There assumption that stress and pressure push employees

There are
various reasons why the environmental friendliness of a certain organization is
very important.   Smith (2016) said that purchasing an
eco-friendly product will cost you less than buying a normal product.  It is because materials that are used in
eco-friendly products are raw materials. 
Thus, these materials are easier to manufacture and are easier to
produce.   Smith (2016) also said that going eco-friendly improves your quality of life in
terms of mortality, age, diseases etc.  Therefore,
having an eco-friendly environment could save people’s lives.  According to Brannan (2014), living a life
that is to the planet is not all about recycling and reducing use of paper
products but it is also about making mindful choices that are better for the
human race as well as for the planet.  One
example of this is using a car, while so many of us are capable of walking two
blocks to McDonalds, most of us don’t.  In
a society wherein we emphasize the importance of every last-minute, we prefer
to step in to our cars and drive those two blocks to get our fried chicken or
French fries and then drive home.  Not
only is this one of the bad habits that has contributed to the incredible rates
of obesity in developed nations like the United States, but it is also a habit
that contributes to the incredible carbon footprint that we as a species are
leaving upon the Earth.  Certainly some
are more conscious in their laziness and choose to utilize hybrid and electric
cars; however, while this reduces the carbon footprint it does not reduce the
drain of an obese race on the resources of the planet.  As human beings, we have a responsibility in
maintaining our planet. 

Most business
organizations encourage an eco-friendly environment.  Weis and Poppick (2016) said that reducing
the carbon footprint of business organizations may not be their main goal, but
being eco-friendly can actually save a big money for business organizations and
would eventually improve the quality of their workplace.  Seppala and Cameron (2015) said that:

Although
there’s an assumption that stress and pressure push employees to perform more,
better, and faster, what cutthroat organizations fail to recognize is the
hidden costs incurred.  The reality is
that health care expenditures at high-pressure companies are nearly 50% greater than
at other organizations.  The American
Psychological Association estimates that
more than $500 billion is siphoned off from the U.S. economy because of
workplace stress, and 550 million workdays are lost each year due to stress on
the job.  Sixty percent to 80% of
workplace accidents are attributed to stress, and it’s estimated that
more than 80% of doctor visits are due to stress.  Workplace stress has been linked to health
problems ranging from metabolic syndrome to cardiovascular disease and
mortality.

Delmas’s study (as cited by
Hewitt, 2012) said that, green certifications should be used by
managers to increase efficiency, by prospective employees as a sign of a better
work environment, and by investors as an indicator of good management practices.  Previous research has already shown that
sustainable business practices can result in cost-efficiencies, but Delmas and
Pekovic are the first to explore the link to labor productivity.  Thus, having an eco-friendly environment is
related to productivity of employees and the performance of business
organizations. 

Though eco friendliness
seems to be very purely advantageous, there are also some who refute claims
that eco-friendliness is beneficial to organizations.  Lake (2017) argues that though
eco-friendliness seems to be very advantageous, it is also costly.  For example, the use of solar panels can
possibly save you money on your energy bills, but they can cost thousands of pesos
to install. Energy-efficient appliances are designed to use less electricity
and water but they are often harder to avail and have a higher price tag.
Eating organic foods is another way to becoming more eco-friendly, but unless
you choose to grow your own food, you should assume to pay significantly more
for foods grown organically rather than through conventional growing methods.

According to Hamel (2010),
it is very hard to gradually switch to an eco-friendly environment especially
in the business world. Though going more eco-friendly seems to be an attractive
goal to gain goodwill and consumer support, but unless green improvements are
economically feasible, it can put a business at a competitive
disadvantage.  If one company decides to
obey to strict, self-imposed pollution standards which require the installation
of new technology and workers, while another sets loose standards, the second
company will be at an advantage since they will have lower production or
opportunity costs.  Even if national
standards were imposed to force businesses to be eco-friendly, this could put
them at a competitive disadvantage with respect to foreign companies who are
not required to be an eco-friendly organization.

The same practical
principles apply to schools when they are eventually required to be an
eco-friendly organization. It will be harder for schools to adjust to a big
change. Especially here in the Philippines where implementation of laws can be
very unpredictable. Schools must be totally ready for such a big change. And of
course, the government needs to prepare a big amount of money for the schools
to be more eco-friendly.

One practical example is
the segregation of wastes. Schools cannot expect a toddler to segregate his/her
garbage. Thus, knowledge regarding environmental issues and how to solve
environmental problems is a radical factor. It will be hard for younger
students to cope up with environmental practices.

However, the long-term
effects of being eco-friendly is much greater than its cost of implementation.  Schools would nurture more
environmentally-aware individuals who would care for our planet.  Thus, theoretically, in the long run, they
would be the ones who will focus their researches on saving our planet and
saving the human race itself.  It may
cost the government a big amount of money in the short-run, but the next
generations would realize how the destruction of earth has been prevented by
this generation of the 21st century.