Despite pressing economic worries, the environment remains a top concern for consumers the world over. And that means environmentally friendly business practices are as necessary for the bottom line as they are for the planet, says Joe Veilleux, president of Euromed USA.
ADVERTISEMENT |
“Being a producer of natural ingredients for pharmaceuticals and health supplements, we’ve always held environmentalism as a major company value,” says Veilleux, a registered pharmacist. “We’re glad to see that, even when people face unemployment and other economic hardships, they’re still committed to green practices.”
Recent polls, including Boston Consulting Group’s annual International Global Green Consumer Surveys taken throughout the recession, reveal an unwavering commitment to environmentalism, he says.
…
Comments
CO2 as a Pollutant
Please can we stop this nonsense about CO2 as a pollutant (or carbon management in general) All life on this plant depends on CO2! I can demonstrate that CO2 is not causing global warming. But please read the following article: http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-column/combine-iso-… in it the author: William A. Levinson makes the following point. The GHG agenda is counterproductive I believe GHG reduction to be a politically correct agenda that has no place in sound business decisions. Its evident purpose is to enrich special interests that wish to trade in carbon credits or sell renewable energy products or services that cannot pass a Net Present Value analysis without government support or intervention. (See Gillibrand Kirsten’s “Cap and Trade Could be a Boon to New York,” in the Oct. 21, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal.) Diverting hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars in economic resources to “fight global warming” is quite likely to emulate King Canute’s futile command that the tide not come in. It must be noted that the world has gotten into and out of several ice ages with no anthropogenic intervention whatsoever. It is in fact socially irresponsible to buy carbon offsets, or pay extra money for cost-inefficient renewable energy. Stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, customers, and investors must pay for this waste in one form or another, and waste of stakeholder resources is poor stewardship by definition. Purchase of a carbon offset can even pay for the same energy waste twice: first through elimination of any perceived need to address the inefficiency itself, and second through the purchase of what is essentially a medieval indulgence for sins. I prefer to pay for waste not even once. It is meanwhile good practice to limit performance metrics to as few as possible, and the carbon footprint does not belong on the list when far superior techniques are available. Wasted energy from noncarbon sources is invisible to a GHG metric, but it cannot hide from a material and energy balance. No material or energy waste can hide from this powerful analytical technique. Any activity that reduces energy waste, whether in the factory or from inefficient logistics and transportation, will however also reduce GHG emissions if the energy in question comes from fossil fuels. Identifying and eliminating all forms of energy waste, regardless of the energy source, is therefore the right thing for the right reason: improvement of value for all the enterprise’s stakeholders, which is genuine social responsibility. Please reply! Ed Malsh
Add new comment