Green Economics

Although this column will cover several cleaning issues, I plan to occasionally include some articles on Green cleaning, which is growing in importance and becoming a common practice throughout Canada.

The records show that educational and government facilities were pioneers in embracing the Green cleaning movement. This started a few years ago and quickly spread to commercial office buildings as well as healthcare, hospitality and other industries. However, the industrial industry is one segment that has been somewhat slow to embrace Green cleaning.

Although the real reason is not quite clear, several factors should be reviewed. There is a belief that because industrial and warehouse facilities tend to be “dirtier” than schools and offices, going Green is just not all that important. Generally, cleaning is a low priority in these locations and is often viewed as a necessary expense, instead of a way to keep the location healthier and more productive. And, Green cleaning specifically may be perceived as more costly than conventional cleaning, further moving it to the backburner.

Industrial/warehouse locations often employ building service contractors to clean and provide industry knowledge. Therefore, it’s time to clarify the facts about Green cleaning in industrial facilities so BSCs can properly help educate their industrial customers.

The bottom-line: studies report that a Green cleaning program in an industrial facility can help improve employee productivity, protect worker health, and increase safety, as well as provide savings in energy, maintenance and operational costs.

Case in Point
In 2003, a company which manufactures pre-cast stairs and other concrete and cement products, moved into a new, 37,000 sq. foot facility. From the start of the planning stage, products and materials were evaluated by their sustainability and import on the environment. This included the site for the facility, the type of construction products selected, paints, carpets, windows, lighting, furnishings and even the cleaning products. Of course there were immediate financial considerations, but these were balanced out against the recurring, long-term benefits the company expected by building and operating Green.

When the company moved into its new facility, it had about 50 employees, a manageable size for a case study. Before the move, a study of the old facility was conducted. Then, two years after the move to the new location, another study compared such things as worker productivity, health, safety and absenteeism; energy and water use; and overall indoor environmental quality (IEQ).

Although some items, such as worker productivity, were difficult to quantify, others were much easier to determine. And, the differences between the old and new facilities were significant. For instance:

Productivity: The metric pounds of concrete poured per labour hour were compared. In 2001, in the old facility, approximately 220 metric pounds were poured per labour hour. This figure actually dropped in 2002 to just 185. In 2004, after moving into the new facility, this figure jumped to 240, and by 2005 it had gone up even further to 272 metric pounds per labour hour.

Although researchers indicated there most likely were other reasons for the increased productivity, they concluded that there were also “positive effects on overall employee productivity” in the new Green facility.

Health, Safety and Absenteeism: Several studies were conducted to determine if the new Green facility proved to be healthier for the company’s employees. The most conclusive of these compared the percentage of total days absent per month. Before the move to the new facility, approximately two per cent of the employees were absent on any given day due to illness. After the move, this dropped to less than one per cent, and there were several months when there were no workers absent due to illness.

Energy and Water Use: This was easy to analyze. Based on a comparison of electric, gas and water bills, and usage between the old and new facility, the new location required about one-third less energy per square foot to operate. Water use was cut by approximately a third as well.

Overall Indoor Environmental Quality: Both office and production workers were asked to compare the old and new locations based on such things as air quality, odors and allergic reactions. Some production workers perform much of their duties outside and did not report a statistically significant difference in satisfaction between the two facilities.

On the other hand, surveys of indoor production workers and office workers reported that they were considerably more satisfied with overall IEQ based on improved air quality, fewer or no odors, and reduced or no allergic reactions to interior furnishings or the environmentally preferable cleaning chemicals.

Conclusions
The results indicate that the employees believe the new facility is superior to the older one, there is a significant improvement in IEQ, and employees like their new facility and believe it is an overall healthier place in which to work. Additionally, in regards to direct cost factors for employers, such as the reduced cost of energy and water in the new location, reduced absenteeism, and improved worker productivity, the savings and benefits are significant.

This may be why we are hearing so much about Green construction, cleaning and building operations. It appears the long-term economic benefits far outweigh any initial costs and going Green is in fact one of the best ways to achieve lasting cost savings.

- Mike Sawchuk is vice president and general manager of Enviro-Solutions, a manufacturer of Green cleaning chemicals and products.