that one megawatt-hour of renewable energy has been created and delivered to the grid. Power is traded like a commodity, undifferentiated from fuel sources, and a REC is like a claim check that corresponds to electricity generated from renewable resources. It’s purchased separately, however, so the buyer of that REC knows that they’re funding (or helping to fund) the same amount of renewable energy going into the grid as what they pull out of the grid.
GT: Who uses RECs?
SM: RECs are used by a variety of organizations. They’re used by utilities to meet state government renewable energy compliance regulations; they’re used by organizations on a voluntary basis to meet sustainability goals and by green building professionals to earn Green Power Credit points towards LEED green building certification.
GT: What kind of premium could a buyer expect to pay for energy from a renewable source?
SM: For a voluntary buyer purchasing a REC that is sourced from anywhere in the United States, the premium is about 1 percent.
GT: How do RECs help companies reach their sustainability goals?
SM: While businesses may do their best to reduce their electricity usage, at the end of the day, all organizations still need electricity to operate. Unfortunately, there is a significant environmental impact associated with the electricity that they use. The purchase of RECs mitigates this impact, while helping improve the profitability and return on investment of renewable energy projects, thereby driving more of those projects forward.
GT: When should a company use a REC versus a carbon offset?
SM: If you want to “green” your electricity, RECs are the way to go. But they are not meant to be used as a carbon offset for Scope 1 or Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions, primarily because RECs are not a precise way to measure greenhouse gas emission reductions. They’re a proof of one megawatt-hour of clean electricity, but they are not designed to balance out the greenhouse gas emissions or mitigate the environmental impact of energy use other than electricity. Everything else outside of electricity use, from driving your car to burning some natural gas to putting another log on the fire, that’s what you want to use carbon offsets for.
GT: How do you demonstrate value/metrics for those who buy these credits?
SM: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s calculator provides one look at the environmental impact RECs can have. You can enter the amount of megawatt-hours that you’re buying and it will convert it to a measure that shows the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been generated using traditional electricity generation. It then tells you how these greenhouse gas emissions correspond to the amount of greenhouse gases produced annually by an average car, or absorbed by an acre of forest in a year. Many companies also measure themselves by setting a percentage goal and increasing the amount of RECs they use over time.
GT: Can REC’s totally offset a company’s carbon footprint?
SM: One should always look at RECs as a complement to energy efficiency and conservation efforts, realizing that it’s not one or the other. The best approach is to say, ‘We’re going to reduce our energy use, costs and environmental impact as much as possible,’ using energy efficient technologies and conservation. But even if we do our best, we will still use some electricity from the grid, which will have an environmental impact. And a comprehensive environmental sustainability effort can mitigate this impact by supporting the generation of the same amount electricity from renewable energy sources as the electricity you use from the grid.
Steve McDougal is Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business Development for 3Degrees Inc. and a member of NAEM’s Affiliates Council. You can hear him speak more about renewable energy credits during the upcoming webinar “Understanding the Business Value of Renewable Energy Certificates” Jan. 13 from 1:00-2:15 p.m.
Throwing away the dumpster: How Burt’s Bees achieved zero waste to landfill
Steve Walker
In 2007, Burt’s Bees set out to achieve zero waste status by 2020. Three years in, the company has achieved zero waste to landfill and reduced its waste stream from 344 tons in 2006 to 66 tons in the twelve months ending last June. Steve Walker, Manager of Environmental Sustainability, is responsible for helping the Durham, N.C.-based company reduce its waste across its headquarters, manufacturing and distribution operations. We spoke to him last week about how he got started and the systems he’s using to make this goal a reality.
Q: How does Burt’s define zero waste?
SW: To make our products, there will have to be a certain amount of water and energy use, but we want to be as efficient as we can to ensure that any energy we put in is going directly to adding value to the customer. So when we say zero waste, it’s 100 percent efficient in the processes. Our true aim, however, is not only to get to zero, but to have a net-positive impact on the environment and on society.
