Category Archives: CSR

Sustainability in 2025 and Beyond, Part 4: Sustainability Strategies, Part I (Energy)

In our first installment we noted that while sustainability may have fallen out of favour in the current American political and regulatory environment to the point that we had to counter the Chief Sustainability Officer graphics going around earlier this year with a Chief Sustainability Officer: USA Edition, sustainability, at its core is becoming more and more important to corporate survival. In our second installment, we described how sustainability concerns permeate every department of the organization, and failing to adhere to them is not only unsustainable in the environmental sense, but also in the business sense. In our third instalment we dove into the stakeholder engagement that is required for true sustainability success.

In this, our forth installment, we are going to begin by outlining the key areas in which to focus to identify the key projects that will increase both environmental AND business sustainability.

If you review our second installment, the biggest lifts in sustainability come from:

  • (Non-Renewable) Energy Reduction
  • Freshwater Reduction
  • Non-Renewable Resource Reduction
  • Equipment Reduction
  • (One-Time Use) Demand Reduction

We’ll take each of these one-by-one and outline some of the major areas where there is a lot of waste. In future posts we may dive into the details on how to tackle them (where it’s not obvious).

(Non-Renewable) Energy Reduction

Energy is pricey. You want to reduce your energy needs across the board, and where you can’t reduce any further, you want to ensure that 100% of your energy is coming from renewable sources like Solar, Wind, and Hydro because, in the long term, that is the cheaper energy source.

Most operations have major energy inefficiencies in one or more of the following areas:

  • Lighting. Many office buildings have lights on over half the day, if not way longer, and are still running low efficiency flourescent vs. high efficiency LED, where the former will give off 40 to 80 lumens per watt and the latter will give off 75 to 150 lumens per watt, halving to quartering lighting energy requirements; it may not seem like a lot, but a 40 w T12 flurescent bulb running 12 hours a day for a year consumes 175 kWh; an LED equivalent bulb will consume about 15 watts, or 65 kWh over the course of the year for an almost 38% savings. Now consider that you will likely have at least 1500 of these lighting a 10,000 square meter office (10,000 m^2 x 400 lumens / 2,600 lumens), that’s a savings of 165,000 kwH or about $25,000 if you’re paying 15c/kwH. Now, rip and replace of all of your lighting isn’t cheap, but with a lifespan estimate of at least 50,000 hours for an LED outlet, that’s a 10 year plus lifespan. Estimate about $45/unit for a bulk purchase, or $67.5K plus $28.5K for electrical work, and for an upfront investment of $96K, you’re looking at a savings of at least 250K+ (since we aren’t factoring in WACC) for an ROI of at least 260% (while working towards a green building).
  • Heating: Whether you are heating with oil or off the grid, heating adds up quickly, especially if you are in a climate that drops below 0 for much of the winter. In northern climates, space and water heating can be quite significant since the US Energy and Information Agency estimates these costs make up over 2/3 of energy consumption for home and general office buildings. When it comes to heating, it’s not just the space, it’s the energy efficiency of the space. Poor insulation, leaky windows, poor use of natural light (and heat) can double or triple costs. While you can’t do much about this if you rent, if you are buying a commercial building, before you move in, do an energy efficiency analysis, and if it’s not in the top quartile, gut and redo it. If energy hungry lighting can eat up 200K/year in a large office building, heating (or cooling in hot climates) can eat up 2 Million, with a Million of that being unnecessary. Over decades, you will save 10X your up-front investment.
  • IT: After heating and cooling, the next biggest energy hog in most office buildings is the IT infrastructure and the internal server farm. Especially if the IT department is running older servers three or four generations behind, as older servers tend to be huge energy hogs for the relative computing power and output. It’s also critical to ensure that the IT infrastructure is appropriately sized and continually running at 80% utilization, with the ability to spin up and spin down computing resources as needed.

In addition, in manufacturing, you also have to consider:

  • Production/Assembly Lines: these are huge energy consumers; and energy efficiency all comes down to utilization; if you’re not using the line at 90% efficiency or more, you’re wasting energy; many operations who aren’t using a modern Manufacturing Planning / Execution System (MPS/MES) who think they are efficient will only be operating at 60% or 70% efficiency, at best; talk to the leaders in MPS/MES and even Semiconductor Chip Manufacturing and you’ll be shocked at the efficiency gains (and thus energy conservation) these companies find daily

Finally, in distribution, you also have to consider:

  • Fuel Efficiency, and especially if you are transporting over long distances; are you transporting by air when you could be using ocean; are you transporting by truck when you could be using rail; are you using ethanol or hybrid trucks instead of dirty diesel; are you maximizing for full containers/truckloads or sending half-empty trucks; and are you ensuring that return trips are utilized, or sending them back empty?

We’ll continue with the other areas in our next installment.

Chief Sustainability Officer: USA Edition

A version of the graphic below has been making the rounds on LinkedIn for a few months (and the doctor wishes he could point to the original source of this [on LinkedIn], but either Google mis-indexed it [as the link goes to a user’s profile page] or it’s gone), and a more recent version can be found in this post.

These are great … if you are based in the EU. However, they are not so great if you are based in the USA, as outlined in our first quarter post on how in the corporate world, sustainability/ESG is NOT a priority. So, the doctor decided to correct it for you if you are based in the USA. Enjoy!

(Supplier) Diversity is Dead!

Editor’s Note: This is an extended version of a comment that was made in response to an inquiry by THE REVELATOR on LinkedIn about the progression of supplier diversity.

The simple fact of the matter is thus: diversity threatens fascists who want authoritarian dictatorships. This means that as long as far right wing agenda politicians keep getting elected in first world countries (which has been happening more than not over the last decade), not only is DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) not going anywhere, but it is going to be rolled back, and done so faster than most policies that came before in countries which equated diversity progress with measurable outcomes.

