Many younger workers in the U.K. are rejecting employers that lag in ESG. Image via Shutterstock/Prostock-studio.
By Stuart Stone from businessgreen.com • Reposted: January 30, 2023
A third of 18- to 24-year-olds have rejected a job offer based on the prospective employers’ environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance in favor of more environmentally friendly roles — fueling a growing trend dubbed “climate quitting” by KPMG.
The consultancy giant published the results of a survey of 6,000 U.K. adult office workers, students, apprentices and those who have left higher education in the past six months, which found that almost half — 46 percent — of those quizzed want the company they work for to demonstrate green credentials.
KMPG found that “climate quitting” is being driven by millennial and Gen Z job seekers who are attaching increased weight to the environmental performance of potential employers when considering new roles.
Overall, one-in five-respondents to the survey revealed they had turned down an offer from a firm whose ESG commitments were not consistent with their values, but the share of those rejecting jobs from companies with weak ESG credentials rose to one-in-three for 18- to 24-year-olds.
However, the survey revealed significant numbers of employees are assessing employers’ ESG performance when considering new roles, regardless of age.
It is the younger generations that will see the greater impacts if we fail to reach [global climate] targets, so it is unsurprising that this, and other interrelated ESG considerations, are front of mind for many.
Over half of 18- to 24-year-olds and 25- to 34-year-olds said they valued ESG commitments from their employer, while 48 percent of 35- to 44-year-olds said the same.
Moreover, 30 percent of respondents said they had researched a company’s ESG credentials when job hunting, rising to 45 percent among 18- to 24-year-olds.
A company’s environmental impact and living wage policies were key areas researched by over 45 percent of job seekers. Younger workers tended to be most interested in fair pay commitments, while those ages 35 to 44 were more likely to be interested in the environmental impact of a potential employer.
John McCalla-Leacy, head of ESG at KPMG, said it was little surprise that younger workers were prioritizing firms’ climate credentials.
“It is the younger generations that will see the greater impacts if we fail to reach [global climate] targets, so it is unsurprising that this, and other interrelated ESG considerations, are front of mind for many when choosing who they will work for,” he said.
“For businesses the direction of travel is clear. By 2025, 75 percent of the working population will be millennials, meaning they will need to have credible plans to address ESG if they want to continue to attract and retain this growing pool of talent.”
The results are likely to be welcomed by green businesses, which are facing significant recruitment challenges as they look to hire more people with sustainability and clean tech skills to support the delivery of their net zero targets.
The recent Salary and Recruiting Trends guide from recruitment consultancy firm Hays found that almost two-thirds of young jobseekers are on the hunt for roles in a sustainability sector that is crying out for new talent.
Grocery chains under pressure to switch from HFCs to natural refrigerants to curb climate change
Supermarket fridges and freezers leak powerful greenhouse gases called HFCs. Switching to ‘natural refrigerants’ such as CO2 could make a difference in cutting emissions. Photo: Terry Chea/AP
By Emily Chung · CBC News · Posted: January 29, 2023
Climate-conscious shoppers may buy local food and try to cut packaging waste, but those efforts could be negated by potent greenhouse gases leaking from supermarket fridges.
Refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs are widely used to keep food cold or frozen at grocery stores and during transport. (They’re also used for other refrigeration applications, like ice rinks and air conditioners).
They were originally brought in to replace ozone-depleting refrigerants called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were banned in a landmark 1987 agreement called the Montreal Protocol, in order to save the Earth’s protective ozone layer.
But HFCs are themselves powerful greenhouse gases.
Typically, each tonne of HFCs can trap as much heat in the atmosphere as 1,400 to 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide over 100 years, depending on the type of HFC.
Here’s a look at why that’s happening, what the solutions are, and how ordinary shoppers could make a difference.
How do HFCs get from supermarkets into the atmosphere?
Supermarket fridges aren’t like your fridge at home, which typically contains less than 200 grams of refrigerant. And it’s in a sealed unit that’s unlikely to leak, says Morgan Smith, spokesperson for the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council.
Her non-profit group has partnered with industry to help enable the transition from HFCs to more climate-friendly refrigerants because the complexity of their systems make them prone to leaking significant amounts of HFCs.
Beneath and behind the cases of vegetables, dairy and frozen foods at a typical supermarket are kilometres of piping with thousands of valves, containing literally a tonne of refrigerant.
“It’s so large and so complex, with so many different points of connection that those systems are inherently leaky, and so they leak about 25 per cent of their refrigerant charge every year,” said Smith.
That’s something another non-profit group called the Environmental Investigation Agency has captured on video using infrared cameras and HFC detectors in U.S. grocery stores. It also measured levels of HFCs in the store using chemical detectors.
Three chemical detectors show readings of HFCs at a Gristedes grocery store in New York during a survey by the Environmental Investigation Agency and 350NYC in 2022. Photo: Environmental Investigation Agency
It detected leaks at 55 per cent of the dozens of U.S. stores where it took measurements. On average,it found a single supermarket emits 875 pounds (400 kilograms) of HFCs a year, equivalent to carbon emissions from 300 cars. In the U.S. alone, it calculated supermarket HFC leaks cause as much global warming as burning 22 million tonnes of coal.
How big a deal are these emissions really?
HFCs are such a big problem for climate change that Canada and 196 other countries have signed an international agreement, the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, to reduce HFC consumption 85 per cent by 2036, relative to 2011 to 2013.
Shelie Miller, a professor who studies the environmental impact of the food system at the University of Michigan, says emissions from refrigerants may be relatively small compared to the food system emissions overall and major categories such as food waste.
“But that’s also just because the food system has such a big impact,” she said.
On the other hand, targeting HFCs in supermarkets can be very effective at curbing emissions.
“You can make fairly small changes and have a relatively large impact just because the chemicals themselves that we’re using right now have such large global warming potentials,” Miller said.
While potent, HFCs are short-lived greenhouse gases, said Miller, lasting no more than 30 years in the atmosphere, compared to hundreds of years for CO2. Since a typical refrigeration system lasts about 30 years, decisions made now about what refrigerant to use can affect global emissions for decades.
“We need to be thinking about the sources and the hubs of where emissions are happening. And so our grocery stores are a great way to target our overall food system and reduce emissions.”
What can be used for refrigeration in place of HFCs?
The main alternatives are called “natural” refrigerants because they are all chemicals found in nature. They include:
CO2.
Ammonia.
Propane.
While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its global warming potential is so much lower than that of HFCs. And propane, while it’s a fossil fuel, is not burned when used in refrigeration. In fact, all three of these chemicals are considered refrigerants with ultra-low global warming potential.
How are Canadian supermarkets progressing at switching away from HFCs?
According to Shecco, a market research firm focused on sustainable technologies, there were 340 commercial CO2 refrigeration installations in Canada as of May 2020. That was far fewer than Japan, with 6,500 and Europe with 29,000, and growing more slowly than every other region in the world listed, including the U.S., Australia and New Zealand.
However, Jeffrey Gingras, president of Evapco LMP, a Laval, Que.-based company that makes CO2 refrigeration systems, said he’s seen an exponential growth in installations in the past three years, and did a record 125 installations in supermarkets, about half of them in Canada, in 2022.
The Environmental Investigation Agency has been building a global map of refrigerants used in supermarkets since it launched its Climate-Friendly Supermarkets project in 2019.
Two Canadian community groups, Drawdown Toronto and Drawdown B.C., have helped coordinate submissions to the map in their regions, and have added about 250 stores to the map. (Note: I volunteered for Drawdown Toronto while on leave from CBC News and added one store. You can read more about that in our What On Earth newsletter.)
This is a refrigerator label from the inside of a supermarket fridge, showing the type of refrigerant used. In this case, it’s an HFC called R404A, with a global warming potential close to 4,000 times that of CO2. Image: Emily Chung/CBC News
That was enough for the EIA to issue its first ever scorecard on Canadian supermarkets last fall. It reported on the five largest food retailers in Canada: Costco, Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys and Walmart.
The best-performing was Sobeys, which had the highest percentageof stores using ultra-low global warming potential refrigerants (nine per cent), was the only listed company that publicly reports its refrigerant leak rate (seven per cent) and has committed to transition to climate-friendly refrigerants for all new stores and renovation projects starting in 2024.
Some stores have also reported taking their own actions on HFCs, including Loblaws, which ranked third in the report and told CBC News that it has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent “in a large part” because of its strategy to reduce refrigerant leaks: using less refrigerant, detecting leaks early and reducing the emissions intensity of the refrigerants it uses.
Walmart Canada, which came fourth in the report, told CBC News in an email that it is installing natural refrigerants in all new stores and during major remodels with new grocery departments, and will switch all stores running on HFC refrigerants to more environmentally friendly options. It did not give a timeline, but said its global operations are aiming for zero emissions by 2040.
The other companies did not respond to CBC’s requests for comment.
EIA’s global map does show very few green dots in Canada compared to the U.S. and Europe. Avipsa Mahapatra, the group’s climate campaign lead, said that may be because no Canadian supermarket chains have not submitted their own data, unlike in other countries, and there isn’t much information.
“I actually have a hunch that Canada is not very far behind,” she said.
Ordinary shoppers can add local grocery stores to the Environmental Investigation Agency’s map of supermarket refrigerants. (Environmental Investigation Agency)
Why aren’t HFCs getting ditched faster?
Morgan Smith of the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council said making the switch to natural refrigerants isn’t easy. They may require different training and equipment: ammonia is toxic, propane is flammable, and CO2 operates under very high pressures.
Smith said CO2 tends to be the natural refrigerant of choice for most supermarkets because it’s non-toxic and its systems work a lot like HFC systems.The high pressures mean it does need different piping and different valves, so a system can take months to build, and can’t just be swapped out overnight like parts of the existing system when it needs repairs.
It’s easiest if you have the space to build a new system alongside while the old system is still running, Smith said. Otherwise, you might have to shut down the store during the retrofit, which is difficult for both customers and the store operator.
For smaller stores, one option is to switch to individual fridges similar to your home fridge, with propane refrigerant in a sealed unit, Smith said.
Experts say it’s not easy to convert an existing HFC refrigeration system to natural refrigerants, as they often require different equipment such as valves and piping. Photo: CBC / Radio-Canada
Michael Zabaneh of the Retail Council of Canada said refrigerant projects are quite expensive for supermarkets.
“They can be challenging and that’s probably the biggest barrier, the need to pay for higher capital costs to either upgrade the equipment so that it can handle natural refrigerants, or buy new equipment.”