Q: When you started at Burt’s, the company had already outlined its zero waste goals. How did you get started?
SW: We began by setting a baseline. We went back and got our water history use, energy use and landfill data, and then starting measuring our by-products. At Burt’s, we define ‘by-products’ as literally everything that leaves one of our buildings other than a person or a finished good. This broad definition runs the gamut from scrap metal to hazardous waste to used batteries to typical recyclables like plastic, cardboard, and paper.
To measure our by-products, we bought industrial floor scales and began weighing everything. The data goes into Excel spreadsheet, which I use to monitor how we are doing by by-product type as a whole, and how are we doing in using our internal by-product hierarchy.
Q: What is a by-product hierarchy?
SW: We’ve established a hierarchy for how we deal with our by-product, ranging from landfilling it (the least preferred method) to reducing it altogether. (The sorting guide has not yet been updated; landfill has now become waste-to-energy.)
Q: What were the next steps?
SW: Starting at the bottom of the hierarchy, we worked hard to reduce our waste to landfill. Back in April 2008, we held a Dumpster Day. We took two weeks’ worth of trash from our manufacturing and administrative sites, dumped it into the parking lot, and sorted it into three piles: what should have been recycled (material that we already recycled); what could be recycled if we found an outlet for it; and everything else, or the stuff that we needed to eliminate.
We immediately saw an additional 50 percent reduction in waste to landfill as a result of this employee engagement exercise. That drove a cost savings for us, as we reduced our service frequency from weekly, to every other week, to only once per month. That ended for our manufacturing site in October 2009, when our service provider took the trash compactor away for good.
Now there’s no going back. It’s not like we just put caution tape over the trash compactor and said, “Don’t use it.” There’s no place to throw this stuff out. We have to figure out where we’re going to send it other than landfill.
Q: The next step in your by-product hierarchy is waste-to-energy conversion. How do you designate which materials belong in that category?
SW: These are the materials that are left over after we’ve reused, composted or recycled everything that we can. The stream includes break room materials like Styrofoam carry-out trays, potato chip bags, and plastics that aren’t numbered. We also have some raw packaging, such as 50-pound bags comprised of plastic and paper. We’re continuing to address those through reduction and substitution efforts.
Q: How does waste-to-energy work?
SW: Our waste-to-energy story is a little different than most. Many companies that are zero waste to landfill send their materials to a facility that burns them to generate electricity or steam. The problem is, up to 20 percent of what goes in comes out the back end as ash or non-combustibles, which typically still wind up in a landfill.
To avoid this scenario, we work with a waste-to-fuel firm, who takes our materials, shreds them up and blends them with materials from other companies. The resulting fuel has a heat value equivalent to that of coal, which cement manufacturers can use in their process. The real key for me is that the ash from our materials is incorporated into the cement itself — a truly zero landfill process.
Q: How does recycling fit into your by-product management process?
SW: An overall challenge with recycling is having enough volume to find a suitable outlet. Because we’re a relatively small company, the trick for us is finding others with similar materials so we can put them together and reach the volume necessary to enable the financial side of the equation.
For the past three years we have worked with a professional total by-product management (TBM) firm that does just that. By connecting us with other TBM customers, they’re able to deliver the entire volume to their network of recyclers across the country. This allows Burt’s Bees to play much larger in the market and affords us additional professional resources to support our TBM efforts without increasing our internal headcount.
Q: So is Burt’s Bees out of the landfill and incineration categories on the by-product hierarchy altogether?
SW: Yes with respect to landfill. We do continue to generate some waste from our R&D and quality labs that must be incinerated per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s rules. The ink and solvents used to put the date codes on many of our products are also regulated. We’ve minimized the hazardous waste stream to a few hundred pounds per year and continue to explore substitution of other laboratory reagents along with alternate date coding options.
You can hear Steve talk more about Burt’s Bees’ zero waste journey in the upcoming webinar, “Zero Waste and Beyond,” on Dec. 2, 2010. To register, visit www.naem.org.
