Activist organization Greenpeace publishes periodically a “Guide to greener electronics”. The guide attempts to rank top electronics manufacturers according to their “policies on toxic chemicals, recycling, and climate change”. I have written about this ranking earlier, it showed Nokia as the greenest company and Nintendo on the bottom of the list.

In October 2010 Greenpeace released their updated ranking, here are some excerpts for some companies including their “green score” (10 is best, 0 is worst).

1. Nokia   (Score: 7.5)
2. Sony-Ericsson (6.9)
3. Philips (5.5)
4. Hewlett Packard (5.5)
5. Samsung (5.3)
…
16. Toshiba (4.3)
17. Microsoft (1.9)
18.Nintendo (1.8)

Looking at this list unscientifically I cannot see an obvious connection between sales success of a company and “greenness”. The top contenders do well in the markets, but the low ranked companies seem to do very well too. Microsoft is certainly making lots of money, Nintendo is my son’s favorite. So, is it fair to say that being green is an insignificant factor for overall sales success?

I think so. Availability of a favorite game or ability to play games with friends is important to many kids, sustainability is not. Does this change with the age of the consumer? Apparently not, features and coolness (think Apple’s product line) seem to be more important than qualities like energy efficiency or sustainable  practices  in production.

There might be exceptions to this observation. Some products sell because they are deemed to be green (think about a Prius Hybrid for a moment). Still, consumers might choose these products more to make a statement than for its green features.

But I do have one hope: What if there is a company that delivers cool and feature rich products made in a very green way? Will this combo sell?

Claus Schafhalter, Sunogos

A new study issued by the German “Umweltbundesamt” comes to the conclusion that Germany should be able to switch energy production to 100% renewable sources within 40 years. Interestingly the head of the agency, Jochen Flasbarth, states that this is doable with technology that is available today. Building the necessary infrastructure would need decisive action and investment money.

One shortcoming of the study is that they do not include a quantitative cost — benefit analysis. Jochen Flasbarth is quoted “he feels on the save side, as the cost of the switch to alternative energy should be less than the cost of climate change.”

Here is my take: Switch to alternative energy can not come fast enough. Any economy that acts on a well thought out master plan to make the switch could very well be the leader in a wide range of energy technologies and reap economical and ecological benefits. Studies that concentrate on technological feasibility are very well, but not sufficient. There has to be a convincing business case that shows that this switch is beneficial so that  investors and entrepreneurs will invest. The German Umweltbundesamt would be very well advised to augment their study with cost — benefit scenarios and to come up with firm recommendations to the political leadership in Germany. It is very likely that other institutions like the European Union or other sovereign governments could take up the ball and advance the move away from a fossil economy to a sustainable economy.

Leaves me to wonder what the decision maker in our country will be able to do. Looks like any energy plan is stuck in the same old politics between the major parties as so many other things are stuck today. Will the US Administration and Congress be able to come up with a plan to lead us to a sustainable future? I do not hold my breath just yet, looks like climate change, Gulf oil spill and the huge amount of money for fossil fuel paid to foreign countries is not enough to initiate meaningful change.

Your thoughts?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

Many builders attending the National Green Building Conference stated that they have been able to sell sustainably built homes considerably faster than the traditionally built new homes that have been languishing in today’s tough market. Especially energy efficiency remains the feature most important to consumers interested in green buildings.

Good news is also that the price gap between green and standard housing is closing, helped along by tax and other incentives.

One of the problems builders have is to get the green features appraised correctly. If appraisers do not factor in the value of green features, the loan a potential buyer can get will be lower and maybe not sufficient to buy the house. And this in spite the savings in monthly expenditures, which means that borrowers are able to pay somewhat higher mortgage payments instead of spending the money on higher utility bills.

Does building green pay off? Research is still in its infancy, but there are numbers cited that each Dollar in annual energy savings adds $20 to the value of a house.

If this holds true, then we have another example where doing the right thing for our environment is also the right thing for our pocket books.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

2009  Microsoft and Intel commissioned a study looking at environmental benefits of digital media compared to old school CD (or vinyl albums, do you still remember?). Researcher at Stanford came to the conclusion that there are energy– and CO2 savings between 40% and 80% when music is distributed digitally as compared to sending CDs.

Another study done by Climate Partner finds that CO2 emissions resulting from sending proofs for ads can be reduced by up to 75% when an online portal is used as opposed to sending via snail mail.

And as can be easily shown the shifts are already under way. Did you buy a music CD at the store or did you download from Amazon or Itunes? Did you use an old fashioned ad in the newspaper to sell your used car or did you post on Craigslist?

The new crop of e-readers like the Kindle and tablets like HP’s Slate or Apple’s iPad enable consuming media digitally instead of printing and delivering books. That saves energy and trees.

To get the most out of this shift I would like to see the manufacturer of our digital devices to emphasis more on sustainability, energy savings, and ability to recycle. If you agree, you can start here!

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

In an earlier blog entry I was musing if corporations gain benefits if they are acting responsibly and in a sustainable way. Being lean reduces waste and saves money, so there you have it. However, another potential big benefit would be to differentiate oneself as the greener company, let the consumer know about it, and bet that the consumer will buy your product if it is the greener and more sustainable alternative.

The big problem for consumers is to know which product is beneficial in terms of sustainability.

Bring on some apps for your favorite Nokia, Apple, or Android phone. One free app is called barcoo (www.barcoo.de). All you have to do it to scan the barcode on the product with your phone camera, and the program returns — among other information — a sustainability evaluation for product and manufacturing company using a green / yellow / red light system. The evaluation uses “Corporate Social Responsibility”, information and rankings are based on corporate responsibility reports, user evaluations and research projects like WeGreen (University Berlin). Currently this app is more useful in Europe than in the US due to its broader database for products offered in Europe.

