By Mary Mazzoni from Triple pundit • Reposted: February 17, 2023
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund forward and making good on its recently renewed commitments to environmental and climate justice.
Created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Fund aims to mobilize public and private capital to reduce emissions and combat air pollution across the U.S., with a focus on low-income and historically marginalized communities.
As a first step, the Fund will host two grant competitions worth $27 billion, the EPA announced in its initial guidance last week. A $7 billion competition will award grants to 60 organizations providing clean technologies like community solar and energy storage within U.S. communities. A second will disburse $20 billion to anywhere from two to 15 nonprofit lenders, including community-based lenders and green banks that provide financial assistance for low- and zero-emission technologies in low-income communities.
“The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund will unlock historic investments to combat the climate crisis and deliver results for the American people, especially those who have too often been left behind,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan, the first Black man to head the agency, in a statement. “With $27 billion from President Biden’s investments in America, this program will mobilize billions more in private capital to reduce pollution and improve public health, all while lowering energy costs, increasing energy security, creating good-paying jobs and boosting economic prosperity in communities across the country.”
Those are pretty big words, but a host of environmental and climate justice advocates agree about the Fund’s promise. “This is a huge step,” Adam Kent, Sarah Dougherty and Douglass Sims of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s People and Communities Program, wrote of the Fund in a blog. “It has the potential to not only improve lives, but ultimately transform ‘green’ investments into ‘mainstream’ investments by catalyzing far, far more than $27 billion of investments and building a more equitable clean energy future.”
$27 billion and beyond: Mobilizing funds for climate justice in U.S. communities
An estimated 1 out of every 25 premature deaths in the U.S. can be linked to air pollution — more than traffic accidents and shootings combined. People of color and low-income people are more likely to be exposed to high levels of air pollution and as such are at greater risk of premature death. These communities also face outsized impacts from climate change.
Addressing environmental and climate justice issues like these is a key focus in President Joe Biden’s plan to leverage federal funds to advance racial equity. Launched during Biden’s first week in office, the Justice40 Initiative looks to direct 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments to disadvantaged communities that are underserved and overburdened by pollution.
The Fund will align with Justice40 and take things a step further. “Although the law requires that just over half of Fund investments target low-income and disadvantaged communities, EPA will aim to prioritize investments in these communities throughout the entire $27 billion program,” report Kent, Dougherty and Sims of the NRDC. “This decision could transform how funding flows to underserved communities, and Fund investments can support critical, life-improving projects that otherwise would not have moved forward.”
The $7 billion in grants for clean technologies has the potential to scale transformative solutions like community solar and energy storage that can decarbonize underserved communities while reducing the burden of air pollution. The idea is that a cash infusion from the EPA can help recipient organizations grow and deploy even more community-based projects in pursuit of climate justice, similarly to how a $456 million federal loan helped Tesla become the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer.
“These projects have the potential to create local benefits including savings on energy costs, reliability improvements, and improved air quality, as well as reducing climate pollution,” said Heather McTeer Toney, vice president of community engagement for the Environmental Defense Fund, in a statement.
Further, the EPA’s decision to diversify its portfolio of nonprofit lenders — rather than investing in a single entity — will allow funds to reach more communities through institutions with proven track records of community-based and green lending. “This is a sound decision, as NRDC and many of our environmental justice and community-based partners have pushed EPA to select multiple recipients as a critical feature of Fund implementation,” Kent, Dougherty and Sims wrote.
The next step
Both grant competitions are expected to launch in early summer. Organizations will have two to three months to submit their applications, and the EPA plans to make awards by late September of next year.
The architecture of the Fund is based on input from state, local and Tribal governments, community financing institutions, environmental justice organizations, industry groups, and labor and environmental finance experts, the EPA said — and advocates are calling on the agency to keep the engagement up as it moves to start disbursing grants.
“This is a positive step toward making the just transition affordable and accessible to those most in need,” Jessica Garcia, climate finance policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, said in a statement. “The EPA should continue collecting feedback from the directly impacted communities that this fund aims to serve and developing robust criteria for its applicants to achieve its dual directive of protecting communities from climate impacts and providing them financial tools to safeguard their future. ”
Lucy Usher of Oliver looks into research that suggests that few people really trust brands to follow through on their sustainability promises – and recommends how to bridge that gap.
No one likes making promises they can’t keep, least of all businesses in the public eye. Yet, right now, as the world heads deeper into financial instability, some fear that brands and businesses won’t be able to keep their sustainability promises.
Achieving net zero is, wrongly, seen as expensive, difficult and only for the fortunate few. But by slowing down on sustainable and net zero goals, businesses put themselves behind the transformation needed to succeed in a net zero world that continues to sprint ahead.
Promises matter now more than ever (just look at the state of politics). Delivering on the commitments we’ve made will not only deliver better brands and companies for this and future generations; it’ll also deliver trust, responsibility and accountability within boardrooms.
Here are the ways brands and businesses can become uncompromisable on their sustainability promises in 2023 (arguably one of the most challenging years for the climate on record).
The far-reaching financial benefits of being a trusted brand
As a measurable framework for advertising emissions emerges, brands will no longer be able to ignore the tension between growth targets and net zero investment.
Alongside reputational benefits, there are clear financial benefits to being a trusted sustainable brand. Brands with a strong sustainability DNA outperform competitors by 21%, in both profitability and environmental and social impact. Businesses’ bottom lines and the planet can both benefit from effective and economical sustainability plans that cater to all, not just ‘ethical consumers’.
Bridging the sustainability-trust gap
According to data from market research company GWI, 62% of consumers are only a little trusting that brands will stick to their environmental claims or pledges. 22% don’t trust brands at all. With a significant rise in greenwashing, it’s no surprise that shoppers are skeptical.
How can brands bridge this sustainability-trust gap? Here are four considerations.
1. Start
Sustainability isn’t a destination. It’s a journey. Brands must enter this journey with a spirit of inquiry and a can-do attitude.
Define what you want your business to stand for and what you want its sustainability purpose to be. Then, talk to customers. Use feedback to prioritize areas of the business where people would most like change, whether that’s packaging, manufacturing processes, distribution methods, or recycling. This will open the conversation in the long run.
2. Collaborate
With evolving technologies and breakthroughs happening all the time, brands don’t have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to adopting sustainable ways of working. But nor do we have time to all work in silos on the same problems. Instead, we must collaborate on reaching common goals rapidly.
There’s a wealth of existing credible sustainability frameworks to choose from that offer help with structural, operational, and cultural change. From the Conscious Advertising Network and Purpose Disruptors’ Advertised Emissions Framework to the Change The Brief Alliance, there are many resources to tap into.
3. Upskill
Education and training are key to embedding sustainability into the core values and practices of any business. It is important that sustainability considerations become business-as-usual: from creative ideas to operational deliverables. This means providing staff (at all levels) with training and aligning them to the brand’s commitments.
The opposite of this is a workforce ignorant of the rapidly changing landscape. They will be forced to focus on risk avoidance only (like adhering to the Green Claims Code), rather than seizing the opportunities awaiting upskilled businesses who are able to act on the ‘system upgrades’ that sustainable thinking brings.
Small changes add up. In terms of building trust with customers, an upskilled workforce is the biggest advocate for your brand.
4. Shout
Tell everyone about your commitments – but only if you mean it. It should stem from a genuine desire to be a better brand, not just to win brownie points.
When goals are communicated and measured, they stand a better chance of being delivered. As a key trust-builder for customers (with their growing cynicism around authentic commitments to change), brands need to share transparent, data-backed sustainability progress.
Be, do, tell
Putting it even more simply, brands need to apply the ‘be, do, tell’methodology. Brands tend to shout about sustainability pledges before putting the work in, which leads to distrust when targets aren’t met.
Instead, they should be sustainable, do the things that make them authentically sustainable businesses, then tell consumers about it. Even more simply: be better, do better, then tell customers how you’ve made better.
Sustainability investments aren’t just about reaching net zero targets. They’re heavily focused on improving overall performance. It’s up to everyone to drive change, and those at the top will benefit faster in the future by keeping their promises now.
Be, do, tell – and enjoy being one of the few that actually deliver.
This content is produced by The Drum Network, a paid-for membership club for CEOs and their agencies who want to share their expertise and grow their business. Find out more
From Submittable.com • Reposted: February 26, 2023
Once upon a time, businesses could focus on profitability above all else.
Not any more: modern companies are expected to care about making the world better. They’re expected to serve their communities, listen to their customers, take public stances (and action) on important issues, value and support employees, work for sustainability, and respond to current events.
CSR (corporate social responsibility) programs are one way businesses are meeting this mandate. And standout programs addressing social and environmental issues are most often the result of thoughtful CSR strategies.
Whether you’re new to CSR or looking to refine existing initiatives, understanding the ins and outs of CSR strategy is a prerequisite for creating successful programs with lasting impacts. The new “business as usual” demands smart social responsibility-are you ready to meet the challenge?
What is CSR strategy?
CSR strategy is the comprehensive plan companies and funders use to design, execute, and analyze their corporate social responsibility initiatives. It includes specific focus areas, program design, promotion and communication approaches, and evaluation procedures.
Most companies with thriving CSR initiatives use strategy to build and monitor their programs; a few of these companies also share their strategy publicly. Nestle is a great example, offering detailed insight into their brand’s approach (called “Creating Shared Value”) that includes long-term goals for serving individuals, families, communities, and the planet, as well as measurement procedures and transparent performance and reporting.
Some companies also release an annual corporate responsibility report which is another useful way for you to see what a CSR strategy can look like. Google’s 2020 Environment Report includes priorities, company mission, performance targets, and detailed analysis in five key focus areas.
Why have a CSR strategy?
In the world of CSR, it’s especially prudent to look before you leap.
This is because successful CSR initiatives are intricate, complex, and require demonstrable impact. They’re also public-facing (and potentially brand-damaging when done poorly). And they offer a host of business benefits you might miss out on by failing to plan.
A well-crafted CSR strategy can help you:
Keep everything organized
Great CSR initiatives involve lots of people, multiple goals, tons of data, and countless responsibilities. Your CSR strategy is an opportunity to get everything in order and prepare to stay on top of all the details.
Improve impacts
According to Deloitte’s third annual global survey of more than 2,000 C-suite executives at companies with societal impact goals, the presence of comprehensive strategy directly correlated with greater success (measured by innovation, growth, and employee acquisition).
Protect your brand reputation
Launching a corporate responsibility initiative without proper foresight is a big risk-that’s because your CSR program will be a public-facing endeavor with multiple stakeholders and partners who expect follow-through. Strategic planning can reduce the possibility that your company will gain a reputation for big talk and no action, which can ultimately harm your bottom line.
Take full advantage of CSR program benefits
CSR has a host of potential benefits for your company. A successful corporate responsibility initiative will benefit your community and serve your employees. It will also improve your brand image, attracting new talent and increasing customer loyalty. Ultimately, these outcomes can contribute to revenue and drive your company’s growth.
In order to reap the full business benefits of CSR, you’ll want a strategy that’s brand-aligned, well-researched, responsive, partnership-driven (at all levels), and constantly evolving in pursuit of positive impacts everyone can feel good about.
Best practices for creating a CSR Strategy
Understanding the role and value of a CSR strategy is an important first step.
Now, how do you create and develop a CSR strategy that gets results? There are seven key tactics for strategic planning that will help improve the outcomes of your business’s CSR activities.
1. Link to company values
Whereas CSR was once seen as a peripheral approach to boosting business performance and legitimacy, today’s best CSR initiatives are squarely brand-aligned and central to operational strategy.
Connecting CSR to business strategy is increasingly a corporate best practice, as evidenced by the 181 CEO’s from brands like Amazon, Citigroup, and Ford who signed Business Roundtable’s latest Statement of Purpose, indicating a commitment to “to lead their companies for the benefit of all stakeholders-customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders.”
What it looks like to align your CSR strategy with your brand, core competencies, and operational strategy, will be different for every company.
WarnerMedia’s Access Writers Program is a great example of a CSR initiative that clearly links back to company values: WarnerMedia is a media corporation focused on diverse entertainment whose latest program seeks to improve the access marginalized community members have to professional opportunities in television.
2. Get insights from your various stakeholders
You’ll want to develop a strategic plan for CSR inspired by what your customers, employees, and community members care about. You might also seek inspiration from what’s worked for other brands already. Here’s how:
Poll your customers
The creation of a CSR strategy is a great excuse to connect with your customer base. Build a short, easy to access poll to collect the following information:
Which environmental and social issues matter most to your customers?
Design your poll in alignment with your brand. For example, if you sell custom T-shirts, are customers most interested in your sustainability, supply chain, dedication to labor and human rights, or donations to kids in need? Focused questions will lead to more actionable results.
What do customers know about your current giving and initiatives?
If you have run programs in the past or currently engage in CSR, how well did you communicate about them? Are your initiatives known for success?
What associations do customers have with your brand?
This is a great opportunity to collect data about your business’s image, which you can try to influence in your new CSR strategy.
To help boost participation, consider offering an incentive to customers who complete your poll, such as a discount or entry into a drawing.
Collect employee feedback
Your CSR strategy doesn’t move without your employees. Start by determining your employees’ preferences and using that information to help build your overall strategy.
A survey is a great tool to collect this important information, combining multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
As an example, for your T-shirt company, you might have employees select between three brand-aligned volunteer opportunities followed by an opportunity for open feedback. This approach will you help you get the targeted data you need and also help employees feel heard and valued.
Assess community needs
What “community” looks like is unique for every business. Taking time to research and consider what your community needs is a great first step towards building the partnerships your CSR program will need to succeed.
Community Tool Box offers great suggestions for understanding community needs and resources, with methods that can be combined, depending on the extent of data you’re looking to connect.
3. Borrow great strategy
Your CSR strategy doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. Spend time exploring where other businesses have succeeded in their sustainability, charitable giving, and employee engagement, for example. Don’t worry about being derivative: your strategy will necessarily be unique because your brand is unique and so are the people you care about and listen to.
One way to find brands doing the best CSR is via reports like “America’s Most Responsible Companies” from Newsweek and Statista-and congratulations to HP, Cisco, and Dell for top success in three focus areas: environment, social, and corporate governance.
Harvard Business School’s Baker Library offers a comprehensive list of social responsibility ratings and reports for companies. Of particular interest is Fortune’s “Change the World” list-you’ll find PayPal and Zoom in the top 10 for 2020.
Many companies have aligned their CSR activities in some way with the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that include issues like poverty, hunger, education, gender equality, and action around climate change. Chevron’s corporate sustainability program, for example, clearly lays out how the company is addressing every SDG, and Target includes an SDG index in their 2020 corporate social responsibility report.
4. Establish internal buy-in
You’ll need your team’s support, enthusiasm, and dedication to make your social responsibility program thrive. Engage employees early in the strategy process by being responsive and inclusive.
Respond to team values
Once you’ve assessed what your employees care about most and where they want the company to focus, put this data to work.
It probably won’t be possible to incorporate everyone’s feedback in your strategy, but at the very least, share your findings with the group. Your team will enjoy learning about what their colleagues value.
Use the information you’ve collected to identify top areas of interest and common suggestions for your CSR strategy. Try to actively pursue at least one employee-sourced initiative every quarter or fiscal year, with formal plans for addressing additional issues in the future.
Whether you establish an employee-led committee or include employee representatives in planning sessions, be sure employees are actively engaged and aligned with your CSR visions and values, missions and goals, and on-the-ground initiatives.
5. Build external partnerships
There’s already good work going on in the communities you’re looking to empower. Seek out the organizations and individuals doing this work early in your CSR strategy development process.
Many businesses are already reaping the value of partnership-driven CSR. This list from Donorbox offers examples of 14 major brands, including Adidas, IKEA, Apple, and BMW, that have partnered with community nonprofit organizations to better meet their CSR goals.
Community organizations will have the knowledge and experience to put your brand’s funding, sponsorship, or employee volunteerism, for example, to the best use. As philanthropic leader Edgar Viallanueva recently advised, “You shouldn’t feel that you need to recreate what’s already in place. Find organizations that have established relationships with grassroots communities and trust them to get the money to the right people. These bridge organizations often have the relationships and trust, but lack sufficient capital.”
Approach community partnerships with humility and take a learning stance-what do partner organizations need most and how can your business help? In addition to deep listening, be sure you’re establishing authentic relationships with partners. Sustainable and equitable partnerships (as opposed to shallow partnerships for the sake of PR) require that community members hold actual decision-making power, especially regarding campaigns that will directly affect them.
6. Be clear and transparent
Once you’ve tackled brand-alignment, stakeholders’ concerns (including customers, employees, and community members), and partner-driven strategy, it’s time to distill this wealth of information into a clear communication plan.
Get specific about goals and outcomes
Your CSR strategy should be as clear and specific as possible for a few reasons:
A clear strategy helps keep everyone on the same page
The more focused your goals are, the easier it will be to assess if you’ve met them
Clarity reflects positively on your brand’s commitment to corporate social responsibility, demonstrating rigor and care
Aim for precise language, numbered goals (each communicated in a single sentence if possible), key strategies and initiatives for meeting each goal, and measurement tactics for assessing progress towards each goal. Be sure to include your mission, vision, and partners.
Campbell’s Soup provides a great example of clarity and synthesis in its corporate responsibility strategy-especially this goals chart which lists target objectives alongside current progress displayed numerically and graphically.
Make a communications plan
Your CSR strategy shouldn’t be a secret. Think through how you’ll share this information internally and externally to foster enthusiasm, boost stakeholder engagement, and enhance accountability.
Your CSR strategy should include your plan for regularly and publicly discussing your CSR initiatives-via your website, social media, newsletters, email updates, reports, and even press releases.
Sharing high-level corporate strategy publicly can help generate interest in your CSR programs. It also indicates transparency and accountability-you’re sharing your plan because you intend to follow through and be accountable.
Use the same principles for sharing your strategy that you will to talk about your active and completed CSR campaigns, including these considerations adapted from the EMG group:
Objectives: What do you want to accomplish with your CSR communication plan?
Audience: Who will you communicate with?
Subjects and key messages: What will you tell your audience about?
Timescales: When will you communicate about CSR?
Channels: Where will you communicate with your audience?
Feedback: How will your audience be able to engage with you?
7. Learn, respond, and improve
In the world of CSR, there is always room for improvement, because CSR is about people and people are dynamic. Our needs change and so does the world we live in.
Accordingly, your CSR strategy won’t be complete without a plan for learning, adjustment, and growth-or as Global Giving puts it, the opportunity to “Listen, Act, Learn. Repeat.”
Plan for reporting and feedback
Data and feedback collection should be an essential part of your CSR strategy. Don’t wait for an initiative to finish to consider how you’ll assess outcomes-planning ahead will help ensure your whole strategy is aligned with what you hope to achieve and how you’ll demonstrate progress.
You also shouldn’t wait until the end of a campaign to begin your learning process. Establish a timeline for collecting information at regular intervals throughout your initiative.
There are plenty of ways to collect data and feedback, including interviews, surveys and questionnaires, observational data, focus groups, public forums, oral histories, or some combination of these. Plan to use the tools that make the most sense for your CSR initiative.
Whichever method you choose, be sure your strategy involves connecting with all relevant groups and stakeholders. What results did you achieve among community members and where could you improve? How did employees feel about your CSR program and what suggestions do they have going forward? Were customers interested in your campaign?
Your plan for measuring CSR performance should include how you’ll collect information and from whom, how you’ll assess the data, how you’ll share your findings, and how you’ll incorporate suggestions for improvement.
Be responsive to learning and to the moment
Your CSR strategy shouldn’t be iron-clad. It should evolve in response to new insight and data. Think of your strategy as a working, living document that can and should continue to improve, even mid-campaign, as necessary.
As an example, the events of 2020 forced businesses to reconsider their existing CSR programs. Many companies chose to pivot in response to COVID-19 and movements for racial justice. The publicity around these shifts, including critiques of hollow brand statements, underscored the importance for socially responsible companies of clearly linking action (via CSR) to rhetoric.
According to Mark Horowitz, CEO of Moving Worlds, global events have resulted in a tipping point for CSR, wherein business leaders are making bigger promises without changing operations to support their proposals. More than ever, he argues, companies must respond to the moment and take real action: “The next 10 months will define the CSR space for the next 10 years … CSR leaders within companies have the opportunity to right the position of corporations in society.”
While it’s vital to stay responsive, be wary of altering key goals and measurement tactics before you’ve had time to accurately assess them. Not only do you open your company up to critique for empty promises, but change doesn’t happen overnight and long-term objectives require longer-term measurement.
As Neil Buddy Shah, Managing Director at GiveWell, shared in a recent panel on impact data, you risk good ideas failing when organizations run an impact evaluation that is too rigorous too early.
Time for action: Bring your CSR strategy to life
A thoughtful CSR strategy requires time, thought, and teamwork to build. Make the best use of your efforts with tools that help transform your vision into action and results, faster.
Submittable’s CSR solution can connect your business to important causes while dramatically reducing the time it takes to oversee your corporate giving program. Manage corporate grants and scholarships, coordinate employee volunteers and giving programs, facilitate community sponsorships, and much more. We’d love to walk you through the platform-sign up for a free demo today.
By Laura Steele from submittable.com * Reposted: February 24, 2023
In the world of philanthropy, businesses and corporations are uniquely positioned to make a positive impact. They often have practice in uniting a team around a mission, using existing resources to increase capacity, and spreading the word about their work. For companies looking to leverage their strengths to better the community, corporate giving is a great tool to make change.
A corporate giving program is an initiative that allows businesses to invest in social good. There are a variety of options when it comes to program design, and each offers its own advantages. For inspiration, check out what other companies are doing.
No matter what kind of corporate philanthropy programs you choose, the time, money, and effort you invest will benefit not only the community at large, but will strengthen your organization.
The benefits of a corporate giving program giving
Become a trusted brand
These days consumers want to support businesses and corporations that invest in causes they care about. In fact, over 75% of consumers polled said they are more likely to buy from a company that supports environmental, social, or governance causes.
Kristin Kenney, Senior Associate at Carol Cone ON PURPOSE, explains, “Consumers are much more savvy today. They’re asking, how are employees treated? Where are products coming from? Who are products made by? And they’re really good at research.”
Corporate giving builds positivity around your brand and allows you to align your outreach with your community’s values. This provides your customers new, meaningful ways to engage with your business. It’ll also help you build a reputation as a company that does more than talk the talk. You show up.
Though in the past corporate giving has been viewed as an optional program, today it’s imperative that organizations get engaged with this work.
“If the social, health, and environmental crises of this past year are not enough to compel business leaders, then leaders need to hear this: You need a social impact strategy not just to do some good, but to remain relevant and competitive.” – Mark Horoszowski, CEO at MovingWorlds
Engage employees
A corporate giving initiative can also inspire your employees. Everyone wants to engage with a company that incorporates doing good into its mission—whether that means buying their products or being part of the team.
