Posts tagged ‘Environment health and safety management’
Who really cares about sustainability data?
Mike Wallace
Like so many environment health and safety (EHS), and sustainability professionals, you are probably working hard to make sure sustainability is a core part of your organization’s overall business strategy. This means integrating it into your company’s operations, providing a constant source of relevant information, continuous operational improvements and, of course, a return on investment.
But does anyone really care about all that effort? Fortunately, the short answer is, “Yes!”
We’ve seen significant changes in the public’s interest in sustainability issues, with more concern and media attention to issues like global warming, human rights, conflict minerals and corruption. For business, this has meant much closer scrutiny of environmental and social impacts, and in many cases, a demand to see disclosures on more than just the typical environmental metrics.
This has resulted in a multitude of ways for companies to be transparent about their activities, from publishing sustainability information right in their financial reports, to signing up for initiatives like the United Nations Global Compact or disclosing to initiatives like the Carbon Disclosure Project. And in the past decade or so, producing more extensive sustainability reports. In this series of five blog posts for the Green Tie, I’ll look at who’s asking for sustainability data, what that means and how you can make sure your information effectively and efficiently reaches your intended (and unintended) audience.
The audience for sustainability information is much wider and more varied than you might think. Stakeholders come in many shapes and sizes, ranging from investors and business partners in the supply chain, to employees and even your local mayor. These stakeholders are analyzing and evaluating your company’s performance on a variety of levels, using data directly disclosed by companies, sustainability listings and an ever-growing number of rankings and ratings.
How do you distinguish good raters from bad, useful from useless? How do you make sure the questionnaires you answer give you an entry point to the right people?
All the surveys you’re getting are just the tip of the iceberg, hinting at the proliferation of rankings, ratings, listings, research tools and sustainability indices. Companies aren’t fully aware of how many entities constantly monitor, analyze and convey sustainability information about them and their competitors, entire industries and/or entire indices.
Mainstream investors are increasingly examining sustainability information (sometimes through the intermediaries mentioned above) and even stock exchanges around the world are exploring what sustainability means to their institution and to their listed companies. Business decisions are no longer solely based on financial information.
It seems obvious that requests for disclosure are only going to increase and a GRI report is the recognized method of communicating sustainability performance. More than 80 percent of the Global 250 are using the GRI Guidelines to report on their sustainability performance, and those are just the ones that we know. You can see a snapshot of those in the North American GRI Reporters based on a review we did in January 2012. There is a clear upward trend in the number of organizations that are reporting across all regions and sectors.
In this sea of information, how do you keep it real? Efficiently gathering the relevant information and transforming it into a credible communication for the mix of interested stakeholders is key. To understand who is looking at sustainability information and how this information is being measured, take a look at my presentation Measuring Sustainability Performance.
In closing, there are a couple of key questions you might want to consider:
If you are using the GRI Guidelines for your sustainability report, does GRI (and the world) know it? Search the global GRI database and register your report at – http://database.globalreporting.org/
Are you fully aware of the Application Level and how and why it is being used by reporters? Get the latest at GRI’s Report Services https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/report-services/Pages/default.aspx
Mike Wallace is Director of the U.S. Focal Point for the Global Reporting Initiative and is responsible for supporting the growth of sustainability reporting in the United States.
He has almost 20-years experience advising companies, governments and non-governmental organizations in their efforts to develop and implement sustainability initiatives. He has worked with both local and global organizations on the integration of sustainability programs and has authored numerous articles on sustainability, corporate social responsibility and corporate environmental performance in legal, professional and topical publications.
You can follow him on Twitter at @M_A_Wallace.
Seeing Beyond the Sustainability Horizon: From Best Practices to Next Practices
Samantha Putt del Pino
As we turn our sights toward our upcoming sustainability conference in Atlanta, we sat down this week with keynote speaker Samantha Putt del Pino, Co-Director of Business Engagement in Climate and Technology at the World Resources Institute, to discuss her perspective on where sustainable business is heading.