I am sure that applications or mobile-accessible websites like barcoo have a promising future, especially if they integrate best price information, user reviews, product descriptions, and sustainability index. Once this information is easily available, consumer have all the information they need to make informed choices. And in case consumers vote with their wallets for more sustainable products, corporations that are greener than the competition will be able to reap big benefits.

Don’t forget to bring your smart phone for the next trip to the shopping mall!

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

Two German inventors introduced a new kind of motion sensor to the market. These micro-vibration sensors detect motions or vibrations and can be integrated into many battery powered devices like wireless PC mice, remote controls, or lights for bicycles. The sensor interrupts the connection to the batteries as soon as the device is not in motion thus using energy only when the device is in use.

Functionally a small conducting ball within a larger sphere enables to switch on and off current depending on vibration of the device the micro sensor is mounted on.

While this little device offered by Sensolute might not be the all encompassing solution to our energy problems, every small step can help. Especially when intelligent technology couples energy savings with convenience.

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

Talking to start-up consultants and Angel investors in the Valley I got the impression that lots of money is looking for investments into green technologies. Of course this is nothing new as fuel cell technologies, bio-fuels from algae, and solar investments have been a staple of Silicon Valley over the last few years. But it looks like there are many more plays that are considered for funding.

This is great news because green innovations are good for the environment and good for the economy.

But there are other innovations from traditional companies that – taken together – can have a huge positive sustainability impact.

For instance, British Sugar burns natural gas in turbines to generate factory power. They collects the waste heat to make sugar. And they drive the carbon dioxide exhaust gas into huge greenhouses to grow millions of extra tomatoes a year!

Or a BMW engine plant that reuses water cleaned by nano-filtration over and over again. They save about 30 Mio l water a year. This water is not taken away from human use and saves money for the manufacturer.

So, while new technologies will bring breakthroughs in sustainability, applying existing technologies in an innovative way has big impacts now!

Claus Schafhalter, Sunogos

The other day I had my annual appointment with the optometrist. It was the first time that I visited this particular one, so as a new patient I was asked to fill out patient information forms and medical history forms.

I do not like to fill out forms manually, but there was no choice. I took the pen and began to check, mark and write what I have checked, marked and written numerous times before. I did it when I changed my primary care physician, when I was referred to an internist, even my dentist wanted to know if I was allergic to hay or had a history of manic break downs. Which I have not.

After I’ve completed and signed the forms, I handed then to the receptionist. She started to put the information of my paper forms into an electronic form on her PC. Yikes, the lean expert in me crinched.
After she was done she printed the forms and handed them to the dentist. The lean and green myself was now up in arms.

So, why do they not allow me to complete the form electronically? They could put a small kiosk at the check-in and let me enter my information myself. And why does the physician need to have a paper form and does not read and update the form electronically?

Even better, why am I not able to save my medical history on my smart phone or smart card — strongly encrypted with the ability to access the data only when I provide my valid password and a registered physician provides his valid authorization? The technology is out there just waiting to be implemented.

There are studies that show how much could be saved by using digital technology throughout the health care system. The most significant savings would come from reductions in errors by not being forced to decipher notoriously bad hand writings. And while there are pockets of innovation, there are still too many places that require you to fill out a form manually, just to print the information for the physician to throw it away.

How many errors could be avoided? How many trees could be saved?

Claus Schafhalter, Management Consultant @ Sunogos

The major source for electric power is coal, about 65% of electricity comes from coal fired power plants. Hydro provides about 20%, and renewable sources provide about 10% in 2009, according to a consultant citing government data.

China’s new target is to produce 15% of their electricity needs using clean technologies. Which triggers huge investments into this area.

Still, there is one nasty surprise when looking at their plan: According to China’s definition clean technologies include solar and wind, but also Nuclear power plants!

Defining it this way means that France with about 80% nuclear power is very clean, while China using a majority of coal fired power might get “cleaner”, but misses clean by a far distance. And in my definition neither France nor China should be called “green”.

Looks like China stays red after all.

Claus Schafhalter, Sunogos

Nokia N900

Activist organization Greenpeace publishes periodically a “Guide to greener electronics”. The guide attempts to rank top electronics manufacturers according to their “policies on toxic chemicals, recycling, and climate change”. Looking at the December 2009 issue, Nokia, the world largest cell phone maker, comes out on top with 7.3 of 10 possible points. Nintendo, known for their gaming devices is at the bottom of the list with only 1.4 out of 10 possible points.

What does this mean for the consumer? Well, obviously, if we have a choice we should go for the more environmentally friendly product. So, prefer a Nokia N97 over an Iphone (Apple ranks with 5.1 points somewhere in the middle), or a Playstation (Sony’s 5.1 means they are similar ranked as Apple) over a Gameboy.

Of course Greenpeace’ guide tries to evaluate corporations, and not products. And at the consumer level the fight between electronic devices is much more about features and coolness, than “greenness”. As many marketing consultants will tell you, it is hard to convince a consumer to buy a more environmental friendly product if the competition is cheaper, better, or more useful for the purpose. Unless green becomes the new “cool”.

But maybe the consumer is not really the target of comparisons like this. Maybe this is more interesting to shareholders, as companies that deal with less toxic substances should carry a smaller risk to incur clean up costs, or getting sued for environmental violations. I hope that companies realize their responsibility for our environment.

But I have to admit: I have a hard time to convince my 8 year old to not get a Nintendo DS.

Claus Schafhalter, Sunogos