Giving back allows you to connect with your employees on a deeper level, helps them feel more fulfilled, and empowers them to make a difference. Plus it’s a great tool for recruiting. According to a recent survey, more than two-thirds of respondents said they’re more likely to apply for and accept a job with a socially responsible company.
Boost revenue
Using donations to create a loyal customer base and a strong company culture can help you boost revenue in the long run.
Corporate giving provides a great story for your marketing and recruitment team. It allows you to get your name out into the community in a new way and gives you the opportunity to build partnerships with other organizations. These connections can translate into more sales and they create a strong foundation for future growth.
Support sustainability
Beyond your bottom line, this form of corporate philanthropy supports long-term sustainability. Your business doesn’t exist on an island. It is part of a complex system that relies on the health and wellbeing of the planet, the people, and the social structures that connect them.
Investing in nonprofits that sustain the community and protect resources means you’re ensuring sustainability for your business and the world at large.
6 types of corporate giving programs
1. Community Grants
Awarding grants to nonprofits doing work in the community is a great way to leverage your resources and their expertise. Rather than picking a charity, you can set aside a designated amount of money to fund grants and invite organizations to apply.
If your team has a specific cause or population in mind, you can create targeted grant programs around an issue. Only organizations engaged in that specific work will be eligible to apply. For instance, you could create a grant dedicated to helping disadvantaged communities address climate change. In your grant application, you could ask applicants to explain how they are engaged in this work and what a grant will allow them to do.
Community grants allow your business to support the organizations already doing good work in the community. Forming relationships with these nonprofits helps you build trust with community members and shows that you’re willing to be humble in your approach to giving.
This model also fosters internal and external collaboration. By uniting around a common purpose, you can work together with the organizations you fund to make change. You can determine the program focus and help guide outcomes. Plus these connections can become long-term partnerships.
Meet community members where they are
As you build your grant program, be sure to center the people you’re aiming to support. Start by involving them in the conversations early. Get their input about what problems the community faces and what kind of solutions might do the most good. Remember: the people closest to a problem usually have the best insight about how to solve it.
Structure your grant application so that it is easy to access and complete. Nonprofits are busy. They don’t have time for a complicated application process. Choose a grant management software that streamlines the application experience and makes it easy on your internal team to review applications and communicate with grantees.
2. Charitable donations
A charitable donation allows your organization to give money or resources directly to a nonprofit. Structuring your giving this way allows your business to have an immediate impact.
This approach to corporate giving lets you minimize the time and effort your team puts into structuring and executing the program. All you have to do is choose a cause, identify charities that align with your values, and make a donation.
You can choose to write a check or you can make an in-kind donation. Giving goods or services is great if you have the means and capacity and the community has a need for what you can offer.
Consider the timing of your gift. Do you want to align with a global giving event such as Giving Tuesday? Or perhaps you want the gift to coincide with an event you’re planning or a product launch you’re preparing. Adding a charitable component to business programs can be a great way to drum up more interest in both initiatives.
Root your giving in trust
When you make a charitable donation, you can choose to designate your gift for specific programs or you can make the funding unrestricted. Unrestricted funding allows the nonprofit to decide how best to use the resources they receive. It offers more flexibility for the charities as they seek to cover the costs of running programs.
Philanthropist Mackenzie Scott has become known for making unrestricted donations to nonprofits. She explains the decision: “Because we believe that teams with experience on the front lines of challenges will know best how to put the money to good use, we encouraged them to spend it however they choose. Many reported that this trust significantly increased the impact of the gift.”
3. Matching gifts
Matching employee contributions to nonprofits gets the whole team engaged in giving. A matching program allows employees to choose the causes they want to support. An employee donates to a nonprofit and the companies will match or double the donation to create a bigger impact.
This method gets employees involved by letting them determine how the company’s charitable funds will be distributed. They can choose the causes they care about most or those they have a personal connection to. By putting the decision in the employees’ hands, you ensure that company donations align with employee values.
For example, Related Group, an urban developer based in South Florida, has created a matching gifts program for their employees. This helps them get folks involved and boosts the assistance provided to nonprofit organizations.
Make giving quick and easy
These days, most employees expect companies to have some form of corporate giving and matching. According to the latest report from Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose, 85% of companies surveyed offer year-round matching gifts programs.
Despite matching gift programs being incredibly popular, participation can be a struggle. It turns out, one of the main reasons employees don’t participate in corporate giving programs is because the process is too complex. This is where technology comes in. One study found that nearly half of employees said an easy-to-use, online technology platform was a top motivating factor to donate. Choose a corporate giving platform that makes it easy for employees to get excited about giving and helps them track their impact.
4. Volunteering
When it comes to corporate giving, it’s easy to overlook one of your greatest resources: people. Your company has taken time to assemble a great team. The talent and enthusiasm each employee brings to the table is unique. Channeling these skills to help local nonprofits pursue their missions is a great way to leverage your resources and get employees engaged.
As part of a volunteer program, your employees donate hours to a local nonprofit. This can entail simple, non-specialized work that the charity determines. For example, your company could donate volunteer hours to a local food bank. Employees would go during their normal working hours to help the food bank with tasks such as packing boxes or sorting food. You can also find opportunities that encourage employees to use their professional skills in their volunteer efforts.
No matter how you structure your volunteering, this kind of program helps keep employees invested. It provides opportunities for folks to connect with team members they don’t often get to work with directly, enhancing cohesion and connection across the company.
Other forms of corporate giving can help employees feel a sense of purpose, but volunteering allows them to get their hands dirty and to truly get engaged in the work. This has countless benefits for morale and engagement. Plus it can actually improve employee mental and physical health.
Let employees lead the way
Volunteering is most impactful when employees get to choose the causes they give their time to. Rather than making your volunteer program feel like a top-down initiative, put employees in the driver’s seat. Seek out employee feedback to help you organize volunteer opportunities. And empower employees to create volunteer events and invite their coworkers.
Taking this approach lets you build on the relationships that already exist within your company. It’s much more powerful to get an invite from someone on your team who’s excited about a cause rather than a company-wide email from HR.
5. Scholarships
Channeling your corporate giving into a scholarship program means you will be helping students further their education by providing money for tuition, books, or other living expenses.
For example A+ Federal Credit Union has a scholarship program for high school and college students in Central Texas. In 2021, they awarded a total of $100,000 to 50 students chosen based on academic achievements and community involvement. The scholarship money goes towards college tuition.
Funding scholarships is a valuable investment in the future. You’re helping students access education and easing the financial burden on them and their families. Of course, this can have an immediate impact on when and where they attend college, but it also has long-term effects on their job prospects, earning power, and financial stability.
Investing in education connects you with the up-and-coming generation. Showing up for them will help your brand stay relevant. These are your future customers and employees.
Recruit top talent
Some companies focus their scholarship programs on disciplines related to their businesses. This approach can create relationships with a strong pool of candidates for the future. It also gives you the ability to reach out and support a wide range of students and, in turn, help diversify the pool of talent you can draw from.
For example, Acxiom is a customer data management firm. Each year, they offer $5,000 scholarships to students from diverse backgrounds who are enrolled in a full-time post-secondary degree program such as computer science or computer information systems. Through this program, the company is supporting diversity across the sector and connecting with potential applicants.
6. Sponsorships
In a sponsorship, a business helps financially support a community group, event, or activity. Often in exchange for the support, the company is featured in promotional materials. By affiliating with a beloved event or group, a business can build goodwill in the community. This form of outreach gives you a chance to subtly market your brand while spotlighting important community activities.
For example the Alaska Humanities Forum sponsors events that bring Alaskans together and encourage civil discussion. They support events such as the Blueberry Arts Festival and in return their logo is featured on the event website.
Sponsorships often entail funding, but you can also provide support through in-kind donations. Perhaps the goods or services you offer would be useful to organizers.
Align sponsorships with your mission
As you look for an event to sponsor, try to find one that aligns with your business mission. Think about your target customers and what kind of interests they might have. Not only will this give you a natural point of connection with the folks you most want to reach, but it will also make it easier for you to show up in an authentic way.
A great way to approach your search is by starting with the events and causes that your employees are already involved in. Perhaps you can include their input as you create your giving plans.
Create your corporate giving program today
Creating an effective corporate giving program is not so different from launching other business initiatives. You want to ensure success by building from strategy, setting clear objectives, and prioritizing transparency.
As Alnoor Ebrahim, author of Measuring Social Change: Performance and Accountability in a Complex World explains, “In the social sector, we tend to think a lot about impact but don’t necessarily give enough attention to strategy—and the two are completely intertwined.”
As a corporate social responsibility platform, Submittable can help you create a program that works for your whole team. Whether you’re managing grant applications, accepting sponsorship requests, or promoting a scholarship, Submittable makes it easy to launch, manage, and measure your program.
By Emma Samson from Sustainablebrands.con • Reposted: February 24, 2023
Marketing is becoming inextricable from sustainability. Marketers must collaborate with other departments closely, gather accurate knowledge and work out how to share brand attributes in a humble and credible way.
You might think of the marketing department as advertisers. Or salespeople, capturing the attention of customers with branding and snazzy videos. Or maybe as analysts, monitoring data and adjusting their content to appeal to their target market. But the role of marketers is expanding fast. Selling stuff to customers is no longer the sole focus. Consumers, retailers and employees are all looking for brands that conduct themselves with a higher sense of social and environmental responsibility; so, today’s sustainable marketer must don many hats to satisfy internal and external stakeholders — turning their storytelling superpowers to influence behaviour and drive positive change.
Marketer as Corporate Sustainability Officer
The gap between sustainability and marketing is closing as brands rush to position themselves as ‘green’ – driven by customers increasingly aware of environmental risk. ‘Green’ sells, but the sustainable marketer needs to steer clear of accidental greenwashing as authorities clamp down on ambiguous communication and targets. At COP26, governments agreed to create a new UN greenwashing watchdog to name and shame companies that swerve their sustainability promises. And in the UK, the Advertising Standards Authorityrecently issued stricter guidelines regarding unqualified claims such as ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘plastic-free.’ Marketing buzzwords will no longer be tolerated without substantiation, and ignoring these guidelines could cost a brand both reputation and profit — up to €100,000 in France, where brands are fined for using misleading terminology such as ‘carbon neutral’ without reporting corroborating GHG emissions. Sustainable marketers need to understand the technical truths behind their products so they can communicate authentically and build trust.
Marketer as behavioural psychologist
The average customer spends only 6 seconds deciding what to buy at the shelf. By this point, however, the skilled marketer has directed them through the sales funnel, so the decision is already partially made. Only a last-minute discount or free gift might trigger a change of heart. All sustainability initiatives will require a significant element of behavioural change, and the marketer can use their understanding of motivation to shape that circular journey. For example, Willemijn Peeters of circular plastics consultancy Searious Business thinks the marketer will be crucial to the uptake and success of reusable packaging.
“We see from our clients that the main barriers to reuse are cost-effectiveness and behavioural change. No scheme will succeed without high uptake and return rates. We need to sift through the complex messaging behind reuse and distil it into simple prompts that customers can absorb — marketers know how to do this.”
Marketer as packaging designer
The Ellen Macarthur Foundation states that a circular economy begins with thoughtful design. Products and their packaging need to be designed with the impact of their entire lifecycle in mind. Packaging designers are under tremendous pressure to eliminate waste, choose low-impact materials and increase recyclability while still prioritising functionality. These measures often leave little room for shelf appeal — the final battleground for the marketer. Most marketers are incentivised to sell by volume; they need their packaging to catch the eye, imply quality and add value to the product within. What happens to it after use is often a secondary consideration, and their influence can make or break a sustainable innovation before its leaves the drawing board. According to recent IBM’s research, 41 percent of consumers would shop more sustainably if they understood more about the environmental and social impact. Product packaging is the last opportunity to speak to your customer and leave a positive impression of your brand. Make sure your final words are transparent and honest. Make sure they are ones that attract and continue to engage sustainability-focused consumers.
As sustainability becomes an inherent part of our global economy, marketers must take on a leadership role in creating and communicating their brands’ purposeful identity — building trust with their customers, suppliers, investors and employees. According to a survey by the UN Global Compact and Accenture, 81 percent of consumers now want businesses to take a stand on important social and environmental issues. However, the customer is not the only stakeholder looking for this commitment; both retailers and suppliers are getting choosier over what brands they stock or sell to. They want to be associated with brands that share their principles and help them meet their environmental and social goals. A recentstudy from digital studio PLAY found that two-thirds of Gen Z employees felt it was important for the company they work for to be committed to acting sustainably. In a pressurised job market, attracting and retaining employees is critical — meaning, brand image is as essential to HR as it is to sales.
Marketing in the future will become inextricable from sustainability. Marketers must collaborate with other departments closely, gather accurate knowledge and work out how to share this in a humble and credible way. The number of hats on the marketer’s hat rack is increasing, but the most important is still the thinking cap.
A United Airlines Boeing 777-200ER plane is towed as an American Airlines Boeing 737 plane departs from O’Hare International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Nov. 30, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Kamil Krzaczynski
United Airlines (UAL.O) launched on Tuesday a more than $100 million investment fund to support start-ups focused on the research and production of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
The Chicago-based carrier along with inaugural partners such as Air Canada (AC.TO), Boeing (BA.N), General Electric (GE.N) JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) and Honeywell (HON.O) have invested in the United Airlines Ventures Sustainable Flight Fund, it said.
United said the fund was open to investment by companies across industries and would prioritize investment in new technology and “proven” producers.
The global aviation industry is under pressure to reduce carbon emissions and find ways to meet the 2050 net-zero emissions target set by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in 2021.
The industry, which contributes about 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, faces formidable challenges in reaching that goal as technologies such as electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft are still unproven.
Global airlines and aerospace manufacturers are betting on SAF, which is made in tiny quantities from feedstocks such as cooking oils and animal waste, and can cost two to five times more than conventional jet fuels.
United’s Chief Sustainability Officer Lauren Riley said the investment fund was aimed at scaling up the supply of SAF. The company would contribute up to 49% of the fund’s value, she said.
By Jane Marsh from The Environmental Magazine • Reposted: February 22, 2023
Throughout the decades, the global economy has shown little regard for its environmental impact. However, businesses across all industries are now facing a reckoning. Amid increasing climate change, the calls for greater economic sustainability are coming in loud and clear — about 85% of consumers have modified their buying habits, opting for greener purchases. Another 34% are willing to pay a premium for eco-friendly goods and services.
To meet demand, brands have had to modify their operations and manufacturing processes to protect the planet. For some, the transition has been a struggle. Nevertheless, ignoring consumer pressures is a terrible business practice — adhering to eco-friendliness is essential if they hope to survive.
Of course, whether companies will ever do enough to protect the planet is the question. Here’s a closer look at how our economy has wasted our most precious resources and what companies can do to improve their sustainability.
How Companies Impact the Environment
Researchers have theorized and observed that when people gain access to a public resource — such as water, air and habitable land — they consume it based on personal needs, regardless of how its depletion hurts the planet.
This short-term overconsumption of resources can have dire impacts on the public and the environment. Here are four examples.
1. Aquifer Depletion From Agriculture
Humans require clean groundwater for safe drinking to survive. However, human activities have contaminated and depleted groundwater resources at a rapid pace. In 2015, over half of the 30% of groundwater withdrawals were used and overconsumed for irrigation in the agricultural sector.
2. Food Insecurity From Environmental Degradation
Over 1.7 million acres of arable land were used for crops in 2016. However, poor farming operations — such as overuse of chemical fertilizers and monocropping — amid a steady rise in food demand have rendered fields unusable for future yields. This places our food system and the ability to feed the world at risk. Not even the 15,000 food pantries across the country will be able to resolve the food crisis if we can no longer grow food.
3. Endangered Wildlife From Coffee Consumption
Is it impossible to get through the day without three cups of coffee in the morning? Our overconsumption of goods has degraded habitats for much of the planet’s wildlife. For example, the international trade of coffee, tea and tobacco accounts for 70% of the extinction risk for endangered species.
4. Reduced Air Quality From Traffic
Commerce, traffic congestion and human activities have also affected air quality — one of the common natural resources shared by everyone. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 7 million people die prematurely from air pollution annually.
Since then, many companies have begun analyzing their environmental degradation in the name of manufacturing and revenue, from making net-zero pledges to transitioning toward recyclable packaging alternatives to reduce waste.
However, 58% of companies admit they’ve overstated their progress. Despite their pledges, a recent NewClimate Institute report found that 25 major corporations were meeting only 40% of net-zero emissions — only three companies were genuinely committed to reducing 90% of their emissions by the target year.
Are companies doing enough to protect the planet? Not quite, but there is room for improvement. For instance, companies can implement the following measures:
Create a carbon footprint assessment to understand where they generate the most emissions.
Reduce waste by creating an end-use protocol and ramping up recycling.
Improve energy efficiency throughout operations and within office buildings.
Encourage employees and supply chain vendors to adopt eco-friendly behaviors.
Invest in carbon offsetting programs that address degraded land, water contamination and air pollution.
These measurable initiatives enable a clearer picture of a business’s sustainability. Of course, transparency is critical and companies should avoid greenwashing their efforts at all costs.
Corporate Responsibility the Key to Protecting the Planet
Businesses have come to understand the value of sustainability for their bottom line. In addition to consumer demand, companies more frequently face mandatory emissions disclosures, subsequent fees and arrests for pollution. At the end of the day, protecting the planet and our common goods are in companies’ best interest.
The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) has confirmed that it will issue its first two finalised frameworks by the end of June, with an expectation that the first corporate reports aligned with these frameworks will be issued in 2025. From edie.net • Reposted: February 22, 2023
Members of the ISSB gathered in Montreal, Canada, last week, to agree on the technical content of its initial standards following consultations in 2022. The Board is focusing on climate-related reporting in the first instance but its first two standards – IFRS S1 and S2 – will also cover other sustainability-related risks and opportunities.
IFRS S1 is designed to apply globally, to corporates in all sectors. It has been described as the “core baseline” of sustainability reporting, attempting to better unify disclosures on factors such as waste and emissions. It also sets out how companies can integrate reporting, linking sustainability-related and financial information.
IFRS S1 also sets out plans for companies to disclose all material sustainability-related risks and opportunities.
IFRS S2, meanwhile, is more detaied in regard to specific topics – particularly climate mitigation and climate adaptation. It is designed to build on existing disclosure frameworks in this field, chiefly the Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
While the EU is proposing mandatory “double materiality” impact reporting for big businesses – imploring them to report on their impacts on people and the environment, plus the risks and opportunities that external changes could bring – the ISSB is taking a different approach. Its chief focus at present is enterprise value, which entails getting a deeper understanding of the link between sustainability and company valuation.
“We responded to capital market and G20 demand for a common language of investor-focussed, sustainability-related disclosure, working diligently to deliver standards that fulfil the global baseline,” said ISSB chair Emmanuel Faber.
The ISSB is expected to issue IFRS S1 and S1 by the end of the second quarter, making June the likely issuance date. It is intending to make the standards effective from January 2024, meaning that we will likely see the first corporate reports aligned with the standards in 2025.
Voluntary adoption will be likely in the first case, and some nations and regions may opt for mandatory disclosures in time.
“Given [that] sustainability disclosure is new for many companies globally, the ISSB will introduce programmes that support those applying its Standards as market infrastructure and capacity is built,” the Board said in a statement. But it acknowledged that, in some markets like the EU, disclosure is less new – so there is a need to align with and streamline existing standards.
Commenting on the news, KPMG’s global head of audit Larry Bradley said: “The proposed effective date of 1 January 2024 is ambitious, but – importantly – it’s aligned with the EU timetable, so some companies may adopt on this date regardless of local requirements. It still remains for jurisdictions to decide whether to enforce this date. But the transition provisions, such as not requiring Scope 3 GHG emissions reporting in the first year of adoption, should smooth the path for companies.
“The good news is that companies are going to be explicitly allowed (but not required) to use metrics from GRI and ESRSs where they are useful to investors and there is no equivalent IFRS sustainability standard. This demonstrates a level of pragmatism and a keen awareness of the need to balance cost and benefit for as many companies as possible. However, companies already reporting under GRI won’t be able to simply cut and paste swathes of disclosures, because they will need to apply the ISSB’s investor-focused materiality lens. For companies reporting under multiple frameworks, this will make reporting less challenging.”
The ISSB was first proposed by the not-for-profit International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS Foundation) in early 2021, and launched later that year. Its aim is to unify disclosures from corporates, helping investors and other stakeholders to properly compare their sustainability performance and related risks. One year on from its formal launch, in November 2022, CDP confirmed that it will incorporate IFRS S2 into its platform.
A group of major corporations led by Etsy and eBay is praising the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for committing to exclusively purchase electric vehicles starting in 2026, in a letter coordinated by Drawdown Labs, Project Drawdown’s private-sector testing ground for accelerating the adoption of climate solutions quickly, safely and equitably.
Etsy and eBay are among the largest e-commerce marketplaces in the country. The USPS is central to their business and to millions of small sellers who run their shops on these platforms.
The USPS is currently transitioning to an all-new fleet of 106,000 delivery vehicles. It announced in December that 62 percent of those purchases over the next five years will have all-electric powertrains and by 2026, 100 percent of newly purchased vehicles will be electric.
The letter(link is external) from Etsy and eBay also includes signatories Askov Finlayson, Avocado Green, Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, Dr. Bronner’s, A Good Company, Grove Collaborative, Patagonia, Peak Design, Seventh Generation, Stonyfield and Warby Parker.
“This decision sends a message to every business in the United States: it is possible, achievable and necessary to adopt all-electric fleets for corporate transportation and shipping needs,” said Jamie Alexander, director of Drawdown Labs at Project Drawdown. “These companies are working hard to reduce their climate impact, and this move by the USPS enables them to address the difficult-to-abate supply chain emissions. This is good news for all involved.”
With a shift to electric vehicles, the group of companies believe it will not just be good for the environment but good for business as consumers reap the benefits of lower costs and other innovations made possible by electric vehicles.
The nation and the world are quickly transitioning to electric vehicles, led by consumer demand for the many benefits of EVs, including better efficiency, easier maintenance, zero emissions and better performance. That means cleaner air, reduced climate risk and improved health across the globe. Electrifying vehicles is a key climate solution, with the potential to reduce up to 9.8 gigatons of CO2-e by 2050.
“For millions of small sellers and entrepreneurs on Etsy, a modern USPS committed to innovation and sustainability is crucial for the vibrancy of their small and micro businesses,” said Chelsea Mozen, senior director of impact & sustainability at Etsy. “The USPS’s commitment to a robust electric delivery fleet is good for the postal service, good for small businesses and good for America.”
“USPS’s commitment to electric vehicles is great news for small businesses like the many on our platform who rely on USPS to keep their business moving. eBay is proud to support this move toward greater sustainability and a cleaner world,” said eBay chief sustainability officer Renée Morin.
