Search

It gives us great pleasure to announce the launch of The Rise of the Sharing Economy, our first crowdfunded article series and something we hope will create a tremendous impact well beyond our core readers.

We’re very thankful to everyone who kicked in and shared the campaign page – especially corporate sponsors like Wheelz, HUB Bay Area, Skeo, Saatchi & Saatchi S, uSwapia, Munchery, ISOS Group, EcoSupply, TrustCloud, Collaborative Consumption, hylo, and Profit Through Ethics.

Remind me what this is all about...

In a sharing economy, anyone can run a small business on the side, and you can have easy access to hundreds of things you never had before – without the financial, environmental, and time cost of ownership.  Most significantly, a sharing economy can help build local economies, strengthen communities and reduce the consumption of resources.

What to expect:

• Regulatory and legal issues


• Real measurement of the sharing economy's economic and environmental impacts


• Role of large companies in the sharing economy


• Startup profiles


• The "sharing economy" meme - is this really the best name for the subject?


• Marketing the sharing economy

Can I still get involved?

Manufacturers use the term “excess capacity” to refer to an underutilized asset that is not being fully exploited to create value, be it an idle assembly line or a factory running only one shift when it could potentially be running two or three.

When viewed from this perspective, the non-commercial sector of our society can clearly be seen as overflowing with excess capacity. It could take the form of anything from an extra bedroom sitting empty, to an underutilized piece of garden equipment, to your car sitting idle while you work at home.

Given the massive degree of interconnectedness we now enjoy, the opportunity has emerged to very efficiently match up that excess capacity with those who have a need for it.

Thus we have the basis for the sharing economy; a newly emergent business trend that might just revolutionize the way business is done.

Of course, no sooner does such a trend emerge than the question arises; is this a threat to existing businesses, or an opportunity? The answer, of course, has to be both.

Reshuffling is not the same as harming, though, of course, every time there is reshuffling there will be winners and losers.

If I were to decide to chip in with a neighbor or two to buy a snowblower to share (I could have used one this week), that could be seen as a potential loss of sales if compared to the scenario where each of us bought our own. On the other hand, given the cost involved, none of us might have bought one. Furthermore, since it will be getting extra use, we might decide to buy a more expensive model than any of us might have purchased individually.

Looking at the experience of Airbnb, one of the pioneering enterprises in this space, a San Francisco-based company that matches available rooms with would-be travelers, bears this out. Fourteen percent of visitors using the service said that they would not have come at all without the availability of these affordable rooms. In addition, the average Airbnb stay was two nights longer than the average hotel room stay. All told, the service generated some $56 million for San Francisco's local economy.

Another advantage of an operation like Airbnb is the fact that not only does the money remain in the local economy, but it also ends up where it is really needed (60 percent of hosts had incomes below the city’s median).

Of course, some of that business came at the expense of existing hotels. Though there is nothing preventing them from following a similar model, which, to some extent they already do through services like Hotwire  and Priceline, which sell off excess capacity at discounted rates. Some other big companies are starting to dip a toe in as well. Look at U-Haul’s entry into the car-sharing business, for example. U Car Share is presently focusing on college towns, where it operates in some 38 localities.

Halfway between buying and sharing would be renting. Companies like Getable, which traces its lineage back to Netflix, have wrapped their heads around what that might look like online.

There is a fundamental difference between these ventures and the kind of collaborative consumption that characterizes the sharing economy. Sharing economy transactions are inherently peer-to-peer in nature.

Of course, that term, peer-to-peer, immediately brings to mind the music industry which has become the front line in the battle between an emerging sharing model and a long-established business model based on sales of recorded media.

From the industry perspective, those who share are demonized as pirates whose sharing is characterized as stealing. These accusations have resulted in new legislative actions known as SOPA/PIPA, sponsored by the industry in an attempt to stem the tide of unauthorized sharing, which are still being debated in Congress. But according to Julian Sanchez, cited in Forbes, online file-sharing has actually not harmed the music industry.

