This was the title of a very interesting article in 'Die Burger' supplement 'By'. As I follow the latest developments of possible (or may I say inevitable) shale gas mining in the Karoo, this caught my eye.
The article was written by David Johnson, a former environmental lawyer, who currently writes about the impact of population growth. You can read other articles of his at: www.toomuchtoomany.co.za
The biggest message I got from this article was that sustainability is all encompassing. One cannot just look at one aspect of renewable energy/waste management or any 'green' endeavor and presume it is the most sustainable solution or alternative without looking at the entire supply chain or the bigger picture. Very often we all get very emotional about the destruction of our natural heritage and firmly state that NO development must take place. The reality is very different. Progress is a human condition. We want our investments to grow, we want to create jobs for the burgeoning populations, we want to be prosperous and put food on our families tables. And all of this requires energy. It is all so heartbreakingly contradictory and yet we have to face up to a fine balancing act between the environment, society and the economy.
What David Johnson says is that even though the environmental NGO's vehemently oppose some developments to extract natural resources to generate energy, the hunger for energy doesn't subside and they also do not give any alternatives. A while back I read a very interesting article about a company in the US called The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and how instead of stopping all new developments they find solutions with all stakeholders. The story of the sugar cane farmers in the Cauca Valley in Colombia is a prime example of how economics and conservation can work in symbiosis. By protecting the water supply upstream in the forested areas and thus conserving this area, their sugar cane industry would be preserved.
So back to the shale gas mining in the Karoo. Trade off's will need to be made. So what David Johnson recommends is select areas where less rather than more environmental damage will take place. For example, the grasslands and waterlands of Mpumalanga. Coal mines are shooting up like weeds all over there and the area has one of the most endangered environments. Why is coal mining still 'allowed' without the media uproar and not other sites where other technologies to extract resources are planned? How about an area in the Karoo which doesn't have the biodiversity sensitivity other areas have?
And another point he makes is that why hold the large multinational corporation in the negative public mindset when they will still be around if environmental damage takes place? These micro miners who are usually not around after extraction has taken place will not be able to account for the environmental damage and pay reparations thereafter.
And how environmentally friendly are the forms of renewable energy? ALL forms of energy generation has a negative impact on the environment. From wind turbine manufacturing using earth metals, which are mined and processed in China which has minimal environmental regulations (water and soil pollution in the Bautou area in China is off the charts!) to solar energy plants which require large land areas which could be feasible in countries with large land areas but not necessarily in South Africa.
So the struggle continues....there is no silver bullet which will satisfy all the environmental, societal and economic requirements. A less than perfect solution and a great balancing act is needed.
Friday, 13 December 2013
Friday, 6 December 2013
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Waterless Fracking: good or bad?
I recently read about the 25 Best inventions in 2013 in Time Magazine and since fracking is close to our hearts in South Africa with Shell and some other petroleum giants considering prospecting in the Karoo, this extract really caught my interest. On Cape Talk 56.7 last week Mike Wills was discussing the impact this new fracking technology might have in South Africa with a specialist at the Water Research Commission (WRC), if and when (I reckon it's more a case of when than if) fracking is in full swing here.
To put this in perspective, traditional hydraulic fracturing uses water, sand and chemicals, which is pumped underground via a wellbore under high pressure to break or fracture the shale rocks to release shale gas, tight oil, tight gas and coal seam gas. Now the issues the environmentalists and the public have with this technique are the potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these. With the Karoo being a very sensitive area with high water scarcity, the possibility of even excavating for shale gas has created a whole anti-fracking movement in South Africa. The Treasure the Karoo Action Group lead by Jonathan Deal has become a household name here starting in 2011 with the invocation of a moratorium on shale gas mining (SGM) based on the Critical Review of Shell's draft EMP (Environmental Management Plan). This year October saw the release of the draft technical regulations for oil and gas exploration and production from shale gas mining using hydraulic fracturing. The public were given 30 days to comment with the TKAG submitting a response to the gazetted draft regulations (of 38 pages compared to TKAG draft of over 300 pages) and requesting an extension of the public participation period. No answer from government has been forthcoming.
