Global Green Consulting Group, Inc.

Join Viridity Software and Global Green Consulting Group to Discuss the Data Center's Role in Ensuring Corporate Sustainability

2010-09-21T09:55:00.000-07:00

When: Thursday, September 23rd, 2010 at 2:00pm EST

Widespread Deployment of Virtualization, Combined With Exponential Growth in Cost of Power, Demands New Level of Energy Management Intelligence That Goes Far Beyond Current Products That Just Collect Data and Report

What: In today’s data center, the widespread deployment of virtualization, combined with exponential growth in the cost of power, demands a new level of energy management intelligence that goes far beyond current products that just collect data and report (such as faceplate or fixed de-rating technologies). Viridity EnergyCenter software delivers the ability for Data Center, Facilities and IT Managers to obtain immediately actionable information about power consumption and equipment utilization from the data center in a way that yields a rapid return on investment (ROI), as well as a long-term sustainable business organization.

Please join Mike Rowan, Viridity Software’s Co-Founder and CTO, and Bernie Siryk, Vice President of Client Services, Global Green Consulting Group, as they examine the various factors that have led to the increasingly critical role of the data center in helping to ensure business sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The webinar will conclude with a Viridity EnergyCenter software demo and the opportunity to participate in live Q&A.

Where: CLICK HERE to learn more and register for the webinar

###

When It Comes To Data Center Management, Don’t Forget Utilization

2010-08-17T11:09:00.001-07:00

Guest Blog Post from Michael Rowan, co-founder and CTO of Viridity Software

At Viridity Software, utilization has become a rallying cry of sorts. We talk with many data center managers who need to improve their energy resource management strategies. They talk about PUE ratios and cooling costs, about server efficiency and virtualization, about high-efficiency transformers and PDUs.

We talk about utilization.

Here’s why. Most of a typical data center’s budget is spent on servers— powering them and cooling them. That EPA report that everyone likes to reference broke down the numbers. When you look specifically at the distribution of power—which, incidentally, takes up to 50 percent of data center operating expenses—servers (powering and cooling) account for 80 percent of the total balance. Another 10 percent goes to storage, and 10 percent to networking and other equipment. Cooling costs are factored in here. About half of power expenses go into cooling down what the IT equipment heated up. The bottom line is that, today, most of the power budget is really all about powering servers.

That being said, servers have evolved into much more flexible, efficient machines than they were just a few years ago. (Yes, they’re more efficient and still incredible energy hogs. Both. Maybe that’s a conversation for another day.) Current server technology has borrowed advancements from mobile devices. And why not? The developers of laptops have been so innovative in terms of extending their battery capacity—not to mention their sleek look. Now computer chips are smart and dynamic about power utilization. They modify their power consumption depending on their job.

Essentially, these computers know how to kick themselves into low gear power-wise when they aren’t doing much work. Then they crank up on power consumption commensurate with the amount of work they do. This is good news, but don’t underestimate what it means for energy management. These servers can suddenly double or even triple their power draw depending on utilization. If you’re spending almost 80 percent of your energy dollars—almost half of your entire operating budget—providing power to servers that fluctuate so dramatically, you have to monitor utilization. No other indicator impacts energy management so directly. Not by a long shot.

Put another way, if such a huge chunk of your energy budget goes into powering machines that vary their consumption rate by as much as 200 percent depending on use, can you afford to underestimate the correlation between power and utilization?

There it is, utilization. If you don’t understand utilization and its relationship to power, you don’t understand power.

-- Michael Rowan, Viridity Software Co-founder and CTO

Connecting the Dots - Working the Big Picture - Final Chapter?

2010-06-18T10:02:00.000-07:00

Building on my last several posts, the main objective here is to recap the final phase and deliverable of a major sustainability project engagement: Reporting. As background, our client had not previously done any public reporting along the lines of Climate Leaders, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), etc. Nor had they been reporting on their sustainability efforts internally. Developing and distributing their first comprehensive sustainability report for all internal stakeholders was therefore a significant objective and one that was a key priority among the firm's green team members as well as its leadership.

Early on in the engagement we promoted the adoption of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. Comprehensive in nature (covering environmental, social and economic sustainability pillars), an established and increasingly popular framework (over 1300 firms reported to the GRI in 2010), and rigorous yet flexible in its design, we believe it is an appropriate model to guide ones sustainability program efforts. The specification of dozens of key performance indicators and well defined criteria for reporting on them adds to its popularity.