The argument is far from settled and it will probably continue for some time. The fact is, the possibilities unleashed by our newly hyper-connected society are just beginning to be exploited. Things are going to continue changing and evolving and it is going to take some time for attitudes and regulations to catch up.

Tim O’Reilly says that a big part of the problem lies in our ability to track value capture (which we’re good at), and value creation (which we’re not). He gives the example of drying clothes on a clothesline, whose value is not counted as an application of solar energy.  (Video). There are millions of these tiny value creation actions occurring daily, most of which occur below the radar.

But the radar seems to be getting lower and we are beginning to recognize value wherever it occurs as opposed to those places we’ve been accustomed to look.

Of course, when you buy a snowblower, or a chain saw, there is no implicit agreement accompanying your purchase (.i.e. copyright) that forbids you from letting your neighbor borrow it. Though I would not be surprised, as the sharing economy keeps growing, to see some indignant manufacturer lobbying for a new law that will do exactly that.

A better strategy, I think, would be to try and find a way to participate. Retailers or manufacturers, for example, could provide a gateway service by creating a database of customers who have purchased certain items by location which could be utilized for peer-to-peer sharing with appropriate fees attached.

The sharing economy, like any other major business transformation, represents economic impact to incumbent providers while representing freedom and value to those who have adapted their lifestyles to take advantage of the opportunity presented.

Of course, there is no reason that businesses, who also have lots of excess capacity, couldn't share with each other, too. Even competitors could also join forces when it comes to reducing the overall impact on the planet.

When the dust settles and the new landscape emerges, it will be organized and prioritized along the lines of the value created and made readily available to consumers in tomorrow’s world.

Image credit: “Cowboy” Ben Alman: Flickr creative commons; Pixabay

Last week media outlets were abuzz with Starbucks’ announcement, as promised, that its company-owned stores will sell reusable cups for $1 in order to boost recycling. Since 1985, the Seattle-based coffee giant has offered customers a discount when they bring in their own reusable cups. But the 10 cent discount has hardly been enough of an incentive to encourage consumers to bring their own cup and end the mounting waste that their iconic white cups continue to generate.

In 2011, Starbucks estimated its customers brought in their own cups 34 million times, a 30 percent increase from 2009. That’s the good news: the more inconvenient fact is that means only one in 50 Starbucks customers (two percent) bothered to bring in a reusable cup. Back in 2008, Starbucks revealed a strategy to serve 25 percent of its drinks in reusable cups by 2015; but that goal proved to be so elusive that the company downsized that goal to five percent. Nudging consumers to kick the disposable cup habit will be a tough task, even with the offer of a reusable $1 cup.

Starbucks has attempted similar tactics before. In fact, last month, Starbucks had a $30 reusable tumbler on sale that promised free coffee for all of January 2013. There were a few issues, despite all the buzz on the coupon and mommy blogger sites: first the price; next, the tumbler was hideous; finally, there was some dubious math--supposedly this was a “$70 value.” Consumers, at least in my neighborhood, responded in kind; those tumblers hit the clearance table pretty quickly--in fact I think there are still a few there.

And like many reusable cup announcements, the hype does not result in follow up. Last summer in Europe, McDonald’s revealed that it would give away some chic reusable coffee cups designed by Patrick Norguet. But there is no word, however, whether these cups made any dent in McDonald’s coffee cup waste across the pond. Even Mr. Norguet has been silent.

Let’s just cut to the chase: consumers (like me) who bring in their cup like a dutiful Boy Scout do so because of their desire to curb waste, not because they save a dime. And that dime is not enough of an incentive to the other 98 percent. For example, let’s take a look at those 5 cent per bag discounts at Whole Foods or Target if you bring in your own reusable sacks. How many times has the cashier forgotten to give you that pesky discount--and how many times could you be troubled to remind them? And the problem is not just with consumers: on its Responsibility portal, Starbucks “advocates” for an improved recycling infrastructure for its cups. In other words, Starbucks infers that by reducing that annoying double-cupping it has done enough on this front; let the municipalities deal with the waste and absolve the company of any responsibility.

