The urgency to “go green” has permeated the retail industry on everything from store lighting to packaging.

For instance, Tesco and other retailers are already working on carbon labeling that will record the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the production, transport and consumption of the 70,000 products it sells.

But while the focus has been on energy conservation and recycling, retail’s elusive Holy Green Grail remains shipping. In the world of just-in-time delivery, the idea of offering green shipping options may seem to be anathema to a retailer’s traditional view of customer service. And it may even scare the wits out of inventory and transportation managers given the charge to make it happen.

But what if — instead of just offering overnight, 2-day or ground shipping — a retailer could offer green shipping that saves dozens or even hundreds of pounds of carbon emissions that won’t be released into the air? In today’s “Inconvenient Truth” world, can you imagine the impact on the eco-friendly shopper buying products online who gets a message that says:

“Your order is scheduled to arrive on Tuesday. However, if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100 pounds of CO2, click here and your package will arrive on Thursday instead.”

There are a lot of shoppers out there who would click on that option in a heartbeat. This is a great way for a retailer to integrate customers and partners into its green decision making. And it doesn’t only have to be for online shoppers — it can also be used for special orders done in-store.

In an ultra-competitive market like retail, the ability to leverage green shipping can help to not only gain the trust and loyalty of green-focused customers and partners — it can also significantly impact the P&L ledger. However, it also presents uncharted waters for inventory and transportation managers at companies that decide to take on a green shipping initiative.

The reality is that most customers and businesses have some flexibility when it comes to receiving shipments, such as First Thing in the Morning, 10 a.m., and 2nd-day deliver options. However, there also is a rapidly growing awareness of the need to minimize the environmental impact of shipping.

The first retailers who can incorporate environmentally conscious shipping choices — both to consumers, and upstream to their supplier base — will not only reduce the costs of bringing a product to market. They will differentiate themselves to consumers, strategic partners, and yes, even investors, in a way that could provide a significant competitive advantage in the marketplace.

So what should retailers do to shape an effective green shipping strategy? Here are six key factors that can make the difference in the success or failure of green shipping:

1. Metrics rule Both consumers and partners will want to understand the environmental impact of all available shipping options at the time an order is placed. That means that retailers will need to clearly calculate the carbon impact in the order entry process. Will a shipment save 90 pounds or 190 pounds of carbon using the green shipping option?

CEOs and CFOs are focused on metrics, and so the person responsible for driving a green shipping strategy will need to provide rigorous measurements for the carbon emissions. This data will also put a retailer far ahead of other companies who do not track carbon emissions by shipment.

2. Disciplined load planning Because green shipping options require a disciplined approach to load planning, retailers can significantly reduce capacity excess throughout your business. One of the biggest challenges facing retailers and their supply chain partners is getting the most out of their truckloads. That’s why an industry-wide goal has been to minimize or even eliminate un-utilized space within shipping containers.

The norm today is for trucks to hit the road with 50 percent or more capacity to meet projected delivery timeframes. In some cases, these half-full trucks are sent out because of customer or business delivery demands. But many times, those factors don’t come into play in the customer’s mind.

A balance needs to be struck on meeting service levels and on-time orders, but there is still room for order flexibility for environmentally conscious buyers. Sure, many businesses could not afford to run with broad delivery timeframes. But many other businesses would probably consider alternatives that extend delivery options by as little as several hours if presented with the cost benefits of doing so.

3. Visibility into idle waste Government regulations that aim to reduce engine idle time during the pickup and delivery process are all the rage across the country. One of the side benefits of taking a green approach that tracks carbon emissions throughout the entire shipping process is that retailers and their supply chain partners will have a better view of idling time.

Our research has found that companies that implement some form of anti-idling software, such as that found in fleet management software, can reduce idling time by up to 30 percent.

4. Making the Right Turns One of the biggest hidden costs in any supply chain comes from inefficient route planning that result in trucks sitting in traffic with profits leaking right out of the gas tank. Newth Morris, President of the Telogis’ GeoBase Group, which provides mapping, routing and geocoding software for transportation companies, points out that routes that are designed to avoid left turns can greatly reduce idling, and thus fuel costs. Right turns at intersections also are faster than left turns, due to “right on red” laws and the fact that drivers only have to turn into just one lane of traffic when making a right turn.

Here are a few other steps retailers and their supply chain partners can take that can reduce fuel consumption:

• Pre-load vehicles in the morning
• Route drivers according to volume
• Consider alternate pickup and delivery times to avoid congestion
• Use the communications tools available in fleet management solutions to immediately reroute drivers stuck in congested areas.

5. Alternate Modes Studies have shown that truck deliveries are the most expensive form of transportation and distribution, and that cost is only going to go up as the cost of fuel continues to spiral out of control. Companies that can consider alternative modes of transportation and distribution, such as rail or ocean, can substantially reduce their environmental impact, and incorporate those savings into the green shipping option for customers.

6. Flex Those Schedules As cited in the example given at the start of this story, it has already been proven by the likes of FedEx, UPS, Amazon and others that customers are willing to examine cost tradeoffs when it comes to delivery times. The visionary company that figures out the vast amount of brand capital it could generate by offering green tradeoffs for flexible delivery times will be hailed as a conquering hero by green shoppers around the world.

This may involve bundling deliveries in the same area at the same time, or making deliveries during off-peak traffic hours. Either way, the cost savings to the customer and the retailer, and the transportation company making the delivery will benefit everyone involved. The customer will feel she has done something for the environment. The retailer will benefit from the brand loyalty with that customer because of the green shipping approach. And the transportation company will save on fuel costs.

