// SMI 17 | Actively drive Sustainable Procurement
Dirk Gratzel was the first person to have his eco-balance calculated down to the last cent and wants to completely offset his environmental costs. With his Green.Zero company group, he wants to encourage companies to follow his example. In this interview, he talks about the dilemma of economic success through wear and tear on the environment – and where managers should start with sustainable transformation.
Dr. Dirk Gratzel
Green.Zero company group
“This lifestyle takes its toll, so I had my own personal eco-balance drawn up by scientists.”
Dirk, you had your own life cycle assessment calculated. What was the result?
I used to travel a lot as an entrepreneur, especially flying, and ate meat regularly. This lifestyle takes its toll, so I had my own personal eco-balance drawn up by the scientists at TU Berlin. This includes CO2 emissions, but also other factors. This is very important, because only the complete life cycle assessment gives you a complete picture of all environmental emissions. But to stay with the CO2 emissions, because they are very tangible: In my 54 years of life, I caused more than 1100 tons of CO2, which is many times more than the average person should cause if we want to achieve the 2-degree target. That would be only two tons per person per year; in my case, it was more like 24 tons per year.
What did this result do to you?
I realized right away that I couldn‘t carry on like this. I then discussed with environmental organizations like NABU and WWF how I could reduce my footprint. We found 60 measures, from renovating my house to taking the train instead of flying or eating a vegan diet. I now only buy new clothes when I really need them. That‘s how I was able to reduce my footprint to six tons per year – that‘s all I could achieve in our Western consumer society. So I thought: How can I offset the six tons per year – and the thousand before that? That was complex. I calculated how high my environmental costs would be. There is a European procedure for monetizing environmental emissions, and I came up with the equivalent of 350,000 euros. That‘s how much I would have to invest in renaturation and rebuilding the environment to reduce my footprint to zero. So I realized: it‘s going to be pretty expensive.
Surely you can plant a lot of trees from that, right?
Unfortunately, it‘s not that simple, and I had to learn that first. Simply planting a forest is not a fair compensation, the scientists explained to me. Instead, they emphasized three points: First, it requires full compensation across all impact categories, so not only CO2 compensation, but also soil acidification or biodiversity, for example. Second, I need to give the money back to nature in the long term, not just make a one-time investment. And the area I need for this must also be able to continue to be used. Because otherwise I‘m buying 15 hectares of forest that no one is ever allowed to enter and thus taking away from nature and people land that is needed. That was my starting point.
What did you end up doing with it?
I was looking for an area where nature is in a bad state and I found it in an old mine in North Rhine Westphalia. I am investing the money to renaturalize the entire area. This will not just be a few planted trees, but various biotopes in which many species will find a home. My children will take over this area one day, when I have paid back my debts to nature, and they can think about what they want to do with it. Maybe then it will make sense to put wind turbines there to promote sustainability. Many things are possible.
That all sounds very elaborate and expensive, and you’re just one individual. Can a company with billions in revenue even tackle it sensibly?
The clear answer: yes. We have companies that cause environmental damage in the hundreds of millions. They approach our company to jointly develop a sustainability concept. We start at the beginning and consider: Where can environmental damage be reduced? Which products can be produced with other materials that are better for the environment and possibly also economically more favorably in the long term? This always results in a huge potential that the company can exploit first. In addition, we develop projects for compensation.
At Green.Zero, for example, we have purchased 150,000 hectares of devastated forest land, which we are restoring with money from companies willing to invest. Personally, I think it‘s important that money is invested in environmental projects here on site, where the damage occurs, and not far away, for example through reforestation in South America. Because that only externalizes our costs again: We dredge lignite for our prosperity, and in South America we are supposed to plant trees to compensate us. I don‘t think that‘s right.
In the current crisis, clients unfortunately don’t consider sustainability, but rather focus on the price. How can they be convinced?
In times of economic hardship, there is indeed the dictate of price. But that is not so decisive. Because this crisis is hitting the people who have a low environmental footprint anyway. The wealthy cost the environment much more, and for them it doesn‘t matter whether the shampoo costs 2.50 or 2.70 euros. I also expect them to take responsibility. Because up to now, we‘ve been privatizing success and socializing environmental costs. Every smart manager must understand that this cannot work in the long term. Our economic wealth is dependent on ecological wealth, and this will become much clearer in the coming years. The EU assumes a price of 500 euros per ton of CO2 by 2030. Managers who adapt this today will align their companies accordingly and try to emit as little CO2 as possible. Managers who don‘t understand this will disappear – and so will their companies and products.
What has been holding companies back from focusing on the topic so far?
Winning makes you stupid. The more successful companies are, the less inclined they are to question anything. Economic success is therefore often a brake on transformation. In addition, there is uncertainty among managers who see risks rather than opportunities in change. And then they are also inundated with diverse information: Life cycle assessment, compensation, sustainability reports: Where do I start? For some, this leads to a state of shock.
Further Articles of this Issue