Starbucks could do more and really up the ante. Offer more than a dime discount. Train its employees to remind its guests that coffee tastes better in a ceramic cup, and offer one if they are staying in the store to imbibe in their beverages--and offer that discount. For this feel-good company that offers such great vibes (to the point of near creepiness), experiment with do-goodery charitable campaigns and divert that dime or quarter discount to charity. And for its Gold Level Card Holders (which has become a joke because like a Gold-level American Express card, these are easy to score), offer those more frequent customers additional “benefits” for walking in with those reusable cups. A more aggressive and experimental recycling approach by Starbucks corporate, better training of its employees and most of all, pressing consumers to change their ways, are all necessary for Starbucks to reverse the embarrassing amount of waste the company generates.

As it stands, the $1 reusable cup probably will not make much of a difference--that 26 percent boost in reusable cup usage, as quoted in the LA Times, during its pilot testing in the Pacific Northwest is telling. In fact, the pledge to “rinse out the cup” as if this was some sort of service borders on silliness--Starbucks baristas do so anyway, including sanitizing my hot pink 1990 edition of the Fresno State Country Store cup (which is probably a BPA leakage cesspit, but that’s another story).

The upshot is that Starbucks already stands out for offering health insurance to its workers and for transforming the coffee culture in the U.S. Now it is time to ramp up its corporate social responsibility agenda, take action, and save money on waste diversion.

Starbucks could also tout this move on its media site; this announcement did not make the cut with a new steel cut oatmeal breakfast, the partnership with Square or new stores in Vietnam.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit: Starbucks

By now the New Year’s fiscal cliff deal has received quite a bit of press. We have already discussed the significance of extending the Wind Production Tax Credit here earlier. Less well known is the inclusion of measures included in the deal to revive tax credits for advanced biofuels. It is well worth a moment to examine these to understand what impact these actions might have on both our future energy and food supply.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 revived a number of tax credits that had expired at the end of 2011 and revised the definition of biofuels to include algae-based fuels.

According to the National Biodiesel Board, the restoration of the $1 per gallon credit for biodiesel producers which originated in 2005 and expired in 2011, could potentially add up to 30,000 new jobs this year.  According to Anne Steckel, vice president of federal affairs at the National Biodiesel Board, "It's been a long year with a lot of missed opportunity and lost jobs in the biodiesel industry. But we're pleased that Congress has finally approved an extension so that we can get production back on track.” According to research, had the incentive been in place this year, an additional 300 million gallons would have been produced, supporting more than 19,000 additional jobs. This is just another example of how the adage about having to spend money to make money applies to government as much as it does to business.

Bob Dineen, of the Renewable Fuels Association, who we spoke with back in October said, “The one year extension of the [$1.01 per gallon] cellulosic producer tax credit and accelerated depreciation provides some measure of certainty to ensure that 2013 will be a year of growth and milestones for the advanced ethanol industry.”

Also of note is the replacement of the term “cellulosic” biofuels, with “second generation” which has been expanded to include algae as a qualified feedstock.

Tax credits are not particularly useful in the short term for companies that are not yet profitable, but these new definitions will help to spur investment. Under the new law, credit can now be taken for the more than half of the algae that end up as carbohydrate residue, after the lipid content is directly converted to biodiesel or other oil substitute. The carbohydrate content can then be used as feedstock to produce ethanol using first generation (starch-based) technology. The algae credit is expected to cost taxpayers $59 million.

These credits will certainly help to stabilize the investment climate for second generation biofuel producers.

Meanwhile, the Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates 36 billion gallons of biofuel be incorporated into the nation’s gasoline supply by 2022, is left unchanged, though not necessarily unaffected.

