Friday, 30 May 2008

Are we really facing global warming or is this a cyclic climate change that we do not have enough knowledge to predict? If it is global warming should the global population not have a legal obligation to make changes in order to correct the damage already done?
 

Businesses need to do more to understand their carbon footprint. This should ultimatley become public information that companies can use to differentiate themselves in the marketplace
 

How about a Carbon Tag on every product we buy?

Measures total carbon emmitted in raw material procurement, manufacture transport and retail. That's the real impact. It's quite a surprise when you actually find out what really contributes to the footprint -for example the lowest footprint paper is not UK recycled paper - its new Swedish paper from renewable forests - and the main reason is that they use 70% hydro electric power - paper is a very energy intensive process and its the footprint of the electricity not the paper that actually counts.
 

The reason that boardrooms tend to rectify any behaviour that is seen as inappropriate is mainly as a result of shareholder, customer or legislative pressure. Whilst there is an increasing influence from these stakeholders in the green and sustainability agenda, step change action will only take place when the pressure is such that the board sees no alternative but to act to ensure to their survival. As with politicians and elections, the potential impact needs to be demonstrated to be in the timescales that are relevant to them as individuals. Sadly I don't think we are yet at that tipping point. Maybe making it more public at a corportate level will drive this behaviour, naming and shaming. Let's hope so afterall we will be the ones living through this...
 

I agree with Neil that it is often surprising where the highest impact is. Air travel is currently less than 2% of the green house gas generation, in fact the population growth predicted and C02 emissions from more people is by far the biggest contributor going forward. That’s a challenge!
 

Naming and shaming is one way that Company’s especially large multinationals with well known brands (that have taken years to build) are going to change their attitude. Previously the impact for making wrong decisions regarding Sustainability and CSR which has become public knowledge in the press has been detrimental for a handful of well known household names. This is something which Companies will try and avoid at all lengths. Should there be some kind of monitoring or government initiative/guidelines which ALL companies have to abide by or they will get negative publicity?!!!
 

The problem with putting a value or cost association with subjective issues such as carbon emissions is that, as with any statistics, the figures can be manipulated to show that you are doing a great deal, but the reality may be a sidestepping of the real issue - that of reducing global warming. An example of this is car manufacturers tuning their new cars maximise their efficiency on the emissions tests, but with a negative effect on emissions in real life scenarios.
 

I believe that businesses could make such an impact if they would drop all the prejudice towards Europe and take some countries as an example. Sustainability, recycling, taxing of higher polluters etc. has long been discussed and implemented in a lot of countries. A lot can be learned from it and there is no need for re-invention of things that already exist elsewhere. The government should support any effort of businesses in this direction and should offer incentives. It should be made easy and rewarding to go green.
 

I agree with the above comment, we need to learn from what other people/countries/companies are doing so that we can determine a best practice towards sustainability and corporate responsibility. The reward should be a cleaner more sustainable world which future generations can enjoy!