Berlin taxis protest fuel prices

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Nearly 400 Berlin taxis brought city traffic to a halt Tuesday as they drove through the city in a protest over high fuel prices.

A policeman watches as protesting taxi drivers arrive at City Hall during the demonstration in Berlin.

Taxi firms say higher prices are costing them between $314 and $393 per taxi a month.



The firms, which are subject to regional government regulation, want to be able to charge more per fare -- an extra $.79 for journeys costing less than $15.70, and an extra $1.57 for journeys costing more.

Police said 380 taxis took part in Tuesday's protest, which began at Berlin's Olympic stadium and finished more than two hours later at the city hall.

Authorities closed main roads through the city to allow the beige Mercedes taxis to pass through, snarling traffic for commuters.

It was the latest demonstration against rising fuel prices around the world.

Truckers staged a protest in Vienna, Austria on Monday, and last week, hundreds of British truckers drove past Parliament to voice their anger about the high cost of fuel.
Similar protests have also happened in India, France, Spain, and South Korea.

Siemens cutting 16,750 jobs worldwide

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) -- Industrial conglomerate Siemens says it is cutting 16,750 jobs worldwide because of the slowing economy. The cuts amount to 4.2 percent of its global work force.

Siemens builds products ranging from light bulbs and medical equipment to high-speed trains.

The Munich-based maker of trams and wind turbines said Tuesday the cuts will include 12,600 mostly administrative jobs, along with another 4,150 positions in a restructuring in some of its units.

The company has a worldwide work force of approximately 400,000 people.

Siemens said it will consolidate its businesses from the current 1,800 separate legal entities to fewer than 1,000 and take its 70 regional companies and transform them into 20 regional clusters.

Siemens said the cuts were being made in an effort to reduce total costs by $1.8 billion by 2010.

"The speed at which business is changing worldwide has increased considerably, and we're orienting Siemens accordingly," said chief executive Peter Loescher in a statement announcing the cuts, which had first been raised last month.

"Against the backdrop of a slowing economy, we have to become more efficient," he said.

Shares of Siemens were up 1.3 percent to $110.31 in Frankfurt trading after the announcement.

Siemens said it was considering offering employees transfers to other companies and early retirement packages in a bid to avoid forced layoffs and dismissals.

Loescher said Siemens was conferring with unions and labor representatives on the matter and that it wanted to make the changes rapidly.

"We want to begin negotiations with the employee representatives quickly in order to make the cuts in a way that will be as socially responsible as possible," chief financial officer Siegfried Russwurm said. "Only as a last resort will we terminate employment contracts for operation reasons."

The announcement comes even as Siemens has faced a corruption and bribery scandal that emerged in 2006. The company has acknowledged dubious payments, totaling up to $2.04 billion, which were allegedly used by the company to secure business.

The company said it would also reduce costs further by cutting back expenditures for information technology infrastructure and consultants, and the recent streamlining of its management structure and divisions.

For example, the management board has been reduced from 11 members to eight and the company's previous eight divisions have been reduced to just three divisions: energy, industry, and health care.

Siemens said 5,250 jobs will be cut in Germany -- with operations in Erlangen, Munich, Nuremberg and Berlin bearing the brunt of the cuts. Siemens employs approximately 136,000 workers in Germany.
Siemens is not alone in announcing major job cuts. In the U.S., AMR Corp.'s American Airlines said last week it would cut 900 jobs starting Aug. 1, and 8 percent of its total work force, which could total about 7,000 jobs

OPEC calls for peace with Iran to settle oil prices

Madrid, July 1 (DPA) The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Tuesday set the steadying the US dollar and the easing of tensions between the West and Iran as key conditions for stabilizing oil prices.

High oil prices were not caused by a lack of supplies, OPEC President Chakib Khelil said at the 19th World Petroleum Congress in the Spanish capital Madrid.

There were enough reserves to meet the market demand for the next 50 years, said Khelil, who is also the Algerian energy minister.

OPEC countries were investing $120 billion upstream to increase their production by four million barrels per day by 2012, according to the Khelil.

The OPEC chief attributed the high oil prices to the devaluation of the US dollar and accompanying market speculation, the geopolitical situation including the tension between Iran and the West, and the impact of bioethanol which had lowered diesel production.

There was a perception by the market that some oil producing areas could be affected by a 'war risk,' he explained.

