It’s that time of year again, compiling multiple summaries of anything and everything that happened in 2011 that you could care to read about: the Top Energy Stories, the Weirdest, Wildest Animal Stories and, of course, most sustainable large companies. In this analysis, Corporate Knights, a clean energy magazine, ranked the top 100 sustainable companies in 22 countries. Japan had the greatest number of companies, 19, while the U.S. came in second with 13, an improvement by one from 2010’s assessment. Other countries with a large number of green companies were: the UK (11), Canada (eight), Australia (six), Switzerland (six), France (five), Denmark (four), Finland (four), Brazil, Germany, Norway, and Spain (three each).
The analysis criteria ranged from comparing income to amount of waste produced and water consumed, as well as the percentage of women leaders and level of transparency in the company. Johnson & Johnson was the highest ranking U.S. company (number two overall), with Norway’s Statoil ASA taking the top position. Finland’s Nokia OYJ was number four, Intel Corp number six, Britain’s AstraZeneca PLC number seven and General Electric Co. number 11. Other notable U.S. companies, like Procter & Gamble Co., Kraft Foods Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Coca-Cola Enterprises, ranked 44th, 45th, 75th, and 78th, respectively.
To learn more about Corporate Knights’ analysis, visit their website.
Thanks! The better path is to indeed focus on ROI. However, even that path can come up short. What needs to be addressed -and what I do not feel has been addressed adequately yet, is project budgets and Owner commitment. For example, far too often I see RFP’s come in requesting LEED and/or other energy efficient attributes/technology. Then you read what the budget is, and based on the SF of the project, you realize that the overall budget for the building -and let’s say it is a mixed use development of retail and office space, as well as meeting space, is something like $150.00 a SF. Well, right there you realize the budget is off base based on the LEED certification level listed in the RFP, and the Owner likely has little understanding of the integrated design process, or LEED. Does this $150.00 a SF account for certification fees, project registration, commissioning, building envelope upgrades and more? Unfortunately, usually the answer is no. I also see far too many studies advocating that green costs no more. When you download the study and read it, you find it was a 100 million dollar, 300,000 SF project -or, about $330.00 a SF. Well, you can do a lot with that kind of budget. And it’s not the budget most construction projects have.Sometimes I feel like I harp on this subject quite a bit. But I also feel it is irresponsible for the design and construction professions to claim that it costs no more to build green than it does to build conventionally. It is different in ways, and we must understand the differences so that when a project is in the early gestation period, these differences can be budgeted for properly. Then the ROI will really make sense.
Samuel -
You make a good point about developers needing to adjust their understanding of what it takes to build LEED certified structures. Maybe I am being a bit simplistic, but I see that the ROI needs to be considered over a much longer time frame. LEED buildings may indeed cost more upfront – more thought and better quality systems are part of what makes these buildings beneficial. But then the cost of operating such a building every year should be much less as compared to a similar size “traditional” building. The investment to “do it right” upfront is returned through lower heating, cooling and electric bills (as well as happier and healthier occupants — see the article here: http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2010/08/840514e8-0b32-4aa4-9fc8-276b688dfed4.pdf).