Is The Benefit Cost Savings or Environmental Responsibility?

By Wendi Latko, Director of Sustainable Services, Xerox Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability

Right now at Xerox we are pulling together the final pieces of our annual Environment, Health, Safety and Sustainability (EHS&S) Report, which is part of our Report on Global Citizenship.  While the EHS&S report is filled with metrics and data, the part that is the most fun to compile is the call-out boxes which contain real-life examples of how we live our commitment to environmental responsibility.

Every year, however, I encounter reluctance from people in our operations who are hesitant to have their projects highlighted.  Not because they aren’t doing great things – they ARE doing great things.  Their resistance stems from what they see as an ethical dilemma – if a project was not undertaken for the purpose of “environment” or “sustainability,” is it right to use it as an example of a “green” accomplishment?

What if we turned the situation around – if we attacked an environmental problem, and the solution also resulted in a cost savings, would we not acknowledge that benefit to the bottom line?  Of course we would!  The reality is that cost and environmental impact are often closely intertwined.  A quick look at the seven types of waste identified in Lean Six Sigma thinking makes it very easy to map to the associated environmental impact: the wastes of transport, inventory, motion, waiting, overproduction, over-processing, and defects.  Each of these non-value added activities has costs not only in time and money, but nearly always to the environment, as well.

One way we recognize this linkage at Xerox is through annual Employee Earth Awards.  These awards recognize individuals or teams for innovative or outstanding achievements that promote “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” It is an opportunity for Xerox employees to partner throughout the world to ensure that our actions have a positive impact on the environment while demonstrating value to our customers.  The 15 award winners for 2011 demonstrated that what is good for the environment is also good for business. In total, they represent cost avoidance of $17.4M and waste elimination of 6M pounds.  Why were those projects initiated?  In some cases for cost savings, in others, to reduce environmental impact.  The reality is they’re one in the same.

So are environmental improvements initially pursued for the purpose of cost containment still green?  While certainly “sustainability” is a term that has a moral implication, the reality is that businesses exist to be profitable.  Companies that are striving to operate responsibly still need to make money, and thus continually look for cost-effective ways to achieve their goals – both financial and environmental. We strive for the win-wins that are good for business and good for the environment.