As the global business community prepares for the World Economic Forum in Davos, a roundtable of 15 top 'green' Canadian companies has released its own report outlining the challenges facing the Canadian business community in 2011.
The report is published by the academic research group Network for Business Sustainability.
'This year, there was universal concern about the risks and rewards of taking a stand as a 'green pioneer',' said Tima Bansal, professor of management at the Richard Ivey School of Business and Executive Director of NBS.
'In trying to operate more responsibly, companies in forestry and energy face some of the same challenges as companies in telecommunications and consumer packaged goods.'
10 Questions Define the Sustainability Priorities in 2011
1. What are the key environmental, social and governance metrics for business sustainability?
2. Which outcome-based government policies are most effective for addressing sustainability issues?
3. How do individuals make decisions regarding social and environmental issues?
4. How can businesses attract, retain, and incent employees to drive sustainability?
5. How do we incorporate key sustainability parameters into a financial business case?
6. How do we determine the materiality of sustainability risks and opportunities?
7. What organizational attributes influence the credibility of sustainability claims?
8. What is the aboriginal perspective on business sustainability, and what are the best approaches to constructive engagement?
9. What are the best practices for sustainable sourcing?
10. How can firms navigate the risks and opportunities of sustainability leadership?
Bansal added that leading your industry in sustainability typically means you attract new customers and foster loyalty with employees and the community. But leadership also presents risks, such as being overtaken by a competitor or over-investing in technologies that fail to yield the expected rewards.
Andrew Wilczynski, TELUS' manager of corporate social responsibility and one of the roundtable participants, said being viewed by customers as leading the way in sustainability creates tremendous benefits but also raises their expectations.
'When you're a leader, you're subject to more scrutiny than your peers,' said Wilczynski.
'For example, we're committed to limiting our paper consumption - and have reduced it by nearly 60 per cent over the last 10 years. But because we're well-known for taking a strong stand on sustainability, when people see us using promotional flyers or other print materials they question our commitment, while they may not even notice larger and more frequent mail from our competitors. So, by setting higher standards, we have opened ourselves up to additional scrutiny. That's the kind of risk you take in pursuing sustainability.'
'Additionally and somewhat ironically we believe it is important to strive to ensure that your commitment to sustainability is itself sustainable over time and across the peaks and valleys of the business and economic cycle,' he added.
In addition to understanding the risks and rewards of being a green pioneer, the business leaders identified nine more challenges to responsible business. Read the full report: Canadian Business Sustainability Priorities 2011
About the Network for Business Sustainability
The Network for Business Sustainability is a not-for-profit organization that connects thousands of academic researchers and business leaders worldwide - with the goal of creating new, sustainable business models for the 21st century.
Representing the private, public and non-profit sectors, the roundtable included companies well-known for their environmentally-progressive practices and public support of sustainability such as Unilever, Suncor, TELUS and Research In Motion (RIM).
The roundtable meets annually to outline business barriers to adopting environmental practices and promoting sustainability. Academic researchers study the issues, producing resources designed to help businesses worldwide overcome similar barriers.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
U.S. to impose new emission rules on power plants, refineries
The Obama administration has announced plans to impose new greenhouse-gas emission rules on power plants and refineries, a move that will increase pressure on the Harper government to introduce its own national emissions regulations in 2011.
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency said over the holidays that it will propose emission performance standards for new and existing fossil-fuel facilities this year, despite opposition from Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.
More related to this story
Assertive global role ‘good for Canada’, departing British ambassador says
From digging in the oil patch to toiling in the vineyard
Oil sands firms look at outsourcing
Video
Total's oil patch investment
Download this media file
PDF Document
Environmental and health impacts of Canada's oil sands industry
Executive Summary of report by the Royal Society of Canada
Download this file (.pdf)
The proposed regulations – to take effect at the end of 2012 – would be in addition to EPA rules that came into effect on Sunday that require all new plants or major expansions to get permits for emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).