How to Get Started

Since the concept of Green Shipping is relatively new to the industry, here is some concluding advice on steps retailers and their supply chain partners can take to go green when it comes to shipping:

1. In order for Green Shipping to be successful, the transportation management system (TMS) should have load optimization capabilities that link directly with a fleet management system. Think of load optimization as the Rubik’s cube of TMS. It takes pieces of different shapes and sizes and fills them in a truck with no leftover space. In order to implement a green shipping option, this capability is critical because it helps maximize fuel usage and shipments.
2. The TMS has to be outfitted with a carbon emission dashboard that calculates carbon output by measuring a number of factors, including but not limited to the type of truck executing the delivery, the number of miles traveled, and the type of fuel used. Many retailers are also looking to give the consumer visibility into the carbon emitted to create the product. That means retailers need enterprise-wide visibility into the environmental cost of producing and transporting the goods, and they have to be able to segment those costs out on a per purchase basis.
3. Finally, it’s important for retailers to work with any delivery partners throughout the supply chain — whether it is a third party logistics (3PL) company or a parcel delivery service. These partners need to not only be able to measure carbon output, but also have to work hand-in-hand with the retailer to make the green shipping option viable and desirable for customers.

By Todd Mallett

Todd Mallett has been providing technology-based solutions for complex distribution networks for the past 10 years at RedPrairie. Previously, he worked in Operations Management with Caliber Systems and FedEx’s Supply Chain Solutions division.

http://www.greenbiz.com/feature/2008/11/10/six-steps-achieving-green-grail-shipping?page=0%2C0

In the last month, Carsten Henningsen has concluded that even environmentally friendly stocks can fall to earth.

“Green stocks go down like the rest of the market,” said Henningsen, chairman of Portfolio 21 Investments, a Portland firm that invests in green companies. His company’s mutual fund, also named Portfolio 21, is down 32 percent this year.

But in tough economic times, as stock markets gyrate wildly and major Wall Street investment firms go under or are bought out, Henningsen has maintained his position that investing in green companies is wise because they are in an ideal position to prosper in the long term.

Speaking at an Oregon Natural Step Network meeting Tuesday titled “Beyond the Bailout,” Henningsen made a case that investing in companies such as Vestas Wind Systems is a logical long-term strategy. Oregon Natural Step Network works with businesses and governments to promote sustainable practices.

“The Earth does not have the bio-capacity to sustain unlimited growth,” said Henningsen. “Growth of real wealth is restrained by natural resources and the capacity of the planet to absorb Co2. We can’t have unlimited growth, unless we can borrow from another planet.”

In addition to investing in publicly-traded green companies from around the world, Henningsen is on the board of Upstream 21, a company that buys small, locally-owned private companies with products that  are designed to benefit and sustain their employees, their communities and the environment.

Mary C. King, a professor of economics at Portland State University, said at the meeting that states like Oregon should reclaim locally produced goods.

“In Italy, they have very old craftspeople who make purses sold in Saks Fifth Avenue in Manhattan,” she said. “Why is IKEA in Portland when we could do that level of craft and design?”

King said the recent failure of large banks and investment companies was created by a speculative bubble that federal regulatory agencies should have seen coming years ago. “I want to counter the impression that this was unforeseen and unprecedented and the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are in uncharted territory,” she said. “The common factor in booms and busts is the creation of debt that becomes out of scale with the underlying means of payment.”

A speculative housing bubble fueled by over-leveraged and under-regulated banks created a form of “casino capitalism,” King said.

On the bright side, she said “this moment provides us with an opportunity to change, to be environmentally and socially healthy.”

She called for more money to be poured into education and health care, and more taxes on companies that pollute.

Henningsen said his company’s investment approach is to find businesses that are important to their communities and then help them thrive. “We are an alternative to an investment banker or venture capitalists that want to flip a company,” he said, referring to buying a company and quickly selling it off.

His company’s approach is to invest long-term in companies, while staying diversified.

Over-investing in companies that deplete natural resources, he said, is a “dinosaur” approach.

“This is about adapting,” he said, referring to investing. “Waste and pollution cannot systematically increase and natural resources cannot systematically decrease.”

BY SAM BENNETT

http://www.djcoregon.com/articleDetail.htm/2008/10/22/A-greener-method-of-investing-Local-firm-finds-that-social-investing-is-a-more-sustainable-approach

You may have a green message to share with your customers, but be careful. Many consumers — as many as 70 percent, according to one study — consider environmentally friendly, eco-green claims as marketing scams.

And with astonishingly good reason, according to TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, which analyzed 1,018 consumer products making 1,753 environmental claims in six categories of goods found in big-box retailers. Of the 1,018 products analyzed, all but one made claims that were, at worst, demonstrably false to, at the very least, misleading.

From that study, TerraChoice developed a list of what it calls the six sins of “greenwashing” — a relatively new term for the practice of misleading consumers regarding the environmental benefits or friendliness of products or services.

Those six sins are the hidden trade-off, no proof, vagueness, irrelevance, fibbing and the lesser of two evils, which is defined as a green claim that may be true but distracts from a greater environmental risk, i.e. “organic cigarettes.”

But honest and effective eco-messaging can happen. It starts with knowing your audience and speaking to them with honesty.

A study by TNS, “The Green Life,” categorized consumers along an eco-spectrum. Eco-Centrics (13 percent of population) are highly educated, high-income urbanites who take pride in doing their part to protect and nurture the environment. On the other end of the spectrum, Eco-Villains (7 percent) are Midwestern, middle-income men in small and midsize metro areas who have dismissed environmental concerns.

That just means businesses must figure out levels of knowledge and layers of concerns for their target audience.

For instance, Eco-Centrics want to know how products are made, is there animal testing and does the company make sure overseas workers aren’t exploited. But for the Frugal Earth Mother (17 percent of the population, characterized as practical prudent women in lower income, rural households), the focus should be on dependability and safety.

For Kansas City-based Indigo Wild, getting out the word on its environmentally friendly soaps, candles and lotions did not mean climbing the mountaintop and shouting “We’re green, green, green!”

Instead, Indigo Wild lets its products speak for itself.

“When people scream ‘green this, green that,’ that becomes their sole focus, and that’s not who we are,” said Sally Nielsen, vice president of public relations. “We’re very particular about our ingredients — it’s a culture that we’ve lived instead of a label we’re putting out there.”

But for Weston-based McCormick Distilling Co., nothing less than going to proverbial marketing mountaintop — Times Square — would do when it came to trumpeting a new eco-friendly 360 Vodka.

