| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| tahir |
Not going greenFrom e4engineering.com, 23 June 2004Government emphasis on voluntary environmental action is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environmental practices of SMEs, according to researchers at Kingston University. They will present their findings today at the Environment and Human Behaviour Programme seminar at the Policy Studies Institute during the Economic and Social Research Council's (ESRC) Social Science Week. The research concluded that small firms pay scant attention to energy saving and minimising waste. 'Most small firm owners do not accept the government line that going green is good for business," says Andrea Revell, who conducted the research with Professor Robert Blackburn at the Small Business Research Centre. 'The ecological footprint of SMEs is very significant,' she explains. 'They make up 99% of all enterprises, and 43% of private sector employment and are estimated to be responsible for 60% of industry's carbon dioxide emissions, 60% of commercial waste and eight out of ten pollution accidents.' The research findings are based on interviews with 40 owner managers of small businesses in the construction and restaurant sectors in London and Leeds. The researchers also talked with twelve 'informants' within industry, government and academia. The study revealed that market pressures tended to discourage small businesses from adopting good environmental practices. At worst they generate bad practice, including a builder who admitted his men had uncovered asbestos but didn't dispose of it in the proper way because it would have meant closing down the site. One architect also explained that his clients were simply not interested in sustainable design or construction: 'They're not aware of carbon emissions and the amount that's given off. Clients are interested in speed and economy and the way that the market is at the moment.' Many small firm owners did not feel there was enough time in their day to pursue environmental measures that were not a natural bi-product of their core management activities. At the top of the supply chain in the building sector, architects claimed that whilst lip service was paid to sustainability issues within the industry, there was currently little in the way of environmental design occurring in the UK. Several admitted that they would not push the green agenda for fear of alienating clients.The inescapable conclusion from the study was that regulation may be the only way to truly effect change within the SME sector. 'Legislative sanctions are clearly one way to be certain that the environment becomes a top business priority for small firm owners,' says Revell. 'Regulation makes the environmental obligations of firms clear from the start, and offers SMEs the security of a 'level playing field' so that environmental good practice is not perceived as a threat to competitiveness. 'To be truly effective, market based incentives, like landfill taxes need to be combined with the kinds of infrastructure developments that make it easy for firms to be more environmentally proactive," added Revell. |
||
| tahir |
Re: Not going green
Well there's a flippin surprise |
||
| Sarah D |
It's tragic if the only way to go is by legislation, I think.
Why don't people care about what is really important? |
||
| mrutty |
A very large telecomms company build a brand new HQ and ststed that it had looked at all options. Crap, it had used anything that would save it money and nothing else.
The excuse for not using solar energy was that the buildings faced the wrong way. 
|
||
| jema |
I think the Millenimum dome was the ultimate monument to the current ethos of society,
A massive yet "disposable" undertaking, what would the Victorians or for that matter the ancient Egyptians tought of that one 
jema |
||
| sean |
The ancient egyptians would have thought it wasn't pointy enough. 
|
||
| tahir |
Never thought of that, but yes what worse example could there be of our governments failures to deal with the issues of sustainability in planning | ||
| cab |
Well, the Eiffel Tower was meant to only be there for a season or two. Disposable architecture isn't new. Materials being genuinely disposable enough to make that a reality really is new, though. |
||
| wellington womble |
Most people will say they do their bit for the environment, and to fair many of them do. Right up to the point where they have to pay a bit more for it!
Most companies are in major competition, and have to keep costs low to get business. Very few people would go with the RAC rather than the AA (for example) becuase they built green offices. It's an invisible benefit to customers, so they won't pay extra for it - even if they knew, and so businesses won't do it. Consumers bear the responsibility here. The only way really is for consumers to become more aware and vote with their wallets (which they won't anytime soon) or for legislation to make everyone do it, and provide a level playing field. Unless you make it more expensive to be environmentally unfriendly (as opposed to cheaper as it is at the moment) pollition tax, plastic tax etc etc |
||
| Aeolienne |
You might have expected the Met Office to set an example - sadly not. Linky | ||
| dpack |
i quite like some aspects of the current situation but im just as happy toasting invertibrates and knitting a hammock
titanic deckchairs etc |