The research

• Scope: A national survey of more than 10,000 leaders and employees of Australian businesses
• Aim: To identify the stimulus for and obstacles against businesses engaging in sustainability reporting

Sustainability reporting is poised to take off

The strongest message emerging from the study is the huge latent potential in sustainability reporting in Australia – the will is there, but a substantial proportion of organisations are yet to find the way.

Around a third (35%) of leaders responding to the survey say their organisation currently produces sustainability reports. Of those, over half (54%) have been producing reports for less than three years. But latent potential is acutely demonstrated by the findings that 20% of leaders whose organisation is not reporting on sustainability say it is only a matter of time before they start, and 73% of leaders say they would personally like to see their organisation making a commitment to sustainability reporting.

What it tells us is that the business community is at a stage where it needs a lot of support and encouragement. This goes for organisations that have recently commenced sustainability reporting as they navigate the difficult early years, through to those that have the desire to undertake reporting but, for whatever reason, have not yet taken the plunge. The resources are out there, but the process of determining best practice can be bewildering.

Supply chain and other business community pressures will make reporting relevant to all

Three-quarters of respondents (74%) say that a major benefit of committing formally to sustainability is ‘reputation management’ – to many this may evoke cynical attitudes of ‘greenwashing’, but what we believe it says is that in order to operate a business in the current climate, organisations need to tackle sustainability issues. It indicates that sustainability is a business imperative, and a range of further findings support this.

Firstly, almost half (44%) of respondents believe the benefits of sustainability reporting outweigh the costs, and a similar proportion (47%) believe that in five years’ time the majority of businesses will be producing sustainability reports.

Secondly, as more organisations commence sustainability reporting, a larger number of others will be affected. For example, we found that 57% of leaders from reporting organisations would give preference to suppliers who can demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, and no less than 80% of leaders in reporting organisations agree it is likely that their organisation will require suppliers to meet certain sustainability standards in the future.

So although 42% of leaders say they are not doing sustainability reporting because they don’t feel it is relevant to their organisation, these reputational and supply chain pressures will inevitably affect most organisations – to say you ‘are too small’, ‘have no significant environmental impact’ or ‘are a not-for-profit organisation’ is unlikely to cut it.

There is a strong message here for associations. While they typically have not been among the first to engage with sustainability reporting, respondents believe there is a significant role for them in showing leadership in sustainability – 68% of respondents say that professional associations and industry bodies need to actively encourage members to engage in sustainability reporting.

Sustainability reporting is good for employees

Many people unfamiliar with sustainability reporting are unaware that ‘labour standards’ can play a huge role in sustainability initiatives. Over half (53%) of employees in reporting organisations believe their workplace is healthier and more productive as a result, and the overwhelming majority (70%) of employees in non-reporting organisations say they would feel they were promoting a healthier and more productive workplace if their organisation made a commitment to sustainability.

And if external reputation management is important, we must not forget internal reputation management: 54% of employees say that as a result of their organisation tackling sustainability issues, they feel more proud of their organisation.

And these results have not yet been controlled for employees’ perceptions of their organisation’s success at embedding sustainability initiatives – the reported proportions could climb dramatically if we looked exclusively at those organisations that were successfully doing sustainability reporting. This is something that we will be looking at in further analysis of the data.

Sustainability is also likely to be a strong driver of staff attraction; 41% of employees in reporting organisations say that if they changed jobs they would not want to work somewhere that does not tackle sustainability issues.

What next?

Business leaders should be reassured that they don’t have to achieve everything in the first year of their reporting: best practice is first to understand your business’s impact on your environment, then to take small steps towards improvement.

For those thinking about taking the plunge, a useful resource is the Good Business Register. The website is managed by St James Ethics Centre, the hub for the GRI and United Nations Global Compact in Australia. Their resources are essential reading for anyone interested in best-practice sustainability reporting.

How can we keep this momentum going? And how can we all take the next step towards embedding sustainability reporting in our business community culture? How can we make measuring and monitoring sustainability initiatives cheaper and easier, to ease the burden on organisations?

Download the People.Productivity.Planet report here.

Dr Rebecca Sheils is Director of Research at Beaton. She has a strong interest in sustainability as a driver of long-term profitability and the necessity of measuring and managing sustainability initiatives to ensure business success.

The question is: how many of these messages are getting through?

