Have Safety Assessments Lost Their Focus?
Although significant progress has been made in managing safety throughout the industrial world, safety incidents at refineries, chemical plants, and mines continue to occur. Some of these incidents have been devastating, resulting in loss of life; others have been near misses. For me, they bring back memories of near misses experienced while conducting safety assessments or learned about during accident investigations.
Despite our technical prowess, risks remain associated with producing chemicals and pharmaceuticals, refining oil, and mining ore. We manage these risks through operating procedures, regulation, training, daily plant walkthroughs, and audit oversight. That last item troubles me most.
As a professional who has written more than 25 audit program attestations over the years, it seems to me that we have lost sight of the fundamental value of audit programs—a management tool for assessing and communicating a company’s risk profile. Audit programs increasingly are evaluated by the number of audits done per year, or the number of regulatory programs reviewed relative to the time on-site. What is missing is a focus on potential risks for which there are no governing regulations and the fortitude of the audit team to bring them to management’s attention. How often have you heard employees say, “The plant is too old,” or “Things have gone downhill over the past few years,” or “things are not like they were ten years ago.” These are all signs of change, which present risks that need to be adequately understood, assessed, and evaluated in terms of potential consequences.
The value of an audit program is its ability to accurately characterize a company’s management of risks and effectively communicate the results so that any appropriate actions can be taken. The ability to aptly characterize risk is rooted in experienced assessors who are dedicated to undertaking an objective review of critical operations and who understand how to present audit results so they are heard not only at the highest level of the organization but also at the shop level.
Jane E. Obbagy
Vice President
May 28, 2009
Thoughts for Refocusing the Assurance Function in Lean Times
In these times of economic downturn and uncertainty, companies look to cut or defer those tasks that are non-essential to the business, and are bombarded from all sides with the ‘do more with less’ mantra. The key question, though, is how far essential functions, such as environmental assurance, can be realigned. Regardless of what changes occur during this period of uncertainty, senior management and boards of directors still expect to be provided with reliable information that the company’s interests are being protected. Therefore, we suggest that assurance managers demonstrate leadership through these challenging times by engaging in activities that are responsive to marketplace realities, but maintain the organization’s license-to-operate.
Retain the Best Talent and Strategically Outsource. If you must have fewer resources, then strive to retain the best people associated with the assurance function who can identify and assess real risks to the organization. These staff members most likely have the knowledge and experience to cost effectively assess whether the internal controls are functioning to meet the needs of the stakeholders and if the resources and organization are properly aligned to support the key compliance objectives. To augment internal resources, consider a strategic partnering relationship with a third-party, and manage the process so that key information and knowledge (a/k/a institutional knowledge or corporate memory) is not lost.
Keep an Eye on Compliance by Prioritizing Risks. Develop or redefine the risk screening tools to redirect resources to better focus where the greatest level of assurance is needed; and to carefully prioritize environmental risks to evaluate where rigorous verification will provide the greatest benefit. For example, consider a set of risk criteria that looks at compliance and operational scenarios as (1) Critical Risks - or those risks that are unacceptable for the company not to manage diligently, and therefore must include a high level of assurance; (2) Routine Risks - or those risks that are inherent and that the company seeks to reduce through continuous improvement; and (3) Low Risks - or those risks that are deemed so low that the cost of reducing them further is not commensurate with the potential benefits.
Help Reduce Operational Costs through Energy and Water Use Assessments. Energy costs associated with manufacturing and the pumping of water have increased dramatically over the past year. Moreover, policy trends indicate that countries are adopting programs, practices, and regulations to encourage energy conservation and investment in new energy technologies and vehicle fuels. The time has never been better for businesses to assess the future and develop the strategies necessary to effectively address the costs associated with energy, greenhouse gases, and climate change. Consider modifying the assurance function to develop and implement energy and water assessments that are focused on examining equipment changes, operational and maintenance practices, and process redesigns to reduce energy and water demands.
Leverage the Line Organization in Providing Assurance. If fewer corporate auditing resources become inevitable, then consider requiring operations managers to provide an Assurance Letter attesting to compliance as well as identifying any potential compliance issues that need to be addressed. This practice theoretically shifts more of the burden of compliance assurance onto the line organization, prompting the development or intensification of self-auditing programs within the line functions. The attestation by a high ranking line manager reinforces the importance of compliance assurance within the organization.