Solar park Goettelborn, Saarland, Germany, photo: GETTY IMAGES
By Daniel Newman, Contribtor, Forbes.com – Reposted: Febraury 21, 2023
Sustainability initiatives are still as important as ever — at least that’s what the data is telling us. Our team at Futurum Research — in collaboration with Honeywell — have released the second edition of the Honeywell Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). The report is a global, double-blind survey of more than 750 business, tech, and sustainability pros who are directly involved with environmental initiatives in their companies. The report is a continuation of the first edition, that was first published in December 2022. The goal is to provide transparency into corporate sustainability, both here in the United States and around the world. And according to the ESI, businesses are feeling pretty good about the work they’re doing to help save the environment.
Q1 2023 Environmental Sustainability Index: New quarter, new outlook
You wouldn’t think much would change in just a few short months, but it’s clear that the world is in a new — better — place. According to the ESI, the global pandemic has finally dropped to second place in terms of potential barriers to sustainability goals. Instead, the world seems to be moving back to business as usual. Unsurprisingly, economic and geopolitical issues is now the top concern for most companies. And while those are major concerns, it’s not slowing organizations down. Businesses globally continued to rank sustainability goals as their top business priority in the near-term (next six months). Better yet? More organizations are ranking sustainability as the top priority compared to last quarter (71% vs 65%). This is also consistently reflected across geographies as you can see in the table below.
Sustainability Leaders Weigh in on Critical Focus Areas for Business over the Next 6 Months. FUTURUM RESEARCH
Overall, organizations continue to believe they’re at least somewhat or extremely successful in meeting their environmental sustainability goals. In fact, 90 percent or more of businesses felt they were somewhat or extremely successful in reaching their goals in the past 12 months in each of the following areas: energy evolution and efficiency, emissions reduction, pollution prevention, and circularity recycling. Optimism about meeting goals for the next year, as well as goals for 2030, were also up to 72 and 77 percent, versus 61 and 69 percent last quarter. Perhaps it’s new technologies that have hit the market, reallocating budget spend (I’ll get to that in a second), or better education in the organization, but it’s promising to see success and optimism continue to trend in the right direction.
Apparel Industry Is Unprepared For New Sustainability Laws. Image: GETTY
By Greg Petro, Contributor to forbes.com • Reposted: February 18, 2023
One of the hot topics among fashion execs these days is what’s shaping up to be the industry’s next crisis — government regulation of sustainability. In the US, Europe, and elsewhere, new laws are in the pipeline or on the books that, for the first time, require leading brands to come clean about pollution and waste.
It’s a crisis because the apparel industry, as we’ve come to expect it, is stubbornly unsustainable. There have been numerous examples in recent years of the cost of speed and convenience, including the decision by marquee fashion labels to burn or otherwise destroy overstock merchandise and the annual tsunami of returns that end up in African landfills.
The cost of trying to make the business less harmful to the environment and less wasteful has been, in the short run, a lose-lose proposition — awkward, expensive, and often dismissed by critics as greenwashing. At the executive level, sustainability has been a blip on the radar screen. As a senior exec at one company told me recently, “Right now, I just need to figure out our pricing strategy given inflation.”
As the ideal of sustainability becomes hard law, kicking the can down the road isn’t work anymore, especially with tough new transparency and reporting requirements like those recently enacted in France. “It’s the first time a regulation has required so much disclosure in the entire industry,” says Baptiste Carriere-Pradal of the Amsterdam-based Sustainable Apparel Coalition. In a recent interview with BusinessofFashion.com, he warned, “The industry is not prepared at all.”
In the US, New York and California now ban certain chemicals used in waterproofed outerwear. But the New York State Legislature is putting the final touches on a major new piece of legislation — the New York Fashion Act — that is even tougher than France’s. If enacted, it would be a back-office headache for any company in any industry, let alone one that lives on such thin margins.
As currently written, the proposed New York law requires fashion retailers with more than $100 million in global revenue to produce maps of their supply chains, “… identifying, preventing, mitigating, accounting for, and taking remedial action to address actual and potential adverse impacts to human rights and the environment in their own operations and in their supply chain.” That’s a tall order, and the final legislation may be less burdensome. Either way, the trend toward regulation is gathering steam.
Addressing apparel sustainability is challenging because most retail executives have missed the boat regarding what consumers care most about. A First Insight survey from last year found that two-thirds of retailers believe consumers are not willing to spend more for sustainable brands, but two-thirds of consumers said they would…the key is that it has to be the right stuff.
The survey found that nearly all retailers — 94 % — believe that brand name is more important to consumers than sustainability, but three-quarters of consumers said the opposite. Retail executives ranked brand-operated resale/recommerce programs lowest when asked what type of sustainable shopping formats consumers would most utilize. But 41 % of consumers reported they already shop at brand resale/recommerce programs, such as those offered by Patagonia, Lululemon, or Levi’s.
It’s easy to understand how — after dealing with the pandemic, supply chain, and inventory glut crises — apparel companies have been busy just trying to keep the lights on. But it’s hard to figure out how they could be so poorly informed about what their customers want.
By Andrew Kaminsky from Triple Pundit • February 17, 2023
It’s almost time for the grand reveal. While the final product is still a bit of a mystery, but the anticipation has the business world anxiously awaiting the news.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is expected to make a big announcement in April, and if we’re lucky, it will be the full release of its climate disclosure rules. Either way, publicly-traded companies in the U.S. should be preparing to report on the climate metrics that are soon to become mandatory.
What are the incoming climate disclosure rules?
We are in the midst of a climate crisis, and the rules that dictate how businesses and governments operate are changing. The EU already has a climate disclosure system in place for its largest companies — which is being upgraded next year to include more companies and more thorough reporting. The U.S. is following the EU’s lead with the new SEC climate disclosure rules.
The mandatory disclosures are expected to include a company’s carbon emissions, low-carbon transition plans and climate risks. Climate risk is separated into physical and transition risks: Physical risks are climate hazards like drought, flood and extreme heat, whereas transition risks cover the policy changes with which organizations must comply.
While businesses have yet to be shown the final climate disclosure rules from the SEC, there are measures they can take to hit the ground running when the rules are revealed.
What can companies do to prepare?
“It’s really about being prepared for Scope 3 [GHG emissions] and ensuring that all of the data you are disclosing is traceable and auditable,” says William Theisen, CEO of EcoAct North America.
Scope 3 GHG emissions cover the emissions produced across an organization’s entire value chain, both upstream and downstream. Depending on the size of the business, this can include hundreds or thousands of different companies, from raw material suppliers to distribution partners. It’s an overwhelming task, but it’s much more manageable if taken one step at a time.
“The first step is to do a materiality assessment and get at least an idea of where you should focus first,” Theisen says. “Look at the products and services within your supply chain, and then transform them using an emission factor to equate it to a tonnage of carbon. It won’t be completely accurate, but it will at least give you an idea of areas to dive into and get more granular data.”
Organizations that want to have some idea of what the SEC reporting may look like can explore the current CDP global disclosure system. “As a supplier or publicly- traded company looking to get your bearings on what requirements are probably going to be important, CDP is a good place to start,” Theisen suggests.
Part of the SEC disclosure requirements will include climate risk. While it can be difficult to evaluate how vulnerable business assets are to climate risk — with much of it open to interpretation — honesty and transparency is the best policy, Theisen advises. Trying to downplay climate risk is how a business can get burned.
“It’s the quality of their disclosure. If they understand what the climate risks are and they’re addressing them, that can actually play in a company’s favor,” he explains. “It’s when a company is not disclosing any climate risk that the assumption then is that maybe they don’t know what’s happening — maybe they’re not putting in mitigation measures.”
“Investors and external stakeholders really just want to understand that this is being appropriately managed, that there is a roadmap, and that the roadmap can evolve,” Theisen says. “We’re all adapting to climate change year after year.”
Enlisting climate consultants can help businesses develop strategies for their climate disclosures. This demonstrates to investors that leadership understands the risks associated with climate change and are engaging in methods to mitigate their exposure.
By Ignacio Gavilan Director, Sustainability, The Consumer Goods Forum – From the Consumer Goods Forum • Posted: February 18, 2023
Our relationship with plastic needs to change, and fast. The urgency around the plastics issue has been felt even more keenly since negotiations for a legally binding global plastic treaty began last month. There is no doubt that plastic can have an important role in getting people certain food, drinks and other products in a safe and reliable way. But it is critical that we use less plastic and, wherever possible, better plastic to protect the natural environment while meeting the needs of our growing global population. Ultimately, we need a better system that supports a circular economy for plastics, where it is used again and again in many forms, instead of becoming waste or pollution.
For the consumer goods sector, this means dramatically stepping up our game when it comes to redesigning plastic packaging upstream while increasing collection, sortation and recycling downstream. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of plastic packaging that is designed poorly. For example, a lot of plastic packaging still contains problematic materials like PVC, meaning that most plastic packaging still isn’t recycled and ends up in landfill or incineration.
This is why the 40 retailers, consumer brands and convertors in The Consumer Goods Forum’s (CGF) Plastic Waste Coalition of Action worked with industry experts, recyclers and plastics associations from over 25 countries to develop the Golden Design Rules for plastic packaging. Thirty-three leading multi-national companies have now signed up to implement one or more of these rules across their plastic packaging portfolios by 2025. These rules are a set of voluntary, independent and time-bound commitments that aim to minimise waste, streamline designs and simplify the plastic recycling process – ultimately increasing recycling.
The rules are building momentum to deliver the further design changes necessary to meet the targets laid out in the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment. Set up by the United Nations and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the Commitment is a global initiative to create an entirely circular plastics economy.
There are nine Golden Design Rules. The first is of particular significance. It focuses on increasing the value of PET recycling. PET is polyethylene terephthalate, one of the most common plastic materials. Typically, it’s used in food containers, drink bottles and the synthetic textiles in our clothing. In fact, PET bottles represent 13% of all plastic packaging on the market. Consequently, improving PET recycling is essential to achieving a circular economy for plastics.
One of the key issues with PET recycling is the use of pigments and dyes in plastic bottles, which can make it difficult and expensive to sort bottles into different colour streams for recycling. However, recycling lots of different coloured PET bottles together means you end up with a murky, low quality recycled plastic that isn’t suitable for use in consumer packaging. Unfortunately, this means that many plastic bottles still aren’t recycled back into plastic bottles.
Golden Design Rule 1 aims to address this. It outlines that all bottles should be clear or translucent blue or green as these are the easiest to sort and have the highest material value once recycled.
There are other factors besides the bottle’s colour that can impact on its recyclability. Therefore, Golden Design Rule 1 also lays out specifications for the size of labels on PET bottles, the materials that can be use and the glue used to attach them, so that these aren’t problematic when it comes to recycling.
The rest of the rules cover topics like removing problematic elements from plastic packaging (e.g. PVC, PS, EPS); eliminating excess headspace in flexible packaging; eliminating unnecessary plastic overwraps; improving the recycling value of PET thermoformed trays; and reducing the use of virgin plastic.
Some of our members have already made fantastic progress when it comes to better plastic packaging design. For example, to celebrate Earth Day this year, soft drinks and food giant PepsiCo launched label-free PET bottles in China on e-commerce channels, following an initial launch in South Korea in October 2021. By removing both the plastic label of a traditional PET bottle and the ink printing on the closure, Pepsi was able to reduce the product’s carbon footprint throughout its life cycle and make these bottles easier to recycle. Additionally, to increase plastic circularity, Pepsi also included 24% recycled PE in the secondary shrink film.
Chemical and consumer goods multinational Henkel is working to transition many of the PET bottles in its portfolio to clear PET. In Italy, for example, Henkel’s brand Nelsen’s, a hand dishwashing soap, is using now transparent PET bottles rather than white. Also, 50% of Henkel’s global shower gel portfolio of its main brands including Fa, Dial and Bernangen are packed in clear PET.
Henkel also champions floatable sleeves on bottles instead of traditional labels, as they can easily be separated during the recycling process. To date, the company has introduced them across its fabric softener portfolio, including the Vernel brand. It will soon roll out floatable sleeves across all its sleeved bottles.
Global packaging company Amcor developed a 100% PCR and label-less PET bottle in Argentina. This launch was in partnership with Danone, global food and beverage company, and Argentinean moulded plastic Moldintec, for the water brand Villavicencio.
This innovation is groundbreaking for two reasons. First, it eliminates unnecessary plastic by removing the plastic label. Secondly, it makes the bottles more recyclable, because there’s less risk that labels or adhesives contaminate the recycling process. It also removes the need for sorting and separating labels and bottles, making it more cost-efficient.
What’s more, the new label-less bottle is made from 100% post-consumer recycled content and has a reduced carbon footprint of 21% compared to its previous incarnation.
These are just a few leading examples of companies implementing the Golden Design Rules and putting good intentions into action. This kind of innovation represents the way forward for designing plastic packaging in the consumer goods sector. Of course, there’s still much work still to be done, not least scaling these trailblazing initiatives across the whole industry. Indeed, the adoption of such practices should be an immediate priority.
The CGF Golden Design Rules provide a playbook for implementing the vital design changes that we know are needed, so that, for the sake of the planet, we can tackle the increasingly urgent problem of plastic waste and accelerate the transition to a circular plastics economy.
If you want to find out more about the Golden Design Rules, or think they could be relevant to your organization, please contact us using this link and we will be able to provide more detail and answer any questions you may have.
When it comes to forest products, Bio Pappel, HP, Melissa & Doug, REI and Amazon are all leaders in responsible sourcing. What does this commitment look like in practice?
From the Forest Stewardship Council • Posted: February 17, 2023
More and more consumers are demanding sustainable attributes in the products they buy — encouraging retailers and consumer packaged goods companies to reap the benefits of this opportunity by providing products with tangible, credible environmental and social benefits.
When it comes to forest products, Bio Pappel, HP, Melissa & Doug, REI and Amazon are all leaders in responsible sourcing — a fact that earned them Forest Stewardship Council Leadership Awards for their deep commitment to responsible forestry and for making thousands of FSC-certified products available to businesses and consumers. What does this commitment look like in practice?
Bio Pappel is one of the largest recycled-paper manufacturers in North and South America, and the first Mexican company that is FSC certified for use of 100 percent recycled raw material in paper production. While Bio Pappel may not be a household name, it supplies some of the biggest brands — including Amazon and Titan packaging, Samsungpackaging, Xerox paper, Scribe and pen+Gear notebooks, LALA Yomi milk and yogurt packaging, and Kirkland Signature food items. Its products can be found in Walmart, Costco and other major retailers.
“At Bio Pappel, we like to say that we are generating shared value,” says Israel Martinez, auditor at Bio Pappel. “In this sense, FSC certification gives us the guarantee of sustainable management of raw material coming from forests or recycled material used to produce paper — which consequently encourages more responsible consumption and allows end consumers to be more aware of their footprint on the planet.”
For more than a decade, HP and World Wildlife Fund have worked together to achieve HP’s responsible sourcing goals— including zero deforestation for its HP-brand paper and paper-based packaging. This collaboration has included the development of HP’s industry-leading responsible fiber-sourcing policy; By 2020, HP met this commitment with FSC-certified or recycled fiber sourced for over 95 percent of HP brand paper and paper-based packaging.
HP continues to expand on its commitment to responsible sourcing with additional efforts rooted in protecting, restoring and improving the management of forests. One example is HP and WWF’s work to increase the area of FSC-certified forest in China to 219,830 acres by 2025. As of July 2022, over 33,000 hectares (81,000 acres) of forest have been FSC certified in China.
Over the next decade, HP and WWF’s efforts will include collaborating with local communities and forest managers to increase FSC-certified forest areas in key landscapes, as well as identifying and addressing obstacles to obtaining FSC certification and improving forest-management practices. Ultimately, HP has committed $80 million to restoring, protecting and improving the management of nearly a million acres of forest — an area approximately five times the size of New York City.
As the #1 preschool brand for wooden toys, Melissa & Doug has a longstanding commitment to “making timeless, sustainable toys for a thriving and inclusive world.” The brand formalized its commitments with an initiative called “Project Restore,” to more deeply integrate sustainability culture and practices across the organization.
After obtaining FSC Chain of Custody certification in 2020, the purpose-driven toy manufacturer became the first major US toy brand to earn FSC certification for its new stationery line, which was independently certified by SCS Global Services. Melissa & Doug is on track to achieve its commitment to ensure 100 percent of paper products and more than half of its wood products sold are FSC certified by 2025.
Healthy forests are essential for people to enjoy the outdoors; they’re also essential to REI’s business. REI uses fiber and the resulting paper products throughout its operations — in the form of flyers, cardboard, shopping bags, hangtags and more. As a co-op that inspires its members to spend more time outside, sustainable forestry is a natural focus.
REI prioritizes paper-based packaging for its own products that are FSC certified or made from certified post-consumer waste, and prioritizes paper products with the same attributes. With the assistance of the Outdoor Industry Association and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, REI published sustainable packaging guidelines to encourage and educate its vendors, including FSC as a preferred attribute. These guidelines support not only REI Co-op and Co-op Cycles, but also the brands they sell within their stores and the greater outdoor and cycling industries.
FSC is one of many third-party certifications in Amazon’s Climate Pledge Friendly (CPF) program — which currently encompasses over 350,000 products, 20,000+ brands and counting. CPF was created to help customers discover and choose more sustainable products on Amazon.
One in three consumers prefer shopping with the planet in mind, even if it means paying a little more. By Alyssa Khan, Editorial Intern • Inc.com – Posted: February 16, 2023
Knowing your customer is one of the first rules for running a successful business, and customers today care about sustainability.
One in three consumers prefer shopping with the planet in mind, even if it means paying a little more, according to a SurveyMonkey study. Sales of products marketed as sustainable also grew 2.7x faster than those that didn’t, according to a study from New York University’s Stern Center for Sustainable Business. While making your company more environmentally friendly will likely require an upfront investment, it could pay dividends in the long term, and you don’t have to reinvent your entire business plan.
Here are three sustainability tips for every business owner in 2023.
Ericka Rodriguez founded her vegan lipstick brand, Axiology, in 2014 in New York City. Though her lipsticks were originally packaged in recyclable aluminum, Rodriguez learned that their plastic components meant they often couldn’t be recycled. So she and her team of four employees began testing ways to make their packaging more environmentally friendly. They settled on a compostable, food-grade paper free of animal-sourced waxes and glue that wraps around the lipstick like paper on a crayon. While it took a year and a half and thousands of dollars to make the switch, the final production cost is now less than that of the aluminum packaging, enabling Rodriguez to lower the retail price of her flagship lipstick from $28 to $24. The new packaging also helps differentiate her brand from the competition.
1. Rethink your packaging.
Ericka Rodriguez founded her vegan lipstick brand, Axiology, in 2014 in New York City. Though her lipsticks were originally packaged in recyclable aluminum, Rodriguez learned that their plastic components meant they often couldn’t be recycled. So she and her team of four employees began testing ways to make their packaging more environmentally friendly. They settled on a compostable, food-grade paper free of animal-sourced waxes and glue that wraps around the lipstick like paper on a crayon. While it took a year and a half and thousands of dollars to make the switch, the final production cost is now less than that of the aluminum packaging, enabling Rodriguez to lower the retail price of her flagship lipstick from $28 to $24. The new packaging also helps differentiate her brand from the competition.
“I don’t think the world needs another plastic packaging lipstick brand,” Rodriguez says. “There are already so many.”
2. Consider responsible sourcing.
Nadya Okamoto and Nick Jain founded the direct-to-consumer period care brand August in 2021. The main material for their products, cotton, is the most profitable nonfood crop in the world, but farming with pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals can contaminate waterways and soil, creating havoc in ecosystems. So, August’s founders were committed from the start to use only sustainably farmed, organic cotton versus the popular industry alternative viscose, a type of rayon that is less sustainable and the subject of various health concerns. That means the cotton crops used for their products create fewer greenhouse gas emissions and don’t contaminate surrounding ecosystems. The average price of a 28-pack of regular tampons retails for between $10 and $11, while a 24-pack of August’s tampons is priced between $14 and $15. For Okamoto, the difference in price is worth it for her customers and her business.
“Supply chains are being challenged to be as ethical as possible,” says Okamoto. “Our deepened commitment to making sure that we stand by those values has helped us cultivate a beautiful community.”
3. Beware of greenwashing.
It’s no secret that companies overstate how environmentally friendly their products are. “For me, greenwashing is overclaiming in a significant way or lying about what you’re doing,” says Tensie Whelan, director of the Center for Sustainable Business at New York University. “Some of it is a lack of competence. This is a whole new area. We’re all learning all the time.”
While misleading claims about products being environmentally friendly are common, companies that exaggerate details about sustainability risk significant reputational damage. Greenwashing has been at the center of controversy over the past five years as companies like Tide, Coca-Cola, and Banana Boat sunscreens have faced inquiries and even lawsuits challenging various claims related to sustainability.
By Amy Brown from Triple Pundit • February 15, 2023
It’s odd to think that people are nostalgic for the earlier days of COVID-19, but a new Gallup poll shows that workers miss the increased flexibility and empathy employers adopted at the start of the pandemic. Nearly 75 percent of global employees now say they are either not engaged or actively disengaged at work. Why? It seems workers feel they are once again being treated like cogs in the machine, rather than human beings.
“The world is closer to colonizing Mars than it is to fixing the world’s broken workplaces,” Gallup’s annual State of the Global Workplace Report put it bluntly, noting that employee engagement has reached its lowest level since 2015.
In addition, stress levels among professionals worldwide are at “an all-time high.” Gallup found that 59 percent and 56 percent of disengaged employees report experiencing stress and worry frequently at work.
Employers are missing the boat on engagement
What gives? Unfair treatment at work topped the list as the leading cause of employee disengagement, Gallup found, with an unmanageable workload, unclear communication from managers, lack of manager support, and unreasonable time pressures close behind.
The report found the engagement elements with the most marked declines since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were:
Clarity of expectations
Connection to the mission or purpose of the company
Opportunities to learn and grow
Opportunities to do what employees do best
Feeling cared about at work
About 32 percent of the 67,000 full- and part-time employees surveyed were engaged in their work in 2022, while 18 percent were actively disengaged. Active disengagement has risen each year since 2020. The remaining respondents — 50 percent — were neither engaged nor actively disengaged. In the U.S. in particular, the latest data shows the lowest ratio of engaged-to-actively disengaged employees since 2013.
This is not just a U.S. phenomenon. Fewer than 2 in 10 European employees feel engaged at work — lower than any part of the world.
Millennials and Gen Z employees are even more disengaged
The trend of disengagement and job-hopping is even more pronounced among Generation Z and young millennials. This reporter did her own survey close to home: My millennial daughter, Marielle Velander, 30, has worked for several years in the tech industry, and she had a definite view on the Gallup findings.
“In today’s fast-paced tech scene, it seems like new titles and functions are being invented all the time, without clear job descriptions,” she said. “This was the case with my role of product operations, a new type of role that had me reshuffled in multiple organizations amid a context of ‘organizational change’ or ‘strategy definition.’ This constant reshuffling has left me and many former colleagues disengaged and unclear about how we provide value to the organization. I kept wondering why executives did not understand the revenue-generating aspects of my role.”