Concurrent with the implementation of the Environmental and Energy Management System discussed in related posts, we provided considerable training to client personnel on the GRI framework, how to use it, and most importantly how to craft a meaningful, tailored report following its guidelines. As we progressed through the determination of the baseline carbon footprint and the subsequent year's performance, we purposely began shaping our efforts to align with the GRI.

Specifically, we identified the KPIs that the client's available data and sustainability practices directly lent themselves to. This is a critical step as the absence of such data prevents the calculation and reporting of such KPIs. As but one example, not capturing business travel in sufficient detail precludes firms from selecting and reporting on the specific KPI pertaining to this often significant environmental impact.

We set our sights on a C-level equivalent GRI report. Not to be confused with a ranking akin to a letter grade suggesting adequate or satisfactory performance, this level report calls for 10 Kpis to be identified and reported on. One can readily appreciate the iterative nature of engaging in such reporting for the first or even second time: What data do we have? Which kpi(s) does it pertain to? For this kpi here do we have the data we need? If so, where is it and is it complete? After some similar back and forth we agreed on the kpis to report on. Leveraging GRI's flexibility, where we could not report on a specific kpi we decided to report on related sustainability efforts anecdotally to at least provide "line of sight" to such efforts.

Once all the data is collected and analyzed, and the kpis finalized, the next major step is to begin writing the actual report. The GRI framework is sufficiently structured to provide more than adequate guidance on how to organize the different report components. Perhaps the biggest challenge, however, is in the content itself and how to present ones sustainability program efforts in a manner that is well aligned with ones business strategy and mission. Ideally, business strategy informs sustainability strategy and the two are well integrated and support each other. Thus the importance of a well articulated definition of sustainability for the target firm as well as related strategy.

In the absence of such specificity we shaped the GRI report content in a manner that seemed to make the most sense given the nature of the client, its industry, business practices, priorities and the like. This was first evident in the CEO letter (required as the introductory section) and flowed through the results section and vision for future program activity. Indeed, aligning ones sustainability objectives, efforts, and results with the business perspective envisioned is a significant challenge. A few revisions were required to present the correct perspective and tone to reflect the firm's perspective and intentions accurately.

Needless to say, the reporting exercise is invaluable in "drawing out" the client's posture and objectives pertaining to sustainability. In addition, it facilitates valuable discussions among organizational leadership as to how to pursue and present sustainability across the firm. The act of "putting it into writing", as in many other domains, casts a very different light than when less formal efforts are made. I fully expect our client to benefit significantly from this exercise as they consider near and longer term sustainability program objectives and initiatives.

Adding to the benefits of the reporting effort itself, our client is actively soliciting feedback from its internal stakeholders, providing further insights that will guide their sustainability program's evolution. This will be further informed and guided as our client develops and distributes a more comprehensive sustainability report next year that will be publicly disclosed. More comprehensive input from a broader array of key stakeholder groups, attaining more experience with various mitigation efforts and the impacts that can be reasonably expected, and continued monitoring of developments in the sustainability arena in general will lead to a further refined and compelling sustainability strategy.

I envisioned this posting as the last in a related series of engagement-centric posts. But the road certainly doesn't end here as sustainability is certainly a continuous undertaking. The steps and deliverables covered in this series represent several key building blocks that serve to set the sustainability foundation. Future posts will explore activities that are pursued to build on this foundation and the various challenges encountered.

Connecting the Dots - Working the Big Picture - Part Three

2010-04-05T13:07:00.000-07:00

Once we determined the carbon footprint and understood where the various areas of impact were coming from and their relative size, we next turned our attention to the consideration of target setting. More specifically, setting potential targets to aim for through various mitigating initiatives. Here we encountered something that in hindsight might have been expected; there was reluctance to set specific reduction targets at this point in the larger process.

Consistent with the broader sustainability arena, the reluctance is largely based on a lack of experience and/or confidence establishing firm targets that one can reasonably hope to attain. As a related factor, where firms historically do not pursue business initiatives with an eye toward minimizing their environmental impacts, there isn't a good understanding of the actual impact that can be realized through any specific type of initiative. The more appealing route therefore is to develop a base of understanding of the extent mitigating initiatives can lead to and THEN establish targets that such initiatives can help deliver.

This is not an unreasonable approach for most firms as they are not under extensive pressure to establish such targets. Stakeholders are largely focused on whether or not firms have a good understanding of the environmental impacts of their respective business operations and generally understand that this is a critical prerequisite. Further, in light of the increasing emphasis on the auditability of sustainability programs and achievements, firms are understandably concerned with making public claims/projections that may not be realistic.