And vitally important, said Robert Tomei of TNS, is walking the talk, which for 360 Vodka means a number of initiatives, including bottles made of 85 percent recycled glass, labels made from recycled paper and printed with soy ink, and vinyl billboards that are repurposed into purses, handbags and totes.

•When developing an eco-friendly marketing message: Be honest. Be accurate. Be transparent.

•Learn more about the six sins of greenwashing at www.terrachoice.com.

•Know your audience — most marketers agree there’s no point in wasting time or money targeting Eco-Villains.

By JENNIFER MANN

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/656540.html

Whether by lowering your thermostat or unplugging seldom-used appliances, chances are you’ve recently attempted to scale back on energy use.

In fact, you may be one of the consumers who have bought more than 1.5 billion Energy Star-qualifying products since the label was introduced in 1992. Last year, one in three people reported using the label as part of a purchase decision, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. If they’d bought an Energy Star-qualified commercial dishwasher, they might be saving an estimated $200 per year, according to the Department of Energy. Those that took home an Energy Star refrigerator can look forward to a 15% less expensive monthly electricity bill.

Other ways of saving energy include fixing a leaky faucet and checking your insulation levels. But the most comprehensive way might be to figure out exactly how much damage you’re inflicting so you’ll know how much to cut back.

Author Alexandra Shimo-Barry knows how. In her new book, The Environment Equation, Shimo-Barry, a national reporter for Maclean’s in Canada, teaches readers how to quickly calculate their carbon footprints, or the amount of greenhouse gases in units of carbon dioxide, they’re producing by using the following formula:

A.) Multiply your monthly electricity bill by 105

B.) Multiply your monthly gas bill by 105

C.) Multiply your monthly oil bill by 113

(if you don’t use either B or C, enter 0.)

D.) Multiply total yearly mileage by .79

E.) Multiply the number of flights–4 hours or less–by 1,100

F.) Multiply the number of flights–4 hours or more–by 4,400

G.) Do you recycle newspaper? If no, add 184. If yes, add 0.

H.) Do you recycle aluminum and tin? If no, add 166. If yes, add 0.

A+B+C+D+E+F+G+H = your carbon footprint. A number below 6,000 (reflected in pounds per year) is excellent. Over 22,000? Not so great. Good is anywhere from 6,000 to 15,999, while 16,000 to 22,000 is average.

If your number is higher than you would like, there’s good news–there are hundreds of ways you can shrink your carbon footprint, and many of them aren’t as sacrificial as you might expect.

That’s because Shimo-Barry says that lack of will, not austere alternatives, is the No. 1 barrier blocking would-be waste-reducers.

“There’s still inertia when it comes to making small changes,” she says. “But Americans emit 20 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Even if we cut that by a ton–which isn’t difficult–it would make a huge difference.”

Simple Steps
Eating locally grown food is one of the easiest ways to reduce your footprint. Whether you begin visiting the farmer’s market every Saturday to pick up local fruits and vegetables or, if you are able, dining at restaurants serving regional fare, eating locally allows you to eat well without funding the emissions used to import food from other countries and regions.

Jason Karas, founder of Cambridge, Mass.-based Carbonrally.com–a gaming Web site that challenges users to reduce personal emissions through online competitions–says that drinking locally microbrewed beer is another way to shrink your footprint, for much the same reasons as eating regional food.

“It’s also a great way to support local entrepreneurs,” says Karas.

Buying second-hand is another luxurious choice. For many, vintage shopping has become as chic as getting on the list for the newest pair of Christian Louboutins. Buying vintage clothing and accessories is more than looking sharp: These practices will reduce your carbon footprint by eliminating the energy it takes to produce something new. What’s more, you might get that Hermes Birkin for $2,000 instead of $8,000. Those not so used to buying second-hand should read “Shopping Tips for Vintage Clothing Collectors.”

How are you cutting back on energy use? Weigh in. Add your thoughts in the Reader Comments section below.

Sustainable wood furnishings are another smart lifestyle alternative. Before you redecorate your home by raiding the Conran Shop, consider buying pieces from eco-friendly shops like Vivavi and Environment Furniture. Both offer stylish, modern goods–like a mid-century-styled credenza or a curvy bamboo rocking chair–that are Forest Stewardship Council-certified, which means they’ve met 57 earth-friendly criteria established by the organization. These include minimal pesticide use, protection of local wildlife and unionization for loggers.

In the market for a second home? A penthouse on Central Park South might not sound like the most efficient way to cut carbon, but city living is often friendlier to the environment. That’s because many urbanites rely on public transportation. And even a two-floor penthouse in the Trump Tower uses far less energy than a sprawling seven-bedroom mansion. What’s more, when water, sewage and electricity are shared, less copper–which is found in plumbing and electrical systems and is one of the largest contributors to landfills–is needed.

All evidence that living grandly can do the earth well, as long as you know where to cut back.

Lauren Sherman

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/2008/04/15/green-carbon-living-forbeslife-cx_ls_0415carbon.html

HGTV is bringing viewers a full day of Earth Day programming and making it even easier for viewers to get their green on. Throughout the day the network will be highlighting different ways to embrace a greener way of life, featuring everything from easy, eco-friendly tips and trends to a behind the scenes look at some of the world’s most extreme ‘greenists.’

24 Hour Design - Episode 307- 6:30 AM - 7 AM ET/ PT
Kick off your Earth Day with 24 Hour Design as Angelo and crew serve up a master bedroom that’s green and serene.

Red Hot & Green - Special - 7:00 AM - 8AM ET/ PT
Learn how to “live green ” with out sacrificing style…Each home features cool design, innovative architecture and simple, but effective ways to incorporate green design into your home. Also woven throughout the special is a ‘green’ makeover led by a designer who creatively and colorfully remakes a room with the environment (and budget) in mind. It’s green without the guilt, proving that living ‘green’ is attainable, affordable and best of all, can be done with style.

Living With Ed - Marathon - 8:00 AM - 10:30 AM ET /PT
Check out Ed and Rochelle as they bring you a who’s who of Hollywood ‘green living.’