Her advice for business leaders looking to do things differently? “Companies should do a better job of managing change fatigue and providing clear job descriptions. They should also be more open to investing in innovative new roles, like product operations, and give these new roles a chance to show their value before folding [them] into yet another radical strategy change.”
No matter the generation, contented employees find their work rewarding and meaningful — and that happens when leaders prioritize employee well-being and engagement, Gallup found.
“Managers need to be better listeners, coaches and collaborators,” researchers recommended in the Gallup report. “Great managers help colleagues learn and grow, recognize their colleagues for doing great work, and make them truly feel cared about. In environments like this, workers thrive.”
Other recent research indicates the problem doesn’t lie in the trend toward more remote work, either. Some 52 percent of workers recently told the Conference Board that having a caring and empathetic leader is more important now than before the pandemic. Whether they work in an office, at home or a hybrid of both has no impact on that view, or their level of engagement, according to the survey.
There is plenty of evidence that engaged workers are a smart investment for employers. Some studies have found that engaged employees outperform their peers that are not engaged. Overall, companies with high employee engagement are 21 percent more profitable.
The risk of not taking action to engage your employees is losing talent — especially young talent — altogether. Marielle has taken a year-long break from her tech career to travel the world. As she described it: “I’m trying to realign with my purpose after feeling like I lost my agency over my career.” It would seem she is not alone.
By Ted Dhillon, Forbes Councils Member from fore’s.com • February 15, 2023
ESG (environmental, social and governance) is often viewed as a way for the financial markets to measure the social and environmental performance of a business. But it’s a lot more than that. Increasingly, prospective employees are using it as a measuring stick to decide where their next job will be.
ESG represents a set of principles that many prospective employees hold all over the world—the idea that businesses need to operate with sustainability at the forefront, doing as little harm to the environment as possible and promoting social responsibility and community building inside and outside the enterprise.
Generation-Z—the group many companies will draw their fresh talent from in the next two decades—already believes in these principles more than previous generations do.
My company draws talent from all corners, but especially from groups that have either studied or worked in environmental science. That’s because their values already align with our mission. It’s a natural fit for someone who wants to contribute to a climate change solution to gravitate toward companies that empower them to do just that.
But the Great Resignation that started with the pandemic is still taking a toll. Even companies outside the ESG industry that want to recruit and retain top talent don’t have the luxury of ignoring the class of climate change warriors. Enterprise leadership must think carefully about how they can align their values and practices with these prospects. It’s not enough to say you are pro-environment, diverse and inclusive—you have to show it and “pitch it” in the interview process.
Communicate an authentic message.
No one comes through the door supporting an environmental mission for exactly the same reasons, so messaging has to be strategic and, most importantly, can’t be seen as greenwashing. Greenwashing, in this context, means putting forward misleading claims to prospective employees to boost a company’s environmental credentials.
So how do you convince a top recruit that your company takes sustainability seriously? In short, communicate, demonstrate and engage:
1. You can communicate a pledge to sustainability through a clear impact statement on every job posting. It should answer some key questions:
What impact can an individual have at this particular company? How does the individual job role contribute to the positive impact the company wants to have on the environment?
If an employee is choosing between you and another company, the “50-50” decision could come down to how well you answer those questions.
2. You can demonstrate sustainable practices by proactively sharing a fact sheet or webpage with every job candidate, whether they ask for it or not. Using social media channels to amplify those messages especially works well to reach out to ultra-connected Gen-Zers. This signals that ESG concerns are not an afterthought but a priority.
In the interview process, make environmentally friendly benefits—even if they are as small as reimbursements for taking greener modes of transportation to work—a part of the standard benefits run-through.
3. Keep current employees engaged in sustainable practice discussions by initiating employee-led committees that have the power to push new sustainability policies. Mention to prospectives (or better yet, let other employees mention it in conversation) that there are internal structures in place to give them a voice on sustainable practices. Prospects will quickly see that there is no greenwashing going on in that shop.
Consider tracking and reporting.
There’s a panoply of green certifications that companies use for bragging rights (the LEED standard for green buildings might be the best known). But ESG rating systems, those firms that take reported data and create rankings of companies, can be confusing because they all use different methodologies that may not be fully transparent.
There are better ways to demonstrate true ESG impact. Job candidates are looking less for a list of green badges and more for evidence that the company can track its own impacts through clear and transparent ESG reporting. If your company already tracks impacts, which can range from emissions to water usage to social impacts, then package the most recent year (or five years) reporting in an easy-to-understand format for anyone interested in working for the company.
If you are not yet tracking impacts, developing a plan to do so and being transparent about it to prospective employees at least makes a definitive statement about where the company is headed.
Gen-Z Swedish activist Greta Thunberg is famous for calling out older generations who are fumbling the ball on climate change today. “My message is that we’ll be watching you,” she told a U.N. climate summit audience in 2019. She meant that there would be accountability for the world’s most existential problem, and decades from now, business leaders may be judged by what they do today to be part of the solution.
Forward-looking companies will strive to track ESG impacts, form action plans that meet specific emissions (and other) goals and then ask young climate change warriors to jump on board.
Ted Dhillon is the CEO and cofounder of FigBytes, an ESG insight platform.
Our overheating planet needs social change more than it needs to avoid the physical tipping points we’ve come to associate with climate disaster, according to a new study from the University of Hamburg. The researchers note that while progress has been made in numerous arenas — such as citizen action, fossil fuel divestment, and implementation of U.N. and legislative policies to curb emissions — consumption patterns and corporate behavior remain prime barriers in the fight against climate change.
Ultimately, one is likely the product of the other, with consumers reacting to the constant onslaught of advertising and social media influence designed to keep them buying with little regard for the real consequences for the climate.
Nowhere is this more obvious than with the push to replace internal combustion engines (ICE) with electric vehicles (EVs) instead of building a nationwide infrastructure of public transportation — as Curbed’s Alissa Walker detailed in her extensive report last month, “An EV In Every Driveway Is an Environmental Disaster”.
“A green future, the story goes, looks a lot like today — it’s just that the cars on the road make pit stops at charging stations instead of gas stations,” Walker wrote. “But a one-for-one swap like that — an EV to take the place of your gas guzzler — is a disaster of its own making: a resource-intensive, slow crawl toward a future of sustained high traffic deaths, fractured neighborhoods, and infrastructural choices that prioritize roads over virtually everything else.”
Truly, a low-carbon future requires systemic change, with society organized not around the personal passenger vehicle but around community and getting the most out of transportation resources through integrated public transit. Swapping out ICE vehicles for EVs does nothing to curb the overconsumption problem. If anything, it intensifies it — with many consumers under the mistaken impression that prematurely replacing their gas-powered car or truck somehow helps the environment.
If anything, staying the course on cars represents a refusal to allow social change, with governments and automakers working together to keep the industry going strong in spite of the environmental and social costs.
And while consumers are consistently blamed for their desires, there is no denying that many of those wants and needs are manufactured by corporate interests and used to sell everything from shiny new vehicles to fast fashion. Would Americans really be so eager to shell out an average of almost $6,000 annually per household on loan payments and car insurance alone if not for the incessant advertising campaigns convincing us that we’ll find freedom, or love, or whatever else we desire in our next brand new car?
Would young people really care about being seen in the same outfit twice if the fashion world didn’t shove the message down their throats that it’s a bad thing? Would fast fashion — with garments that notoriously fall apart after just a few washes — have much of a market if clothing companies didn’t pay influencers to a model a one and done lifestyle?
Putting the onus of change on consumers, even as corporate interests invest in convincing them to do more of the same, is precisely why social change is not forthcoming at the rate that is needed. Indeed, while Americans say they are willing to alter their lifestyles to curb climate change, those who rely on their overconsumption aren’t going to give up trying to sell them more than they need any time soon.
The study, titled Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook, concurs with the U.N.’s determination that humanity will not be able to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius as set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change. The researchers emphasize the need for social change now versus the current focus on individual physical tipping points like melting ice sheets that won’t have much effect on temperatures until 2050.
“The question of what is not just theoretically possible, but also plausible — that is, can realistically be expected — offers us new points of departure,” researcher Anita Engels of the University of Hamberg said in a statement. “If we fail to meet the climate goals, adapting to the impacts will become all the more important.”
Unfortunately, corporate and billionaire interests appear more than willing to force humanity to adapt as they sacrifice the habitability of much of the planet in order to continue business- and consumption-patterns-as-usual.
For companies aiming to become part of the solution on climate change, the Outlook recommends moving beyond the facility level (Scope 1 emissions) to address emissions across the value chain (Scope 3) — particularly how companies influence and interact with their stakeholders. If governments can come together transnationally, and non-government actors like companies take action against climate change within their entire scope of influence, these crucial social tipping points could come closer into reach.
By Andreas von Buchwaldt, Grant Mitchell, Seth Reynolds, and Steve Varley from Harvard Business Review • Reposted: February 10, 2023
CEOs could once focus almost single-mindedly on their businesses and value chains. Now, along with driving a strategy that generates competitive advantage and enhanced value, they face another core task: satisfying a broad base of stakeholders with diverse interests who all demand sustainability policies and practices in different variations.
Delivering on both (often apparently conflicting) fronts is essential. Investors will only support a firm’s long-term strategic initiatives if they yield an above-market return and address the future needs of investors themselves, customers, regulators, and employees.
Like digital before it, sustainability has become an overarching strategic concern today. Judgments about a company’s sustainability performance affect talent acquisition and retention, access to capital, and consumer choices. And new regulations, such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, are translating sustainability imperatives into economic shocks, notably in the energy sector. CEOs also see competitors growing and increasing customer loyalty through sustainability-linked products and services.
As a result, CEOs have largely accepted the need to embed sustainability in their strategies to create competitive advantage. But while existing frameworks describe the elements of a sustainable business, they rarely show how to get there.
At the intersection of sustainability and strategy, many companies adopt an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategy. In doing so, they can be strongly influenced by the external focus on third-party ESG metrics, which are framed as a way of measuring a company’s performance in ESG.
ESG strategies, which often aim to improve key metrics in a way that a firm finds acceptable or manageable, have given many businesses a pragmatic start toward becoming more sustainable. However, as a path to a better strategy, they have drawbacks.
Managing to metrics isn’t the best way to deploy sustainability as a driver of competitive advantage and value, or to hasten meaningful improvements in environmental and social outcomes. Being still immature, metrics are far from comparable, rigorous, or transparent. And the evidence for a link between economic value and ESG ratings is modest. Investors support genuine gains in sustainability, but they won’t tolerate strategies that don’t deliver economic value. While stakeholders closely observe ESG metrics, financial performance remains much more important in corporate valuations.
Rather than focusing on ESG metrics, a more effective path to improving both financial value and sustainability performance is to integrate sustainability into the development and implementation of corporate strategy. In doing so, CEOs can ensure their strategy makes the most of the market, technology, customer, and regulatory trends created by sustainability imperatives.
CEOs can unite strategy with sustainability in three ways:
1. Adapt classic, CEO-level strategy questions by viewing them through a sustainability lens: “Is my purpose the best possible fit with competing stakeholder demands?” “As sustainability plays out in my industry, how should I position my strategy and portfolio for maximum advantage?” The collated responses should be tailored for individual business units or portfolio sectors.
2. Ensure strategic choices include sustainability imperatives by applying top-down and bottom-up analysis.
From the top down, ask, “How will increased sustainability modify or create new strategic drivers?” To test existing strategic themes, use such means as moving from climate scenarios that capture climate risk to embedding climate elements in strategy scenarios and tailoring customer research to test hypotheses about critical sustainability issues. Insights gained can indicate how industry ecosystems will evolve as sustainability grows in influence.
From the bottom up, ask, “Which specific sustainability concerns will our strategy need to accommodate?” To identify such concerns, CEOs could consider which issues are most significant for stakeholders—and so, how likely they are to create competitive advantage. Three interrelated qualifiers can help identify these: the future prominence for stakeholders; uniqueness of contribution; and size of business value, net investment. Careful analysis helps rank these issues.
3. Use common methods to assess investments in sustainability and commercial initiatives. Investments with negative value miss the opportunity to increase meaningful impact. While some investments with unclear links to value may be pragmatic to avoid reputational risk, they should phase out over time. Most organizations can do more to use data such as that on stakeholder attitudes and future economic impacts, and connections to estimate the business consequences of investment.
Organizations need to execute sustainability initiatives with the same rigor as traditional strategic activity. They need to anchor these initiatives in the ambition, resourcing plans, and incentives of all key decision makers—not isolate them within a sustainability team. CEOs will need to identify early the new internal business and impact data they need to measure the progress of key sustainability initiatives, as legacy systems may not capture such data.
EY-Parthenon research shows that taking these steps can give meaningful sustainability actions greater prominence in a CEO’s long-term agenda and may lead to better outcomes—helping a business achieve both the financial means and investor support to create a more sustainable future. Read more about how corporate strategy can deliver both growth and sustainability here.
A new survey asked shoppers why they aren’t buying from socially responsible brands anymore. The biggest problems: They can’t name any and think they’re too expensive. By Heath Shacklford from Fast Company • Reposted: February 9, 2023
The number of Americans who believe it is important to support socially responsible brands has risen in the past decade. The percentage of consumers who plan to increase their spending with such brands in the year ahead has never been higher. Yet, when push comes to shove, fewer and fewer consumers report purchasing products and services from socially responsible companies.
These are some of the key takeaways from the 10th annual Conscious Consumer Spending Index, a benchmarking study my agency runs that gauges momentum for conscious consumerism, charitable giving and earth-friendly practices. The Index score is calculated by evaluating the importance consumers place on purchasing from socially responsible companies, actions taken to support such products and services, and future intent to increase the amount they spend with responsible organizations.
With inflation lingering near 40-year highs and one quarter of Americans reporting a decrease in their household income in the past year, more individuals are finding it challenging to support socially responsible brands, which typically cost more than traditional products and services. In fact, almost half of respondents (46%) said the cost of socially responsible goods and services prevented them from buying more from conscious companies.
This decrease in purchasing power resulted in only 57% of respondents reporting they purchased goods for socially responsible brands in 2022, down from 64% in 2021 and 62% from the inaugural index results in 2013.
While the current economic situation is making it harder for consumers to support socially responsible brands, there are also more systemic challenges to the “do good” movement. Specifically, here are three opportunities for improvement as we consider the path forward for conscious consumerism.
HOLDING OUT FOR A HERO
Way back in 2015, TOMS was in the media spotlight as an icon for what do good business was all about. It was a hero brand, a poster child for the movement. As part of the Index that year, we began asking consumers to name one company or organization that is socially responsible. Based on unaided recall, TOMS topped the list of responses, and repeated that performance the following year.
Fast forward to 2022. For the fourth year in a row, Amazon is the most cited brand when consumers are asked this question. Meanwhile, TOMS no longer makes the list at all. It’s a classic case of out of sight, out of mind. There are only so many experiences the average consumer can have with TOMS as a brand, even if they are rabid fans. Meanwhile, they engage with companies like Amazon and Walmart, number two on this year’s list, on a daily or weekly basis.
The TOMS one-for-one business model is no longer a novelty and no longer the focus of frequent media attention. As a result, we have lost our hero brand for socially-responsible business. We have many strong brands who are well-known for doing good: Patagonia and Ben & Jerry’s are among the examples. But no brand has captured our collective attention and imagination like TOMS did during its peak as a media darling.
Ultimately, this movement needs a hero. A brand that emerges as a leader and carries the torch for socially-responsible business practices. A brand that is large enough to demand consistent attention from the news media and the average consumer. A brand who can serve as an example and as a powerful advocate for business as a force for good.
A joint study from McKinsey and NielsenIQ examines sales growth for products that claim to be environmentally and socially responsible. From McKinsey • Reposted: February 9, 2023
Total US consumer spending accounts for over $14 trillion annually and two-thirds of the US GDP. An important subset of this spending goes toward everyday consumer packaged goods (CPG), ranging from foods and beverages to cosmetics and cleaning products. The sheer size of the CPG sector—with millions of employees and trillions of dollars in annual sales—makes it a critical component in efforts to build a more sustainable, inclusive economy.
CPG companies increasingly allocate time, attention, and resources to instill environmental and social responsibility into their business practices. They are also making claims about environmental and social responsibility on their product labels. The results have been evident: walk down the aisle of any grocery or drugstore these days and you’re bound to see products labeled “environmentally sustainable,” “eco-friendly,” “fair trade,” or other designations related to aspects of environmental and social responsibility. Most important is what lies behind these product claims—the actual contribution of such business practices to achieving goals such as reducing carbon emissions across value chains, offering fair wages and working practices to employees, and supporting diversity and inclusion. But understanding how customers respond to social and environmental claims is also important and has not been clear in the past.
When consumers are asked if they care about buying environmentally and ethically sustainable products, they overwhelmingly answer yes: in a 2020 McKinsey US consumer sentiment survey, more than 60 percent of respondents said they’d pay more for a product with sustainable packaging. A recent study by NielsenIQ found that 78 percent of US consumers say that a sustainable lifestyle is important to them. Yet many CPG executives report that one challenge to their companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives is the inability to generate sufficient consumer demand for these products. There are many stories of companies launching new products incorporating ESG-related claims only to find that sales fell short of expectations.
How can both of these things be true? Do consumers really care whether products incorporate ESG-related claims? Do shoppers follow through and buy these products while standing in front of store shelves or browsing online? Do their real-life buying decisions diverge from their stated preferences? The potential costs—particularly in an inflationary context—of manufacturing and certifying products that make good on ESG-related claims are high. Accurately assessing demand for products that make these claims is vital as companies think about where to make ESG-related investments across their businesses. Companies should therefore be eager to better understand whether and how these types of claims influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. Is a shopper more likely to purchase a product if there’s an ESG-related claim printed on its package? What about multiple claims? Are some kinds of claims more resonant than others? Does a claim matter more if it’s appended to a pricier product? Is it less meaningful if it comes from a big, established brand?
Over the past several months, McKinsey and NielsenIQ undertook an extensive study seeking to answer these and other questions. We looked beyond the self-reported intentions of US consumers and examined their actual spending behavior—tracking dollars instead of sentiment. The result, for CPG companies, is a fact-based case for bringing environmentally and socially responsible products to market as part of overall ESG strategies and commitments. Creating such products turns out to be not just a moral imperative but also a solid business decision.
Products making ESG-related claims averaged 28 percent cumulative growth over the past five-year period, versus 20 percent for products that made no such claims.
To be clear, this is only a first step in understanding the complex question of how consumers value brands and products that incorporate ESG-related claims. This work has significant limitations that merit mention at the outset.
Growth was not uniform across categories (Exhibit 2). For instance, products making ESG-related claims generated outsize growth in 11 out of 15 food categories and in three out of four personal-care categories—but only two out of nine beverage categories. Shopping data alone can’t explain the reasons for such variances. In the children’s formula and nutritional-beverage category, for example, it’s possible that buying decisions reflect advice from doctors and that consumers probably won’t let ESG-related claims outweigh clinical recommendations.
Exhibit 2
We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com
The overall trend, however, was clear: in two-thirds of categories, products that made ESG-related claims grew faster than those that didn’t. Evidence from NielsenIQ’s household panel showed that some demographic groups—such as higher-income households, urban and suburban residents, and households with children—were more likely to buy products that made one or more ESG-related claims. Still, the research shows that a wide range of consumers across incomes, life stages, ages, races, and geographies are buying products bearing ESG-related labels—with an average of plus or minus 15 percent deviation across demographic groups for environmentally and socially conscious buyers compared with the total population. This suggests that the appeal of environmentally and socially responsible products isn’t limited to niche audiences and is making genuine headway with broad swaths of America.
2. Brands of different sizes making ESG-related claims achieved differentiated growth
Large and small brands alike saw growth in products making ESG-related claims. In 59 percent of all categories studied, the smallest brands that made such claims achieved disproportionate growth. But in 50 percent of categories, so did the largest brands that made these claims (Exhibit 3). Some examples of category variance: in sports drinks and hair care, smaller brands grew more quickly, while in fruit juice and sweet snacks, the larger brands did. (The data can’t explain the underperformance of medium-size brands, but it’s possible that they lack the marketing and distribution scale of large brands and the aura of credibility that may benefit smaller brands.)
Exhibit 3
We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com
Brands that garner more than half of their sales from products making ESG-related claims enjoy 32 to 34 percent repeat rates (meaning that buyers purchase products from the brand three or more times annually). By contrast, brands that receive less than 50 percent of their sales from products that make ESG-related claims achieve repeat rates of under 30 percent. This difference does not prove that consumers reward brands because of ESG-related claims, but it does suggest that a deeper engagement with ESG-related issues across a brand’s portfolio might enhance consumer loyalty toward the brand as a whole.
4. Combining claims may convey more authenticity
This study also analyzed the effects on growth when a product package displayed multiple types of ESG-related claims. On average, products with multiple claims across our six ESG classification themes grew more quickly than other products: in nearly 80 percent of the categories, the data showed a positive correlation between the growth rate and the number of distinct types of ESG-related claims a product made. Products making multiple types of claims grew about twice as fast as products that made only one (Exhibit 5).Exhibit 5
We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com
We are not suggesting that companies can simply print more claims and certifications on their products and expect to be rewarded. These claims must of course be backed by genuine actions that have a meaningful ESG impact, and companies should heed the serious warning about greenwashing we presented in our introduction. Nonetheless, this finding does suggest that consumers may be more likely to perceive that a multiplicity of claims (rather than only one) made by a product correlates with authentic ESG-related behavior on the part of the brand. It also indicates that brands might be wise to reflect on their commitment to ESG practices and to ensure that they are thinking holistically across the interconnected social and environmental factors that underpin their products.
What does this mean for consumer companies and retailers?
Over the past century, global consumer consumption has been a central driver of economic prosperity and growth. This success, however, also comes with social and planetary impacts that result from producing, transporting, and discarding these consumer products. It should thus carry a moral imperative, for consumers and companies alike, to understand and address these impacts to society and the planet as part of buying decisions and ESG-related actions. Product label claims—if they represent true and meaningful environmental and social action—can be an important part of fulfilling this moral imperative.
For companies at the forefront of manufacturing and selling consumer packaged goods, there is no one formula for investing in environmentally and socially responsible product features and claims. Opportunities exist on multiple fronts. It’s important for consumer companies and retailers, first, to prioritize and invest in ESG-related actions that deliver the greatest advancement of their overall ESG commitments and, second, to inform customers of those actions, including information conveyed through product label claims. Our research points to a few insights that companies might consider as they attempt to advance their ESG commitments while also trying to achieve differentiated growth.
Ensure that ESG product claims support an overall ESG strategy with a meaningful environmental and social impact across the portfolio. This study shows that ESG-related growth can be possible across a broad range of brands—large or small, national or private label, in price tiers both high and low. Companies should define the actions, throughout the enterprise, that have the greatest ESG impact and then publicize those actions, where appropriate, with claims across their product portfolios. Rather than making a single large bet in a particular product or category, companies will probably have a greater ESG impact and a better chance of achieving outsize growth if they incorporate high-impact ESG-related benefits across multiple categories and products.