'This is not an issue of supply,' Khelil insisted. 'Unless we address the real causes, we will not see lower oil prices.'

There was 'a need to do something about geopolitics and the dollar,' he added.

The dollar would become devalued even more if the European Central Bank raised interest rates, further affecting oil prices, Khelil observed.

The OPEC chief denied that the cartel 'set oil prices,' insisting they were determined by the market.

High prices were not in the interest of producers, because they risked destroying demand, Khelil explained.

Oil supply and demand will be close over the next five years, the International Energy Agency (IEA) meanwhile said in a report presented at the Madrid congress.

Falling demand will help to ease the oil market, but it will tighten again towards 2013, IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

Tanaka expressed concern over the effect cutting fuel subsidies was having on poor people in developing countries.

He called on governments to accompany such cuts with measures to help the poor, and on international financial institutions to adopt policies to that effect.

IEA head of oil market division Lawrence Eagles denied claims by producer countries and some European politicians that market speculation was a major reason for soaring oil prices.

If speculators were pushing prices upwards in the long term, 'we should see the market show an imbalance,' which was not happening, Eagles said.

The IEA was concerned about the decline of mature oil fields, Eagles said, but added that new projects in countries such as Brazil, Russia or in the Gulf of Mexico could add to future supplies.

Christophe de Margerie, president of the French oil giant Total, said the company was on the verge of signing a service contract in Iraq, but was not expecting to make major investments there until after next year.

The World Petroleum Congress, one of the main events in the oil industry, was bringing together thousands of delegates from more than 50 countries from Monday to Thursday.

Developed countries declarations on climate change 'make no sense': India

New Delhi, July 2 (IANS) Industrialised countries should meet their own commitments in the fight against climate change rather than asking countries like India and China to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the prime minister's principal negotiator on climate change Shyam Saran said here.

A week before leaders of 16 major economies - including India - are expected to sign a declaration underscoring the importance of fighting climate change, Saran told IANS in an interview that emission reduction targets being announced by developed countries meant nothing in the absence of a baseline year from which to measure the reductions.

As agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), '1990 must be the baseline year' from which GHG emissions would be reduced, Saran said. 'We'll resist any unilateral attempt to try and change the baseline to some future date.'

Declarations by developed countries to halve GHG emissions by 2050 'make no sense' without a baseline, he pointed out. 'It will only confuse world public opinion. It may make them think you are doing something very major, which you actually have no intention of doing,' Saran told IANS.

Saran also wanted industrialised countries to draw out the path they would follow to their 2050 goals. Otherwise, 'how do we know whether this is a credible target? Especially, taking into account the fact that most major countries are unlikely to meet their current (2007-2012) commitments'.

Answering criticism on why India was not committing itself to capping GHG emissions, Saran said: 'To merely ward off pressure, we don't want to announce targets which we have no intention of achieving.

'We'd like industrialised developed countries to meet the obligations they have undertaken before they start pointing fingers at countries like India.'

Saran acknowledged that there had not been much progress in international climate change negotiations since the UNFCCC summit in Bali last December, but was hopeful of agreement by the end of 2009.

Asked about fears of Indian industry that exports to developed countries would be subject to carbon tariffs, Saran said: 'That would be trade protectionism under a green label. And that, of course, we're not prepared to accept.

Saran expected next week's major economies' meet in Japan to deliver a strong message to climate change negotiators that their leaders 'consider this to be a matter of great urgency and importance.'


Excerpts from the interview:

Q: Many developed countries are making large-scale GHG emission reduction promises into the future. Is India doing anything to hold them to the current (2007-2012) targets?

A: Number one, India has categorically asserted that in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 1990 must be the baseline (year for GHG emission quantities). That was accepted even in the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, we'll resist any unilateral attempt to try and change the baseline from 1990 to some future date. This is something that will go against both the letter and the spirit of the UNFCCC. That is our position.

Q: Is there widespread support for India's position?

A: In the negotiations that have been taking place post-Bali (the last UNFCCC summit in December 2007), at Bangkok, at Bonn, and most recently at the major economies meeting in Seoul, we've made this point very strongly. We've said you have stated that there should be 50 percent reduction by 2050. But unless you tell us which baseline you are using, it makes no sense.

Therefore, first of all, if we're not to merely put up a political target, but something which has substance, then it is important to know what is the base year from which you will have the cut. We'd like a clear assertion that this will be with 1990 as the baseline. Otherwise, it makes no sense. It will only confuse world public opinion. It may make them think you are doing something very major, which you actually have no intention of doing.

