A couple of weeks back I decided to investigate whether I could reduce my carbon footprint by using a combination of bike and train to get to UEA once or twice a week (4 mile cycle to East Harling Station, train to Norwich, bike to UEA). I then had a look at the train timetable and found the service was very limited with gaps between services of 1.5 hours or more! There is a very limited bus service from the village which, I was told, takes over an hour to get to Norwich and runs infrequently (I had a look for a timetable in the village but couldn't find one!) and, I was told, takes over an hour to get to Norwich....
Which explains why, at present the biggest infrastructure issue getting in the way of me consuming in a more sustainable manner is the poor public transport infrastructure in south Norfolk - I need to use my car to do anything apart from a basic shop at the local store or go to the pub!
The second big thing, which I guess is in part created by infrastructure issues, is pressures on time, bad enough now but much worse when working. This results in behaviours such as shopping at the supermarket rather than going to a number of local shops in Diss or Attleborough
Many of the other issues that get in the way of me consuming more sustainably are either things I can tackle given a bit of time and money (ie switching to renewables to heat the barn) or are the result of history. By which I mean that my network of friends, and hence social life, is scattered from London to Glasgow which adds to my travel footprint (although I do use the train!).
Thursday 29 October 2009
Sunday 25 October 2009
Targets on climate are 'delusional' - energy companies squirm
I was going to do a short blog on a couple of articles that I read whilst flicking through a few back copies of the Economist (may cover those in a future blog) but my attention was grabbed this morning by an article in the business section of this weeks Sunday Telegraph under the headline "Targets on climate are 'delusional'".
The tenor of the article is that the major (fossil fuel) energy companies are suffering big falls in profits as a result of the recession. Consequently, they are getting very concerned about the increasingly stringent targets governments are looking to impose on fossil fuel useage, the impacts these will have on demand and the costs these may add to their business models. The article quotes a senoior executive in the energy industry as saying "If you look at Copenhagen targets they are basically illusory....There's no way to hit those targets and it would be very silly to think we can". There's lots of other quotes from BP's Chief Economist and feedback from last week's Oil and Money conference and a suggestion that they are becoming bolder in their opposition to international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% over the next four decades.
Now I have questions about how effective Copenhagen will be, but as the ad says, there's no Plan B and we've got to start changing behaviours and developing new technologies to avert rapid climate change.
There a couple of positive elements in the article... a Tory energy Green Paper in the New Year with a strong focus on renewables and Greg Barker, the shadow climate change secretary, saying Britain had to become a centre of excellence for renewables expertise and manufacture, particularly in the offshore sphere.
Have a read (should be on www.telegraph.co.uk/finance)
Kev
The tenor of the article is that the major (fossil fuel) energy companies are suffering big falls in profits as a result of the recession. Consequently, they are getting very concerned about the increasingly stringent targets governments are looking to impose on fossil fuel useage, the impacts these will have on demand and the costs these may add to their business models. The article quotes a senoior executive in the energy industry as saying "If you look at Copenhagen targets they are basically illusory....There's no way to hit those targets and it would be very silly to think we can". There's lots of other quotes from BP's Chief Economist and feedback from last week's Oil and Money conference and a suggestion that they are becoming bolder in their opposition to international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% over the next four decades.
Now I have questions about how effective Copenhagen will be, but as the ad says, there's no Plan B and we've got to start changing behaviours and developing new technologies to avert rapid climate change.
There a couple of positive elements in the article... a Tory energy Green Paper in the New Year with a strong focus on renewables and Greg Barker, the shadow climate change secretary, saying Britain had to become a centre of excellence for renewables expertise and manufacture, particularly in the offshore sphere.
Have a read (should be on www.telegraph.co.uk/finance)
Kev
The impact of advertisements on consumption behaviour and sustainable consumption
Greetings fellow bloggers,
"What effects do adverts have on your consumption behaviour?"
The short answer to the first part of this weeks question is "Very little".
I watch little or no TV (don't have the time these days!!) so don't get exposed to ads through this media. I notice ads in the papers and posters when I'm walking down the street. I find the majority of internet ads that invade my homepage annoying. Nearly all direct mail goes straight in the bin unless it's about a product area I'm already interested in. What ads do for me is raise awareness of a new product or service but they will not prompt me to rush out to look at it and (maybe) buy unless I already have a need.