However, he said most large grocery chains are aware of the problems with HFCs and customer and investor pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and are taking action.
The Environmental Investigation Agency’s Mahapatra acknowledged that retrofitting older stores is expensive and challenging. However, she says grocery chains should be making all new stores use natural refrigerants.
“There is no excuse for any supermarket today to build a new store that still contains HFCs. That is just simply foolish,” she said, noting that international agreements to phase out HFCs will eventually force companies to change the systems anyway.
What is the government doing about this?
The federal government will start to offer carbon offset credits for projects that cut refrigerant emissions, including those in supermarkets. Environment and Climate Change Canada told CBC News in an email that they’ll go into effect “in the next few months.” Once that happens, companies will be able to apply to get credits for projects that started as far back as January 1, 2017.
Federal regulations have also been brought in to comply with the Kigali Amendment, the international agreement on HFCs that went into effect in 2018, with reduction targets starting in 2019.
The regulations will start to ban the manufacture and import of certain equipment containing HFCs with a global warming potential above a specific limit.
Gingras said the Quebec government did offer incentives for a period of time starting 2014 that made natural refrigerant systems competitive with HFCs, and those did lead to a widespread conversion of supermarkets in the province. However, he hasn’t heard of anything similar in other provinces.
Is there a role for ordinary shoppers?
Avipsa Mahapatra says grocery store customers can make a difference by adding their local stores to the climate-friendly supermarket map, being more aware and putting pressure on grocery store chains, especially when it comes to new supermarkets.
“So if it’s a new store that is being built in your community, it is our job as … residents of that community, to make sure that it is not an HFC store.”
Morgan Smith at the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council also thinks the public can make a difference: “The more people that are aware of this top
A maze of pipes at the Highwater Ethanol plant in rural Lamberton, Minn. The plant is one of many which have signed on for a proposed $4.5 billion project collecting carbon dioxide emissions from ethanol plants in Minnesota and neighboring states, then storing the greenhouse gas deep underground in North Dakota. Photo: Jackson Forderer for MPR News 2022
From the Associated Press • January 28, 2023
North Dakota landowners testified for and against a carbon capture company’s use of eminent domain Friday, as Summit Carbon Solutions moves forward in constructing a massive underground system of carbon dioxide pipelines spanning 2,000 miles across several states and under hundreds of people’s homes and farms in the Midwest.
The proposed $4.5 billion carbon pipeline project would capture carbon dioxide emissions across neighboring states and deposit the emissions deep underground in North Dakota.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission voted early this month to accepted Summit Carbon Solution’s route permit application. It also ordered an environmental review of the project.
Landowners who opposed the company’s right to eminent domain argued that a private entity should not be able to forcibly buy their land and that the pipeline will potentially endanger people living above it.
Eminent domain refers to the government’s right to forcibly buy private property — like the land under a person’s house or farm — for public use.
Landowners who supported Summit’s right to exercise eminent domain said the company’s timely construction of the carbon pipeline serves an important public interest — it would reduce the state’s carbon footprint and thereby allow North Dakotans to continue working in energy and agriculture — and that people living above the pipeline will be safe.
“The safety of our operations, our employees, and the communities where we operate is the foundation of Summit Carbon Solutions’ business,” Summit said on its website. “As the project is constructed, we will utilize the latest and most reliable technologies and materials.”
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee did not immediately vote on the bills heard Thursday and Friday about carbon pipelines and eminent domain.
Republican Sen. Jeffery Magrum, of Hazelton, said he introduced the bills because he has heard from “many landowners” that carbon pipeline developers are threatening the use of eminent domain as a way to negotiate for property rights and access.
“We need to support property rights and our land owners as we develop our natural resources,” Magrum said.
The bill heard Friday would prohibit carbon pipeline companies from exercising eminent domain, but would allow oil, gas and coal companies to continue using eminent domain.
“The proposed carbon dioxide pipeline would move a dangerous product through our community to a location where it cannot be used for any purpose, but instead must be injected underground and sequestered forever,” said Gaylen Dewing, who has worked as a farmer and rancher near Bismarck for over 50 years.
Dewing added that the state’s energy industry “would not benefit in any way” from this practice of storing carbon dioxide underground, so carbon pipeline companies should not have the right to exercise eminent domain.
Susan Doppler, a landowner in Burleigh County, said her family does not want “our land ripped up — toxic and useless — to give way to a hazardous pipeline. What a worthless and disgusting inheritance to leave a future generation.”
But other North Dakota landowners pushed back.
Keith Kessler, a farmer and rancher in Oliver County who owns land within the boundaries of the pipeline project, said a different pipeline has been transporting carbon for over 20 years between North Dakota and Canada. That pipeline has never had a rupture or leak, and hazardous incidents from carbon pipelines are rare, he said.
And Lori Flemmer, a resident of Mercer County, said her husband and sons work in the energy industry and on their family farm. Working in agriculture and energy is “reality in coal country,” she said, and carbon capture technology is necessary for reducing carbon footprints and keeping coal plants alive.
Summit Carbon Solutions’ Executive Vice President Wade Boeshans said the company must keep its ability to use eminent domain in order to build carbon pipelines in a timely fashion, deliver on the $4.5 billion pipeline project and keep North Dakota’s economy afloat. According to the company’s website, the project would span Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska.
Republican Gov. Doug Burgum lauded North Dakota’s efforts to store carbon dioxide in January.
“We’re on our way toward achieving carbon neutrality as a state by 2030, thanks to our extraordinary capacity to safely store over 252 billion tons of CO2, or 50 years of the nation’s CO2 output,” Burgum said. “And in the process, we can help secure the future of our state’s two largest industries: energy and agriculture.”
The Trump administration in 2018 gave North Dakota the power to regulate underground wells used for long-term storage of waste carbon dioxide. North Dakota was the first state to be given such power, the Environmental Protection Agency said in announcing the move. The state has since invested heavily in carbon capture and sequestration technology.
___
Trisha Ahmed is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow her on Twitter: @TrishaAhmed15
How a ‘blizzard of false information’ undermines the threat of climate change
Atmospheric chemist Susan Solomon, shown here at a research station in the Antarctic in the mid-1980s, remembers being laughed at by colleagues when she first presented her research on the cause of the thinning ozone layer. Photo: Submitted by Susan Solomon
If you’re over 30, you likely remember a time when there was a lot of hand-wringing and furrowed brows over the ozone hole and skin cancer, as well as the threat of acid rain destroying ecosystems.
In the 1980s and ’90s, those global environmental crises created buzz and grabbed headlines, but in the decades that followed, the world turned its attention to another threat: climate change.
Yet the success stories of how those threats were tackled — through the co-operation of scientists, policy-makers and the public — are often overlooked, if not outright denied.
A barrage of misinformation on social media, including various tweets and videos, claims those issues were never real in the first place. It’s a conspiracy theory that takes on various shapes, but the underlying common thread is the false claim that climate change is just the latest in a series of hoaxes invented by governments to control the public.
One TikTok video (reminder: this is misinformation) with more than three million views dismisses several global threats as “politics,” listing off a series of examples: “In the ’80s, it was acid rain will destroy all the crops in 10 yrs; in the ’90s it was the ozone layer will be destroyed in 10 years; in the 2000s it was the glaciers will all melt in 10 years …,” the TikTok poster says.
The video claims it was all “fear-mongering nonsense” that never came true.
Watching the video during an interview with CBC News, atmospheric chemist Susan Solomon nods knowingly. It’s not the first time she’s confronted that attitude.
“I’ve heard that kind of — I don’t want to even call it a line of argument — I’ve heard that kind of assertion in the past,” said Solomon, who is a professor in the department of Earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“It’s a little bit like saying, ‘I had a heart attack and my doctor put a stent in. They told me I had to exercise and now I feel great. So I think that was all just nonsense to make money for the medical establishment.”
This image, circulated on social media, is an example of a popular conspiracy theory that falsely claims climate change is a hoax, along with acid rain and ozone depletion. (Climate Knight/Facebook)
Scientists set the record straight
It was Solomon’s research in the 1980s that helped establish the cause of the thinning ozone: refrigerants called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs.
She recalls a particular meeting where colleagues were discussing ozone depletion. Solomon, 30 at the time, said she presented her paper identifying how refrigerants were breaking apart in the stratosphere.
“People just laughed,” she said.
But Solomon knew she was on to something, and her work contributed to the growing body of evidence that ultimately led to the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, phasing out the harmful refrigerants.
That treaty is working, according to a recent international report, which said the ozone is expected to recover by 2066.
“The fact that we have actually done the right things and fixed certain problems is a cause for celebration. It’s not a cause for pretending that those problems never existed,” Solomon said.
The reason acid rain doesn’t grab headlines anymore is similar — it wasn’t a hoax, it’s another case of governments responding to the scientific community’s alarm bells with regulations, which worked.
“The acid rain story [and] the ozone story show that we are capable of dealing with environmental problems and that we can make significant progress,” said Mike Paterson, a senior research scientist at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario.
Paterson wrote his master’s thesis on acid rain in the 1980s, and he recalls the very real impacts at the time, such as declining fish populations in North America and northern Europe.
Scientists established the cause — sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides produced by burning fossil fuels — and North America eventually took action with a series of policy reforms in the 1990s that successfully curbed emissions and reduced the acidity of rain.
Mike Paterson, a senior research scientist at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario, wrote his master’s thesis on acid rain in the 1980s, and he recalls the very real impacts at the time. Photo: Bartley Kives/CBC
How misinformation threatens climate action
The fact that the global threat of climate change is happening in a digital age rampant with misinformation adds a novel layer of complexity to solving the crisis, with its severity constantly being undermined.
A government-funded report published this week by the Council of Canadian Academies — a non-profit organization that gathers experts to examine evidence on scientific topics — states that “targeted misinformation campaigns have played a documented role in creating opposition to policies addressing climate change.”
The report, called Fault Lines, used modelling to estimate that COVID-19 misinformation and its impacts on vaccine hesitancy likely contributed to 2,800 deaths and 13,000 hospitalizations in Canada over a nine-month span in 2021.
The study highlights how misinformation can cause real harm — and warns of the threat that it poses to dealing with future crises by eroding trust in science and making people more susceptible to falling down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories.
Cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky, who contributed to the report, studies misinformation and public opinion around climate change.