GT: How would you describe the state of corporate sustainability, worldwide?
SPP: It’s hard to think about global business homogeneously. There is a wide range of environmental performance, even among those companies that ascribe to sustainability principles. On one hand, sustainability isn’t nearly as engrained into core business practice as we would like it to be. Some companies have not set themselves a very high bar for what it means to be sustainable. These are the companies that see sustainability as more of a niche issue, something that can help with public relations or to engage select customers.
But on the other hand, I think we are starting to see something interesting among leading companies, and that is the shift from using sustainability as short-term defense to using it for long-term offense. These companies see sustainability as essential to their long-term competitiveness. For example, some companies are aggressively investing in sustainable products and services and are seeing their revenues grow. Many have set revenue targets reflecting expectations of future growth. We also are seeing some companies factor sustainability into their mergers and acquisitions strategy, making decisions that can improve the company’s capacity to fulfill its sustainability objectives over the longer term.
GT: The World Resources Institute (WRI) is working on a new research project focused on the “Next Practices” in sustainability management. Why are best practices no longer the gold standard?
SPP: In today’s fast-changing, competitive landscape, we see an urgent need to innovate beyond best practices. Best practices are still important: Companies have made, and can continue to make, significant improvements in their environmental performance by pursuing best practices. However, companies can do more to understand how big trends, such as climate change or water scarcity create new risks and opportunities, and will shape the markets of tomorrow. Companies that proactively implement smart strategies today can gain an edge, both in terms of preparedness and in terms of accelerating progress, towards a sustainable future.
GT: What are some of the future forward issues U.S. companies should begin learning about (if not planning for) today?
SPP: There are several challenges companies face when looking for the next big sustainability issue. First, there’s no crystal ball. So, how do you anticipate future needs without trying to predict the future? Second, too often the “hot topic” of the day will shift with the political winds. How can you make a case for long-term sustainability issues if your colleagues are scrambling to address issues that come and go on a quarterly basis? And third, issues must be understood in terms very specific to each company. How do you engage your colleagues to understand big changes in the context of your company’s specific strengths and weaknesses?
These are the types of questions we are working to answer with partner companies in WRI’s Next Practice Collaborative. Many partners have told us they want to understand what other sustainability leaders see as issues of rising priority, such as water risk, life-cycle sustainability impacts, or ecosystem degradation. Oftentimes, the issue itself (like climate change) may not be new, but a new, more transformative approach is required.
WRI and its partners are working on a tool kit to help companies sort through the possibilities and connect these opportunities and threats with their core competencies. That can go a long way to making the case for action on issues on the horizon, or for tackling an existing issue with renewed innovation.
GT: Based on your knowledge of how corporate sustainability comes to fruition, what role do you think the individual leader can play in driving progress within an organization?
SPP: The most successful corporate sustainability professionals act as catalysts. They facilitate collaboration and generate excitement inside and outside the organization. They are the ones who can make a really good case to the company’s leadership for investments in bold sustainability strategies. This means making a solid business case and showing how investments create big opportunities or address big risks to the company.
Samantha Putt del Pino is co-director of Business Engagement in Climate and Technology at the World Resources Institute. As part of the Next Practice Collaborative, she works with companies to foster the transformative approaches needed to quickly close the gap between today’s best practice and the pace and scale of the climate challenge. She previously led WRI’s U.S. Climate Business Group, a cross-sector network of 36 Fortune 500 companies that developed strategies for companies to thrive in a carbon-constrained economy including building internal support for corporate climate change strategies, exploring emission reduction opportunities and technologies, and navigating the dynamic climate policy landscape. She will share insights on the state of sustainable business at NAEM’s 2012 Sustainability Management Conference on March 7-8 in Atlanta.
Transparency Begins with Data Management
Connie Prostko-Bell
Meeting the demands of new product regulations requires better data management solutions. We sat down this week with 3E Company’s Connie Prostko-Bell to learn more about this emerging issue and to find out what companies are doing to provide greater supply chain transparency.