The second thing is, we have said that if you want 50 percent reduction by 2050, you must tell us what is the pathway that you will follow. Unless you tell us what your interim targets are, say by 2020, or what reductions you are ready to take post 2012, which is the second commitment period (for the Kyoto Protocol), how do we know whether this is a credible target? Especially, taking into account the fact that whatever targets were laid down by yourselves for the first commitment period (2007-2012), it is unlikely that most of the major countries will achieve it.

We do not want mere tokenism. With respect to the criticism why India is not announcing a target, we'd like to be quite clear and honest. To merely ward off pressure, we don't want to announce targets which we have no intention of achieving. So, we'd like the others, especially the industrialised developed countries, to deliver on the commitments they have made. We have not imposed those commitments. They have undertaken certain solemn commitments and, therefore, we'd like them to meet the obligations they have undertaken before they start pointing fingers at countries like India.

Q: What do the developed countries say when you tell them this?

A: That is the subject of negotiations. After Bali, we have had one round of talks in Bangkok, another in Bonn, and I must say we've not made much progress. We hope that by the time we come to the Copenhagen meet (December 2009), we'd perhaps have some very definitive targets for developed countries.

Q: Industry bodies here have expressed the fear of having carbon tariffs imposed on exports to developed countries. Have you discussed this at multilateral forums?

A: We've made it very clear that concepts such as competitiveness, trade or tariff regimes have no place in the context of the UNFCCC. So you cannot say that I'll follow a mitigation strategy but only if my trade competitiveness is intact. You hear this argument being used, that we must have a level playing field. We're already beginning with a very uneven playing field. Now, you are opening the door to trade protectionism under a green label. And that, of course, we're not prepared to accept.

Here also, we're on very strong ground, because the UNFCCC does not talk about trade competitiveness. They don't have a place in these negotiations. So to try and bring this in at this stage of the negotiations is really trying to deflect attention from the main issue. The main issue is that unless those who have been responsible for global warming which is taking place today, which is because of their accumulated emissions, unless they take the lead in bring about very significant and deep cuts in their emissions and changing their production and consumption patterns, looking at other issues is basically a distraction.

Q: What do you expect at the next week's meet of major economies in Japan?

A: We've met in Seoul and finalised a declaration. It will put across a very strong message that these leaders of major economies are deeply concerned about the challenge of climate change and are also convinced that unless there is a global effort we'll not be in a position to confront this challenge. So the major economies, which represent about 80 percent of the global GDP, have a common vision. The major economies will be giving a kind of political push to the multilateral negotiating process. The negotiators will get a clear message that their leaders consider this to be a matter of great urgency and importance.

World Business Forum Ranked #1 Best New Forum HSM"s World Business Forum receives several high rankings in Burson-Marsteller"s 2008 Most Valuable Pod

World Business Forum is ranked as the # 1 Best New Forum


New York, May 22, 2008 – HSM’s World Business Forum received high rankings in Burson-Marsteller’s 2008 Most Valued Podiums Survey (MVP2). The survey’s findings, released May 19th, 2008, ranked the World Business Forum as the #1 Best New Forum and the #2 Best Global Forum. The World Business Forum also made its debut in the Top 10 list of the most influential and sought-after conferences, placing 5th most valuable podium throughout the world among CEOs and C-suite executives.

Burson-Marsteller’s MVP2 Survey included 173 forums and conferences from around the world. Results were based on interviews with 103 conference decision-makers in corporate communications (25%), marketing (18%), human resources (13%), and public relations (7%). The majority (81%) of respondents are the conference decision-makers in Fortune 1000 firms.

Other findings from the MVP2 Survey concluded that 95% of conference decision-makers believe conferences to be as important or more important today compared with two years ago. In addition, 75% of the corporate communications officers interviewed reported that they consider “executive satisfaction” as their primary means of measure when evaluating return on investment from conference participation. Many respondents also revealed that “forwarding the business” was one of the leading criteria when determining which forums to attend.

For more information about the World Business Forum, please visit wbfny.com or call 866-711-4476.