Despite the absence of specific targets, mitigating strategies and initiatives were identified. Where a major contributor to the carbon footprint for this specific client was driven by their electricity consumption, mitigation strategies emerged in the Facilities and IT areas. Facilities has various opportunities to reduce power consumption (e.g., updated lighting, more efficient cooling, improved weatherproofing and the like) as does the IT area (e.g., increased virtualization, consolidation of servers, better balanced cooling in the data centers, desktop power management, to name a few).

Certainly, one can identify a myriad of possible mitigating initiatives to consider. However, there are at least three major challenges here. The first is ensuring that the fixed budgetary funds available will deliver the level of ROI considered acceptable and realistic. The second and perhaps even more critical challenge is ensuring the proposed initiative(s) not only lead to desired mitigation of environmental impacts but also support affected business operations. Finally, establishing the optimal portfolio of initiatives to pursue can be challenging; particularly in those environments where many initiatives across a number of strategies are under consideration. Clearly, each of these challenges raise important questions of their own.

When we speak of ROI we need to actually understand the components this metric consists of. What IS the return and how will it be measured? If we're focusing on reduction of electricity consumption do we have a specific dollar amount in mind? What is the environmental impact reduction for each megawatt avoided? On the flip side, what is the actual investment that will lead to the anticipated benefits? Is the R (as determined in terms of dollar savings, environmental impact, perhaps business growth potential) worth the I? Complicating matters further, what is the TCO of a given initiative?

The second major challenge is critical and can be equally difficult to evaluate. Will a potential initiative actually support business objectives while also lead to a reduction in environmental impacts or are we at risk of accomplishing the latter while adversely impacting the former? The use of virtual meeting technology is a good example. This technology can certainly reduce the need to travel and the environmental impacts such travel entails. But it may be counterproductive in those cases where there is a high premium on face to face meetings of core business activities.

The third major challenge can be particularly difficult. Sophisticated modeling algorithms exist and are being integrated into EEMs such as the one we worked with here. These can help firms determine what the optimal combination of initiatives under consideration lead to. This outcome can be based on explicit, tangible,criteria such as target carbon reduction to be attained within a given overall budget. However, such optimization algorithms are not as effective when trying to introduce less tangible objectives into the mix of selection criteria (e.g., extent of market share that may be captured, degree of client satisfaction that will be realized, etc.). Here it is clear that careful scrutiny must be applied to the mix of initiatives under consideration before making a final determination of what to pursue or not.

In summary, knowing one's environmental impact as represented by a carbon footprint is a key prerequisite to setting of mitigation targets and the specification of strategies and initiatives that help attain those targets. As covered here, one need not set specific mitigation targets immediately but can work towards that end by first understanding which options one can pursue, what the relative cost and mitigation impact of such options are, and then establish an approach comprised of various initiatives to pursue. Based on the experience gained through this process firms can then progress to the setting and publishing of explicit targets that are subsequently pursued much like other business objectives are.

Speaking of "publishing", the 4th installment in this overall thread will cover the area of reporting.

Stay tuned.

Connecting the Dots - Working the Big Picture - Part Two

2010-02-24T13:33:00.000-08:00

Continuing with the recap started in my previous post, the engagement shifted into execution mode. A true myriad of tasks ranging from data gathering, reformatting and uploading to project planning for GRI reporting, to overall engagement management. In hindsight, the data component was not particularly difficult to contend with once we understood the connection between consumption types, units of measure, emission factors, and output unit type. The approach was generally the same for each consumption type or activity. Ensuring alignment between what units the data was available in, what the relevant emission factor appropriate for that consumption and unit type, and output units desired was a challenging aspect. Obtaining current and accurate emission factors for the breadth of consumptions was a challenge. They do not simply exist in an easily accessible manner. One has to do a fair amount to research them and then once deemed correct figure out how to properly represent that factor for the consumption units of interest. Again, it would seem this would be straightforward but proved otherwise. Should anyone know of a comprehensive, complete, international source for major consumption types for the many suppliers involved, along with their representation across different units, by all means, please let us know!

A major milestone was the development of the initial carbon footprint; seeing the overall impact as well as the component contributors and their respective share. This is a key milestone as it becomes the starting point for the development of different strategies and initiatives to mitigate one's impact. It also is the point where considerable discussion takes place as clients develop a better understanding of what their environmental impacts are and where they are coming from. As might be expected, there were a few surprises and unexpected results. This in itself is a great learning experience as the concept of Scope (1, 2, and 3) becomes clearer as it applies to a client's environment.