Develop a product design process that embraces ESG-related claims alongside cost engineering. Investments in product design aim to achieve a growth upside but must also—especially during an inflationary period—consider its cost. To ensure that investments in ESG-related claims have the greatest possible impact, companies can consider building strong product design capabilities that take a holistic look across costs, quality, and ESG-related impact. Using a disciplined design-for-sustainability approach, product designers can maximize the visibility, efficacy, and cost-efficiency of ESG-related product features that will resonate with consumers. Meanwhile, ingredients, materials, and processes that don’t contribute to this goal should be eliminated.
Invest in ESG through both existing brands and innovative new products. A healthy portfolio generally has a balanced mix of new and established products. ESG-related claims can play an important role in both. This study suggests that a flagship, established product fighting for share in a highly competitive environment could potentially create an edge by offering relevant and differentiating ESG-related claims. Given the outsize role of new products in boosting category growth, it’s critical to ensure that environmentally and socially responsible products account for a significant share of a company’s innovation pipeline—both to meet customer demand for such products and to ensure that they help advance the company’s overall ESG strategy.
Understand the ESG-related dynamics specific to each category and brand. Categories differ in significant ways, so it is critically important to study category-specific patterns to learn what has worked best in which contexts. Understanding which high-impact ESG claims are associated with consistently better performance in a given category can help companies focus on the claims that matter most to consumers in those categories. Companies can also benefit from being thoughtful about how specific ESG-related claims might align with the core positioning of each brand or differentiate it from those of competitors.
Embrace the holistic, interconnected nature of ESG by creating products addressing multiple concerns. This study shows that consumers seemingly don’t respond to specific ESG-related claims consistently across all categories. But they do tend to reward products that make multiple ESG-related claims, which may do more to help a product achieve a company’s overall ESG goals while also conveying greater authenticity and commitment to consumers. The incremental growth potential from introducing a second or third ESG-related benefit for a product may be equal to the growth impact of introducing the first one. To achieve stronger growth while delivering enhanced ESG-related benefits, companies could find it helpful to consider undertaking a category- and brand-specific assessment to determine whether and how to implement multifaceted claims.
Companies will probably have a greater ESG impact and a better chance of achieving outsize growth if they incorporate high-impact ESG-related claims across multiple categories and products.
This study does not answer all questions about the impact of investments by consumer companies in environmentally and socially responsible products. It does not assess the veracity of ESG-related claims, the relative environmental or social benefits of different claims, or the incremental cost of producing products that authentically deliver on those claims. It does, however, provide an important fact base revealing consumers’ spending habits with regard to these products, and this may help companies accelerate their ESG journeys. There is strong evidence that consumers’ expressed sentiments about ESG-related product claims translate, on average, into actual spending behavior. And this suggests that companies don’t need to choose between ESG and growth. They can achieve both simultaneously by employing a thoughtful, fact-based, consumer-centric ESG strategy. The overarching result might be not just healthier financial performance but also a healthier planet.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Jordan Bar Am is a partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Vinit Doshi is a senior expert in the Stamford office, Anandi Malik is a consultant in the New York office, and Steve Noble is a senior partner in the Minneapolis office. Sherry Frey is vice president of total wellness at NielsenIQ.
The authors wish to thank Oskar Bracho, Nina Engels, Gurvinder Kaur, Akshay Khurana, and Caroline Ling for their contributions to this article. They also thank NielsenIQ for its contributions to the collaborative research conducted for this study.
This report draws on joint research carried out between McKinsey & Company and NielsenIQ. The work reflects the views of the authors and has not been influenced by any business, government, or other institution.
From familywealthreport.com • Reposted: February 9, 2023
Nuveen, the investment manager of TIAA, has recently released its 7th Responsible Investing Survey, tracking US investors’ attitudes and behaviors regarding responsible investing.
A new survey by Nuveen shows that three-quarters of US investors believe that ESG factors should always be part of the investing process.
According to the survey, more than 80 per cent of US investors also think that companies need to be more open in communicating the risks and opportunities that shape their standing as “responsible investments.”
Seventy-three per cent said they are more likely to invest in a company that shares its plans with investors for effectively managing those factors.
Investors’ demand for more ESG-related information from companies is paired with strong agreement that ESG investing now represents a core portfolio approach, the firm continued.
Nearly eight out of 10 respondents see responsible investing as a framework that incorporates material factors not typically accounted for in traditional financial analysis. Four in five agree that investors should view responsible investing as a long-term strategy – and 76 per cent say that factoring in RI risks and opportunities should always be part of the investment process.
Younger investors are particularly in tune with the fundamental value of responsible investing: 92 per cent of Gen Z and Millennial investors agree that related risks and opportunities always belong in the investment process, compared with just 68 per cent of Gen X’ers and Baby Boomers, the firm said.
The survey, which was conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of Nuveen, covered 1,003 adults aged 21 and over with at least $100,000 in investible assets between July and August 2022. It includes 573 investors who said they currently own funds managed according to principles of responsible investing – also known as ESG investing.
“Although many investors are interested in RI’s positive impact on society, in their minds the process of managing key ESG factors should also focus squarely on mitigating critical impediments to company performance,” said Amy O’Brien, global head of responsible investing.
According to the firm, about seven in 10 investors agree that having RI options in their retirement plan makes them feel good about working for their employer. The sentiment is even stronger among Gen Z and Millennial investors: 95 per cent would feel good, compared with just 56 per cent of Gen X’ers and Baby Boomers.
“Responsible investing options are becoming a ‘must-have’ for corporate retirement plans, driven by strong participant interest in aligning investments with their values while tracking toward long-term financial goals,” said O’Brien.
“Retirement plan sponsors who introduce RI options and offer education about the portfolio advantages clearly have an opportunity to build even greater appreciation and loyalty especially among employees who are early on in their careers,” she continued.
The dairy alternative brand Oatly is using its newly reformulated oat milk yogurt line to introduce U.S. consumers to its climate footprint label — which the company has featured on products in European markets since 2021. Seeing more carbon footprint labels on food products could signal an important shift toward more informed and responsible consumption, as Americans report a willingness to make changes for the sake of the planet.
Such labeling could be a boon for producers with small carbon footprints while perhaps encouraging carbon-heavy producers in sectors like such as beef to find ways to lighten the load. But widespread use and standardization across the food industry will be necessary for it to be effective.
“Transforming the food industry is necessary to meet the current climate challenge, and we believe providing consumers with information to understand the impact of their food choices is one way we as a company can contribute to that effort,” Julie Kunen, director of sustainability for Oatly North America, said in a statement.
There’s good reason to believe that a significant number of consumers will adjust their choices accordingly. A joint study by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the University of Michigan and Harvard University found that climate impact labels on food menus did influence respondents to choose a chicken, fish or vegetarian meal over a beef one. Warning labels were more effective in deterring people from choosing beef than low-impact labels were at encouraging people to eat an alternative. While it was a small study with a limited scope, the research does point to the potential for carbon footprint labels to inform people’s diets.
The global food system accounts for between a quarter and a third of annual greenhouse gas emissions, depending on methodology, leaving plenty of room for improvement — and impact.
For its part, Oatly compares its climate footprint labeling — which will list the product’s climate impact from “grower to grocer” in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) — to the nutritional information that is already required on packaging. The CO2e measurements include not just carbon emissions, but also other greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane which have been converted into interchangeable units in order to incorporate them in the total footprint.
However, the brand is clear that carbon footprint labels are neither required nor standardized, and they’re of little recourse to consumers until they become so. Thus the brand is hoping to inspire other producers in the industry to follow suit while encouraging consumers to eat more plant-based and low-carbon alternatives.
“The products we make at Oatly aim to make it easy for people to make the switch to non-dairy alternatives, and great taste is one of the most essential components of driving that conversion,” Leah Hoxie, the brand’s senior vice president of innovation in North America, explained further in a statement.
Taste has been a barrier for the plant-based movement, with major strides made in the latest generation of plant-based meats and dairy products that have hit the market. Indeed, more people are willing to make the leap to eating lower on the food chain as the taste, texture and price of alternatives become more palatable.
Fostering a sense of responsibility for the climate in their business practices and labeling should work in Oatly’s favor, especially among Gen Z.
Consumers have long been burdened with a status quo that makes doing the right thing more difficult, so it’s no wonder we have fallen into a food system that pollutes and destroys ecosystems at a rate far higher than it should. But by providing climate impact information on product packaging, brands can gain consumer trust and demonstrate that they also trust the consumer to make the right choice.
As the balance of information shifts and becomes more equitable, consumers could be empowered not just to lower their own gastronomic impact on the climate, but to expect better from the food industry as well. Naturally this would require a more intricate labeling system — perhaps including warnings on high-impact items — but Oatly is off to a promising start.
Fellow plant-based brand Quorn also includes carbon footprint labels on product packaging, and CPG giant Unilever has committed to roll such labeling out to its entire product portfolio. Other sectors, from beauty to tech, are also looking toward climate labels in a trend that seems to be just heating up.
A flare burns off methane and other hydrocarbons as oil pumpjacks operate in the Permian Basin in Midland, Texas, Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2021. Massive amounts of methane are venting into the atmosphere from oil and gas operations across the Permian Basin, new aerial surveys show. The emission endanger U.S. targets for curbing climate change. (AP Photo/David Goldman)
By Rebecca Hersher from National Public Radio News • Posted: February 8, 2023
The most powerful climate policy tool available to the federal government is a single number. It’s called the social cost of carbon, and it represents the cost to humanity of emitting greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere.
The social cost of carbon adds up all the damage from carbon emissions – the lost crops, flooded homes and lost wages when people can’t safely work outside, plus the cost of climate-related deaths. The answer is expressed in dollars.
The current social cost of carbon is $51 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted.
Most climate experts agree that number is too low. That’s a problem because it can make it seem like the costs of climate solutions – such as the immediate price tag for building more public transit or expanding wind energy – outweigh the benefits, when in fact many of the benefits to humanity are simply being underestimated.
“That is an absolutely enormous improvement,” says Tamma Carleton, a climate economist at the University of California, Santa Barbara who is an expert on the social cost of carbon. “We don’t have other avenues for large-scale climate policy at the federal level. This is our main tool.”
But the new number is also controversial, because of the way that the EPA assesses the value of human lives lost due to climate change.
If you make more money, your life is worth more
A major reason the EPA’s new social cost of carbon is higher is because this is the first time the federal government has added to its calculations the cost of climate-related deaths outside America, including in developing and low-lying countries that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
But the EPA didn’t assign the same dollar value to every life. Instead, a life lost in a lower-income country due to climate change is worth less than a life lost in a higher-income country.
The upshot is that the value of a climate-related death in the United States is equal to about 9 deaths in India, or 5 deaths in Ukraine or 55 deaths in Somalia. It also suggests that the life of a person in Qatar is worth almost twice as much as the life of an American.
“It’s inherently inequitable to use this kind of approach,” says Vaibhav Chaturvedi, a fellow at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water in New Delhi, India and a leading expert on global climate economics. “All lives are equally valuable.”
Chaturvedi argues that the EPA’s approach is both philosophically and logically wrong, because America’s greenhouse gas emissions endanger people everywhere. In fact, the people who live in low-lying and low-income countries are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including rising seas and extreme weather.
That’s true in India, he says, where climate-driven disasters killed an estimated 2,200 people last year, according to the Indian Meteorological Department. “What makes India very vulnerable [to climate change] is that it’s still a very low-income economy,” says Chaturvedi. For the EPA to assign less value to the lives of the people most affected by greenhouse gas emissions doesn’t make sense, he argues.
The EPA does not apply the same method to lives within the U.S. – the agency applies one value to all American lives, regardless of income.
The EPA declined to answer NPR’s questions about its method because the proposed social cost of carbon is currently accepting comments from the public. But an FAQ on the EPA’s website explains how the EPA conducts what it calls “mortality risk valuation.”
“The EPA does not place a dollar value on individual lives,” the FAQ explains. “Rather, when conducting a benefit-cost analysis of new environmental policies, the Agency uses estimates of how much people are willing to pay for small reductions in their risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be caused by environmental pollution.”
Daniel Hemel, a law professor who studies how policymakers assign value to lives saved for the purpose of regulations, says the EPA’s social cost of carbon does put a dollar amount on human lives. “You’ll hear agencies say ‘We’re not valuing lives.’ I don’t know, they kind of are. They’re deciding how much it’s worth it to spend to save a life,” he says.
Residents of southwest Pakistan move through floodwaters in September 2022. People with less wealth are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including more severe rainstorms. Photo: Fareed Khan/AP
Getting this number right is important for the future of global warming
If you assigned the same value to lives around the world, the social cost of carbon would be much higher – almost double the number the EPA is currently proposing, says Tamma Carleton, who examined this question for a study published last year.
An even higher social cost of carbon would theoretically push the U.S. government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more quickly and dramatically. “We’d end up being more concerned about climate change,” explains Hemel.
It’s unclear why EPA economists didn’t choose this route. Hemel speculates that some policymakers might be concerned about proposing a social cost of carbon that is so high, it appears to require the U.S. to take drastic, and politically unpopular, steps to slash greenhouse gas emissions. For example, banning gas-powered vehicles or eliminating domestic fossil fuel extraction.
Chaturvedi argues that the U.S. is missing an opportunity by not embracing the full value of the lives saved around the world if emissions fall. He says an even higher social cost of carbon could spur the development of new renewable energy technology or even methods to remove carbon from the air, which the U.S. could then export to the rest of the world.
Getting this number right is ethically important
The moral implications of the EPA’s approach loom at least as large as the practical and political ones.
“To systematically discount the value of deaths outside the United States is a grave moral mistake,” says bioethicist Paul Kelleher of the University of Wisconsin. “It’s important to get it right because these are life and death decisions.”
An estimated 74 million lives could be saved this century if greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated by 2050, a study published last year suggested.
“Every molecule of carbon dioxide matters.” The social cost of carbon, Kelleher says, “will make a difference to who lives, who dies, how good their lives are [and] how bad their deaths are,” for decades to come.
Hemel worries about the message that the EPA’s approach sends at home.
“I think we send a problematic message to Americans when we use a method for assigning values to lives outside the United States that ends up valuing light-skinned people from the global North more than dark skinned people from the global South,” he says.
By Tina Casey from triple pundit.com • Reposted: February 7, 2023
Crusaders against socially responsible investing have been holding forth about the evils of “woke capitalism” in recent years. For all the red-hot rhetoric, though, leading U.S. businesses continue to promote clean power. The latest effort involves GM, Ford, and other leading stakeholders in an effort to grow the market for virtual power plants.
What is a virtual power plant?
Although the idea may seem somewhat exotic, a virtual power plant is simply a networked grid system that enables individual electricity producers to interact with each other and with individual users. The overall aim is to avoid the cost of building new centralized power plants — and especially to avoid building new fossil power plants — while improving reliability and resiliency.
This network-based approach to grid planning is made possible by new smart grid and smart metering technology, along with the proliferation of rooftop solar and other small-scale renewable energy systems. It is a sharp contrast with the traditional strategy of building additional centralized power plants to get communities through periods of peak demand.
In addition, virtual power plants provide electricity users with new opportunities to save or even make money, depending on the incentives offered by their grid operator.
In a blog post last May, the U.S. Department of Energy described how virtual plants have come to include not only individual meters, but also individual appliances that are designed to interact with the grid, as well as electric vehicle charging stations and energy storage facilities.
“Operators gain the flexibility to better reduce peak demand and, as a result, defer investment in additional capacity and infrastructure to serve a peak load that is expected to increase as we electrify the nation’s economy,” explained Jigar Shah, director of the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office.
Why don’t we all have virtual power plants?
For all their potential benefits, virtual power plants are a relatively new phenomenon, and they still account for a vanishingly small percentage of grid activity in the U.S.
In a followup blog post last October, Shah noted that the market for virtual power plants has only been open since 2020, through an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “Nearly two years later, VPPs are just beginning to compete in organized capacity, energy, and ancillary services markets at a meaningful scale at the regional level,” Shah wrote.
In particular, Shah focused on the need for virtual power plants to secure revenue contracts. “To unleash the capital that makes ratepayer and wholesale power cost reductions possible, incumbent financiers need to see lower customer acquisition costs and consistent revenues for the critical services provided,” Shah noted.
Heeding the VPP call
GM and Ford have heeded the call for virtual power plants under the banner of the VP3, the new Virtual Power Plant Partnership hosted by the clean energy organization Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). Other VP3 founding stakeholders include Google Nest, OhmConnect, Olivine, SPAN, SunPower, Sunrun, SwitchDin and Virtual Peaker.
GM and Google Nest served as seed funders of VP3. RMI also hopes to build on the success of its Renewable Energy Buyers Association partnership, of which GM is also a founding member.
“VP3 is an initiative based at RMI that works to catalyze industry and transform policy to support scaling VPPs in ways that help advance affordable, reliable electric sector decarbonization by overcoming barriers to VPP market growth,” according to a press announcement from the Rocky Mountain Institute.
“Our analysis shows that VPPs can reduce peak power demand and improve grid resilience in a world of increasingly extreme climate events,” added RMI CEO Hon Creyts, in a statement. “A growing VPP market also means revenue opportunities for hardware, software, and energy-service companies in the buildings and automotive industries.”
As a collaborative effort, VP3 will work to raise awareness about the benefits of virtual power plants, develop best practices and standards across the industry, and promote supportive policies.
The electric vehicle connection
Electric vehicles are in a perfect position to contribute to and benefit from virtual power plants, due to their mobility, flexibility and large energy storage capacity. That explains why Ford and GM jumped at the opportunity to get involved with VP3 as founding members.
Mark Bole, GM’s head of V2X and battery solutions division, noted that the V3 collaboration “underscores GM’s commitment to creating a more resilient grid, with EVs and virtual power plants playing a key role in helping to advance our all-electric future.”
In a separate announcement, Bill Crider, head of global charging and energy services at Ford, explained that electric vehicles are “introducing entirely new opportunities for consumers and businesses alike, creating a greater need for sustainable energy solutions to responsibly power our connected lifestyles.”
“Supporting grid stability through the introduction of technologies like Intelligent Backup Power is central to Ford’s strategy, and collaborating to advance virtual power plants will be another important step to ensure a smooth transition to an EV lifestyle,” Crider added.
Who’s next on the virtual power plant bandwagon?
Among the Big Three legacy U.S. automakers, Stellantis has yet to engage with VP3. That could change as the company that now owns Dodge and Chrysler ramps up its interest in virtual power plants.
In 2020, Stellantis began work on a large-scale virtual power plant in Italy based on electric vehicle-to-grid technology. The company, which also counts Fiat and Peugeot among its subsidiaries, may be waiting on the results of that project before committing itself to a policymaking endeavor in the U.S.
Interest in virtual power plants is also growing at Volkswagen and other overseas automakers that have an eye on the U.S. market. In addition, Tesla has embarked on virtual power plant ventures in California and Texas, deploying both its vehicle batteries and its Powerwall home batteries.
It remains to be seen if Tesla will collaborate with VP3 on industry standards, though. Tesla CEO Elon Musk established a well-known reputation for not collaborating in the early days of electric vehicle commercialization. He held out Tesla’s charging system as unique to Tesla, even as other automakers worked to create the standard CCS charging technology for Europe and North America.
Since its introduction in 2011, CCS has been supported by almost all other auto manufacturers in those two markets. Even Tesla itself leans on CCS to some degree, since it provides Tesla owners with an adapter to use at CCS charging stations. (Note: Japan and China continue to use their own charging systems.)
More recently, Musk further cultivated his outsider status in the early days of the COVID-19 lockdown when he criticized the U.S. government’s public safety guidelines and upstaged an inter-industry collaboration to restart U.S. factories. He also spread confusion and misinformation about the virus and the COVID-19 vaccine on social media.
When U.S. President Joe Biden convened a major media event for auto manufacturers in August of 2021, it was no surprise to see Tesla left out in the cold. Last year, the S&P 500 also took Tesla to task for not keeping pace with its peers in the auto industry on corporate ESG (environment, social, governance) issues.
Musks’s use of social media also makes Tesla an outlier among CEOs in the auto industry and elsewhere, in regards to his willingness to amplify and normalize white nationalist rhetoric.
With or without Tesla, though, VP3 is yet another instance in which industry leaders are swatting away the anti-ESG agitators like flies to take advantage of new opportunities to grow their businesses and attract new customers.
By Ashish Prashar from Triplepundit.com • Reposted: February 7, 2023
We in the advertising industry talk a lot about equity and inclusion. We design a lovely showroom that celebrates our apparent commitment to diversity in all its forms. Sadly, this is all superficial. Peel back the curtain and we see … nothing. We continue to ignore blatant racism and injustice and fail to take even the most basic steps that can drive real change.
For all the pledges we saw from agencies in 2020 to finally address systemic racism, over two years later we’ve seen little real action. Even while they complain of a “war for talent,” agencies aren’t doing enough to change how they recruit and promote talent and are struggling to make a meaningful cultural impact.
Racism and exclusion persist in the workplace, with higher turnover rates and lower promotion rates among people of color. For years, we’ve known there’s a clear business case for prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion at work beyond lip service. A McKinsey study found that the most diverse companies were 36 percent more profitable in 2019 than their least diverse counterparts.
While companies may sometimes have good intentions in coming forward with commitments after a big cultural moment, the impact falls short every time. After George Floyd’s death in 2020, company after company promised to recruit and retain more diverse talent and pledged to put cash toward DEI. But there was little accountability. Companies often don’t report their demographics, and it’s even more rare that they disclose information about spending.
A number of agencies are recruiting more diverse talent, and some are willing to share their data, with varying degrees of detail and frequency, but there is a lot more work to be done — particularly when it comes to instigating change at the top. This is where agencies can move beyond anti-bias and anti-racism training to provide things like committed executive sponsorship and mentorship of young diverse talent.
It can be difficult to hold organizations accountable when it comes to all aspects of DEI, particularly when looking beyond financial commitments and assessing what data is important when considering DEI progress.
We need to think bigger If we’re going to make meaningful change. The best DEI strategies target all parts of companies, and that starts by going beyond recruiting. Recruiting a diverse workforce is one part of DEI, but it should be viewed as a first step, not a comprehensive solution. It takes holding leaders accountable for change, something agencies haven’t seemed willing to take on. This may include difficult decisions around current leadership and has to encompass taking the impact on talent and agency culture into account when filling new leadership roles. Managers who create or enable a workplace environment that makes people of color uncomfortable should never be shoo-ins for new leadership roles.
It also means asking questions about who we work with, the kind of work we want to create, and the stories we want to share with the world. Companies often make the biggest difference when they change something within their spheres of influence. In this industry, our sphere of influence is narrative.
The creative industry has served as an arbiter of ideas and a reflection of a society’s failing or burgeoning health. Creatives have had a powerful hand in building either massive propaganda machines or culture-changing art and movements. The question about which side we’ll fall in this dichotomy can be answered by choosing to be conscious of our resources and of our responsibilities.