For those concerned about the impact of corn ethanol on the food supply, this bill will have little impact since most of the conflict occurs with corn and the RFS already caps the amount of ethanol that can be produced from corn at 15 billion gallons. As we are already very close to meeting that cap, there will be very little additional growth in corn ethanol. The remaining 21 billion gallons must be made up of biofuels from other sources, largely from feedstocks such as cellulosic ethanol, which are generally more sustainable and less threatening to food production.

As a result, we can expect to see less conflict with the food supply and a more efficient overall process since, for example, the cellulosic portion of the corn plants (e.g. stalks, leaves) can now potentially be used to provide additional fuel from the same amount of land, water and fertilizer resources consumed. Alternatively, in the case of purpose-grown cellulosic feedstocks like switchgrass, these can be grown in more marginal, less fertile lands, requiring less water and other resources.

[Image credit: glbrc communications: Flickr Creative Commons]

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached an agreement with four large retailers over charges that textiles the companies promoted as environmentally friendly “bamboo” were actually rayon. Sears, Amazon, Macy’s and Max Studio (Leon Max) agreed to pay a total of $1.26 million in fines.

The saga started in 2009, when the FTC warned consumers about four manufacturers that claimed they manufactured textiles out of bamboo using a “green” process. The reality, however, was that those companies used a more harmful technique standard for rayon manufacture that incorporated “harsh” chemicals and released hazardous air pollutants. One year later, the FTC sent letters to 78 companies with a warning that they were in danger of breaking the law if they sold rayon-based textiles but advertised them as “bamboo.” According to the FTC, any plant source--including bamboo--with cellulose can be churned into textiles, but the process is hardly eco-friendly and therefore technically it is rayon and must be labeled as such. Under the U.S. Textile Products Identification Act, even if a rayon-based textile contains bamboo, its manufacturing process is hardly green and therefore the label “rayon” must be on that item.

So are those bamboo socks of yours environmentally responsible?

The answer, of course, lies in the supply chain and how those “bamboo” products were manufactured. In the FTC’s view, many textiles containing bamboo are actually rayon--and even if bamboo was the plant sourced for its cellulose, the process is so caustic that no trace of the original bamboo plant is in the finished rayon product. The FTC alleged that despite repeatedly sending letters to the four retailers since early 2010, the companies still promoted clothing and other textile products as “bamboo.” Amazon appears to be the worst violator, with the company labeling products as “100% Organic Bamboo” and “100% Knit Bamboo.” The FTC, however, tagged Sears Holdings (which operates Sears and Kmart) with the highest fine, in part for its labeling of linens as “pure fiber” bamboo. Therein lies the reason for the fines--customers did not receive the kind of product they expected when they purchased items from crib sheets to football tees.

In addition to the fines, which the FTC based on the amount of products sold, each company is required to ensure that all labels and any ads promoting such products are accurate. The settlement, however, allows the company to score “good faith” guarantees that the products were not mislabeled before they were sold. The upshot for these companies is that any misleading claims by suppliers are not an excuse--no matter how tangled a supply chain may be, retailers must substantiate such manufacturing claims.

None of the companies mentioned the settlement in their online press rooms; Sears Holdings only acknowledged the incident to Bloomberg Business Week with a statement that the company was cooperating with the investigation.

Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor of GreenGoPost.com. He also contributes to Guardian Sustainable Business; his work has also appeared on Sustainable Brands, Inhabitat and Earth911. You can follow Leon and ask him questions on Twitter or Instagram (greengopost).

