Marc Gunther, an author for GreenBiz.com, asked himself this very same question in an article titled "What the Heck Happened in Durban?". Depending on whether you see the glass half full or half empty, the outcomes at the UNFCCC's Conference of the Parties 17 in Durban, South Africa will give you a sigh of relief or make your blood boil at the lack of dedication to the climate issue on the global stage. Either way, Marc Gunther provides an excellent summary for you to help come to your own conclusions about what the negotiations in Durban will mean for our future in the face of climate change.

In brief, Gunther says:

"I see two takeaways here for business. First, those companies that worry about climate change need to bring their voices more forcefully to the policy arena; they can't assume that governments are on the right track. Second, companies ought to prepare for climate change -- when they site new facilities, for example -- because it's unavoidable."

Read the full article here.

Some images of our booth in the EXPO Green Pavilion.

Coppervale's Paul Shmotolokha was recently interviewed by Communications Technology journal for the article, Going Green Makes a Good Investment.

Facing a perfect storm of rising power costs, increasing demand for bandwidth and the resultant strain on existing facilities, the cable industry is looking for ways to reduce energy consumption and to increase access to alternative sources.

Specifically, according to Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) statistics, in 2010, the cable industry paid some $1 billion for electricity. Should network growth be 50 percent by 2017, estimates show the power bill increasing to $2.5 billion annually. Bump growth to 100 percent, and the bill jumps to $3.5 billion.

Says Paul Shmotolokha, president and co-founder at Coppervale Enterprises, "Those who prepare their networks and optimize for efficiency will be in the best competitive position going forward. If you don't pay attention now, when energy costs go through their next cycle, it will be a death knell if you are not ready.”

Read the rest of the article here.

Part 1 of this blog series set up the burgeoning problem of the effect of set-top boxes (STB’s) on home energy use as highlighted by a recent NRDC study. In part 2, the actors responsible for implementing solutions to this growing problem are examined to determine what has been done so far to address the need for more efficient STB’s.

While most U.S. providers are aware of the STB issue, few have taken the steps to implement effective solutions. U.S. operators Verizon Communications and AT&T Inc. are the few cited as having mandated EPA’s Energy Star compliance for its STB’s going forward, taking the first step in ensuring that at least the boxes deployed meet Energy Star requirements. European pay-tv providers, on the other hand, have been pressured by the European Union to recognize the impact STB’s have on the consumer and the environment. For “simple STB’s” (i.e. no “Conditional Access” (CA), no “Digital Video Recorder” (DVR)), the EU has mandated power consumption levels and set timeframes with which operators must meet those levels with the devices they deploy. For complex STB’s (i.e. boxes with CA, DVR, DOCSIS modems, etc.), a voluntary agreement to set power consumption targets and timeframes was developed and brokered by the European ICT industry. Currently, many of the largest cable providers in the EU (Liberty Global/UPC, Kabel Duetschland, Kabel Baden Wurttemberg, Virgin Media, Telenet, and ONO) are participants in this voluntary agreement, along with other “Direct to Home” (DTH) and IP operators, as well as many of the suppliers of STB’s. 

The voluntary agreement calls for STB’s to meet efficiency standards similar to that of the U.S. Energy Star program from an overall power usage standpoint. Additionally, and probably more importantly, the voluntary agreement sets targets for “Total Energy Consumption” (TEC) in a year - targets that can only be met only if operators implement the deep sleep modes for their STB's. Defining and committing to TEC in a year as opposed to just power levels is a hugely positive step in the right direction. Suffice it to say, the agreement is still voluntary, and although estimates by the Digital Interoperability Forum indicate the agreement now covers 80% of the complex STB market in Europe, there is still a portion of the market not participating. Mechanisms such as enforcement and potential sanctions against a participating company that cannot meet the requirements of the agreement have yet to be tested. The voluntary agreement is certainly a great step in the right direction, but is still short of being a complete solution. Interestingly, this effort in Europe, at least anecdotally, is disproving common held beliefs about STB's and their energy efficiency in the home. First, the changes needed to improve STB efficiency have not cost the operators anything significant in the way of higher STB costs. Second, it appears at least for now that they have not caused any significant customer upheaval due to the changes in the way the STB works when sleep modes are implemented.