It is our responsibility in the creative industry to question what ideas and values we are disseminating, what stereotypes or biases we are introducing, and to whom we are giving platforms through our work. But it’s not enough just to avoid making the mistakes of the past. This industry has a responsibility to create new narratives that help tear down the biases and stereotypes it has previously helped perpetuate.
If agencies really want to make a difference in connecting with people of color, they can start by working on the issues and causes that impact and shape our lives. There is no shortage of partners in need of help addressing issues like justice reform, education and healthcare equity. Find out who you can work with to make an impact, and get to work. Talent (and prospective talent) will notice.
Make 2023 the year that your agency was truly an ally in the fight for diversity.
Hotel companies begin to set ESG goals. From CBRE Group • Reposted: February 6, 2023
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the urgency for companies and individuals to act to protect the wellbeing of the planet, their communities, their employees, and in the case of hotels, their guests. As such, environmental, social and governance (ESG) initiatives have accelerated.
The hotel industry’s commitment to ESG initiatives, while somewhat nascent, is increasing. Rising energy costs, which have increased electricity costs by 10% since May 2021, are likely to accelerate the industry’s focus on sustainability, particularly given the shift in traveler preferences toward more sustainable tourism and green accommodations and the growing demand for disclosure around climate risk. Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has exacerbated energy price hikes, might motivate hotel operators to invest in long-term environmental upgrades, higher interest rates and sharply declining equity prices may offset this positive momentum, at least in the near term.
*COMPANIES HAVE SET A TARGET TO LIMIT GLOBAL WARMING TO 2° OR 1.5° CELSIUS BY A SPECIFIED DATA. SOURCE: COMPANY FILINGS, CARBON DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SCIENCEBASEDTARGETS.ORG, GLOBALREPORTING.ORG
(E)nvironmental
According to the Sustainable Hospitality Alliance (SHA), to keep pace with the targets outlined in the Paris Agreement, the global hotel industry needs to reduce carbon emissions per room per year by 66% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 (SHA, 2017).
Companies like Accor, Hilton, Hyatt, IHG and Host Hotels have aligned themselves with science-based target initiatives (SBTi), which manage emissions reductions and net-zero commitments. Many hotel companies have made commitments to reduce their impact on the environment by setting climate-based targets. In many cases, they have adopted near-term targets on the path to achieving net zero. For example, Hilton pledged to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions by 61% by 2030. Marriott is committed to setting SBTi targets under the 1.5-degree scenario and targets a 30% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030.
Investors are interested in understanding exposure to these climate risks. In the hotel industry, corporations have started to recognize the importance of reporting and disclosing standards and the need to set targets to mitigate climate risks early. Benchmarking has historically been difficult because of the lack of transparency. Ten years ago, IHG created its own system, called Green Engage, for measuring the environmental friendliness of its hotels. However, the industry has moved to standardized measurement systems such as Energy Star and LEED certification for U.S. buildings including hotels. As regulations, disclosure requirements and policies in the U.S. come into focus, companies that take steps to implement and invest in disclosure and goal setting will be ahead of the game.
SOURCE: AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION (AHLA)/CASTELL PROJECT.
(S)ocial
Developing a workforce, franchisee base and supplier network representing diverse populations and assuring equity and inclusion of all stakeholders has become a priority for many hotel companies. Social concerns also encompass issues related to guest and employee wellness and labor practices, as well as training programs that prevent human trafficking and human rights violations.
Companies create and support training programs to help at-risk youth and underserved populations by developing hospitality skills and a career path in the hospitality industry. In addition, companies look for ways to give back through monetary donations and volunteer hours.
Organizations like the National Association of Black Hotel Owners, Operators and Developers (NABHOOD), Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA)/Castell Project, National Society of Minorities in Hospitality (NSMH), She Has A Deal (SHAD), and Latino Hotel Association (LHA) advocate and support growth in women- and minority-owned, developed and operated hotels within the industry. According to AAHOA, Asian Americans represent more than 20,000 hoteliers owning 60% of hotels in the U.S. Black ownership remains below 2%, but this figure is growing, according to NABHOOD.
SOURCE: AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION (AHLA)/CASTELL PROJECT.
Operator hiring practices are focused on ensuring diversity among staff and upper management. While the industry has made some progress in increasing the representation of women and Black employees in executive roles, trends among C-suite executives have held steady. According to the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA)/Castell Project, 6% of hotel company CEOs are women, while less than 1% are Black. The hotel industry slightly lags the market where 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women and 1% of CEOs are Black. Marriott and Hilton have gender parity targets, and Wyndham aims for 100% gender pay equity by 2025. Host Hotels aims to include at least two women and two people of color in the candidate pool for all externally sourced executive positions.
While representation in high-level management has stayed roughly the same over the past several years, there has been an increase at the senior vice president, vice president and director levels, hopefully leading to a more diverse pool of potential candidates for higher-level positions in the future.
Many companies make supplier choices based on alignment with ESG priorities. For example, one of Hilton’s inclusivity-related goals is to double the spending on sourcing from local, small and medium-sized businesses and minority-owned suppliers. Choice Hotels’ supplier diversity program develops opportunities for diverse suppliers, educates associates and fosters an inclusionary procurement process among suppliers. Several hotel companies, including Choice, Hilton, Marriott and Wyndham, are members of the National Minority Supplier Development Council, whose mission is to serve as a growth engine for minority-owned business enterprises (MBE).
Operators are focused on making hotels a more integral part of the larger community with efforts to increase charitable giving and volunteering. Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt and Wyndham have set goals for employee volunteer hours and targets for annual corporate giving.
(G)overnance
Governance issues include board diversity, company ethics, transparent reporting on the environmental and social goals, and clear executive compensation guidelines.
Proxy advisory firms create policy guidelines each year to help institutional investors assess how to vote on various proxy items that might arise during the year. The most recent Glass Lewis policy updates for 2022 included voting provisions on board diversity and composition, oversight for ESG risks, Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs), Say on Climate, and Say on Pay proposals. The last two topics allow shareholders to comment on a company’s climate and compensation strategies.
Best governance practices include having independent directors, separating the role of CEO and Chairman, staggering board terms, and eliminating poison pill provisions. Many public hotel companies and REITs follow some of these best practices already. Most hotel companies allow employees to anonymously report financial and ethical misconduct to promote ethical company culture. Hotel companies have also released statements regarding policies on human rights and condemning human trafficking.
SOURCE: GOOGLE TRENDS KEYWORDS: ECO-HOTEL, ENVIRONMENTAL HOTEL, GREEN HOTEL.
Why is ESG important?
Increasingly, travelers are expressing an interest in patronizing eco-friendly and socially responsible companies. The need to reduce carbon emissions from transportation could necessitate changes in business and leisure travel, a risk that could arise for hotel owners.
According to Google Insights, more than 50% of travelers surveyed say that environmental and sustainable considerations are essential when planning travel. As reported in the New York Times, according to a Booking.com survey, 71% of guests planned to travel “greener” and more than half indicated that they are determined to make more environmentally conscious travel choices in the next year.
Guests can quickly assess the environmental friendliness of a hotel by using rating systems like Tripadvisor’s GreenLeaders, Green Key Global, Green Seal, Green Tourism Active, Audubon Green Lodging Program, Travelife, or Earth Check, and LEED or Energy Star Certification provide information about the sustainability of a property. Since February 2021, the amount of searches on terms such as environmental hotel, green hotel and eco-hotel have remained above 2019.
The search for environmentally friendly accommodations is most common among luxury hotels guests who often seek vacations at resorts in environmentally sensitive areas like beaches and mountains. According to Virtuoso, a network of luxury travel agencies, in April 2021, 82% of travelers said the pandemic has made them want to travel more responsibly in the future. Half said it was important to choose a company that had a strong sustainability policy. While there is some evidence that guests are willing to pay a premium for environmentally sustainable accommodations, because of inflation and uncertainty in the market, the premium they are willing to pay remains unclear.
Hotel operators focus their environmental efforts on four key areas: water conservation, energy efficiency, carbon emissions and waste reduction. Unlike other real estate sectors, hotel buildings operate 24/7 so investment in technology to help manage the systems within the buildings provides savings over more hours of the day.
WATER
Water scarcity is a global problem. Many popular tourist destinations are in water-stressed areas. Hotels use eight times the amount of water the local community uses (SHA, 2017). As a result, how hotels manage water usage and consumption will substantially impact water-stressed communities. Water conservation efforts can include minimizing water use in bathrooms, laundry, landscaping and pools and installing water management systems. Offsite projects aimed at protecting and preserving local watersheds can also be created.
WASTE
Waste reduction efforts focus on cutting food waste and upcycling materials. 18% of food purchased by hospitality and food services goes to waste (SHA, 2017). Many hotel companies have set targets to reduce the amount of food waste generated by their operations by 2030. Further, many have started implementing procedures to reuse and repurpose non-food waste. Several companies have eliminated straws and single-use plastics. Others participate in programs that recycle discarded soaps and amenities.
ENERGY
Most hotel companies are installing energy-efficient lighting and solar panels, sourcing clean electricity and purchasing energy-efficient appliances. Many are using predictive monitoring systems to optimize and manage energy use. New properties are often planned and built with energy efficiency in mind. With margins under pressure because of rising costs, investments in energy efficiency could pay off in the long run. In 2021, utility costs decreased to slightly more than 4% as a percentage of revenue and rose to slightly less than $2,000 per available room, which is still below the high of $2,087 in 2009. However, given increasing occupancies and higher utility costs in the wake of the pandemic and the steep pullback in hotel occupancies but not room rates, we expect utility costs to reach a record $3,214 per available room in 2022, up 67% year-over-year.
CARBON EMISSIONS
1% of global carbon emissions come from the hotel industry (SHA, 2017). Many hotel companies measure and report the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their owned and headquarter properties. In 2021, Hilton achieved a 50% reduction in carbon emission intensity in managed hotels and a 43% reduction for all hotels across their portfolio as measured against a 2008 baseline. Like Hyatt and Wyndham, many have set targets to reduce the GHG emissions generated from activities at these locations. A company’s value chain emits GHG through, for example, the actions of suppliers, business travelers and franchisees. Since most hotel c-corporations do not directly own most of their hotel properties, creating a carbon minimization strategy for their entire portfolio of owned, managed and franchised hotels may be more complicated.
Meeting planners and corporate and government travelers may request environmental impact information before making travel plans. Measurement and tracking are becoming a necessity. Uniform System of Accounts for the Lodging Industry (USALI) and other organizations are preparing to adopt standards and guidelines to help operators track waste, energy and water to make it easier to report on the environmental impacts of operations.
*FOR ACCOR AND IHG, TOTAL OWNED, MANAGED, OR FRANCHISED HOTELS REPRESENT HOTELS IN THE AMERICAS NOT JUST US HOTELS. SOURCE: ENERGY STAR.GOV, US GREEN BUSINESS COUNCIL, COMPANY FILINGS.
What Guests Can Expect
Guests should expect hotels to focus on wellness and placemaking including meals that include sustainably and locally-sourced food. Farm-to-table and farm-to-spa concepts are on the rise.
Companies support employee and guest wellness with added fitness facilities like a Peleton room, additional outdoor space, improved air quality systems and healthier locally inspired food options. In addition, guests may start to see décor that reflects local artisans and relies on upcycled materials. Improved hygiene and safety standards reflect expectations from the pandemic and are likely to remain as the pandemic recedes. Eco-friendly bedding and optional room cleaning for more than one-night stays are available in most hotels. The pandemic led to reduced housekeeping, and labor shortages and cost concerns have pushed chains to offer housekeeping upon request. However, union campaigns to bring back daily housekeeping to preserve jobs could jeopardize these efforts.
Financing Transactions and Development
As interest in environmental sustainability increases, companies turn to green bonds or sustainability bonds to finance many environmental projects.
The global green bond market hit $1 trillion in 2021. In the U.S., sustainable fund assets surpassed $300 billion. In 2020, Park Hotel Group in Singapore issued $176 million in green bonds to refinance the Grand Park City Hotel. In 2021, Host Hotels issued $450 million in green bonds to finance green projects, including increasing the number of LEED-certified buildings in the portfolio. Accor issued €700 million in sustainability bonds in November 2021 to refinance debt. These bonds are tied to the company’s sustainable development goals.
According to the LEED certification website database, there are more than 1,000 hotels associated with the LEED certification process in the U.S., excluding confidentially listed properties. Nearly 30% have achieved Platinum, Gold or Silver certification. An additional 154 hotels are LEED-certified. However, LEED-certified hotel properties represent less than 1% of hotel and motel properties in the U.S. Hotel REITs have a higher percentage of LEED- or Energy Star-certified portfolios among public companies, with Host boasting 23% of their portfolio certified to these standards. Marriott has nearly 9% of its owned, managed and franchised properties LEED- or Energy Star-certified, according to information gathered from LEED and Energy Star. Marriott set a goal to have 100% of their owned, managed and franchised hotels globally certified to a recognized sustainability standard, including, for example, Green Key and Green Globe.
SOURCE: COMPANY FILINGS AND REPORTS.
Conclusion
The hotel industry is in the early stages of achieving meaningful changes to environmental practices. Guest preferences and government mandates that include financial penalties and/or incentives will greatly influence the speed at which companies move toward their stated targets.
As the U.S. works to create a federal environmental policy, state and local governments will continue to set the agenda. Green projects will be facilitated by lowering the costs related to the projects and increasing the incentives to build and develop green projects. While current geopolitical and economic factors may have taken center stage, ESG goals will likely remain prevalent as countries prepare for the UN’s climate change conference, Conference of Parties (COP26), in November 2022.
Heavy traffic seen on Interstate 35W in Minneapolis. Minnesota’s own 3M is one of the companies pledging millions of dollars to help reduce traffic fatalities as part of a Department of Transportation program. Photo: Kerem Yucel | MPR News 2022
From the Associated Press • Posted: February 4, 2023
Nearly 50 businesses and nonprofits — including rideshare companies Uber and Lyft, industrial giant 3M and automaker Honda — are pledging millions of dollars in initiatives to stem a crisis in road fatalities under a new federal effort announced Friday.
It’s part of the Department of Transportation’s “Call to Action” campaign, which urges commitments from the private sector, trade groups and health and safety organizations to reduce serious traffic injuries and deaths.
Traffic fatalities are near historic highs after a surge of dangerous driving during the coronavirus pandemic.
The public-private effort, unveiled Friday as part of the department’s multiyear strategy started last year to make roads safer, ranges from investments to improve school crosswalks to enhanced seat belt alerts in Uber vehicles and a partnership between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to promote proven injury prevention strategies, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told The Associated Press.
It comes on the heels of the award of 510 transportation grants this week totaling more than $800 million under the bipartisan infrastructure law to states and localities that, for the first time, focus on road safety such as by adding bike lanes, lighting, protected left turns and sidewalks.
After a record spike in 2021, the number of U.S. traffic deaths dipped slightly during the first nine months of 2022, but pedestrian and cyclist deaths continued to rise. More than 40,000 people are killed in road crashes a year.
“It’s still a crisis,” Buttigieg said, stressing a need for a national change in mindset. “We’re looking at road deaths coming in year after year in a similar proportion to gun deaths. The problem is they’re so widespread and so common that I fear as a country we’ve gotten used to it and perhaps fallen into the mistaken sense they’re inevitable.”
“We can’t solve any of this on our own,” he added. “We also know there isn’t one piece that will get this all down. But if we add all this together it can be enormous.”
Road travelers will see an array of safety measures this year. Uber told the AP that it is donating $500,000 — its single biggest investment in its effort to reduce drunken driving — for free and discounted rides in Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri and Texas as part of the “Decide to Ride” program run in tandem with MADD and Anheuser-Busch.
The world’s largest ride-share company also said it was doubling the availability of its bike lane alerts this month from 71 cities to 144 for passengers exiting vehicles near cycling routes and providing a safety checklist for Uber Eats bicycle couriers. It also pledged to strengthen its seat belt alerts, such as by increasing their frequency or adding an audio message along with pop-up messages urging riders to “buckle up.”
“We were thinking about how we could make an impact more broadly — how we can get people to start making better choices,” said Kristin Smith, head of Uber’s road safety policy. “We know it’s going to take a broad coalition of people to be tackling the crisis on U.S. roadways right now.”
Uber’s investment comes along with separate commitments from Lyft, the second-largest rideshare company, which has partnered with the Governors Highway Safety Association in recent years to award tens of thousands of dollars in state grants to help reduce impaired driving and curtail speeding.
3M, the maker of Post-it Notes, industrial coatings and ceramics, told the AP it was continuing its partnership with state transportation agencies to identify the best technology to make road signs and lane markings more visible and reflective.
It’s already pledged to improve 100 school crossing zones and added to that a commitment of $250,000 this year for a new transportation equity initiative that will fund half a dozen major projects in underserved areas. The company cited as an example its partnership with nonprofit groups to help build out Providence, Rhode Island’s, Hope Street Urban Trail last year, featuring new bike and pedestrian lanes connecting the neighborhood to schools and the commercial district.
Dan Chen, president of 3M’s Transportation Safety Division, praised the federal government’s call for action as the “right approach” that will allow companies like 3M to work in sync with policymakers and other stakeholders “to make roads safer for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.”
Other businesses and groups joining the effort include American Honda Motor Co., which pledged continuing investments totaling $2 million to improve teen driver safety; UPS, which will install automatic emergency braking on its newer big delivery vehicles; and the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, which will step up its push for industry adoption of safety technologies such as auto high beam.
The Transportation Department said it was issuing an open call for pledges, and more companies were expected to join in the coming weeks.
Buttigieg, noting the need for a sustained, multiyear effort to substantially reduce traffic fatalities, emphasized the opportunities as well with President Joe Biden’s five-year $1 trillion infrastructure law and said much more work remained to rebuild public works and improve people’s livelihoods.
“I definitely have four years’ worth of items and then some,” he said, speaking of his job as transportation secretary.
By Edward Palmieri via triple pundit.com Reposted: February 4, 2023
In 2020, Meta achieved net zero greenhouse gas emissions for our global operations and today, we are supported by 100 percent renewable energy. These are good first steps, but we have so, so much work still to do to become a fully sustainable company.
That was my thought as I arrived in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, for the 27th annual U.N. climate conference, or COP27. Held in November 2022 and dubbed theClimate Implementation Summit, the event gathered leaders from the public, nonprofit and private sectors — the global sustainability community — to debate, celebrate and negotiate global climate action.
Going in, “implement” was the word top of mind as leaders were expected to follow up on ambitious goals set the year before in Glasgow, Scotland. By day eight, however, the word on my mind was “mired.” As in: Are we, collectively, moving fast enough?
This year’s event had its high points —President Joe Biden’s address to world leaders, in which he affirmed the United States’ commitment to a low-carbon future, was certainly one. But COP27 missed the mark in some key ways, such as creating financing for developing countriesstruggling under the financial burden of climate change and creating mechanisms to help more countries reduce emissions. It is also clear we can all do more to measure and report on yearly progress.
Edward Palmieri, director of global sustainability at Meta, speaks on a panel with other business leaders at COP27. Submitted Photo.
At Meta, we believe the private sector has a critical role to play in our global ambitions to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. During a challenging period for the company, focusing on the “true north” of measurable climate action and building climate resilience remains essential to our future and our bottom line.
Year-over-year, our net zero goal remains fixed even as we grow — both in terms of our users today and our plans for the metaverse tomorrow. And along with our net zero ambition, we are progressing related goals, including our aim to restore more water than we consume in our global operations.
Bringing all of this back to COP27, it’s clear that we can’t do it alone. No one can and, in fact, this is one of my favorite things about working in sustainability: collaboration. As we embark on a new year, Meta remains committed to collaborating with those committed to climate change and continues to expand our network of global partners. Most recently, we’ve:
Helped launch theAsian Clean Energy Coalition to advance renewable energy procurement in Asia with the World Resources Institute and other technology companies.
Announced a new partnership with Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify and McKinsey Sustainability to launch Frontier, an advanced market commitment to help scale emerging carbon removal technologies that are crucial to tackling climate change.
Embraced an Emissions First accounting framework that moves beyond the current approach of megawatt-hour matching and focuses on emissions impact.
And during COP27 itself, were honored to supportThe Resilience Hub, an inclusively-built virtual and physical space that served as the home to the Race to Resilience campaign. Representing more than 1,500 non-state actors taking action on resilience around the world, the hub hosted more than 60 sessions each with incredible speakers offering their expertise and perspectives as well as live performances, art and culture.
Importantly, too, Meta is supporting and amplifying changemakers on the front lines of the climate fight. After our largest-ever global survey about climate change this past spring painted a picture of deep concern among respondents, we’re already seeing meaningful change happen when communities come together. More than 40 million people around the world are part of at least one of the 24,000 Facebook Groups dedicated to the discovery, protection, and appreciation of the earth and our environment.
In the meantime, Meta Sustainability continues to report on its work across our enterprise. As theU.N. High-Level Expert Group report clearly states, integrity matters, which is why our net zero commitments are not only public but are relentlesslytracked and reported each year.
But as the U.N. report notes, a net zero pledge “must contain steppingstone targets for every five years” in line with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or International Energy Agency (IEA) pathways as well as “prioritize urgent and deep reduction of emissions across their value chain.”
We agree. That’s why I look forward to sharing our own specific decarbonization plans in early 2023. And while I look forward to seeing my sustainability peers at COP28 next November as well, I encourage those in the private sector — companies big,small and every size in between— to join us in the climate fight.
Time is literally running out — and we need all of you, and all of your solutions, to make this work.
The Little Sable Lighthouse on Lake Michigan. Many of the legal diversions of water tap Lake Michigan. Photo: MI PR
From Michigan Radio | By Lester Graham • Published February 2, 2023
This week a nationwide Associated Press story looked at the possibility of pumping water from the Mississippi River to the drought-stricken West. That might sound familiar. For years, people in the Great Lakes region have been wary of those dry states looking at diverting water from the Great Lakes.
The cost to pump water that far would be enormous, as Michigan Radio’s Mark Brush reported in 2015. It would require hundreds of miles of large pipes. Since much of the distance would be uphill — across at least one mountain range — many new power plants would be needed to power the pumping stations along the way. In the past, it was believed the cost of that water would astronomical.
With years-long droughts in Western states, some areas are desperate for water. And when you’re desperate you might be tempted to spend astronomical amounts. The thinking is pretty simple: If the Great Lakes have so much water and we have so little, doesn’t it make sense to give us access?
“I think that’s very intuitive to people,” said University of Michigan professor Richard Rood. He studies climate change and its effects.
But the Great Lakes states have an agreement that bans diverting water from the lakes. The Great Lakes Compact was approved partly because they were concerned about diversions closer to home. Towns straddling or just outside the basin wanted access to the water. The Great Lakes Compact bans water diversions in most cases. And even if a diversion is approved, it takes a unanimous vote from all eight Great Lakes states.
Climate change and its effects are challenging all our notions about controlling water. Economic and political pressures are building.
“I believe that once those stresses get high enough, that really all treaties, all things that have been done by humans will be up for negotiation,” Rood said.