Maintain the Assurance Function’s Transparency. There are no indications that stakeholders desire less information about an organization’s motivation and philosophy towards the environment. In fact, the demand for clear and responsible reporting is greater now than ever before. We suggest that companies use all available information--metrics data, auditing results, assurance letters, and attestations from external parties--to develop a composite of the organization’s responsible management processes for internal and external reporting purposes.
Stuart Canton
Senior Associate
March 2, 2009
Developing a Carbon Footprint – There are Clear and Bottom Line Benefits
Today many companies are considering whether or not it makes sense to develop a carbon footprint for the entire organization, operating plants, or suppliers. Although this question is not easy to answer, there are clear benefits for companies. A carbon footprint:
- Creates a summary of the key carbon issues and how they might impact the company’s business vision and its relationship to regulators, opinion leaders, and internal and external stakeholders.
- Helps assess whether the company is employing principles of eco-efficiency and how manufacturing/product attributes may impact the corporate brand or product marketing and outreach efforts.
- Addresses end of life issues associated with product design, as well as procurement, and can help quantify customer relations and the revenue benefits associated with them.
- Is a starting point for integrating principles of zero-net depletion of natural systems, closed-loop manufacturing, and resource efficiency in product development as part of the company’s green manufacturing strategy.
Establishing a carbon footprint involves a number of steps: 1) Identifying the major life cycle carbon impacts inherent in the design, manufacturing, delivery, and use of products or services; 2) Measuring or estimating the carbon emissions associated with product manufacturing, service delivery, and product use; 3) Identifying and understanding opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint or seek offsets to carbon impacts; and 4) Developing and implementing actions to manage carbon footprints.
Based on a review of global energy data, Cadmus suggests that carbon dioxide emissions are expected to increase substantially with energy demand, further raising concerns about climate change/global warming. Policy trends indicate that countries are adopting programs, practices, and regulations to encourage energy conservation and investment in new energy technologies and vehicle fuels. And, carbon trading is on the rise, an indication that investors and the public accept the notion of a carbon constrained world, even in this time of economic uneasiness.
Moreover, various accounting and verification standards related to climate change and greenhouse gases are continuously emerging. For example ASTM International recently balloted a draft consensus standard on Financial Disclosure Attributed to Climate Change, and the International Standards Organization (ISO) launched its greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and verification standard (ISO 14064:2006), along with the newer complementary standard that describes accreditation requirements for organizations that validate or verify GHG emission assertions or claims (ISO 14065:2007).
Regardless of your current stance on climate change, we recommend that companies implement a series of actions to evaluate potential carbon exposures and establish a strategy and position in the marketplace as a company focused on managing energy effectively, engaging in energy efficiency programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and providing industry with products and services with lower carbon burdens.
Stuart Canton and Jane Obbagy
December 12, 2008
Green Certification
As sustainability makes the transition from trend to necessity, companies are increasing production of environmentally friendly products. However, even though green options are increasing for consumers, it’s difficult to determine whether a decision is ecologically conscious.
That’s where green certification programs come in. Green certification programs are growing all over the country and are proving to be a great incentive for businesses to take substantial steps in reducing their carbon footprint.
First, Green Seal (a non-profit formed in 1989) is a strict, high-standard labeling company that looks at the entire lifecycle of a product, from the raw materials used to make it, to whether it is recyclable or disposable. Product standards are developed with the input of the public and industry stakeholders, the academic community and government agencies. The standards must meet Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements, International Standards Organization (ISO) requirements and the requirements of third party certifiers. Funding comes from foundations as well as application and certification fees. It is not affiliated with a governmental program and does not take donations from manufacturers.
GreenBlue is a non-profit organization that works with industry coalitions to develop tools and practices to implement sustainable product design. It works with the Design for the Environment (DfE) program for the “Cleangredients” database project, which is a “one-stop-shop” of ingredients for green formulations. The database was formed by stakeholders including the EPA, a number of people on GreenBlue’s technical advisory committee, and formulators.
