Page 105 - The Green Building Bottom Line The Real Cost of Sustainable Building

84 CHAPTER 3

rather than the responsibility of everyone in the company. Having this position should
not absolve individual employees of the responsibility to continue to implement the sus-
tainable vision as well as to come up with new ideas for furthering the overall goal.
Esty and Winston identify three issues that can arise by isolating sustainability
responsibilities to one person or department: 1) lack of support outside of the sustain-
ability department, 2) insufficient budgets, and 3) lack of communication between
5
disparate groups within the company. Let’s consider each of these challenges in some-
what greater detail.

Lack of support. Widespread support for sustainability initiatives often comes
from three mechanisms: that those affected were part of the idea, that the idea is so
fantastic that everyone benefits, or that the new idea doesn’t affect anyone’s day-to-
day activities so there is no reason not to support the initiative. However, if an idea
that arises from an isolated green team does not receive broad organizational support,
or if there is resistance to change or no enforcement mechanism, a new program may
not last, especially if it necessitates changes in employee behavior or routines.
At Melaver, Inc., we have faced this issue multiple times. As part of the evaluation of
our environmental footprint (discussed in greater detail later) we examined our levels of
waste and the amounts of items we were purchasing. A little digging turned up some
interesting numbers. Our Savannah office provided liquid refreshments to employees at
the company’s expense. Soda, bottled water, tea, coffee, and juices were provided in the
break room for employees to consume at their leisure. In fact, the office was purchasing
$1,800 worth of soda annually (over six thousand cans!), creating both procurement and
disposal issues. Even when soft drink cans are made from recycled material, they still
require a large amount of energy to clean, manufacture, fill, and distribute.
Multiple solutions were suggested to reduce the impact of offering beverage alterna-
tives to employees. The sustainability department suggested eliminating soda cans alto-
gether and installing a soda fountain in the kitchen. This led to discussions regarding
maintenance, freshness, space, etc., and represented a potential significant change of
habit for most employees. Instead of being able to grab a can of soda, one would have
to grab a glass, syrup bags would have to be changed, spilled soda would need to be
cleaned from the fountain, the ice maker would have to be kept running. After a course
of meetings with all the employees to discuss alternatives that would provide refresh-
ments while lowering the environmental and financial impacts, a compromise was soon
reached, with the support of upper management. We eliminated the purchase of canned
soda, but provided each employee with a refillable glass that he or she could take to the
sandwich shop downstairs and fill, with the cost of the soda absorbed by the company.
Employees still did not pay for soda, but instead of popping a can in the kitchen, they
had to walk downstairs and fill their glasses themselves. This was a significant change,
one that would have been more difficult to implement if it had been limited to a direc-
tive from the sustainability department. Because the discussion involved all the employ-
ees and senior management, the solution was eventually acceptable to everyone.
Often the sustainability department will suggest ideas that push the envelope,
knowing they may be scaled back in the course of debate and implementation. That’s