Speaking Green: What I'm Up To These Days

As we mentioned before, this series of Advisory Board member guest posts, we are asking "What are you working on?"  Advisory Board member Chris Hill continues this week with what's been keeping him busy lately.  You can find out more about Chris on the B2S team page.

When asked to guest post on what I’m up to these days, I was stuck for an interesting topic at first.  I am a construction lawyer after all, and there is a reason that juries aren’t used much in construction cases (something about “watching paint dry”).

Then I realized that I may be able to add something.  The folks here at Build2Sustain asked me to join the advisory board for some reason, so I had to come up with something!   

These past couple of months or so have been interesting here in Richmond, VA.  We had what really was the storm of the century, I had a major case mediate to settlement, and I finished up a trial.  Also, I was asked to speak at the Green Legal Matters conference in New Orleans, among other speaking engagements, relating to topics from what to do when you are called to testify to occupational safety. Throughout all of this, I have been trying to help my construction clients, and non-clients for that matter, weather the recession and learn a new world of sustainable construction both directly and through my Construction Law Musings blog.   

All of this activity leads me to one conclusion--the construction landscape is changing and those that don’t get on board will be left behind.  “Green” construction, a tight economy, and new areas of risk and reward are coming to the forefront.  For a construction attorney, these are exciting times and I look forward to helping Build2Sustain move forward into this brave new world.

Making Green Make Cents

For our next series of Advisory Board member guest posts, we are asking "What are you working on?"  Advisory Board member Sara Sweeney starts off this week with all of the projects that have been keeping her busy lately.  You can find out more about Sara on the B2S team page.

I feel a little bit like this post is a What I Did on my Summer Vacation post, and that’s kind of fun. 

2009 was by no means a stellar year for most of us. And if Raquel and James had asked me to write this post a year ago, it would have been a pretty short post, stating “trying to get work.” Last year at this time, I was teaching and that was it. However, because of that, because of having no work, it forced me to innovate both myself and my business in ways I did not expect I would need to do. It also opened doors to opportunities I never expected –even if the opportunities took months to come to fruition. Today, I can write that I am quite busy on several different fronts. 

I continue to teach part time at Philadelphia University, which I love. I teach a class on building systems and materials to the sophomores in the Department of Architecture. It’s their first introduction to how buildings go together, how they really work. Not only do I love the class and teaching, I also love the energy of the students and learning from them. It is indeed a win-win scenario. 

On the business front, I have a few LEED consulting projects in the works now. One project is with my former firm, Blackney Hayes Architects and is a new 72,000 sf academic building for Ocean County College. It is my first LEED v3 project and I am very excited to be really getting my head into the new rating system. I have also just started two smaller projects, also LEED v3 projects. One is a small Black Box theater for a CDC in the Kensington Section of Philadelphia, with a very talented young and local firm, ISA, Brian Phillips and Daryn Edwards at the healm. The other project is a new mixed use building for PBCIP, a non-profit neighborhood organization in Camden, NJ. PBCIP wants to build a landmark new sustainable office, retail and training facility at a prominent intersection in the Parkside section of Camden. Once a vibrant industrial city, Camden now has the reputation of being one of the worst cities in the United States. To be part of this project is very exciting. Also exciting is the architecture and engineering firm I am working with, DCM Architect + Engineering, a Camden-based firm headed by Eduardo Guzman and Robert Bensen. Eduardo is one of the most talented and forward-thinking architects I have met, and I can only say the same about Robert, who is a P.E.  

I am also working with strategic partner, Scott Chrisner, of Chrisner Group, on the Home Performance with Energy Star residential energy audit program, as well as offering full service green project management. It is part of the New Jersey Clean Energy program, and being a part of this new program here in New Jersey is very exciting.  

Finally, I am being trained by Bedford Cost Segregation, a company dedicated to providing cost segregation services, to help them out with projects. It is essentially a tax planning strategy to accelerate depreciation deductions and improve cash flow. It is a completely different way to look at a building, since its focus is breaking down the building specific to components which depreciate in 39, 15, and 7 years. The faster a component depreciates, the more money is available in deductions up front. I really wasn’t sure if I’d like the work –I was able to test the waters a few weeks ago on one project. I was surprised at how interesting I find it, and now I am taking the next steps to learn more so I can continue consulting with them. 