The City of Seattle has set up a program called “EnviroStars”. The EnviroStars Program certifies businesses for reducing, recycling, and properly managing hazardous waste. It has already certified about 600 businesses from auto repair to zoos. They are now consulting with other communities across the country to develop similar programs.
Even large industries like car companies are moving toward more sustainable processes.
Subaru’s manufacturing plant in Lafayette, Indiana recycles 97% of all excess or leftover materials (including steel, glass, plastic, wood, and paper) from the manufacturing process. Subaru’s wheel supplier uses brass lug nuts to hold wheels in place during shipping which typically equals 33,000 pounds of brass per year. Instead of being thrown away, they are reused until they're no longer serviceable, then they're recycled. Paint sludge is dried to a powder, then shipped to a plastics manufacturer that mixes the dried sludge with other plastic compounds. The end products are useful devices such as parking-lot bumpers and guardrail safety blocks that absorb impact when struck by a vehicle.
It’s not easy being green. And sometimes it’s expensive. So when an establishment goes to the trouble of creating, distributing, or selling a product that is made with environmental consciousness, that not only should be supported, but celebrated.
Katie Ryder
Research Analyst
November 17, 2008
Uncle Sam Goes Viral: Web 2.0 Approaches to Social Marketing
Health promotion programs have to capture public attention and convey complex information in a way that informs and inspires. But the public has little attention for scientific messages and is so bombarded with media that most health messages cannot make an impact.
Web 2.0 Meets Social Marketing 101
Web 2.0—a term that describes a new paradigm of web design and functionality—provides a model for innovative health communication. In Web 2.0, users drive communication, knowledge generation, and information management.
Health promotion programs that rely on social marketing may recognize something familiar in Web 2.0. A cardinal rule of social marketing is that a message from a trusted local source is always better than one from a stranger—I’m more likely to follow my neighbor’s advice than I am to respond to a Government flyer. If messages from someone ‘like me’ are the most influential and Web 2.0 models engage everyday users in knowledge creation and delivery, surely there is a role for Web 2.0 approaches in public health promotion.
A Case in Point: The YouTube Radon Video Contest
In the summer of 2008, Cadmus worked with the U.S. EPA to design and pilot a social marketing campaign using a Web 2.0 approach. We hosted an amateur video competition about radon. We had less than two months to run the contest; the winner received less than $3K; and we had a shoestring budget for design and marketing. At our most optimistic, we expected 10 videos.
We designed a simple web site to communicate the rules and manage video submissions. We marketed the contest online to newsgroups, social networks, blogs, and web sites for film buffs and students.
When the contest closed, we had 30 videos, some of extremely high quality—see the winner here—had engaged a new demographic, had a much greater understanding of the kinds of radon messages that resonate with the people we need to reach, and had exceeded our client’s goals.
Lessons for Effective Health Promotion
This project could not have succeeded without a determined client who pushed the government bureaucracy to relinquish control and allow a strongly user-driven approach. We struggled to keep the contest simple as we navigated legal restrictions. The short timeframe likely limited submissions. Still, the contest was a huge success. We tapped into the participatory culture of the new web and transformed a passive audience into creative partners. The winning video could have cost 50 times the prize value had it been made by a PR firm and we would have missed the opportunity to create a cadre of local champions for radon.
Katharine Hastings
Principal
October 13, 2008
Energy Efficiency Promises a Cost-effective Path to Energy Security and a Low-carbon Economy
Energy security ought to be one of our next president’s highest priorities. One important way we can improve our energy security is by using energy more efficiently. Energy efficiency can also help increase economic productivity and enhance efforts to mitigate global climate change. Not very many options can lead us to a low-carbon economy more cost-effectively than energy efficiency.
California has proved that. For more than 30 years, the state’s energy efficiency strategies have kept per-capita energy use flat while average national consumption has grown by 50 percent. Nationwide, more than $300 billion was invested in energy-efficiency technology and infrastructure in 2004, and such investments are expected to continue to grow. The energy saved from the 2004 investment alone is equivalent to the energy produced by 40 mid-sized coal power plants.
These figures are impressive, but we can do so much more. Several studies suggest that the United States can cost-effectively reduce energy consumption by 30 percent—or more—over the next 20 years by increasing its energy efficiency.