“Exposure to misinformation about climate change leads people to take it less seriously and to be less willing to support policy actions,” Lewandowsky, who is the chair of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol in England, said in an interview with CBC News.
Women carry belongings salvaged from their homes after flooding caused by unusually heavy monsoon rains displaced millions of people in Pakistan in 2022. Attribution analysis has found that human-caused climate change likely contributed to the disaster. Photo: Fareed Khan/The Associated Press
Society is “drenched” in misinformation, he said, and the solution must go beyond teaching individuals how to debunk conspiracy theories and include shifts on a broader scale.
“We also have to look at the structures that are in place right now and that are assisting people with nefarious intentions to spread misinformation,” Lewandowsky said.
“We’re living in an environment where outrage or anger or fear — anything that evokes attention or captures attention — is being favoured by the algorithms of social media.”
Even if there is a strong scientific consensus on global warming, a steady stream of misinformation makes it difficult for people to sift through it all and sort fact from fiction, he said.
“If people are exposed to this blizzard of false information about climate change, then their right to be informed about risks is being undermined.”
If misinformation isn’t addressed, Lewandowsky said, it will make it all the more difficult for the public to realize and react to how serious climate change truly is, as it increasingly contributes to deadly disasters around the world.
By Michelle Woodhouse, Water Program Manager, Environmental Defense • Reposted: January 28, 2023
If you’re a reader of our blogs or a lover of Lake Erie, you may already know that excess amounts of fertilizer are making their way into our waterways and are a key culprit in contributing to toxic algae blooms in Lake Erie and other freshwater bodies. Some of these fertilizers are chemicals, but some are just old-fashioned manure.
Using a natural fertilizer such as manure is a good practice – but there are still some rules that need to be followed to minimize negative impacts on the environment.
Fertilizer management best practices are called the “4 Rs.” Applying the right fertilizer source at the right rate, at the right time, and in the right place – are considered the rules of thumb for fertilizer application. These rules apply to manure as well as chemical fertilizers. And when it comes to applying manure, winter is the worst time.
What are the risks of winter spreading?
Winter spreading of manure is a practice that is under intense scrutiny because of the elevated risks for nutrient losses and its effect on water quality. The risk of runoff to surface water increases when applied on frozen or snow-covered ground. Frozen soils have limited, or no infiltration, so immediate runoff occurs if rainfall or snow melts before the soil thaws. With winter applications, no growing crops are available to absorb the nutrients.
Winter spreading of fertilizer is actively discouraged within the agricultural community and by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs. However, it still occurs, and the practice of winter spreading is not only inefficient but also harmful to the watershed.
One of the main reasons manure is applied in winter is due to insufficient manure storage capacity. Therefore, increasing manure storage capacity is a simple way to alleviate much of the need for winter spreading. A more heavy-handed approach taken by some governments is to ban winter spreading altogether to try and enforce full compliance within the farming community.
What protections exist in Ontario to protect the Great Lakes from agricultural runoff and nutrient pollution?
Several pieces of legislation exist in Ontario that make it an offence to allow manure to enter waterways. The main pieces of legislation are the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act, and federally, the Fisheries Act. The Nutrient Management Act regulations are also most restrictive for winter applications. Farmers are also required to follow nutrient management plans when fertilizing crops and managing animal waste, which includes ensuring enough storage capacity for manure.
These weaknesses in the Nutrient Management Act contribute to year-round issues with nutrient losses and runoff, including in the winter months. All of this contributes to a deteriorating situation for the health of the Great Lakes and the toxic algae bloom issue that plagues Lake Erie annually. Governments need to strengthen the regulations requiring farms to have nutrient management plans. For the farms that do require plans, greater monitoring and enforcement of compliance are required.
Every year, scientists from NOAA and the Great Lakes region warn us that Lake Erie is approaching a tipping point, and if we don’t get our act together in the near term, we could lose one of our greatest global treasures. Bringing an end to the winter spreading of manure is one of the critical actions we need to take if we want to avoid this devastating loss.
Seeds are seen as students at Eucalyptus Elementary School learn to plant a vegetable garden in preparation for Plant a Seed Day in Hawthorne, California on March 13, 2019. Photo: DAVID MCNEW/AFP via Getty Images)
By Kaitlyn Radde from National Public Radio News • January 27, 2023
In the wake of wildfires, floods and droughts, restoring damaged landscapes and habitats requires native seeds. The U.S. doesn’t have enough, according to a report released Thursday.
”Time is of the essence to bank the seeds and the genetic diversity our lands hold,” the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) report said.
As climate change worsens extreme weather events, the damage left behind by those events will become more severe. That, in turn, will create greater need for native seeds — which have adapted to their local environments over the course of thousands of years — for restoration efforts.
But the report found that the country’s supply of native seeds is already insufficient to meet the needs of agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is the largest purchaser of native seeds and which commissioned the study in 2020. That lack of supply presents high barriers to restoration efforts now and into the future.
”The federal land-management agencies are not prepared to provide the native seed necessary to respond to the increasing frequency and severity of wildfire and impacts of climate change,” the report concluded. Changing that will require ”expanded, proactive effort” including regional and national coordination, it said.
In a statement, BLM said federal agencies and partners have been working to increase the native seed supply for many years. The bureau said it is reviewing the report’s findings.
The report’s recommendations ”represent an important opportunity for us to make our collective efforts more effective,” BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning said.
While native plants are the best for habitat restoration, the lack of supply means restoration efforts often use non-native substitutes. They’re less expensive and easier to come by, but they aren’t locally adapted.
”Without native plants, especially their seeds, we do not have the ability to restore functional ecosystems after natural disasters and mitigate the effects of climate change,” BLM said.
Some private companies produce native seeds, but that requires specialized knowledge and equipment. On top of that, they often lack starter seed, and demand is inconsistent — agencies make purchases in response to emergencies with timelines companies say are unrealistic. Proactively restoring public lands could help reduce this uncertainty and strain, the report recommends.
In order to sufficiently increase the supply of seeds, the report concluded that BLM also needs to upscale its Seed Warehouse System, which ”would soon be inadequate in terms of physical climate-controlled capacity, staff, and expertise.” There are currently two major warehouses with a combined capacity of 2.6 million pounds, with limited cold storage space.
By Daniel Sperling, Distinguished Blue Planet Prize Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Founding Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis via The Conversation • Published: January 26, 2023
California is embarking on an audacious new climate plan that aims to eliminate the state’s greenhouse gas footprint by 2045, and in the process, slash emissions far beyond its borders. The blueprint calls for massive transformations in industry, energy and transportation, as well as changes in institutions and human behaviors.
These transformations won’t be easy. Two years of developing the plan have exposed myriad challenges and tensions, including environmental justice, affordability and local rule.
For example, the San Francisco Fire Commission had prohibited batteries with more than 20 kilowatt-hours of power storage in homes, severely limiting the ability to store solar electricity from rooftop solar panels for all those times when the sun isn’t shining. More broadly, local opposition to new transmission lines, large-scale solar and wind facilities, substations for truck charging, and oil refinery conversions to produce renewable diesel will slow the transition.
I had a front row seat while the plan was prepared and vetted as a longtime board member of the California Air Resources Board, the state agency that oversees air pollution and climate control. And my chief contributor to this article, Rajinder Sahota, is deputy executive officer of the board, responsible for preparing the plan and navigating political land mines.
We believe California has a chance of succeeding, and in the process, showing the way for the rest of the world. In fact, most of the needed policies are already in place.
What happens in California has global reach
What California does matters far beyond state lines.
In the U.S., through peculiarities in national air pollution law, other states have replicated many of California’s regulations and programs so they can race ahead of national policies. States can either follow federal vehicle emissions standards or California’s stricter rules. There is no third option. An increasing number of states now follow California.
So, even though California contributes less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, if it sets a high bar, its many technical, institutional and behavioral innovations will likely spread and be transformative.
What’s in the California blueprint
The new Scoping Plan lays out in considerable detail how California intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 48% below 1990 levels by 2030 and then achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
It calls for a 94% reduction in petroleum use between 2022 and 2045 and an 86% reduction in total fossil fuel use. Overall, it would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2045 relative to 1990 levels. The remaining 15% reduction would come from capturing carbon from the air and fossil fuel plants, and sequestering it below ground or in forests, vegetation and soils.
To achieve these goals, the plan calls for a 37-fold increase in on-road zero-emission vehicles, a sixfold increase in electrical appliances in residences, a fourfold increase in installed wind and solar generation capacity, and doubling total electricity generation to run it all. It also calls for ramping up hydrogen power and altering agriculture and forest management to reduce wildfires, sequester carbon dioxide and reduce fertilizer demand.
This is a massive undertaking, and it implies a massive transformation of many industries and activities.
Transportation: California’s No. 1 emitter
Transportation accounts for about half of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, including upstream oil refinery emissions. This is where the path forward is perhaps most settled.
The state has already adopted regulations requiring almost all new cars, trucks and buses to have zero emissions – new transit buses by 2029 and most truck sales and light-duty vehicle sales by 2035.
In addition, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires oil companies to steadily reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. This regulation aims to ensure that the liquid fuels needed for legacy cars and trucks still on the road after 2045 will be low-carbon biofuels.
But regulations can be modified and even rescinded if opposition swells. If battery costs do not resume their downward slide, if electric utilities and others lag in providing charging infrastructure, and if local opposition blocks new charging sites and grid upgrades, the state could be forced to slow its zero-emission vehicle requirements.
The plan also relies on changes in human behavior. For example, it calls for a 25% reduction in vehicle miles traveled in 2030 compared with 2019, which has far dimmer prospects. The only strategies likely to significantly reduce vehicle use are steep charges for road use and parking, a move few politicians or voters in the U.S. would support, and a massive increase in shared-ride automated vehicles, which are not likely to scale up for at least another 10 years. Additional charges for driving and parking raise concerns about affordability for low-income commuters.
Electricity and electrifying buildings
The key to cutting emissions in almost every sector is electricity powered by renewable energy.
Electrifying most everything means not just replacing most of the state’s natural gas power plants, but also expanding total electricity production – in this case doubling total generation and quadrupling renewable generation, in just 22 years.
That amount of expansion and investment is mind-boggling – and it is the single most important change for reaching net zero, since electric vehicles and appliances depend on the availability of renewable electricity to count as zero emissions.
Electrification of buildings is in the early stages in California, with requirements in place for new homes to have rooftop solar, and incentives and regulations adopted to replace natural gas use with heat pumps and electric appliances.
