Coordinated UK versus discombobulated USMay 31, 2007 at 10:51 am | Posted in America, Britain, Climate change, Corporate Climate Response, Energy security, UK, US | Leave a comment
4th Corporate Climate Response conference
London, May 29-31 2007
Leading companies are taking the lead in responding to climate change because it makes good business sense. Whether it’s saving money through energy efficiency and waste minimization or capitalizing on consumer appetite for low-carbon products, there is now a business imperative behind global warming initiatives. But how much do you have to spend to see a reasonable return?Through a series of corporate case studies and expert panels the 4th Corporate Climate Response conference will look at how leading companies are responding to climate change and are discovering the bottom line benefits of early action.
21 Case studies from early adopters including:
Tesco, Marks & Spencer, BT, Standard Chartered Bank, Asda, Whole Foods Market, John Lewis Waitrose, City of London, Boots, Unilever, Manchester City Football Club, Allied Distillers, Lastminute.com and many more
DEFRA address: Carbon Footprint and Supply Chain Management
Think tanks on Personal Carbon Accounting and Organisational Response
One day dedicated to Climate Change and the Food Industry
Here are my thoughts Re: Corporate climate response by David Roberts over at Gristmill.
This is the fourth such annual conference and there will be two more conferences this fall in America.
We relocated to Britain from California two years ago and immediately noticed the difference in standard levels of business greenness. Particularly noticeable walking around town is that many improvements continue to take place: this is a moving target we are chasing! We still have a lot to learn, though, from the rest of Europe and Japan when it comes to ‘concerns and strategies of big business types’, as well as best practices and public attitudes that affect our daily lives.
The US can catch up fast: political will and a clear strategy for success (that is neither at the expense nor the belittlement of others) are all that is lacking.
The two conferences this fall in America are:
Corporate Climate Response Chicago
Chicago, September 25-26 2007
This two-day event will bring together companies that are interested in learning how to reduce their carbon footprint and communicate their response to customers. It’s being supported by and will coincide with Chicago’s ‘Cool
Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet’ festival.
Corporate Climate Response Chicago will include sessions on energy efficiency, renewables, supply chain management, offsetting, and personal carbon accountability. It will attract 100 delegates from across the Midwest whose main responsibility is to implement climate change solutions for their organizations.
Corporate Climate Response New York
New York City, October 2007
The aim of this conference is to compare and benchmark the climate change response strategies of leading US companies and provide concrete advice for those implementing their company’s response.
This event is in its second year running with 100 attendees expected from across the North East. Last year’s event featured top brand names including Wal-mart, GE, Staples, Whole Foods, AMD, NFL, Ben & Jerry’s, Aveda, and Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Ceres, EPA, Chicago Climate Exchange, and Environmental Defense also participated. This year’s program will once again feature top brand names and leading organizations and focus on case studies and expert panels to provide attendees with practical solutions for mitigating their carbon footprints.
There are loads of excellent initiatives taking place across the U.S. but they get no real national/federal government support—apart from blithe comments encouraging voluntary actions by citizens and businesses, and reminding the rest of the world that America spends more on climate science research and funds the IPCC to a larger degree than any other country. Relying on individual and local voluntary actions rather than setting clear, achievable strategic goals makes a big difference to public perceptions of priorities and lifestyle choices. This approach needs to be changed when behavioural modifications, speed of response, national coherence and international cooperation are major concerns, as they are in the case of climate change. Insignificant respectable media coverage (if you discount editorials written in scathing or alarmist tones) is another by-product of this lack of authentic concern and leadership from the top.