Looking at this list, I never would have expected a year ago that this is what I would be working on, nor would I have expected I would be this busy. But I knew I needed to keep at it last year, and it has paid off in the end. Now, I need to get back to work!

What is the 12 week Process?

We explain the 12 week plan for the Paper Project with some more detail.

Green Is a Dead Brand

I’ve been wrestling with this post for quite some time. Approaching green branding has unsettled me for a while, but I couldn’t quite articulate why. Then, just a few days ago, James Bedell tweeted a pic of the new Sprite Green – and it hit me what’s wrong with green as a brand. 

Everything.

I may take a certain amount of flack for this post, but I adamantly feel that both the concept and the marketing activity known as “green branding” need serious re-branding. 

Before diving into details, let’s take a step back.

Consider the characteristics of a good, strong brand. It has a clearly defined benefit. It is uniquely differentiated. It has a distinct voice and experience associated with it. It consistently delivers upon its promised benefit to consumers/customers. The great, beloved brands – Apple, Target, Google to name a few – achieve all of the above in spades.

Now consider “green” and all its brand baggage. Here are 4 reasons green branding needs a re-boot:

#1 Green has no clearly defined benefit. First and foremost, the term “green” has been used and mis-used so often, in so many ways, it's lost meaning. Forget greenwashing, the term "green" itself has been white-washed to the point that brand building on green is like branding built on that nebulous benefit called “quality.”

Take Sprite Green, for example. Why is it called “green?” Turns out it’s because the soft drink is produced with an all-natural sweetener (not to mention 5% lemon juice per serving).

So, what is green now? Something made from all-natural products? Something that when used has a positive or neutral effect on the environment? Something produced in a more eco-friendly manner? All of the above?

And to what level of eco-friendliness do brands have to be in order to be considered “green” without being accused of greenwashing? The concepts of "shades of green" personally makes me a little sick to my stomach when you consider the additional brand confusion to an already confusing term, let alone the lack of standardization. Suddenly brands will have to define dark green vs. green vs. lime green? Jump right into the brand nightmare, the water is warm.

#2 People don’t trust green. Because of the effects of greenwashing and continued debate about the imperative to fight climate change and preserving natural resources, 70% of consumers don't think companies are genuine when they talk about how they help the environment and society, according to Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS). How can you build a brand around a message shrouded in doubt and misperception? Which leads us to reason #3…

#3 Green used to suck. Today’s environmentally friendly products, solutions and services have come a long way from what were first brought to market. But sadly, too many people still perceive anything “green” as more expensive, less effective, too complex and requiring too much time to install/implement/etc. The “green” brand experience has been tainted almost beyond repair. Until the market is educated to the contrary, perception will continue to be a very real barrier to adoption…and a huge piece of brand baggage that green needs to check.

#4 Green’s uniqueness has a time limit. As the market becomes more educated and as government legislation/standardization begins to take hold, there will be such demand for environmentally friendly, more efficient and sustainable products/solutions that “green” will become cost of entry for any brand. Consumers want transparency. Employees want transparency. Shareholders want transparency. And all of them want companies to do good and perform exceedingly well. Green will be a major factor in achieving these goals for everyone. So while green holds some facet of competitive advantage now, it will soon become a feature of any good brand, not the primary benefit. 

--

So, what is the re-brand for green brands? As is the case for every company or product, brands must be rooted in a tangible benefit to consumers or, in the case of b2b, businesses. Efficiency. Productivity. Cost savings. Ease-of-use. Comfort. Style. PLUS the most excellent benefit that it’s created of materials and by means that have a positive effect for the planet. Strong green brands must be strong brands in and of themselves. In the quest for the triple bottom line, we can’t forget the bottom line.

Green branding is dead. Long live green branding.

Sustainable Vs. Green - A Redux

This week, advisory board member Sara Sweeney talks a little bit more about the sustainable vs. green debate.  You can find out more about Sara on the B2S team page.

A few weeks ago, James asked a great question on this blog about Sustainable vs. Green. The question stemmed from the fact that terms often become labels and are tossed around perhaps without much thought to the actual meaning. With respect to sustainable vs green, James asked “…is it important that we begin to define terms more clearly?  What is the difference between "green" and "sustainable"?  Is there one?  Should there be one?” He also asked “…how do we implement them in such a way that the general public will also understand?”