GT: Why do companies collect MSDSs and other product data from their suppliers? What is this information used for?
CPB: Operational risk and compliance management is increasingly focused on environmental issues across the supply chain. As companies strive to deliver sustainable ongoing improvements in compliance and risk management, they are closely scrutinizing the management of products in the enterprise, especially chemicals and other hazardous materials, with a special emphasis on fulfilling requirements in environmental, health and safety (EHS) regulatory compliance. A comprehensive view of compliance performance and risk management throughout the supply chain and product life cycle is necessary to promote and sustain ongoing improvement.
This vision is fueled by accurate and comprehensive content, including environmental, health and safety (EHS) product data, such as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), which can be leveraged to ensure that the products that are incorporated into finished goods meet legal, regulatory, industry and self-imposed standards. Leveraging this type of data helps communicate to a company’s stakeholders that externally sourced processes and materials do not introduce legal, financial, ethical or market access risks to the company. Furthermore, it gives organizations an opportunity to advance their own value-based agendas by leveraging buying power to enforce desired practices.
GT: What trends are driving the management of supplier-sourced product data?
CPB: Manufacturers with complex supply chains are struggling under the burden of spiraling global EHS regulations. More often than not, they possess neither the requisite internal methodologies nor the necessary personnel to collect, analyze, share, and distribute key information related to supplier compliance and corporate risk across the various functional groups within the organization. Compliance issues such as GHS, REACh, RoHS and Frank-Dodd are driving the need for a common source of product data.
The shifting regulatory landscape also burdens suppliers, who often need help gaining access from suppliers and understanding the global EHS laws with which they must comply. Companies are increasingly recognizing supplier compliance as a critical component of business continuity efforts.
GT: A company’s efforts are only as strong as the quality of its data. How can companies ensure data quality, especially when they are dealing with a multitude of suppliers?
CPB: The number of suppliers can vary wildly from company to company. Generally speaking, it is safe to say that the larger the organization, the more suppliers it will have. Many factors influence this number such as geographical diversity of operations and customers, the complexity of the product line, and availability of the required raw materials. It is certainly not uncommon for a large company to have tens of thousands of suppliers. However, regardless of whether the company has hundreds or thousands of suppliers, managing supplier data can be a very challenging task. Finding, maintaining and acting on data is difficult and painstakingly time-consuming.
It is important that companies use documented, best practice methodologies and direct relationships to gather, refine and maintain data.
When it comes to sharing the information, you should choose an easy-to-use and practical system that meet each customer’s specific needs. The data should be broad, dynamically updated, and of the highest quality and accuracy. Substance- level regulatory data and product level MSDS data should be integrated together to provide a view into the impact of regulatory changes across inventories in the enterprise.
At the product level, from its inception to the present day, the vendor supplied product MSDS has evolved into a document that goes far beyond its original purpose, now serving as a source, foundation and clearinghouse for a range of safety and regulatory compliance data, including classification, transportation, environmental, ecological and disposal considerations. MSDS product-level data should be continuously updated with information and search technologies, documented best practice methodologies and through direct data obtainment relationships with raw material and other chemical product manufacturers.
Connie Prostko-Bell is a Senior Solutions Manager with 3E Company. She has 16 years of EH&S and chemical industry experience, spanning the project management, product safety and product stewardship sectors. She will share strategies for getting accurate supplier data during NAEM’s webinar on the topic Feb. 16.
Meet the NAEM Board of Directors: What are the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012?
As part of NAEM’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week celebration, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to talk about the EHS and sustainability trends to watch in 2012. Featuring Michael Miller of Dean Foods; David Newman; Mark Hause of DuPont; and Verne Shortel of NRG Energy.
NAEM Board of Directors: What project are you most excited about working on this year?
As part of NAEM’s 2012 Member Appreciation Week, we sat down with members of the NAEM Board of Directors to chat about trends in environment, health and safety (EHS) and sustainability management. Featuring Kelvin Roth of AMCOL International Corp.; Sandy Nessing of American Electric Power Co. Inc.; Pat Perry of CVS Caremark; and John Reichling of CDM Smith.