Not many, according to environmental psychologist Professor Robert Gifford, from Canada’s University of Victoria. Presenting his research at the 27th International Congress of Applied Psychology in Melbourne during July, Gifford highlighted the complexity inherent in communicating climate-change issues.

His research suggests that consumers face a number of obstacles that block climate-change messages. These obstacles, which he calls the ‘dragons’ of climate change, are experienced to varying degrees by different people at any one time. They stop the public from taking action on environmental issues, relegating them to the sidelines as concerned bystanders.

Gifford’s six ‘dragons’ of climate change:

1. Limited cognition – Consumers battling this dragon feel that they don’t need to do anything about the environment because they believe that everything will just work out anyway, or are too tuned to the present to be concerned about what might happen in the future.
2. Ideology – Also referred to as ‘tech salvation’, this refers to consumers’ reliance upon scientists to save the day, or believing that Mother Nature will take care of everything. This is similar to religious ideology, in which a person believes that faith will save them.
3. Social comparison – When what we do is influenced by what others do. For example, ‘If they’re not recycling, I’m not going to either.’
4. Investment – Investment in ‘non-sustainable’ actions brings up a consumer’s conflicts between environmental aspirations and other goals or aspirations. For example, if a consumer has just bought a new car, they might believe that justifying the purchase (by driving) outweighs the environmental issues.
5. Mistrust or discredence – Refusing to give credibility to authorities (scientists, governments etc.) because of a mistrust of these groups.
6. Limited behaviour – This is when a person is doing the right thing but not to any great extent. For example, someone could choose to use an energy-efficient product but compensate by overusing it.

According to Gifford, these obstacles should inform the way climate campaigning is undertaken. He believes it should take on a number of different forms, based on the needs and obstacles faced by different demographic groups.

Where it fits: the body of research on communicating climate change

Gifford’s research adds to a great global body of knowledge about communicating climate change.

Fenton Communications recently analysed a number of research reports from Australia, Europe and the US that explored the global problem of motivating consumers to act on climate change.

The research findings had some common themes that should be considered when communicating climate change:

• Social acceptance is important – Consumers no longer act alone. They are more likely to change their behaviour when influenced by the groups and communities to which they belong. Similarly, they are more likely to trust and be motivated by other people than by institutions or government.
• Big achievements spark smaller ones – Major achievements on environmental issues motivate people to take action. For example, a large solar-energy installation will encourage people to conserve energy or install their own solar-energy systems. Promote these big successes, rather than just publicising the doom and gloom.
• We have a mismatch between the problem and the solution – ‘Climate change is the greatest problem facing mankind’, yet we tell consumers that it can be solved by turning off a light. In an effort to foster simple actions on climate change, a mismatch has been created in consumers’ minds between the problem and the solution . Simple solutions need to seem heroic enough to tackle the size of the climate-change problem.
• Ego is still a great motivator – While we would all like to believe humans can be purely altruistic, feeding self-esteem can still provide great results. Give consumers opportunity to receive praise for completing green actions.

A key learning from all the research into climate-change communication, backed up by Gifford’s presentation in Melbourne, is the need to understand audiences so that you can target them with messages and actions that are specific to their lifestyle.

Effective research, a well-segmented communication strategy and careful evaluation can help to drive consumers off the sidelines and back into action on climate change.

David Micallef is the Group Account Manager for Sustainability and Infrastructure and Head of Media at Fenton Communications. He has extensive experience in developing and implementing communications, media and stakeholder-engagement strategy in the sustainability sector, and has worked with a range of clients in the government and NGO sectors.

And this is where the hazard lies. Tackling the issue of planning for a greater Melbourne invariably results in population growth wrangling: few subjects in Melbourne, indeed Australia, seem to ignite such fervent responses and opinion. The result is a blinkered discourse about an endgame scenario that we have limited control over.

Melburnians need to be smarter than that. In fact, historically they have been. The city that manages to bear the weight of four million residents today is the result of consistent urban infrastructure planning throughout the past 150-plus years. Recent times, however, have seen a laissez-faire approach to infrastructure planning and a marked lack of attention being paid to the increasingly unsteady physical and organisational structures of Melbourne.

Overconfidence in a seemingly limitless supply of land upon which to continually expand the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) has led to an enormous city geography (even by world standards) that is increasingly at risk of fragmenting. A large city is not necessarily a sustainable one.

Successful societies depend heavily on all aspects of both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ infrastructure – from transport, energy and communications to hospitals, schools and libraries – and significant investment and long-term planning are crucial to accommodating new growth, whether it involves urban consolidation or expansion.