DUBLIN — There is something missing from this otherwise typical bustling cityscape. There are taxis and buses. There are hip bars and pollution. Every other person is talking into a cellphone. But there are no plastic shopping bags, the ubiquitous symbol of urban life.

In 2002, Ireland passed a tax on plastic bags; customers who want them must now pay 33 cents per bag at the register. There was an advertising awareness campaign. And then something happened that was bigger than the sum of these parts.

Within weeks, plastic bag use dropped 94 percent. Within a year, nearly everyone had bought reusable cloth bags, keeping them in offices and in the backs of cars. Plastic bags were not outlawed, but carrying them became socially unacceptable — on a par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one’s dog.

“When my roommate brings one in the flat it annoys the hell out of me,” said Edel Egan, a photographer, carrying groceries last week in a red backpack.

Drowning in a sea of plastic bags, countries from China to Australia, cities from San Francisco to New York have in the past year adopted a flurry of laws and regulations to address the problem, so far with mixed success. The New York City Council, for example, in the face of stiff resistance from business interests, passed a measure requiring only that stores that hand out plastic bags take them back for recycling.

But in the parking lot of a Superquinn Market, Ireland’s largest grocery chain, it is clear that the country is well into the post-plastic-bag era. “I used to get half a dozen with every shop. Now I’d never ever buy one,” said Cathal McKeown, 40, a civil servant carrying two large black cloth bags bearing the bright green Superquinn motto. “If I forgot these, I’d just take the cart of groceries and put them loose in the boot of the car, rather than buy a bag.”

Gerry McCartney, 50, a data processor, has also switched to cloth. “The tax is not so much, but it completely changed a very bad habit,” he said. “Now you never see plastic.”

In January almost 42 billion plastic bags were used worldwide, according to reusablebags.com; the figure increases by more than half a million bags every minute. A vast majority are not reused, ending up as waste — in landfills or as litter. Because plastic bags are light and compressible, they constitute only 2 percent of landfill, but since most are not biodegradable, they will remain there.

In a few countries, including Germany, grocers have long charged a nominal fee for plastic bags, and cloth carrier bags are common. But they are the exception.

In the past few months, several countries have announced plans to eliminate the bags. Bangladesh and some African nations have sought to ban them because they clog fragile sewerage systems, creating a health hazard. Starting this summer, China will prohibit sellers from handing out free plastic shopping bags, but the price they should charge is not specified, and there is little capacity for enforcement. Australia says it wants to end free plastic bags by the end of the year, but has not decided how.

Efforts to tax plastic bags have failed in many places because of heated opposition from manufacturers as well as from merchants, who have said a tax would be bad for business. In Britain, Los Angeles and San Francisco, proposed taxes failed to gain political approval, though San Francisco passed a ban last year. Some countries, like Italy, have settled for voluntary participation.

But there were no plastic bag makers in Ireland (most bags here came from China), and a forceful environment minister gave reluctant shopkeepers little wiggle room, making it illegal for them to pay for the bags on behalf of customers. The government collects the tax, which finances environmental enforcement and cleanup programs.

Furthermore, the environment minister told shopkeepers that if they changed from plastic to paper, he would tax those bags, too.

While paper bags, which degrade, are in some ways better for the environment, studies suggest that more greenhouse gases are released in their manufacture and transportation than in the production of plastic bags.

Today, Ireland’s retailers are great promoters of taxing the bags. “I spent many months arguing against this tax with the minister; I thought customers wouldn’t accept it,” said Senator Feargal Quinn, founder of the Superquinn chain. “But I have become a big, big enthusiast.”

Mr. Quinn is also president of EuroCommerce, a group representing six million European retailers. In that capacity, he has encouraged a plastic bag tax in other countries. But members are not buying it. “They say: ‘Oh, no, no. It wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t be acceptable in our country,’ ” Mr. Quinn said.

As nations fail to act decisively, some environmentally conscious chains have moved in with their own policies. Whole Foods Market announced in January that its stores would no longer offer disposable plastic bags, using recycled paper or cloth instead, and many chains are starting to charge customers for plastic bags.

But such ad hoc efforts are unlikely to have the impact of a national tax. Mr. Quinn said that when his Superquinn stores tried a decade ago to charge 1 cent for plastic bags, customers rebelled. He found himself standing at the cash register buying bags for customers with change from his own pocket to prevent them from going elsewhere.

After five years of the plastic bag tax, Ireland has changed the image of cloth bags, a feat advocates hope to achieve in the United States. Vincent Cobb, the president of reusablebags.com, who founded the company four years ago to promote the issue, said: “Using cloth bags has been seen as an extreme act of a crazed environmentalist. We want it to be seen as something a smart, progressive person would carry.”

Some things worked to Ireland’s advantage. Almost all markets are part of chains that are highly computerized, with cash registers that already collect a national sales tax, so adding the bag tax involved a minimum of reprogramming, and there was little room for evasion.

The country also has a young, flexible population that has proved to be a good testing ground for innovation, from cellphone services to nonsmoking laws. Despite these favorable conditions, Ireland still ended up raising the bag tax 50 percent, after officials noted that consumption was rising slightly.

Ireland has moved on with the tax concept, proposing similar taxes on customers for A.T.M. receipts and chewing gum. (The sidewalks of Dublin are dotted with old wads.) The gum tax has been avoided for the time being because the chewing gum giant Wrigley agreed to create a public cleanup fund as an alternative. This year, the government plans to ban conventional light bulbs, making only low-energy, long-life fluorescent bulbs available.

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A handful of vendors and retailers who’d championed earth-friendly processes and products in the furniture industry for some years found themselves in 2007 surrounded by people singing the same tune. Those pioneers, who all along had been developing “green” product incorporating recycled wood or timber from well-managed forests in case goods, and upholstery using organic fabrics and environment-friendly foams, found themselves on the front end of a wave of companies paying more attention to the environment—at least in word.

How that buzz—spurred by a wave of media attention to the environment over the past year—plays in the long term among consumers (many of whom don’t know yet, or maybe even care, that they have earth-friendly options in home furnishings) will depend heavily on how well or how poorly retailers and vendors handle the issue of “greenwash.”