Cadmus is very well placed to assist the U.S. and other markets in significantly increasing their energy efficiency. We are working not only in the Northeast and the West—where interest in energy efficiency has long been high— but also in the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest. We are active in Ontario and British Columbia—and we have been asked to help with energy-efficiency plans in oil-rich Libya and Saudi Arabia (yes, Saudi Arabia).
At Cadmus, we have years of experience in identifying technical, economic, and market opportunities for energy savings and in designing energy efficiency marketing programs and evaluating their effectiveness. (Except for the actual on-the-street operations with trucks and crews, we do it all.)
These are truly exciting times for energy efficiency experts. I have seen the pendulum swing back and forth several times in the past 25 years. This time, the swing—in the right direction—appears to promise lasting change. Energy efficiency is one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy. Its results aren’t as obvious as, say, a new power plant and so are easy to overlook. But greater investments in energy efficiency today will bring even greater benefits to people and the planet for generations to come.
M. Sami Khawaja
Vice President
September 1, 2008
Energy conservation has been recognized as a national priority for a very long time, but concrete steps have not been taken seriously and the few that have been taken lack in perspective and determination.
Ira
November 11, 2008
Managing Water Flow, Not Just Pollution
Among water managers, experts and consultants I respect, I hear more and more discussion of the need to sustainably manage water flow and less and less about managing water pollution
per se.
Section 101 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) states: “it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985.” Notwithstanding tremendous progress over the years, this aspirational goal of “zero discharge” ran up against the hard realities of limited dollars, limited technology and, as it turned out, limited legal authority in the CWA to regulate nonpoint source pollution (e.g., agricultural runoff), impervious surfaces and stormwater resulting from local land use decisions.
We have done a fairly decent job as a nation, in controlling traditional point-source pollution from large municipal and industrial sources coming out of the end of a pipe. To the extent we have made substantial progress on this front, we now realize how much more needs to be done “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” also mentioned in Section 101 of the CWA.
Why strive to manage flow and not just pollutants? First, managing pollutants only causes managers and regulators to focus narrowly on the chemical component of aquatic ecosystems. This is important from a human health perspective, and it has been addressed effectively over the years. But it tends to overlook the physical and biological pieces of the puzzle.
In recent years scientists have come to appreciate the importance of the “natural flow regime-its variable pattern of high and low flows throughout the year as well as across many years…” A fine statement of the case for paying attention to the flow regime, not just minimum flows and water quality, was the publication of Rivers For Life: Managing Water For People And Nature by Sandra Postel and Brian Richter (Island Press 2003).
Each element of the natural flow regime does important work for river systems. According to Postel and Richter:
Flood flows cue fish to spawn and trigger insects to begin a new phase of their life cycle…while very low flows may be critical to the recruitment of riverside (or riparian) vegetation.
Dams, diversions, levees and other structural interventions disrupt water flow and, just as importantly, the transport of sediment which nourishes floodplains, deltas, and estuaries (think about the disappearing Gulf coast!).
Another reason to focus on managing flow as a paramount objective is the need to be more efficient and conserve water. Whether in the Colorado River Basin or the southeastern United States, drought, climate variability and growing populations are stressing water supplies. Emphasizing water reuse and recycling gets you two birds with one stone: you conserve water while reducing discharges of water of varying levels of pollution.
Focusing on water flow inevitably leads you to manage the landscape to protect forests, wetlands and other natural vegetation to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution and urban stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, parking lots and roofs. This, in turns, allows for reduction in pollutants, water temperature and velocity of the runoff which protects water quality and biota in streams and tributaries. It helps maintain a more natural flow regime generally.
These are very provisional thoughts, but I think the focus on flow management, not just pollutants, has much to recommend it. It can yield lower costs in reducing chemical pollution while generating multiple environmental benefits or ecological services such as habitat, water and energy savings, carbon sequestration, mitigation of urban heat islands, biodiversity and aesthetic beauty. What’s not to like?
Go with the flow.
G. Tracy Mehan, III
Principal
August 7, 2008
Definitely, integrated instream-flow, water-quality, and forest/wetland management are needed to protect physicochemical and biological elements of aquatic ecosystems, including Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay (where I live or have lived) that are strongly feeling the effects of urbanization.
