I seem to be fielding “green purchasing” inquiries lately from a number of folks, partly because I run the “point” for our campus sustainability work, and partly because some folks know that I used to be Ithaca College’s purchasing director. Someone who asked me this question earlier this summer apparently hit me when I was waxing philosophical. I thought my lengthy response might prove instructive to others. Marian
– – – – – – – –
Question: How much did shifting to green purchasing cost the university a year? Because I am writing a Guide for student affairs professionals, budget is a significant concern, so it is helpful if I can supply financial information.
Answer: As you surmise, it’s really difficult TO answer this question: Whether it “costs” more to make more sustainable choices is all over the map, depending largely upon the commodity itself, the purchasing strategies employed, and the will of the campus community to internalize and apply the costs of certain “externalities.”
Some examples:
Our Printing Services negotiated a contract to convert our campus letterhead bond to 100% post-consumer recycled content paper at no additional cost.
http://www.ithaca.edu/intercom/article.php?story=20060906152034268&query=letterhead
Last fall, our purchasing department and printing services approved 100% post-consumer recycled content office paper for purchase and use on campus – but did not mandate its purchase over other contract paper products.
http://www.ithaca.edu/intercom/article.php?story=2006121816003230&query=letterhead
Our default standard for office paper is still 30% post-consumer recycled content. Departments are only authorized to purchase paper from Staples, and have the choice of 100% post-consumer-recycled-content-paper or 30% pcrc papers on the approved list. Interestingly, Staples does list the recently approved New Leaf 100%pcrc paper as the first offering on the list. Here’s how the paper pricing stacks up:
100%pcrc New Leaf paper 8-1/2 x 11″ $38.96/carton (10 reams)
Staples 30%pcrc 8-1/2″ x 11″ paper $29.04/carton (10 reams)
various colored 20# papers (30%pcrc) $4.25 – 4.51 per ream
various colored 24# papers (virgin) $6.30 per ream
No virgin office paper is offered on the “approved list”, however, that doesn’t mean folks cannot find it and purchase it thru the Staples Link system – there are no “stops” in the system to prevent this. Hammermill CopyPlus Premium letter paper is $43.69 per case, which makes it FAR more expensive that the contract papers. Off-contract Staples virgin copy paper is $37.94 a case, slightly less than 100% paper, but substantially more than the 30%rc paper, at least. But between the virgin paper product not being listed on the “approved list” or its higher price point, we don’t see much of it being purchased. But there are still folks out there that believe that “recycled content paper” will jam up their printers or FAX machines or copiers, even though we have done copious tests and can PROVE this is not the case.
However, we promoted the availability of this 100%pcrc New Leaf paper and through sustainability listserve postings and handouts, we offered some suggestions for how to mitigate the higher purchase cost for this paper through better paper use strategies, including margin settings. This seems to have helped some. But providing free “test” sample reams of the New Leaf paper to those skeptics has been our best “sales” strategy to date.
Our Dining Services made some interesting decisions, not looking at costs from a pure product-to-product comparison. They looked at the complete spread of serviceware and how to cost-justify some more expensive product replacement choices by making some other lower-cost choices.
Plastic cold cups to compostable PLA plastic cold cups – about the same cost when they presented volume quantity purchases to the suppliers
Plastic plates to Chinet style plates – slightly higher cost, but we can compost the latter for less than landfill tip fees for the former…
White imprinted paper napkins (for all events) to brown non-imprinted paper napkins (for most campus events, reserving imprinted napkins for “high-profile events”) – MAJOR cost reduction that offset many other higher costs
plastic eating utensils to PLA plastic eating utensils – higher cost, but off-set by other savings (see napkins above)
Dining has also moved toward “plating” more individual servings in the “all-you-care-to-eat” dining halls, which has greatly reduced food waste, and reduced costs. Giving students a choice to take one reasonably-sized serving and then come back for more – IF they still have appetite for it – has really reduced the amount of food they have to purchase and prepare – and usually throw away afterward. This strategy helped save enough money to offset some of the other more costly innovations, like “compostable catering” options, compostable packaging materials for pre-packaged items, and integrating the “Fresh Market” local/organic line in one of the halls.