That permitting requirement has been in the works for several months. Federal Environment Minister John Baird has said Ottawa will not adopt similar measures, but will broadly match the U.S. regulatory approach.
Despite the movement south of the border, the Harper government has given no indication how it intends to regulate Canadian industry, including oil companies who could face significant additional costs for the rapidly expanding oil-sands sector if Ottawa follows the U.S. lead.
“The EPA is now moving ahead even more aggressively to regulate industrial greenhouse-gas emissions,” said Matthew Bramley, an analyst with the Calgary-based environmental group, Pembina Institute.
“So it is really time for the government of Canada to demonstrate whether its stated policy of harmonizing with the U.S. was purely rhetorical in order to delay, or whether it was meant seriously.”
The opposition has sought to keep pressure on the Harper government, recently demanding that Ottawa act unilaterally rather than wait for the Americans. Opposition parties joined together in the Commons to pass climate legislation that was defeated in the Conservative-controlled Senate in November.
Liberal environment critic Gerard Kennedy said Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have no desire to adopt climate regulations, given that his government has not kept up with U.S. efforts despite the pledge to harmonize.
“They’ve been caught behind a carbon smokescreen,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview Sunday.
“This is going to be an embarrassing time for them because this has been their main excuse for not using the regulatory power they had – and now the Americans are moving. I think we’re really back to a do-nothing kind of approach that has characterized this government.”
Mr. Kennedy said Mr. Harper may choose to “lie in the weeds” and wait to see whether Congressional opposition or industry lawsuits can derail the EPA’s plans.
Bill Rodgers, a spokesman for Mr. Baird, reiterated that the government intends to harmonize with U.S. climate-change rules, but wouldn’t comment on the EPA’s recent announcement. The U.S. regulator said it will require existing power plants and refineries to invest in the best available technology to reduce emissions, but has not yet unveiled specific proposals.
Mr. Baird – who is also Government House Leader – returned to the post of environment minister in November when Jim Prentice resigned, and is expected to be replaced in a cabinet shuffle this month.
In April of 2007, the Harper government announced a plan to impose industry-specific GHG regulations, but later changed course and proposed a national cap-and-trade system. When it become clear the U.S. would not pass its own cap-and-trade legislation, the Harper government said it would match the regulatory approach being planned by the Obama administration.
Ottawa also plans to introduce draft regulations in April that would force power companies to eventually replace traditional coal-fired power plants with lower-emission ones, including natural gas or carbon-capture-and-storage technology. But those rules would only come into force in 2015, and would not require existing power plants to reduce emissions.
Albert, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia rely heavily on coal-fired power for electricity, and would be most impacted by higher power costs if the federal government forced utilities to reduce emissions.
The oil industry has warned that EPA rules – and any effort to match them in Canada – would drive up costs for North American refineries, meaning higher prices for motorists, airlines and the trucking industry.
Oil-sands producers would be particularly vulnerable because they require emission-intensive processing to transform the crude bitumen into gasoline and diesel. Currently, producers either upgrade the bitumen into synthetic crude oil in Alberta and then refine it, or export the raw product for processing in U.S. refineries.
Industry spokesman Peter Boag said the Harper government is planning to harmonize the “outcomes” of U.S. emission regulations – meaning roughly equivalent stringency – rather than precisely copying EPA rules. He said the EPA’s regulatory approach gives industry little flexibility in meeting emission-reduction goals.
“I don’t think it allows for the kind of creative and innovative solutions that the private sector can address,” said Mr. Boag, president of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents the refining side of the oil industry.
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency said over the holidays that it will propose emission performance standards for new and existing fossil-fuel facilities this year, despite opposition from Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.