For media inquires or press passes, please contact Susan Copperman at 212-812-9608 or scopperman@hsmglobal.com

Building Sustainability Into the Heart of a Brand: Procter & Gamble

The business case
Consumers can change their behavior if they are reassured about the cleaning performance of their products and if there are direct and broader benefits the consumer can easily perceive and for which independent reassurance is provided. There is clear evidence that P&G's customers have taken the message and are washing at reduced temperatures without compromising on cleaning performance or convenience, while saving energy, money and reducing their ecological footprint. For P&G, Ariel Coolclean's campaigns have strengthened brand loyalty, increased its consumer base, and further positioned P&G as a sustainable innovation leader.



Procter & Gamble has positioned the Ariel brand as a low-temperature wash detergent across Europe since 2003. Similar initiatives have also been launched in other regions, like Tide Coldwater in the US and Canada.

Ariel's Coolclean technology is a formulation that performs optimally at lower wash temperatures, significantly reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

By simply turning the wash temperature down from 40°C to 30°C, UK field studies in 2006 showed a 41% reduction in washing machine electricity use. P&G's “Turn To 30” UK marketing campaigns raised awareness about climate change, persuading consumers to adopt a more sustainable washing practice.

P&G and sustainability

Procter & Gamble is the world's largest fast-moving goods company with 2007 sales of US$ 76.4 billion. P&G has always been a leader in sustainability, addressing it as both a responsibility and a business-building opportunity, by providing products and services that improve the quality of life of consumers, now and for generations to come.

In 2007, P&G renewed its sustainability program articulating strategies around sustainable innovations of its products, improving the environmental profile of P&G operations, enlarging social responsibility programs and employee engagement as well as stakeholder collaboration projects to help address global sustainability challenges.

In the laundry detergent business, leading brands account for annual sales of over US$ 5 billion. P&G has developed new formulations for a range of laundry and cleaning products that enable excellent cleaning performance at lower temperatures, saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The consumer landscape in 2008

The single most important component of a successful business program for a consumer goods company like P&G is an intimate understanding of the consumer.

Recent consumer segmentation studies concluded that a small group of consumers place a very high level of importance on the environmental and social benefits of a product. This niche group, representing an estimated 5-8% of the population, is willing to forgo personal benefits for perceived ethical and altruistic reasons.

A broader group of consumers (on average 45-50%) will buy environmental products only if the products first meet key consumer needs such as quality, performance, convenience and price. This segment is called the “sustainable mainstream” consumer.

Successful brands must establish mainstream consumer appeal by translating the sustainability benefit directly into a primary consumer benefit.

This approach overcomes one of the key limitations associated with marketing “ethical” or “green” products, as it communicates simultaneously a performance and a sustainability message to the consumer.

Building sustainability into the heart of the Ariel brand

As concern over the effects of climate change and the need to reduce our ecological footprint have become dominant societal challenges, P&G has recognized its responsibility as well as opportunity as a market leader to develop more sustainable innovations for its leading global brands.

Life cycle analyses show that, with granule detergents, up to 85% of the energy is consumed in the product use phase, mostly to heat the water in the washing machine. Therefore, the most substantial sustainable improvements can be made when the consumer uses the detergents.

With Ariel Coolclean formulated to be effective at low temperatures, P&G has established a means for substantial reductions in household energy consumption, enabling sustainable development to become a business-building opportunity.

Ariel “Turn To 30” provides the three-pronged “branded” answer: washing at reduced temperatures can 1) meet consumer cleaning expectations, 2) save the consumer money by lowering electricity bills, and 3) reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions significantly. This strengthens Ariel brand loyalty, especially in the “sustainable mainstream” consumer segment (consumers who are environmentally concerned but not willing to compromise on performance) and P&G's leadership position as a socially and environmentally responsible actor.

The Ariel Coolclean campaign

With Ariel Coolclean, P&G recognized its ability to contribute to the global call to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The challenge was how to get the consumer to take advantage of P&G's product innovation and turn the temperature down. In the UK, where the average washing temperature had been 43.5°C (2002), the P&G campaign urged consumers to “Turn To 30”.

The Turn To 30 Ariel boxes stated the clear, consistent message: “ Energy Saving and Brilliant Cleaning ”. These two benefits were framed by the additional plus: the consumer would be supporting the environment by living more sustainably.

P&G took a holistic communications approach: coordinating the simple “Turn To 30” message in TV and print advertising, direct marketing, Internet campaigns, in-store events, PR and promotional activities.

Consumers were made aware of the energy savings of washing at 30° in layman's terms. It was expressed as: “If all of the UK turned to 30°, the annual energy saved could power over 500,000 homes for one year.”

P&G has learned that quantifying energy savings is a cultural process: in Italy, Ariel Coolclean energy savings were better perceived as the amount needed to light up the beautiful piazzas (central squares), whereas in the UK, the annual energy savings of a single home were materialized in equivalents like: watching 1,400 TV soap operas or preparing 2,500 cups of tea.

In each country where the Coolclean technology was introduced, P&G partnered with important climate-oriented and energy saving third parties. In France, P&G teamed with WWF and ADEME (a government-funded sustainability agency), a German ecological research institute, Öko-Institut, the Italian energy supplier, Enel, and the Alliance to Save Energy.

In the UK, P&G worked with the Energy Saving Trust. Together they launched the Ariel Energy Saving Promise, an individual commitment challenge with prizes and regional competitions.

They also ran the Ariel Great Energy Savings Experiment in 2006, having 122 households “Turn To 30” for two weeks (and auditing their washing machine energy consumption compared to the previous two weeks). The Energy Saving Trust, as a third party, validated the results of this field test: the average energy savings were 41% per household.

Did the consumer change behavior?

In the UK field tests conducted with the Energy Saving Trust (2006), 89% of the 122 families stated they would continue to wash with Ariel at 30°. These field test participants had to actively evaluate the wash results, providing a strong indication that the consumer is satisfied with Ariel's wash performance.

The repeated advertising campaigns have been successful in changing consumer habits. In 2007, an IPSOS survey reported that 17% of UK households now wash at 30%, up from only 2% of households in their 2002 survey.

The average UK washing temperature across all households has decreased from 43.5°C to 40.2°C. Importantly, 27% of all Ariel users washed at 30° in 2007, which is twice the average of other leading brands (13%).

According to the latest IPC Green Research, approximately 85% of consumers claimed that Ariel's Turn To 30 campaign was the main reason that convinced them to turn down their washing temperatures.

Conclusion

Mainstream consumer demand for more sustainable cleaning products is growing rapidly. There is also evidence that these consumers will buy environmental products only if they first meet key consumer needs such as quality, performance, convenience and price.

An analysis of Ariel Coolclean's brand initiatives has confirmed that consumers can change their behavior if they are reassured about the cleaning performance and if there are direct and broader benefits the consumer can easily perceive and for which independent reassurance is provided.

There is clear evidence that Ariel customers have taken the message and are washing at reduced temperatures without compromising on cleaning performance or convenience, while saving energy, money and reducing their ecological footprint. For P&G, Ariel Coolclean's campaigns have strengthened brand loyalty, increased its consumer base, and further positioned P&G as a sustainable innovation leader.

Sustainable innovation is a process of continual improvement, and as research develops and a growing number of sustainable innovation products become mainstream, public and consumer trust in branded innovative consumer goods will continue to grow.

This case study is part of a series of WBCSD member company good practice examples on energy efficiency.

Energy Efficiency as Strategy: General Electric

The business case
By making a public greenhouse gas and energy commitment and then tracking the results, GE is leading by example and demonstrating how one company can make a difference. As the company shares its commitment, processes, and approach with its partners, suppliers, and customers, GE continues to make ecomagination truly “sustainable”, saving the company money over the long-term. Leadership and accountability, cross-functional teams, recognizing performance, and aligning a program to the existing business culture are all key pieces of this successful approach.



General Electric's (GE) key growth strategy, ecomagination, involves a set of commitments around reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improving energy efficiency in the company's global operations. GE calls this program “1-30-30”. The program is one of five ecomagination commitments that the company has made and publicly reported on since 2005.

The other commitments include increasing revenue from GE's ecomagination-certified products to US$ 25 billion by 2010 and doubling investment in environmental technology research and development to US$ 1.5 billion by 2010. In 2008, GE committed to reducing its water consumption by 20% by 2012. All these commitment together allow GE to demonstrate the value of ecomagination as a growth strategy for its customers, stakeholders, and investors.

Targets

The 1-30-30 program references GE's goals to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy efficiency in its operations. The “1%” goal refers to a 1% reduction in absolute GHG emissions by 2012, over a time period when growth is predicted to be 25%. At the same time, GE also committed to improving GHG intensity and energy efficiency by 30% by 2008 and 2012, respectively. The baseline year for all of the commitments is 2004.