Emerging Leaders Series: How WESCO Turned on the Savings with LEDs
Billy Grayson
For the past few months, I’ve had LEDs (light-emitting diodes) on the brain.
At WESCO, we sell a LOT of lighting, and have seen tremendous sales growth in more energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, ballasts and fixtures.
There are a lot of factors driving this growth in fluorescent sales: Companies are looking to cut energy costs, and even without incentives an upgrade to T5 or T8 lighting from T12 or metal halide [1] often has a payback of three years or less. Companies are also looking to take advantage of state and federal incentives. In some areas, this can reduce the payback on a lighting upgrade from three to five years to 18 months.
Federal regulation is driving investment as well. In July 2012, most T12 technology will no longer be available (even if Congress does stop the 100-watt incandescent phaseout). Companies that do not upgrade their lighting may not be able to buy new bulbs by the end of the year.
So the business case for a fluorescent lighting upgrade is compelling, but with stories like Wired’s August 2011 cover feature on LED bulbs, stories like Wal-Mart, Denny’s and Starbucks investment in LEDs, and even some recent big WESCO LED projects (including streetlighting with Pacific Gas & Electric Co.), there are many wondering if they should make the jump to LEDs now, rather than make a short-term investment in a better fluorescent technology.
There really is no “right” answer in the debate over LEDs vs. high-efficiency fluorescents: The choice depends on a number of factors. Below are some of the things that are making LEDs look more and more attractive:
- The price of LEDs is coming down: Over the past two years, the price of many types of LEDs has come down significantly, more than 50 percent in many applications.
- LEDs are becoming more flexible: New entries to the market include LEDs that plug into existing ballasts, LEDs that provide easy upgrades as chip technology matures and LEDs that are “smarter,” with dimming and occupancy capabilities well beyond the traditional electronic ballast fluorescent.
- The price of fluorescents is going up: With recent spikes in the price of rare earth metals, the price of fluorescent bulbs rose more than 30 percent in 2011. Although the price has recently come down a little, it is possible that challenges in obtaining these materials could spike the price again.
- LEDs save a LOT: LED’s use less energy, last longer and require less maintenance than fluorescents.
- LEDs have a lighter footprint: Even outside of energy savings, LEDs are arguably better for the environment, as they require less materials to manufacture, ship and install, and they do not have the challenges associated with mercury disposal that fluorescents do.
- LEDs are much “cooler”: There’s a lot of new lighting options available with LEDs, and many of them are arguably more aesthetically pleasing than traditional fluorescents.
With all the arguments for LEDs, why would anyone make the shift from T12 to T8?
For WESCO’s internal lighting upgrades, it all came down to dollars and cents. For our portfolio, a switch to 25 and 28-watt T8s had an average payback after incentives of 1.9 years and a five-year return on investment (ROI) of 225 percent. For warehouse lighting, LED payback was slightly longer than five years.
What’s right for WESCO is not necessarily what’s best for other companies. We’ve recently completed LED lighting upgrades for companies ranging from utilities to food distributors to retail food chains. For these customers, the payback on LEDs was more compelling than a short-term move to fluorescents. Some of the factors for these customers included:
- Running their lights all the time: For companies ranging from food distributors to 24-hour mini-marts, LED investments can pay back faster than flourescents. Where a 40-hour-a-week facility may save $1,000 a year with fluorescents and $2,000 a year with LEDs, a 24/7 facility would save more than four times as much in annual electricity costs.
- Pricey power: WESCO’s LED business is strongest across the board in Hawaii. Why? $.25-$.40/kWh. When you pay that much for power, the deeper the energy savings the more compelling the business case.
- Long-term commitment: The federal government has become a strong customer for LEDs. With a 10-20-year investment horizon, LEDs make great business sense – even now most LED investments will outperform efficient fluorescents over periods longer than 10 years.
