12
October

Hotel Sustainability: Moving Into a New Phase

This article is cross-posted on Environmental Leader.

Over the past decade, hotel companies have implemented programs to reduce the waste generated and the energy used in their daily operations. Many have been successful in saving both resources and money as well as attracting environmentally conscious guests; however, the industry as a whole has yet to make sustainability an integral part of its strategic plans. The Two Tomorrow’s sustainability agency’s latest survey, the Tomorrow’s Value Rating (TVR) from 2009, indicates that the world’s ten largest hotel companies “are only just beginning to address the wide range of social and environmental challenges facing the sector.” Climate Counts, which scores corporations on the climate impact of their business, found similar results when researching six major hotel firms. “The world’s largest hotel chains may be seeking practical ways to address a range of broad environmental impacts in their operations . . . however, few appear to be aligning such actions as part of a larger and more comprehensive carbon management strategy. An average sector score of 19 out of a possible 100 suggests the sector has much work ahead.” Now that the low hanging fruit that has enabled hotels to claim they are going green has been picked, it is time for hotel companies to evolve their sustainability programs in order to address the new phase of challenges and opportunities they currently face.

After several years of running environmental programs, hotels need to evaluate if their current organizational structures supporting these projects continue to be effective. Early green programs were often developed in the Environmental, Health, and Safety department. Their initiatives to protect workers and the Earth from dangerous chemicals evolved into projects to reduce waste and operating costs. Other sustainability programs were managed by the social responsibility team, run through the Human Resources department, which focused on giving back to the community. As a result, many sustainability officers now reside in Operations or HR. These alignments made perfect sense ten years ago when changing out light bulbs and cleaning up local parks represented major sustainability programs within a lot of hotels. The benefits of these initiatives are real but, as our world enters a new era where stakeholders are demanding more transparency and third party certifications are evolving and becoming a requirement to conduct business, keeping these programs in their original locations is often limiting.

Sustainability has evolved into a much deeper practice than many business leaders initially believed was possible. It is a tool and philosophy that can be applied strategically to every department, from the new hotel design team and franchise relations to the sales, marketing, and food services groups. By using the lens of sustainability, it is possible to uncover new data points to track and reveal previously unseen metrics about current key indicators. Rather than having Operations or HR staff trying to implement sustainability goals for other departments, hotels need corporate sustainability officers that operate out of their own unique department and are empowered to assess and coach all other departments within the organization. Some hotel companies are realizing this and 2011 has seen the development of several new or revamped sustainability director and officer positions residing within environmental or sustainability departments. This organizational realignment will greatly increase the ability of hotels to address the new challenges faced by environmental teams in all industries, such as managing a green supply chain and deciphering what consumers will want one year from now.

Once these roles are established, hotels need to find visionary leaders who can inspire, educate, and spark excitement for sustainability from within the organization. One of their main tasks will be convincing departmental leaders that sustainability is not just another passing trend but a valid business model with real benefits. Each department within a hotel company should work with the sustainability officers to define how environmentalism affects their team, develop a clear strategy with measurable goals, and then create a plan to achieve their objectives. This will ensure sustainability goals are not in conflict with more traditional hotel aims of increasing occupancy and revenue per available room (RevPAR).

The bottom line according to the TVR survey is that “Only three companies (Accor, InterContinental Hotels Group, and Marriott) seem to see sustainability management as important for protecting and creating commercial value.” Recently announced programs are showing progress and are very encouraging. The Carbon Measurement Working Group, formed by the International Tourism Partnership and the World Travel & Tourism Council, has pulled together ten major players in the hotel industry and is working to standardize how carbon is measured and reported. Hilton Worldwide has earned ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 certifications for all if its brands. Their programs should be applauded as well as emulated by other hotel companies. These examples make it clear that hotels can engage with sustainability in a deeper, more strategic way. As they do so, they will move the hospitality industry into the next phase of sustainability: one defined by strategic, proactive decisions instead of reactionary measures.

2 comments

4
March

Carbon Labels: A Key Element in Climate Change Education

This article is cross-posted on Environmental Leader.

Carbon labeling for consumer goods is a concept full of promise and complexity. Providing end-users with information about the CO2 produced in the manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of products is a logical step in a world where NGOs, businesses, and governments are focused on reducing the impact carbon has on the health of our planet. Over the past five years, these three groups have each played a role in developing and implementing carbon labels. Today, carbon cataloging for all products appears inevitable and will allow shoppers around the world to more easily make purchasing decisions that help protect the Earth.