Another key observation at this point: seeing where one's business strategy is not likely to be kind to ones sustainability efforts. As an example, in the financial services and high tech sectors one of the biggest sources of impact are driven by employee travel. Companies striving to grow and expand on an international basis are likely to travel more, leading to a bigger environmental impact. This observation, in turn, has the effect of honing ones mitigation efforts into those areas of business operation where business strategy CAN be augmented while also driving down environmental impacts.

As we worked with the footprint we also continued to transfer knowledge pertaining to GRI reporting. We provided the overall framework and details on how to apply it. A key conclusion here pertains to how the well structured and organized GRI framework can deceive users. Once one dives into specific key performance indicators (KPIs) and understands what is needed to report on them as part of ones deliverable, it becomes more apparent as to how one needs to go about crafting and driving ones sustainability program efforts. KPIs require specific types of data in most cases. This means someone needs to be gathering this data, organizing it, and synthesizing it in a manner that maps to the selected KPIs. What one may have thought was a "good example to include" in a GRI report ends up only being something referenced anecdotally because the required metrics do not exist.

Certainly, this is where a sophisticated Environmental and Energy Management (EEM) system comes in handy. One can gather data and work with it to get to a desired GRI but the process is significantly simplified through these robust tools. The intelligence built into these systems, and their continued evolution along this dimension, goes a long way toward organizing and coordinating data management and subsequent reporting related activities.

More to come. Part Three will continue with this thread starting with the creation of strategies and identification of related mitigating initiatives.

Connecting the Dots - Working the Big Picture - Part One

2010-02-05T12:13:00.000-08:00

Over the last many months we've been engaged in a fairly comprehensive, multi-dimensional, sustainability project. Serving in the capacity of overall Engagement Manger I've overseen everything from strategic planning through various data entry activities. This has been a terrific learning experience. It's also been very rewarding from the perspective of making things happen, getting good things done, and delivering a lot of value to our client. Without delving into the specifics of where this was done or who it was for, it's an experience that's led to many key insights. And as my heading states, a great opportunity to connect many of the dots inherent in this domain. I anticipate this may take more than one installment, thus the reference to Part One.

Adding interest to the mix, this engagement leveraged the products and services of two of our partner firms. These are rapidly evolving software vendors in the environmental and energy management (EEM) arena and data center power optimization domain. With the client engagement focused on organizing, uploading, and understanding energy consumption data as well as a deeper dive into the power consumption profile of their data centers, these were ideal vendors to partner with. And, indeed, they played significant roles in the connection of major dots.

The project engagement served as what I believe will be the typical sustainability project initiative. Rather than any one vendor/service provider satisfying the entire breadth of a given client's needs and objectives, solutions will be cobbled together; leveraging the unique offerings different providers bring to the table. This is certainly an important realization for anyone involved, or planning to be involved, in this arena. Providers of sustainability consulting services certainly can bring value. Software providers certainly have their place in the bigger picture. But neither alone is sufficient to adequately address the bigger picture. Nor is it safe to assume that either party can hope to do their own part well and rely on the client to address the other.

A key first step was understanding the client, their current capabilities and activities, and goals and objectives for the future. As might be expected, some of this is obtained easily while other aspects were developed jointly. Perhaps most important in the early stages is truly understanding the client's big picture context and the world they operate within. Without this fundamental understanding the odds of being successful are truly slim and none. Personally, I would place a bigger wager on "none".

Having a good understanding of the client and "their world" led to the identification of needs and opportunities. Once fleshed out and prioritized, determining what the appropriate solutions to meet these needs and make the most of opportunities was the next step. One might note that a considerable amount of work has been done to this point yet no solution providers have been involved. I can't emphasize enough the need to get this first major part done properly and resist the temptation to prematurely engage with, and introduce, other solution providers. Time and a place for that.

Shaping ones thinking about the solutions to consider and pursue, having a good idea and definition of "the ends" in mind is invaluable. Gaining client input and acceptance of this vision essentially defines where the goal posts are and what success looks like. It's at this point in the game that one goes looking for the appropriate partners and solution sets to engage. In our recent engagement that led to the selection of the two partners referenced earlier. Certainly, getting to this point had it's share of challenges. As you might suspect, that was just the beginning.