The biggest and most important challenge is accelerating renewable electricity generation – mostly wind and utility-scale solar. The state has laws in place requiring electricity to be 100% zero emissions by 2045 – up from 52% in 2021.
The plan to get there includes offshore wind power, which will require new technology – floating wind turbines. The federal government in December 2022 leased the first Pacific sites for offshore wind farms, with plans to power over 1.5 million homes. However, years of technical and regulatory work are still ahead.
For solar power, the plan focuses on large solar farms, which can scale up faster and at less cost than rooftop solar. The same week the new scoping plan was announced, California’s Public Utility Commission voted to significantly scale back how much homeowners are reimbursed for solar power they send to the grid, a policy known as net metering. The Public Utility Commission argues that because of how electricity rates are set, generous rooftop solar reimbursementshave primarily benefited wealthier households while imposing higher electricity bills on others. It believes this new policy will be more equitable and create a more sustainable model.
Industry and the carbon capture challenge
Industry plays a smaller role, and the policies and strategies here are less refined.
The state’s carbon cap-and-trade program, designed to ratchet down total emissions while allowing individual companies some flexibility, will tighten its emissions limits.
But while cap-and-trade has been effective to date, in part by generating billions of dollars for programs and incentives to reduce emissions, its role may change as energy efficiency improves and additional rules and regulations are put in place to replace fossil fuels.
One of the greatest controversies throughout the Scoping Plan process is its reliance on carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS. The controversy is rooted in concern that CCS allows fossil fuel facilities to continue releasing pollution while only capturing the carbon dioxide emissions. These facilities are often in or near disadvantaged communities.
California’s chances of success
Will California make it? The state has a track record of exceeding its goals, but getting to net zero by 2045 requires a sharper downward trajectory than even California has seen before, and there are still many hurdles.
Environmental justice concerns about carbon capture and new industrial facilities, coupled with NIMBYism, could block many needed investments. And the possibility of sluggish economic growth could led to spending cuts and might exacerbate concerns about economic disruption and affordability.
There are also questions about prices and geopolitics. Will the upturn in battery costs in 2022 – due to geopolitical flare-ups, a lag in expanding the supply of critical materials, and the war in Ukraine – turn out to be a hiccup or a trend? Will electric utilities move fast enough in building the infrastructure and grid capacity needed to accommodate the projected growth in zero-emission cars and trucks?
It is encouraging that the state has already created just about all the needed policy infrastructure. Additional tightening of emissions limits and targets will be needed, but the framework and policy mechanisms are largely in place.
Rajinder Sahota, deputy executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, contributed to this article.
By Mary Riddle from Triple Pundit. Posted: January 27, 2023
Investors, insurers, and financial institutions in the EU have a new method for assessing the sustainability of their investments. Last week, the Observatory Against Greenwashing launched its independent Science-Based Taxonomy, in direct response to the EU Taxonomy system that some say is ineffective.
The EU Taxonomy is a classification system that claims to give investors, businesses, and financial institutions a common language for identifying the degree to which a specific investment, financial product, or economic activity can be considered sustainable.
However, critics have said the draft guidance is not sufficiently science-based and certain aspects, such as classifying gas-fired power, tree-burning, logging and nuclear energy as sustainable, could do more harm than good.
To create a more sustainable system for classifying investments, a coalition of experts and NGOs including WWF, BirdLife International, and Transport and Environment, formed the Observatory Against Greenwashing (OAG). The group aims to improve on the EU Taxonomy and provide investors with better, science-based guidance on the sustainability of their investments.
What is the independent Science-Based Taxonomy?
The independent Science-Based Taxonomy is based on the EU Taxonomy, but it only keeps the portions of the text that researchers found to be environmentally sound. It also makes more robust criteria for the parts of the EU Taxonomy that the OAG deemed unscientific or harmful to the environment.
“The EU Taxonomy was originally designed to eliminate greenwashing but instead has become another tool to deceive consumers,” Vedran Kordić, EU Taxonomy coordinator from WWF Adria, said in a statement. “The science-based Taxonomy wants to succeed where the original Taxonomy failed: It will create rigorous criteria which financial institutions can use to properly assess what is green and what is not.” According to the OAG, 1 in 3 activities deemed sustainable in the EU Taxonomy actually cause planetary harm.
The EU Taxonomy was established in 2018 with a mission to inject capital into projects that would help the EU meet objectives laid out in its Green New Deal, including carbon neutrality by 2050. But critics argue the EU Taxonomy is disingenuous and fundamentally flawed due to the inclusion of natural gas and nuclear energy sources on its list of sustainable investment options.
“This isn’t good enough. We need a better taxonomy, one based on science,” said Luca Bonaccorsi, sustainable finance director at Transport and Environment, a coalition of European NGOs working on transportation issues, in a statement. “Now the investor community has it.”
ESG regulations are expanding in the EU and beyond
While controversy continues to surround ESG regulation for financial products in the EU Taxonomy, the EU Commission is calling for an increase in regulation of other consumer goods and services in an attempt to respond to claims of bogus greenwashing. The EU has drafted a legal proposal that would require companies to provide scientific evidence to justify sustainability claims such as “carbon neutral” or “contains recycled materials.” The draft rule also calls on EU countries to develop systems for evaluating the environmental claims of companies, including issuing penalties for businesses that do not comply.
The expansion of ESG (environmental, social and governance) regulation is not limited to Europe. In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act is expected to channel over $400 billion into clean tech companies over the next 10 years. Additionally, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to finally issue its climate disclosure regulations in April, several months later than planned. The new SEC rules, if issued, would require companies to make disclosures surrounding their climate-related risks, as well as their greenhouse gas emissions and those of their supply chains.
By Tina Casey from Triple Pundit • Reposted: January 26, 2023
City taxpayers in states like Texas are set to lose out financially due to “anti-ESG” laws. Image credit: Perry Merrity II/Unsplash
When red-state policymakers began to target ESG (environment, social and governance) investing for attack, it was only a matter of time before someone got hurt. As it happens, that someone is the local taxpayer. A new anti-ESG state law in Texas has already induced one city to miss out on the most competitive bid for its municipal bond sale. As for cities in blue states, growth in the market for municipal green bonds could help ensure economic health and resiliency in the era of climate change.
Somebody’s gonna get hurt: Small city loses $277,334 on bond sale
An early sign of trouble appeared last September when Bloomberg reported that the city of Anna, Texas (population 16,792) declined to pick the best bid for its bond sale. The bidder, Citigroup, apparently ran afoul of a new state law, SB 19. That law passed in 2021 with the goal of protecting gun industry stakeholders from being passed over by financial firms with ESG policies.
Citigroup is one such firm. In 2018, the company set a relatively mild “best practices” policy on gun sales for its retail clients. The new policy required background checks and a 21-year age threshold, and it limited the sale of extra-lethal equipment such as bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.
“It is not centered on an ideological mission to rid the world of firearms,” Ed Skyler, Citigroup’s EVP of global public affairs, said of the policy back in 2018. “But we want to do our part as a company to prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.”
Skyler also noted that Citigroup’s policy applied to retail clients only, not to the company’s relationships with gun manufacturers, which he described as “few.” Even so, that was enough to set off alarm bells under SB 19.
As described by Bloomberg, city officials in Anna rejected Citibank’s bid after discussing the matter with the state Attorney General. They dropped the opportunity to get the best deal, reportedly costing local taxpayers $277,334.
A follow-up analysis commissioned by Ceres and the investor group As You Sow also indicated that similar losses are in store for cities as a group of state policymakers consider similar laws. That group includes lawmakers in Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma and West Virginia.
Picking winners and losers in the market for municipal green bonds
The prospect of a negative bottom-line outcome for city residents will probably not make red-state policymakers change their minds and stop the crusade against ESG investing. After all, punishing city dwellers to make a point is par for the course among red-state policymakers.
In contrast, blue-state taxpayers can look forward to a competitive environment for their municipal bond sales, including municipal green bonds.
Earlier this month, an organization of international investors called the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) released a report in support of the U.S. municipal market titled, “The thematic ESG approach in U.S. municipal bonds.”
“As the largest liquid sub-sovereign debt market in the world, the U.S. muni bond market merits consideration by ESG-minded fixed income investors,” PRI emphasized.
PRI is tasked with promoting the six ESG principles outlined by the United Nations Global Compact in 2006. More than 1,500 investment firms have signed onto the principles, with assets under management totaling an eye-popping $62 trillion.
In the report, PRI noted that municipal bonds are “well-positioned for investors pursuing a thematic ESG approach.” While cautioning that investors still need to exercise due diligence, the report’s authors noted that thematic or “labelled” municipal bonds can “help investors assess and report on the environmental and social outcomes of their investments.”
PRI analyst Jasper Cox elaborated: “U.S. municipal bonds are useful for fixed income investors seeking to contribute to sustainability outcomes, since issuers of these bonds are crucial for the wellbeing of most Americans and also the transition to a low carbon economy.”
Based on data culled from PRI’s ESG reporting platform, the organization observed that momentum is growing for “thematic ESG investing in U.S. muni bonds due to increasing investor interest in environmental and social themes.”
Among other factors, the report also took note of “growing opportunities to fund climate-related projects.”
Indeed, some PRI signatories are using muni bonds to align investment objectives with the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals or, alternatively, exclude bonds linked to revenue from certain sectors, such as tobacco.
Yes, interest in municipal green bonds is growing
Earlier this month, Goldman Sachs provided another indication that the outlook for municipal green bonds in the U.S. is a healthy one — at least for blue-state cities.
“The global bond market will be an important source of investment to drive the climate transition, and green bonds finance projects with positive environmental impact,” the firm’s lead portfolio manager for green, social and impact bonds, Bram Bos, wrote in a company blog post.
Bos explained that the market for municipal green bonds is expanding as the twin forces of investor interest and government policymaking come to bear. Though much of the activity has been centered in Europe, Goldman Sachs expects the pace to pick up in the U.S. and elsewhere in the coming years, Bos reported.
That outlook was affirmed back in 2021 by Fidelity, which issued a white paper noting that municipal green bonds were a small but growing segment of the market.
“Provided that the bonds meet the investor’s current investment objectives and that the investor understands the associated risks, Green Bonds may present a unique investment opportunity,” Fidelity stated.
ESG is here to stay
CNN ran the numbers earlier this week and reported that “sustainable investing generated returns similar to the market” last year. That’s an interesting contrast with the New York Times, which ran a string of articles critical of ESG investing last year.