In 2006 Carbon Trust, a United Kingdom non-profit, developed the Carbon Reduction Label in an attempt to document the amount of carbon released during the lifecycle of a product and then pass that data onto consumers. The label was designed to show the carbon footprint of common items sold in the United Kingdom, such as detergent and cookies, and was implemented by several well-known companies that include Tesco and Walkers Crisps.

 

Around the same time, the US based footwear and clothing manufacturer Timberland was developing a “nutritional label” for their products. Their sticker assessed the effect of the company’s manufacturing practices on the health of the environment and the communities in which their plants operated. Initially, the same information appeared on all Timberland products, but in January 2007 their eco-labeling idea matured into the Green Index™ rating system that focuses on the impact of individual products. Ranking each item based on climate impact, chemicals used, and resources consumed allows Timberland to then rate their goods using a 0 – 10 system, with 0 being the lowest environmental impact. The Green Index™, the first eco-rating system for the apparel industry, is still in use and shows the tendency for markets to define their own sustainability standards.

Sweden’s government moved into the carbon labeling arena in 2008 when the Nutrition Department of their National Food Administration was asked to create new guidelines that encompass reducing climate change as well as maintaining human health. Earlier research suggested that up to 25% of an individual’s carbon footprint is associated with their diet. This incredible statistic shows that in addition to reducing my driving and flying, what I choose to bring into my kitchen affects my personal carbon emissions. This information means that seeking alternative sources of energy for my home and what I decide to order when eating out are both important ways in which I can help combat global warming.

By moving toward carbon labeling, Sweden’s actions are saying that providing consumers with more information will enable them to be better stewards of our natural world and that it is the role of government to push industry toward making CO2 information available. This is a wonderful step in the right direction, yet I see some challenges with including carbon emission counts alongside food in restaurants and at grocery stores.

The most obvious hurdle is defining who will be responsible for measuring carbon and which standards they will follow. In Sweden, emissions labeling is currently only a recommendation and each producer is asked to conduct its own research. The government has funded general studies on the nation’s staple products, but because there are multiple factors, including soil conditions, fertilizer use, degree of processing, packaging material, and length of transportation, companies such as Max, Sweden’s version of McDonald’s, are working to define the footprints of their specific menu items. The nation’s largest food co-op, Lantmannen, which is owned by 40,000 Swedish farmers, is also conducting CO2 emission audits for many of its products and placing its findings in supermarkets across the country.

The guidelines put forth by Sweden’s National Food Administration are now under review by other European Union (EU) countries. It will be interesting to see where the process goes from here. I am very encouraged that the development of carbon counting is already underway and am confident that EU programs could act as a models for how to roll out CO2 emission labels for food in America. Despite this forward progress, not all parties are in agreement that carbon labeling is a good idea. A 2009 study by the NCCR Trade Regulation finds both the lack of one standard certifying organization and the idea of creating a multi-national validation process reason for concern. Their paper states that “no widely accepted system of labeling exists, and creating one raises a number of questions on the global political and economic levels.” Not having a third party accreditation system in place is a valid concern as is the existence of too many organizations offering validation, something with which many industries struggle. Developing an international system would be difficult, but not impossible.

The second concern with carbon labels revolves around consumer education. Will people understand what the carbon numbers mean? When nutritional labels were introduced across the US in 1994, there was a steep learning curve. Even though much of the population already knew the terms being used, such as fat, protein, sodium, and carbohydrates, most of us did not fully understand how much fiber was enough and how the three different types of fats might affect our health. It has taken both public and private educational campaigns to bring us up to speed on why and how we should be reading nutritional labels and all the while dietary guidelines continue to change. It is prudent to expect the same ramp up time and on-going configuration when carbon emissions information is added to a food label already complex with nutritional analysis.

These organizational hurdles I have outlined are not specific to the food industry and will have to be managed across all sectors of the economy. Despite the trials, I believe CO2 labels will become ubiquitous over the next five years. The idea is similar in many ways to the model Climate Counts has developed. Climate Counts is one of my favorite organizations because it works to empower consumers in making purchasing decisions based on how companies are handling their climate change responsibilities. It ranks businesses in a variety of industries against a score card that evaluates what each company is doing to reduce its impact on the warming atmosphere. Educated consumers are then able to effect change as they have always done, by voting with their wallet for the type of company that takes its CO2 emissions management seriously.

