Helping ArticlesThe Helpful Article Directory!

In the hunt for competitive advantage, every little bit counts and therefore there is no such thing as too much information. While information overload may not be helpful, whenever systems are designed and put together to help extract the real meaning of information, this will undoubtedly lead to the formation of competitive advantage.

Few companies can get by without the use of water as an integral part of their operation. They all need to understand how risks can be associated with this use and how they can ensure overall sustainability. Within each industry and within each business, risks will vary, but they will almost always be complex and attributable to various scenarios. Safeguarding the use of water for the company can often require an understanding of complex political and socioeconomic issues.

Corporations need to reduce water consumption, but they also need to be concerned about making money, protecting their position in the marketplace, being aware of operational risks as they embrace sustainability. A baseline position needs to be assessed, creating a water footprint. Water represents risk to a company in many different ways, which must be understood and these factors must be compiled into a workable plan.

Waste efficiency can be a very touchy subject. Ask yourself the question — how wasteful are you? Many of us, at the individual or corporate level, tend to think that we do not overtly waste anything and that we are naturally efficient. The stark reality is that almost every action involves waste, whenever there is any activity that involves anything other than an absolute minimum of resources.

Did you know that auto manufacturer Toyota has identified seven distinct areas of wasteful inefficiency, all of which can be attributed to any manufacturing operation today? Fundamentally, these wasteful areas that will really kill profitability and open up your organization to charges of excess and a lack of sustainability are: overproduction, waiting time, transport, process, inventory, movement (or motion) and poor quality control.

As carbon emissions management is the poster child of sustainability, many organizations do not pay enough attention to other areas of environmental efficiency. Waste planning is often given scant regard, always a subject of “off-the-shelf” handling and a generic approach handed down through successive generations. Many organizations do not realize that real, financial savings can be accomplished by effective waste planning, as there are real costs attached all the way down the line.

In one of the most politically volatile legislative seasons that we have seen for many a year, the much vaunted climate bill sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman has been received with equal doses of skepticism and praise. Triumphantly tagged the American Power Act, the proposal is most notable for the lack of one prominent Republican senator’s endorsement. Sen. Lindsey Graham turned his back on the bill during the final days of completion.

Analysts expect to see a significant revival, in voluntary terms, for carbon market trading, due in large part to the recent declarations by Pres. Obama that the United States will aspire to bring down carbon emissions by a significant percentage over the next decade. The announcement was hailed by environmentalists, who had been disappointed by the seeming lack of action at the Copenhagen Summit.

Amazingly, some organizations still consider corporate sustainability to be a buzzword and are just not “with it” when it comes to far-reaching implications. There is potential trouble ahead for these organizations and they could well be doomed to failure unless they realize that they need to educate themselves quickly and take action right now. This is far from being just an issue for “green” activists and is a matter of corporate life or death.

Codenamed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act must operate within a range of strictly defined principles and objectives to be effective. Overall, its goal is considered to be justified from a global warming perspective, but it’s impact on the California economy should not be under estimated. AB 32 represents a significant challenge to the state’s growth.