Toward sustainability: Interface Inc.’s ‘Mission Zero’ journey
In 1994, Ray Anderson, founder of Interface, Inc., outlined an ambitious new vision for his company: to achieve sustainability by 2020. Lindsay Stoda, a Senior Business Analyst with the company, spoke at the recent EHS Management Forum about the metrics Interface uses to measure its sustainability progress. This week, we caught up with Lindsay to learn more about the company’s Mission Zero goals.
Lindsay Stoda
Q: Where did the Mission Zero goal come from?
LS: Sparked by questions from customers and the ideas he encountered in Paul Hawken’s book, “The Ecology of Commerce,” our founder Ray Anderson realized that business and industry were part of the larger system that was damaging the environment and that it was not going to be a sustainable future if business continued in that direction. And realizing that it was someone’s job to lead industry down that path, he decided to ask his company and his employees to be that leader.
Q: How do you measure success against your Mission Zero Goals?
LS: We’ve always followed the “What gets measured gets managed” philosophy, so our way of being able to track and ensure that we’re making progress is through four different measurement platforms:
- Eco Metrics: Measure environmental impact
- Socio Metrics: Measure social impacts
- Quest program: Measures waste elimination
- Ecosense: Measures the activities on a plant-level that contribute to our sustainability goals
Q: How did Mission Zero change the work of Interface’s EHS department?
LS: Prior to Ray’s epiphany, we had a more traditional manufacturing environment, health and safety (EHS) department focusing on safety and compliance. Today, it’s typically the same folks because the tracking of that kind of information all kind of overlaps with the sustainability roles, except that people’s EHS roles developed a sustainability-minded focus.
Q: Can you tell me about some of your efforts toward creating closed loop products?
LS: We have a strong push to create closed loop products using recycled and bio-based raw materials. This process basically involves returning the materials in used finished product back to raw materials.
For carpet tile, there are two main components: There’s the face fiber and the fluff — the surface that you walk on — and then there’s the backing, which is different from residential carpet in that it’s a vinyl backing and it’s heavier, to hold the tiles to the floor and give them dimensional stability.
We had previously been able to cut the fibers off the front, take the backing, crumble it up, melt it down and return it to backing. But now we’re able to take the nylon fibers from the face of the products, shave them off and return them to our fiber suppliers to create new face fiber with post consumer recycled content.
We bring back both our carpet as well as competitors’ products through ‘ReEntry’—our recycling program. We collect used product back from the marketplace, run it through our process, and return backing to backing and fiber to fiber. Since the program began, we have diverted more than 100,000 tons of material from landfills.
Q: One of the goals you’ve identified is providing Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for all of your InterfaceFLOR products by 2012. What does that entail?
LS: We have used life cycle assessment (LCA) for several years now as we’ve tried to evaluate different materials and processes for manufacturing our products. The Environmental Product Declaration is a 10-15 page summary of the life cycle assessment results, everything from global warming potential to toxicity to resource use throughout the entire life cycle of the product. There is a lot of different environmental information out there and we thought the most useful thing for our customers would just be to give them the facts they need to make the decisions about what type of products they’d like to purchase. So it’s really the good and the bad. It’s just the facts. We collect the data and have it third-party verified to ensure it is complete and accurate.
You can hear Lindsay talk more about using metrics during “Defining the Metrics that Matter,” part of NAEM’s Best of the 2010 Forum webinar series, on Tuesday, Nov. 16. To register, visit www.naem.org.
Ensuring the credibility of sustainability reporting
Sandy Nessing
As the end of the year approaches, companies are gearing up for their next round of sustainability reporting. What will be different about the next crop of reports in 2011?
I suspect quite a bit.
Under pressure from stakeholders for more transparency of, and accountability for, business strategy, operations and performance, companies are facing a new imperative: How accurate, trustworthy and credible is the information that is being reported? How is it represented in the context of risk management, cost initiatives and decision-making?