So far this is the the current picture of fracking in South Africa. Now let's step back and look at the new technology of waterless fracking. A Canadian oilfield service company called GasFrac has recently developed 'propane fracturing' and succesfully put it to use commercially in the USA states of Ohio and Texas as well as Canada. This technology uses gelled propane to fracture shale and thereafter the shale gas (or oil) extracted. They claim many environmental and economic benefits from this new method...but lets break it down into the advantages and disadvantages:
To put this in perspective, traditional hydraulic fracturing uses water, sand and chemicals, which is pumped underground via a wellbore under high pressure to break or fracture the shale rocks to release shale gas, tight oil, tight gas and coal seam gas. Now the issues the environmentalists and the public have with this technique are the potential environmental impacts, including contamination of ground water, depletion of fresh water, risks to air quality, noise pollution, the migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface, surface contamination from spills and flow-back, and the health effects of these. With the Karoo being a very sensitive area with high water scarcity, the possibility of even excavating for shale gas has created a whole anti-fracking movement in South Africa. The Treasure the Karoo Action Group lead by Jonathan Deal has become a household name here starting in 2011 with the invocation of a moratorium on shale gas mining (SGM) based on the Critical Review of Shell's draft EMP (Environmental Management Plan). This year October saw the release of the draft technical regulations for oil and gas exploration and production from shale gas mining using hydraulic fracturing. The public were given 30 days to comment with the TKAG submitting a response to the gazetted draft regulations (of 38 pages compared to TKAG draft of over 300 pages) and requesting an extension of the public participation period. No answer from government has been forthcoming.
So far this is the the current picture of fracking in South Africa. Now let's step back and look at the new technology of waterless fracking. A Canadian oilfield service company called GasFrac has recently developed 'propane fracturing' and succesfully put it to use commercially in the USA states of Ohio and Texas as well as Canada. This technology uses gelled propane to fracture shale and thereafter the shale gas (or oil) extracted. They claim many environmental and economic benefits from this new method...but lets break it down into the advantages and disadvantages:
- A fracking well uses on average 12 million litres of water. There is some overflow back up the well and this needs to be treated and disposed of. Gelled propane will not use this water or have the overflow = Advantage.
- Water fracturing causes formation damage in wells which closes flow pathways and inhibits the production of oil and gas. This new method causes much less formation damage which keeps productivity of the well high and more profitable = Advantage.
- The total life cycle water usage is however not clear. In order to produce and then liquify propane gas, a great deal of water is used. So even though water is not used in the fracturing process, the overall water use could still be high = Disadvantage.
- The gelled propane becomes a gas once discharged underground. This is highly explosive and if any leaks occur this could incur massive damage and safety risks. Even though GasFrac say that they have multiple safety barriers in place this still poses a major risk = Disadvantage
- GasFrac have mentioned the use of 'proprietary chemicals' in producing the gelled propane. These chemicals are released underground with the propane and could contaminate the groundwater. So in the absence of substantial information = Disadvantage.
- The cost of gelled propane is higher than water so this will have to be weighed up against the better efficiency of overall recovery and profitability of the process against water fracturing. Advantage/Disadvantage? Maybe too soon to comment.
A great deal of the data from these propane wells haven't been released by the companies using the GasFrac technology, so the profitability and efficiency of the wells cannot be quantified as yet. However, with the Karoo being a water scarce area, this might (or will) be the technology of choice when the big energy companies plan their next move.
The Treasure the Karoo Action Group must be aware of this for the next round.
Monday, 2 December 2013
Where are all the Ladies? The gap between men and women in the workplace.
One of my interests as it affects me directly....
Globally and especially in South Africa stereotypes and perceptions are keeping women back.
We see women as the nurturers. She should be at home looking after her kids. We see men as the providers: He should be out there working long hours and making money. This perception is built into us, if you look at evolutionary psychology, and how we are brought up. As society progresses (from the Stone Ages through to the Industrial Age and now the Information Age) and as countries develop there is more of a transition to a level playing field and less gender stereotyping. Society still has a way to go though.
The recent book by +Sheryl Sandberg called Lean In has brought this topic into the mainstream. She mentions many factors as to why women do not take on these leadership positions, a few that have really resonated with me:
In my circumstances I frequently have people (family and friends) commenting on how can I still be willing to work full time and not spend time with my daughter. After her birth I was confronted with problems of not being able to do it all. We have made great advances since the previous generation when all our moms stayed at home. No wonder many of them put pressure on their daughters who have kids to stay at home or to not shoot for that promotion because she will sacrifice her family and children in the process. Thank goodness my HR Manager (and perhaps we need more of these type of managers in organizations) understood my dilemma and was willing to meet me half way....if I think of what would've happened if I was not in this situation I would not be where I am now. When women exclude themselves from the workforce after maternity leave it takes many years to get back in as technology and industry advancements have moved on. The financial toll it takes is quite significant, not being able to contribute to retirement savings or save up for future education for the kids can have a profound effect.
