You might also be interested in
Replies (10)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Hi Francois - I'd put it the other way around "will not being environmentally friendly come at a higher cost?"
Yes indeed, I should have added that it's a bold move and hopefully will encourage others to do the same.
There was a similar discussion/debate/rant the other week over WeWork's decision to stop funding meat purchases.
Governments, being populated by politicians, drag their heels over this stuff, leaving companies and households, populated by humans, to act.
Given that directors have statutory Corporate Social Responsibilities (https://www.assentriskmanagement.co.uk/corporate-social-responsibility-c...), surely we should see much more of this kind of action?
I agree but, having banged on about it now for over 10 years, especially on here, I’m still waiting for acknowledgment that there’s even an issue from most directors.
I blame Nigel Lawson!
The article concentrates on a simple, single example of how one company can make one decision to meet with a pre-conceived "demand" for a particular type of service. Fine. It's the company's choice, their risk, good luck to them.
But the real issue is not whether to be eco-friendly, but HOW to be eco-friendly AND then how to PROVE that the consequences are indeed eco-friendly.
The opportunity cost of "bring your own coffee cup" is sufficiently immeasurable as it is.
So think about being a minor part of a broad supply chain, regulated by a global standard setter, enforced by (say) the European Economic Area. You can't accurately measure the totality of the environmental impact of your operations, because there are too many dependencies (your suppliers' processes) and unknowns (your customers' customers' processes (yes, note the double plural possessive case)). And there's nothing you can do about it anyway, because the manufacturing method is pre-defined and pre-approved by a variety of regulators (in different fields/disciplines) following a global standard.
Now think about how you would disclose this in your annual financial, eco-warrior & corporately social report.
Now think about how any one regulator might want to approach this, given that this regulator has objectives which conflict with those of the standard setters (and other regulators).
Now think further about how you would defend your situation against such a regulator.
Now consider that the only way western governments have achieved their eco-friendly recycling targets is by shipping the bulk of "recycleables" to China... for landfill. What an elaborate way to launder littering out of the nation's figures and onto the surface of the Pacific Ocean. I presume the flotilla of plastic on the Pacific has its own IATA code and Wikipedia page, otherwise the BBC would never have found it.
What's a board to do?
a) Write an honest annual report that is issue-literate and scientifically-literate (good luck finding a statutory auditor who'll understand that!), but face prosecution from the pseudo-scentists who regulate such non-financial matters?
b) Or play the pseudo-science game, giving the regulators - and the ignorant public/investors - what they think they want in the short-term, kicking the can down the road, and hope for retirement before the truth is out and a revisionist witchhunt scours history for each and every error & omission?
Hi Martin - Whilst I think I get most of what you say, and agree with it, I'm not sure whether you are an advocate of environmental impact reduction or you think there's little point trying, because it is so messy and/or the science/advice is so variable?
I gave up on standard setting for reporting years ago, it's hard enough to get the 1,000 largest companies to do it in a way that's comparable, let alone the other 99.whatever%.
Given the responses I get I still think there's a lot that needs doing to convince people that there is a need to be eco-friendly or rather to make them aware of the various issues.
On this particular issue I'm pleased to see organisations prepared to take a risk and reverse practices we have grown to see as essential. There was a bit of a Twitter storm over the weekend surrounding a company that had started to manufacture coffee/drinks cups out of cornstarch, with thousands of likes and congratulations before someone reminded them that there is actually no need to carry around a cup or bottle of water, you just visit the establishment, have a drink and leave empty handed.
Putting the environmental issues to one side, you have to hand it to the coffee sellers, everyone is struggling on the high street, profit warnings right left and centre, big names going under, not theses coffee houses, and some of they dont pay their fare share of tax.
I suppose when your product is 85% tap water, and you pay just above the minimum wage you are always going to be on a winner. Lets all do it.