The other angle on this is that I'm pretty loyal to a number of brands that I 've bought over the years and will tend to browse these either in the high street or on-line before purchasing. Why did I select these brands? There was probably some ad influence but the biggest factor was personal recommendation from friends and family or 'expert' reviews in magazines and papers... and these are still the biggest external influences on purchase decisions for most product categories - outdoor gear, wine, books, holidays, cds.
Do you think advertising will be enough to bring about sustainable consumption?
The short answer is "No".
Advertising certainly has a role to play, for example in raising awareness or, if targeted on a particular segment, selling the benefits of a particular behaviour, initiative, product or service. However, it needs to be part of a much broader set of joined-up initiatives that include financial penalties and incentives and changes to infrastructure. If they are not alrady doing so the government (or whoever it is leading the chagre on the sustainable consumption agenda) also has to think beyond the traditional ad campaigns (posters, TV ads etc) and look at other approaches that have become mainstream such as a well crafted PR campaign with press article endorsement and viral marketing.
'Bye for now
Kev
P.S. as an aside, has anyone else noticed the steep drop in direct mail from the banks in the past 18 months for loans and credit cards I don't want to buy things I don't need . A very good by-product of the credit crunch... the trees think so as well!
"What effects do adverts have on your consumption behaviour?"
The short answer to the first part of this weeks question is "Very little".
I watch little or no TV (don't have the time these days!!) so don't get exposed to ads through this media. I notice ads in the papers and posters when I'm walking down the street. I find the majority of internet ads that invade my homepage annoying. Nearly all direct mail goes straight in the bin unless it's about a product area I'm already interested in. What ads do for me is raise awareness of a new product or service but they will not prompt me to rush out to look at it and (maybe) buy unless I already have a need.
The other angle on this is that I'm pretty loyal to a number of brands that I 've bought over the years and will tend to browse these either in the high street or on-line before purchasing. Why did I select these brands? There was probably some ad influence but the biggest factor was personal recommendation from friends and family or 'expert' reviews in magazines and papers... and these are still the biggest external influences on purchase decisions for most product categories - outdoor gear, wine, books, holidays, cds.
Do you think advertising will be enough to bring about sustainable consumption?
The short answer is "No".
Advertising certainly has a role to play, for example in raising awareness or, if targeted on a particular segment, selling the benefits of a particular behaviour, initiative, product or service. However, it needs to be part of a much broader set of joined-up initiatives that include financial penalties and incentives and changes to infrastructure. If they are not alrady doing so the government (or whoever it is leading the chagre on the sustainable consumption agenda) also has to think beyond the traditional ad campaigns (posters, TV ads etc) and look at other approaches that have become mainstream such as a well crafted PR campaign with press article endorsement and viral marketing.
'Bye for now
Kev
P.S. as an aside, has anyone else noticed the steep drop in direct mail from the banks in the past 18 months for loans and credit cards I don't want to buy things I don't need . A very good by-product of the credit crunch... the trees think so as well!
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Green technology in China
Caught an interesting item on yesterday's Today programme (if that's not a contradiction!) at about how China is striving to establish a lead in green energy technologies.
Take aways for me:
1. It already is one of (or it might be the) dominant player in solar panel manufacture
2. The local council in Guellin (city in south west China) banned petrol-driven motor bikes and scooters. This resulted in people buying bikes with electric motors which led to a drop pollution levels and the rapid growth of a new industry, where China has or could easily develop a market leading position
3. The money and effort the are investing in electric cars
We've had a lot of rhetoric in this country about green jobs but little progress. Undoubetedly hina has a number of advantages - heavy state investment, lower maunfacturing costs, a huge potential home market - plus a political system that let's it drive through initiatives like the one in Guellin. It is also resource poor in terms of oil and gas (which it's political leaders see as a big weakness) so is keen to develop new sources. However, I was hoping we'd see the UK government encouraging investment in wind and wave technology, two resources we have in abundance and where we'd had a chance of securing a leading position
Take aways for me:
1. It already is one of (or it might be the) dominant player in solar panel manufacture
2. The local council in Guellin (city in south west China) banned petrol-driven motor bikes and scooters. This resulted in people buying bikes with electric motors which led to a drop pollution levels and the rapid growth of a new industry, where China has or could easily develop a market leading position
3. The money and effort the are investing in electric cars
We've had a lot of rhetoric in this country about green jobs but little progress. Undoubetedly hina has a number of advantages - heavy state investment, lower maunfacturing costs, a huge potential home market - plus a political system that let's it drive through initiatives like the one in Guellin. It is also resource poor in terms of oil and gas (which it's political leaders see as a big weakness) so is keen to develop new sources. However, I was hoping we'd see the UK government encouraging investment in wind and wave technology, two resources we have in abundance and where we'd had a chance of securing a leading position
Friday 16 October 2009
My book for review
I'm going to review "The Constant Economy - how to create a stable society" by Zac Goldsmith.
