By David Holly

In the early 1970s, in the midst of a gas crisis, environmentalists started to get a lot of press—and not all of it was positive.  Those of us who were concerned about the environment at that time tended to put our arguments in terms of saving the Earth and using, what some considered, very unrealistic reasons and examples.

You may remember that environmentalists were accused of being more concerned with snail darters than human beings. But as the gas crisis eased—and people became accustomed and resigned to paying more at the pump—attention to environmental issues waned.

Experience and Knowledge
There were two (for the purposes of our discussion) key points to take from this early experience:

1) People, in general, appear to be more motivated by financial issues than altruistic environmental goals.

2) To capture attention, we need to focus our attention on the effects environmental issues can have on people rather than other species (e.g., snail darters).

During the past two decades, scientists have conducted a great deal of research into the impacts that various chemicals, activities, and environmental conditions have on people and facilities. Science has documented the negative as well as the positive effects of air quality, lighting, noise, and a host of other indoor and outdoor environmental factors on students’ ability to learn, child development, workplace performance, return on investment (ROI) of facilities, and general health.

Some of these studies were prompted by alarming increases in cancer rates and asthma rates, as well as incidences of poor childhood development. These statistics needed explanation, and scientists discovered direct links between these problems and a wide variety of chemical compounds and exposure to some common substances.

At the same time, businesses have placed an even greater focus on improving productivity and ROI. We’ve learned that cleaning products and procedures, often taken for granted for decades, can actually shorten the useful life of a facility—degrading the building and decorating materials much faster than they should.  And many of the chemicals, equipment, and techniques we have used for cleaning have been linked to productivity issues affecting the occupants of these facilities.

More important, we’ve also learned that the converse is true. That is, by making some fairly simple changes to our product and equipment choices along with implementing some new procedures, we have documented marked improvements. Student standard test scores have improved, and absenteeism, of students, staff, and teachers, has decreased in schools that have “gone Green.” Many facility managers and business managers see increased productivity, accuracy, and morale in facilities that implement a variety of greener systems, including cleaning.

Coming Full Circle
In some ways we’ve come full circle—the “new” environmentalism as expressed by Green Cleaning stresses the importance to human health as well as the environment. We’ve finally learned that we are part of the environment and our actions, the products and cleaning procedures we use, can all have a major impact on our environment.  Clearly, we understand today, that everything we do is interrelated with the environment and ourselves.

This is not to say that what we did in the past was wrong. We are not condemning traditional methods; we are pointing out that new learning, new products, and new procedures can have a dramatic and positive impact on our lives, health, productivity, and environment.

We like to talk of the triple bottom line: improving health, the environment, and profitability. These are not mutually exclusive goals; instead, if we pay careful attention, they can be mutually supportive goals. 

Industry leaders are in a unique position to demonstrate— through action—just how positive these improvements can be.  At the same time, they are able to increase their business. This is truly a way of getting good by doing good.

---