Eco-efficiency and Business

Rather than regarding ecology and economy as mutually opposing entities, it is now widely recognised that eco-efficient production is a major opportunity to enhance a company's competitive position in the market. Correspondingly, the general view of industry's role in the sustainable development debate has also changed: rather than being identified as a part of the problem, business is now seen increasingly as a part of the solution. All this means that industry faces a new range of opportunities and challenges - in product design, material and supplier choice, producer responsibility for the waste stage, and product image.

Eco-efficiency is the promotion of environmentally-friendly policies, designs and products within a business. The chief goals of eco-efficiency are to reduce wasting resources without compromising the creation of products or quality of services within a business. There are several ways a business can achieve a sustainable design. These might include a reduction of the materials needed for packaging, cutting back on energy costs, starting a recycling plan, or avoiding the use of toxic substances.

Many believe that eco-efficiency might have more benefits than just helping the environment. Some business owners are also attracted to the lower overhead costs. Common steps to eco-efficiency might include lowering energy uses and production waste. Both of these reductions will also save money for the business that implements them. If a business is not inspired to help the environment, it might be motivated by a larger bottom line.

As eco-efficiency sweeps over businesses worldwide, some historians are beginning to use the phrase "the new industrial revolution." In this new business model, some corporations are beginning to question whether wastefulness is really a necessary cost to production. More and more companies are researching and exploring ways to create without wasting any resources at all. Some businesses report that they are not only cutting production costs, but also attracting more customer loyalty and prospective employees with their eco-friendly policies.

Eco-efficiency beholds a few critics, some of whom believe that businesses aren't doing enough. They suggest that although eco-efficiency is better than regular production habits, these corporations could still be contributing to a global environmental problem. A common argument is that contributing less pollution is still contributing to some pollution. Some critics suggest that global production and trade could be halted altogether, and customers might look to buy only locally made and sold items.

Eco-efficiency generates more value through technology and process changes whilst reducing resource use and environmental impact throughout the product or service's life. Eco-efficiency applies to all business aspects, from purchasing and production to marketing and distribution.

In fact, case studies of companies that have adopted eco-efficient technologies and practices demonstrate that eco-efficiency stimulates productivity and innovation, increases competitiveness and improves environmental performance.

Eco-efficiency offers a number of practical benefits for businesses, including

· Reduced costs - through more efficient use of energy and materials;

· Reduced risk and liability - by "designing out" the need for toxic substances;

· Increased revenue - by developing innovative products and increasing market share;

· Enhanced brand image - through marketing and communicating your improvement efforts;

· Increased productivity and employee morale - through closer alignment of company values with the personal values of the employees; and,

· Improved environmental performance - by reducing toxic emissions, and increasing the recovery and reuse of "waste" material.

As of 2010, 150 international companies from 30 countries have joined WBCSD and pledged to adopt sustainable business practices. These companies include Kodak, Toyota AT&T.Ads by Google and others. Each company in the WBCSD strives to assemble its products with a sustainable design, without adding to the earth's waste or pollution during their production.

Six years after it was approved by the US Congress, as part of the Clean Air Act, trading in permits allowing companies to pollute has cut sulphur dioxide emissions in the USA faster and more cheaply than ever expected. Now the architects of pollution trading in Chicago have ambitions to extend the business to a wider range of polluting substances. And supporters are advocating an international trading system for permits to release carbon dioxide – the best-known man-made cause of global warming – into the atmosphere.

Critics may say it is immoral to give companies an explicit right to pollute. But Mr. Richard Sandor, a former vice-president of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), who launched sulphur dioxide trading, argues it injects pragmatism into environmental protection. “It’s time to take the environment out of the warm, fuzzy area”, he says. “You can’t just say “I want to save all the dolphins in the world.” You’ve got to work out how to solve problems in the most cost-effective way.”

The way the sulphur dioxide ‘allowance’ system works is simple. The Environmental Protection Agency, a federal agency, issues permits to release the amount of pollution allowed by the Clean Air Act. Most are allocated to power companies but a small number are auctioned once a year by the CBOT to set a price for them. If plant A gets permits to emit 150,000 tonnes of sulphur dioxide but wants to emit 155, 000 tonnes it must purchase an extra 5,000 allowances (each worth a tone of sulphur dioxide) – or pay a fine far exceeding the price of the permits. But if the plant is able to cut its emissions further than required, it has surplus allowances. It can either sell the surplus to another plant, or save it for future years.

Trading has two main advantages over traditional environmental regulation. It gives companies a financial incentive to reduce emissions for less than it would cost to buy permits. And, by leaving it to companies to decide how and when to reduce emissions, it reduces not just the cost of compliance but the bureaucracy required to enforce environmental legislation. The EPA reckons emission reduction through trading has so far cost US industry just $ 2,5 bn – half as much as it would have cost under the EPA’s traditional regulatory system.

The scheme has certainly worked: the US’s 110 most polluting power plants spewed out only 5,3 m tonnes of sulphur dioxide last year, well below a government ceiling of 8,7 m tonnes – prompting some environmentalists to say the targets were too lax. The ultimate aim of the programme, by progressively reducing the number of permits distributed to industry, is to cut sulphur dioxide emissions to half their 1980 level by 2010.

Its success has inspired the EPA to consider extending trading to oxides of nitrogen, toxic substances such as mercury, and possibly even the particulate dust emitted by long-distance haulage trucks. […]

In practice, sulphur dioxide emissions need to be supplemented by local controls to avoid concentrated pockets of pollution. But trading would be perfect for carbon dioxide emissions, which occur everywhere and have no local side-effects. The International Panel on Climate Change, the body charged by governments with investigating global warming, recently described trading as the most ‘promising’ of the ways it had considered for tackling climate change. […]

Western nations are committed to agreeing national targets for reducing sulphur dioxide emissions. But they are divided over how to do it: the European Union has toyed with the idea of a carbon tax. The US, however, rejects the idea of new taxation. International trading of carbon dioxide permits, distributed to countries and companies, would achieve reductions as cheaply and as flexibly as possible. […]

Trading is already US industry’s favourite option because of its flexibility. Mr. Mike Shields of Detroit Edison, the US electricity producer, says, sulphur dioxide trading has shown industry it can ‘get reductions faster and at lower cost than expected.’ And the concept is catching on elsewhere. Mr. David Porter, chief executive of the UK’s Association of Electricity Producers, is trying to interest his members in the idea for controlling carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. […] finally, trading could prove the best mechanism for drawing developing countries into the fight against global warming without asking them to sacrifice their right to economic development. […]

Дата добавления: 2015-10-30