Image credit: Wikipedia (fir0002)

By Mark Tulay

Albert Einstein wrote "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts” on the blackboard in his office at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton. What was his point? The same as Robert F. Kennedy’s when he reflected on the inadequacies of our primary measure of economic progress – Gross Domestic Product (GDP):

“GDP counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.  It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them.  It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl… Yet GDP does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play…It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile” Robert F. Kennedy – March 18, 1968

Redefining the measurement of value and value creation by business

A fog of skepticism and malaise has rolled over global markets and undermined public confidence in whether companies can play a vital role in the transition to sustainability. Companies – such as BP and Apple – that once were revered for solving big problems are increasingly chastised for creating big problems at the expense of employees, communities and the environment.  In a Harvard Business Review article, Michael Porter and Mark Kramer commented that the “legitimacy and credibility of business has fallen to levels not seen in recent history.”  Such widespread disillusionment with business, if not reversed, portends a future of conflict and stalemate that neither people nor the planet can afford.

Many believe that we need a new roadmap for balancing corporate profitability and growth with the urgent need to protect and expand our “vital capitals,” which include not only financial capital but also human, social, intellectual and natural capitals.  Some companies, though surely not enough, are taking on this challenge and demonstrating sustainability leadership.  The last decade has witnessed the rise of sustainability as a defining element of responsible business strategy and performance.  Companies like Nike, GE, Unilever, PepsiCo, UPS, Puma, Novo Nordisk, Natura and dozens of others recognize sustainability as integral to their global competitiveness and long-term prosperity. They understand that sustainability and long-term value creation are inextricably linked and that the world of 21^st century business will not tolerate business-as-usual.  The challenge is to move beyond this small pool of sustainability-conscious companies and vastly scale up their numbers in both developed and emerging economies.  The time for business to lead on sustainability is now.

The Shared Value solution

“The central premise behind creating shared value is that the competitiveness of a company and the health of the communities and the environment around it are mutually dependent.  Recognizing and capitalizing on these connections between societal and economic progress has the power to unleash the next wave of global growth...It will also reshape capitalism and its relationship to society.  Perhaps most important of all, learning how to create shared value is our best chance to legitimize business again.”

Call to action

The five key sustainability initiatives are:

SASB.  The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) is developing sector-based Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) suitable for disclosure in standard filings such as the Form 10-K and 20-F.  Through its evidence-based approach, SASB will dramatically improve the precision, materiality and disclosure of sustainability indicators to integrate ESG factors into financial markets.  SASB is now hosting various sector-based groups to provide input into its KPI development.

GRI. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is the de facto standard for corporate sustainability reporting. A total of 4,994 organizations have produced more than 10,000 corporate sustainability reports following GRI guidelines. GRI will introduce in 2013 the next generation – G4 – of its reporting guidelines.

IIRC. The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), another disclosure initiative, is a global coalition of regulators, investors, companies, standard setters, accountants and NGOs.  Together, this coalition shares the view that communication about businesses’ multi-dimensional value creation should be the next step in the evolution of corporate reporting.  Already, hundreds of companies are experimenting in blending financial and sustainability reporting.  IIRC is nurturing and tracking this process in its effort to build a generally accepted integrated reporting framework.

TSC.  The Sustainability Consortium (TSC) is the leading authority on product sustainability standards.  Under the leadership of TSC’s new Executive Director, Kara Hurst, TSC is expanding into China and is ramping up the release of scientific-based and collaboratively developed standards for improving product sustainability.  TSC is staffed and supported by experts in academia, industry and NGOs.

GISR.  The Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR) is a new participant in the family of initiatives aimed at making capital and other markets agents of, rather than impediments to, achieving the post Rio+20 sustainability agenda.  Complementary to the disclosure focus of SASB, GRI and IIRC, GISR's mission is to create a world class corporate sustainability ratings standard as an instrument for transforming the definition of value and value creation by business in the 21st century.  GISR’s new global standard will be coupled with capacity-building, certification and analytical tools to embed sustainability into capital markets worldwide. GISR will release the principles component of this standard in May 2013 at the Ceres conference.  Organizations can engage with GISR as a supporting stakeholder and can participate in the standard development program in 2013.  GISR is moving from startup to mezzanine stage, attracting a broad range of investors, companies and NGOs to participate in its activities in the pivotal year 2013.