The role of individuals can easily be seen when the discussion is brought back to the importance of carbon labels on food. Imagine going into a restaurant and ordering a pizza made with local goat cheese and organic vegetables. It would have a low CO2 count and most likely a slightly higher price than a pizza from the same establishment made with pepperoni and mozzarella sourced from a major distributor, which would have a higher emission label and a corresponding lower price. As with many Swedes, some US consumers will not change their eating habits, but opportunities to steadily transform people’s patterns abound. How many of us have been torn between two items at the supermarket or at the local grill? I have a feeling that understanding the true cost of what we purchase to the well-being the planet will move a significant portion of the population to choose the product or meal with the lower CO2 rating. They may not always make choices based on emissions information but if enough people do so occasionally, the combined impact of their decisions will create significant change.

I have been reading articles for several years that extol the virtues of a plant-based diet and I’ve noticed that the theme of these pieces has increasingly moved from personal health to the well-being of the planet. In addition to the goals of generating all of their country’s energy from non-carbon based fuels by 2020 and not allowing the sale of fossil fuel powered vehicles by 2030, Sweden has researched what else they can do to help reduce their country’s carbon emissions. By rolling out the inclusion of CO2 emission information with one of the most common items in our day-to-day lives, they have pioneered a system that has the power to transform the way we look at our food and the way we interact with our planet.

I am very hopeful that despite the logistical challenges, carbon emissions labels on food and other consumer products will soon be as common as nutritional information and material labels. I foresee both governments and NGOs playing a role in developing the programs as well as educating consumers on how to decipher CO2 figures. And I believe that providing people with carbon information is the best way for them to make informed decisions about how their actions affect our changing climate.

 

No comments yet

19
September

Is LEED Really Leading?

Until recently, when I talked with people about LEED certification, I typically needed to follow the acronym up with the term “green building”. Although the standard has been around since 1998, it remained mostly unknown to a large segment of the population. This has been changing recently as following LEED guidelines has become increasingly popular with new construction projects across the country. My company’s building is pursing accreditation and our town library was awarded LEED certification two years ago. LEED is in the news more often but unfortunately, the press it is receiving is not always positive.

LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and contains several different standards, including one for new construction and major renovations of corporate and public buildings as well as one for the operation and maintenance of existing buildings. New construction is focused on five areas: sustainable site development, materials selection, energy efficiency, water savings, and indoor environmental quality. Buildings are ranked on a 100 point scale in which 40 – 49 points earns a Certified ranking, 50 – 59 brings Silver, 60 – 79 equals Gold, and projects over 80 points are rewarded with Platinum LEED certification. The 14,000 buildings across the US that have received LEED accreditation or are in the process of pursing certification must certainly be state of the art, environmentally efficient, and cutting edge, right? Not always. I believe that LEED has been a fantastic stepping stone toward sustainable building design and construction but is not always leading the way to a “green” future. Others agree.

The United States Green Building Council (USGBC), which developed LEED, was the focus of a recent New York Times article on its previous standards. Evidently, the Federal Building in Youngstown, OH is Certified LEED but failed to be energy efficient enough to earn the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Energy Star label. After reviewing last year’s energy bills, the cooling system seems to have contributed to the building’s inability to become an Energy Star Partner. It has become obvious to the USGBC that annual performance needs to be tracked and they announced last week that existing LEED buildings will be asked to voluntarily send in their energy bills. They also have plans to require new projects to submit five years of energy use data as part of their certification process. This is certainly great news and shows that the developers of LEED are willing to analyze their program and adapt their credentials for the betterment of all. But they seem to have a fair amount of work to do. Their recent standard came out in April of this year and as my story below illustrates, the criteria can still guide participants into questionable practices while constructing their buildings.

This week I worked at a new convention center on the East Coast. I was happy to learn that it was applying to be a Certified LEED building. Good for them, I thought. It appears that most new large construction projects today are pursuing some level of LEED certification. When I walked into the south hall, I was surprised to see most of the carpet was stained and deeply discolored. I assumed that something had happened during its installation but was later told that in order to gain LEED points, the carpet was being reused from an old exposition center on the property that was being converted into offices. This fits into the “refuse, reduce, reuse, and recycle” mantra but I felt odd about what I saw. This must be a good idea, I told myself, despite the stains and the general “something is not quite right here” feeling I got when I saw the old, worn carpet next to the new, bright carpet.