Partners selected and assurances obtained that identified goals and objectives would be attained, the effort shifted to active engagement of the partners and integration of their respective solutions into the client environment. Among other considerations, this is where the world of software as a service (SaaS) and the more traditional, installed on client premises solution became interesting. Perhaps challenging is a better word. The SaaS EEM was implemented and ready for our use in very short order. The data center optimization solution, by it's nature needing to be executed on the client's data center environment, raised considerable attention and concern. The net result was a need to take a plan that called for several streams of activity being done concurrently to one that was more serial in nature. On the plus side, this served as another important entry to my "notes to self" log. It also enabled us to more effectively handle the other challenges that lay ahead.

In my next post I'll provide the next installment of this engagement recap, activities performed and lessons learned. Stay tuned.

Sustainability through the lens of the CMMI framework

2009-08-27T10:48:00.000-07:00

CMMI, or Capability Maturity Model Integration, is a widely used framework generating value in many business and organizational settings. Briefly, CMMI is a broad, robust, process improvement approach that guides users in their quest to improve targeted activities. In it's most basic form, CMMI provides a framework for evaluating how effective a given process or processes are, what the basis or characteristics of that evaluation are, and what specific type of changes are required to attain a higher level within their framework. Sustainability, applying the definition coined by the Brundtland Commission as activity that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" can be aptly considered and pursued through the CMMI lens.

Businesses and organizations of all sizes and sectors are clearly at different levels of capabilities and maturity in the sustainability domain. Many are just beginning to create sustainability programs, creating "green" committees, appointing Chief Sustainability Officers, charging different business personnel at varying levels to determine what is going on in this space, why it may be relevant, etc. Others are well underway, successfully integrating sustainability strategies within overarching business strategies, some to the extent where they are indeed one and the same. The challenge in all cases is to adopt a context and/or framework within which one can determine where one's organization is currently at, where it may make the most sense to reasonably aspire to go over what period of time, and how to evaluate their status and progress in a broader context be that context defined by competitors in the same space, like-minded organizations of a similar size and scope, or perhaps the legal framework they are required to comply with.

CMMI can provide such a framework. Initially, capabilities and maturity levels pertaining to sustainability need to be defined in a manner that can be broadly understood and applied. Next, the key criteria and characteristics used to differentiate status at one level against the next need to be articulated. Finally, a road map of how to effectively progress from a given level of sustainability capabilities and maturity should be produced. Collectively, these components will result in a framework that permit the clear evaluation and differentiation of organizations striving to pursue sustainability objectives. Moreover, it will provide guidance as to how to improve on various sustainability capabilities.

The benefits of such a framework are evident. Paraphrasing an old adage "you can't determine where you should go nor how to get there if you don't know where you are." Applying a well defined framework should quickly enable businesses and other organizations to determine where their current capabilities and overall sustainability maturity levels are. Service providers applying such a framework can similarly utilize the information obtained to craft an appropriate plan/strategy that fits the organization. Clearly, trying to attain the highest level of maturity is not realistic for the organization that is just starting out. Targeting certain objectives in a given time frame may not be reasonable for firms that have little or no track record of attaining such objectives. What is appropriate for company A to pursue in a given year may be the wrong prescription for company B. The breadth and complexity, and supporting processes and tools, of a given strategy need to be considered in such a context.

Utilizing a comprehensive framework affords many benefits to those using them. Conversely, trying to make concerted progress on some ill-defined fronts and objectives can be futile in the absence of such a model. CMMI represents a solid, stable, robust approach that should be adopted and tailored to the sustainability arena where material benefits can be realized and significant positive impacts can be made.

Climate Legislation - How Important Is It?

2009-06-30T08:26:00.000-07:00

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act), H.R. 2454 by a vote of 219 to 212. Anyone following the path of climate related legislation knows that this has been a clear uphill battle. The House vote of 219-212 indicates just how divided we are on this matter. The battle to follow in the Senate will prove equally hard fought; the outcome at this point is any one's guess. As this legislation debate on climate matters continues, a few questions come to mind and I present a couple here. I have some of my own ideas but welcome feedback from others as well.

First, do we really need legislation in the first place? One could argue that we've already reached a considerable tipping point. Not a day goes by that I don't see some sort of green related messaging. On the international level, many countries around the world are well down the slope of imposing caps on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and working with a variety of trading programs aimed at mitigating those emissions. Companies, large and small alike, across all verticals are pursing various sustainability programs and their numbers are increasing. The number of such firms publishing their sustainability reports to network based organizations such as Global Reporting Initiative are also increasing.