Collectively these initiatives, each with a distinct but linked role in the emerging sustainability information landscape, will:

• Transform the way corporate sustainability information is disclosed by developing new disclosure standards for material sustainability information and value generating strategies;


• Reposition corporate reporting to tell a more complete story of how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and products lead to the creation of value over the short, medium and long term;


• Improve the precision, materiality and disclosure of sector-based sustainability (ESG) KPIs; and


• Build general acceptance for a new standard for measuring corporate sustainability performance that can elevate ratings as a more powerful tool for accelerating the integration of ESG factors into investment decision making.

The time has passed for small commitments, hyperbole and platitudes – now is the time for leadership, investment and action.  Please step in and lend your support to these efforts in 2013.

Mark Tulay has served in leadership roles in sustainability initiatives for over 20 years.   As Program Director and the first employee of Ceres, he was involved in the early stages of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).  He led a conservation campaign at the Nature Conservancy and served as an advisor to Greenpeace.  He was the Head of Sustainability Business and Research for RiskMetrics (now MSCI), Institutional Shareholder Services, and IRRC where he served as the Head of sustainability research, ratings and business development.  Mark currently serves as Program Manager for the Global Initiative for Sustainability Ratings (GISR), which is developing a new global standard for measuring corporate sustainability performance.  Mark is the Founder of Sustainability ROI, a sustainability consulting firm that works with companies, investors and NGOs to accelerate the transition to sustainable markets.

[image credit: Cliff: Flickr cc]

By Heidi Sistare

“Sustainability is much more than environment,” says Timothy Downing, President of Duratherm Window Corporation. “It pertains to your business culture, philosophies, the workplace environment, how you treat your employees, and how your business is involved in community. Once one has a more comprehensive understanding of what true sustainability is, it forever changes the way one evaluates a business and its success.”

Downing is one of the business owners who participates in the Sustainability Benchmarking Tool. The tool was developed by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences (Manomet) with Maine Businesses for Sustainability (MBS) and is available to business owners in the state of Maine. The free, online tool includes questions about four areas of sustainability: finances and governance, employee relations, community engagement, and environmental practices.

The Manomet Center has a long history of developing assessment tools but the process of developing this tool, in collaboration with MBS, and specifically for small business owners, yielded new challenges and new lessons. The tool needs to be free and quick to promote participation, since the tool is not linked to a technical assistance program, businesses that find success have a motivated leader who turns knowledge into action, and to provide one tool for all users requires questions that are relevant to a wide range of businesses.

Manomet developed the questions using input from topical experts, business owners, and research on existing certification standards. Using a beta version of the tool, Manomet and MBS tested it with five businesses and used their feedback to improve the tool. In addition to providing users with the results of their assessment, the tool generates a customized list of local, state, and federal resources that can provide support for improving sustainability in business practices.

The Sustainability Benchmarking tool was launched online in Spring of 2012. Benjamin Ayer, Communications and Community Affairs Manager at MBS, says that he hopes the tool will bring Maine recognition as a leader in sustainable business. Leaders at Manomet also see the potential for this tool to benefit the state. “Communities have the opportunity to re-brand themselves to attract new and green businesses and a well-educated workforce, and improve the sustainability of their business community,” says Julie Beane, Program Development Manager at Manomet. In the meantime, business owners like Downing can use the tool to grade their sustainability practices, make business decisions, and help them plan for the future.

[Image Credit: CasaDeQueso, Flickr]

Heidi Sistare is a freelance writer who just completed the documentary writing and multimedia storytelling program at the Salt Institute for Documentary Studies in Portland, Maine. She holds a BA in Social Work from Warren Wilson College and has experience in non-profit management, community development, and planning for small businesses.   

