We’ve begun adding a .05% surcharge to our contracts to offset the emissions we produce in a client’s name (i.e. $5 for every $10,000 billed).
We all know that computers use electricity, plans are printed on paper, and air travel causes emissions. These are simply the costs of doing business – costs counted in greenhouse gases and resource depletion.
What’s the best way to handle these costs? Would you pay a ‘green’ surcharge?
WSJ’s readers had some interesting comments:
“No I would not pay something to someone to do something they should morally be doing anyway,” says Richard.
Yes, we should morally be doing it, and we may soon be required legally to do it. But there is still a cost. All companies pay for health and safety measures, and pass them on in some way to their customers.
“Yes I would mind. I do not ask you to pay for my charity work,” says another reader.
As opposed to the first reader who views offsetting as a moral necessity we shouldn’t charge for, this reader views it as something extra – a form of environmental charity – that we shouldn’t ask clients to pay for. Opposite views – same result. What do you think?
One reader compared it to being charged “every time the toilet gets flushed,” another suggested we just add it to the cost of doing business without creating a separate surcharge.
Do you think it’s more transparent to let clients know we’re incorporating the cost of offsetting our emissions? Or should we simply add it in with the cost of the lights, plumbing, rent and other overhead (including toilets!) on our P&L sheets?
There are lots more interesting comments from readers:
“Only in SF. What arrogance, imposing a extra tax on customers.”
“CO2 is a CRUCIAL plant NUTRIENT!!!….So, why on earth should we REDUCE our emission of this highly beneficial CO2???”
“If businesses truly want to be green, they will put money where their collective mouths are. Do the right thing.”
“Carbon offsets are a sick sick joke.”
“I would be happy to pay such a fee if I can be assured the money is doing what they say it is doing.”
Read the article here, and let us know your thoughts!
Carbon offsets are not a long term solution but they are a way to neutralize any emissions you can’t reduce any more. You are also supporting a renewable energy or energy efficiency project that wouldn’t exist without those dollars.
We did a lot of research to try and select the offset program that is transparent and rigorous about how they calculate their offsets and choose their projects. You can check it out at http://www.nativeenergy.com
[...] Here’s Sherwood’s take on it. [...]
My willingness to pay a surcharge to cover offsets would depend on how much Sherwood themselves spent to buy the offsets from Native Energy. If they spent less than say a thousand dollars, I find it offensive to pass along those costs. What happens when the “surcharge” they collect exceeds the amount they spent in the first place? Does this then become a revenue stream or do they issue refunds?
Hi Kristin,
Thanks for your comment. The surcharge amounts to $5 on a $10,000 invoice, so it’s more about educating our clients and raising awareness on environmental responsibility, than the revenue.
In fact, figuring out all the details of our emissions, and tracking all our travel and electricity use by project has taken quite a number of hours – which we’re not charging clients for.
We’ve invested in that research on our own initiative to ensure transparency. And we pass on a minimal portion of that just to let our clients we’re doing our job. And to help them gain an understanding of their environmental impact.
Also, we hope this project will enable us to become a carbon neutral firm, and that our efforts in this direction will help others do the same.