For me having a career while being a mom isn't about the money or prestige. It's about having a purpose and being in a stimulating environment (and of course in today's time for most people one income just doesn't put bread on the table). This is obviously not for all women, some prefer to stay at home and raise a family. Some are forced to be economically active because they are the breadwinners or single parents. But the vast majority of women who have qualifications and can contribute significantly to the economy and hopefully also help other women in the work environment start leaving the workforce in droves after they have children. 92 % of men with the same level of qualifications remain in full time employment compared to 45 - 52% of women with the same qualifications after having families.
Men and women need to become aware of this in order to progress. We are getting there but the last 30 years there has been a stagnation in the upward mobility of women in the workforce. We all have choices...but if you want to get out there and have a rich fulfilling career be aware of the challenges and face them head on. No one else will do it for you.
So start small. One of us could be the one who can start the overturn of the gender gap.
Globally and especially in South Africa stereotypes and perceptions are keeping women back.
We see women as the nurturers. She should be at home looking after her kids. We see men as the providers: He should be out there working long hours and making money. This perception is built into us, if you look at evolutionary psychology, and how we are brought up. As society progresses (from the Stone Ages through to the Industrial Age and now the Information Age) and as countries develop there is more of a transition to a level playing field and less gender stereotyping. Society still has a way to go though.
The recent book by +Sheryl Sandberg called Lean In has brought this topic into the mainstream. She mentions many factors as to why women do not take on these leadership positions, a few that have really resonated with me:
- Society and gender stereotyping. Changing generally accepted ideas and how we view men and women.
- Women make choices early on in their careers to take a back seat as they see themselves having families in the future which in turn means that they will have to sacrifice their careers. (self inflicted!)
- Critical mass: if we had a society with 40-50% of senior management being women then it would be more 'acceptable'.
- Women need to see themselves as part of the decision making process and not exclude themselves.
- Women sit back and expect to be approached to take on more responsibility. Go out there and sell yourself!
- Choose your partner carefully so that the household and child duties are shared equally.
In my circumstances I frequently have people (family and friends) commenting on how can I still be willing to work full time and not spend time with my daughter. After her birth I was confronted with problems of not being able to do it all. We have made great advances since the previous generation when all our moms stayed at home. No wonder many of them put pressure on their daughters who have kids to stay at home or to not shoot for that promotion because she will sacrifice her family and children in the process. Thank goodness my HR Manager (and perhaps we need more of these type of managers in organizations) understood my dilemma and was willing to meet me half way....if I think of what would've happened if I was not in this situation I would not be where I am now. When women exclude themselves from the workforce after maternity leave it takes many years to get back in as technology and industry advancements have moved on. The financial toll it takes is quite significant, not being able to contribute to retirement savings or save up for future education for the kids can have a profound effect.
For me having a career while being a mom isn't about the money or prestige. It's about having a purpose and being in a stimulating environment (and of course in today's time for most people one income just doesn't put bread on the table). This is obviously not for all women, some prefer to stay at home and raise a family. Some are forced to be economically active because they are the breadwinners or single parents. But the vast majority of women who have qualifications and can contribute significantly to the economy and hopefully also help other women in the work environment start leaving the workforce in droves after they have children. 92 % of men with the same level of qualifications remain in full time employment compared to 45 - 52% of women with the same qualifications after having families.
Men and women need to become aware of this in order to progress. We are getting there but the last 30 years there has been a stagnation in the upward mobility of women in the workforce. We all have choices...but if you want to get out there and have a rich fulfilling career be aware of the challenges and face them head on. No one else will do it for you.
So start small. One of us could be the one who can start the overturn of the gender gap.
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Carbon offsetting: What is it about & who/what benefits?