This shift is forcing more and more companies to seek some type of assurance of their reporting. At American Electric Power Co., Inc. (AEP), we took that step in 2010 by inviting our internal auditors to audit our Corporate Accountability Report. It was painful for the organization, largely because the voluntary nature of sustainability reporting means there are fewer systems in place for data tracking where compliance is not involved. It remains a challenge, but investors, analysts and other stakeholders now have a greater degree of assurance that what we’re reporting is accurate and relevant.
This type of reporting may be voluntary today, but the tipping point is approaching. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) opened the door earlier this year with its guidance on climate risk disclosure. Transparency is clearly a priority. Those companies with more robust voluntary reporting will be in a better position to meet the challenges under new regulations and mandates.
Many companies already seek third-party assurance of their sustainability reporting. While some advocate for it, I’m not entirely sold on its value, especially since there is no universal set of rules like there is on the financial side. Although I believe it will become necessary as we move toward integrated reporting, we’ve only taken baby steps in that direction and I think it’s too soon to force the same rigor as financial reporting without similar reporting requirements. For now, I think the internal audit review, coupled with our partnership with risk management and external stakeholder reviews of our reports, are more than sufficient.
What do you think about this approach? What are you doing in your company to verify the accuracy of your sustainability reports?
Supply chain speaks
By Mariam Georgaroudakis
Where is leadership on sustainability coming from within your company? EHS? Supply Chain? Operations? Your executive team? A little of each? Making progress on sustainability goals certainly takes significant coordination between several departments of a corporation or business unit that might not be used to linking their initiatives.
I’ve found that supply chain and EHS departments are the workhorses of successful sustainability programs – and active partnership between the two is absolutely critical. As a Commodity Manager for Facilities Services at Raytheon Company, I recognize that an agreement is of no value if it is not servicing the user – whether EHS, facilities, operations, etc. And because I manage the full lifecycle of supplier relationships, the EHS department knows how to leverage that connection to implement changes. I get involved with sustainability initiatives right at the start – both to understand the environmental health and safety needs, supply chain drivers, and business needs as well as to engage with suppliers to decide what should be done, how it will be measured and tracked, and the cost implications.
One of the ways that the EHS department and supply chain has been able to coordinate our efforts is through our chemical management services (CMS) program. Our CMS program is implemented by a Tier 1 supplier, who provides integrated procurement, materials, and data management for nearly all of our facilities – a win-win on both of our books. When Raytheon began looking at establishing its GHG inventory a few years ago, we turned to our CMS provider to help us identify the GHG emissions from our chemical use. We wanted the ability to quickly identify the big GHG hitters and evaluate future “what if” scenarios. The powerful combination of EHS and procurement data allowed us to identify key issues by chemical, work area, product line and business area. With this critical information, we can now isolate materials/products of concern, understand the scope of the issue, and begin to assess alternatives and institute controls.
The lesson here – improving communication – isn’t rocket science, but it will help us gain headway in achieving our sustainability goals.
Mariam Georgaroudakis is a Commodity Manager of Facilities Services at Raytheon Corporate Supply Chain at Raytheon Co. She’ll be speaking at the annual Chemical Management Services (CMS) Workshop on Oct. 12, 2010, co-located with the annual NAEM EHS Management Forum in Indianapolis.
For an extended case study on Raytheon’s CMS program, visit: http://chemicalstrategies.org/resources_casestudies.htm
Valuing ecosystems services
Andrew Mangan
Ecological balance is one of the three pillars of sustainable development and without it, business cannot function. All companies affect ecosystems and benefit from the services they provide, such as fresh water, fiber, and food. They also rely on regulatory services, like climate regulation, flood control and waste treatment.
Over the past 50 years, human activity has altered ecosystems faster and more extensively than ever before. That finding was supported by the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – a four-year, international, scientific appraisal that was completed in 2005. It concluded that most of the critical ecosystem services assessed are being degraded or used at unsustainable levels and that this will accelerate, diminishing sustainable development options and business opportunities.