“Greenwash” refers to slapping a marketing-over-substance label on goods targeted at well-meaning consumers interested in making more environmentally friendly purchases. If bogus “eco-friendly” furniture gets exposed, shoppers (many of whom are jaded by pricing and quality issues, as well an often-negative assessment of their buying experience) could view furniture with a more cynical eye.

A LOT TO CONSIDER. John Billington, CEO of Five Rivers in Boise, Idaho, said retailers seeking out eco-friendly product have to go through their own educational process. A good place to start is talking with suppliers, asking specific questions about where, how and from what their products are made.

About 50 percent of the furniture Five Rivers sells comes from vendors who participate in the Sustainable Furniture Council (SFC), of which he’s a founding member. (The store also features jewelry, organic cotton clothing, and lighting and accessories.) He sees the SFC as having a huge role in setting effective, measurable standards for the industry, as well as providing a rallying point for retailers and vendors committed to making sure their operations are as environmentally sensitive as possible. Groups like SFC can provide leadership, but retailers still have to do their own legwork to verify environmental claims about a particular line, and their own operations, Billington said.

“The Sustainable Furniture Council has become a powerhouse in creating a reliable ‘green’ rating system for retailers and consumers by evaluating products and manufacturers’ impact to our global environment,” he said. “It’s sort of like a ‘Green Housekeeping Seal’ of approval.”

The SFC might be an enormous help in raising industry awareness of its environmental impact, but Billington said retailers must gauge their own carbon footprint and make responsible choices for their communities, and do their own homework when it comes to suppliers.

“Ask questions and then tell your customers what you have learned,” he said. With programs such as the Forest Stewardship Council and Sustainable Forestry Initiative in place for years now, wood products are a bit simpler to gauge than upholstery in that retailers can look for wood certification from such organizations.

“For sustainable forestry, organizations like the Rainforest Alliance, the Forestry Stewardship Council and Smartwood guide forestry practices toward sustainability,” Billington said. “The impact of these organizations has reached 20 countries and certified over 100 million acres of forests.”

Upholstery, with hidden components such as cushioning, is a more complicated category for retailers to vet.

“You’re seeing a lot more foam cushioning for leather and upholstery that’s eliminating harmful vapors during production and emitted from the product itself,” Billington noted. “There’s little oversight in that regard to my knowledge, and it’s necessary to do your own research.”

Determining whether or not wood in a vendor’s furniture is from responsibly managed forests is the first question retailers looking to get greener should ask, said Tim Loveday, a founder of the Design Green Alliance (formerly Channel Logic), a cooperative effort for sustainable manufacturers to increase their marketplace presence.

The second question to ask is what kind of paints or finishes are used in the manufacturing process? Those questions “are a good start for people to begin with, as most manufacturers haven’t ventured into much more detail for sustainability yet, and the responses won’t be overwhelming for the average retailer,” Loveday said.

Third, retailers might ask about certification programs suppliers participate in; and fourth, ask what makes suppliers eco-friendly. “The third and fourth questions allow manufacturers to give more detail on their sustainable practices within their own organization,” Loveday said. “However, the most important precaution retailers can take (to avoid greenwash) is to train their sales staff on the level of sustainability for each manufacturer. Having the answers to the questions above will keep them out of hot water for now.”

CHALLENGES LOOM. The word about going green is definitely out there for all to hear in furnitureland, but the industry still has a way to go, and Loveday said the development of an online resource guide would assist interested companies in increasing sustainable practices and offer advice from experts, as well as contributions from members of groups such as Design Green Alliance.

Watch for more and larger “Living Green Pavilions” such as the one at Las Vegas Market’s temporary spaces at the MGM Grand—a joint effort of DGA, SFC and Las Vegas Market. That area centers on sustainable furnishings or furniture using wood, cushioning, fabrics and finishing materials that are made from renewable resources.

“Our primary objective is to create larger, more dominant pavilions at the different furniture markets worldwide,” Loveday said. “Part of our services through our Web site will be to have a posting board for (reps) to post ‘products wanted’ and/or manufacturers to post ‘reps wanted.’”

Building a “green” network for reps poses challenges. “No question, the biggest challenge for representatives ‘going green’ is to substantiate their products as truly green,” Loveday said. “Second, mainstream retailers’ number one objection is; ‘If I transition 20 percent of my showroom to eco-friendly products, then how do I sell against the other 80 percent that isn’t?’

“In 2008 our goal is to get the message out that we now cover every category with green products, so retailers can begin transitioning their store to 100-percent eco-friendly products without giving up quality, creativity or design capabilities.”

Diversification of DGA’s participating lines is helping to create a range of environmentally friendly product in all categories for interested retailers.

“I currently have database of over 300 sustainable manufacturers, some with SKUs ranging into the thousands,” Loveday said. “My goal is to take sustainability out of the niche market it currently resides (in), and begin establishing a very strong presence to make our eco-pavilions a destination point for buyers worldwide.”

The industry also has internal issues to work through regarding its environmental approach. Already, the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), whose EFEC program for limiting manufacturers’ environmental impact has made strides, ran afoul of the SFC (AHFA’s a founding member) when it proposed retail tagging for its Sustainable By Design (SBD) program. SFC declined to grant SBD achievers its Silver Exemplary status due in part to what SFC deemed an unacceptable percentage of FSC- or equivalent certified woods in the product in question. At press time that question remains unresolved, but AHFA’s attention to environmental issues is not in question. (See this month’s “Hot Seat” for discussion of the AHFA/SFC situation.)

AHFA and SFC also were in the process of setting up a panel discussion tentatively scheduled to take place at Las Vegas Market.

THE TIPPING POINT. Kevin Tuerff, president and a principal at the Dallas-based environmental marketing consultancy EnviroMedia, said events such as the November United Nations conference on global warming are raising the environment’s profile among consumers, whatever their politics, and that a major resource for furniture was high on the agenda.