- Companies for whom image means a lot: A number of companies are willing to forego the short-term ROI of a fluorescent upgrade for the aesthetic and reputational benefits from a big LED investment. As I mentioned before, positive public relations and prettier store and restaurant lighting may trump straight payback and ROI calculations for some companies.
At WESCO, we’ve decided for the time being to put most of our investment in a fluorescent upgrade. But even in our portfolio there are places where LEDs make sense. We are upgrading parking lot lighting in a number of facilities to LED this year (the lifetime ROI on these investments beat our metal halide and HPS). We are also setting up some conference room and warehouse LED demonstration projects in Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago; Los Angeles and Pittsburgh, Pa., artly to provide a showroom for our customers, and partly to act as “guinea pigs” for some of the cutting-edge technology being brought to market by Philips, CREE, and others.
Billy Grayson is the Director of Corporate Sustainability for WESCO Distribution, where works with both the marketing and operations teams to help the company “Go Green” – a program to reduce energy consumption and improve environmental performance and communicating WESCO’s energy and environmental achievements to customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. Before joining WESCO, Mr. Grayson was a Senior Associate at ICF International, working with public and private sector clients on greenhouse gas mitigation, energy efficiency, and other environmental mitigation projects.
[1] For those not familiar with common lighting types, Philips has a good calculator to help you get started at http://applications.nam.lighting.philips.com/ecocalculator/
Emerging Leaders Series: Numbers Talk. But what are they saying?
Kimberly Wallis
It turns out that how you present a number is often as important as what that number actually is. Executives and investors tend to focus on numbers because they are quantitative, readily-comparable and solid. Or are they?
A given piece of information, such as the amount of energy a new light bulb uses, can be presented in a variety of ways. For example, it can be stated as watts-per-bulb, dollars-per-year, kilowatts-hours saved compared to the old bulb, net present value, or lifetime costs, to name a few. Each measurement brings to mind different considerations and highlights different comparisons. This can sway the reaction of the audience.
Rick Larrick, a professor of management at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, studies how a single piece of information can garner multiple responses, depending on how it is presented. After attending one of his lectures, I read a paper he wrote with Jack Soll. They found that people respond differently to MPG and GPM (gallons per hundred miles), even though the two ratios nominally convey the same information.
People tend to favor switching from a 30-mpg car to a 40-mpg car over switching from an 8-mpg car to a 10-mpg car. The first option seems to be a better deal. However, assuming the distance you travel remains constant, you actually save more gas (and therefore more money) with the second option.
In GPM terms, the first option involves going from 3.3-gpm to 2.5-gpm, while the second option involves going from 12.5-gpm to 10-gpm. Obviously, saving 2.5 gallons per hundred miles is better than saving less than one gallon.
This is why the new labels for cars require GPM as well as MPG. By presenting the information this way, people are encouraged to minimize their need for fuel. The facts don’t change, but policy and policy goals affect how the facts are presented, which demonstrably impacts how people react to the information. Here’s a quick example, expressed in numbers:
|
First Option |
Second Option |
|
30 mpg > 40 mpg (3.3 gpm > 2.5 gpm) |
8 mpg > 10 mpg (12.5 gpm > 10 gpm) |
Though it may seem that choosing to present facts in a certain way, such as GPM instead of MPG, is a form of manipulation, consider the fact that each choice is a manipulation. Every time you present a number, you are making decisions: which units to use, what to compare it to, what scale to use — and, of course, what to measure in the first place.
In business, numbers are presented all the time. The health of a company is often represented by a single number, as is the measure of sustainability. The context in which you place a number can emphasize certain things and downplay others – in fact, it always does, whether we intend it to or not.
Are your numbers saying what you want them to? What tactics do you use to convey important numbers?
Kimberly Wallis is a graduate student in environmental management at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, where she focuses on energy issues and effective communication. She is particularly interested in how individuals and organizations change.
