Courier giants take small steps toward greener fleets


In our regular critical review, Hannah Bullock revisits stories we identified as interesting back in 2001 – and checks where they’re going now.
On the way?Courier giants take small steps toward greener fleets
What if... the big courier companies took a long hard think about the impact of their activities? FedEx, for instance, runs a fleet of some 70,000 vehicles worldwide. Greening that lot would be a big win for the environment, even without addressing the air transport side of the business. And five years ago the company threw down the gauntlet to engineers to develop a radically different van through its Future Vehicle Project [ ‘FedEx goes for green trucking’, GF28].
The best response was a hybrid diesel-electric truck called the OptiFleet E700 which actually exceeds the tough targets of the original spec, reducing particulate emissions by 96% (rather than 90%) and improving fuel efficiency by 56% (not just 50%). The first 18 of these new vehicles are in action on the streets of New York, Sacramento, Tampa and Washington DC. Don’t uncork the champagne just yet, though – 18 out of 4,500 is a start, but hardly enough to make FedEx a front runner on sustainability.
The demise of Electric City [see ‘Five years on’, Green fleet runs out of juice, GF57] shows how tough it can be for specialist green start-ups to gain a toe-hold in the courier business. But what of the existing giants?
UPS, FedEx’s big US-based rival, scored a first when it brought three hydrogen fuel cell delivery trucks into service back in 2004. It also has 50 ‘new generation’ hybrid vehicles on order, the first of which is due to hit the streets of Dallas in June, looking just like standard diesel UPS ‘brown trucks’ but promising 35% better fuel efficiency. The company’s 1,500-strong alternative fuel fleet already includes vehicles running on electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas and propane.
The German-owned courier DHL, for its part, introduced its first hybrid vehicle in Los Angeles in 2004, and does use some electric, CNG and biogas vans, notably in Germany and Switzerland, but has nothing like that on the horizon for the UK, and says it is mainly concentrating on behind-the-scenes environmental management systems. – Suzanne Fane SaundersFedEx, http://www.fedex.com/ UPS, http://www.ups.com/
4 better, 4 worseResponsible stock market indices spur companies onThere was much excitement in the pink pages when FTSE, the company behind stock market tools like the FTSE 100 Index of the largest companies, launched its FTSE4Good responsible investment listing [GF28, p22]. Five years on, 700 companies have made the grade for inclusion. That’s up from 500 at the time of the launch – and they have to meet increasingly tough criteria, too. But has it made much difference in the financial world?
“It has been influential in improving the human rights and environmental policies of literally hundreds of companies around the world,” believes Craig McKenzie, director of Insight Investment and a member of FTSE4Good’s policy committee. The ratcheting up of standards has been particularly effective because FTSE goes beyond ‘name and shame’ to help companies meet the new criteria within sensible deadlines.
“Companies definitely do care about being in the index; it’s a seal of approval,” says McKenzie. “They certainly want to avoid the bad press from being disqualified.” This March’s bi-annual review saw 19 companies, including Hilton Hotels and the New York Times, fall off the list for not meeting the criteria.
But, as McKenzie points out, “if companies think hundreds of billions of pounds’ worth of assets are riding on the index, they’re mistaken. A company’s share price won’t fall if they’re not on the list. Ultimately, money is invested according to investors’ own criteria.”
Although FTSE4Good can’t be expected to change the investment culture single-handedly, he accepts that it can give a useful ‘early warning sign’ to investors who are switched on to sustainability. “A company that isn’t facing up to future issues like climate change is not managing its long-term business risks very well, and that’s a good indicator that something’s wrong.”FTSE4Good, 020 7866 1800, www.ftse.com/ftse4good
POPping their clogsToxic chemicals slowly brought to an endIt was hailed as a chemical breakthrough when the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) was announced in 2001 [‘ Getting on top of the POPs’, GF27]. The end was nigh for a list of 12 harmful chemicals which build up in the human body and – as the name suggests – never disappear once they’ve been released...
“It’s a very useful treaty,” says Greenpeace chemicals campaigner Mark Strutt, referring to the Convention which came into effect in May 2004 with 120 signatory countries. “It has already reduced the use of these chemicals, particularly in the developing world, where these pesticides are more common. But we’re only talking 12 chemicals here; tens of thousands are used in the world.” He’s holding out for new European Union regulations on hazardous chemicals (REACH), currently battling their way through the last stages of the EU legislative process, to bring an end to many more unsafe chemicals.
Meanwhile, a number of retailers – notably Marks & Spencer, Co-op, Ikea and B&Q – have taken the chemicals issue into their own hands, ahead of legislation. Co-op, for instance, banned six of the pesticides on the Stockholm list in its food production worldwide just after we brought you the original story, and has more recently eliminated the use of potentially dangerous chemicals from everyday household products. Marks & Spencer has banned POPS in the production of its goods, eliminating 56 chemicals from its textiles manufacturing and 60 pesticides from its food. It is also investing a lot of effort into finding alternative chemicals that can be used in the dying, printing and finishing processes of clothes manufacture.
But Homebase, whom we heralded as leading the way back in 2001 [ ‘DIY clean-up on toxic chemicals’, GF28, p8], has failed to meet its target of removing 27 POPs from all the products in its stores by this year. Only a handful have gone – though the company, now owned by the Argos Retail Group, says it’s keeping a “watching brief” on others. Even this only addresses the chemicals in the final product, ignoring those used in the production process. “This is a cop out,” says Strutt. “POPs pose a longer term threat once they’re released into the wider environment. You can’t ignore chemicals used downstream to make products.”Stockholm Convention, http://www.pops.int/ Marks & Spencer, www2.marksandspencer.com/thecompany Greenpeace, http://www2.www.greenpeace.org.uk/products/toxic
Blithe spirit bearCoastal forest wins safe statusThings were looking up for Canada’s Great Bear Rainforest five years ago, with logging companies agreeing to a moratorium on timber extraction, and permanent protection for 20 valleys [‘ Consensus spirit in Canada’s rainforest’, GF28]. At the time, however, Greenpeace was still awaiting a seal of approval from the British Columbia provincial government...
Well, the pressure group’s long campaign to save this pristine wilderness was finally declared a success this February, as new legislation was drawn up to protect the world’s largest remaining expanse of coastal temperate rainforest. Two million hectares – an area twice the size of Switzerland – will get permanent protection, and the rest will have strict controls. The forest, with its 1,000-year-old red cedar trees, is important as a homeland for Canada’s First Nations as well as a habitat supporting such endangered species as the bald eagle and the white spirit bear.http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/campaign/forests/greatbear/index.php