LG Electronics logo. (PRNewsFoto/LG Electronics USA, Inc.)

Just a few weeks ago, IBM launched a nifty little electric vehicle charging demonstration project called the E-Mobility B2B Marketplace, which is designed to provide the business sector with seamless communication between electric vehicles owners, charging stations and electricity providers. Let's emphasize that focus on the business sector, because until now most of the public discussion of EV technology has revolved around the consumer market. That's especially relevant for issues like range anxiety and access to charging stations, which impact businesses just as much, if not more than consumers.

Unfortunately for us on this side of the pond, the B2B Marketplace project is located in Europe. However, if the demonstration can succeed in uniting different countries around a single EV charging platform, then it should have no trouble applying itself to a country like the USA, right?

IBM, EV charging and Green eMotion

Though the goal sounds a bit ambitious, consider that you can literally gas up a typical vehicle anywhere in Europe, or for that matter, anywhere in the world, regardless of its manufacturer.

Green eMotion includes 43 partners along with IBM, including other global IT leaders such as Enel, SAP and Siemens. It is part of a broader clean vehicle initiative called the European Green Cars Initiative, which is designed to help the European Union meet its goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050.

IBM's B2B electric vehicle project

B2B is based on IBM's cloud for businesses called SmartCloud Enterprise. It enables EV drivers to plug into a charger anywhere in the European Union and conveniently pay for the charge, regardless of who their home-based electric utility is. That makes EV charging as simple as paying for gas with a credit card.

According to IBM, when applied to electricity the concept is basically a shared network, like international roaming for mobile phones.

That's a big relief for business fleet owners, and it also relieves utility companies from the burden of managing payments. The project also includes an analytic component that enables its partners to develop additional services as the EV market expands.

IBM and electric vehicles

The launch of B2B is perhaps a harbinger of things to come, in which EV owners will be just as conversant with the EV infrastructure as conventional car owners are with various brands and grades of gasoline.

IBM is already heavily involved in this behind-the-scenes EV market. In addition to its participation in Green eMotion, in 2011 IBM signed on to Ecogrid EU, a European smart grid project that aims to provide 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources. IBM has also been introducing innovative solar power projects at its facilities, one recent example of note being its India Software Lab in Bangalore.

Renewable energy generation is an important connection, since until recently, one hitch about EVs has been their reliance on an electricity grid supplied by a heavy dose of fossil fuels.

As for the prospects for a seamless EV charging infrastructure in the U.S., we're not exactly laggards in that department. Among other recent initiatives from the public and private sectors, just last April IBM started up an EV charging partnership with Honda and Pacific Gas & Electric based on smart grid technology with an aim to maximizing use of renewable energy.

[Image: IBM logo by Patrick H~]

Follow me on Twitter: @TinaMCasey.

By Ryan Honeyman

The problem

Because most businesses overlook the key to green success: motivating and engaging their employees.

While physically greening your space is important, understanding what drives human behaviors--and how to motivate people to change--is more valuable. It doesn’t matter how many compost bins or energy efficient plug load adapters you install in your building. If your employees don’t understand how or why they should use the latest green thing you installed, they won’t. You will lose the majority of the benefits that come with an effective sustainability initiative without the buy-in of your employees.

What’s been tried before

• Fear/Pain: “If we don’t change, global warming will destroy the earth.”


• Moral: “Save the Whales!”


• Economic: “The Prius will save you $10k in gas annually.”

The “Herd Mentality”

This is great news for businesses that want to encourage green behavior. Rather than trying to change every individual opinion, you only have to motivate enough people to get the attention of the herd. Then everyone will start moving in the same green direction.

5 steps to motivating your employees

1) Benchmark your building

What: Benchmarking means figuring out how much electricity, gas, and water you are using at each of your facilities.

Why: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” Once you start gathering figures on your energy and water usage, you can start identifying trends that can later be used to motivate and engage your employees.