Happily, through our Technology Renewal program, we have discovered that specifying EPEAT program / EnergyStar compliant equipment isn’t costing us any more, since we have standardized on the most modern Dell and Apple models and their industry has already moved in that direction. Again, standardizing on HP network printers gets us pretty good volume discounts plus highest-end EnergyStar compliant models.
Specifying EnergyStar appliances for Res Life doesn’t seem to cost us more – what DOES seem to be more of a price-issue is that our folks are procuring only GE equipment because our internal Facilities folks have experience repairing them and obtaining parts locally. And GE doesn’t tend to be the lowest-price units, but the energy savings from EnergyStar compliant equipment helps make up the difference, even tho’ Res Life is oblivious to that aspect, because they don’t pay the energy costs, those are borne centrally by the campus.
Purchasing the two Prius sedans for our internal rental fleet cost us more (altho’ we could purchase these on New York State contract), and the lower operating costs help cost-justify this purchase some – the fact that they are NEVER here because of their high demand speaks volumes. The purchase of the two GEM cars for campus deliveries will save us a whole lot MORE , but the ability for members of the campus community to really USE these themselves is minimal.
Our Facilities Services folks have standardized on BayWest GreenSeal certified paper towel and toilet tissue products, which has GREATLY reduced our costs BECAUSE we finally standardized. This was one of our most frustrating “social capital” equity issues on campus – there was el cheapo toilet tissue in residence halls and many staff areas, with “the good stuff” reserved for the conference center and the main administration buildings. Now we have one toilet paper for every butt on campus. And again, by having a Facilities stakeholder advisory team that tests and approves products for the entire campus, we save because of the higher volume of standardized cleaning products, virtually all of them GreenSeal approved. Because we purchase so many products from a few manufacturers of choice, the suppliers/manufacturers are more than happy to come in to demonstrate proper use of their products and equipment to minimize waste and maximize performance and client satisfaction. So, the “value add” of such strategies pays off in our facilities staff feeling like they have a voice and are considered part of a professional team – they take more pride in their work and their effort shows in the appearance of our facilities.
We are working with others in the area to develop a purchasing consortium for biodiesel, working with the regional public transit company as the major purchaser (250K gallon commitment), and the county highway dep’t, city school district and other larger entities as the major “drivers” of the purchase volume. We’re “shopping” this to some major biodiesel distributors so we can get local supply available, which it currently isn’t. We’re hoping by this strategy of “working bigger” that we can avail ourselves of purchasing volumes that we couldn’t achieve on our own – our need for diesel fuel is miniscule compared to some of these others (we only use about 12K gallons per year). New York State is still developing its State Contract for biodiesel and currently has no local supplier established for it. An interesting sidenote here about biodiesel. We have contracted with someone to take all our waste oil from the dining halls on campus. He is filtering this oil and selling it to consumers as “veggie fuel” (he’s not performing the full chemical processing necessary to make “biodiesel”) for converted diesel vehicles or for replacement for #2 fuel oil for home heating. But even if our contractor WAS producing biodiesel, we would be unable to purchase this from him for use in our diesel vehicles on campus unless he was an ASTM certified producer, which we require in order for our diesel equipment manufacturers not to void warranties. So, we cannot even close our own loop there. But we DID avoid the previous costs of paying a hauler to take our waste oil away… this fellow takes our waste oil for FREE.
Purchasing is not an exact science and is often more a matter of relationship-building and trust development. For instance, we have an EXCELLENT relationship with reps from Staples, who are very supportive of our desire to “green” our campus operations. They have been internally pushing recycled content products, providing recycled icons for applicable products on their site, even tho’ I don’t know that WE required them to do this (the Staples Link program came on after I left Purchasing). The fact that the New Leaf paper turns up as the first option on the “approved paper” list was not a requirement – and in fact, might not even have been Purchasing’s choice, because of its higher price point, but it just happened. And its placement as the #1 product on the list quietly sends the message that this is the College’s “preferred choice” – which is not in fact the case. Staples reps have been very good about providing free “test reams” of this 100%pcrc paper for departments who are willing to entertain the idea of switching, even for the higher price, but want to make absolulely sure that the stuff works just fine in their office equipment and that their users won’t be able to tell the difference, before they commit to purchasing whole cartons of it.