Much of our public infrastructure was designed for a city smaller than what we currently have today. Although our infrastructure forward planning may be adequate for a population of five million, there are significant challenges and likely shortfalls across all categories for a population well beyond this number.

Melbourne’s transport systems are a prime example of this inadequacy. Designed largely to service the needs of a mono-centric city, the current network will be insufficient for the multi-centred city – through the development of Central Activities Districts (CADs) – that is being planned for and built today.

Similarly, the city’s electricity system was designed on the basis of centralised generation and the water and sewerage systems on the basis of centralised supply and treatment.

Recent reports from Engineers Australia, in 2005 and 2010, have highlighted further concerning shortfalls across a number of infrastructure categories for a city beyond five million residents. The current road network will struggle to carry the greater volume of traffic, despite significant investment during the past decade, and heavy rail will not be able to cope with increased demand. The reports also question the capability of gas and communications at this point.

All of these areas require an immediate integrated and long-term approach to planning and infrastructure provision in order to achieve a solid and adaptable future city. And not just for the next 10 to 20 years, but for the next century.

In developing this approach, it is important to recognise that assets have long service lives and require substantial one-off investments. And also that infrastructure assets, when considered in an holistic sense, generally form an integrated network that suggests ownership by single entities

Communications infrastructure is also paramount as an ‘enabling infrastructure’ as it provides the ability to increase the effective capacity of other infrastructure networks, through innovations such as integrated electronic metering and monitoring systems.

Another vital ingredient for the successful provision and redevelopment of infrastructure will be active government involvement. Without government participation, it is unlikely that private enterprise would have the required incentives to provide most of the infrastructure needs of society by itself.

However, providing, maintaining, upgrading and replacing physical infrastructure is a major cost to any city, and funding (the kingpin for any major development) the new infrastructure presents a number of challenges. Whether the construction and operational investment is financed via public and/or private sector equity and debt ,and how this revenue is raised, will need serious consideration and resolution.

Ultimately the challenges faced are largely institutional rather than technical, and significant changes to the existing patterns of planning, ownership and investment will be necessary to produce essential changes to infrastructure.

Melbourne’s infrastructure issues are not the problems of a future inflated population.  Becoming embroiled in a population debate avoids the real issues and obscures the fact that cracks are already beginning to appear, which can be attributed to the decline in infrastructure planning that was once key to the successful city that is enjoyed today.

Andrew MacLeod is the CEO of the Committee for Melbourne, an independent member network of Melbourne leaders working together to ensure Melbourne’s liveability and economic prosperity.

North West Health

North West Dialysis Service (NWDS) is the largest provider of dialysis services in Australia. NWDS provides dialysis (artificial life support) for 640 Victorians with kidney failure at 30 centres and 160 homes across metropolitan and regional areas. 560 of these patients are connected to machines that ‘clean’ their blood for 12–48 hours per week.

This process, called haemodialysis (or blood filtration), requires large volumes of water that have been processed by pre-filtration and reverse osmosis to achieve certain chemical and microbiological standards. During this process, clean ‘reject’ water (i.e. water that does not meet dialysis standards but may meet potable standards) is generated. Unless this water is captured and redirected for a suitable purpose, it goes directly to the centre’s sewerage system.

NWDS alone produces over 12.8 million litres of recyclable reject water per annum, the majority of which currently goes down the drain.

With the help of a Smart Water Fund grant, NWDS is investigating the potential of capturing and reusing dialysis reject water for beneficial use by local communities surrounding dialysis centres. The project is currently assessing the quality of reject water at 18 centres and is working in consultation with local communities to match the reject water to community needs.

A report and reference manual on the results of the study will be prepared and shared with dialysis services across Australia to potentially allow the replication of the project in other services.

Western Health

Western Health operates three hospitals in Melbourne’s western suburbs, offering a broad range of healthcare services. Operating 24 hours a day, the Western, Williamstown and Sunshine hospitals have a combined water usage of 580 kilolitres a day across their bathrooms, laundry, kitchen, cleaning and streilisation areas.

The Central Sterile Supply Department is responsible for cleaning and sterilising contaminated medical instruments and packaging them for reuse. This service is performed with a machine called a Hi Pre-vacuum steriliser. Western Health currently has nine of these sterilising machines located across its three hospitals.

The machines use large amounts of water in the form of steam to sterilise instruments. At the end of the process, the steam leaves the steriliser at 80ºC and must be cooled using a cold water condenser before it can be released into the sewerage system.

