Puma: Intelligent footprints
If you haven’t heard of TruCost yet, you’ll hear more about them over the coming months. I came across them last week at a Conference I was chairing and a recent BBC article details the work they have recently conducted for Puma in creating the first Environmental Profit and Loss (EPnL) accounts that bears proper scrutiny. Although not a complete picture of the company’s environmental impact (the cost of waste and land-use change has yet to be calculated and included later in the year), it goes further than most in reversing the trend of ‘greenwashing’ I talked about recently.
What is particularly noteworthy is the following:
In commissioning this work, Puma acknowledge that there is a financial implication in reducing their carbon emissions, water usage and waste. In so doing, they are potentially changing the mindset of those large corporations that have consistently ignored the financial benefits of taking a businesslike approach to environmental considerations, something that the SME sector have been as a matter of course for several years now.
Most significantly, by commissioning an EPnL that goes (much) further than merely taking balance sheet numbers and transposing them on to a ‘green’ document, Puma have taken a brave step in acknowledging that resource depletion today has an impact on the long term future of the company; by following through on the report and managing the inherent risk in blindly depleting natural resources, the company goes further than just looking at cost reduction issues.
A significant step, therefore, in the right direction.
The company identified that the combined cost of the carbon it emitted and water it used in 2010 was €94.4m; more than €87m of that, however, is attributed to their supply chain. How the company address the implications of this data will be key in whether Puma establishes itself as a leader in the new carbon economy – if it acts in a way that is measurable and evident to reduce its suppliers’ contributions to the overall carbon cost, then we can be confident that change for the better is afoot. If, on the other hand, the outcome is merely a tweaking of contractual obligations to the detriment of the supplier and the conscience salving of Puma, then there is more to be done. Puma CEO, Jochen Zeitz, has openly stated that carbon offsetting is not the answer; I agree and eagerly await the next report that highlights the tangible actions that the company have taken to measurably reduce its impact and to replace depleted resources.
What is certain, whatever Puma may or may not do, is that a new level of corporate responsibility has been reached. Zeitz has stated that there has already been interest from other companies, including some “pretty significant corporations”, in its findings. Whether that interest is driven by a better understanding that maintaining the status quo will lead to imminent resource poverty or a fear that Puma’s actions will lead to yet more ‘green’ legislation (for example, in the UK it may drive a move to further strengthen a quoted company’s accountability under S.417 of the Companies Act).
Either way, Puma has made a difference!