Among other data indicating strength in the ESG area, CNN cited the Morningstar U.S. Sustainability Index, which fell 18.9 percent in 2022. That may look bad at first, but in the context of an overall market downturn, the Index actually did better than the S&P 500 — which fell 19.4 percent.
Against this backdrop, the anti-ESG, “anti-woke” movement is simply another Republican exercise in performative politics, aimed at mollifying their supporters in the fossil energy and weapons industries while feeding the emotions of their angry base, regardless of the consequences for everyone else.
It’s little wonder that the Republican Party underperformed expectations in the 2022 midterm elections by a wide margin. The world is passing them by, and that includes ESG investors and the voters who benefit from fact-based financial decision-making in the era of climate change.
Blackbaud (NASDAQ: BLKB), the world’s leading cloud software company powering social good, released an employee engagement benchmark calculator, which allows companies to see where their employee volunteering and giving programs align with peers. The calculator groups companies evaluated within the YourCause 10th Annual CSR Review by industry and employee count, comparing 66 different possible categories. Data evaluated is a subset of the entire YourCause client and employee population representing more than 350 companies and over 7.6 million employees that engaged in social impact from 118 countries.
“Since 2015, YourCause has provided insights into employee engagement and social responsibility from Fortune 500 companies and millions of employees collected from our portfolio of CSR software. This tool and the insights provided are a direct result of implementing client feedback”, said Brandon Sharrett, president and general manager, YourCause from Blackbaud “With the help of our customers we can develop a better solution that enables them to focus on driving social impact.”
The calculator prompts users to choose from 6 company size groups and 11 SIC categories, for example, healthcare and 10,000-50,000 employees or healthcare and 100,000+ employees, etc. The results come with a short, curated list of resources to help companies quickly navigate to online guides packed with ideas and client stories.
Investing in CSR and Employee Engagement Matters
Businesses are looking to help drive social impact that creates better lives for the people in their communities. Forbes recently released an article with 15 tips from social impact leaders on building a successful program and number 5 was all about engaging the entire workforce. “Leaders have to engage their entire workforce in order to drive social impact”. The benchmark tool from YourCause will allow companies to set realistic, strategic goals towards engaging their entire workforce and ultimately driving meaningful social change in their communities. Companies using YourCause CSRconnect® for employee engagement can use the robust reporting tools to look at participation rates by department, office location or manager level to set smaller goals for individual teams or groups. These smaller goals will add up to an increased participation rate for the whole firm.
“Corporations are constantly looking for insights to boost employee engagement and nothing empowers them more than strong data insights. Providing our industry data in this easy-to-use benchmarking tool gives corporations a great, and measurable, starting point on their path to increased engagement,” said Nathan Froelich, Senior Manager, Strategy and Business Development, Corporate Impact at Blackbaud.
About Blackbaud Blackbaud is the world’s leading cloud software company powering social good. Serving the entire social good community—nonprofits, higher education institutions, K–12 schools, healthcare organizations, faith communities, arts and cultural organizations, foundations, companies and individual change agents.
Hog farmer Mike Patterson’s animals, who have been put on a diet so they take longer to fatten up due to the supply chain disruptions caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreaks, at his property in Kenyon, Minnesota, U.S. April 23, 2020. Picture taken April 23, 2020. REUTERS/Nicholas Pfosi
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says it will study whether to toughen regulation of large livestock farms that release manure and other pollutants into waterways.
EPA has not revised its rules dealing with the nation’s largest animal operations — which hold thousands of hogs, chickens and cattle — since 2008. The agency said in 2021 it planned no changes but announced Friday it had reconsidered in response to an environmental group’s lawsuit.
While not committing to stronger requirements, EPA acknowledged needing more recent data about the extent of the problem — and affordable methods to limit it.
“EPA has decided to gather additional information and conduct a detailed study on these issues in order to be able to make an informed decision as to whether to undertake rulemaking,” the agency said.
Food & Water Watch, whose lawsuit prompted the agency’s reversal, said a new approach was long overdue.
“For decades EPA’s lax rules have allowed for devastating and widespread public health and environmental impacts on vulnerable communities across the country,” Tarah Heinzen, the group’s legal director, said Monday.
Beef, poultry and pork have become more affordable staples in the American diet thanks to industry consolidation and the rise of giant farms. Yet federal and state environmental agencies often lack basic information such as where they’re located, how many animals they’re raising and how they deal with manure.
Runoff of waste and fertilizers from the operations — and from croplands where manure is spread — fouls streams, rivers and lakes. It’s a leading cause of algae blooms that create hazards in many waterways and dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Erie.
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA regulates large farms — known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs — covered by federal pollution permits. Federal law requires only those known to discharge waste to obtain permits, although some states make others do so.
EPA’s most recent tally shows 6,266 of the nation’s 21,237 CAFOs have permits.
In its plan, the agency said its rules impose “substantial and detailed requirements” on production areas — barns and feedlots where animals are held, plus manure storage facilities — as well as land where manure and wastewater are spread.
While prohibiting releases to waterways, the rules make exceptions for production area discharges caused by severe rainfall and for stormwater-related runoff from croplands where waste was applied in keeping with plans that manage factors such as timing and amounts.
In deciding whether to revise the rules, EPA said it would consider how well they’re controlling pollution and how changing them would bring improvements.
The agency conceded its data on discharges to waterways is “sparse,” with a preliminary analysis based on reports from only 16 CAFOs. In addition to seeking information from more farms, EPA said it would assess whether discharges are widespread nationally or concentrated in particular states or regions.
It also will look into practices and technologies developed since the rules were last revised, their potential effectiveness at preventing releases, and their cost to farm owners and operators. Under the law, new requirements on farms must be “technologically available and economically achievable.”
Revising water pollution rules typically takes several years, three full-time employees and $1 million per year for contractor help, EPA said. The study will determine whether “the potential environmental benefits of undertaking rulemaking justify devoting the significant resources that are required,” it said.
Livestock groups have said government regulation is strong enough and that voluntary measures such as planting off-season cover crops and buffer strips between croplands and waterways are the best way to curb runoff.
Environmental groups argue regulations should cover more farms, require better construction of manure lagoons to avoid leaks, and outlaw practices such as spreading waste on frozen ground, where it often washes away during rainstorms or thaws.
“We’re not talking about really expensive fixes here,” said Emily Miller, staff attorney with Food & Water Watch. “We need the standards to be stronger so they actually prevent discharges as they’re supposed to do.”
National Parks Conservation Association and Nature Valley are furthering the permanent protection of places that honor the people and stories who shaped our public lands.
From the National Parks Conservation Association • Reposted: January 25, 2023
Today, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and its partner Nature Valley are announcing a new video series that celebrates and brings awareness to the historical and cultural heritage of our Hispanic and Latino communities – while generating greater access to nature by preserving public lands and national park sites.
The series features three videos highlighting transformational park experiences by national park advocates in Texas and California. These stories are told through the lens of recreation, accessibility and representation, and family heritage. Each story is further brought to life through a unique piece of artwork reflective of each advocate’s experience and emblematic of the park site special to them.
The first video in the series released today features community member, Josie Gutierrez, and her experiences within San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Josie’s story serves as an example of how park access allows people to connect to nature through recreation, while also providing a space to find peace and relaxation in the outdoors. Also revealed in the video is an art piece created by Cristina Noriega, a painter and muralist born and raised in San Antonio, commissioned to embody Josie’s experience at the San Antonio Missions. Subsequent videos highlighting additional national park advocates and their profound personal experiences within park sites will be released over the coming months.
“Our national parks tell the stories of America,” said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of National Parks Conservation Association. “They teach us about our history, our culture and the power of place. By sharing these powerful first-person stories, as we have done in this video series, we hope to introduce more people to America’s national parks and the richness of the experiences people have within these protected places. And we hope they are inspired to create stories of their own.”
Partners since 2009, Nature Valley recently donated $200,000 to NPCA to support the permanent protection of park sites that celebrate and bring awareness to the historical and cultural heritage of our Hispanic and Latino communities. These funds advance NPCA’s work around access, equity and representation within the outdoors to ensure our parks tell comprehensive stories of our nation’s rich history and culture, while providing all Americans the opportunity to see themselves in our parklands.
“Nature Valley is committed to ensuring nature’s energy is accessible to all, starting with education and awareness,” said Katie Wong, head of ideas and partnerships for General Mills. “Our partnership with National Parks Conservation Association advances this mission by furthering the permanent protection of places and spaces that honor the historical and cultural heritage of Hispanic and Latino communities who shaped our public lands by amplifying their stories.”
To view the first video in the series and learn more about NPCA and Nature Valley’s partnership and its impact, visit www.npca.org/naturevalley. Viewers can also follow along on NPCA’s Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Vimeo and TikTok as videos are released through April.
Mari Granström, a biochemist, sources microalgae from the Baltic Sea and seaweed from the Caribbean. Photo: BBC News
By Jo Harper fro BBC News • Reposted: January 25, 2023
Excessive outbreaks of seaweed and microalgae are clogging up waters from the Caribbean to the Baltic. Now both are being harvested alongside farmed crops to create ingredients for cosmetics and food products.
Mari Granström says it was her passion for scuba diving that opened her eyes to the continuing problem of toxic microalgae blooms in the Baltic Sea.
The outbreaks occur when tiny cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae, suddenly multiply rapidly, stretching out on top of the water for potentially kilometres.
Also called eutrophication, it is a form of marine suffocation, and it is a significant environmental concern in the Baltic Sea. It can occur in 97% of the total area of the sea, according to official figures.
The blooms impact on other marine life, by causing oxygen deficiency, reducing water quality, and blocking out light.
Microalgae blooms can plague the Baltic Sea, particularly in the summer. Photo: BBC
The problem is caused by too many nutrients entering the water, typically nitrogen and phosphorus from artificial fertilisers. These are carried into the sea by the rivers of the surrounding countries – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden.
While the use of such fertilisers has reduced in recent years, the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, the intergovernmental organisation that aims to improve water quality in the sea, says “the effect of these measures has not yet been detected”.
Some six years ago Ms Granström, a Finnish biochemist, determined to tackle the problem herself. She’d harvest the microalgae and use it to make ingredients for a host of products. In addition to cosmetics and human food, the microalgae extracts can be used in detergents, animal feed, packaging, and even as a replacement for plastic.