Western Health looked at two options to reuse this wastewater. The first option was to store and reuse the water to flush toilets. Further investigation into this option, however, revealed a number of issues including:

• space requirements and storage problems with respect to Legionella
• existing infrastructure and building design that would create redirection problems,and
• concerns from City West Water about the quality of waste water.

The second option was to modify each steriliser to use chilled water. The machines could then be connected to the hospital’s existing reticulated air-conditioning systems. These systems operate by circulating chilled water throughout the buildings on a closed loop circuit. Each steriliser operates using the chilled water, after which the wastewater is returned to the central cooling unit, ready for reuse.

It was found that both options saved similar amounts of water. However, in light of the number of concerns raised with regard to recycling water for toilet flushing, Western Health moved to implement the chilled water option. By connecting the sterilisation machines to the existing air-conditioning system, the hospitals expect to save over 20 million litres of water per annum.

The project has reduced the hospitals’ water bill and sewerage costs, with a saving of $24,950 expected per year. As a bonus, the cost savings associated with the project can be directed to enhance the delivery of care across Western Health hospitals.

Where can you see savings in your organisation? Send us a comment below.

David Micallef is the Group Account Manager for Sustainability and Infrastructure and Head of Media at Fenton Communications. He has extensive experience in developing and implementing communications, media and stakeholder-engagement strategy in the sustainability sector, and has worked with a range of clients in the government and NGO sectors.

Instead, the scheme, which was shelved while Kevin Rudd was still in power, would have resulted in increases of only a few hundred dollars a year for most businesses.

The study, conducted between May and December 2009, aimed to quantify the impact of a carbon price on SMEs and map the responses of different industries to the challenges of operating in and adapting to a carbon-constrained economy.

Employing a variety of research methodologies (including modelling of comprehensive carbon footprint databases, national surveys and focus groups), the research findings provide a unique perspective on, and new insight into, likely cost impacts of emissions trading on SMEs. Supported by Sensis and peer-reviewed by Australia’s foremost experts, the research demonstrates that the likely cost of carbon for SMEs is not so ‘sky high’.

The inherent problem with this particular CPRS (or indeed any emissions trading scheme that results in negligible price rises) is the absence of a strong driver for industry to modify its behaviour. Rather, it presupposes a reliance on organisational culture to drive the move towards sustainability. Early adoptors and innovators will continue to lead the way by pursuing carbon-constrained opportunities because there are clear market opportunities to do so. However, the majority of businesses that require some sort of incentive to change their actions will be left behind.

A price on carbon is unlikely to be far away but, as this report shows, it’s important to implement a scheme that will actually be effective in achieving a reduction in emissions.

You can read the full report here.

For more background on this research project, click here.

Scott McKenry is the team leader for the National Centre for Sustainability’s business and community services division. He has a deep interest in carbon management and climate change strategy.

• Use a thriftier font. Switching from Arial (a common default font) to Century Gothic saves $100 per printer per year.
• Even better, use the new Dutch ‘Ecofont’, which has holes punched in its letters. Use of this font reduces toner or ink consumption by 25%. What’s more, it is so clever that the letters appear solid on screen, with the holes being apparent only at the time of printing.
• Squeeze every last drop out of your ink cartridges! Inkjet ink costs seven times more than Dom Perignon on a millilitre-for-millilitre basis. And cartridge sensors register as empty well before the ink levels approach zero. So make sure you adopt the tricks outlined in the Economist to make the most of each cartridge before sending it to recycling.
• Change your printer setting. Duplex printing (full size, double-sided) cuts paper costs by 38% over the life of a printer. And yet my inspection of the recycling bins next to printers reveals few, if any, duplexes among the immediately discarded – and therefore unused – sheets. Most printers have simple duplex defaults.

Like most things green that individuals can influence, cutting the economic and environmental cost of printing is a (not so simple) behavioural challenge in every office. Individual activism and company policy are the solutions. But the question is: why is so little still being done by so few?

You can see the entire Economist article here.

George Beaton is an Executive Chairman and Director who believes in business sustainability in the broadest sense, encouraging organisations to think and act for the long term.

A study conducted in November 2009 by Beaton Research and Consulting, in conjunction with the Nossal Institute, collected responses from 11,802 individuals working in professional services. These respondents gave their opinions on sustainability reporting and their general beliefs around acting sustainably at work.