We have all heard about the concept of carbon offsetting. The smaller, voluntary markets such as airlines use it to reduce their carbon footprint as well as numerous other industries such as leisure, manufacturing and even financial institutions. In 2008 $705 million was purchased in carbon offsets in this smaller market which equates to 123.4 million metric tons of CO2e reductions. In the larger compliance market, companies, governments, or other entities buy carbon offsets in order to comply with caps on the total amount of carbon dioxide they are allowed to emit. This market exists in order to achieve compliance with obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, and of liable entities under the EU Emission Trading Scheme. In 2006, about $5.5 billion of carbon offsets were purchased in the compliance market, representing about 1.6 billion metric tons of CO2e reductions.
As we can see, this is big business with many 'carbon offsetting' companies trying to get a slice of the pie. I even saw this in a hotel we stayed at this weekend. A company issued them a certificate stating that they were carbon neutral due to all the carbon offsets (I cannot remember how many metric tons of CO2) purchased by the leisure company. But what is purchased and how does this result in offsetting your carbon emissions? If one goes to Wikipedia or even Google, the variation of articles on 'carbon offsetting' is a minefield. But is it a good concept or just a sell out?
Here is my view:
One of the articles compares it to 'Indulgences' that the Roman Catholic Church sold in penance of ones sins a few centuries ago. So this being said, an organisation can rack up those carbon emissions and just cap and trade carbon offsets to be forgiven. I then become very sceptical of this concept...but, if we didn't have this at all?
I view the problem of carbon offsetting as seeing only one angle and not looking at the whole picture. Big picture thinking is required for this problem of carbon emissions and climate change as it is one big connected system. Can we not look at the principles of Sustainability (systemic, cyclical, all inputs and outputs, all impacts) to create a more balanced solution?
For this blog I will use the airline industry for a few insights:
These are just ideas where the technology already exists. I'm sure there are other blue sky ideas which can totally transform any industry but cannot be immediately implemented. Even with existing technology, it's the business case and investment therein that puts on the brakes to the actual implementation.
So in conclusion, who benefits from the 'carbon offsetting' approach? Like true capitalism only the few.....
Let's consider a more systemic approach and not one size fits all which takes each organisation, country and entity into account with individual processes/requirements and propose solutions from there. I definitely think that the 'carbon offsetting' concept will still play a part, BUT not the only part of the bigger solution.
As we can see, this is big business with many 'carbon offsetting' companies trying to get a slice of the pie. I even saw this in a hotel we stayed at this weekend. A company issued them a certificate stating that they were carbon neutral due to all the carbon offsets (I cannot remember how many metric tons of CO2) purchased by the leisure company. But what is purchased and how does this result in offsetting your carbon emissions? If one goes to Wikipedia or even Google, the variation of articles on 'carbon offsetting' is a minefield. But is it a good concept or just a sell out?
Here is my view:
One of the articles compares it to 'Indulgences' that the Roman Catholic Church sold in penance of ones sins a few centuries ago. So this being said, an organisation can rack up those carbon emissions and just cap and trade carbon offsets to be forgiven. I then become very sceptical of this concept...but, if we didn't have this at all?
I view the problem of carbon offsetting as seeing only one angle and not looking at the whole picture. Big picture thinking is required for this problem of carbon emissions and climate change as it is one big connected system. Can we not look at the principles of Sustainability (systemic, cyclical, all inputs and outputs, all impacts) to create a more balanced solution?
For this blog I will use the airline industry for a few insights:
- An aircraft is made from a myriad of raw and processed materials. So looking at the entire supply chain from rare earths for the electronic equipment to the carbon fibre in the wings and the aluminium for the fuselage, the entire supply chain can get pretty complex! Solution: recycled materials, choosing suppliers with minimum environmental impact and large social impact (skilling up PDI's).
- Then the fuel: Jet-A and Avgas is processed from brent crude oil and has many additives which contribute significantly to climate change, especially so because planes fly higher in the stratosphere this has other non-CO2 impacts. To go even wider, the ground airport vehicles, and those used by passengers and staff to access airports. Solution: biofuels (however a contentious issue which affects food security), Swift fuel, more efficient aircraft engines, electrifying the nosewheel, using hybrid or electrical ground vehicles, using turboprop aircraft for short haul flights etc........the list can be endless.
- The airport buildings and the emissions generated by the production of energy used in airport buildings and the construction of airport infrastructure. Solution: green building design, use of renewable energy, recycling air and water.
These are just ideas where the technology already exists. I'm sure there are other blue sky ideas which can totally transform any industry but cannot be immediately implemented. Even with existing technology, it's the business case and investment therein that puts on the brakes to the actual implementation.