Climate change effects are happening sooner and causing challenges that are catching policymakers unprepared.
The water levels of the Great Lakes is a good example. The lakes have always had a cycle of high levels and then low levels. But the much quicker water-level changes, along with higher highs and lower lows, are new.
When water levels get extremely high as they have been in recent years, there aren’t a lot of mechanisms to lower the level. There’s no pressure valve.
“I feel as if one of the most important things to do to anticipate climate change for this region is to start to seriously think about water and water management associated with the Great Lakes,” Rood said.
He did not specifically say that the excess water could or should be pumped elsewhere. But all the tools and all the rules regarding the Great Lakes could be subject to unprecedented economic and political pressure if officials are not prepared.
Rood says they need to start looking at things anew.
“I think all of those compacts, all the agreements, any engineering assets that are currently available were designed for an old climate. And when they were considering the new climate, I don’t think that they actually considered how quickly the climate is changing.”
By Matthew Piszczek, Assistant Professor of Management, Wayne State University and Kristie McAlpine, Assistant Professor of Management, Rutgers University • Reposted: February 3, 2023
For most American workers who commute, the trip to and from the office takes nearly one full hour a day – 26 minutes each way on average, with 7.7% of workers spending two hours or more on the road.
Many people think of commuting as a chore and a waste of time. However, during the remote work surge resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, several journalists curiously noted that people were – could it be? – missing their commutes. One woman told The Washington Post that even though she was working from home, she regularly sat in her car in the driveway at the end of the workday in an attempt to carve out some personal time and mark the transition from work to nonwork roles.
As managementscholars who study the interface between peoples’ work and personal lives, we sought to understand what it was that people missed when their commutes suddenly disappeared.
In our recently published conceptual study, we argue that commutes are a source of “liminal space” – a time free of both home and work roles that provides an opportunity to recover from work and mentally switch gears to home.
We believe the loss of this space helps explain why many people missed their commutes.
One of the more surprising discoveries during the pandemic has been that many people who switched to remote work actually missed their commutes. Photo: Hinterhaus Productions/Stone via Getty Images
Commutes and liminal space
In our study, we wanted to learn whether the commute provides that time and space, and what the effects are when it becomes unavailable.
Based on our review, we developed a model which shows that the liminal space created in the commute created opportunities for detachment and recovery.
However, we also found that day-to-day variations may affect whether this liminal space is accessible for detachment and recovery. For instance, train commuters must devote attention to selecting their route, monitoring arrivals or departures and ensuring they get off at the right stop, whereas car commuters must devote consistent attention to driving.
We found that, on the one hand, more attention to the act of commuting means less attention that could otherwise be put toward relaxing recovery activities like listening to music and podcasts. On the other hand, longer commutes might give people more time to detach and recover.
In an unpublished follow-up study we conducted ourselves, we examined a week of commutes of 80 university employees to test our conceptual model. The employees completed morning and evening surveys asking about the characteristics of their commutes, whether they “shut off” from work and relaxed during the commute and whether they felt emotionally exhausted when they got home.
Most of the workers in this study reported using the commute’s liminal space to both mentally transition from work to home roles and to start psychologically recovering from the demands of the workday. Our study also confirms that day-to-day variations in commutes predict the ability to do so.
We found that on days with longer-than-average commutes, people reported higher levels of psychological detachment from work and were more relaxed during the commute. However, on days when commutes were more stressful than usual, they reported less psychological detachment from work and less relaxation during the commute.
Creating liminal space
Our findings suggest that remote workers may benefit from creating their own form of commute to provide liminal space for recovery and transition – such as a 15-minute walk to mark the beginning and end of the workday.
Our preliminary findings align with related research suggesting that those who have returned to the workplace might benefit from seeking to use their commute to relax as much as possible.
To help enhance work detachment and relaxation during the commute, commuters could try to avoid ruminating about the workday and instead focus on personally fulfilling uses of the commute time, such as listening to music or podcasts, or calling a friend. Other forms of commuting such as public transit or carpooling may also provide opportunities to socialize.
Our data shows that commute stress detracts from detachment and relaxation during the commute more than a shorter or longer commute. So some people may find it worth their time to take the “scenic route” home in order to avoid tense driving situations.
A colorized image of the 1963 civil rights March on Washington, where an estimated 250,000 people gathered to demand equal access to jobs, housing and education — and hear Martin Luther King Jr.’s now famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
By Mary Mazzoni from triple pundit.com • Reposted: February 3, 2023
Corporate efforts to observe Black History Month are often cringe-worthy at best and offensive at worst. If you’re planning to add a kente avatar on social media or pen a generic letter to employees, please do us all a favor and stop now. Business leaders can — and should — do better. Here’s some advice to get you started, from the Black thought leaders who have been telling us for years.
Don’t: Pander to your employees and customers this Black History Month
In the Year of Our Lord 2023, we should really all be past the platitudinous “Happy Black History Month” email to employees — or worse, the dreaded product drop. Think back to when TriplePundit asked workplace inclusion expert Kim Crowder about corporate cash-grabs around Juneteenth: “This is a repeat of why Juneteenth was needed,” she reminded business leaders. “It is basically commodifying the Black American experience by those who do not share those experiences and who have benefitted from the enslavement of people.”
The same holds true for brands that seek to capitalize on Black History Month while doing little to honor Black history or benefit Black communities. Just ask Ernest Owens, editor at large for Philadelphia magazine, who has never been shy with his opinions about how brands observe the holiday.
“Just like Pride Month, Black History Month has become a routine time of year when corporations say the absolute most while doing the least for marginalized communities,” he wrote in a 2021 op/ed for the Washington Post.
Do: Look inwardly — and act accordingly
Rather than looking to commodify the holiday or pat your company on the back for its great work on racial equity, turn your mind to the work ahead of you — and communicate frankly and thoughtfully with your employees and stakeholders about what comes up.
“Organizations should be looking beyond one day and focusing on areas such as pay equity, promotion rates, the ability for Black team members’ work to be seen and acknowledged, and partnering with Black businesses regularly — including paying them well for their work,” Crowder told us. “The goal is to work toward Black liberation every day.”
Don’t: Expect praise for pennies
In December polling commissioned by TriplePundit, less than 20 percent of over 3,000 U.S. consumers said they’d be impressed by a billion-dollar company donating $5 million to a social cause like racial equity, with the majority agreeing that “business should do more.”
Findings like these indicate that people are growing more wary of brands appearing to “check the box” by donating to a nonprofit. They want to see what changes you’re making, and they want to hear about the outcomes of that change.
“The key here is authentic leadership — in other words, walking the walk, not just talking the talk,” Gary Cunningham, president and CEO of Prosperity Now, told TriplePundit back in 2021. “It’s easy to say that you’re anti-racist without changing anything about how your organization operates.”
Do: Champion your partners
Of course, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with donating to nonprofits or establishing new programs that look to address racial equity, nor is it intrinsically wrong to communicate these programs during Black History Month. But if you do, do so thoughtfully.
Find clear alignment between your company, your teams and the nonprofits you support. Communicate with your stakeholders about the great work your partners do and why you trust them. For example, did someone from your team recommend this organization? Does it work in your community? Is it particularly positioned to address the issues your teams and stakeholders care about most? Remember, this is an opportunity to educate your stakeholders about the issues — and highlight the perspective of your community partners that know these issues best.
“So often I’ve witnessed corporations and business leaders act as if because they are very smart and can solve problems that they can understand and know how to solve the complex problems of racial and ethnic inequality,” Cunningham told us. “Trust the guidance of people who can help you learn, help you bring your work into the community, and help you understand the depth of the issues that you’re trying to contain.”
Don’t: Task your Black employees with more unpaid work
As companies pushed to demonstrate their commitment to racial equity in 2020, it wasn’t long before they looked toward their Black employees to do the hard work for them.
Asking Black employees to speak on panels, lead new employee resource groups, or consult on strategies for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) — all for no added compensation — is not only unfair, but it also plainly illustrates the very inequities these companies claim to oppose. Over half of Black women in particular told the consultancy Every Level Leadership they feel singled out as the sole resource to educate their colleagues about DEI.
Think of your team’s well-being, and don’t repeat the ugly cycle this Black History Month. As Najoh Tita-Reid, chief marketing officer for Logitech, observed in Fortune back in June 2020: “Black people did not create these problems, so please do not expect us to resolve them alone.”
Do: Take responsibility for educating yourself
It’s past time for non-Black people to take personal responsibility for educating themselves about racial justice issues, rather than leaning on their friends and colleagues. If you’re an executive, read more, watch more and generally consume more media about the topic. Encourage everyone in your organization to do the same, and give them opportunities to discuss it, if and when they choose.
“Take responsibility for your own education on racial issues,” Tita-Reid suggested in Fortune. “Create companywide forums and Q&A sessions to educate large groups. Bring in experts, if needed, to provide actionable plans that systematically implement racial equity. Identify those of us who are open to speak, and respect those of us who do not want to talk about the situation.”
When it comes to your formal DEI strategy work: Resource it, and pay your teams accordingly. “Do not shortchange race equity work,” Andrea J. Rogers and Tiloma Jayasinghe of Community Resource Exchange recommend in Nonprofit Quarterly. “And if you feel like doing that, ask yourself why, and take this opportunity to unpack biases around what is valued, who is valued, and what impact means for your organization.”
As soda consumption has dropped in the West, companies are making an effort to woo new customers in other places. This Coke bottle ad is in Mozambique. Photo: Thomas Trutschel/Photothek via Getty Images
That’s a question Coca-Cola and other soda makers are wrestling with as soda drinking has waned in U.S. and European markets.
In the 2010s, Coke made a big push into rural parts of lower income countries to sell more soda. So they made smaller, more durable bottles – a 1-cup serving size that could be sold more cheaply and last longer on the shelves.
They built solar-powered coolers that allowed sellers to keep Coke bottles cold in places off the electrical grid – and offer mobile phone-charging to their customers.
And they launched “splash bars” – small businesses run by women that sold shots of Coke, Fanta and other Coca-Cola products for as low as 7 U.S. cents a serving to make the beverage affordable to everyone.
Eduardo J. Gómez is the author of the new book Junk Food Politics: How Beverage and Fast Food Industries Are Reshaping Emerging Economies. Photo: Eduardo J. Gómez
The company presented this strategy as a win-win – they benefited because their product was becoming more available in remote areas and female entrepreneurs had a new way to earn a living.
That’s a story that Eduardo J. Gómez tells in his new book. As he points out, Coke’s characterization of a win-win isn’t universally embraced.
Gómez, director of the Institute of Health Policy and Politics at Lehigh University, says Coca-Cola is one of many junk food companies – fast-food giants like McDonald’s and KFC – who are targeting “emerging economies” – countries where income is on the rise along with trade with wealthier nations.
In these countries, many people see the ability to buy so-called junk food – not just soda but packaged chips and candies and fast food from chains – as a sign they’re made it. And the junk food manufacturers try to put a positive face on their campaignsto expand their audience. They forge partnerships with local governments to fight hunger and poverty – even as the rising consumption of junk food leads to soaring rates of obesity and diabetes.
In his new book, Junk Food Politics: How Beverage and Fast Food Industries Are Reshaping Emerging Economies, Gómez describes a two-way street, where industry and political leaders work together to launch well-meaning social programs – but also skirt regulations that would harm industry’s profits. The result, Gómez says, is that junk food industries thrive in low resource countries at the expense of children and the poor, who develop long-term health problems from consuming sugar-laden, ultra-processed foods.
NPR spoke with Gómez about junk food barges, soda taxes and why healthy eating campaigns aren’t cutting it against ads for candy and fried chicken. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity:
Let’s start with an easy question. What is junk food?
Johns Hopkins University Press
I define junk food as highly ultra-processed fast foods, from KFC to burgers, candies, confectionery, ice cream. Junk food is also Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mountain Dew – high-sugar, carbonated soda drinks.
What role does junk food play in lower- and middle-income countries?
There’s a proliferation of these junk foods now, not only in cities but in rural communities in India, in Mexico, even into the Brazilian Amazon.
In the emerging economies, these foods that were not [previously] accessible suddenly became very accessible in the 1990s or early 2000s.
We’re seeing [a vast and rapid] infiltration of these foods because of what I call “fear and opportunity.” “Fear” that industries have of losing market [share] in Western nations, and “opportunity” because there’s a [growing] middle class in these emerging economies that are eager to purchase them.
What is junk food politics?
Junk food politics is a two-way street. It’s when [junk food] industries influence politics and society so they can avoid regulations that will impact their profitability, such as taxes on junk foods and regulations on marketing and sales.
We often think industry is to blame. But governments are also to blame [because political leaders partner with industry on their own political agendas – which gives industry clout to undermine policies that would cut their profits].
What’s a good example of junk food politics in action?
In Brazil, for example, you have the rise of industry groups, [like the Brazilian Food Industry Association] that were very, very influential in lobbying the congress and infiltrating national agencies that are working on regulations [like advertising restrictions for junk food]. They’re engaging in partnerships [with governments and communities where] they can be perceived as a solution to the problems [of obesity and diabetes] by, for instance, helping to improve the [sharing] of nutritional information. They’re building legitimacy and avoiding costly regulations.
At the same time, [Brazil’s] President Lula [in his prior term] had a famous anti-hunger campaign. And Lula worked with Nestlé to strengthen this program and went as far as creating an office within his presidential palace to partner with industries that wanted to contribute to this anti-hunger program. And so that was a strategic, two-way partnership that benefited industry and benefited the government.
Of course, President Lula’s intentions were admirable in alleviating hunger. But perhaps it wasn’t a good idea to partner with companies that produce a lot of these ultra-processed foods, because it indirectly legitimizes the company. It amplifies the popularity of their products and their harmful consequences to health.
As low-resource countries rise in wealth, rates of obesity and diabetes also tend to rise. What is the scope of the problem? Why does it happen?
The incidence of childhood obesity is growing much faster in developing countries [than in the West]. [Rates of] type 2 diabetes among adolescents are extremely high in India and China and Mexico.
The rural poor are also becoming obese and getting diabetes. This is something we don’t normally assume. In India, for example, in the 1990s and early 2000s, obesity was seen as a “disease of luxury.” It was perceived that only people with status and money that could go to fast food establishments were having this problem. For many years the government didn’t do anything because they perceived [growing rates of diabetes and obesity]as affecting a small minority of the population.
But now, it’s become a general issue because of the increased access to junk foods.
How has access increased? How did junk foods go from being concentrated in cities to being common food items in rural places?
[Junk food distribution]started in cities, and over time they [expand] out to other areas of the country. In Brazil, for a while, Nestlé had these large blue Nestlé boats that traveled throughout the Amazon and distributed candy and cookies throughout the Amazon. [The “junk food barges,” as critics called them, have stopped]. In rural India, there are shops where people pay for one small shot of Coca-Cola while getting their phones charged.
In every country, junk food is something that’s voluntarily bought. It’s voluntarily eaten. So why are programs that encourage healthy eating and daily exercise and nutrition labeling not enough to convince people to avoid it?
Of course we want people to have nutritional information – we want people to know more, and we want them to know what they’re eating. And there’s growing commitment and success on better food labels. Chile, for example, has introduced more effective food labels – on products high in salt, sugar and fat, they have adopted these black octagon images that are on the food products – that have rippled out through the Americas.
But people are always flooded with marketing and access [to processed foods]. Even when you have this knowledge, there are incentives for you to eat these products that are readily available and less healthy.
What I hear you saying is that healthy eating and exercise campaigns focus on the individual, but poor health and nutrition are rooted in bigger, systemic problems.
Yes, absolutely. Nutritional information is very important, but it’s insufficient. We need to address socioeconomic factors, marketing factors, all these things that play into [making junk foods an easy, accessible choice].
You say governments in low-resource countries have made some progress on taxing junk foods and improving the labeling. What else do you think needs to happen?
Noneof these governments have committed to restricting advertising. [Countries have, instead, relied on voluntary pledges from companies to refrain from marketing unhealthy foods to children.] In a lot of these countries, there are no firm laws on what can be sold in schools. And even when they have laws or rules that prohibit the sale of junk foods in schools, they are not effectively being enforced.
There’s a paradox: While countries [such as Mexico, Brazil, India and Indonesia] have done a great job of increasing nutritional awareness, obesity and diabetes is still skyrocketing. And that’s because governments are doing a little bit on the fringes but not really getting to the heart of the problem. They’re not taking on these industries through regulations to sales and advertising.
What does junk food politics cost society?
There’s an extremely high cost to society, mainly from the health consequences. If you develop type 2 diabetes as a consequence of high sugar intake, it has a tremendous impact on your quality of life. Argentina, for example, has seen a crisis in the affordability of insulin. In the context of global universal health care, we don’t pay enough attention to ensuring that the poor do not go broke in getting the medicines that they need to address their high blood pressure, their [blood] sugar.
What’s the solution? What can cut into the influence that junk food politics has on public health?
The solution is having a government that is committed to ensuring the health of all of society. One that provides activists and communities with a voice that is equal to, or exceeds, the voice of industries within government. One that has no fear of taking on the powerful industries and creating regulations that protect vulnerable populations – especially children and the poor – over the interests of major corporations.
And the solution, too, is our work in communities as researchers and as community members, to raise the awareness about the importance of good nutrition and exercise, and to increase awareness about the need for access to healthier foods.
And just wondering if climate change will play any role?
That’s the topic of my next book – climate change and malnutrition.
And your thesis is that with the changing climate …
… the availability of healthy foods becomes increasingly scarce.
Solar panels gleam in the late-afternoon light at the Sylvan solar project just west of Brainerd on Dec. 7. Minnesota Power recently built the 15.2-megawatt project and two others in Hoyt Lakes and Duluth as part of its effort to increase its solar capacity. Photo: Kirsti Marohn | MPR News
By Kirsti Marohn from Minnesota Public Radio News • February 2, 2023
A bill that would require Minnesota’s electricity to be carbon-free by 2040 is speeding through the Legislature.
The House has already passed the measure, and the Senate is set to vote on it Thursday. Here’s a closer look at the bill, and what it will mean for electric utilities and their customers.
In Minnesota, burning fossil fuels like coal and natural gas to produce electricity is one of the biggest sources of carbon and other greenhouse gasses that contribute to climate change.
What’s prompting state lawmakers to push this through now?
It’s being driven mainly by concerns about climate change.
It’s no longer the biggest culprit, as utilities have moved toward cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind. Transportation and agriculture are now the largest contributors of greenhouse gasses in Minnesota.
However, Gov. Tim Walz, DFL lawmakers and environmental groups want to see utilities make the transition to cleaner electricity more quickly. The carbon-free electricity measure is part of an action plan to combat climate change the Walz administration released last fall.
The proposal has been debated for a couple of years. Now that the DFL Party controls both the House and Senate, it has a real chance of passage.
What would the bill do?
It includes two separate standards for renewable and carbon-free energy.
A 2007 Minnesota law already requires utilities to get at least 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. The state achieved that goal early, in 2017. This bill would bump that amount up to 55 percent renewable by 2035.
It also creates a new carbon-free standard. It requires utilities that do business in Minnesota to get a percentage of their electricity from carbon-free sources — starting with 80 percent by 2030, 90 percent by 2035 and finally, 100 percent by 2040.
What’s the difference between renewable and carbon-free energy?
The bill defines renewable energy as solar, wind, hydropower, hydrogen and biomass, such as a plant that burns garbage or wood to produce electricity.
There is one exception in the bill — the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center, or HERC, which burns trash for energy in downtown Minneapolis. It’s been a source of environmental justice concerns over the years because of the air pollution it emits.
The HERC stacks are 215 feet tall. MPCA models show pollution disperses mostly to the north and south of the plant, with heaviest deposition between Broadway Street and Loring Park. Photo: Stephanie Hemphill | MPR
The bill’s authors say that facility should not be considered in the same category as other renewable energy sources such as solar or wind.
Another change: Previously, only energy from small hydropower projects under 100 megawatts qualified as renewable. The bill lifts that restriction, so large, existing hydropower projects would now qualify.
That’s significant, because it would now include electricity that Minnesota Power gets from a large hydro facility on the Manitoba River in Canada, which has been controversial among some environmental and tribal groups.
What qualifies as carbon-free energy?
Carbon–free energy sources are those that don’t release any carbon dioxide, such as solar, wind, hydropower or nuclear. Under the bill, nuclear power is not considered a renewable energy source, but it is carbon free.
Minnesota has two nuclear plants, at Prairie Island and Monticello, owned by Xcel Energy. Xcel has said it plans to continue to operate those plants at least for the next couple of decades to help its carbon-free goals.
Minnesota law currently bans building new nuclear plants in the state. Some Republican lawmakers have argued that the ban should be lifted to allow new nuclear energy production, especially smaller modular technology.
Xcel Energy’s Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant is seen through a gate from Wakonade Drive in Prairie Island Indian Community in Welch, Minn. The plant began operating in 1973 and is located adjacent to Prairie Island Indian Community. On-site storage of nuclear waste has proven controversial, as Prairie Island is among the closest communities to a nuclear power plant in the U.S. Photo: Tom Baker for MPR News
Are utilities saying whether they will be able to meet these new standards?
The state’s largest utilities, including Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy and Duluth-based Minnesota Power, have been cautiously supportive. They already have goals of being carbon-free by 2050, so this would move up that date by a decade.
“We’re actually excited about being pushed to go faster,” said Chris Clark, Xcel’s president in Minnesota, North and South Dakota, in an interview. “We also recognize, though, that it’s a challenge.”
A big reason why major utilities aren’t opposing the bill is because it includes exemptions and ways they can meet the standard without ditching fossil fuels altogether.
For example, a utility could buy renewable energy credits to offset electricity generated by a natural gas plant.
Also, the bill contains so-called “off ramps.” The state Public Utilities Commission could allow a utility to delay meeting the standard if doing so would have big impacts on electric rates or create reliability issues.
“It is an offset mechanism to add flexibility, and address that there is some uncertainty about how to reach a fully carbon-free electric system top to bottom,” said Allen Gleckner, clean electricity director for the nonprofit Fresh Energy. But he thinks utilities will be able to meet the standard by adding more solar and wind and adopting new technologies, such as battery storage.
Another exemption gives utilities leeway for what’s called “beneficial electrification” — for example, if a utility needs more capacity to switch people using natural gas to heat their homes to electricity.
What’s been the response of member-owned cooperatives to the bill?
Some co-ops have voiced concerns about whether they’ll be able to meet these standards while keeping their costs in check. They tend to be smaller, and often have contracts to buy power from fossil fuel plants.
As a compromise, the bill was amended to give co-ops and municipal power agencies a little more time to make the transition.
They would need to be 60 percent carbon free by 2030, instead of 80 percent like the investor-owned utilities. But all utilities would need to reach the 100 percent standard by 2040.
Why is North Dakota involved in the debate?
North Dakota produces a lot of power from coal and gas. Top officials in that state have threatened a lawsuit over Minnesota’s bill, saying it would illegally restrict interstate commerce and hinder their ability to develop technology to capture carbon.
