Less Conversation More Action » Greenwashing

A bit about eco labels

Michael Luehrs — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:20:34 +0000

So many labels, so much confusion

It’s a jungle out there. There are over 400 labels known worldwide. (For a review of each of these labels, see the Eco Label Index site)

Many people comment that with so many labels, it’s hard to know what is ‘good’. Yet, certifications can provide real value to meetings industry professionals seeking to improve business performance.

For Suppliers: Eco Certifications provide practical guidance for integrating sustainability into their operations in a fundamental way. An investment in a certification system can save money while helping to earn credibility in the marketplace. Labels should not, though, supplant constructive dialogue between buyers and suppliers. If sustainability goals are to be met, an ever increasing amount of collaboration and innovation will be required.

For planners: Because most eco labels require a sustainability policy and documentation showing performance improvement over time, they provide planners some reassurance that leaders on site are at least somewhat engaged in the supporting of responsible business practices. Planners can reasonably ask for statistics and examples of actions. Certification, in this way, lowers risk for planners.

Simple overview, meetings industry labels

View more presentations from Michael Luehrs

Certification Snapshot

Green Globe: Green Globe offers a good balance of environmentally sound practices with a focus on social responsibility criteria. Event planners gain indication that the certified supplier has good systems in place for a responsible business. Green Globe has different criteria for different kinds of businesses, including offices. That said, criteria for planner offices are not particularly agressive. This label is a better indication for the level of leadership engagement in sustainability at hotels and conference venues.

Green Key: Originally designed to help leisure travelers better access environmentally responsible locations and activities, this certification is exclusively focused on ‘green’ aspects of business impacts and engagements. The requirements of Green Key are such that it represents a good first point of entry for businesses seeking to get started with sustainable practices. While international, Green Key has been localized to only a few regions and is not widely recognized in Asia or Southern Europe.

BS8901 / ISO 20121/14001: These are internationally recognized management standards that are regarded as being robust and holistic. Critics point out that, because the individual organization set the scope and level of improvement required, a business could technically meet certification with only nominal levels of real improvement. Still, the requirement of solid, proven processes is a strong indicator of leadership engagement and commitment to sustainability.

Nordic Swan: The most rigorous standard for environmental sustainability, the Nordic Swan does not yet integrate requirement for social responsibility issues such as fair wages, diversity, or labour rights. It is a regional label, localized to Scandinavia and does not currently offer certification options for venues. It is a strong indicator of good leadership and planners are encouraged to consider this when organizing events in Scandinavia.

EU Flower: Developed with good intentions, and requiring a good commitment to environmental sustainability, the EU Flower label is not widely recognized or understood by most in the meetings and events industry. It lacks criteria for social responsibility and does not offer criteria for meeting venues.

Brief summary

Eco labels are valuable indicators of leadership engagement and well run businesses
Eco labels help businesses save money
Eco labels don’t replace the need for dialogue between planner and supplier
Seek out certified suppliers as a first choice to reduce risk to your business or event

Do you have experience with certification labels you can share? Would you like to suggest changes to any of the above? Let us know in the comments section.

Social Responsibility FAIL: can we do better?

Michael Luehrs — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:02:42 +0000

Two international retailers, H&M and Wal-Mart, just got a pie in the face of their (stated?) strong Corporate Social Responsibility programs. Today’s news from the New York Times revealed that bags and bags and bags of unsold, post-holiday clothing stock was destroyed before being discarded, ostensibly to prevent it from being re-sold. A saavy business maneuver or ‘ Social Responsibilty: FAIL’?

Items destroyed and discarded represent huge waste (cost) not only to staff time, landfill costs, etc, but to both brands, neither of which needs the outpouring of bashing which has been the result. While costly in terms of wasted resources, this incident represents huge lost opportunity. A well organized initiative to donate these items would have avoided cost and boosted consumer trust in each brand.

These incidents have special resonance for large meetings and events, as well as other businesses. We seem geared to see disposal, rather than planned donation, as the preferred method to clear out exhibition halls, registration desks and store rooms. What meeting planner would not feel remorse if journalists splashed their event on the front page for insensitive, irresponsible waste practices? Why wait for such embarrassment before taking action to integrate a plan to donation usable materials post event?

As part of planning their European Offshore Wind event in Stockholm last fall, EWEA partnered with Majblomman, a Swedish NGO supporting children, to donate congress bags. Similar efforts are being observed by other meeting planners and venues, so the idea is neither new or difficult to understand, just rare in its occurrence.

We’re better than this, people!

In addition to the previously mentioned (here, too) GMIC Trash Challenge, Please share your thoughts, examples and resources for expanding on the idea to donate usable resources.

Remember: Greenwashing is ’Sly’, not cool

Michael Luehrs — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:15:07 +0000

In spite of a the litany of columns, reports and studies on the topic of Greenwashing, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash), it seems that confusion ensues, resulting in more unsubstantiated claims which only serve to make the market more jaded and fussy with those that make them. I think the causes can often be traced to over-enthusiastic marketing teams who forget that what you do matters more than what you say. For these teams and others like them, I offer the following helpful memory device:

Responsible communication is Clive Owen. Children of Men, Clive Owen, especially.

Discounted by many, dogged and committed, often indelicate, the guy backs up his statements and pretty much single-handedly saves the world. No pretentiousness, just results. Action first, communication second. Have you seen this movie? You must.

Greenwashing, then, is Sylvester Stallone, let’s say in Rambo III.

Bless him for his energy and creativity, there’s a lot more bluster than substance here. Overly produced and with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer, his performance is wholly unbelievable. He phones it in. The result is a lot of irritation and an immediately forgettable product.

Both get attention, but which would you rather be? Cool and current and relevant and admired? Or somebody… well, somebody used as an unfavorable comparison?

Not that you’ll ever need more than this mental image, here’s some links to deeper research on the topic:

http://www.terrachoice.com/Home/Six%20Sins%20of%20Greenwashing

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/summit/greenwash.html

http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Greenwash_Guide.pdf