So in conclusion, who benefits from the 'carbon offsetting' approach? Like true capitalism only the few.....
Let's consider a more systemic approach and not one size fits all which takes each organisation, country and entity into account with individual processes/requirements and propose solutions from there. I definitely think that the 'carbon offsetting' concept will still play a part, BUT not the only part of the bigger solution.
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
The future of water and how Sasol has become a leader in water sustainability.
The future of water and how Sasol has become a leader in water sustainability.
Well done Sasol!!
Sasol has recently completed a project in partnership with General Electric.
This new water technology plant cleans waste water and supplies biogas as a byproduct for power generation. A very progressive technology that is based on the concepts of 'The Blue Economy' (no waste, ecosystem cycle, cascading nutrients)
Known as Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Technology (AnMBR), the new technology will be further developed as a demonstration plant at Sasol’s research and development campus at Sasol One Site in Sasolburg. This new water treatment plant involves cleaning the waste water
which contains organics generated from Sasol's operations via GE's ecomagination qualified ZeeWeed 500 membrane. These organics have proven to be the ideal food, or substrate, for anaerobic micro-organisms. This new technology will be commercialized at all Sasol GTL and CTL plants by 2015.
Waste water from the GTL (Gas to Liquid - conversion of natural gas to liquid petroleum products) and CTL (Coal to Liquid - coal liquefaction to produce petroleum-like synthetic crude oil) plants will treated and can be used again elsewhere. This maximises the efficiency of these plants and addresses the water scarcity problem we have in South Africa and globally. This water scarcity problem has a direct negative impact on the economy and on all Sasol operations worldwide as most of the Sasol plants are in water scarce regions. So this step taken by Sasol is a breakthrough!
What is AnMBR all about? Well what I could gather from the different articles published is that it involves anaerobic micro-organisms that are able to live in an environment devoid of oxygen such as sediment layers on floors of lakes, dams and the ocean. These micro-organisms reside on the membrane and extract and process the organics passing through. Currently Sasol uses aerobic and anearobic microbes to treat GTL and CTL effluents in Qatar and Secunda, but without the membrane technology. The next step is the development of AMBR (aerobic membrane bioreactor technology) for a GTL plant in the US.
The new AnMBR technology is one of the many solutions that can be applied in the petrochemical and refining environment and also benefit other industries in treating waste water.
.
The possibilities of using this technology in industries worldwide are endless! In my opinion a great step forward for re-using industrial waste in large processing industries.
Well done Sasol!!
Sasol has recently completed a project in partnership with General Electric.
This new water technology plant cleans waste water and supplies biogas as a byproduct for power generation. A very progressive technology that is based on the concepts of 'The Blue Economy' (no waste, ecosystem cycle, cascading nutrients)
Known as Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor Technology (AnMBR), the new technology will be further developed as a demonstration plant at Sasol’s research and development campus at Sasol One Site in Sasolburg. This new water treatment plant involves cleaning the waste water
which contains organics generated from Sasol's operations via GE's ecomagination qualified ZeeWeed 500 membrane. These organics have proven to be the ideal food, or substrate, for anaerobic micro-organisms. This new technology will be commercialized at all Sasol GTL and CTL plants by 2015.
Waste water from the GTL (Gas to Liquid - conversion of natural gas to liquid petroleum products) and CTL (Coal to Liquid - coal liquefaction to produce petroleum-like synthetic crude oil) plants will treated and can be used again elsewhere. This maximises the efficiency of these plants and addresses the water scarcity problem we have in South Africa and globally. This water scarcity problem has a direct negative impact on the economy and on all Sasol operations worldwide as most of the Sasol plants are in water scarce regions. So this step taken by Sasol is a breakthrough!
What is AnMBR all about? Well what I could gather from the different articles published is that it involves anaerobic micro-organisms that are able to live in an environment devoid of oxygen such as sediment layers on floors of lakes, dams and the ocean. These micro-organisms reside on the membrane and extract and process the organics passing through. Currently Sasol uses aerobic and anearobic microbes to treat GTL and CTL effluents in Qatar and Secunda, but without the membrane technology. The next step is the development of AMBR (aerobic membrane bioreactor technology) for a GTL plant in the US.
