Over the past year or so there are more IT companies addressing their client’s requests to become more sustainable. One of those offerings is Carbon Counting Software.

At a most basic level, IT services offered by IBM, SAS, Clear Standards and other are “housekeeping” devices. Companies seem to vary in their emphasis on operations, as some are used as a tool for executive level decision making, while others help cut the tedious work of carbon management. Essentially they all aim to create a product that is easy to use and available online. Heck let’s face it the basic principles of carbon emissions reductions is no secret and if a company creates a policy and invests in the most energy-efficient, low carbon products and trains its staff, it will reduce their carbon output.

However, the new breed of software can be helpful if emission standards are set in the future, and trade-off’s might need to be made. Another plus is that the software connects sustainability with profitability and that mindset will only help their industry across the board.

Like anything else in business these days, to be credible the systems need to be measured and auditable. Suppliers suggest that the way around this issue is to build evolving carbon accounting standards into their software and be clear about emissions factors they are using when extracting energy data. However, like basic accounting- garbage in is garbage out, so the company will ultimately be responsible for the data they put into the system, knowing what buildings to include etc.

What is most interesting is that these new offerings will generate a major tool that could play an increasingly important role in determining the numbers disclosed by companies in their annual report, where reporting may become mandatory. This their profile will rise if sales of their products take off.

As someone who googles a lot of sustainable and “Green” companies, I can tell you the interesting results that come from these searches. Sadly not all of my results hit the mark, despite my best efforts to fine tune my key words. Which made me ponder, how does a Green Company get their organization to stand out in an internet search? What SEO tips can one employ to help their business and their values reach the online community?

The first line of action is how does your company appear in the “positioning” of the search- towards the top of the results or at the bottom? Take a moment and google your company and review the results. You might want to explore at least 3 search engines to accomplish this to see how they can differ in the results.

One of the main decisions about how an eco business markets itself offline & online is whether to lead with the eco/ethical message or position in the same space as other companies. So let’s look at the options.

You can position yourself, from an eco/ethical position (Niched) or get in the “mix” with other similar companies (More competitive) or straddle them both and do a mix of niched and competitive. When considering potential traffic on the web, the “mix” option may be a better one for some organizations.

Seems like we are witnessing what happens when a supposedly “transparent” and eco friendly firm such as what SIGG portrayed to the public and their partners is actually not. Guess SIGG is now “brown” instead of “green” as this latest snafoo is costing them customers and partners.

SIGG finally admitted that their bottles are not as “health friendly” as they have been advertising. Bottles manufactured before August 2008 have liners that contain bisphenal A, a chemical that may adversely affect human health. So now over a year later we are being alerted to this information? However, their bottles have been touted before 2008 as being BPA free etc.

Simran Sith wrote on Huffington Post decrying the company’s lack of transparency on the BPS issue. If you have a SIGG bottle manufactured before August 2008, bring the bottle back to any major retailer and they should exchange it for a new BPA- free model. Sadly, SIGG is not even revealing this information on their website, and would much rather have you pay to return the bottle to them for an exchange. However Simran spoke to SIGG CEO Steve Wasik who confirmed they would allow the exchanges to occur at the stores.

With this news, Patagonia announced today they will terminate all co-branding and marketing efforts with SIGG, Inc. Seems like Patagonia was duped by SIGG, as Patagonia’s VP of Environmental Initiatives Rick Ridgeway stated, “We even arranged for one of the leading scientists on BPA research to come to our company to educate us on the issue. Once we concluded there was basis for concern, we immediately pulled all drinking bottles that contained BPA from our shelves and then searched for a BPA-free bottle. We very clearly asked SIGG if there was BPA in their bottles and their liners, and they clearly said there was not. After conducting such thorough due diligence, we are more than chagrined to see the ad that is appearing in Backpacker, but we also feel that with this explanation our customers will appreciate and understand our position.”

Patagonia is returning all SIGG bottles still on their shelves (even the BPA free versions) for recycling and are searching for a new bottle vendor.

As organizations are scrambling to become more efficient and cutting the “fat” from their budgets, one idea gaining attention is going to three-day weekends. This offering, without decreasing the actual hours worked per week, could not only save money, but also help the environment and public health.

This idea is being piloted in many states and companies across the country. While I was hoping to say the trend began as an effort to help the environment, as necessity is always the mother of invention, the economic downturn was the real reason it has been receiving such favorable notice. Companies realized they could close on Fridays and save money without having to reduce weekly hours.

It also aiding companies in a corporate responsibility perspective, as they strive to address some of the needs brought forward by employees in the last 5 years; environmental issues, commuting pressures as well as work-family balance.

Utah has already taken the 4 day workweek plunge- 17,000 of state employees since last August are working the 4 day work week. In their offices, there no longer a need to turn on the lights for three days, or clean buildings on fridays etc. Electric bills have dropped over the summer, thanks to less air-conditioning. As of late May the state has saved $1.8 million. Not pocket change by any means.

Employees surveyed on the 4 day work week love it- with 82 % wanting to stay the course. The shift in hours for their Monday- Thursday commute is off peak, so they have a better commute on the days they do come into the office.

An interim report released by the Utah state government in February projected a drop of at least 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually from Friday building shutdowns. If reductions in greenhouse gases from commuting are included, the state would check the generation of at least 12,000 metric tons of CO2—the equivalent of taking about 2,300 cars off the road for one year.

Recently PepsiCo, which owns the Tropicana brand, calculated that the equivalent of 3.75 pounds of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere for each half-gallon carton of orange juice it produces. As they tracked the carbon footprint to the consumers breakfast table it revealed that the biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions turned out to be the act of growing oranges, not transportation or production.

Orange groves use nitrogen fertilizer, which requires natural gas to make. It can turn into a potent greenhouse gas when it is spread on fields. PepsiCo undertook this step as they are among one of the first companies to provide consumers with an absolute number for a products carbon footprint. The result of this study has revealed to PepsiCo the effort they will need to find ways to grow oranges using less carbon.

PepsiCo’s experience is a harbinger of the complexities other companies may face as they come under pressure to calculate their emission of carbon dioxide, a number known as a carbon footprint, and eventually to lower it.

“The main thing is helping us figure out where the carbon is in the chain,” said Neil Campbell, president of Tropicana North America, a division of PepsiCo. While acknowledging that protocols for measuring greenhouse emissions are far from perfect, Mr. Campbell said, “you can end up doing nothing if you let that stop you.”

PepsiCo, a manufacturer of soda, salty snacks and cereal based in Purchase, N.Y., is among a growing number of companies that hope to get ahead of potential government mandates and curb their energy use as prices and long-term supply grow less certain.

They also want to promote supposedly low-carbon products to consumers anxious about rising global temperatures; such labeling has already appeared in Europe.

A Brazilian conservation group has found a way to get people talking about how to conserve water. By running cartoonlike television ads to urge people to urinate in the shower thus saving water from not flushing the toilet.

This daring and darling ad has been posted on facebook and is getting many hits on u-tube, which is causing some to balk at this notion of letting loose in the shower.

Seems to be making the impact (or even more) that was intended as people are talking about it worldwide, and sending it to their friends- thus helping to get out the message that flushing one less time a day can save more than 1,150 gallons of water over the course of the year.