Green Recovery - Getting Lean - Travel Less: Telecommuting

In his new book, 'Green Recovery', Andrew Winston espouses 'Getting Lean' as a cornerstone strategy for companies looking to emerge from the economic downturn as a more sustainable entity. As Winston states: “Get Lean on Stuff, Not People.” According to 'Green Recovery', one of the four pillars of 'Getting Lean' is “Travel Less: Telecommuting and Teleconferencing”. In the book, Winston references the telecommuting successes of Sun Microsystems, stating the following benefits:

• In 2007, Sun downsized its office space by 15%, avoiding $64M in real estate costs
• Home-based employees were working three more hours per week than office-based employees 
• The total energy footprint for home-based employees was down more than 5,000 kilowatt-hours per year 
• Home-based employees were happier, in part due to the avoidance of 80 hours of commute time and $1,700 in gas and wear and tear on their cars 

And now, the rest of the story... No, the rest of the story isn't some ugly exposé on the inaccuracy of the information. The fact is that there is actually a lot MORE positive information that 'Green Recovery' understandably wasn't able to delve into. And how do I know this? I know this because it was my job. At that time I was Principal Program Manager of Eco-Responsibility at Sun. 

 

Here's the step-by-step breakdown:

> We understood that many of the benefits of telecommuting had long been touted, but never quantified in a systematic, reliable manner.

> We wanted to deliver this quantification at both the individual employee level – to personalize the benefits of telecommuting, as well as at the corporate level – to include in our inaugural CSR report.

> We developed a strategy for capturing the relevant data which included: actual employee commute behaviors; 'baseline' and 'post' measures of various dimensions of employee satisfaction; and 'baseline' and 'post' measures related to eco-awareness and the eco-impacts of telecommuting.

> Teletrips (www.teletrips.com) was selected as our commute tracking technology partner. The Teletrips solution provided a very easy-to-use interface for our participants to enter their profile information, which included the distance they lived from their primary work location and satellite work locations, as well as their vehicle make and model which was used to input fuel efficiency data from an EPA database.

> I developed a survey to capture data on employee satisfaction and eco-awareness.

> The baseline survey was administered prior to the launch of the commute tracking training. From the baseline survey, 55% of the responses fell below the previous year's Employee Satisfaction level.
 

> The commute tracking training also included educational content focused on raising the eco-awareness of the participants.

> Our tracking participants entered their actual commute behavior into the Teletrips tracking tool and in turn received a weekly report that detailed their actual savings in terms of time, direct and indirect costs, and GHG emissions avoidance. On the backend, I received reports with the same information in aggregate.

> As part of the program, I published a bi-weekly briefing that illustrated the aggregate-to-date metrics, along with additional educational information focused on building eco-awareness.

> I administered the 'post' survey at the close of the commute tracking program. From the 'post' survey, 100% of the responses were above the previous year's Employee Satisfaction level (an increase of 45% over the baseline results). One item was of particular interest. The percentage of favorable responses to the survey item “I would recommend Sun because of the environmental benefits associated with the OpenWork program.” jumped from 68% to 85%.  (Note: OpenWork is the overall program, of which telecommuting is a large component.)

> Across the entire survey – the total percentage of favorable ratings increased from 73% to 89%.

> After the close of the commute tracking pilot, I took the data we had captured and extrapolated it across our employee population to determine the net impact at the corporate level. In truth, prior to the extrapolation, I actually removed a couple of outliers from our data capture. These outliers were telecommuters who lived more than 90 miles from their primary office and they significantly skewed the results in a positive manner, but we elected to remove them in order to report the impacts in a more conservative manner.

> One other conservative aspect of our CSR report data – we 'backed out' energy used by employees while working from home. For the 2006 report, I developed a model of the typical home office setup and factored in assumptions such as employees spending more on heating or cooling as a result of not setting their programmable thermostats up or down by two degrees during the day.  The resulting output of my model showed that the average energy use of an employee working from home was 52% of their energy use in the office. For the 2007 CSR report, a colleague ran a study to monitor and quantify the 'at home' energy usage profile. The result of this study showed that the average energy use of an employee working from home was 51% of their energy use in the office.

> One final interesting takeaway: based on anecdotal data, employees on average 'gave back' 50% of their avoided commute time, which for Sun meant the equivalent of over 100 FTEs worth of productivity 'reinvested' into the company.

As for teleconferencing...I'll save that for another post. But as a teaser, don't believe for one minute that you need to invest $250K per site for a quality high-definition solution. Would you believe 10% of that?!

Eco-Catalyst: The Sustainability Index – It’s not the work of just one

Even if (or perhaps especially when) it’s a giant like Walmart. The name Walmart does not usually fall lightly in my presence and generally evokes a strong response. Realizing the potential the largest retailer has to influence the awareness and actions of so many – suppliers and consumers alike – I’m attempting to approach the Sustainability Index spawned by Walmart with a positive outlook.

The Sustainability Index, as Walmart will happily admit, is not meant to be specific to one retailer, one industry, one market segment. It is for all and to be owned by all. So many organizations have already made tremendous strides in this arena and will have much to contribute. And that’s a good thing, because in looking at the extent and content of their sustainability reporting as well as the somewhat lacking ‘15 Questions for Suppliers’, Walmart could use some help. The work is not trivial and will take years to develop. The Sustainability Consortium and organizations like the World Resources Institute will help create a consistent framework for companies to report and consumers to understand the sustainability of their products.

If Walmart is truly serious, this is a huge opportunity. They must be committed, however, and not only at the expense of others. They must be willing to work in partnership with their suppliers rather than just making a lot of demands. They need to understand and communicate the full depth of their slogan - “Save Money, Live Better” - so that it includes not just $s, but environmental and social costs and benefits as well.

They won't be serious unless we're serious. It is up to all of us. If you shop at Walmart and they are profiting from your purchases, you can demand better quality, more choices, and a reduced footprint. As a consumer, you will be able to make more informed choices. If you supply to Walmart and they are profiting from your products, you can demand that they share in the effort to bring sustainable products to market and recognize as well as communicate the benefits. As a supplier you can leverage this collaborative challenge as an opportunity to improve your products and increase your value.

Whether something termed a ‘super-center’ can ever be considered sustainable, is up for serious debate. In the meantime, the Sustainability Index initiative will bring us closer to a clearer understanding of:

• what we are spending (and in turn saving) - as much in terms of less visible resources like water, energy, and fair labor as out-of-pocket $s, and
• how it will better our lives - not only by immediate gratification thru use or perceived status, but also long-term waste reduction, improved health, and a thriving ecosystem.

Regardless of how I might feel about Walmart, that's a good thing.