The new AnMBR technology is one of the many solutions that can be applied in the petrochemical and refining environment and also benefit other industries in treating waste water.
.
The possibilities of using this technology in industries worldwide are endless! In my opinion a great step forward for re-using industrial waste in large processing industries.
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Sustainability means Business: Unilever and Net Impact
UCT Graduate School of Business: Sustainability at the heart of Business
www.gsb.uct.ac.za
On 12 November 2013 I attended a talk about how Sustainability can be incorporated into the day to day operations and strategy of a business. Net Impact @netimpact in partnership with Unilever have set up a programme for intrapreneurs in established companies to make a difference around the ethical triple bottom line (environment, society, economy). The talks were powerful and inspirational and included speakers from Unilever, Woolworths and Reel Gardening. It illustrated the steps these pioneers are taking in incorporating sustainability into their cultures and business models. I will discuss the Unilever and Woolworths presentations.
James Inglesby from Unilever is an intrapreneur who has started a sanitation project in Ghana. Portable toilets are bought by urban dwellers and then serviced on a regular basis. This solves a great need for sanitation in developing countries (solves waste and disease issues) and also aligns with Unilever's business model of creating a bigger market for toilet disinfectants & cleaners. The toilet was designed by +IDEO to accommodate the needs of the dwellings in urban Ghana. As can be seen through the ages, Western technology does not always work in other settings. This Clean Team project in Unilever was done in partnership with NGO WSUP (Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor) so that their knowledge of the sanitation issues can be shared for best implementation. James shared some pointers that helped him on this journey. What I could gather is the new CEO of Unilever Paul Polman is a champion of sustainability in business and has led the movement in Unilever of "Make Sustainable Living Commonplace". The implementation of the USLP (Unilever Sustainable Living Plan) which each employee applies daily is driven by the Brand and Communications teams. An inspirational story of how one's values and principles can be aligned to your corporate business model.
Justin Smith from Woolworths drives the sustainability model currently in practice. Woolies has won Sustainable Retailer of the Year for 4 + years since 2007. The key salient points I took away from this and which could be applied to any industry looking to start a sustainability journey were as follows:
Thank you to the UCT Graduate School of Business for organising the event. A truly informative and practical session.
www.gsb.uct.ac.za
On 12 November 2013 I attended a talk about how Sustainability can be incorporated into the day to day operations and strategy of a business. Net Impact @netimpact in partnership with Unilever have set up a programme for intrapreneurs in established companies to make a difference around the ethical triple bottom line (environment, society, economy). The talks were powerful and inspirational and included speakers from Unilever, Woolworths and Reel Gardening. It illustrated the steps these pioneers are taking in incorporating sustainability into their cultures and business models. I will discuss the Unilever and Woolworths presentations.
James Inglesby from Unilever is an intrapreneur who has started a sanitation project in Ghana. Portable toilets are bought by urban dwellers and then serviced on a regular basis. This solves a great need for sanitation in developing countries (solves waste and disease issues) and also aligns with Unilever's business model of creating a bigger market for toilet disinfectants & cleaners. The toilet was designed by +IDEO to accommodate the needs of the dwellings in urban Ghana. As can be seen through the ages, Western technology does not always work in other settings. This Clean Team project in Unilever was done in partnership with NGO WSUP (Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor) so that their knowledge of the sanitation issues can be shared for best implementation. James shared some pointers that helped him on this journey. What I could gather is the new CEO of Unilever Paul Polman is a champion of sustainability in business and has led the movement in Unilever of "Make Sustainable Living Commonplace". The implementation of the USLP (Unilever Sustainable Living Plan) which each employee applies daily is driven by the Brand and Communications teams. An inspirational story of how one's values and principles can be aligned to your corporate business model.
Justin Smith from Woolworths drives the sustainability model currently in practice. Woolies has won Sustainable Retailer of the Year for 4 + years since 2007. The key salient points I took away from this and which could be applied to any industry looking to start a sustainability journey were as follows:
- Understand the key impacts of your sector. What are the environmental/social impacts?
- Senior leadership buy in. This is extremely important because if the FD does not see a business case or the CEO does not see the ethics behind the movement, nothing will get started.
- Research/bench marking/context. How can this work and what must be changed.
- Measurement & Integration. Make sustainability quantifiable and report on benchmarks. The transition from soft issue to hard evidence will be made.
- Relationship sustainability and innovation. Innovation in all divisions to take concept forward.