The reason for choosing this is simple. Goldsmith, who was editor of The Ecologist magazine, has been advising the Conservative Party on environmental issues. And given it looks like it'll be a Conservative Government in power, I thought it would be interesting and valuable to understand the views of their key adviser in this area as there is a chance that some of this will make it into their manifesto.
The reason for choosing this is simple. Goldsmith, who was editor of The Ecologist magazine, has been advising the Conservative Party on environmental issues. And given it looks like it'll be a Conservative Government in power, I thought it would be interesting and valuable to understand the views of their key adviser in this area as there is a chance that some of this will make it into their manifesto.
Moving people towards sustainable consumption
I’ve been down in London for a couple of days this week. As the train whizzed through villages, towns and suburbs it struck me what a huge challenge we have moving to a sustainable economy. Every station car park was overflowing with metal boxes. Over the past 30 years the lifestyles and settlement patterns that have grown up have been driven by the availability of cheap personal transport – the car. Housing estates, business parks and retail parks have grown up away from rail links. Many have little or no bus service. Individuals have grown used to the convenience of personal transport available when they want it going to where they want to go....
And that’s only one dimension of the challenge….But big challenges are there to be tacked so here goes...
There are a couple of points, statement of the obvious may be, that need to be made at the start:
1. Let’s recognise that there is no ‘silver bullet’. We’re going to have to find and use a broad range of tools and approaches to move towards a sustainable world
2. This is not a one year change programme. There needs to be a vision of where we want to be (sustainable consumption) and some milestones en route
3. Let’s also recognise that we’re all different and that we’ll respond to different stimuli and incentives
And, whilst much can be achieved at an individual and local level, there’s also a need to make changes at in areas such as incentives, taxation and measurement. This needs to be driven by government.
I think that there is also a need to get opinion-formers, by which I mean mainstream press (beyond the Independent and Guardian) and possibly (given the society we live in) a few celebrities, actively supporting the sustainable consumption agenda otherwise laudable initiatives will be in danger of failing - sitting here now I can just imagine the Daily Mail’s or Sun’s response to the idea of a Citizen’s Income!
So, recognising we’re all different, and putting my marketing hat on, I’m keen that we identify and research the different segments of the population to understand:
1. The environmental issues and concerns that are their particular hot button
2. The size of the different segments
3. Whether they are early adopters of a new thing, followers, late adopters or luddites.
Given that we’re not going to change everything at once there’s a need for a bit of prioritisation so we can focus resources and effort on early adopters, the biggest consumer segments and those issues that are going to make the biggest impact.
There’s a range of practical measures and steps that can be piloted and, if successful implemented in full. Some of these I would see as mandatory that need to be adopted by the whole population (eg carbon credits), other would be discretionary. The research programme should help on how best to message the former and which segments to focus discretionary initiatives.
Measure that could help us move towards sustainable consumption could include the following:
1. Personal Carbon Trading
2. Loans and incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficient heating equipment – why not build repayment of the loan into the tariff paid for the energy?
3. VAT linked to carbon footprint of the product rather than value (Practical issues here I know) but it would be great to have different prices reflecting the carbon footprint for asparagus from the UK versus Peru.
4. Tax credits on income tax if you personal carbon usage falls below a certain threshold (linked to 1)
5. Removing subsidies from non-environmentally friendly activities and re-divert
6. Introducing a balanced scorecard of measures to track wealth (ie GDP plus other indicators)
7. Making it easier for individuals to change their work-life balance, and making it easier (and cheaper) for companies to hire individuals so there are more bodies to share the work around – look at scrapping NIC and replace with a series of taxes that green behaviour
8. Invest in transport infrastructure that means people have a viable alternative to the car
9. Actively promote alternatives to ‘shopping therapy’
10. Seek to reinvigorate local communities. The millennium lottery programme was really successful in getting local communities together to focus on a local project (be that a playing field, new village hall or new footpath). Why not have one in which lottery grants are given for sustainable consumption/energy saving initiatives?