Origin by Ocean produces numerous extracts from the microalgae. Photo: BBC
“I saw with my own eyes – or perhaps couldn’t see – how it was affecting the marine ecosystem, and decided to do something,” she says. “There was too much finger pointing and not enough action.”
Ms Granström says she worked on the project as “a hobby for a long time”, before in 2019 setting up a company called Origin by Ocean (ObO). She is the chief executive.
The business, which has attracted both commercial investment and European Union funds, is now continuing with a pilot production scheme ahead of aiming to be fully operational by 2025-26.
ObO collects the microalgae off the coast of Finland, where it is sucked on to boats and then separated from the water. The firm is also importing invasive sargassum seaweed from the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean.
The algae is harvested by sucking it out of the sea. Photo: BBC
Vast blooms of that seaweed have plagued that region for a number of years.“There are 25 million tonnes of sargassum blooming in the Caribbean every year,” says Ms Granström.
“It stops people fishing and harms tourism. We are now buying several tonnes of sargassum from the Dominican Republic, and this volume will increase.”
The company further sources unwanted seaweed from Portuguese and Spanish waters.
ObO’s pilot processing is done at a facility in northern Finland. It uses a patented biorefinery technology it calls “Nauvu” to separate the algae into numerous useable materials.
These are then sold to food, cosmetics, textiles, packing and agricultural companies.
To help grow the business ObO is working with one of its investors, Finnish chemicals and industrial group Kiilto. “If this can be successfully scaled up here, then ObO can replicate similar processes around the globe,” says Ville Solja, Kiilto’s chief business development officer.
ObO already has plans to set up a refinery in the Dominican Republic.
Across in Sweden, a separate business called Nordic Seafarm is showing just how versatile seaweed can be.
“We make algae-based gin and beer, both locally produced,” says director Fredrik Gröndahl.
Nordic Seafarm, which grows its own seaweed, is a commercial spin-off from Seafarm, a Swedish government-funded project that helps commercialise aquaculture research.
“If this market [for seaweed] gets big, and we think it will, we are ready to scale up,” adds Prof Gröndahl, who is also project leader of Seafarm, and head of department for sustainable development, environmental science and engineering at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.
“Just imagine if Ikea asked for algae-based meatballs globally, which could happen.”
Professor Fredrik Gröndahl helps to run a company that puts seaweed to various uses. Photo: BBC News
Prof Gröndahl also hopes that in the future algae will become a key ingredient in animal feed, to replace environmentally-damaging fish meal, which is common in pigs and poultry diets. “Algae is also cheaper than existing ingredients as there is no cost for feeding and irrigation.”
Back at ObO, Ms Granström says the aim is for shoppers around the world to “play a part in cleaning up the Baltic Sea” by simply buying a number of consumer products.
“We wanted to do something to help at both ends of the process, upstream and downstream, as it were – cleaning the seas, but also monetising a change in consumer behaviour.”
By Jan Larson McLaughlin from BG Independent News • Posted: January 24, 2023
Most farmers want to be good stewards of the land. And most acknowledge that some crop practices can help protect the region’s water quality.
But somewhere between believing in conservation methods and actually practicing them is a gap. Those good intentions do nothing to keep harmful nutrients from reaching local waterways, stressed Dr. Robyn Wilson, of the Environmental and Social Sustainability Lab at Ohio State University.
The professor of risk analysis and decision science at OSU would like to help close that gap. Wilson, who spoke last week to the Bowling Green Kiwanis Club, comes to conservation from the unusual perspective of growing up on a farm near Findlay and being trained as a behavioral scientist.
This region – the Great Black Swamp – poses significant challenges for farmers. Because the landscape naturally holds onto water, farmers have worked for centuries to drain the swamp. Their efforts to get rid of the water as quickly as possible have resulted in great crop production.
But the wetlands that previously acted as a filter to runoff, no longer function to slow down the drainage into public waterways, Wilson said. And as climate changes create warmer, wetter and wilder conditions, the problems are exacerbated.
Big spring rains drive nutrients – fertilizer – into ditches, rivers and Lake Erie, leading to harmful algal blooms and poor water quality.
Research has shown that two farming practices could greatly slow the runoff of fertilizer, Wilson said. Planting cover crops and injecting the nutrients under the soil could help solve the water quality issues, she said.
“We know what’s causing it and we know how to fix it,” Wilson said. “We could solve Lake Erie’s water quality problems.”
But while farmers believe these practices could help, fewer than a third have actually implemented the methods, she said. A study of farmers in the Great Black Swamp area showed 65% see themselves as good conservationists.
“Good farmers care about soil health and water quality,” Wilson said. “But we have plenty of farmers with strong conservation identities who are doing very little.”
If 70% of farmers adopted these practices, she said, the region would experience a big difference in water quality.
“It’s the failure we have as humans to follow through with good intentions,” Wilson said.
Farmers have been slow to participate in cover crop programs, despite all the benefits. The cover crops can prevent soil and wind erosion, combat nutrient and soil runoff into nearby waterways, improve the soil and add nutrients, suppress weeds, improve the availability of water in the soil, and break pest cycles.
Surveys of Ohio farmers showed they think differently about cover crops depending on the time of year due to fluctuations in financial stability, the amount of work to do, and stress. In January and February, farmers are more likely to be financially stable, think more clearly, and have time to consider conservation practices.
“Cover crops is one of the trickiest things to ask farmers to do,” Wilson said.
Growing up on a farm and studying as a behavioral scientist, Wilson understands the importance of how conservation topics are presented to farmers. She knows better than using the politically polarizing term “climate change” in a survey.
“They’re all going to throw it away,” if the issue is presented as climate change, she said. The phrase “changing weather patterns” is more acceptable in the farming community.
“All farmers know the climate is changing,” she said. However, there is disagreement over whether the changes are caused by humans.
“I think we have a ways to go on that front,” Wilson said.
An overwhelming 98% of executives now agree that sustainability is core to their role. But faced with geopolitical instability, they are also navigating an unprecedented number of global business challenges. From CSRwire: Posted: January 23, 2023
As we’re approaching the halfway point to accomplish the 2030 Agenda, how are business leaders contributing to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals?
According to the 12th UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study — the world’s largest research initiative on sustainable leadership — an overwhelming 98% of executives now agree that sustainability is core to their role. But faced with geopolitical instability, they are also navigating an unprecedented number of global business challenges.
In a landmark research report published by Sustainable Life Media, Maddie Kulkarni of PepsiCo reports on the response to Purpose Driven Marketing by groups who self-identify as Democrats, Republican or Independent Voters.
In the report, Kulkarni writes:
“As a marketer, given the high drama of the US midterm elections this November, and the recent criticism of “woke marketing” by some activists and politicians, I wanted to investigate how consumers felt about brands engaging in purpose-driven marketing. Purpose-driven marketing — also known as “sustainability marketing” or “social impact marketing” — speaks to a brand’s attempt to engage its consumers on a social or environmental issue. I wondered: Does identifying with a certain political party influence whether consumers think more highly or more disapprovingly of a brand taking on a cause?
To find out, I turned to data gathered from consumers’ reactions to about 50 purpose-driven advertising campaigns tested with over 25,000 consumers in the last two years through the Sustainable Brands®’ (SB) Ad Sustainability Awareness Platform (ASAP) insights tool. Developed in 2020 when several global brands came together under the SB Brands for Good initiative, the ASAP tool was designed to create a way to measure (across industries and with a standardized set of metrics) how effective purpose-driven advertising campaigns were in driving consumer behavior change around environmental and social issues.”
The key findings in the report included the following:
• Democrats have a significantly more favorable opinion of a brand after seeing its sustainability campaign, over Republicans and Independents.
• There are similarities and differences in the sustainability issues Democrats and Republicans most care about.
• US women like seeing brands that support women.
• Sustainability campaigns are currently most resonating with Millennials.
• Targeted cohorts appreciate a brand’s effort to reach them; though with the Hispanic cohort, there is room to improve ad effectiveness.
• Environmentally focused ads score higher on Effectiveness than socially focused ads.
In summarizing key insights that effective marketers approach to communication, Kulkarni reports the following conclusions:
What are the implications from this research for the marketing industry?
We can use the insights of this research to create strategic media plans that are responsible and take on a social impact lens. At a minimum, our ads need to be accurate, honest and respectful — this is a basic requirement. But by understanding our target consumers, we can not only create content that resonates with them and helps them feel seen; we can also leverage media’s targeting abilities to deliver our content to an audience that normally would not be exposed to it. This would be an effort to develop understanding across people of different backgrounds and help a broader audience “see another side.” Note this strategy might come with some risk if the “other side” does not agree with your point of view; it is best to prepare for this possibility.
To drive creative ad effectiveness around sustainability storytelling, we should continue to focus on Influence, Credibility, Actionability and Talkability metrics. Demonstrating Influence and garnering Credibility with a campaign comes from research, engaging with partners, and spending meaningful time and resources on a cause. Creating an Actionable campaign comes from being clear on how consumers can use our productsto lead more sustainable lifestyles. And Talkability, the notion that people want to share and talk about the campaign, comes from campaigns having a creative spark that surprises and delights the consumer.
Given that our creative ad effectiveness scores are generally lower on socially focused behaviors than on environmentally focused behaviors, we should study how we can improve storytelling when it comes to the former.
We can study how different generational cohorts connect with sustainability issues, so we can develop content that resonates with each group’s unique life stage.
Brightly colored sea cucumbers and many other unusual deep sea creatures live among the nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. ROV KIEL 6000/GEOMAR
By Scott Shackelford, Professor of Business Law and Ethics, Indiana University, Christiana Ochoa, Professor of Law, Indiana University, David Bosco, Associate Professor of International Studies, Indiana University and Kerry Krutilla, Professor of Environmental and Energy Policy, Indiana University from The Conversation – Reposted: January 23, 2023
As companies race to expand renewable energy and the batteries to store it, finding sufficient amounts of rare earth metals to build the technology is no easy feat. That’s leading mining companies to take a closer look at a largely unexplored frontier – the deep ocean seabed.
A wealth of these metals can be found in manganese nodules that look like cobblestones scattered across wide areas of deep ocean seabed. But the fragile ecosystems deep in the oceans are little understood, and the mining codes to sustainably mine these areas are in their infancy.
A fierce debate is now playing out as a Canadian company makes plans to launch the first commercial deep sea mining operation in the Pacific Ocean.
