Pondering Measurement in Sustainability

The mantra used to be if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. That certainly still holds true. But lately a more pressing axiom is that if you can’t measure it, you can’t report it.

Reporting and communicating sustainability efforts and their achievement requires more precise measurement. Though seemingly common sense, it was not always the case. Imagine a financial report that reads:

“Dear Shareholders:
We care about making money. That’s why this year as part of our deep commitment to making money we retrofitted our minibar options to increase purchases by our guests. So rest assured we successfully helped make money. It’s good for business, and it’s good for you.”

Obviously the audience would want to know how much money was made, what percentage the initiative added to the bottom line, and how that compared to the budget and years prior. Yet if you substitute making money with the environment to the above statement, then throw in an ad hoc CSR or energy efficiency initiative, you would get the previously prevailing communiqués of sustainability.

The preceding difference is that to the general population money is easy to comprehend (and believe in), whereas environmental impacts and ecosystem services are not. Important attempts to make sustainability more tangible have been made.

Strange equivalents
Take carbon footprint, for example, which is now a household term. In pondering carbon’s equivalencies, the way we used to approach its measurement seems somewhat strange upon further review.

For example, the notion of equating reducing energy to reducing passenger cars from the road is fairly ridiculous. When I’m stuck in traffic, I don’t consider thanking the nearby hotel for changing out their light bulbs because that helped get me through the tunnel more quickly. Nor does increasing energy efficiency reduce air pollution from car exhaust. Nor does it equate to all the raw materials, energy and waste that were involved with manufacturing the car, getting it to the dealership, then finding something to do with it once it wears out.

Possibly worse is the idea that reducing energy consumption equals planting trees. A tree provides shade, it provides shelter and food for fauna, it plays a role in its ecosystem, it provides wood for various uses, it exhales oxygen for us to breathe in, and it is great to sit under and ponder the nuances of sustainability measurement. Outfitting stairwells with motion sensors does none of those.

Several other examples are out there, and some are even more extreme. Work has been done equating household pets to household appliances, where for example two hamsters have the same carbon footprint of a plasma TV.

Though seemingly wacky, these measurements served as a key step for our society for two reasons:

1) Quantification and comparison helps us understand the real impacts—what real advances in sustainability mean at the property level. The hotel that reduces its greenhouse gas emissions by seven tons per year by installing a solar thermal heating system for its banquet hall water cannot declare victory in sustainability as easily, since that reduction is probably less than half of a percentage point of its annual carbon footprint upwards of 1,000 tons. Whether subsequently translated into passenger car equivalents or trees planted, the proportion is the same. On the other hand, a property that purchases 100% wind-power energy from Renewable Energy Certificates is able to receive higher accolade than the neighboring property that purchases 10% wind-power, since the vague claim of “we use renewable energy” will no longer be sufficient when a competitor clearly cares more about the environment.

2) Common measurement provides a direct relationship between the environment and everything we do and consume as human beings. Our acts do not go unnoticed by Mother Nature, and we are starting to understand our impact—our footprint on the earth. We drive to work, it has a carbon footprint. We turn our lights on or take the elevator, it has a carbon footprint. Every product we buy, every meal we consume, everything that we throw away, has a footprint. So while it is still misunderstood, parametrically uncertain in specific calculation, and nebulous as to the direct impacts that will result, this is a fundamental step in our advancement as beings on this planet. Because once a generation grows up commonly understanding that everything one does has a relationship to the environment and to society, we come to have a different mindset and view of the planet.

New performance indicators
Remember when nutrition labeling started to appear on items at the grocery store in the ‘90s? First it was just carbohydrates, protein and fat. Then fat got more complex. Then we got into ingredients such as partially hydrogenated oils, disclosures on the potential presence of nuts, organic processes and even whether the people who produced the product were paid a living wage. The complexity of product labeling is now the norm. Whenever I look to buy something, I picked up the habit of looking for two things: what is it made of and where was it made. Then of course if it’s plastic, I take a peek at the bottom for the little number inside the triangle. All are things we didn’t do decades ago. 

Climate change is one daunting challenge for humanity, and even worse news is that it is not the only challenge. Water, biodiversity loss, pollution, eutrophication—the list goes on. More and more questions arise once measurement gets more precise and we expand the consciousness of impacts beyond just greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. More performance indicators arise, and we begin to understand our impact and footprint at greater breadth and depth. Here are a few examples: