Recycling Efficiency – Paper

20 October, 2010

From a “Content Management” whitepaper I just read, by the industry organization, AIIM:

• If the U.S. cut its office paper use by roughly 10 percent or 540,000 tons, greenhouse gas emissions would fall by 1.6 million tons — equivalent to taking 280,000 cars off the road for a year.

• There are over 4 trillion paper documents in the U.S., growing at a rate of 22% per year.

• For 56% of organizations, the volume of paper records is increasing.• The average office worker uses 10,000 sheets of copy paper each year and wastes about 1,410 of these pages.

• With the average cost of each wasted page being about six cents, a company with 500 employees could be spending $42,000 per year on wasted prints.

There is a very compelling environmental case that can be made for reducing paper use through the digitization of key business processes. But a key element for organizations to consider is that the economic case for reducing paper use is just as compelling.

Among the benefits:

• Direct and immediate cost savings on paper and shipping.

• Increased process effectiveness and efficiency.

• The potential to fully integrate field staff and offices into the information capabilities of the organization rather than relying on daily overnight mail.

• Reduced real estate costs through the elimination of filing.

• Improved morale as an integrated information infrastructure allows for greater flexibility in working arrangements.

• Reduced off-site storage as the sheer volume of what needs to be physically preserved declines.

Hm! ~ JT

Advertisements

Warming Warning 2.0, redux, redo . . .

11 April, 2008

I would direct your attention to this recent lecture by the so-appealing-nowadays “former next president of the United States,” as he runs around and around this crazy-important set of issues.  So, did you actually see An Inconvenient Truth ?

Oh, and it looks as though MIT/Sloan has had smart things to say about this recently too, from a … hmm, business perspective.  Shocking.  And (yet) enlightening, too.  Why is this not surprising?