The Metals Company completed an exploratory project in the Pacific Ocean in fall 2022. Under a treaty governing the deep sea floor, the international agency overseeing these areas could be forced to approve provisional mining there as soon as spring 2023, but several countries and companies are urging a delay until more research can be done. France and New Zealand have called for a ban on deep sea mining.
As scholars who have long focused on the economic, political and legalchallengesposed by deep seabed mining, we have each studied and written on this economic frontier with concern for the regulatory and ecological challenges it poses.
Manganese nodules on the seafloor in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, between Hawaii and Mexico, captured on camera by a remote vehicle in 2015. Photo: ROV KIEL 6000, GEOMAR, CC BY
What’s down there, and why should we care?
A curious journey began in the summer of 1974. Sailing from Long Beach, California, a revolutionary ship funded by eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes set course for the Pacific to open a new frontier — deep seabed mining.
Widespread media coverage of the expedition helped to focus the attention of businesses and policymakers on the promise of deep seabed mining, which is notable given that the expedition was actually an elaborate cover for a CIA operation.
The real target was a Soviet ballistic missile submarine that had sunk in 1968 with all hands and what was believed to be a treasure trove of Soviet state secrets and tech onboard.
Manganese nodules are roughly the size of potatoes and can be found across vast areas of seafloor in parts of the Pacific and Indian oceans and deep abyssal plains in the Atlantic. They are valuable because they are exceptionally rich in 37 metals, including nickel, cobalt and copper, which are essential for most large batteries and several renewable energy technologies.
Manganese nodules form as metals accumulate around a shell or part of another nodule. Thomas Walter/GEOMAR
These nodules form over millennia as metals nucleate around shells or broken nodules. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone, between Mexico and Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean, where the mining test took place, has been estimated to have over 21 billion metric tons of nodules that could provide twice as much nickel and three times more cobalt than all the reserves on land.
Mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone could be some 10 times richer than comparable mineral deposits on land. All told, estimates place the value of this new industry at some US$30 billion annually by 2030. It could be instrumental in feeding the surging global demand for cobalt that lies at the heart of lithium-ion batteries.
Yet, as several scientists have noted, we still know more about the surface of the moon than what lies at the bottom of the deep seabed.
Deep seabed ecology
Less than 10% of the deep seabed has been mapped thoroughly enough to understand even the basic features of the structure and contents of the ocean floor, let alone the life and ecosystems therein.
Even the most thoroughly studied region, the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, is still best characterized by the persistent novelty of what is found there.
Between 70% and 90% of living things collected in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone have never been seen before, leaving scientists to speculate about what percentage of all living species in the region has never been seen or collected. Exploratory expeditions regularly return with images or samples of creatures that would richly animate science fiction stories, like a 6-foot-long bioluminescent shark.
An experiment in 2021 in water about 3 miles (5 kilometers) deep off Mexico found that seabed mining equipment created sediment plumes of up to about 6.5 feet (2 meters) high. But the project authors stressed that they didn’t study the ecological impact. A similar earlier experiment was conducted off Peru in 1989. When scientists returned to that site in 2015, they found some species still hadn’t fully recovered.Video from MIT shows the sediment plume created by a nodule-collecting machine during an experiment.
Environmentalists have questioned whether seafloor creatures could be smothered by sediment plumes and whether the sediment in the water column could effect island communities that rely on healthy oceanic ecosystems. The Metals Company has argued that its impact is less than terrestrial mining.
Given humanity’s lack of knowledge of the ocean, it is not currently possible to set environmental baselines for oceanic health that could be used to weigh the economic benefits against the environmental harms of seabed mining.
Scarcity and the economic case for mining
The economic case for deep seabed mining reflects both possibility and uncertainty.
On the positive side, it could displace some highly destructive terrestrial mining and augment the global supply of minerals used in clean energy sources such as wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and electric vehicles.
Terrestrial mining imposes significant environmental damage and costs to human health of both the miners themselves and the surrounding communities. Additionally, mines are sometimes located in politically unstable regions. The Democratic Republic of Congo produces 60% of the global supply of cobalt, for example, and China owns or finances 80% of industrial mines in that country. China also accounts for 60% of the global supply of rare earth element production and much of its processing. Having one nation able to exert such control over a critical resource has raised concerns.The Metals Company shared video of its first collection mission.
Deep seabed mining comes with significant uncertainties, however, particularly given the technology’s relatively early state.
First are the risks associated with commercializing a new technology. Until deep sea mining technology is demonstrated, discoveries cannot be listed as “reserves” in firms’ asset valuations. Without that value defined, it can be difficult to line up the significant financing needed to build mining infrastructure, which lessens the first-mover advantage and incentivizes firms to wait for someone else to take the lead.
Commodity prices are also difficult to predict. Technology innovation can reduce or even eliminate the projected demand for a mineral. New mineral deposits on land can also boost supply: Sweden announced in January 2023 that it had just discovered the largest deposit of rare earth oxides in Europe.
In all, embarking on deep seabed mining involves sinking significant costs into new technology for uncertain returns, while posing risks to a natural environment that is likely to rise in value.
It allows countries to control economic activities, including any mining, within 200 miles of their coastlines, accounting for approximately 35% of the ocean. Beyond national waters, countries around the world established the International Seabed Authority, or ISA, based in Jamaica, to regulate deep seabed mining.
Critically, the ISA framework calls for some of the profits derived from commercial mining to be shared with the international community. In this way, even countries that did not have the resources to mine the deep seabed could share in its benefits. This part of the ISA’s mandate was controversial, and it was one reason that the United States did not join the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
A map shows the distribution of manganese nodules, with areas of the greatest concentrations circled. Sven Petersen/GEOMAR
With little public attention, the ISA worked slowly for several decades to develop regulations for exploration of undersea minerals, and those rules still aren’t completed. More than a dozen companies and countries have received exploration contracts, including The Metals Company’s work under the sponsorship of the island nation of Nauru.
Much of the coverage of deep seabed mining has been framed to highlight the climate benefits. But this overlooks the dangers this activity could pose for the Earth’s largest pristine ecology – the deep sea. We believe it would be wise to better understand this existing, fragile ecosystem better before rushing to mine it.
By Andrew J. Hoffman, Professor of Management & Organizations; Professor of Environment & Sustainability; Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the Ross School of Business and School of Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan from The Conversation • Reposted: January 22, 2023
Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.
Title of Course:
“Management as a Calling”
What prompted the idea for the course?
The idea for this course came from my frustration that business schools do not do enough to create successful business leaders with a desire to serve society. All too often, we simply drop an ethics or sustainability elective into a curriculum that puts profits over people – and gives short shrift to big issues such as climate change and income inequality.
So I thought we should develop a course that helps students examine their own ethics, values and purpose. As I point out in my book, rather than simply imparting knowledge, this course helps students develop wisdom. Rather than treating management as a precise science, it adds the liberal arts. I want students to examine their own conscience and decide what kind of a manager they are meant to be, what kind of career they aspire to have and what kind of legacy they hope to leave.
What does the course explore?
This course helps undergraduate and graduate business majors consider their career as a calling. Ungraded, its core centers on three weekend retreats where students leave their cellphones behind, join others with similar aspirations and examine their unique purpose in life.
The retreats take place at the start and end of their final year of study, and one year after graduation. They involve exercises, readings, collaboration and quiet reflection. At the end, students write a personal mission statement and a plan for fulfilling it.
There are also lectures on the notion of a calling, which for this course I define as a purpose that people truly believe in and will dedicate themselves to wholeheartedly, without qualm or self-interest.
Why is this course relevant now?
When I started teaching business in the mid-1990s, students who wanted to improve the world typically studied government or nonprofit management. Today, many are coming to business school with a sense of purpose to make a positive change.
Unfortunately, business education has not done a good job, in my opinion, of accommodating this demand. Curricula focus far too much on the “how” of business and not enough on the “why.” But if we don’t change that, we will continue to have corporate transgressions like tax avoidance, labor exploitationand fraud, where short-term profit goals are placed above responsibilities to society.
What’s a critical lesson from the course?
We study what a calling is, techniques for examining each student’s individual calling, and tactics for staying on course. My hope is that students will cultivate a sense of passion and vision in their careers and apply the power of business to address society’s challenges, whether that be equitable pay structures, innovations to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions, collaborations to support government’s role in the market and new definitions of the role of the corporation in serving the interests of all in society.
This course will help students develop a vision of what a calling is, what their calling is and a desire to make its pursuit a lifelong goal. Rather than thinking only in terms of a job, I hope students will imagine the role they want to play in business to create a future that serves not just shareholders, but all of society – employees, customers, the community and the world.
By Luciana Echazú, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education; Associate Professor of Economics, University of New Hampshire and Diego C. Nocetti, Dean, School of Business; Professor of Economics and Financial Studies, Clarkson University
Environmental, social and governance business standards and principles, often referred to as ESG, are becoming both more commonplace and controversial. But what does “ESG” really mean?
It’s shorthand for the way that many corporations operate in accordance with the belief that their long-term survival and their ability to generate profits require accounting for the impact their decisions and actions have on the environment, society as a whole and their own workforce.
These practices grew out of long-standing efforts to make businesses more socially and environmentally responsible. ESG investing, sometimes called sustainable investment, also takes these considerations into account.
Zeroing in on the E, S and G
ESG priorities vary widely, but there are some common themes.
These priorities usually emphasize environmental sustainability – the E in ESG – with a focus on contributing to efforts to slow the pace of climate change.
There’s also an effort to uphold high ethical standards through corporate operations. These social concerns – the S – can include, for example, ensuring that a company doesn’t buy goods and services from exploitative suppliers, or treats its employees well. Or it might entail taking care to hire and retain a diverse workforce and taking steps to reduce social injustices in the communities where a corporation operates.
Companies embracing ESG principles should also have high-quality governance– the G. Governance includes oversight, handled by a competent and qualified board of directors, regarding the hiring and firing of top corporate leaders, executive compensation and any dividends paid to shareholders.
Governance also pertains to whether a company’s leadership operates fairly and responsibly, with transparency and accountability.
Why ESG matters
By 2026, the total amount invested globally according to these principles will nearly double to US$34 trillion from $18.4 trillion in 2021, the accounting firm PwC estimates. However, increasing scrutiny of which investments really qualify as ESG could mean it takes longer to reach that volume.
This corporate concept is becoming a political touchstone in the U.S. because some states, like Florida and Kentucky, arguing that these practices divert from the focus on maximizing profits and can be detrimental to investors by making other considerations a priority, have barred their pension funds from using ESG principles as part of their investment considerations. Some very large asset managers, including BlackRock, aren’t allowed to work with those pension funds anymore.