Staples reps also keep us apprised of new product offerings that they think we might want to make the campus aware of – for “sustainability” training programs, they have provided free samples of New Leaf paper and of the Zebra Jimnie recycled-content pens, along with informational “cut sheets” about the product.
Our Bookstore will institute a new program this fall, giving away reusable tote bags to the first 2,000 purchasers of textbooks and other items in the Bookstore. Reusing the bags for future purchases at the Bookstore will gain the shopper at 10% discount. They have been phasing in more and more recycled-content products – especially for school supplies, like notebooks and folders and such. And their College logo “soft goods” are mostly procured from certified sweat-shop free suppliers. Their greeting card line is now entirely printed on recycled paper. Those products do cost more wholesale – so sell for slightly more retail – but shoppers seem to be willing to pay the premium, and the new discount-shopping-bag program may help incent those on the fence to try recycled content products over virgin notebooks.
Dining Services is integrating PLA compostable packaging into its retail operations this fall – they been phasing this in slowly. I don’t know if they’re charging any more thru the system to offset these costs, but they also haven’t marketed this innovation heavily – yet – to let consumers know this is happening and why. I think folks will be receptive. They DO provide discounts for users of refillable beverage mugs…. and they do often give away such refillable mugs at dining-sponsored events and programs. They have integrated fairtrade coffee and teas… not all products are fair trade certified, but they are always on offer in the retail and dining operations, with no purchase premium.
So, I guess the lesson here is that “green” doesn’t necessarily need to cost more. Sometimes in the “early adopter” phase, it does cost more, until competitive market forces kick in, with increased demand leading to increased supply leading to competition which leads to lower prices. Whether you pay more on the front end of the cycle depends upon your ability to mobilize purchasing volume to present to suppliers. If an entire campus operation can “standardize” on a new “greener” product, you automatically have more guaranteed volume to present to a potential supplier, which will gain you greater discount potential. There are other purchasing strategies to employ and innovative programs to consider that can help advance the effort – some are noted in the examples above.
Happily, as “green” becomes more and more mainstream, manufacturers and suppliers are responding to increasing customer demand, and yes, to the “greenwash” marketing factor that comes from being able to promote that your business as more sustainable. Happily for us, the net result is that we are finding it easier and easier to find reasonably-priced, high-quality replacement products. This means that we don’t always have to “blaze the trail”, accepting that we’ll be paying more in the short term in order to drive the market to we’ll have greater availability and lower prices in the long term.
We did have to do that with 30% recycled content paper 7 years ago when we “defaulted” to this new office paper standard. At the time, the market wasn’t very stable and there were few manufacturers, so prices were QUITE high compared to virgin products (10-15% more at times) and sometimes there simply WASN’T any of this paper to be had. But you also have to look at the WHOLE cost of such products. For instance, at the same time, our recycling group was collecting and selling recycled office paper. The market for recycled office paper was relatively flat until the pressure on the demand side for more recycled-content pulp to feed the manufacture of 30% recycled-content paper. For awhile, it was tough for the manufacturers to GET enough recycled office paper back into the system. The demand for recycled office paper suddenly jumped and the recycling group was getting paid more for their collections. This helped the Resource Management folks afford to purchase and put out more collection bins across campus – to the point that we all have two collection bins under our desk: one large basket for office paper, and a smaller clip-on basket for non-recyclable “trash”. So they collected more recyclable paper – and incidently, paid less for “trash” disposal tipping fees from the paper diverted from the trash bin into the recycling bin – and got paid more for the recyclable paper stream… which in turn institutionally helped offset some of the higher costs for departments purchasing higher-recycled content office paper. But we don’t usually look at all those “imbedded” costs across the entire institution. Departments only look at their direct purchase cost for a given item. But institutionally, this all has a real financial benefit. For instance, because of our active partnership with Tompkins County Solid Waste to develop good recycling efforts, they in fact PAY US to develop internships to look at opportunities for new purchasing and recycling programs. This summer, their money funded an intern to roll out on campus an office waste audit and subsequent education program for optimizing resource management.
Leave a comment