Since basically 2-3 years the "Eco-Train" started,
It is trendy, fashionable, up to date and provides people better feeling buying a product.
However how Eco is Consumer Electronics really?
Further how Eco are WE/Panasonic really?
I want to share some of my thoughts and linked innovations in this blog,
which I will be happy to discuss further with you even some might give a "negative impression"..
Starting from the scratch - Eco Ideas - started to be promoted from around 2008 onwards
At this stage there was no plan such as taking over SANYO providing us solar cells or similar.
That stage press/consumers/many people questioned "Why Panasonic claims to be Eco?"
Their biggest market is PDP which obviously is much more energy consuming than LCD/LED...
Given many reviews we could somehow keep our face by stating our PDP became more eco and we stick to PDP as picture quality is better.
Under the same logo - Eco Ideas - we are now trying to reform the total company inside T-Pro.
To ensure the success of T-Pro, and the new company which should be the outcome of T-Pro,
we sure will need real Eco-Products, not as value added sales but as key sales argument
Let me share two of products I really see as Eco products even inside Consumer Electronics:
1) H2O Radio
Its a basic shower radio for those who dont want to sing but rather listen when under shower.
This radio looks like a regular Shower Radio, no big design differences.
However the great innovation inside this product is ==> it RUNS WITH WATER
Technically a very simple solution - no removable batteries or electricity plug, but a simple method similar to an automatic watch which keeps the product fully charged.
The biggest suprise was finally the PRICE as this product is supposed to be launched for 34,99E/49$
Details you can find in here:
http://www.h2o-power.net/?page_id=15
and a video showing the full usage here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAGU5LQqu9A
2) Nanogenerators - A new Patent I have read just yesterday.
The basic concept is that many low power consuming units (in this case specially for the Ipod) dont have to be charged only via socket/plug.
Over various studies they identified that such products can be charged by "Nanogenerators"
The new thing about this is that this Nanogenerator will source its power by THE HUMAN HEARTBEAT.
Possible launch/Sales start for these generators could be in 5 years.
Details to this you can find as follows:
"A new development by researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology called Nanogenerators can power devices like iPhone, iPod and such others by human heartbeat without the need of using batteries. These Nanogenerators could come for sales in next five years, according to the developers.
Dr. Zhong Lin Wang and his team are the people behind the Nanogenerator. “This development represents a milestone toward producing portable electronics that can be powered by body movements without the use of batteries or electrical outlets,” Wang was quoted as saying.
Mr. Wang and his team demonstrated their new product at the National Meeting and Exposition of the American Chemical Society. They used the device to power LCD screens and transmit radio signal.
Nanogenerators function with the help of zinc oxide (ZnO) nanowires and are equipped to generate power from any kind of motion/ movement.
“If we can sustain the rate of improvement, the nanogenerator may find a broad range of other applications that require more power. Our nanogenerators are poised to change lives in the future” he added."
Having shared all the above with you,
I want to once again underline that the innovation a company who calls itself "eco" really needs, will be to clearly show on all front lines that it is such company rather than in todays envirement in which we are trying to follow "eco flowers" or other standards which are rather standards for old technologies.
Yes I fully agree with you that the effects of ECO activities are difficult to estimate.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting statement I heard many years ago was “The most eco-efficient product is no product.”
Another one is: "The greenest house is the one that never gets built“, Whit Faulconer, GreenBlue
This is quite philosophic, but what can we learn from this?
The business model of most companies is based on old technologies or products, such as cars, washing machines, fridges, radios,... We can optimise our products in a way that the environmental impact is minimised. But this is a rather old approach (cradle-to-grave), based on existing technologies and products, to reduce the “harm” (e.g. optimise the water/energy consumption). It does not mean that this is nonsense; it is important and must be kept in mind.
But, the innovative approach must be to increase the effectivity of the activities: the aim of the Cradle to Cradle® design concept is to improve the quality of products so that they
- have an improved consumer quality for the user
- pose no health risk for anyone who comes into contact with them
- are of both economic and ecological benefit
Details can be found here:
http://epea-hamburg.org/index.php?id=69
Some further examples:
Buildings like trees, cities like forests
http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/buildings_like_trees.htm
Office Chair Think” from the company Steelcase
http://www.steelcase.com/en/products/category/seating/task/think/pages/environmental.aspx
The carpet maker Shaw in the US intends to lease carpets instead of selling them. So they are able to get their own material back.
The car manufacturer Audi discusses as well this approach, in order to ensure the availability of engineering materials in future.
Thanks for the interessting input Sven
ReplyDeleteFully agree with the fact that todays approach is rather cradle to grave as its just trying to reduce existing harms..
I personally very much like the Think Steelcase chair story,
One constrain I see is price, as far as I find even today lowest price is 899E which realy is Upper Deluxe class
So the product itself is rewarded Cradle to Cradle approach, but I would be realy interessted in Steelcase´s P/L situation
The product is contributing to society but the placement maybe not
Do you think its the intention to maximise profit, the risk to increase production to reduce cost or or really production improvements are needed?
To add to Sven's post - another example of a green manufacturer of office furniture:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wilkhahn.com/6_green/3596.htm
I visited them some 15 years ago at their site near Hannover and already then, what they state on their homepage now was deeply rooted in their DNA. Cradle-to-Cradle, absolutely and in all aspects of the sourcing, production and recycling process.
On top of that, very well designed and long lasting if comments on the web are true.
If Pansonic in Europe decided to source all chairs from one such supplier, even the premium price tag might shrink a bit and then also this aspect of our daily work life would pay into "ECO IDEAS".
We reduce the ecological (carbon) footprint of our car fleet constantly, but the footprint of the products used in our offices is currently rarely considered...
Andreas, good point
ReplyDeleteIts unlikely that we will soon launch the cradle to cradle product but until that time there are many other processes we can change to act more in this direction.
When it comes to beeing more ECO in the office
Only thing we really try to promote is "Paperless company" but I think there are much more ways to go which I would name as
1) Even this topic is really "flush" topic,
I dont understand why we as ECO company with a conference center used as venue for partners/press etc still did not install the waterless systems, but is wasting Million ? l of water every year.
Thinking same on European level including our factories amount would even be much bigger.
This product was really innovative but nowadays almost every fast food restaurant has it, but we´even as "Eco company" do not have it
2) Paper
Even we are trying to become more and more paperless company, we are still using a lot.
But I dont think we consider which brand of paper to order based on ecological point but rather economical
3) Our catalogues:
For basically all our categories we are producing nice shiny catalogues.
Only the "bulbs" catalog has some kind of recylced paper as base. Why dont we consider for as regular procedure.
I think there are many many other and it could be a good idea to nominate some team per company to collect such ideas and discuss on local and some even on european level.
Great discussion about environmental impacts of Panasonic. I think, one big "?" is the impact of the single activities, processes, materials, use, and the like. Often, certain orders from management to reduce something are more or less intuitive, because they are easy to measure (mass, costs, ...), e.g. paper, water, business trips, car emissions. The real environmental effect (emissions, resources needed, amount recyclable) is mentioned very seldom, and nobody can see the share in the total business. One Definitely, these measures could start a mind-setting or change of behaviour, and maybe good for publicity.
ReplyDeleteBut, it would be much more logical to investigate the main processes and their individual environmental impacts. Then let us start with working on the big ones with the highest reduction potential. Here, the environmental teams could play an important role.