- [PDF] Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies Full Online - video dailymotion
- Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies.
- free newsletters
- [PDF] Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies Full Online
E-mail deze pagina. Auteur: Greg Kats Jon Braman. Uitgever: Island Press. Co-auteur: Michael James Box. Samenvatting "Green" buildings—buildings that use fewer resources to build and to sustain—are commonly thought to be too expensive to attract builders and buyers. But are they? This eye-opening book reports the results of a large-scale study based on extensive financial and technical analyses of more than green buildings in the U.
It provides detailed findings on the costs and financial benefits of building green. Greening Our Built World also evaluates the ceffectiveness of "green community development" and presents the results of the first-ever survey of green buildings constructed by faith-based organizations. Throughout the book, leading practitioners in green design—including architects, developers, and property owners—share their own experiences in building green.
A compelling combination of rock-solid facts and specific examples, this book proves that green design is both cost-effective and earth-friendly. Toon meer Toon minder. Recensie s Everyone who is serious about climate change should get this book. It implies that economic oxymoron, a free lunch. No wonder politicians and chief executives long to be told that environmental expenditures are good for business. And no wonder Walley and Whitehead are skeptical. Sometimes, too, companies make money because governments tighten environmental regulations.
But those results occur in rather special circumstances. In most countries, the cost of disposing of toxic waste has been rising; the legal liabilities for pollution have become tougher; and companies are increasingly at risk of liability for past contamination.
[PDF] Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies Full Online - video dailymotion
Fear, not greed, has driven most corporate environmental policies. Politicians would like a more inspiring tale to tell than this.
They would like to say that environmental regulation can actually improve corporate competitiveness. So it can, though again, not in the way they hope. For instance, companies selling pollution-control services, whether they be consultants, environmental lawyers, or businesses making water filters, find that tougher standards bring in more customers. Companies buying natural-resource-based raw materials may want environmental rules to reduce their treatment costs. Water companies gain if farmers must curb polluting runoff from their fields.
Companies that can already meet high standards may lobby to make them mandatory to keep out competitors. The big waste-treatment companies in Britain were aghast last year when the government twice postponed launching a new scheme for licensing the management of landfills. This game can be played internationally too. What the free-lunch brigade wants to hear, however, is that environmental rules actually persuade companies to take actions that are in their commercial interest but that they had not previously noticed.
That cost may not be cash but management time. If a bright manager must look for ways to reduce waste output, he or she is not available for developing new markets or streamlining production. It is not surprising that tougher environmental standards impose costs on companies. The aim of such standards, after all, is to force polluters to internalize costs previously inflicted on society.
Or future generations inherit them. Environmental policies that are worth pursuing should be introduced for their own sake. To try to improve competitiveness by raising environmental standards is to risk the fate that typically awaits those who try to ride two horses at once. Daniel C. But Porter understands that regulations have an economic cost. He simply says that properly constructed environmental standards may, while imposing costs, spur innovation and create business opportunities that offset all or some of the spending on pollution controls.
Semiconductor makers, for instance, forced to abandon the use of ozone-layer-destroying CFCs as a solvent, have discovered several lower cost ways to clean computer chips.
- Browse more videos.
- Green Building Standards and Certification Systems.
- SearchWorks Catalog.
- Signals and systems : a MATLAB integrated approach.
- Talking With Bereaved People: An Approach for Structured and Sensitive Communication.
- Biological Odour Treatment.
- Stanford Libraries.
More dramatically, Porter suggests that while addressing environmental issues because of regulation, companies may develop entirely new products or processes. This sort of significant innovation offset is most likely to be found where regulations focus corporate attention on serious environmental problems that others face or will soon face. Protecting the environment, moreover, is not a zero-sum game.
Many forms of pollution reflect under-utilized or wasted resources. Just as TQM helped companies identify untapped value, breakthrough thinking in the environmental realm may enable companies to reap real rewards. The structure of environmental programs should also be open to scrutiny. Indeed, the government must bear responsibility for establishing regulatory conditions that promote economic creativity and efficient business responses to environmental demands.
Regulatory programs should be flexible and performance oriented, or better yet, based on economic incentives like pollution charges. Integrated regulatory systems that address air, water, and waste problems systematically and comprehensively are also more apt to lead to innovation offsets. Management is a difficult profession, and the environment is becoming an increasingly important component in decision making.
Nor is a new, unsettling variable such as the environment unprecedented. Imagine the consternation of nineteenth-century industrialists faced with child labor laws or the dismay of their successors contemplating the new income tax, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Wagner Act, all of which dramatically altered their costs and changed their business practices. In such circumstances, farsighted and nimble companies prosper and laggards decline.
Such is the way of a dynamic economic system. Pollution prevention does pay a prompt return on investment—in some cases. For example, 3M is still finding projects for its 3P program, now over 15 years old. Many other companies have barely begun to look. But despite such opportunities, solving the largest environmental problems will require huge investments whose principal economic payoff will be the right to continue in business.
How efficiently these problems are recognized, analyzed, and addressed will determine the winners. The costs of change must eventually end up in price; the consumer will pay. Shareholder values may be shifted among players, but they will not be massively destroyed. New capital, properly directed to environmental improvement, will still earn a positive return compared with the alternative of not investing.
If it cannot, the proper strategy is to liquidate the business.
To strategize on this undulating playing field, the prudent manager needs to recognize its underlying forces. Despite some claims to the contrary, major environmental problems are not the creation of some anticapitalist elite. They are real, founded in science often not well understood , and globally threatening.
They are increasing because of rapid population growth and expanding economic activity. They can be solved only by a commonsense alliance of business, government, and environmentalists. Among these, only business has the resources of technology, finances, and organizational competence to implement the necessary changes. Herein lies great opportunity as well as great peril.
Where there is inadequate rationing through pricing, use will be profligate, and scarcity will go unrecognized. As society sees its quality of life—or life itself—at risk, it will take steps to avert that risk. A company that decides to play can incorporate the environment into strategic planning by taking certain steps:.
Promote implementation mechanisms—especially economic signals such as subsidies, user fees, and taxes —to which business can respond efficiently.
Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies.
The companies that survive the next 20 years will produce goods and services whose environmental effects are tolerable to all stakeholders. Environmental issues will have to be evaluated according to their relative importance. Executives, therefore, must develop a vision of how a sustainable company operates or at least of how to find the way to do it. Only win-win companies will survive, but that does not mean that all win-win ideas will be successful. Managers need a methodology for discovering solutions that yield the greatest benefits. Most savings could be realized by increasing efficiency.
Also, in our experience, the most extensive environmental benefits could be attained at only high costs.
Another recent development in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe is the environmental management system. But an EMS also yields only limited benefits. I prefer a total management system that can fulfill all managerial needs. Win-win solutions are possible for companies that develop a specific corporate environmental strategy, design a system for reliable management information, and use a good methodology for evaluating environmental impact.
Such a methodology includes:.
[PDF] Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies Full Online
Consideration of the best natural moment when making decisions about environmental improvements investment, reallocation, or replacement, for example. Richard P. We have little basis on which to judge whether win-win environmental investment opportunities are rare or plentiful. Most U. Companies like Polaroid, DuPont, and J. Huber, however, are demonstrating that rigorous analysis can uncover win-win opportunities. Such analysis looks at the full revenue- and cost-side contributions of environmental initiatives to shareholder value.
www.hiphopenation.com/mu-plugins/mahaska/kes-dating-someone.php Walley and Whitehead largely overlook the product-differentiation contribution of environmental initiatives to the revenue side of shareholder value.