I can't help thinking that the furore over the bonus awarded to Stephen Hester, Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive, rather misses the point. Bowing to mounting pressure from many sectors of society, he finally agreed on Sunday night that he would not pick up the almost £1m of shares to which his contract entitled him. His chairman, Sir Philip Hampton, had previously waived his own bonus, no doubt adding to the pressure on Mr Hester.
It's clear that the bonus culture in the banking sector has spiralled out of control, leading to remuneration schemes that are ludicrously high. But that is the state of the industry, and one token gesture won't change it. Singling out RBS as an institution largely under state ownership only risks damaging its ability to compete for the brightest and best business brains to steer it back to prosperity and repay the investment UK taxpayers made to bail it out.
Mr Hester's bonus - like Sir Philip's - is payable in shares, whose value will be directly affected by the way they manage the business. With the bonus in place, top executives would benefit directly and personally from rebuilding the share price so that the return to taxpayers is maximised. How then are the taxpayers served by declining the bonus? And if he's tempted away by the riches offered by non-government backed institutions, how will RBS attract a talented replacement?
Such ad hoc measures won't achieve the fundamental change required to rebalance the way we reward our bankers and they could seriously endanger the recovery of RBS.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Why Wasteful Design still Dominates, Despite Alternatives
Of all the innovations of the computer age, the laser printer is probably the most inherently wasteful. This ubiquitous device is the product of a business model that seeks to maximise long-term revenue from the sale of premium priced consumables – often referred to as a “razor and blade” model.
It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s no technological reason for all that is mechanically clever about the device to be contained in a disposable cartridge; it’s a commercially-driven decision. But the need to justify the price premium charged for the cartridges has resulted in a complex product design that builds in redundancy.
A cartridge refurbishment industry has grown up to take advantage of the residual value in used toner cartridges, but it admits to only being able to return to the market 20-30% of the cartridges sold each year. And cartridges can’t be refurbished indefinitely: their components are not designed for extended use so print quality and reliability can be compromised. In the UK alone, it’s estimated that 47 million laser cartridges go to landfill every year, taking many thousands of tonnes of plastics and metals out of the economy.
As far back as 1992, Kyocera developed a very different proposition: long-life components that would last for 300,000 pages, resulting in a printer that was effectively cartridge-free. Not surprisingly, this resource-efficient approach also resulted in significantly lower running costs, too. In a world increasingly sensitised to resource scarcity, you might have expected this to become the dominant technology. But more than 90% of laser printers are still cartridge-based.
Kyocera has to work hard to erode the market domination of the conventional printer vendors for a number of reasons. The disappointing fact is, that for all the rhetoric about best value and sustainable procurement, most buying decisions – especially in public sector – are still determined by the initial price. Green credentials and low cost of ownership will get you on the shortlist, but the final decision usually comes down to who is prepared to discount the upfront cost by the largest percentage – and, in the printer industry, that favours the conventional vendors who know they can make up any loss on the hardware through a lifetime of revenue from cartridges.
This approach makes it difficult to gain acceptance for a more resource-efficient solution that might cost a little more up front, but will more than compensate in terms of reduced operating costs. And the challenge is further compounded by the division of budget responsibility in most organisations; different people hold responsibility for hardware, consumables and energy, so the full use-phase costs are rarely fully understood, let alone emissions, waste or resource efficiency.
And finally, the product-centric procurement approach taken by most large organisations, especially in the public sector, makes it difficult to propose innovative service-based solutions. If a vendor receives a tender for 500 devices of a certain size and speed then they have to respond on that basis, even if they know that by supplying a managed print services instead of just shipping hardware they could deliver a solution that would not only be more resource efficient but also cost less over the life of the contract. And given the scale of the current economic challenge, that’s doubly frustrating.
What I’d like to see is whole life costing – including both direct and indirect operating costs – applied to procurement decisions in place of the ticket price, and tenders written on the basis of the desired outcome – in cost saving or waste reduction – rather than around a product specification. This would encourage more vendors to innovate for resource-efficiency throughout the entire product lifecycle and reward those whose products and services achieve the greatest improvements in resource efficiency.
This post first appeared on The Green Alliance's Green Living blog
It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s no technological reason for all that is mechanically clever about the device to be contained in a disposable cartridge; it’s a commercially-driven decision. But the need to justify the price premium charged for the cartridges has resulted in a complex product design that builds in redundancy.
A cartridge refurbishment industry has grown up to take advantage of the residual value in used toner cartridges, but it admits to only being able to return to the market 20-30% of the cartridges sold each year. And cartridges can’t be refurbished indefinitely: their components are not designed for extended use so print quality and reliability can be compromised. In the UK alone, it’s estimated that 47 million laser cartridges go to landfill every year, taking many thousands of tonnes of plastics and metals out of the economy.