- Stakeholders and Partnerships. Maintain strong relationships and partnerships along entire supply chain. Create symbiosis between partners (WWF and NGO's in Woolies case).
- Clarity on Business Case. From the results of the measurements and integration, give it a Rand value. How much is saved? Are sales up? Is productivity up? Woolies has attracted investment from entities who want to invest responsibly (PRI) and this has tripled in the last few years.
I asked two questions after the presentation:
- How does Woolies measure Sustainability targets and report there on? MS Excell spreadsheets were used initially as there were no software packages available. This solution has been expanded to a custom bespoke package used by everyone and works for the company.
- Senior level buy in is the make or break of Sustainability take on. What steps were used to ensure this? Lots of change management was used and the biggest impact was when HR incorporated these KPI's into each employee's scorecard. It really then became part of the company culture and now Woolies attracts recruits with these values and ethics which builds the brand even further.
Thank you to the UCT Graduate School of Business for organising the event. A truly informative and practical session.
Sunday, 10 November 2013
The possible Industrial Symbiosis between the sugar and paper processing industries in South Africa
The possible Industrial Symbiosis between the sugar and paper processing industries.
For many who have read the book 'The Blue Economy' by Gunter Pauli, the industry solutions mentioned make incredible sense. Many industries are discussed, specifically on how their waste can be used very efficiently in other industries who use it as a process input. One example that caught my eye was the sugar industry. The sugar extracted is only 10-15% of the total cane biomass. This waste called bargasse (90% of plant ) is burnt as waste after sugar is extracted. At the Transvaal Sugar Board, they use the thousands of tons of bargasse as a source of fuel by burning it to contribute to the electricity required to run the processing plants and mills http://www.tsb.co.za//environment.cfm#.Un9A83Bmim4. So instead of using coal they use their own waste material and even have an independent power purchase agreement with Eskom to supply electricity to the national grid. But, in the burning process it is only the lignin that supplies the heat and energy. The rest which is composed of hemicellulose and cellulose creates massive carbon emissions when burned, because these substances incinerate without contributing useful heat. Can the bargasse then not be better used in the paper processing industry to make paper products?
The paper industry is currently and historically only using pine and eucalyptus trees as input to the paper making process. Vast swathes of pine and other tree plantations cover various sections of South Africa and since only the cellulose content of the entire tree is used to make the pulp for paper, the remaining 70-80% of the tree is wasted (what is done with this waste?). Sugar cane, in terms of fibre, tops the volume of produced by trees in our climate (temperate). So the logical outcome: should the sugar and paper industries not work together on perhaps using the other's waste? Both industries are concentrated in the eastern part of South Africa, so transport costs should be minimal. Worth considering......but with a certain turn around on each industries current business model.
As is put forward in The Blue Economy +TheBlueEconomy, industry should work like an ecosystem and as everyone knows: in nature nothing is wasted and there is always a cascading of nutrients. Waste output from industry is a massive problem globally so this is a key priority going forward. There are many other industries where waste accounts for a huge percentage of the entire process: the beer industry (SAB and use of clay), the coffee industry (99.8% of total biomass is waste). GreenCape, an NGO in Cape Town, has just acquired software from a UK based company to determine the 'Industrial Symbiosis' between industries. So this field can expand substantially within the next few years in this country.
For many who have read the book 'The Blue Economy' by Gunter Pauli, the industry solutions mentioned make incredible sense. Many industries are discussed, specifically on how their waste can be used very efficiently in other industries who use it as a process input. One example that caught my eye was the sugar industry. The sugar extracted is only 10-15% of the total cane biomass. This waste called bargasse (90% of plant ) is burnt as waste after sugar is extracted. At the Transvaal Sugar Board, they use the thousands of tons of bargasse as a source of fuel by burning it to contribute to the electricity required to run the processing plants and mills http://www.tsb.co.za//environment.cfm#.Un9A83Bmim4. So instead of using coal they use their own waste material and even have an independent power purchase agreement with Eskom to supply electricity to the national grid. But, in the burning process it is only the lignin that supplies the heat and energy. The rest which is composed of hemicellulose and cellulose creates massive carbon emissions when burned, because these substances incinerate without contributing useful heat. Can the bargasse then not be better used in the paper processing industry to make paper products?