Bob Vadas, Jr.
October 21, 2008
The Next Generation Environmental Assurance Function
Corporations are facing new and more challenging demands related to the many roles society expects them to play. In the past, corporations simply were expected to comply with regulatory requirements. Today their reputations increasingly are being linked to environmental sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Consequently, the historic function of providing assurance to management that the company’s operations are in compliance is changing in fundamental ways along the lines of resources, transparency, third-party attestations, metrics, and liability reporting.
Resources: In the past, the assurance function was staffed primarily by technical experts (e.g., in air pollution control or industrial hygiene) who could verify compliance with applicable governmental requirements. As other issues have emerged (e.g., stakeholder requests for information about contributions to local communities, the sustainability of current operating practices, and the long-term health and environmental impacts of operational emissions), new skills and expertise are required to maintain an effective assurance function that increasingly addresses issues related to life cycle analysis, stakeholder engagement, and finance.
Transparency: Demands for corporate transparency are not going away. In fact, we expect external stakeholders will request even more information, particularly so they can better understand a company’s motivation and philosophy towards the environment and social responsibility. As a consequence, the assurance function is looking beyond the corporation as staff members participate in annual shareholder meetings or in focus sessions to discuss performance and answer stakeholders’ questions about current and new compliance and sustainability programs.
Third-party opinions: As the assurance function has looked increasingly outwards, the public’s demands for independent affirmations of corporate performance have grown. As a result, third-party opinions in the form of attestations, certifications, and ratings have become commonplace features of the assurance function.
Metrics: Many companies adhere to the philosophy that “What gets measured gets managed,” and the use of metrics in the assurance function has grown tremendously over the past several years. Our corporate social responsibility work leads us to conclude that organizations should define new sets of performance metrics—and many already have. Doing so means thinking outside the “compliance assurance box” to establish indicators—such as reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the verification of those reductions.
Liability reporting: Since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley and the advent of its new accounting standards, environmental assurance has captured the attention of the financial and accounting worlds. New requirements and standards for reporting environmental liabilities have created the need for validation of how companies estimate and report environmental costs related to their operations and assets. Pressure from shareholders and regulators is driving companies to look for increased assurance that their environmental costs and liabilities are accurately characterized, measured, and verified.
The environmental assurance function is undergoing a transformation. Its continued success as a key business function will be related to the specific steps a company takes to address stakeholder requests for more information and how it communicates the materiality of key environmental and social issues.
Jane E. Obbagy
Vice President
July 25, 2008
Thinking About Global Climate Change
It is astonishing how fast the phrase “global climate change” has become commonplace in the U.S. Although there are still skeptics about the human-induced aspects of climate change, it is well accepted that human activities are responsible for the increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane. Many scientists and policy-makers are calling for a drastic reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. In fact, just this month, two sobering reports on the effects of climate change have come out. One report “Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate,” predicts that man-made global warming will increase the number of extreme weather events such as the devastating floods in the Midwest, drought conditions in the Southeast, and the unusual number of tornados in the U.S. during the first half of 2008. Second, U.S. intelligence agencies have produced a National Intelligence Assessment of the national security implications of climate change.
While the debate on how to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels wages on within the scientific and policy-making arenas, a number of mitigating options are being examined and evaluated. In their article in the August 13, 2004 issue of Science, Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow, recognizing that there is no “silver bullet” that will accomplish the necessary reductions, presented an approach using “stabilization wedges” to mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide. The stabilization wedges involve a variety of commercial/industrial technologies, such as carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) at coal and natural gas-fired power plants; design of energy-efficient buildings (e.g., using Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™); and effective land management (e.g., reduced deforestation and conservation tillage to cropland). Others involve individual efforts such as driving efficient vehicles (e.g., hybrid cars); reducing vehicle use (e.g., using public transit); and making behavioral changes to improve water and energy efficiency.