11. More education on environmental issues in schools
12. Change building and planning regulations so that
a. Out-of –town developments are the exception rather tahn the norm
b. Public transport is an integral part of any new development rather than the afterthought it often appears to be today
c. All new offices, shops, factories and houses must incorporate energy-saving technology (eg PV cells, heat exchangers)
Not a bad manifesto that – we just need someone to adopt it! And that’s without the international dimension....
And that’s only one dimension of the challenge….But big challenges are there to be tacked so here goes...
There are a couple of points, statement of the obvious may be, that need to be made at the start:
1. Let’s recognise that there is no ‘silver bullet’. We’re going to have to find and use a broad range of tools and approaches to move towards a sustainable world
2. This is not a one year change programme. There needs to be a vision of where we want to be (sustainable consumption) and some milestones en route
3. Let’s also recognise that we’re all different and that we’ll respond to different stimuli and incentives
And, whilst much can be achieved at an individual and local level, there’s also a need to make changes at in areas such as incentives, taxation and measurement. This needs to be driven by government.
I think that there is also a need to get opinion-formers, by which I mean mainstream press (beyond the Independent and Guardian) and possibly (given the society we live in) a few celebrities, actively supporting the sustainable consumption agenda otherwise laudable initiatives will be in danger of failing - sitting here now I can just imagine the Daily Mail’s or Sun’s response to the idea of a Citizen’s Income!
So, recognising we’re all different, and putting my marketing hat on, I’m keen that we identify and research the different segments of the population to understand:
1. The environmental issues and concerns that are their particular hot button
2. The size of the different segments
3. Whether they are early adopters of a new thing, followers, late adopters or luddites.
Given that we’re not going to change everything at once there’s a need for a bit of prioritisation so we can focus resources and effort on early adopters, the biggest consumer segments and those issues that are going to make the biggest impact.
There’s a range of practical measures and steps that can be piloted and, if successful implemented in full. Some of these I would see as mandatory that need to be adopted by the whole population (eg carbon credits), other would be discretionary. The research programme should help on how best to message the former and which segments to focus discretionary initiatives.
Measure that could help us move towards sustainable consumption could include the following:
1. Personal Carbon Trading
2. Loans and incentives to encourage the installation of energy efficient heating equipment – why not build repayment of the loan into the tariff paid for the energy?
3. VAT linked to carbon footprint of the product rather than value (Practical issues here I know) but it would be great to have different prices reflecting the carbon footprint for asparagus from the UK versus Peru.
4. Tax credits on income tax if you personal carbon usage falls below a certain threshold (linked to 1)
5. Removing subsidies from non-environmentally friendly activities and re-divert
6. Introducing a balanced scorecard of measures to track wealth (ie GDP plus other indicators)
7. Making it easier for individuals to change their work-life balance, and making it easier (and cheaper) for companies to hire individuals so there are more bodies to share the work around – look at scrapping NIC and replace with a series of taxes that green behaviour
8. Invest in transport infrastructure that means people have a viable alternative to the car
9. Actively promote alternatives to ‘shopping therapy’
10. Seek to reinvigorate local communities. The millennium lottery programme was really successful in getting local communities together to focus on a local project (be that a playing field, new village hall or new footpath). Why not have one in which lottery grants are given for sustainable consumption/energy saving initiatives?
11. More education on environmental issues in schools
12. Change building and planning regulations so that
a. Out-of –town developments are the exception rather tahn the norm
b. Public transport is an integral part of any new development rather than the afterthought it often appears to be today
c. All new offices, shops, factories and houses must incorporate energy-saving technology (eg PV cells, heat exchangers)
Not a bad manifesto that – we just need someone to adopt it! And that’s without the international dimension....
Sunday 11 October 2009
Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness? What should governments be striving for and how?
Sunday greetings from a very happy Pear Tree….
Twenty years ago I was travelling through Nepal and whilst it was very apparent that poverty existed, the country did not look like and feel like one of the poorest nations in the world. However, if you measured ‘wealth’ purely by GNP, Nepal was very close to the bottom of the league table. As I travelled through the country it was clear that a huge non-monetary, informal economy existed, in which a lot of business within and between villages did not hit the statistics. I guess this was the first time I started to question GNP.
