As stated in prior blog editions, the concept of green is seen as an unknown at this time. Sure, there are many organizations and groups that will proclaim an item, or company, as green.  There are many more that will self proclaim that their products, services and whole organizations are green.  Are they truly all green?  If it was so easy to become green, then why has it taken so long for organizations worldwide to embrace it?  The concept of being green and the dialogue in the media and in advertising do not reconcile. That is the purpose of this blog edition, to begin to peel back what it means to be green from a theoretical view and begin to apply it to the real world of organizations and commerce.

Recently, the CEO of Duke Energy, Jim Rogers, was interviewed by ‘focusEarth,’ a Discovery Channel news show. In the interview, the discussion of Duke Energy’s newest coal fired plant was discussed and Mr. Rogers explained that the company’s goal was to be ‘Cleaner’ with the recognition that is cannot, at least not yet, be ‘Clean.’ In summary, Mr. Rogers gets it.  He understands.  As he explained briefly, ‘Clean’ is an absolute standard. By inference, ‘Cleaner’ is a relative standard.  Likewise, green can be both a absolute standard or a relative standard and that is what is happening today.  Organizations are widely claiming to be green based on a relative standard.  The problem is not so much with making that claim is that whose relative standard is being used?

Essentially, what is being asked is: Does any organization get recognized for environmental effort because they are doing more today than yesterday?

Right now, the basic answer is, ‘Yes.’  An organization with enough budget for marketing and advertising can hold itself out as environmentally friendly.  As being green.  While that can be debated, there is no standard by which those who would oppose the claim of being green can objectively, and rightly, oppose the claim.  It is a free-for-all.  It is the Wild West.  Further, the would-be advocates, usually environmental groups, are often their own worst enemies by having their single focus agenda.  Today, we discuss green as being associated with carbon emissions.  Many years ago, it was an argument on ozone-depleting substances.  Before it was nuclear energy and chemical spills.  It should be all.  It should be everything.  Here is the idea of green.

Harm No Living Thing.

It is a simple and straightforward concept.  Just make your actions and the actions of your organization not harmful to Life.  Easy.

Well, what is Life?

Does Human life only count or does mammalian life count?  What about insects, reptiles, trees and shrubs?  Where does one draw the line of Life and what life matters?  Then ask, what about the interaction of these different life forms?  Does that matter to me? Eventually, I believe, that it gets back to a simple premise.

Leave it as you found it.

In camping terms, it is called ‘packing it out.’  That means the plastic containers for foods, foils, etc. that you may use for camping is not left in the woods but carried back out of the woods to be disposed of in a proper method.  Your individual efforts and those of your organization should follow a similar standard to achieve an absolute measure of green.  It should be as if the organization never existed, or for those functioning and growing organizations, that its impact on Nature is neutral.  By this, it is not meant to be ‘carbon neutral’ but actually neutral.  No impact.  Can this actually be done?  If so, how?  What does this look like?  For now, recall this is a theoretical exercise on the absolute measure. The absolute measure will be explained by form of example.

Please continue reading ‘What Is Green?’ in the Green Procurement Blog’s next edition at [1] www.recyclechain.com.

© 2010