“Deforestation was the first- or second-hottest topic there,” said Tuerff, who attended the conference. Tuerff said he’s surprised at the amount of attention environmental issues get these days, and that those serving consumer markets had best be ready to at least answer questions.

“We’ve been in environmental marketing for 11 years, and we never would have predicted what’s happening now,” he said. “‘Tell me what to do’—that’s what consumers are asking now.”

EnviroMedia worked with the University of Oregon to launch a new Web site, greenwashingindex.com, to give consumers the info needed to weigh the green component of their purchase decisions.

Loveday doesn’t believe the furniture retail community has seen its tipping point due to market confusion on “what is considered sustainable.”

“However, we did a test study on a handful of retailers that carried no sustainable furniture products and asked them if they would ‘go green.’ Most were hesitant,” he said. “However, when we rephrased the question and discussed indoor environmental health and the risks associated with standard manufacturing, we saw a completely different level of interest, especially when it came to children’s furniture and bedding.”

Other industries are having success in the environmental movement. For example, The U.S. Green Building Council, (founded by SFC director Mike Italiano), developed a green building rating system through its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, to encourage sustainable construction among architects, interior designers and landscape architects.

When it comes to going green, though, it’s important to do your own homework.

“Many eco-friendly organizations have developed over the past two decades to provide guidelines for global ecology,” said Billington. “There are so many products that are eco-friendly today, and so many that claim to be, that it is hard to know who to trust.”

By Powell Slaughter

http://www.hfbusiness.com/story/story.bsp?sid=89696&var=story&publication=Home%20Furnishings%20Business&publicationDate=2/1/08&slug=HFB_0208_cover_greenwash&category=None&section=Unknown&page=1

By Rachel Oliver

The problem with technology is by its nature it has to be new, or at least appear so. As a result, our televisions, mobile phones and computers seem ever too frequently out of date.

So we end up replacing them, and the old machines get chucked away. The stuff that gets chucked away is known as e-waste, and it is the fastest growing source of municipal waste on Earth.

At the moment e-waste only represents 5 percent of the world’s municipal waste stream — that represents up to 50 million tons of electronic waste a year, according to Greenpeace — but that number is going to get much bigger. In Europe, e-waste levels are growing at a rate of 3 percent-5 percent a year.

In the developing world, e-waste levels are expected to triple in the next five years as consumers there step on the consumerist bandwagon and spend their newly earned money on electronic gadgets. (By 2010, Greenpeace says there will be 178 million new computer users in China and 80 million new users in India alone.)

To compound this problem, the average amount of time people are hanging on to their gadgets is in freefall. The average lifespan of computers back in 1997 was six years; in 2005 it was only two years, Greenpeace says. And it’s not just PCs that have turned into veritable throwaway items.

A recent article by the UK’s Observer newspaper found that in that country the average lifespan of a mobile phone now is just 18 months, and it calculated that Britons are dumping their phones in favor of new models at a rate of 1,700 every hour.

(The reason for discarding electronics often has nothing to do with flaws in the hardware itself, but more to do with the software that is running the machines. Microsoft’s Vista operating system has been blamed for rendering millions of computers obsolete, for example, by the fact that the machines can’t run on the new system. According to Mother Jones, as much as 95 percent of all household PCs in the UK and one-third of all laptops will need to be replaced should their users install Vista.)

Landfills are a natural destination for these discarded goods. Electronic items sitting in landfills are bad news for the environment generally, one of the more potent risks of leaving them there being they leak and infect groundwater supplies.

Around 40 percent of the heavy metals (such as lead, mercury and cadmium) found in landfills come from electronic waste, according to the Computer Take Back Campaign. Only a small amount of leakage can be hazardous, it argues, pointing out that “just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury can contaminate 20 acres of a lake, making the fish unfit to eat”.

Sending electronics to landfills are being strongly discouraged for good reason. And while consumers may have dutifully taken their machines to recyclers, in many countries in the developed world, “recycling” actually means “exporting.” Up to 80 percent of the electronics collected for recycling in the U.S., for example is sent overseas, reports AP.

The eventual destination is Asia. Around 80 percent of global e-waste ends up there, according to the Basel Action Network (BAN). And as much as 90 percent of that ends up in China, illegally (the rest goes to India and Africa), and predominantly in the Pearl River Delta region in the south of the country.

The reason: It saves money. For companies in the developed world, “it’s as much as 10 times cheaper” to export the waste to places such as India than it is to deal with it at home, reports AP, quoting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) figures.

Dangerous e-waste exports

The town of Guiyu in China’s Guangdong province is, thanks to the media attention it has received over the past few years, probably the best well-known e-waste dumping ground on Earth. It has also come to epitomize the problems associated with this practice.

Guiyu literally now relies on e-waste for its income: 80 percent of its 132,000 inhabitants work in the e-waste recovery industry, according to the China Economic Review. But it’s not exactly a great arrangement. People use their hands to disassemble the machines; they extract the materials they need using health-harming methods such as open burning, which emit a variety of toxins into the air; they throw the stuff they can’t sell into the river.

Their naked exposure to toxic chemicals has resulted in the fact that around 80 percent of all children in the village now have lead poisoning, and that the level of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants are 16,000 times higher in Guiyu than they should be, according to Green Left Weekly. (While the affect of PBDEs have not been tested on humans, PBDEs have been found to “impair attention, learning, memory, and behavior in laboratory animals at surprisingly low levels”, according to the Washington-based Environmental Working Group)

There are international laws that forbid the export of hazardous waste, including e-waste, notably The Basel Convention, which has been in force since 1992. China is a signatory to the Convention. It has also ratified it. (The only notable country that hasn’t ratified it is the United States)

There are also specific laws in the European Union which prohibit exporting e-waste to developing nations. But the developed world still manages to ship its e-waste to the developing world using labels of charitable donations and reuse programs.

India, which bans the importation of e-waste, is the latest emerging market to enter the e-waste trade. In six months alone, this year 600 tons of e-waste entered the country, reports Treehugger.com — “under the guise of charitable or re-usable materials, all duty free.”