Both the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development (US BCSD) have been working on ecosystems issues for 10 years. The overarching goal is that all stakeholders – including business – recognize the real benefits of ecosystems and that the true value of ecosystem services be accounted for. We’ve used gaming theory, collaborative projects and measuring tools to move toward this goal. The value and sustainable management of ecosystems must become a more integral part of economic planning and decision-making; otherwise nature will always play second fiddle to social and economic development.
With today’s communication tools, we have a unique opportunity to help business leaders understand the value of ecosystem services and their local opportunities. The current efforts of the WBCSD are focused on identifying risks and opportunities (using the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review) and quantifying the economic value of ecosystem services and strategies to businesses. The US BCSD was one of 16 WBCSD companies and regional councils that participated in a “road test” of the WBCSD Ecosystem Valuation Initiative in 2010. A guide based on that initiative describes the effectiveness of various ecosystem valuation models and tools. The final guide is expected to be published in 2011. Details will be laid out at the fall meeting of the US BCSD in Indianapolis on October 12 and presented at the 18th annual EHS Management Forum on October 14.
The US BCSD plans to establish working groups with volunteers from interested companies to help identify projects, set implementation plans, evaluate potential funders and reach out to relevant university programs. Using a project-based focus that builds on its ecosystem experience, including the US BCSD’s green brownfields project and its afforestation efforts in the Lower Mississippi River valley, the council plans to play a role in supporting healthy ecosystems for a long time to come. After many years, it appears that today, the business community, NGOs and academics are gradually realizing they share the same concerns, but simply approach them in different ways.
Andrew Mangan is the Executive Director of the U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development. He will be speaking about ecosystems services at the 18th annual EHS Management Forum, October 13-15 in Indianapolis.
What are the green metrics that really matter?
Carol Singer Neuvelt
The world of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance analytics is exploding at a breakneck speed. What once was a niche field of socially responsible investing (SRI), is transforming into a vast marketplace of financial ESG-oriented indices, ratings firms, carbon reporting and mass-market editorials like Newsweek’s Green 100 ranking. Today the trend toward broader ESG and sustainability reporting is beginning to expand into auxiliary areas such as supplier questionnaires and product labeling.
With all this activity, it seems like everyone has an opinion about which metrics determine a company’s “greenness.” What remains unclear, however, is whether these types of ratings schemes can truly illustrate competitive eco-advantage in today’s complex global marketplace, or even reliably reflect strong EHS and sustainability management within a company.
When this movement took hold a decade ago, many corporate environmental leaders were excited that the external world was finally paying attention to the value their efforts contributed to the bottom line. Indeed, the establishment of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, the growth of financial firms such as KLD and even the creation of the Carbon Disclosure Project were viewed as affirmations of their professional focus.
But recently, my conversations with corporate EHS leaders seem to reflect a frustration with the ever-growing number of requests. As environmental managers spend more and more time crunching data, they do so with little insight into who the requesting firm is, what their business interests are or how the mountains of data will eventually be used. What we do know is that some of this information is being used to make material judgments about a company’s long-term prospects. Yet does any of this data really indicate true progress?
I believe there is a need for a clear, thoughtful approach to ESG and Sustainability reporting that reflects the performance metrics that are both meaningful to a company and useful to its C-suite leadership, and relevant to external stakeholders.
To address this issue, NAEM has launched its ‘Green Metrics that Matter’ program, an audit of the field of ESG and Sustainability analytics. Our final report will identify the key players, the proprietary benefits of participating with them and the core metrics EHS leaders send to their C-suite. We believe this insight will help promote better decision-making by both corporate users and the broader ESG community.
As we continue our research, we would like to invite you to share your key metrics with us through our confidential online survey. We’d also love to hear your thoughts on this project. How are sustainability analytics changing how you manage? Are the questions you’re being asked the right ones for determining the extent of your environmental stewardship? Is this information truly helping the public better understand whether your products are sustainable? Or is it just an additional paperwork burden?