The paper industry is currently and historically only using pine and eucalyptus trees as input to the paper making process. Vast swathes of pine and other tree plantations cover various sections of South Africa and since only the cellulose content of the entire tree is used to make the pulp for paper, the remaining 70-80% of the tree is wasted (what is done with this waste?). Sugar cane, in terms of fibre, tops the volume of produced by trees in our climate (temperate). So the logical outcome: should the sugar and paper industries not work together on perhaps using the other's waste? Both industries are concentrated in the eastern part of South Africa, so transport costs should be minimal. Worth considering......but with a certain turn around on each industries current business model.
As is put forward in The Blue Economy +TheBlueEconomy, industry should work like an ecosystem and as everyone knows: in nature nothing is wasted and there is always a cascading of nutrients. Waste output from industry is a massive problem globally so this is a key priority going forward. There are many other industries where waste accounts for a huge percentage of the entire process: the beer industry (SAB and use of clay), the coffee industry (99.8% of total biomass is waste). GreenCape, an NGO in Cape Town, has just acquired software from a UK based company to determine the 'Industrial Symbiosis' between industries. So this field can expand substantially within the next few years in this country.
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
Why is SAP Sustainability Reporting not getting industry penetration?
With all the world's industries moving to incorporating sustainability concepts into their organizations, it makes total sense to develop an off the shelf software package to assist in monitoring energy/water and other resource usage. As MBA grads and students tout: if you can measure it you can manage it!
Organizations can therefore save on operational costs for resource usage and any waste along the product life cycle through implementation of turnaround strategies and process re-engineering.
BUT, to my astonishment there has been very limited uptake of these management information systems. I will focus on one specifically as there are numerous resource monitoring tools.
For companies that already have SAP implemented as an enterprise resource planning software tool it should be a no brainer to purchase this add on to the traditional EH&S module (Environmental, Health & Safety). However the first of the problems is not the tool but the DATA. Meters need to be installed almost everywhere to gather this data (in the case of mines, dam levels are estimated) and the risk of damage and theft is high. People need to be employed to monitor the meters and ensure data is correct. All this data needs to be consolidated and stored on a server. Would the FD be able to make a business case to take on all this cost to save an unknown amount of money for the organization? In the current economic times and in South Africa I think the priorities are elsewhere.....
Sustainability reporting and incorporating these concepts into the overall financial reporting of companies is still a long way off in South Africa. How can we turn this around so that management and boards of directors can see the benefit?
With all the world's industries moving to incorporating sustainability concepts into their organizations, it makes total sense to develop an off the shelf software package to assist in monitoring energy/water and other resource usage. As MBA grads and students tout: if you can measure it you can manage it!
Organizations can therefore save on operational costs for resource usage and any waste along the product life cycle through implementation of turnaround strategies and process re-engineering.
BUT, to my astonishment there has been very limited uptake of these management information systems. I will focus on one specifically as there are numerous resource monitoring tools.
For companies that already have SAP implemented as an enterprise resource planning software tool it should be a no brainer to purchase this add on to the traditional EH&S module (Environmental, Health & Safety). However the first of the problems is not the tool but the DATA. Meters need to be installed almost everywhere to gather this data (in the case of mines, dam levels are estimated) and the risk of damage and theft is high. People need to be employed to monitor the meters and ensure data is correct. All this data needs to be consolidated and stored on a server. Would the FD be able to make a business case to take on all this cost to save an unknown amount of money for the organization? In the current economic times and in South Africa I think the priorities are elsewhere.....
Sustainability reporting and incorporating these concepts into the overall financial reporting of companies is still a long way off in South Africa. How can we turn this around so that management and boards of directors can see the benefit?
Monday, 4 November 2013
An Introduction to The Blue Engineer
This is my first blog for a different kind of engineering which has come to life for me. We are all accustomed to the traditional engineering disciplines where design, problem solving and execution follows the same pattern. Ideas have become so entrenched as to how to do things and how to create things that even engineers don't consider a total turn around of the status quo.
This blog will touch on a few concepts and how we can do things differently by incorporating the green, sustainability elements as well as being economically viable. A consolidation of a great deal of my research and readings on how the 'Blue engineer' can come to be in the industry.
This blog will touch on a few concepts and how we can do things differently by incorporating the green, sustainability elements as well as being economically viable. A consolidation of a great deal of my research and readings on how the 'Blue engineer' can come to be in the industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)