How: Use the free ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager software (www.energystar.gov) to benchmark your electricity, gas, and water use.

2) Tailor your approach

What: Once you figure out how much energy you are using, start to identify the green allies within your workforce. This will help you build momentum for a green initiative.

Why: Don’t waste valuable time and resources by trying to get everyone onboard. Remember, you only need a small, critical mass of people to change their behavior.

How: Use the following descriptions to help you identify your green allies and focus your recruitment at work:

• Dark Green: The eco-diehards. They have been waiting for this opportunity for years. Engage them first.


• Light Green: They have started down the path towards living a green life. Some purchases and behaviors are already green. Another good group to engage.


• Beige: Saving energy and money are their primary motivation. They are beginning to connect some of their lifestyle choices to green.


• Light Brown: Not yet conscious about living or buying green but are starting to be influenced, even if subconsciously, by the green shift in the culture at large.


• Brown: Skeptical of environmental movement and its values. Browns will not make any earth-friendly choices no matter what. Don’t waste your time.

What: Once you’ve benchmarked your building and identified your green allies, create an energy reduction contest.

Why: Contests are the ultimate motivator. People begin to change their behavior as they see others doing it.

How: I highly recommend a pizza party as an incentive. For some reason, the thought of pizza makes people go absolutely bonkers. Reward your employees if they can lower their energy bills from one month to the next.

4) Monthly usage reports

What: Once you have people’s attention from a contest, you can start to give them regular feedback about their electricity, gas, and water use.

Why: Avoid “out of sight, out of mind.” Monthly feedback also helps your employees make a personal connection between their actions and their building’s energy performance.

How: After benchmarking your building, the Portfolio Manager software can create simple, easy to read usage reports and graphs. Email a copy of the graph to your employees. Post the most recent usage report in the break room.

5) Use humor to communicate

What: People are suckers for fun. Be witty, clever, and creative when communicating your green ideas.

Why: People are resistant to change. Humor is one of the best ways to break down resistance.

How: Create a green staff of the month award. Have the winner wear a ridiculous green hat. Send their picture and a brief interview about sustainability to your other employees. Experiment with different ideas. It will make a difference.

Things to avoid

Going all-out on Day One: No one can turn an organization green overnight— true change is incremental and takes time. Break the work down into bite-sized pieces.

Waiting for 100% agreement: Getting agreement from everyone is a perennial challenge. When you are 80 percent ready, move! Otherwise you will be standing still forever. The other 20 percent will be figured out along the way.

Strict compliance policies: Not good. Strict compliance and zero-tolerance policies don’t let people learn from their mistakes. Allow people to experiment with green, give concrete and measurable goals, and give out rewards.

Ceasing innovation: There is no such thing as “green enough.” Keep on the lookout for new green technologies or new best practices in sustainability. It will reinvigorate your green initiative and keep it fresh.

Being obsessed (and judgmental): Just because you had your green epiphany doesn’t mean others have also. Nothing kills enthusiasm quicker than an obsessed and judgmental eco-disciplinarian. Keep things fun, be positive, and be patient while others learn at their own pace.

Final thoughts

That’s the key to green success.

Ryan Honeyman is the founder of Honeyman Sustainability Consulting LLC, a certified Benefit Corporation. Ryan helps businesses save money, improve employee satisfaction, and increase brand value. Ryan is a LEED Accredited Professional in Existing Buildings Operations & Maintenance, a registered PG&E Trade Professional, and a member of both the U.S. Green Building Council and the Rotary Club of Oakland.

Prior to starting his own business, Ryan was the Sustainability Manager for Seneca Center. He created and oversaw the “Seneca Green Initiative”– a sustainability strategy for Seneca’s 38 facilities, 800 employees, and 3,000 emotionally troubled youth in San Francisco, Alameda, Marin, Sonoma, Contra Costa, Napa, and Solano Counties.

[image credit: ilovememphis: Flickr cc]