Small organisations, defined as those with an annual revenue of less than $1 million, perceived significantly fewer positive aspects of acting sustainably than did middle-sized and large organisations. Small organisations did not believe that acting sustainably benefited their organisation’s reputation in the community, improved employee satisfaction or offered competitive advantage. By comparison, large organisations were much more likely to agree that the benefits of acting sustainably outweigh the costs.

These statistics describe an interesting interplay that appears to be happening within the Australian professional community. Larger organisations, whose actions are scrutinised by a greater number of stakeholders, perceive more risk in not conforming to a growing pressure to act sustainably. By contrast, smaller organisations’ actions go largely unnoticed, meaning that external pressure to conform is virtually zero.

In support of this observation, of the small organisations that had made a formal commitment to sustainability reporting, a significantly larger proportion than the average stated ‘There were no pressures – it was deemed to be the right thing to do by the leadership of the organisation’.

For small organisations, the momentum to act sustainably needs to be internally generated top-down from the leadership of the organisation. That momentum can be hard to create, particularly considering the reasons given by small organisations for not engaging in sustainability initiatives. When asked why an organisation had not engaged in sustainability reporting, the two most common reasons given by small organisations were:

1. It is not relevant to us (e.g. we are too small, we do not have a significant environmental impact)

2. It would be too expensive for us (e.g. in terms of time and resources required).

Small organisations’ resistance to acting sustainably is a problem, because Australia’s economy is made up of a long tail of small businesses. A report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2001 found that of the 6.9 million employed in the non-agricultural private sector, 2.5 million (36%) were employed by small business that employed fewer than 20 people. Effectively this means that a large portion of the Australian economy is distanced from any perceived responsibility to act sustainably, due to feeling as though their environmental impact is too small or the costs of doing so are too great. However, when you multiply only a little bit of resource and energy wastage across approximately 125,000 small businesses in Australia, suddenly that wastage becomes a lot more significant.

The good news is that there are things small organisations can do that won’t hurt their back pocket, and in many cases may even save them money.

1. Track and reduce paper usage – print only when absolutely necessary and always double-sided
2. Submit pay slips electronically
3. Offer salary sacrifice for public transport to encourage employees not to drive to work
4. Replace energy-wasting light bulbs with energy-efficient ones
5. Invest in teleconference technology to reduce the need to travel to meetings
6. Switch to GreenPower (visit www.choosegreenpower.com.au to find out more)

A real benefit of acting sustainably within a small organisation is that it can be a creative exercise involving everyone in the business. So if you or others in your workplace have come up with creative ideas for reducing resource use, I welcome you to share them in the comments section below.

Phillip Sargeant is an Associate at Beaton Research and Consulting. He is a strong advocate of research and its ability to be a catalyst for change.

Climate change is undoubtedly a global issue with a global solution but the problem for us is that we are the problem. Per capita, we are the worst carbon emitters in the world – yet despite that blight we’ve ignored climate change for 20 years. Even now our greatest effort is a failed ‘attempt’ at an emissions trading scheme and a lazy stab in the dark at carbon capture and storage while the rest of the world moves forward with wind in its sails.

Despite the recent escalation of the issue, climate change isn’t new; it’s not new to the world and it’s not new to Australia. It was 176 years ago that Joseph Fourier invented the phrase ‘greenhouse effect’ as he pondered how the radiation phenomenon around his vegetables might have relevance to the atmosphere. We then discovered the influence that CO2 has on the atmosphere, the ways in which we emit it and the ways in which it changes our climate. In 1958 scientists started monitoring the increases in global CO2 levels and more lately they started digging up ice cores that show levels increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution. It was 61 years ago Australia started its renewable energy programme and 30 years ago that the enhanced greenhouse effect first slid its way onto the school curriculum. Even the nineties started well when the educational film Saving Hieronymus hit the shelves and informed high school students everywhere, through the power of a time-travelling teenager and his tortoise, about the dangers of using too much fossil fuel. The message was out there, the world had set itself in a good position, the Kyoto protocol loomed and it all looked good for the future but that’s where things went wrong.

Australia stood back, we watched, we emitted, we elected a sceptical leader and ignored the big flashing lights on the sign that said ‘Wrong Way Go Back’ while the scientists screamed  and a fantastic economic opportunity for new industry walked into the hands of just about anyone with their hand up.