The resulting comments showed a great cross-section of how the terms are being used (whether real or perceived), and I recommend reading all of them. I wanted to follow up on my comment to the post, as well as my thoughts on this subject, in this post, my regular monthly contribution to the B2S blog.  

Back to Basics

In crafting my original comment to James’ questions, I had gone back to Webster’s Dictionary, 9^th ed., and looked up green and sustain, the root of sustainability. I wanted to go back and start at the very beginning, so to speak. I was interested in what I learned as a result, specifically that not only is green a noun (a color for ex.), it also is a verb, meaning “to become green, to make green.” Webster’s also listed two cross-reference verbs: Rejuvenate and Revitalize. If my understanding is correct, then green when used as “to become green,” or “to make green” could be used in place of these verbs, and vice-versa. The word green –as both a noun and a verb, has been around a long time too, in use since roughly the 12^th century. 

The word sustain has also been around a long time, since the 13^th century. It’s a verb meaning “to give support or relief to; to supply with sustenance; keep up, prolong…” and etc. The word sustainable is really an adjective of sustain, and so in reality describes something which gives support or relief to. 

“Only X is Sustainable! Y is Not!”

In thinking further about these questions the past few weeks, I also feel we need to be mindful of how we use the terms, and in what context. I say this because there exists the danger that we involved in any way with environmental responsibility could hijack either term to mean only what we want it to mean, versus what it truly means. So many factors come into play when talking about sustainability–political, social, economic and environmental. Mark Lorie said it best in his poignant comment to James original question:

Most people are wrong about what sustainable means and how it should be pursued. Most rigorous writings on this, starting with the Bruntland commission and scholars like Herman Daly, are clear that sustainability consists of three primary elements--social, economic, and environmental. Many environmentalists tend to forget the first two and talk about sustainability as being "zero waste" or "not extracting a resource faster than it is regenerated." Nonsense. The three elements go hand in hand. If society decides to improve wealth, living standards and social conditions by using a non-renewable energy source, as we have done for centuries, it is not automatically "unsustainable" in the true definition of the term. To make this a sustainable practice, society must eventually invest some of the generated wealth in finding alternatives that will allow future generations to have the same choices about living standards and social conditions as we have. Those investments can be through R&D, educating people to do the work etc. The consumed natural capital has to be replaced with various forms of social or economic capital so that we don't preclude future generations choices.

He is absolutely correct, and his comment gets to the crux of why we need to be mindful of the use of the words. To further illustrate the point, here’s an excerpt from a guest post I did for Chris Hill’s Construction Law Musings blog last week:  

“…Many feel that coal generated power is unsustainable. Mining coal can cause massive environmental destruction, and burning it emits toxins into the air, from CO2 to mercury, and is accused of being the primary cause of a changing climate, to name a few reasons. To others, such as those who work in coal rich areas, coal represents sustainability. Sustainability of their lives, of their families lives. Upper management and corporate heads of the coal industry aside, to a miner, or anyone that works in the dredges of the coal industry, the loss of the industry is potentially a threat to their sustainability. Yes, there may be “Green Jobs” available, and yes, perhaps these jobs offer a healthier work environment than what a mine offers. But unless the jobs are a lateral or advanced move career wise, and not a demotion per-say, I can understand the concern [those working in the coal-mining industry may have]…” 

Although many may indeed feel that coal generated power is unsustainable, in the true sense of the word sustain, and when viewed in context with social, economic and environmental factors, use of coal may very well be sustainable.  

Sustainable and Green

There are many sides to the definition of just what sustainable and green mean and we cannot look at sustainability and green only with respect to the environmental concerns, just as we cannot look at them only with respect to social concerns. They must be viewed in balance with the three elements of social, economic and environmental. 

I ended my original comment to James’ questions stating that “…[I feel] we can use green and sustainable interchangeably as verbs, nouns and adjectives, to describe our efforts…” and I think we can. There are really no better two words to describe the changes taking place culturally, socially, economically, politically and more. Each word is succinct and easily understandable, and in reality, can be used interchangeably. And as long as we are all balanced and fair in our use of the words, instead of using it to claim the sustainability of one ‘thing’ and decry the un-sustainability of another ‘thing,’ we will stick true to the meaning of the words, as well as finding common ground and a way forward as a whole.