Busting Through the Fear Barrier
Alex Pollock
The innate human drive to defend our territory can make us do strange things. At work, this instinct may compel us to protect the things we feel we’re entitled to, such as salary, headcount, budget, responsibilities, etc.
But imagine what it would be like to belong to an organization where people worked seamlessly together; where leaders collaborated, rather than competed, with one another to achieve their individual agendas?
In his book, “Breaking the Fear Barrier: How Fear Destroys Companies from the Inside Out and What to Do About It,” author Tom Rieger explains that the impediments to this kind of organizational utopia are rooted in fear. Fear creates barriers, he says, which manifest themselves inside companies as bureaucracy, organizational inefficiency and inertia. The top three barriers Rieger says we must overcome are:
- Parochialism: This is the domination of local needs. Standards within a function take precedence over creating engaged customers and business success.
- Territorialism: Some examples of territorialism in the workplace are hoarding headcounts, resources or decision-making authority.
- Empire Building: Assertion of control over other functions and resources to gain enhanced influence are symptoms of empire building.
The following is a list of the advice he offered that I found particularly useful for busting through these barriers.
- Eliminate rules that prevent more than they protect
- Purge administrative tasks that prevent employees from tackling mission-critical work
- Give people the freedom to make decisions, access information and resources, and encourage them to innovate and demonstrate moral courage
- The decision of whom to grant ownership or control should be based upon improving financial performance, improving the workplace, strengthening customer relationships, limiting liability and avoiding catastrophic failure
What forms of parochialism, territorialism and empire building have frustrated you in your work? What barrier busters have you effectively deployed? Any you need help with?
NAEM Forum 2011: Lessons of an Emerging Leader
Kealy Devoy
I recently had the opportunity to attend the NAEM Forum in Tucson, Ariz. My primary motivation for going was to learn about trends in corporate sustainability and start feeling out the job market. As a member of NAEM’s new Emerging Leaders program and a masters student at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, the Forum was a great way to learn about what sustainability professionals do, and to network with some folks. I heard a lot of bright, innovative people speak throughout the event, and each session was nothing short of inspiring.
With the increased interest in sustainability, companies are faced with tough decisions about how to be competitive. Many companies are improving operational efficiency. Other companies are taking innovation to the next level by making significant and sometimes controversial changes to their operations. Why risk, for example, telling consumers to use less of your product to reduce the lifecycle carbon footprint of the product? One speaker summed it up like this: “If not us, then who? If not now, then when?” If there are unaddressed inefficiencies in the way a company operates, they are essentially creating opportunities for other firms to win out.
As a future EHS and sustainability professional, I believe my generation has a lot to offer in the way of innovation and creativity. We are young, enthusiastic and have a fresh perspective — a combination of traits that can help us see a business differently. But even experienced professionals sometimes have difficulty convincing upper-level management to try something new. So what can newcomers do to get taken seriously without stepping on toes?
I asked this very question during one of the keynote sessions at the Forum. The three-member panel had a lot to say on this topic. After listening to them discuss solutions to my dilemma, I came away with several great ideas that all Emerging Leaders should know:
- Don’t be afraid to step on toes. Just because you don’t have as much experience as your supervisor doesn’t mean that he or she will be offended if you bring new ideas to the table. And if someone does get miffed that the new kid is trying to make a meaningful contribution, don’t let it get to you. Firms these days need new ideas to stay competitive. Don’t shy away from your desire to be heard.
- Do your homework. Have an idea? Get out there and find out as much about it as you can. Are other companies doing it? Will it help your firm gain competitive advantage? What do experts have to say about the issue? Whether it is a simple efficiency improvement, a new product, or a drastic change to the business model, you should have as many details about it as you can. If you can get in front of upper-level management to pitch the idea, they are going to have a lot of questions, and you need to be prepared.