The STB efficiency issue is gaining traction in the U.S., signaled by the NRDC study and published feedback to the study in the New York Times, other web sites and blogs. The U.S. Department of Energy has communicated plans to put in place mandatory efficiency standards for STB’s similar to its requirements for many other appliances. As consumers become savvy about the total cost of ownership of STBs, they too may begin to actively join the discussion and push back on their providers to address the issue head-on. While the direction regulators, operators, and consumers may take on the issue of STB power usage and efficiency in the U.S. may not be certain, what is certain is that the issue itself is not going away.

Co-Authored by: Chuck Carroll and Lew Rakowsky

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) recently published a study revealing that the electricity required to operate all U.S. set-top boxes (STBs) is equal to the annual household electricity consumption of the entire state of Maryland, results in 16 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and costs American households more than $3 billion each year. The study identified that more than 80% of U.S. homes subscribe to some form of pay television service, which explains how these energy-hungry devices could consume approximately 27 billion kilowatt hours of electricity equal to the output of nine average (500 megawatt) coal fired power plants in 2010.

In the current business model, broadband and digital television providers specify, purchase, and supply these boxes to customers. As the spread of broadband and digital television services increases, the number of these devices is likely to increase, and subsequently, the customer’s household electricity use is likely to increase. Unfortunately, service providers supplying STB’s and other devices in the home have little or no incentive to design, build, buy or demand more efficient devices because they do not bear the operational cost associated with the device. Instead, the cost to power these devices is shouldered by the consumer.

Therein lies a real problem. From an energy efficiency and energy usage standpoint, there is a disconnect between the consumer who pays for the electricity to power the box, and the operator who by and large determines how much electricity the box will use. The driver behind the NRDC research is an effort to raise public awareness about the amount of electricity these devices use, their cost to consumers for that electricity, and more importantly, the growing impact these boxes will have on our energy grid if the industry continues down a path of disinterest regarding STB efficiency. 

There are two primary solutions the NRDC cites to significantly reduce the overall power requirements of these boxes in the home. One opportunity exists with the EPA Energy Star program to specify new targets for efficient STB’s to meet, as well as to qualify STB’s to these standards. The second and most important strategy to minimize “Total Energy Consumption” (TEC) in the home is to employ devices that can go into a much lower power, deep sleep mode when not in use. This feature allows for true strides to be made in lowering overall power usage in the home. What we do as a society today with STB’s is the equivalent of “leaving the lights on in a room even when they are not needed”. It seems that with STB’s the assumption is that we need to leave them powered on and fully capable continuously, and that anything short of that is too a great an inconvenience for consumers to justify the energy savings an efficient device might create.

In part 2 of this blog series, we will discuss what current broadband and telecommunications providers in the U.S. and E.U. are doing about the STB efficiency imperative and what kind of traction this issue is getting in the media.

Co-Authored by: Chuck Carroll and Lew Rakowsky

Forbes.com recently published a very interesting essay that was written by Nick Main and Joseph Stanislaw. In the article, the authors correctly note that every company must be energy-conscious in order to achieve maximum profitability.

 “Energy consumes a significant portion of an enterprise’s spending, accounting for 5-20 percent of a typical company’s costs. Yet, many organizations have a poor understanding of their energy consumption and how to reduce it. Their unawareness of how they consume energy is analogous to an individual paying for a grocery cart full of food at the supermarket, but without knowing what is in the cart or how much any individual item in the cart costs…..There’s no reason for companies to wait a decade – or even a year – to move towards an energy strategy.”

Until a company acknowledges that energy consummation is a reducible expense, it will continue to unnecessarily expend resources that it could be using elsewhere.

Photo Credit: Jalalspages via Flickr CC

A follow up on Stakeholder Influence on a Company’s Public Reporting 

Participating in integrated reporting does not necessarily mean a company is sustainable. Integrated reporting- reporting that goes beyond traditional financial statements to include information about a company’s impact on the community and the environment- is only a means for a company to express their sustainability measures, although some companies who do voluntarily provide such information can misconstrue their actual practices.

