Wherefore E-Waste Recycling?
by Robert Kuhn (rkuhn)
Monday, August 30, 2010
Recently, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a
report on its study of the status of "environmentally sound management of used electronics." The GAO's study was intended to look at the EPA's role in moving the ball forward on this critical environmental issue (electronics waste, or "e-waste" is particularly troublesome because most electronics contain things like nickel, cadmium and mercury, which end up leeching out of landfills and threaten biodiversity (as well as human health)). Here's what the GAO found, in a nutshell:
- the EPA's efforts are largely confined to enforcing it's rule for CRT recycling and administering a few "partnership" programs
- in the absence of federal action, 27 states have established their own regimes for handling e-waste, all of which are different in some degree
- the EPA's partnership programs do not dovetail with state-based activity
- the EPA has no specific regulations regarding the export of many electronic devices that may contain hazardous waste
And here's what the GAO recommends:
- the EPA should re-evaluate the effectiveness of its partnership programs to see if they can be more effective
- the EPA should work with other government agencies to send a legislative proposal to Congress to ratify the Basel Convention (a multilateral environmental agreement that covers, among other things, e-waste)
Guess what? EPA officials told the GAO that they totally agreed with the recommendations. Well, we agree too. Here's another patchwork of environmental regulation that frustrates business and causes tremendous inefficiencies. E-waste is an issue without borders. Let's adopt a common approach that meets some minimum standards and let states create higher hurdles if they so choose. But let's do it now!
updated 5 days ago
TAGS: e-waste : epa : electronics : recycling :
Wherefore CSR?
by Robert Kuhn (rkuhn)
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
In a recent
Wall Street Journal article, Professor Aneel Karnani of the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business suggests that corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a vague concept that is either irrelevant or ineffective. He believes that "in cases where private profits and public interests are aligned, the idea of [CSR] is irrelevant." When these interests are aligned, the company is motivated to act in a way that maximizes profit, which will sometimes improve social welfare. But this is a result of the company acting on its own behalf, not in the interest of society. On the other hand, when company profits and public concerns are conflicting, "an appeal to [CSR] will almost always be ineffective, because executives are unlikely to act voluntarily in the public interest and against shareholder interests." The strong fiduciary pressures to produce profits force executives to only apply a CSR agenda if they have confidence it will not hurt the company's bottom line. Therefore, according to Professor Karnani, regardless of whether or not the interests of society and the interests of a company are aligned or conflicting, CSR is not a practical initiative.
The article does communicate the need for a balance between profits and the public good. Even though the author does not believe that CSR will achieve this balance, he does believe that it is necessary that some sort of social adjustment exist when the interests of society and the interests of a company are in direct opposition. Some of the social mechanisms that might provide this balance include: government regulation, civil society activism (e.g. nonprofit organizations), company self-regulation and an enforcement of a financial cost for unacceptable behavior. In the end, Professor Karnani proposes, "the ultimate solution is government regulation."
We wonder: is it wise to completely dismiss CSR from this debate and replace it with one, or a combination of the aforementioned alternative mechanisms? Our concern is that articles like this, which question the validity of CSR, cast unnecessary doubt and provide skepticism towards a methodology that has the potential to bridge the gap between social welfare and the profitability of a company. What do you think?
updated 1 week ago
TAGS: csr : corporate social responsibility : profits :
The Lessons of Palm Oil
by Robert Kuhn (rkuhn)
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The latest edition of
The Economist reports in depth about a paradigmatic sustainability challenge facing the multitude of companies that use palm oil in their products. It seems that palm oil, while a very efficient crop, is grown on swaths of land primarily in Malaysia and Indonesia that were previously forest. Deforestation of this land results in significant releases of CO2, contributing to climate change. Environmentalists know this and came down hard on two major consumer products goods companies (Unilever and Nestle), in particular, for hastening the demise of sensitive forest areas. Protestors, dressed as orangutans, even scaled some of Unilever's corporate buildings to drive the point home.
The article points out, correctly, that Nestle and Unilever had the perfectly challenging mix of high brand awareness and lack of supply chain visibility that can combine to create havoc in trying to address sustainability-related challenges. These global concerns really didn't know where their palm oil comes from. Turns out there is "sustainable" palm oil, so both companies committed to shift their purchase to that version over the next few years (in a bizarre irony, though, the oil is only certified sustainable at the farm level ... processors mix sustainable and non-sustainable oil before selling it to companies such as Nestle and Unilever). This is a noble move, but unfortunately perhaps only a gesture ... only Western-based companies have signed on to the sustainable palm oil movement and much of the world's palm oil is consumed in Asian markets.
There's also the point that companies may still want to focus on the economics of the commodity purchase ... non-sustainable palm oil is much cheaper than its sustainable cousin. But, as the article points out, that mypoic focus is harder and harder to sustain today. Nestle's own staff pressured the company to make changes. Greenpeace hounded Unilever. Consumers were made aware of the issue through social media. Fearful of losing employees and sales, the companies responded. Political and social vunerability translated into financial risk. Companies reacted.
Lesson here: global companies don't know the far reaches of their supply chains very well (we know through experience how hard that is), but transparency will be required in order to advance the sustainability agenda.
updated 2 months ago
The Sustainability Imperative
by Robert Kuhn (rkuhn)
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
In the
May 2010 issue of The Harvard Business Review, corporate performance guru David A. Lubin and sustainability guru Daniel C. Esty write a stellar piece that argues that many of today's business executives fear going down the sustainability path because of an unfounded fear that it's an "unprecedented journey for which there is no roadmap." The authors convincingly argue that there
is a roadmap ... in fact, two: the Quality and IT megatrends of the 1990s. They liken the sustainability megatrend to the situation companies faced in rapidly resolving serious quality issues before experiencing a complete loss of brand value and also deploying the latest information technology ahead of their peers in order to gain competitive advantage. The authors go on to point out the four principal stages of value creation in these megatrends and argue that most companies addressing sustainability issues today are somewhere in the first stage.
We've said to clients and audiences many times that the sustainability trend reminds us of the quality and IT revolutions ... and to that we add the third business revolution of the 1990s ... "lean." We participated in those trends and the work we are doing in sustainability today rings very familiar. What about you? Did you experience lean, TQM or IT? Doesn't sustainability ring a bell? And, if so, isn't that comforting in some way? Let us know what you think.
updated 2 months ago
New Figures on Cleantech Innovation
by Jon Templeman (jtempleman)
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The cleantech sector is in good shape, according to the latest report from the Clean Energy Patent Growth Index (CEGPI).
The results, released quarterly by Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti, tracks the number of US patents granted in the cleantech sector, indicating the level of innovation at play in the industry's growth. It's a useful measure: the Patent Office has to be convinced of the value and innovativeness of an invention before it will grant a patent.
379 patents were granted in the first quarter of 2010 – a 56% increase on the number granted in the first quarter the previous year. It's also the highest quarterly value since tracking began in 2008.
The index lets us see more clearly the areas inside cleantech where the most innovation is taking place. Solar, hybrid/electric vehicles, and fuel cell patents were at record levels over the quarter, with the last of these far outstripping the rest (see the graph here). Moreover, most of this innovation is coming from car companies, with Toyota and Nissan leading the field.
As green Energy Reporter points out, the Patent Office launched its Green Technology Pilot program last year, aiming to streamline the review process for cleantech patent applications. That program was recently revised to increase its effectiveness.
Let's hope that means much more innovation to come over the rest of the year.
updated 2 months ago
TAGS: cleantech :