The 10% renewable energy that Australia has managed to produce for itself is now heavily reliant on foreign investments from companies like BP and the Danish owned Vestas. Denmark’s efforts towards climate change dwarf our own with 60% renewable energy production and a proliferation of electric cars. Notably their commercial leadership on the matter has created a worldwide market base for Danish products and having sold half the world’s wind turbines they have now subsidised the increased cost of their clean energy. Iceland has gone one step further, slicing an enormous 99% out of their energy pie with the use of geothermal power plants and hydrogen-powered cars. This is undoubtedly easier if you happen to live on a volcano, but we’re not without our share of the goodies; a sun-baked centre, a windswept southern coastline, geothermal potential, biomass resources and a highly technological economy; it’s just leadership holding us back. Our lack of policy has even forced Pacific Hydro to look overseas for more favourable countries like Chile while we squabble over how many years we should wait before we argue about when to act. Even New Zealand jumped ahead recently by putting an ETS in place. In fact, if you’ve bought some carbon credits, don’t be too surprised if it’s not Australian carbon you’re paying for; it might well be from the land of the long white cloud.

Our credentials seem to be stuck in the stone age and according to a Queensland University study we still have a stunning 62% of coalition politicians denying that human activities are responsible for climate change. The recent Gillard offering has failed to show any greater promise; in comparison to the $40 billion stimulus package and the intended ETS, the $0.6 billion set aside in the latest budget for direct spending on climate change looks a lot like a peace offering for an issue which has once again been left on the bench.

Robert Coupe is an Environment, Health and Safety specialist from Melbourne with several years’ experience across the energy, manufacturing and service industries.

Commercial and government clients often have an acute interest in the measurable benefits resulting from their ‘green’ investment. Simply put, these clients must be able to demonstrate value for money. But like any aspect of design, ‘green features’ must also fit with the overall design and purpose of a building.

Fortunately, satisfying what appear to be wholly disparate needs or interests – budget, amenities, aesthetic and ideals – is not as hard to do as one may imagine. While an architect must always be cognisant of budget, structural requirements and building codes, a sophisticated architect will work hard to incorporate the principles of eco-design as well as more creative elements like imagination, fun and poetry. It’s this kind of holistic approach that allows buildings to serve their legal, practical and artistic purpose ­– often in truly innovative ways – while minimising their environmental impact.

As an example, my team recently designed a small office building for a staff of twenty working for a state government department (see design sketch below).

In terms of sustainability goals, the design brief was at the ambitious end of the scale. As such, the building incorporated an extensive range of ‘green features’ – from entry-level features that you might find in your own home to what might be considered as the ‘glamour items’ of green building. These can be broadly categorised into three key areas:

1. Materials

‘Materials’ are all the ‘stuff’ that buildings are made from.  In this building, we chose, where possible:

• Natural materials over synthetics
• Local materials over imported ones
• Plantation-grown timbers
• Natural floor coverings
• Low-chemical paints
• Double-glazed windows.

2. Systems

‘Systems’ include all the services that support us in everyday life, such as heating, ventilation, lighting and water. The solutions employed in this particular site included:

• Rainwater for toilets
• Low-energy lighting
• Motion sensors and timer controls to optimise heating, cooling and ventilation systems
• Five-star energy-efficient appliances.
  
  

3. Thoughtful design

This is what I like to refer to as ‘putting it all together’ because this is where we respond not only to the environment but the specific location and the needs of the people occupying the site. In this case, we designed a building that suited its purpose but was no bigger than it needed to be, enabling us to use fewer materials. We minimised reliance on services like heating and cooling by giving the building a good ‘hat’ (a solid roof) and limiting east and west glazing, thereby reducing summer heat gain and winter heat loss. Similarly, we were able to control glare but retain sunlight as a source of light/heat by incorporating a high clerestory window (which reflects from an angled ceiling to allow sunlight to penetrate deep into the building). Meanwhile, a Trombe wall – a solid, sun-facing wall – was included to draw heat from winter sunlight and warm the space behind it. Beyond their practical benefit, many of these features also have an important aesthetic function.

Green building can be brand-building

For most organisations, the incorporation of sustainability features is not just an opportunity to do the right things, but also to be seen as doing the right things. To this end, green design can include location of interesting features where customers or the public can see them. In this way, green features can be an excellent way to say something about an organisation’s brand.

For further green building tips, visit http://www.greenpointdesign.com.au/design/sustainability

Architect, Eric Zehrung, is owner and Director of Green Point Design, a building design firm established to blend ecologically sustainable development with good quality design.