As far back as 1992, Kyocera developed a very different proposition: long-life components that would last for 300,000 pages, resulting in a printer that was effectively cartridge-free. Not surprisingly, this resource-efficient approach also resulted in significantly lower running costs, too. In a world increasingly sensitised to resource scarcity, you might have expected this to become the dominant technology. But more than 90% of laser printers are still cartridge-based.
Kyocera has to work hard to erode the market domination of the conventional printer vendors for a number of reasons. The disappointing fact is, that for all the rhetoric about best value and sustainable procurement, most buying decisions – especially in public sector – are still determined by the initial price. Green credentials and low cost of ownership will get you on the shortlist, but the final decision usually comes down to who is prepared to discount the upfront cost by the largest percentage – and, in the printer industry, that favours the conventional vendors who know they can make up any loss on the hardware through a lifetime of revenue from cartridges.
This approach makes it difficult to gain acceptance for a more resource-efficient solution that might cost a little more up front, but will more than compensate in terms of reduced operating costs. And the challenge is further compounded by the division of budget responsibility in most organisations; different people hold responsibility for hardware, consumables and energy, so the full use-phase costs are rarely fully understood, let alone emissions, waste or resource efficiency.
And finally, the product-centric procurement approach taken by most large organisations, especially in the public sector, makes it difficult to propose innovative service-based solutions. If a vendor receives a tender for 500 devices of a certain size and speed then they have to respond on that basis, even if they know that by supplying a managed print services instead of just shipping hardware they could deliver a solution that would not only be more resource efficient but also cost less over the life of the contract. And given the scale of the current economic challenge, that’s doubly frustrating.
What I’d like to see is whole life costing – including both direct and indirect operating costs – applied to procurement decisions in place of the ticket price, and tenders written on the basis of the desired outcome – in cost saving or waste reduction – rather than around a product specification. This would encourage more vendors to innovate for resource-efficiency throughout the entire product lifecycle and reward those whose products and services achieve the greatest improvements in resource efficiency.
This post first appeared on The Green Alliance's Green Living blog
Monday, 21 November 2011
Eco-Friendly Sushi
Tips for Staying Sustainable When Eating Out, from guest blogger Brittany Lyons
Making healthy choices when eating out can be challenging, but many diners find that sushi fits the bill nicely. But many diners worry about the environmental impact of this delicious snack, which is why it's important to choose your fish wisely.
There are many species of fish and seafood popular in sushi that are not being fished responsibly, but you don't need PhDs to tell which are worth buying—just the menu. Here are a few to avoid, with both their Japanese and English names:
1. Freshwater eel, or “unagi”
2. Red Snapper, or “tai”
3. Bluefin tuna, or “hon maguro”
4. Yellowtail, or “hamachi,” that has been farmed in Australia or Japan
5. Shrimp, or “ebi,” caught in the wild
It's important to know what kind of fish you're eating and where it comes from. This information may not be on the menu, but a reputable sushi restaurant should be happy to tell you if you ask.
Good fish to order include:
1. Sea urchin row, or “uni,” caught in Canada
2. Striped bass, or “suzuki,” which is fine both farmed and caught in the wild
3. Black cod, or “gindara,” from Alaska or British Columbia
4. Abalone, or “awabi,” from a U.S. farm
5. Spot prawn, or “amaebi,” wild caught in British Columbia
Choosing fish caught locally is another way to help the environment. Fish that doesn't need to be shipped has a smaller carbon footprint. And you don't have to go to a sushi bar to eat sustainably; the next time you go to the deli, see if they carry these:
1. Farmed channel catfish
2. Pacific cod from Alaska
3. Pacific halibut from Alaska
4. Mahi mahi from the U.S. Atlantic
5. Wild Pacific salmon from Alaska
To find out more about what fish to eat, and what to avoid, take a look at Seachoice.org's helpful Seafood Search. By making responsible choices, you can eat fish without hurting the environment.
Making healthy choices when eating out can be challenging, but many diners find that sushi fits the bill nicely. But many diners worry about the environmental impact of this delicious snack, which is why it's important to choose your fish wisely.
There are many species of fish and seafood popular in sushi that are not being fished responsibly, but you don't need PhDs to tell which are worth buying—just the menu. Here are a few to avoid, with both their Japanese and English names:
1. Freshwater eel, or “unagi”
2. Red Snapper, or “tai”
3. Bluefin tuna, or “hon maguro”
4. Yellowtail, or “hamachi,” that has been farmed in Australia or Japan
5. Shrimp, or “ebi,” caught in the wild
It's important to know what kind of fish you're eating and where it comes from. This information may not be on the menu, but a reputable sushi restaurant should be happy to tell you if you ask.
