What's Good for the Environment is Good for the Bottom Line

One has to be very cautious with statements like these. In fact, it sounds more like political drivel than fact-based data.

For example, the claim that sustainability energy measures usually pay for themselves in a very short time is not likely to be provable.

It makes sense that some things can save money. Obviously, turning off equipment and lights when not used is a very low initial investment.

However, other measures that do require investment do not. For example, solar is one such investment that obviously does not pay back rapidly. If it did, the state and federal governments would not need to pump so many subsidies as incentives to bring down the cost. Even with those subsidies it takes years and years just to payback the initial investment.

As a general rule, business seek the path of least resistance for operation. Anything that reduces overhead and improves profit is a natural for any good business operator.

The idea that suddenly the Green Movement is a big savings for business that has never been discovered, even by the brightest minds, until today smacks of hyperbole.

Some sustainable practices clearly benefit the bottom line as well as the environment, while other practices only stand to benefit the bottom line if it increases market share by changing the corporate image.

If you reduce energy costs by reducing consumption, this saves money. Investments such as insulation or other technologies to improve heating and/or cooling efficiency do pay off in reasonable time frames.

Reduce and reuse definitely come before recycle when it comes to environment and also bottom line.

Designs that use less material, or processes that waste less material, or reuse waste material, are good for the bottom line. Designs and processes that reduce all kinds of waste including toxic byproducts, are good for the bottom line, because they reduce disposal costs.

Less toxic materials and processes are also "more sustainable", and pay off in more subtle ways, by minimizing adverse health effects on workers, and therefore minimizing losses and expenses caused by worker illness.

Designs that emphasize 'reuse' by the consumer - longer lasting products, which can be repaired to extend life - are very unpopular in industry today. The reason is clearly related to the bottom line, where more money has been made by selling less durable products with a fixed lifetime and which cannot be repaired. There is a market niche for high quality durable products but the high price tag means it is a harder place to establish market share, and first to lose sales during economic downturns.

Recycling is necessary but is unlikely to contribute to the bottom line afaik. Waste management is a cost of doing business, and recycling is an aspect of that cost.

It is probably unreasonable to expect that every sustainable practice will benefit the bottom line. Some things you do because it is the right thing to do, and assume the cost for the greater good.

Very thoughtful, good answer... unlike political drivel.

This is exactly what good process engineers and managers have been doing for years. Good administrators do look at the long term effect of changes and includes the soft benefits that cannot be easily added up by the bean counters. This has always been and will always be even without the green propaganda.

I agree with Hero that not every changes have a good return on investment or even any green return. Propaganda is usually an over-simplification that leads the decision makers to bad judgement. One must use common sense when planning changes. There is no "fit all" technology.

Objective evaluation of technologies with a bias toward environment improvement is good. What is the point of having the most efficient process if its cost of operation is so high that you have to close the plant for lack of sales?

quite right, your answer hits the nail on the head for all commercial applications, Good engineers and managers have always practiced sustainable and cost saving measures, unfortunately as our new generations became lazy and incompetent we started to invent new terms for thins in all areas. Take Marketing: BDM a business development manager??????????? If he is developing business through marketing he is the marketing manager, if it is through sales he is the sales manager, so with poor performance we invent new titles to find people to help us do jobs we are too incompetant to do, we invent new words and terms for environmental applications such as "greening" "carbon footprint" and a million other terms that really always existed in practice by good management, however someone who wants recogntion just for "doing the bloody job he should have been doing all along" invents a new word to make it sound like he is a
"doer" a revolutionary", when all along they are simply followers of good engineers and managers.

Nail on the head Marcot, one vote from me.