Based on these observations one might well conclude that we will do right by the environment because we're already doing so, others around the world will expect us to do so, and we're simply just "getting it" as something that needs to get done. I for one anticipate that these forces will continue to grow and accelerate, with or without legislation.

On the other hand, I believe there are strong reasons supporting the need for legislation to be properly crafted and implemented. The low hanging fruit and perhaps some of it just beyond will indeed be pursued without it. But the bigger challenges, particularly those pertaining to sectors of our economy that represent the most detrimental to our environment in terms of negative impacts, need mechanisms that will ease the path toward improved sustainability. Such mechanisms would need to include trading capabilities that could be obtained by large emitters to drive down their carbon footprints along with other efforts they may pursue. Similarly, incentives will need to be implemented to ensure desired progress can be made without crippling economic performance. Beyond these supporting arguments, legislation will likely get us to our desired objectives faster than we will otherwise as necessity will drive innovation and investment that accelerates the progress made.

Assuming this conclusion is accurate and legislation is considered to be a necessity, one needs to drill into the other side of the coin and ask: at what cost? I find this to be an interesting question. Clearly, the concerted debates surrounding this matter and the close votes suggest that there may indeed be a steep cost to be paid. Those opposed to climate legislation, at least in the form it is currently taking, point to tremendous job losses to other parts of the world as well as large per capita costs required to implement proposed legislation. They also question the actual impact such legislation will have on the planet's overall health.

I've seen cost estimates ranging from a few hundred dollars per person, per year, to those exceeding $4,000 per person. I've not as yet seen any specific numbers on job losses predicted by those opposed to this legislation. And yes, we are certainly not alone in this challenge; we may make a dent in the bigger problem but it won't be "solved" unless there is a concerted effort by all the major polluters, including China.

To better understand this raging debate it would be helpful indeed to see some hard numbers along with their underlying assumptions and calculations. It's simple to pluck numbers out of thin air and use them to argue a point; it's another matter to provide substantiation that at least affords us the opportunity to have a more meaningful discussion around the issues and options at hand. I welcome input along those lines so that we can have that more meaningful discussion. In the meantime, change out those light bulbs, turn off your PCs when not in use, and definitely continue sorting out those recyclables!

Tackling Sustainability Challenges – A Concerted Team Approach

2009-06-22T12:22:00.000-07:00

Firms of all sizes are increasingly developing sustainability programs aimed at a broad spectrum of environmental impacts. These range from implementing fairly simple paper recycling programs to elaborate power management initiatives spanning multiple, dispersed physical plants and facilities. The motivations can vary from attaining cost savings that simultaneously lead to positive impacts on environmental emissions to interests in driving increased revenues by differentiating oneself from peers in a competitive market niche. Regardless of the motivations, determining what to pursue for what intended objective(s) is complicated by the many options available and the varying amount of investment and effort required to pursue those options. Success requires a comprehensive plan; one executed with a true team approach.

Briefly, a sustainability strategy needs to be aligned with and indeed contribute to the organization’s overall business plan. The connections between each and how one will positively impact the other is critical. Developing and empowering a diverse yet cohesive team to the challenges of the sustainability program is a critical success factor. Establishment of agreed to and measureable objectives help guide the team toward desired outcomes that can be monitored along the way.

This strategy needs to be guided by sound data on the most critical impacts targeted for mitigation. Without such data it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how big a challenge one has, the type of remediation programs needed to pursue, the appropriate investment to make, or whether or not the desired objectives are attained. Once the appropriate metrics are agreed upon and sound baselines can be established, identification and implementation of the appropriate programs can commence. Periodic monitoring along the way can help ensure success and/or changes in approach as appropriate.

Among the many significant targets to be considered, corporate data centers in medium to large scale firms emerge as promising targets. Ideally, initiatives pursued in data centers will not only make significant contributions to sustainability goals and objectives but will also lead to improved efficiencies that strengthen business performance and agility. The ability to positively contribute to a multitude of corporate objectives, representing both business and sustainability goals, demands a concerted team approach. Otherwise it’s likely that investments will be made in areas that may yield some significant returns yet do not represent the most optimal options available.

Our experiences and observations at Global Green Consulting Group firmly support the need for a concerted team approach, one that includes the rigor that balances the objectives of business goals and objectives with sustainability targets in the most cost efficient manner. The absence of an effective team approach can very well lead to some impressive sustainability outcomes yet fall short of what is otherwise possible.