Yesterday I entered the center at 7:30am and saw a crew of four people cleaning the carpet. When I left for lunch, I saw the same people continuing to clean the carpet. And when I called it a day at 6:30pm, guess what? They were still cleaning the carpet. All that work and the stains seemed just as noticeable as ever. And I thought, all of this for some LEED points?

The carpet cleaning was not working and I assume pressure from management will make them use less benign cleaning agents to remove the stains before the sales office begins giving tours to potential clients. If this happens, then everyone involved in the project may feel that LEED points do not make sense. Put in old carpet and clean it with toxic agents? That just doesn’t add up.

What if I am wrong and the stains are left as I saw them today? Management will certainly feel they need to explain the stains to visitors and will educate everyone who steps into the building as to why the carpets of a brand new convention center look twenty years old. I can hear the comments now. “This is LEED? I don’t like it. I’ll think twice about looking into it when my company is ready for a new building.” “Can’t those tree huggers allow our town to have a new, clean center we can be proud of? These stains are horrible.” And so, with either path the center chooses, cleaning with un-natural products or leaving the rugs stained, LEED’s reputation will suffer.

I am left thinking that the USGBC needs to revamp their LEED criteria so it guides those seeking certification toward pragmatic solutions rather than suggesting confusing strategies. Maybe it is time for them to pull into a rest area, review a road map, and make sure they are truly leading us in the right direction.

1 comment

7
May

The Four Ps of Green Advantage: Planning

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) released a fantastic report, Capturing the Green Advantage For Consumer Companies, on January 20, 2009. They conducted a global survey in 2008, with smaller, follow up assessments in October 2008 and January 2009, that clearly show green consumerism remains strong even as the world deals with a continued economic downturn. The authors suggest that increasing sustainability should be an enterprise wide initiative rather than just focused on one product line or single item. They outline four steps that companies should take when preparing to roll out sustainably across their business.

BCG’s Four Ps of Green Advantage are: Planning, Processes, Products, and Promotion. This blog post will focus on Planning.

When I was growing up, my father made me keep a weekly schedule of things I needed to do and important dates I should not forget. I used it for sports,  school work, and chores.  At the time I thought it was torture to plan out my week and then review it each Sunday night with my dad. Now I thank him for showing me the value of planning ones course and how it greatly increases ones chances for success. The BCG report outlines two planning steps that I would like to discuss further.

Embedding Green Targets and Resources Into Corporate Strategy

The idea of including targets is incredibly important. Without something to strive for, direction is lost and momentum fades. The goals should be SMART, Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely. They should be transparent, documented and available to the general public, as well as followed up upon. Nothing is worse than the fanfare of an exciting “green” announcement followed by its slow decline into obscurity. A sustainability report is the ideal mechanism for announcing your targets and publishing your progress toward meeting them.

I recommend creating an environmental mission statement as a way to define your goals and help plan your next steps. When my company wondered what to do next after the low hanging fruit that initially moved us in a sustainable direction was gone, we went back to our guide, our main resource, our friend, and our ally, our environmental mission statement. For more on this wonderful tool, please check out my blog, A Green Road Map for Executives: Begin with an Environmental Mission.
Planning For and Capitalizing On Changes On The Horizon

We all know the saying that change is inevitable. The sustainability movement has been gaining steam for at least the past twenty years. Between 1990 and 2009, the organic food industry saw its sales rise from $1 billion to $30 billion. Green consumer studies like BCG’s show that in almost every sector of the economy, from socially responsible investing and LEED building to green travel and energy generation, consumers are looking for sustainable options.

The trend toward a sustainable future is clear and we are still in the infancy of the move toward a new, clean and green world wide economy. Almost everything we currently consume needs to be produced in a more sustainable manner. The possibilities for change seem limitless. During the Industrial Revolution change seemed to be taking place at a much more rapid pace that just before or after this time period. We now find ourselves at the beginning of what some have said will be the greatest wealth producing era in human history. I have faith that the change will touch all societies, regardless of ethnicity or class, and help the world rise to meet a new era.

No comments yet