Today, I view GNP as a valuable, but not the only measure of ‘progress’ we should be looking at. At the end of the day, you tend to get what you measure, so governments need to find indicators that take into account the “non-monetised” parts of the economy along with other aspects of wellbeing as part of a ‘balanced scorecard’ of progress.
This week’s class work and reading have shown me that a significant amount of thinking and work has taken place in this area and that progress is being made. However, we’re not there yet. There remain a number of challenges, in particular:
1. Agreeing a core set of measures to be adopted at both a national and international level. There seem to be a number of measures around but none has yet been adopted globally a la GNP
2. Agreeing what units to use in measurement.
3. Getting the new metrics top of mind so that they are quoted as a matter of course on programmes such as Today or News at Ten
We need advocates in the mainstream press and political parties to start to push the debate. It would be great if one of the major political parties took this issue into the mainstream in the run up to the election, but don’t hold your breath!
Sunday greetings from a very happy Pear Tree….
Twenty years ago I was travelling through Nepal and whilst it was very apparent that poverty existed, the country did not look like and feel like one of the poorest nations in the world. However, if you measured ‘wealth’ purely by GNP, Nepal was very close to the bottom of the league table. As I travelled through the country it was clear that a huge non-monetary, informal economy existed, in which a lot of business within and between villages did not hit the statistics. I guess this was the first time I started to question GNP.
Today, I view GNP as a valuable, but not the only measure of ‘progress’ we should be looking at. At the end of the day, you tend to get what you measure, so governments need to find indicators that take into account the “non-monetised” parts of the economy along with other aspects of wellbeing as part of a ‘balanced scorecard’ of progress.
This week’s class work and reading have shown me that a significant amount of thinking and work has taken place in this area and that progress is being made. However, we’re not there yet. There remain a number of challenges, in particular:
1. Agreeing a core set of measures to be adopted at both a national and international level. There seem to be a number of measures around but none has yet been adopted globally a la GNP
2. Agreeing what units to use in measurement.
3. Getting the new metrics top of mind so that they are quoted as a matter of course on programmes such as Today or News at Ten
We need advocates in the mainstream press and political parties to start to push the debate. It would be great if one of the major political parties took this issue into the mainstream in the run up to the election, but don’t hold your breath!
Thursday 1 October 2009
Do businesses have a duty to promote sustainable consumption?
Greetings fromPear Tree Barn. A few thoughts on this weeks topic...
Let’s start with some definitions…
My Little Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as “meeting legal or moral obligations”…
I’ll view sustainable consumption as enabling “development that meets the needs of future generations without compromising the ability of the present generation to meet their needs”…
And for the purposes of this blog I’m taking a business to be a joint stock limited liability company (which accounts for the majority of businesses in terms of turnover and employment in most developed countries) rather than, say, a partnership or mutual.
So, first up let’s consider businesses and their legal obligations…
In most instances businesses do not have a legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption…
The fundamental purpose of today’s joint stock company and the reason it exists is to maximise the financial return it generates for shareholders (through a combination of dividend payments and appreciation in the value of the stock or equity).
It has no legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption unless there is a clause in the company’s Memorandum of Association (a document which, among other things, sets out what businesses the company may operate in) which defines promoting sustainable consumption as one of its activities.
…but it may make business sense to have sustainable consumption as part of your strategy
Businesses only generate long-term shareholder value by satisfying the needs and demands of other stakeholder groups such as customers, management and staff, suppliers, governments and regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Hence companies will include elements of the sustainable consumption agenda if one or more of these groups put pressure on it to do so, and if doing so helps improve the company’s competitive position (and hence it’s ability to generate shareholder value). So, we see businesses ‘green’ the products and services they sell, stress their ‘green’ credentials in their brand positioning, highlight their CSR activities and take actions that are environmentally friendly that also reduce operating costs.
Equally, if a ‘green’ action no longer makes financial sense there is a strong possibility that the company will stop it. I recently heard about a major plc that as part of it’s CSR/green agenda had been buying it’s energy from and eco-friendly supplier. However, it has recently stopped doing so because the government has removed or reduced subsidies in this area meaning it no longer makes financial sense to buy green energy!!
