Raining on the Green Parade
As part of the activity around Earth Day, we've been getting press releases forwarded to us from all manner of companies who want to get their name out in association with "green." And, while it is good that so many companies are recognizing the growing importance of green in all our lives, some of the announcements are full of excitement about what turns out to be some pretty weak activity.
I got one press release about a globally recognized brand, Fortune 500 company announcing that they are spending $3 million on green upgrades for their headquarters building. And that's not a bad thing; we love it when companies take green steps. But is it truly newsworthy, or is it closer to "greenwashing"?
Let's take a look at what they are doing. Their announcement talks of an "approximate $3 million investment in energy-efficient lighting and air conditioning equipment, rainwater harvesting techniques and advanced irrigation control systems." While $3 million sounds like a lot of money to most people, just because it's a big number doesn't make it significant. This company's headquarters building is over 2 million square feet. So they are spending $1.50 per square foot on these upgrades. Average energy costs for an office building are in the neighborhood of $1.50 -$2.00/square foot per year, and average annual maintenance costs are in the range of $2.00-$3.00/square foot per year. This isn't major spending, it's part of their maintenance budget.
To put this into perspective, if you live in a 2000 square foot house and you replace your air conditioner (which will almost certainly be more efficient than your current one just by being newer) for $3000, you are doing something equivalent to what they are doing. Buildings need to have mechanical equipment replaced periodically. Homeowners replace furnaces and air conditioners because they are old and inefficient and they break down, and it's no different for an office building. Routine maintenance and replacement of equipment is simply part of owning a building.
They're doing something; that's a positive. But it's not as much as they are trying to make it out to be; that's the greenwashing. Upgrading performance in a building is a good thing. But this could be little more than scheduled maintenance and replacement. Is it good that they are doing this? Absolutely. Is it newsworthy? In my opinion, not really. This is skirting close to greenwashing and trying to put lots of positive spin onto what is otherwise a fairly minor item. Having a green headquarters is nice PR, but companies need to take those approaches and spread them over all their facilities. That's a much larger (and much more newsworthy) step for them to take.