Good fish to order include:
1. Sea urchin row, or “uni,” caught in Canada
2. Striped bass, or “suzuki,” which is fine both farmed and caught in the wild
3. Black cod, or “gindara,” from Alaska or British Columbia
4. Abalone, or “awabi,” from a U.S. farm
5. Spot prawn, or “amaebi,” wild caught in British Columbia
Choosing fish caught locally is another way to help the environment. Fish that doesn't need to be shipped has a smaller carbon footprint. And you don't have to go to a sushi bar to eat sustainably; the next time you go to the deli, see if they carry these:
1. Farmed channel catfish
2. Pacific cod from Alaska
3. Pacific halibut from Alaska
4. Mahi mahi from the U.S. Atlantic
5. Wild Pacific salmon from Alaska
To find out more about what fish to eat, and what to avoid, take a look at Seachoice.org's helpful Seafood Search. By making responsible choices, you can eat fish without hurting the environment.
Brittany Lyons aspires to be a psychology professor, but decided to take some time off from grad school to help people learn to navigate the academic lifestyle. She currently lives in Spokane, Washington, where she spends her time reading science fiction and walking her dog.
Monday, 31 October 2011
A brief summary of the FiT changes published 31st October 2011 by DECC
Feed in tariff reduced by up to 50% for all new solar PV installations with an eligibility date on or after 12 December 2011 (sliding scale applies, you can find it here).
From April 2012, energy efficiency measures will have to be taken before a property becomes eligible for FiT payments.
New multi-installation tariff of 80% will apply to aggregated solar PV schemes.
Those already receiving FiTs will not see a reduction in their payments.
From April 2012, energy efficiency measures will have to be taken before a property becomes eligible for FiT payments.
New multi-installation tariff of 80% will apply to aggregated solar PV schemes.
Those already receiving FiTs will not see a reduction in their payments.
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Energise Barnet
Energise Barnet is a shining example of how just one person can influence others to take action. Aware that his borough had the highest emissions in London, and that no group was taking ownership of the problem, Nigel Farren decided to act. He has brought together an impressive and diverse coalition to make low carbon technologies more accessible and affordable for his local community. And he doesn't plan to stop there. Once Energise Barnet has proved itself, he plans to extend it across the UK to become the Groupon of the community energy sector. He works full time and unpaid on the project, but to scale it up he needed an injection of capital. Enter 1010 and The Funding Network. At 1010s Pitch Pledge Party, Energise Barnet was granted enough funds to fund a modest office space and some administrative support to enable it to move forward with its plans.
Amazing what you can do when you gather a few like-minded people together!
Amazing what you can do when you gather a few like-minded people together!
Monday, 10 October 2011
Serendipity
Watching Jonathan Ross's interview with Jamie Oliver, two facts stuck with me. Firstly, Jamie has sold over 100 million books Worldwide. Secondly, on the night he was "discovered" working in a restaurant by a TV crew, he shouldn't even have been there. He was covering for a friend who wanted to skip his shift to be with a new girlfriend. So in a sense Jamie's entire career - his books, his restaurants, the Fifteen Foundation, his campaigning work on school dinners and family nutrition, all derive from that single act of friendship. Perhaps Jamie would have achieved those things anyway. After all, he is great at what he does: genuine, engaging, passionate. He certainly took full advantage of the opportunities that came his way and you can imagine that he would do so in any situation. But it's hard to see how he could have risen so far and so fast without the extra amplification that early TV exposure provided.
For those who remember the movie, Jamie's presence at the restaurant that night was his "Sliding Doors" moment - a single accident of fate that determines somebody's entire future from that point on. We all have them, and they are difficult to recognise except in retrospect. But the more challenges we accept, the more favours we perform, the more opportunities we embrace, the more likely we are to be present when our own moment arrives.
For those who remember the movie, Jamie's presence at the restaurant that night was his "Sliding Doors" moment - a single accident of fate that determines somebody's entire future from that point on. We all have them, and they are difficult to recognise except in retrospect. But the more challenges we accept, the more favours we perform, the more opportunities we embrace, the more likely we are to be present when our own moment arrives.
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Too Good to Waste
Now, restaurants that support the campaign will stock “doggy boxes” and train staff to offer them to diners who don’t finish their meals. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, who is leading the campaign, says “Food waste in restaurants is a massive problem and doggy bags are an excellent way of cutting waste. There’s no need to be shy.”
Having tried, and failed, recently to get a suitable container to take home untouched cakes from a recent afternoon tea at a top hotel, I’m delighted by this move. Just like the serving of tapwater, I’d like to see this become standard practice at all restaurants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