Do businesses have a moral obligation to promote sustainable consumption?
This is a really interesting question!
Businesses are no more than legal entity that has been created to allow individuals to conduct commerce.
Therefore, I’d argue that what a business does in terms of promoting sustainable consumption is a function of a) the values of the people managing and working within the business and b) their interpretation of what the owners of the business want.
So do the owners of the business and those managing it on their behalf have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption?
I’d argue very strongly that they do as, like the rest of society, they have a moral duty to manage the resources of the planet in a way that allows future generations to be able to meet their needs. However, this needs to be set against the other demands on shareholders and managers. For example, many shareholders are pension funds who need to ensure that there investments are generating an adequate financial return so that yours and my pension obligations can be met.
Some closing thoughts…
As discussed above, businesses have already started down the road in terms of greening their products, services and processes and initiatives in these areas will generate real environmental benefits.
Further progress is very dependent upon whether shareholders, managers and employees believe they have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption and how they set this against the other (often financial) goals and objectives they have.
‘Bye for now
Kev
Let’s start with some definitions…
My Little Oxford English Dictionary defines duty as “meeting legal or moral obligations”…
I’ll view sustainable consumption as enabling “development that meets the needs of future generations without compromising the ability of the present generation to meet their needs”…
And for the purposes of this blog I’m taking a business to be a joint stock limited liability company (which accounts for the majority of businesses in terms of turnover and employment in most developed countries) rather than, say, a partnership or mutual.
So, first up let’s consider businesses and their legal obligations…
In most instances businesses do not have a legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption…
The fundamental purpose of today’s joint stock company and the reason it exists is to maximise the financial return it generates for shareholders (through a combination of dividend payments and appreciation in the value of the stock or equity).
It has no legal obligation to promote sustainable consumption unless there is a clause in the company’s Memorandum of Association (a document which, among other things, sets out what businesses the company may operate in) which defines promoting sustainable consumption as one of its activities.
…but it may make business sense to have sustainable consumption as part of your strategy
Businesses only generate long-term shareholder value by satisfying the needs and demands of other stakeholder groups such as customers, management and staff, suppliers, governments and regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Hence companies will include elements of the sustainable consumption agenda if one or more of these groups put pressure on it to do so, and if doing so helps improve the company’s competitive position (and hence it’s ability to generate shareholder value). So, we see businesses ‘green’ the products and services they sell, stress their ‘green’ credentials in their brand positioning, highlight their CSR activities and take actions that are environmentally friendly that also reduce operating costs.
Equally, if a ‘green’ action no longer makes financial sense there is a strong possibility that the company will stop it. I recently heard about a major plc that as part of it’s CSR/green agenda had been buying it’s energy from and eco-friendly supplier. However, it has recently stopped doing so because the government has removed or reduced subsidies in this area meaning it no longer makes financial sense to buy green energy!!
Do businesses have a moral obligation to promote sustainable consumption?
This is a really interesting question!
Businesses are no more than legal entity that has been created to allow individuals to conduct commerce.
Therefore, I’d argue that what a business does in terms of promoting sustainable consumption is a function of a) the values of the people managing and working within the business and b) their interpretation of what the owners of the business want.
So do the owners of the business and those managing it on their behalf have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption?
I’d argue very strongly that they do as, like the rest of society, they have a moral duty to manage the resources of the planet in a way that allows future generations to be able to meet their needs. However, this needs to be set against the other demands on shareholders and managers. For example, many shareholders are pension funds who need to ensure that there investments are generating an adequate financial return so that yours and my pension obligations can be met.
Some closing thoughts…
As discussed above, businesses have already started down the road in terms of greening their products, services and processes and initiatives in these areas will generate real environmental benefits.
Further progress is very dependent upon whether shareholders, managers and employees believe they have a moral duty to promote sustainable consumption and how they set this against the other (often financial) goals and objectives they have.
‘Bye for now
Kev
CO2 is green!
If you haven't seen it already, have a look at this US ad. I found the link on the Guardian website but I'm sure there are other ways of accessing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/sep/28/co2-is-green-tv-advert
If it was April 1 rather than October 1 I'd say I'd been fooled!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/sep/28/co2-is-green-tv-advert
If it was April 1 rather than October 1 I'd say I'd been fooled!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