- If at first you don’t succeed: try, try again. You may have heard this a lot growing up, and it is no less applicable now. When you’re new to an organization it might take time for those around you to realize the value of a fresh pair of eyes. Don’t let one (or two or three) “no’s” get you down. If your idea is sound and makes good business sense, you can make it happen. Try finding someone else in the organization that has been there for a few years. Ask them about how different managers like to get information, what questions they might ask, and what their primary concerns are. A more seasoned professional can guide you to the right person and help you collect the information they will want.
With these tactics, any young professional can pioneer a new process or project. I continue to be amazed by some of the initiatives being announced by NAEM member companies, all due to creative problem-solving on the part of their internal environmental leaders. The private sector has the opportunity to make serious changes in the way that they operate with no losses in the quality of their products and services. All it takes is the courage to be unconventional. What other advice might you have for Emerging Leaders?
Kealy Devoy is a second-year at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment pursuing a Master of Environmental Management in the Energy and Environment concentration. She is originally from St. Louis, Missouri and received a B.A. in Environmental Studies at the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Davidson College. After earning her degree, she worked as the first Sustainability Coordinator at Davidson. Most recently, Kealy was a Climate Corps Public Sector Fellow with the Environmental Defense Fund, where she helped the Town of Cary, NC identify energy efficiency upgrades in fire stations, water and wastewater treatment facilities, and municipal buildings. At the Nicholas School, she is an Energy Improvement Management Intern with the Duke Carbon Offsets Initiative.
Small Companies Can Make a Big Difference
Mark Posson
I recently had the pleasure to speak with Larry O’Connor , the CEO of Other World Computing and I came away with a stronger realization that leadership is arguably the largest factor in an organization’s environmental performance.
The company, which was started by Larry at age 14, has been providing quality hardware products and support to the computer industry since 1988. It provides peripherals for Macs and PCs with a focus on higher performance, energy efficient solid state drives to give computer users faster, more responsive systems with battery life approaching that of today’s increasingly popular tablet computers. Since its beginning, OWC has focused on developing innovative products that also meet the organization’s environmental concerns.
Under Larry’s leadership, OWC also has achieved sustained business growth, profitability and environmental excellence. The company’s environmental philosophyis elegantly simple: doing the right thing for the most effective utilization of natural resources makes for good business. And for a small firm, OWC has made a big environmental difference.
How has this enlightened leadership philosophy translated into specific actions? Here are just a few examples:
- When designing a new 37,000-square-foot headquarters and warehouse building in 1998, OWC chose to followed Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) criteria. This included the use of porous pavers led to smaller storm water retention basins, allowing for more space for future development. The company also used natural light to lower energy use and boost employee morale. The headquarters building houses the product development and customer s support teams, keeping the jobs in the United States. The attractive work environment has undoubtedly allowed OWC to attract top talent.
- A geothermal heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which produced lower long-term operating costs
- The company installed a 500-kilowatt wind turbine to meet all of their present and planned power needs. Long-term thinking? Absolutely. It’s expected to pay back in 10 to 14 years, a hedge against escalating energy costs, energy self-sufficiency and alternative technology, all of which are good long-term sustainable business strategies.
- OWC also doesn’t rest on their laurels, but rather looks for ways to continually improve its environmental performance. As an example, OWC is in the process of upgrading the efficiency of its conveyor system, its largest production power user. The upgrade is projected to yield a 70 percent reduction in energy usage and increase product through-put.
During my conversation with Larry, I kept coming back to ‘Why? What was driving this desirable business behavior?’ He summed it up for me like this:
“At the end of the day, we work to do as much right as we can for all concerns. By being long-term, we can look at the long-term win-wins for both conserving our resources and with a competitive long-term cost benefit as well. As I had said – very arguably, if there isn’t a long term cost-benefit to a technology in the current time, there is likely something to question about the real net conservation benefit of the technology as well.”
Enlightened leadership: it’s a beautiful thing.
Mark Posson is the former Director of Environment, Safety and Health at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company and the current Chair of the city of Pleasanton’s Energy and Environment Committee. He will be teaching environmental and sustainability management at University of California, Davis in the Spring. He recently began offering consulting services to help organizations improve their environment, safety and health performance.