Aside environmental and health risks, there are other arguments for fixing the e-waste trade. Electronics are full of precious metals like gold, palladium and silver, and the act of trashing them is putting a strain on supplies. And that has a notable knock-on effect: prices for them are going up.

According to the UN StEP program, which aims to standardize the recycling of e-waste globally, the price of Indium (used in more than one billion products annually, like flat-screen monitors and mobile phones) has “increased six-fold” in the last 5 years; the cost of Bismuth (used in hard disk drives) has doubled since 2005; and the price of Ruthenium (used in hard disk drives) has gone up “by a factor of seven” in less than two years.

Improving efficiency

Electronics are incredibly resource-inefficient. According to a United Nations university study, an average 24-kilograms (53-pound) desktop computer and monitor takes 10 times its own weight in fossil fuels to make, StEP says. (As a point of comparison, a car only requires one to two times its weight in fossil fuels to build). It also requires 1,500 kg (3,330 pounds) of water and 22 kg (50 pounds) of chemicals. One mobile phone meanwhile, according to the Observer, requires 2 kilograms’ worth of materials such as nickel, plastics, lead, lithium, tin and mercury.

These price hikes, however, should not intimidate the electronics industry too much. The trade in information and communications technologies (ICT) yields not billions but trillions of dollars every year. In 2004 alone, quoting OECD figures, StEP says the global ICT trade made a cool $1.9 trillion, representing 7.7 percent of gross world product and 4 percent of U.S. GDP.

While the electronics industry may be able to pay higher prices, it is debatable whether the consumer will do so. Other options are workable domestic recycling programs or using less harmful materials to manufacture electronics.

Technology companies such as Sony and Dell have traditionally come under fire from environmentalists arguing that they would not implement recycling programs for their own products in the U.S. (which doesn’t oblige them to) while doing so in the EU (which does). That should change with Sony’s recent decision to open recycling centers across the U.S., where it will even accept competitors’ products for a fee.

The other option is to make electronics more eco-friendly. A U.S. study conducted by the Green Electronics Council (GEC) has recently argued that the act of consumers switching to “green computers” actually did have a significant impact on the environment, reports CSRWire.

The study looked at the impact of an industry standard known as the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), which ranks IT products based on, among other things, their level of environmentally contentious materials such as mercury, lead, PVC and cadmium. During a six-month period last year, around 36.5 million EPEAT-registered desktops laptops and monitors, worldwide were sold by 21 manufacturers, representing 575 different product types.

The impact of those sales, according to GEC, was good news for the environment because it saved:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/12/03/eco.ewaste/

IF YOU’RE DREAMING of a white Christmas you’re in the minority this year. “Green” is the preference for 71% of consumers, who say they plan to buy eco-friendly or energy-efficient products when possible this holiday season, according to a survey by price-comparison search engine PriceGrabber.com. Beyond a desire to save the planet, these consumers are motivated in part by escalating fuel prices, which are projected to increase U.S. household heating costs by an average of 10%, according to the Energy Information Administration.

But those same skyrocketing energy costs that increase the appeal of, say, a 15%-more-efficient Energy Star furnace, are also making it tough to stomach the premium price tags such eco-friendly goods often carry. Why shell out $65 for Levi’s jeans made with organic cotton, for example, when the brand’s conventional versions start at $48?

With careful shopping and a few energy-saving measures, you can go green this winter without busting your holiday budget. Consider these simple switches for common seasonal expenses:

Christmas Trees

Some 32.8 million Americans buy real trees each holiday season, according to the National Christmas Tree Association, a grower’s group. If you’re among them, celebrate the fact that a real tree is the more eco-friendly choice. “It’s a lot more environmentally sound than a fake one, which is made from petroleum,” says Deborah Gangloff, executive director of conservation group, American Forests. Real trees also offset greenhouse gas emissions during the decade or so they grow on farms, and as a crop, new trees are planted to replace each harvested. If the use of pesticides bothers you, you can even find an organic-farmed tree.

Once the needles start littering the carpet and it’s time to dispose of your tree, find a local recycling program through your county or city environmental department. Jefferson Parish, La., sinks bundles of donated trees to protect marshland from erosion, while Cook County, Ill., uses them as a nesting habitat for herons and egrets. Plenty of areas also mulch the trees for use in local parks.

Real trees can be economical, too. A six-foot Blue Spruce is just $20 at the Bees, Fleas and Trees farm in Litchfield, Conn., or $15 at Juneau’s Christmas Trees & Reindeer Farm in Foster City, Mich. Meanwhile, a lifelike 6-foot-5-inch artificial version from specialist Balsam Hill goes for $259. Sure, a good-quality artificial tree will last for years, but once thrown out, they won’t biodegrade in the landfill, says Gangloff. (Click here for tips on which type of tree you should buy.)

Fireplace

Use your fireplace incorrectly, and you might as well be burning logs of greenbacks. “Fireplaces tend to draw more warm air out of the room than they provide,” says Jennifer Thorne Amann, a senior associate with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. “It all gets sucked out the chimney.” To avoid watching your energy bills go up in smoke, turn down the heat when you set the blaze. Close off the room if possible to limit heat loss in the rest of the house. And remember to close the damper once the fire goes out. Otherwise, you’ll be losing your pricey heated air around the clock.

Gift Wrap

Americans accumulate 25% more garbage between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day than they do during the rest of the year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Filling up the trash cans are the boxes, wrapping paper, ribbons, tissue paper, cards and envelopes that are all too familiar during the holidays. Reducing your expense and waste is possible, though — even if you’re not willing to resort to the standard advice of saving every scrap of wrapping paper for next year, says Constance Richards, author of “Creative Giftwraps.” “Using things that don’t need to be thrown out is the ideal,” she says. Gift bags are the obvious choice; especially if you’ve saved ones gifted to you in previous years. Bought new, you’ll need to weigh the cost-effectiveness: Will the items you stuff in a $1 bag use up at least one-third of a $3 wrapping paper roll? Lessen the hit with a trip to the dollar store, where gift bags are often two or three for a buck.