The sad reality of the situation is that as soon as the board/chief/president of an organization or governmental department concluded that you were not diverse if you did not have x% of whatever minority the board/chief/president thought you should have x% of by time y, and started equating diversity success with measurable outcomes, we went from a situation where “equal opportunity” was replaced with “minority designated role”. And instead of being a further step in the right direction, it was often a step backwards. Under equal opportunity, if two candidates were roughly equal for a role, the role is to go to the minority candidate. And that’s a good thing. However, under “minority designated role”, non-minorities are banned from consideration, and this is not a good thing if there are no qualified minority candidates available for the role. A senior role that should demand a full University degree (Bachelor’s or higher), a decade of experience, and one or more certifications may end up going to someone who just has a 2 year associates degree, only 3 years of work experience (barely relevant to the role), and no certifications as that is the most qualified person who applied.

What many firms fail to take into account when considering diversity mandates is the number of qualified candidates in the minority who are actually in the vicinity of, and who are then actually interested in, and willing to take on, the position. For example, if you were to demand that half of your coding team need to be women, good luck with that when only 25% of STEM graduates in North America are female. (So if you did get 50%, a lot of other companies wouldn’t get any female hires.) Or if you demand that 1/5th of your workforce be hispanic, to mirror the US population distribution, but it’s an in office job in a major city in an expensive neighbourhood where 95% of the local population is white, good luck with that. You might meet your quota, but you know that the vast majority are not going to be qualified for the role.

And DEI didn’t stop there at some organizations and institutions in North America. As soon as people figured out that a DEI program or a particular minority designation could be used to exclude people of certain religion(s) they didn’t like, it went from a tool of inclusion to a tool of subversive discrimination. (So much for equity and inclusion!) Then came the backlash; the labelling of anything even remotely related to DEI, equal opportunity, or humanity as woke; and a full on assault by the fascists and authoritarians.

More specifically, in countries where they have enough power in the government, the authoritarians are dismantling any and all programs they have control over, barring any third party organizations with such policies from doing business with their government, and doing whatever they can to overturn all DEI and Equal Opportunity legislation they can, as far back as they can.

Moreover, given that these far right wing parties are being well funded by donations from the tech bros who spend more time meddling in global politics than running their own ventures, there are not many options for progression of ANY diversity on the global stage.

Sustainability ONLY Exists In the Supply Chain

Furthermore, simply switching suppliers does not make you more sustainable no matter what you may think or what those overpriced third party ESG / Scope 3 reports may (or may not) say. Switching suppliers to a supplier approximated to be more sustainable is not increasing sustainability, because if you take someone else’s supplier, then they are just going to end up with yours. It may be a temporary net win for your company, but it’s a net loss for another company, and that doesn’t really help anyone as sustainability was not actually increased overall.

Sustainability only comes from net improvement. The reason it only comes from the supply chain is because the products you buy come from the supply chain. The energy you use comes from the supply chain. The water you use (and drink) comes from the supply chain. The services come from your partners (in the supply chain). The transport to you (and/or to your customers) is the supply chain. Everything comes from the supply chain. The only way you can increase your sustainability is to reduce the energy, water, and products you use and the travel you undertake. For most companies, this is a negligible part of the supply chain … sometimes so negligible it rounds to zero.

So how do you increase sustainability in your supply chain? You start by helping your suppliers be more sustainable, which, believe it or not, starts with you being a better buyer and a better partner. Sustainability requires investment, and when they are operating at slimmer margins than you, significantly smaller bank accounts than you, and a lot more uncertainty than you, it can be hard for them to invest in new technology or processes when they don’t even know if they can invest in next week’s payroll.

And it requires more than a piece of paper from you saying you’re going to award them two years of business after a multi-round RFP when you’re a first time buyer. Because they know that while you may have the wherewithal to enforce a contract in another country half a world away, they often don’t. And they know how many times they’ve been screwed in the past when they were told they’d get 100,000 units, but COVID hit, the market crashed, or the transport lanes (ports, borders, etc.) closed down and the orders never came.

You need to develop a true partnership, work with them, build up shared trust and commitment, stick to your promises, help them with their processes so they become more efficient, identify efforts they can make to significantly increase sustainability, and then make the long term commitment they need from you (and other major customers) to invest in better technology, build their own renewable energy grids, etc.

Why are we bringing this up? Because a recent article in VOGUE Business that asked if “fashion’s buying practices are really improving” had a very good point. While fashion brands make strong claims they are investing in longer-term strategic partnerships, and big consultancies like McKinsey quote impressive statistics (such as an increase from 26% to 43% over the last 4 years) on how the percentage of CPOs reporting longer-term strategic partnerships (which just translates into longer term contracts, but not necessarily guaranteed awards over the long term, as there are usually so many out clauses the contracts mean nothing), the reality is that when you ask the suppliers how things are going, it’s a completely different story. As the Vogue Business article point out, this year’s Better Buying Partnership Index saw just a one point increase in the garment industry’s buyer-supplier partnerships score. Just one point! That could be a rounding error.

Despite all the lip service, there has been no improvement in the fashion supply chain because, at the end of the day, as Lindsay Wright was quoted, simply claiming you have good partnerships with your suppliers isn’t going to cut it. If you want an honest picture of what’s really happening on the ground, you need to be asking suppliers, because they’re the only real arbiters of whether purchasing practices are improving.

And this holds true across supply chains. Partner with your suppliers on long term contracts and work on development initiatives with them if you want to increase sustainability. Otherwise, the best thing you can do is to just shut the f*ck up because you’re only contributing to the hot air.