This isn’t the first legal spat the two states have had over the issue.
North Dakota officials sued Minnesota over its 2007 law that essentially banned the state from importing power from new coal plants outside of the state. A federal court sided with North Dakota.
If the bill passes the Senate, what’s the next step?
The Senate will consider the same bill that passed the House. If it passes, it will go to Walz, who has said he will sign it.
By Peter de Menocal, Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution via The Conversation • February 1, 2023
Deep below the ocean surface, the light fades into a twilight zone where whales and fish migrate and dead algae and zooplankton rain down from above. This is the heart of the ocean’s carbon pump, part of the natural ocean processes that capture about a third of all human-produced carbon dioxide and sink it into the deep sea, where it remains for hundreds of years.
There may be ways to enhance these processes so the ocean pulls more carbon out of the atmosphere to help slow climate change. Yet little is known about the consequences.
Peter de Menocal, a marine paleoclimatologist and director of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, discussed ocean carbon dioxide removal at a recent TEDxBoston:Planetary Stewardship event. In this interview, he dives deeper into the risks and benefits of human intervention and describes an ambitious plan to build a vast monitoring network of autonomous sensors in the ocean to help humanity understand the impact.
First, what is ocean carbon dioxide removal, and how does it work in nature?
The ocean is like a big carbonated beverage. Although it doesn’t fizz, it has about 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere. So, for taking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it someplace where it won’t continue to warm the planet, the ocean is the single biggest place it can go.
Ocean carbon dioxide removal, or ocean CDR, uses the ocean’s natural ability to take up carbon on a large scale and amplifies it.
Carbon gets into the ocean from the atmosphere in two ways.
In the first, air dissolves into the ocean surface. Winds and crashing waves mix it into the upper half-mile or so, and because seawater is slightly alkaline, the carbon dioxide is absorbed into the ocean.
The second involves the biologic pump. The ocean is a living medium – it has algae and fish and whales, and when that organic material is eaten or dies, it gets recycled. It rains down through the ocean and makes its way to the ocean twilight zone, a level around 650 to 3300 feet (roughly 200 to 1,000 meters) deep.
The years indicate how long deposited carbon is expected to remain before the water cycles to the surface. Graphic: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
The ocean twilight zone sustains biologic activity in the oceans. It is the “soil” of the ocean where organic carbon and nutrients accumulate and are recycled by microbes. It is also home to the largest animal migration on the planet. Each day trillions of fish and other organisms migrate from the depths to the surface to feed on plankton and one another, and go back down, acting like a large carbon pump that captures carbon from the surface and shunts it down into the deep oceans where it is stored away from the atmosphere.
Why is ocean CDR drawing so much attention right now?
The single most shocking sentence I have read in my career was in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report, released in 2021. It said that we have delayed action on climate change for so long that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is now necessary for all pathways to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F). Beyond that, climate change’s impacts become increasingly dangerous and unpredictable.
Because of its volume and carbon storage potential, the ocean is really the only arrow in our quiver that has the ability to take up and store carbon at the scale and urgency required.Peter de Menocal at TEDxBoston: Planetary Stewardship.
A 2022 report by the national academies outlined a research strategy for ocean carbon dioxide removal. The three most promising methods all explore ways to enhance the ocean’s natural ability to take up more carbon.
The first is ocean alkalinity enhancement. The oceans are salty – they’re naturally alkaline, with a pH of about 8.1. Increasing alkalinity by dissolving certain powdered rocks and minerals makes the ocean a chemical sponge for atmospheric CO2.
A second method adds micronutrients to the surface ocean, particularly soluble iron. Very small amounts of soluble iron can stimulate greater productivity, or algae growth, which drives a more vigorous biologic pump. Over a dozen of these experiments have been done, so we know it works.
Third is perhaps the easiest to understand – grow kelp in the ocean, which captures carbon at the surface through photosynthesis, then bale it and sink it to the deep ocean.
But all of these methods have drawbacks for large-scale use, including cost and unanticipated consequences.
I’m not advocating for any one of these, or for ocean CDR more generally. But I do believe accelerating research to understand the impacts of these methods is essential. The ocean is essential for everything humans depend on – food, water, shelter, crops, climate stability. It’s the lungs of the planet. So we need to know if these ocean-based technologies to reduce carbon dioxide and climate risk are viable, safe and scalable.
You’ve talked about building an ‘internet of the ocean’ to monitor changes there. What would that involve?
The ocean is changing rapidly, and it is the single biggest cog in Earth’s climate engine, yet we have almost no observations of the subsurface ocean to understand how these changes are affecting the things we care about. We’re basically flying blind at a time when we most need observations. Moreover, if we were to try any of these carbon removal technologies at any scale right now, we wouldn’t be able to measure or verify their effectiveness or assess impacts on ocean health and ecosystems.
So, we are leading an initiative at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to build the world’s first internet for the ocean, called the Ocean Vital Signs Network. It’s a large network of moorings and sensors that provides 4D eyes on the oceans – the fourth dimension being time – that are always on, always connected to monitor these carbon cycling processes and ocean health.
Right now, there is about one ocean sensor in the global Argo program for every patch of ocean the size of Texas. These go up and down like pogo sticks, mostly measuring temperature and salinity.
We envision a central hub in the middle of an ocean basin where a dense network of intelligent gliders and autonomous vehicles measure ocean properties including carbon and other vital signs of ocean and planetary health. These vehicles can dock, repower, upload data they’ve collected and go out to collect more. The vehicles would be sharing information and making intelligent sampling decisions as they measure the chemistry, biology and environmental DNA for a volume of the ocean that’s really representative of how the ocean works.
Having that kind of network of autonomous vehicles, able to come back in and power up in the middle of the ocean from wave or solar or wind energy at the mooring site and send data to a satellite, could launch a new era of ocean observing and discovery.
Does the technology needed for this level of monitoring exist?
We’re already doing much of this engineering and technology development. What we haven’t done yet is stitch it all together.
For example, we have a team that works with blue light lasers for communicating in the ocean. Underwater, you can’t use electromagnetic radiation as cellphones do, because seawater is conductive. Instead, you have to use sound or light to communicate underwater.
We also have an acoustics communications group that works on swarming technologies and communications between nearby vehicles. Another group works on how to dock vehicles into moorings in the middle of the ocean. Another specializes in mooring design. Another is building chemical sensors and physical sensors that measure ocean properties and environmental DNA. A tour of sea life in the ocean twilight zone.
This summer, 2023, an experiment in the North Atlantic called the Ocean Twilight Zone Project will image the larger functioning of the ocean over a big piece of real estate at the scale at which ocean processes actually work.
We’ll have acoustic transceivers that can create a 4D image over time of these dark, hidden regions, along with gliders, new sensors we call “minions” that will be looking at ocean carbon flow, nutrients and oxygen changes. “Minions” are basically sensors the size of a soda bottle that go down to a fixed depth, say 1,000 meters (0.6 miles), and use essentially an iPhone camera pointing up to take pictures of all the material floating down through the water column. That lets us quantify how much organic carbon is making its way into this old, cold deep water, where it can remain for centuries.
For the first time we’ll be able to see just how patchy productivity is in the ocean, how carbon gets into the ocean and if we can quantify those carbon flows.
That’s a game-changer. The results can help establish the effectiveness and ground rules for using CDR. It’s a Wild West out there – nobody is watching the oceans or paying attention. This network makes observation possible for making decisions that will affect future generations.
Do you believe ocean CDR is the right answer?
Humanity doesn’t have a lot of time to reduce carbon emissions and to lower carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.
The reason scientists are working so diligently on this is not because we’re big fans of CDR, but because we know the oceans may be able to help. With an ocean internet of sensors, we can really understand how the ocean works including the risks and benefits of ocean CDR.
The late comic George Carlin once said, “You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge.”
A recent assessment of the educational background of world leaders underscores Carlin’s quip, and it provides at least one explanation for global leaders’ consistent inaction regarding climate change: They all went to the same schools.
The new project by youth campaign group Mock COP found that the 30 top universities in the world have not fostered the leadership skills and civic engagement necessary for our world leaders to navigate the impending ecological crisis.
Entitled “1.5 Degrees,” referencing the solemn recommendation from climate scientists that the planet must not warm beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius to prevent catastrophe, the project demonstrates that current world leaders are birds of a feather — an idle feather at that.
Just as Carlin said, the converging interests of world leaders — who share common backgrounds, educations, worldviews, priorities and goals — has resulted in an informal conspiracy of inertia.
Top universities failed leaders, and leaders fail us
“The people with the privilege to study at the so-called ‘top’ universities, and go on to become key decision-makers across society, are being educated at institutions that do not act in the public good and do not ensure their graduates are prepared to lead a more just and sustainable future,” the 1.5 Degrees website reads.
The project includes a ranking that grades the world’s top universities on how their engineering, law, economics, politics and health courses, which are traditionally chosen by decision-makers, align with the actions needed to tackle the climate crisis.
The ranking of top universities includes Yale, Cambridge, Oxford and Stanford Universities, as well as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Imperial College London. No institution received a favorable grade. MIT, as well as Beijing’s Tsinghua and Peking Universities, scored the worst at preparing their graduates for a low-carbon future.
The team of young activists at Mock COP ultimately concluded that the most educated among us are often the worst enablers of climate destruction. They further found that critical courses pertaining to environmental citizenship are “influenced by large corporates working against the advice of the world’s leading climate scientists.”
By and large, leaders around the world are consistent in their approach to climate change — they don’t approach it at all. This can’t come as a surprise, though, once the common education factor is acknowledged. For example, Mock COP found that 20 current heads of state attended Harvard University. These schools shape their students’ worldviews, so if world leaders all went to the same few top universities, it is no wonder that they are acting in lockstep.
“World leaders consistently let us down at conferences like Davos, where they have the opportunity to create real, lasting change,” said Josh Tregale, a mechanical engineering student and Mock COP campaign coordinator, in a statement — referring to the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting earlier this month. “Had our leading decision makers undertaken university courses which effectively taught the facts of the climate crisis and instilled sustainable thinking, then they would understand the urgency and act accordingly. Instead they are uneducated on the facts and unprepared for climate leadership.”
This all adds up to world leaders are well-meaning and inept at best — and ill-intentioned and adept at worst. Neither is very reassuring, but now that the issue has been identified, Mock COP hopes to influence change.
Youth organizers at Mock COP push for curriculum reform to tackle climate change
Mock COP hopes this project will serve to influence curriculum reform and create more of an emphasis on civic duty and environmental engagement at these top universities. If the most exclusive and accomplished institutions begin to prioritize this sort of education, the rest of academia should follow suit.
The team expects this information to help climate-minded young people decide where to study, as many students may think twice about attending these top institutions after Mock COP’s report.
The planet is not dying from ignorant people making mistakes. It is dying from self-interested, highly educated people making deliberate decisions that prioritize profits over planet. It is time to start teaching the people who have the power to save the planet that saving the planet is not only in their best interest — it’s in their job description.
New offerings spur rapid growth. From Installnet • February 1, 2023
With a growing roster of Fortune 1000 clients, commercial furniture solutions company Installnet today announces its brand refresh to better reflect its purpose and mission demonstrated through the company’s new offerings and development.
The company’s new wordmark reflects its modern and flexible approach to finding solutions that simplify the creation of inspired workspaces. Installnet’s self-serve platform of 350 commercial furniture installation companies, previously known as the Office Furniture Installation Alliance (OFIA), has been rebranded as Installhub.
The purpose of Installnet, founded more than 25 years ago, is to create opportunities for people and communities to thrive. The company provides a range of services, from premium project management to Ecoserv, an award-winning circular decommission program.
“Our mission is to deliver industry-leading solutions that help employees, business and communities prosper,” said Dale Ewing, founder of Installnet. “That includes zero waste to landfill through our Ecoserv program, which provides a much-needed, credible solution to companies serious about meeting their sustainability goals. Getting zero done is an audacious, but achievable goal.”
Over the last year, Installnet has served more than 50 Fortune 1000 companies. Its award-winning Ecoserv program has diverted more than 30 million pounds of waste from landfills since its founding in 2012 and served more than 1600 community groups, providing much-needed furniture, fixtures and equipment.
In 2022, Ecoserv diverted 92% more waste from landfill than the year before and donations to community groups rose 35%. Installnet and Ewing were both honored with 2022 SEAL Sustainability Awards for Ecoserv. The SEAL Sustainability Award honorees range from global brands to high-growth start-ups and scale-ups. This is the second consecutive year Installnet has received the award.
In 2022 the company completed more than 11,000 installation projects in the U.S. and Canada, helping customers create inspired workspaces. With a robust installation partner network and a proprietary web-based software, the company expects to grow 20% in 2023.
With this sewer pipe repair method, the chemical waste is blown into the air and can enter buildings through buried sewer pipes, plumbing, foundation cracks, windows, doors and HVAC units. Photo: Andrew Whelton/Purdue University
By Andrew J. Whelton, Professor of Civil, Environmental & Ecological Engineering, Director of the Healthy Plumbing Consortium and Center for Plumbing Safety, Purdue University. Reposted: February 1, 2023
Across the U.S., children and adults are increasingly exposed to harmful chemicals from a source few people are even aware of.
It begins on a street outside a home or school, where a worker in a manhole is repairing a sewer pipe. The contractor inserts a resin-soaked sleeve into the buried pipe, then heats it, transforming the resin into a hard plastic pipe.
This is one of the cheapest, most common pipe repair methods, but it comes with a serious risk: Heating the resin generates harmful fumes that can travel through the sewer lines and into surrounding buildings, sometimes several blocks away.
The blue cured-in-place pipe, or CIPP, can be seen inside this damaged storm sewer pipe. The CIPP was created by steam cooking the resin into the hard plastic. Photo: Andrew Whelton/Purdue University
Chemical plumes rising from nearby manholes and contractor exhaust pipes are also not just “steam.” These plumes contain highly concentrated chemical mixtures, uncooked resin, particulates and nanoplastics that can harm human health. When we examined the heating process in the lab, we found that as much as 9% of the resin was emitted into the air.
CIPP production is known to discharge about 40 chemicals. Some cause nausea, headaches and eye and nasal irritation. They can also lead to vomiting, breathing difficulties and other effects. Waste that contains chemicals, uncooked resin, particulates, and nanoplastics is discharged into the air during CIPP manufacture. This complex emission is not steam. Andrew Whelton/Purdue University.
Styrene, the most frequently documented chemical, is acutely toxic, and “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer, according to the National Research Council. Chemicals other than styrene can be responsible for plume toxicity.
The earliest U.S. incident we know about was in 1993 at an animal shelter in Austin, Texas. Seven people were overcome by fumes and transported to a hospital. In 2001, fumes entered a hospital inn Tampa, Florida, causing employee breathing problems. Since then, hundreds more people are known to have been exposed, and the numbers are likely much higher.
In our experience, exposures are rarely made public. Municipalities have encouraged people affected by the fumes to only contact the CIPP contractor and pipe owner. In some cases, people were told the exposures were always harmless.
Chemicals can enter buildings through sinks, toilets, foundation cracks, doors, windows and HVAC systems. The chemicals can even enter buildings that have water-filled plumbing traps. Anticipating this risk, bystanders have been told to cover their toilets and close all windows and doors.
Wind can help dilute outdoor chemical levels. However, concentrated plumes can rush through buried pipes into nearby buildings. Bathroom vent fans may sometimes increase the indoor chemical levels. Levels that should prompt firefighters to wear respirators have been found in the buried pipes.
Fumes generated during sewer line repair, on the right, can enter nearby homes, schools and other buildings. Graphic: Andrew Whelton/Purdue University
Hand-held air testing devices commonly used by some firefighters and contractors do not accurately identify specific chemical levels. An earlier studyshowed the styrene levels were sometimes wrong by a thousandfold.
How to protect public health
With the wave of infrastructure projects coming, it’s clear that controls are needed to lower the risk that people will be harmed.
Our research points to several actions that residents, companies and health officials can take to keep communities safe.
We advise residents to:
Close all windows and doors, fill plumbing traps with water and leave the building during pipe-curing operations, especially when children are in the building.
Report unusual odors or illnesses to health officials or call 911. Seek medical advice from health officials, not the contractors or pipe owners. Evacuate buildings when fumes enter.
Companies can minimize risks too. They can:
Stop the cooking process when fumes leave the worksite to lessen the spread of contamination and exposures.
Use resins that release less air pollution than standard resins.
Ask federal agencies to evaluate hand-held air testing device use.
Capture and treat air pollution from the process. While this has not yet been done at scale, it is straightforward and would be a fraction of the overall project cost. This waste will be hazardous because of itstoxicity.
Public health and environmental agencies should also get engaged. Federal agencies know that the practice poses health risks and can be fatal to workers. California and Florida recognize in safety documentation that bystanders could be harmed. But, so far, few steps have been taken to protect workers’ and bystanders’ health.
There’s good news on the viability of President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, with a new report detailing how the U.S. could potentially come within reach of his 2030 objective to power 80 percent of the nation’s electrical grid with clean energy. Doing so would also meet U.S. targets to halve carbon emissions by 2030, using a 2005 baseline, and further reduce them to 77 percent below 2005 levels by 2035, according to the report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Evergreen Action.
Time is of the essence, however. And not just because of any impending climate tipping points. The current administration isn’t guaranteed a second term. And, as the Washington Post’s Maxine Joselow pointed out last week, an incoming Republican president would likely reverse any last-minute changes. Ironically, rushing the conversion may also be the best way to end partisanship over the issue as long-term savings become apparent to businesses and consumers alike.
“President Biden committed to the most ambitious set of climate goals in American history,” Charles Harper, power sector policy lead at Evergreen Action, said in a statement. “Important progress has been made, but President Biden must take bold action this year in order to deliver on those commitments. By ramping up its work to transition the U.S. economy toward 100 percent clean energy, the Biden administration and state leaders can reduce toxic pollution, cut energy costs, create good jobs, and advance environmental justice. Let’s get to work.”
The report lists necessary measures which, based on modeling, could result in meeting the climate goals set out in the president’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) if they are implemented immediately. Researchers say setting new and stringent rules through the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act, as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), will be paramount. Other necessary courses of action include making the most of the IRA’s grant programs and tax credits, and promoting stronger state standards on emissions to match federal targets.
“We don’t need magic bullets or new technologies,” Manish Bapna, NRDC president and CEO, explained in a statement. “We already have the tools — and now we have a roadmap. If the Biden administration, Congress, and state leaders follow it, we will build the better future we all deserve. There is no time for half measures or delay.”
The report does not call for an end to new power plants that generate electricity from fossil fuels, but it does recommend that rule changes and emission standards be applied to existing gas and coal facilities as well. The transition away from fossil fuels is thus presented as more of a carrot than a stick situation — with funds from the IRA needed to encourage the expansion of renewables, as opposed to attempting to eliminate the construction of new fossil fuel-based plants.
The increasing availability and cheaper cost of renewable energy benefits not just consumers, but also the U.S. manufacturers and businesses that rely on all possible savings to remain competitive. The more that can be done to encourage the grid transition to renewables, the cheaper power will be for everyone. In time, then, partisan opposition to renewable energy should wane.
However, it’s important to remember that no type of consumption comes without consequences. Resources must still be extracted to build batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, etcetera in order to power the clean energy revolution. As such, we must be more careful not to create a whole new environmental disaster in the process of slowing the climate crisis.
People in the U.S. use four times as much energy as the worldwide average. Cheaper power runs the risk of increasing total consumption, as seen with the connection between gasoline prices and driving habits. With the impending robotization of multiple industries, increased power usage could be dramatically compounded and raise emissions above current modeling. Therefore, it is imperative that people in the U.S. look to reduce their consumption, in addition to cleaning up the grid.
Many Americans are already willing to adjust their lifestyles to combat climate change, but they need the tools to successfully lower their carbon footprints. Clean power is a big part of this, but so is a public transportation infrastructure that moves us away from the personal passenger vehicle — electric or not — as the primary mode of transportation.
Likewise, the backlash against remote work doesn’t just dismiss employee needs, but it also ignores the environmental benefits of fewer commutes and climate-controlled office buildings. By looking at the bigger picture, perhaps we will begin to understand that our planet does not have unlimited resources. No matter how we power things, we cannot do so from a thought process of ever expanding abundance with zero consequences.
From the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Posted: January 31., 2023
No earthquake, drought or hurricane in recorded history has claimed more lives than the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the world’s largest disaster response network, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). The shocking death toll—estimated at more than 6.5 million people—has inspired the humanitarian organization to take a deep dive into how countries can prepare for the next global health emergency.
Two groundbreaking reports released by the IFRC today, the World Disasters Report and the Everyone Counts Report, offer insights into successes and challenges over the past three years—and make recommendations for how leaders can mitigate tragedies of this magnitude in the future.
Jagan Chapagain, IFRC’s Secretary General, remarks:
*”The COVID-19 pandemic should be a wake-up call for the global community to prepare now for the next health crisis. Our recommendations to world leaders center around building trust, tackling inequality, and leveraging local actors and communities to perform lifesaving work. The next pandemic could be just around the corner; if the experience of COVID-19 won’t quicken our steps toward preparedness, what will?” *
The IFRC network reached more than 1.1 billion people over the past three years to help keep them safe from the virus. During that time, a theme that emerged repeatedly was the importance of trust. When people trusted safety messages, they were willing to comply with public health measures that sometimes separated them from their loved ones in order to slow the spread of the disease and save lives. Similarly, it was only possible to vaccinate millions of people in record time when most of them trusted that the vaccines were safe and effective.
Those responding to crises cannot wait until the next time to build trust. It must be cultivated through genuinely two-way communication, proximity, and consistent support over time.
In the course of their work, Red Cross and Red Crescent teams documented how the COVID-19 pandemic both thrived on and exacerbated inequalities. Poor sanitation, overcrowding, lack of access to health and social services, and malnutrition create conditions for diseases to spread faster and further. The world must address inequitable health and socio-economic vulnerabilities far in advance of the next crisis.
In its Everyone Counts Report—which surveyed National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies from nearly every country in the world—the IFRC found that teams were able to quickly respond to the pandemic because they were already present in communities and many of them had engaged in preparedness efforts, had prior experience responding to epidemics, and were strong auxiliaries to their local authorities.
“Community-based organizations are an integral part of pandemic preparedness and response. Local actors and communities, as frontline responders, have distinct but equally important roles to play in all phases of disease outbreak management. Their local knowledge needs to be leveraged for greater trust, access, and resilience,” states Mr. Chapagain.
*”It has been a brutal three years, but we are releasing this research and making recommendations in an act of hope: The global community can learn lessons and do justice to this tragedy by being better prepared for future health emergencies.” *
The World Disasters Report offers six essential actions to prepare more effectively for future public health emergencies. The Everyone Counts Report highlights the need for accurate and relevant data in pandemic preparedness and response. Both are available to practitioners, leaders, and the public.
Image credit: 
Eric Block On Responsible Branding 
You must be logged in to post a comment.