More related to this story
Assertive global role ‘good for Canada’, departing British ambassador says
From digging in the oil patch to toiling in the vineyard
Oil sands firms look at outsourcing
Video
Total's oil patch investment
Download this media file
PDF Document
Environmental and health impacts of Canada's oil sands industry
Executive Summary of report by the Royal Society of Canada
Download this file (.pdf)
The proposed regulations – to take effect at the end of 2012 – would be in addition to EPA rules that came into effect on Sunday that require all new plants or major expansions to get permits for emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).
That permitting requirement has been in the works for several months. Federal Environment Minister John Baird has said Ottawa will not adopt similar measures, but will broadly match the U.S. regulatory approach.
Despite the movement south of the border, the Harper government has given no indication how it intends to regulate Canadian industry, including oil companies who could face significant additional costs for the rapidly expanding oil-sands sector if Ottawa follows the U.S. lead.
“The EPA is now moving ahead even more aggressively to regulate industrial greenhouse-gas emissions,” said Matthew Bramley, an analyst with the Calgary-based environmental group, Pembina Institute.
“So it is really time for the government of Canada to demonstrate whether its stated policy of harmonizing with the U.S. was purely rhetorical in order to delay, or whether it was meant seriously.”
The opposition has sought to keep pressure on the Harper government, recently demanding that Ottawa act unilaterally rather than wait for the Americans. Opposition parties joined together in the Commons to pass climate legislation that was defeated in the Conservative-controlled Senate in November.
Liberal environment critic Gerard Kennedy said Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have no desire to adopt climate regulations, given that his government has not kept up with U.S. efforts despite the pledge to harmonize.
“They’ve been caught behind a carbon smokescreen,” Mr. Kennedy said in an interview Sunday.
“This is going to be an embarrassing time for them because this has been their main excuse for not using the regulatory power they had – and now the Americans are moving. I think we’re really back to a do-nothing kind of approach that has characterized this government.”
Mr. Kennedy said Mr. Harper may choose to “lie in the weeds” and wait to see whether Congressional opposition or industry lawsuits can derail the EPA’s plans.
Bill Rodgers, a spokesman for Mr. Baird, reiterated that the government intends to harmonize with U.S. climate-change rules, but wouldn’t comment on the EPA’s recent announcement. The U.S. regulator said it will require existing power plants and refineries to invest in the best available technology to reduce emissions, but has not yet unveiled specific proposals.
Mr. Baird – who is also Government House Leader – returned to the post of environment minister in November when Jim Prentice resigned, and is expected to be replaced in a cabinet shuffle this month.
In April of 2007, the Harper government announced a plan to impose industry-specific GHG regulations, but later changed course and proposed a national cap-and-trade system. When it become clear the U.S. would not pass its own cap-and-trade legislation, the Harper government said it would match the regulatory approach being planned by the Obama administration.
Ottawa also plans to introduce draft regulations in April that would force power companies to eventually replace traditional coal-fired power plants with lower-emission ones, including natural gas or carbon-capture-and-storage technology. But those rules would only come into force in 2015, and would not require existing power plants to reduce emissions.
Albert, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia rely heavily on coal-fired power for electricity, and would be most impacted by higher power costs if the federal government forced utilities to reduce emissions.
The oil industry has warned that EPA rules – and any effort to match them in Canada – would drive up costs for North American refineries, meaning higher prices for motorists, airlines and the trucking industry.
Oil-sands producers would be particularly vulnerable because they require emission-intensive processing to transform the crude bitumen into gasoline and diesel. Currently, producers either upgrade the bitumen into synthetic crude oil in Alberta and then refine it, or export the raw product for processing in U.S. refineries.
Industry spokesman Peter Boag said the Harper government is planning to harmonize the “outcomes” of U.S. emission regulations – meaning roughly equivalent stringency – rather than precisely copying EPA rules. He said the EPA’s regulatory approach gives industry little flexibility in meeting emission-reduction goals.
“I don’t think it allows for the kind of creative and innovative solutions that the private sector can address,” said Mr. Boag, president of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents the refining side of the oil industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)