Implementation

Each of GE's business units is active in the 1-30-30 program in different ways, suitable to their different operations. Three of GE's vice presidents champion the efforts and conduct periodic business reviews to assess progress toward the goal. A cross-business, cross-functional team from the businesses and GE's corporate offices coordinates the effort and shares best practices across divisions to realize greater savings. GE also continually benchmarks with its partners, customers and suppliers on approaches to GHG and energy management, implementing the best strategies in the marketplace to drive the process.

GE's GHG and energy inventory is an annual process that involves more than 500 employees. The inventory includes the calculated emissions from over 500 of GE's largest manufacturing, service, and headquarters locations globally. Emissions associated with over 3,000 small offices are estimated based on available emissions factors, and emissions from GE's fleet of automobiles and aircraft are also included in the program.

An external party has validated the inventory for the baseline year (2004), and GE plans to validate the inventory in the future goal years.

GE's mechanisms to manage GHGs and energy include “Energy Treasure Hunts”, a lean manufacturing-based process originally developed by Toyota. More than 200 treasure hunts have been conducted across GE's operations to date, and that process has driven a reduction in GHG emissions of 250,000 metric tons and created a pipeline of over 650,000 metric tons in future projects.

GE has also committed to completing several very visible projects using its own technology. In May 2007, GE's headquarters in Fairfield, Connecticut, began using GE's own solar panels to generate electricity. In addition to offsetting energy cost increases, this process demonstrates that renewable technology is a good hedge in the energy market. Four additional locations have been completed since that time – Greenville, South Carolina; Newark, Delaware; Universal Studios, California; and Waukesha, Wisconsin. GE continues to identify the locations where solar technology is viable.

GE leverages the expertise of its global research centers (GRC) to work with GE businesses on GHG reduction projects. A GRC–business team completed a project resulting in 60,000 metric tons of CO 2 equivalent being eliminated annually from a process that uses sulfur hexafluoride, a potent greenhouse gas. In addition, the GRC technologists work with businesses to identify opportunities for energy efficiency and installation of recovery and reuse equipment at locations worldwide.

To recognize the hard work of its employees that drive 1-30-30, GE started an awards and certification program recognizing those sites that achieve at least a 5% GHG reduction over the baseline year. To be certified, sites must demonstrate that reductions were achieved independently of any changes in production levels. During 2007, 46 sites were certified and 10 sites received eCO2 awards based on extraordinary results and use of GE technology.

Each year, GE adjusts its 2004 inventory to account for divestments and acquisitions. With the divestment of its plastics business in 2007, GE's adjusted GHG baseline inventory is now approximately 32% lower than its initial 2004 inventory. Although the number of large GHG inventory sites is approximately the same as in 2004, about 27% of the sites in the original inventory have been replaced by newly acquired sites and the company measures its progress against this adjusted baseline. This ongoing change presents a challenge to manage the inventory and pipeline of GHG reduction projects and GE's approach to GHG reduction evolves as the company continues to change.

Outcomes

In 2007, GE's GHG emissions were 7.02 metric tons, 8% lower than the 2004 baseline. GHG intensity was reduced by 34% and energy efficiency improved by 33%. With the success of the 1-30-30 program GE has shared the approach with GE ecomagination product partners, various customers and suppliers. GE invited over 50 suppliers from Central and South America to participate in an Energy Treasure Hunt through its supplier assessment program, and it has continued to coach these suppliers on various processes, including involvement in Mexico's Clean Industries Certification program.

Further, the company's portfolio of energy-efficient and environmentally advantageous products and services reached US$ 14 billion in 2007, up more than 15% from 2006; the ecomagination order book surged past US$ 70 billion. The company forecasts that total revenues from ecomagination products will surpass US$ 20 billion in 2009. (This led the company to increase its 2010 revenue target from US$ 20 to 25 billion.) GE's own “cleantech” fund – investment in cleaner technology research and development – passed US$ 1 billion for the first time.

Lessons learned

By making a public GHG and energy commitment and then tracking the results, GE is leading by example and demonstrating how one company can make a difference. As the company shares its commitment, processes, and approach with its partners, suppliers, and customers, GE continues to make ecomagination truly “sustainable”. Leadership and accountability, cross-functional teams, recognizing performance, and aligning a program to the existing business culture are all key pieces of a successful approach.

This case study is part of a series of WBCSD member company good practice examples on energy efficiency.