Environmental Leader recently wrote an article on research conducted by a management professor at the University of Notre Dame, Sarv Devaraj, and a 2010 MBA graduate student at Notre Dame, Suvrat Dhanorkar, which compared the relationships between the statements companies made regarding “their beliefs and actions on the dimensions of sustainability” and the actual performance of these companies on these sustainability dimensions.

To measure such relationships, Devaraj and Dhanorkar correlated a company’s annual 10-K report and the statements they made regarding sustainability with the company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity and their Newsweek rankings on sustainability. They found that “companies that actually tout their beliefs quite a bit are in fact the ones that are not performing as well on the sustainability dimensions.” There was an overall negative relationship between what a company said it believed in and their true standing on sustainability performance.

Devaraj announced that he was expanding his study to a longer timeframe, as the relationship between reporting and sustainability performance may become positive over a longer period of time for many companies He says that overall he wants his research to lead to a more “transparent (and) standard policy or procedure about reporting environmental disclosure so that the public and stakeholders can judge companies on equal footing.”

Reporting in a way that misinterprets a company’s actual sustainability measures and operations can only have a negative impact on that company’s image. When stakeholders request more information, it is best for companies to be upfront and honest.

Energy is the telecommunications industry’s biggest operational expense. For example, a large cable television company can spend more than $300 million on electricity annually to deliver programming, Internet and digital phone service to its subscribers. However, rising global energy prices and the continued economic downturn are forcing many in the industry to seek ways of reducing the amount of energy they consume.

At the same time, public opinion over climate change is shifting—stakeholders are pressuring companies to disclose the impact of their operations on the environment. Since much of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by fossil-fuel-burning power plants, cable television companies are indirectly responsible for a substantial share of carbon emissions.

It's the Economy & the Environment, Stupid
Significant attention is now focused on the intersection of these two macro trends: economic and environmental sustainability. The good news is that companies that reduce the amount of energy they are wasting would also reduce their environmental impact. The challenge is how to monetize this waste so that it gets the proper attention inside organizations. Unfortunately, many companies lack the knowledge, experience, or infrastructure to identify the opportunities.

For sustainability consultancy Coppervale, it all begins by understanding how broadband clients use the energy they purchase. As energy efficiency experts, Coppervale is always looking for energy-saving opportunities. Typically, it can identify initial short-term cost savings of 10% to 20% per individual system.

Many of the company’s recommendations are low-cost solutions, but others involve capital investment, such as a plant upgrade; these tend to have a longer ROI but also positive, long-term consequences on the bottom-line. The organization also helps its clients change the way they think about energy. Experience suggests that the technical solutions stand a better chance of succeeding over the long term if they are coupled with behavioral change programs and dedicated champions who instill a workplace culture of energy efficiency. Like all organizational change initiatives, sustainability requires committed executive leadership, the right tools and training, and the ideas and enthusiasm of rank-and-file employees. Engage in all three of these areas and you’ll see better sustainability results.

Executive Leadership
Without executive-level commitment and involvement, sustainability will not succeed inside an organization on a scale large enough to make a positive financial or environmental impact. Using facilitated working sessions, a strong communications team can help cross-functional executive teams come to a common, foundational understanding of sustainability principles, build a framework for addressing sustainability within their business and set organizational goals and strategies into a sustainability plan.

Employee Ideas and Enthusiasm
Businesses must harness the energy of those green employees who already express a unique enthusiasm and understanding of sustainability principles. Coppervale works with its clients to create internal Green Teams by identifying and recruiting employees who can generate innovative ideas. Members create “idea labs” that identify potential energy conservation measures and experiment to find the most applicable solutions for their organizations, and then rapidly share best practices with their co-workers and managers.

Tools and Training
Training and education about sustainability help employees understand the company’s business goals of lowering operating costs and reducing its environmental impact, and how they can make a difference in their particular jobs. By providing the right training for groups responsible for the most energy usage, companies can make significant improvements in lowering total operating costs, eliminating waste, reducing energy usage and improving the impact of its operations on the environment. Here are a few examples:

• Fleet vehicle use can account for nearly 25% of a cable television company’s carbon footprint. By providing field technicians and fleet managers with smart driving tips, vehicle maintenance training, technological tools (like GPS) companies can significantly reduce amount of carbon emitted by its vehicles.
• Office employees and facility managers can reduce the energy needed in buildings by eliminating wasteful use of office equipment, lighting and climate control.
• Engineers, operations managers and procurement staff are equally responsible for plants and network energy efficiency. Setting standardized design guidelines across divisions can help meet the desired energy efficiency standards.