A more earth-friendly option is to forgo wrapping paper altogether and use part of the gift itself as wrapping. Stash DVDs in a big decorative bowl, for example, or place assorted beauty products in a traveling case. Or, just wrap with items that you would have thrown out anyway, advises Richards. Newspaper is the classic no-frills wrapping choice, but she also likes maps and glossy magazine pages, which are a little more offbeat and eye-catching.

Holiday Lights

Deck the halls with strings of LED lights instead of the standard incandescent bulbs, and you could cut the holiday light portion of your electric bill by a whopping 90%. One 300-bulb string of LED lights will cost of just 47 cents for the whole season, assuming you have them lit five hours a day for 45 days, according to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. In comparison, lighting the same length string of incandescent bulbs would cost $4.92. You will pay slightly more in upfront costs, however. At specialty retailer 1000Bulbs.com, a 70-light string of multicolored mini LED lights is $14.31, while a 100-count string of the incandescent version is $9.04. But because LED bulbs last up to 100,000 hours and are much hardier than their incandescent counterparts, you’ll spend less cash — and time — over the long run replacing or repairing defunct strings, says Ronnie Kweller, a spokeswoman for the Alliance to Save Energy.

To help cover the upfront cost of LED lights, look for rebates through your local utility company. The Maine Public Utilities Commission offers consumers a $1.50 coupon per string of LED lights, while Anaheim Public Utilities in California offers $10 and $20 gift cards for Starbucks, Borders or Home Depot, based on the number of bulbs you buy.

Presents

If you’re on the hunt for eco-friendly presents, try specialty search engines Shop Green with Price Grabber and The Find Green. Both scour the web for the lowest prices on green items. Preset categories can help narrow your choices or offer eco-friendly options you might not have thought of, like organic lipstick ($20 for Cargo’s Plant Love line) and wine ($14.95 for Frey Vineyards 2005 organic pinot noir).

Turkey

Looking for one holiday splurge? Try an organic turkey, advises Kristi Weidemann, a spokeswoman for Consumer Reports’ Greener Choices. Poultry is one of the organic foods that offers the most value for your buck, according to the Environmental Working Group. The birds are raised without the aid of antibiotics or growth hormones, and consume feed that was itself grown without pesticides or other chemicals. But it’s not without a heftier price tag. At Safeway, for example, the store-brand conventional frozen turkey goes for $1.19 per pound, while its organic counterpart costs $2.69 per pound. For a 16-pound bird, that’s an extra $24. To cut your costs, stick with a USDA-certified organic bird. Labels that indicate free-range, certified humane or heritage breed — although desirable — add to the cost. (Click here for more tips on buying organic foods.)

By Kelli B. Grant

http://www.smartmoney.com/dealoftheday/index.cfm?story=20071128

Product claims of being friendly for the environment often not what they seem

By Alex Breitler

So you want to save the planet this holiday shopping season, but you’re perplexed by a plethora of products:

“Green,” gloats one label. “Environmentally friendly,” flaunts another. “Nontoxic,” trumpets a third.

What isn’t green these days?

So what’s a shopper to do?

The Federal Trade Commission has set standards to discourage greenwashing.

• Look for labels that signify certification by independent third parties like EcoLogo or Green Seal. (See www.ecologo.org or www.greenseal.org. )

• Ask questions in an attempt to uncover any of the six sins.

• Remember that there are no perfectly “green” products, only those that are greener than others.

• The California Department of Conservation sponsors an online Green Gift Guide listing products made from recycled goods. Check it out at www.greengiftguide.com..

One study by a Canadian-based marketing firm suggests that most of the goods on your gift list - and much of the regular stuff you buy year-round - isn’t as Earth-friendly as their makers claim.

Of the 1,018 products analyzed at a half-dozen big-box stores, all but one “made claims that are demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences,” says the report by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing.

“Some are accurate, certified and verifiable, while others are just plain fibbing to sell products,” said company President Scott McDougall.

And so it came to pass that the company this month published the six sins of “Greenwashing,” as follows:

The sin of the hidden trade-off

Your new printer says it’s energy efficient, but is it compatible with recycled paper or toner cartridges? Does it contain hazardous materials that would harm the environment?

More than half of the sampled products had hidden trade-offs, the survey found. They boast a pretty nose while carefully concealing acne.

The end result? A greener image of the product than closer study would suggest.

PRODUCTS FOUND: Paper, lumber, insulation, office technology, detergents, air fresheners, cleaners and pesticides.

The sin of no proof

A lamp carries a tag claiming it is energy efficient but offers no evidence.

More details of a product’s claims should be available at the store or on the product’s Web site. Yet more than a quarter of the products researchers encountered offered no such information.

PRODUCTS FOUND: Lamps and lights, shampoo and conditioner, facial tissues and paper towels.

The sin of vagueness

The hair mousse says it’s “natural.” So is arsenic.

Garden insecticides claim to be “chemical-free.” But researchers note even water is a chemical. More than 10 percent of the products checked made vague claims that are “utterly meaningless.”

PRODUCTS FOUND: Insecticides, hair products, kitchen wax paper, household cleaners.

The sin of irrelevance

Some green claims may be true, but they don’t tell us much about how this particular product can be distinguished from the one next to it.

A can of shaving gel may be labeled as being “CFC-free.” Chlorofluorocarbons, when released to the upper atmosphere, can burn through the ozone layer, the Environmental Protection Agency says. But they’ve been banned for nearly three decades.

So everything on the store shelf should be “CFC-free.” This is hardly a “green” attribute by today’s standard.

PRODUCTS FOUND: Gels, cleaners, disinfectants, insecticides.

The sin of lesser of two evils

Wanna smoke? Cigarettes rolled with organic tobacco are a “greener” choice.

But the benefits gained from using organic rather than traditional tobacco hardly outweigh the larger risks from smoking in general, including personal health and secondhand smoke, the researchers say.

The sin of fibbing

To be fair, only a few of the products tested outright lied, the researchers said.

Most of them - shampoos, a caulking product and detergent - claimed to be certified through watchdog agencies, but they in fact were not.

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071129/A_NEWS/711290331