Talk:Eco-efficiency

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmastarkk, MarcelaOrdonez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

merge
see Talk:Ecological efficiency

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eco-efficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206125255/http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ee-ee.nsf/eng/h_ef00010.html to http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ee-ee.nsf/eng/h_ef00010.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130206125255/http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ee-ee.nsf/eng/h_ef00010.html to http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ee-ee.nsf/eng/h_ef00010.html
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515140905/http://www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/eco_efficiency_creating_more_value.pdf to http://www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/eco_efficiency_creating_more_value.pdf
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515141846/http%3A//www.wbcsd.org/web/ecoefficiency.htm to http://www.wbcsd.org/web/ecoefficiency.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - History
"It was their involvement which catapulted eco-efficiency from a brilliant idea to a workable concept"

The use of "brilliant" is considered a signal of puffery under MOS:PUFF and needlessly introduces bias. The section assumes a consensus that the concept is both "brilliant" and indeed a "workable concept" despite criticisms of it and related concepts (e.g. Fletcher & Rammelt 2017). Would suggest deletion of sentence as beyond introducing bias it does not add to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowand017 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Uses
(Seen after initial tagging of History section)

"Furthermore, eco-efficiency is also a very useful tool"

I would suggest this fails to be impartial. Consider instead 'The World Business Council for Sustainable Development considers eco-efficiency a useful tool because it is seen to be flexible to company size, while also maintaining relevance with the larger scale of government and national policies" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowand017 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)