Solving this global problem will not be easy at the individual and national levels; nevertheless, we must start somewhere. Personally, I believe we, as a nation and as individuals, should invest in a diverse portfolio of stabilization strategies, and I am excited to talk to my fellow staff about how they—through the course of their professional work and in their personal choices—are supporting many of these strategies. For example, Cadmus promotes EPA’s ENERGY STAR® Program, supports the development of a regulation on geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, and supports education and certification for LEED. Cadmus staff support the Watertown (Mass.) Solar Challenge Committee, boast about the use of energy efficient upgrades to their homes, and make fuel-efficient choices in coming to work. Hopefully, we can continue to collectively minimize our “foot-prints” and work with our government and multi-national corporations to deploy the various carbon dioxide stabilization strategies.
Chi Ho Sham
Vice President
June 24, 2008
Cadmus on first glance seems like a progressive outfit. When considering renewable sources of energy along with the fact that most environmental problems today are man-made, you may wish to consider unified field based technologies of consciousness. Otherwise, as history has so aptly demonstrated, partial scientific understanding of laws of nature just leads to one crisis after another.
Scott Lary
July 28, 2008
Climate change is certainly an interesting focus of our work at Cadmus, and these are exciting times for those of us who have been supporting EPA’s efforts related to geologic sequestration (GS) of CO2. EPA’s Administrator signed a proposed regulation with standards for GS wells on July 15, 2008—this was the Agency’s first proposed rule to address climate change.
EPA needs to follow accelerated rulemaking to keep pace with the anticipated rapid development and implementation of GS. To that end, Cadmus supported the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program on an ambitious effort to prepare a proposed rulemaking package in nine months. We have been busy preparing technical and issue papers on GS technologies, estimating the cost of the proposed rule, and planning workshops at which experts from around the world shared expertise that was critical to the development of the technical specifications in the proposed regulation.
Many people at Cadmus have been working with the UIC program for years, and it is exciting that this long-standing injection technology is turning into a promising option to reduce CO2 emissions and address climate change.
Shari Ring
Senior Associate
July 21, 2008
First Entry
This is the first entry to a new Cadmus blog aimed at providing insight on some of the critical and current environmental, energy, and public health challenges facing our clients—and society at large. On a regular basis, Cadmus experts will use this space to weigh in on issues that are in the news or on our minds. We’ll offer opinions and solutions and we hope that you’ll share your thoughts and give us feedback on what we’ve proposed.
Why are we starting a blog? Well, for one, we think we have ideas and innovative approaches that can be applied to solve many of the difficult issues stressing our natural environment and threatening public health. This blog is one way to share and improve those ideas and approaches. More importantly, we believe that the complex and deeply intertwined challenges that we face today—from climate change, to the availability of clean and safe water, to the impact of indoor environments on children’s health—require dialogue and multi-disciplinary thinking. Blogs and other Web 2.0 tools allow for that kind of exchange to happen in a way that can involve not only our in-house experts, but anyone with an interest and an idea to share. As a firm, we’ve always believed in the power and necessity of cross-discipline and cross-media approaches to solving environmental and public health problems, so this opportunity to engage a broader community of thinkers is something we find very exciting.
While I plan to periodically contribute to this blog, I intend to leave most of the heavy lifting to my talented and knowledgeable colleagues, whose expertise and passion for their work will more often than not result in thoughtful—and thought-provoking—content. While they’ll set the initial direction for each discussion on this blog, it will only succeed and serve its intended purpose if you share your thoughts, ideas, and feedback. So please do. We hope you find our contributions informative and valuable and we look forward to learning from yours.
Warm regards,
Ian Kline, President and CEO
June 1, 2008
This is great that you're starting a blog. Since learning about your company, I am excited to hear about the kinds of topics that your employees are interested in. This is definitely an era where companies like Cadmus not only have tremendous business opportunity, but also are extremely important in educating society to live more sustainably.
I find that it is quite challenging living green and the more resources out there on the web the better for learning about things we can all do to lessen our impact. I would suggest as well to more publicize this blog and your company is to become a member of an organization like Coop America or Live Green (greenlivingmadeeasy.com). The more your company's name is out there the more people will be drawn to your blog and website and the more they will learn as a result of finding you on the web. Coop America is a place I frequently go to to look up businesses on their GreenPages. I would have found you guys a long time ago if you had been listed under there as well.
Also, what do you all do as a company to operate more sustainably? I was curious since that's a big thing with companies going green nowadays is they publish the actions they are taking specifically.
Thanks and keep it up! Erik Harper
June 13, 2008