Most important, work with managers to develop goals, incentives and success indices as part of regular employee reviews. This provides workers with a sense of ownership that leads to positive results.

Originally published in PRNEWS on March 7, 2011.

In today’s world, an increasing number of companies are beginning a journey towards environmental sustainability; however, many corporate leaders are finding that it is not the easiest road to travel.

Common issues, such as lacking the capital needed to make an initial investment towards sustainable practices and methodologies, or not having sufficient knowledge of which “green” changes will actually have a positive impact, can be a direct hindrance to companies seeking to improve their environmental performance.

However, there is a third hindrance that Kathy Miller, CEO of Miller Consultants, has identified-an equally restricting obstacle that can plague even the most enthusiastic visionary.

In her article, “Sustainability: Can Leaders Meet the Challenge?” Miller wrote, “Another significant roadblock is that many companies lack a common definition of what it means to be sustainable. Some companies define it in terms of compliance with environmental regulations, while others, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see it as creating products and processes with a primary focus on efficiency of environmental management and effects on social welfare. Without alignment around the definition of sustainability, leaders cannot craft realistic goals and plans which can actually be implemented. “

While having a definite, realistic goal structure is essential to making sustainable progress, the capability to actually fulfill these goals is equally required. In some cases, the simple act of completing the first objective can create momentum-like effect which can make achieving future sustainability targets seem more attainable.

One area that companies are targeting as an initial focal point for improvement is energy efficiency. Miller wrote, “To be sure, benefits of energy efficiency and compliance are substantial. Energy-savings programs affect the bottom line directly. Likewise, strategies such as the investment in renewable energy sources mitigate the risk of potential fluctuations in energy availability.  And companies that extend their focus beyond energy consumption and generation report that often sustainability initiatives become a springboard for learning and innovation. “

For leaders that are looking to jump-start their company’s trek to a more sustainable future, it is becoming evident that energy efficiency is an excellent place to start. 

Photo Credit: Jasmic via Flickr CC

Despite current legislation in Congress attempting to block any requirements of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission regulating or reporting from organizations, there has been an increasing trend among large companies to voluntarily report on issues relating to sustainability. Giants such as Bank of America, Avaya, and Best Buy are among some of the many US-based companies who have released company-wide data on GHG emissions as well as details regarding their reduction goals. What has motivated these companies to release such information? According to Donald Delves, founder of a compensation consulting firm in Chicago and regular contributor to Forbes Magazine, such motivation comes from a company’s stakeholders.

Delves recently published an article on Forbes’ website in which he examined the influence of shareholders versus stakeholders within a company. In his article titled Whom Do Public Companies Now Serve? Delves writes, “Increasingly, large companies are demonstrating direct responsibility not just to shareholders, but also to employees, communities and the environment.” Stakeholders include any person, group or organization that has a direct or indirect stake in an organization, such as employees, non-government organizations (NGOs),  and communities. Delves highlights how in other countries, such as Germany and France, integrated reporting, a type of reporting that combines both social goals and financial results, has been the common practice among public companies. Companies in many other nations are “obligated to satisfy social expectations by tending to the interests of employees and other stakeholders.” This type of reporting, according to Delves, is becoming more common-place in the U.S. as companies strive to satisfy shareholders and stakeholders alike and increase public accountability.

Reporting on topics stakeholders’ value “can not only result in healthier customers, but in a healthier culture in which people will likely make it a point to patronize- and buy shares in- responsible companies.” To this extent, and as stakeholders become more and more environmentally conscious, we have to speculate on how long it will be before environmental data and, more specifically, carbon reporting will be required of all US companies’ operations by their shareholders. As more companies become involved in integrated reporting in which they share both sustainability and financial data, will competitors also feel the heat to do the same?

Photo credit: TMAB2003 via Flickr CC