Many of the arguments against embracing these principles hold that they reduce profits by taking other factors into account. But how do ESG practices affect financial performance?
A team of New York University scholars looked at the results of 1,000 different studies that had sought to answer this question. It found mixed results: Some of the studies found that ESG principles increased returns, others found that they weakened performance, and a third group determined that these principles made no difference at all.
It’s possible that the disparities among results could be due largely to the lack of clarity regarding what counts and does not count as ESG, which has been a long-standing discussion and makes it hard to assess how ESG investments perform.
The NYU scholars also found two consistent results regarding ESG strategies. First, they help protect investors against risks such as losses resulting from the failure of a supply chain due to environmental or geopolitical issues, and they can protect companies from volatility during periods of economic instability and downturns. Second, investors and companies benefit more from ESG strategies in the long term than in the short term.
Executives view climate change as both a short- and long-term threat, but most are failing to address it proactively, PwC CEO Survey shows. By Mary Mazzoni from Triplepundit.com • Reposted: January 21, 2023
We’ve heard it for years — “business-as-usual isn’t working” — and the annual PwC CEO Survey indicates executives are well aware. Nearly 40 percent of more than 4,000 responding global CEOs think their companies will no longer be economically viable in a decade if they continue down their current path.
That’s a pretty big deal. Yet while one would think such a grim consensus would spur an immediate push for change, many executives told PwC they don’t have nearly enough time to think and talk about the future. Maintaining current operating performance consumed the biggest share of CEOs’ time last year, according to the survey, and executives admitted they’d rather spend more time evolving their companies’ strategies to meet future demands.
Findings like these reflect the “dual imperative” facing CEOs around the world as they look to reinvent their businesses for the future while navigating a laundry list of daunting challenges in the present day, the PwC CEO Survey found. “If organizations are not only to thrive but survive the next few years, they must carefully balance the dual imperative of mitigating short-term risks and operational demands with long-term outcomes — as businesses that don’t transform, won’t be viable,” Bob Moritz, global chairman of PwC, said in a statement.
So, will business leaders act to save themselves, or will they be too busy with next quarter’s P&L? Let’s take a closer look inside the survey to see what executives are saying — and what it could mean for the future.
Executives view climate change as both a short- and long-term threat, but most are failing to address it proactively, PwC CEO Survey shows
While managing climate risk is a long-term challenge that continues to vex executives, the PwC CEO Survey indicates many are also concerned about the effects of climate change in the here and now.
Most of the CEOs surveyed expect their businesses to feel some degree of impact from climate change within the next 12 months. About half predict the effects of climate change will have a “moderate,” “large” or “very large” impact on their cost profiles. More than 40 percent anticipate impacts to their supply chains, while around a quarter are worried about climate-related damage to their physical assets.
Their concerns are warranted: The 10 most significant climate-related disasters to strike the world last year caused more than $3 billion worth of damage each, according to the World Economic Forum.
Still, the way they respond could use some work. “Deeper statistical analysis of the survey shows that the CEOs who feel most exposed to climate change are more likely to take action to address it,” PwC researchers observed.
“This kind of reactive approach is understandable — when your house is in the path of a forest fire, you reach for the hose — but it creates risks of its own,” they continued. “Combating climate change requires a coordinated, long-term plan. It won’t be solved if the only companies working on it are those that face immediate financial impact.”
Beyond issues with reactivity, the researchers underscore that they “don’t know how much” the actions most often taken by businesses — such as decarbonization initiatives and moves to innovate more climate-friendly products and services — “will move the needle, particularly in the near-term, which, in light of emissions already in the atmosphere, promises continued warming under virtually every scenario.”
While it remains murky if business actions will do anything to curb their climate risk in the short term, the researchers warn that many long-term corporate climate strategies are also incomplete or less effective than they could be — setting the stage for even more serious risk in the years to come.
More than half of all CEOs surveyed, including 70 percent of those at U.S. companies, say their teams have no plans to apply an internal carbon price to decision-making, “even though doing so could help them account for considerations like taxes and incentives, and clarify strategic trade-offs,” the researchers found. Many are also dropping the ball on reporting, as another recent PwC survey found that 87 percent of global investors think corporate reporting contains unsubstantiated sustainability claims, often referred to as “greenwashing.”
CEOs predict declining global economic growth, but is that really a bad thing?
Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of CEOs believe global economic growth will decline over the next 12 months. This is a marked departure from recent years, as more than 75 percent of respondents to the 2020 and 2021 iterations of the PwC CEO Survey said they thought economic growth would improve. It’s also the most pessimistic CEOs have been regarding global economic growth since the PwC CEO Survey began asking this question 12 years ago.
This comes as no major shock, as other recent polling indicates CEOs around the world are bracing for a recession in 2023. Still, it begs a few questions: Is a slowdown in economic growth inevitable, and is it even a bad thing?
In the decades since economist Milton Friedman declared that the social responsibility of business is to increase profits for shareholders, conventional reason has dictated that the ultimate marker of business health is to grow bigger and bigger every year, with solid shareholder returns that climb on a quarterly basis.
Yet study after study indicates that the never-ending pursuit of more consumption, more profit and more money does not equate to better quality of life across the economy — and the spoils of rugged capitalism are not shared equally. In the U.S., for example, CEO pay has grown by a staggering 1,460 percent since 1978, while median worker pay has not even kept pace with inflation, increasing by a mere 18 percent over the same period. U.S. CEOs were paid 399 times as much as a typical worker in 2021.
So, if the dogged pursuit of “more, more, more” does not increase quality of life for the many, and workers by and large find themselves more wage-poor than their parents were, who really benefits from eternal economic growth as a marker of success? Even businesses stand to lose out as CEOs cash their bloated paychecks while predicting their companies will be belly-up within a decade.
Against a backdrop like this, it makes sense that conversations around degrowth are having a major moment in mainstream business circles. As the name implies, degrowth calls for intentional reductions in production and consumption to stay within the boundaries of a resource-constrained world — particularly in rich countries, allowing developing countries to have a greater share of the economic pie (and the global carbon budget).
While respondents to the PwC CEO Survey stop far short of advocating for strategic degrowth, they don’t plan to cope with the impending recession in the way many might expect. While over half of responding CEOs say they are moving to cut operating costs and raise prices, the majority (60 percent) say they do not plan to reduce the size of their workforce in the next 12 months, and 80 percent say they have no plans to reduce compensation.
Still, it makes sense that predictions about the worst recession in a century would be preoccupying for executives, but as Moritz of PwC observed, those that don’t keep the future in mind are destined for failure. This type of push and pull between long-term longevity and short-term profit is one that has defined conversations around stakeholder capitalism and corporate responsibility for as long as they’ve existed. Parsing through these survey responses, it could be that Mother Nature — and the markets — will finally force executives’ hands, pushing into fruition something that for decades was simply words.
By joining the World Economic Forum’s Global Health Equity Network the company will help drive progress. From Medtronics • Posted: January 20, 2023
From closing health gaps in Kenya with Medtronic LABS, to helping health systems in the U.S. advance access to quality care for underserved patients, Medtronic is committed to advancing health equity. Addressing health equity is critical because more than half the world’s population lacks access to essential healthcare. And the most challenging health issues disproportionately impact marginalized populations. But we recognize that no one solution or organization can achieve health equity alone; strategic partnerships are essential to accelerating this critical work.
To maximize its commitment to health equity, Medtronic is joining the Global Health Equity Network (GHEN). GHEN is a World Economic Forum initiative that brings the private and public sectors together to drive change in health equity – mobilizing CEOs and business leaders to prioritize action in organizational strategy and purpose.
As part of the GHEN agenda, Medtronic has signed the Zero Health Gaps Pledge, which provides 10 areas where committed organizations agree to help drive progress within health equity across their workforce, their companies, and in their communities by 2050.
“At Medtronic, we know implementing people-first technology through access-enabling partnerships can be a profound equalizer, helping expand quality care and advance health equity. Leveraging the unique power and assets of our GHEN colleagues, we’ll maximize our health equity efforts and collaborate to bring quality healthcare to more people,” said Medtronic CEO and Chairman Geoff Martha.
Here are excerpts from three areas within the Zero Health Gaps Pledge, and how Medtronic is bringing them to life:
Pledge: Continually seek to understand how our organization can help address the root causes of health inequities and create a positive health equity impact.
Medtronic LABS develops community-based, tech-enabled solutions with and for underserved patients, reaching over 1M patients to date. An independent nonprofit organization funded by Medtronic, LABS drives system-level transformation to enable scalable, sustainable, last-mile healthcare delivery.
Pledge: Collaborate with communities to identify key health equity needs and identify potential solutions, and to measure impact.
By partnering with local health systems, governments, and NGOs, together we identify gaps in care to build health equity programs. For example, Medtronic established the Health Equity Assistance Program for colon cancer screening to provide GI Genius™ modules to communities with low screening rates or where access to the technology is not currently available.
Pledge: Consistently seek to understand health equity needs across our workforce, consumer base, communities, and ecosystem to make strategic decisions, inclusive of investments, and use insights to inform our organization’s choices from strategy to execution.
Financial stability and wealth are inextricably linked to better health outcomes. Medtronic drives economic opportunity by working with small and diverse-owned suppliers, making $2.7 billion in purchases from small and diverse-owned businesses in FY23. And in partnership with the Medtronic Foundation, the company has established several multi-year, multi-million dollar efforts with groups like Thurgood Marshall Fund and Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers to ensure diverse talent has access and opportunity.
The logo of Amazon is seen at a distribution center in Staten Island, N.Y. Amazon is ending a charity donation program it ran for a decade in its latest cost-cutting move. Photo: Angela Weiss | AFP via Getty Images 2020
From the Associated Press Posted: January 19. 2023
Amazon is ending a charity donation program it ran for a decade in its latest cost-cutting move.
In a blog post on Wednesday, the company said the program, called AmazonSmile, will shut down by February 20 because it had “not grown to create the impact” the retailer had hoped.
The program allowed Amazon to donate a small percentage of eligible purchases to a charity selected by shoppers.
“With so many eligible organizations—more than 1 million globally—our ability to have an impact was often spread too thin,” the company said.
The decision also comes as the Seattle-based company is laying off workers and axing different areas of its business in an effort to trim costs. Other tech companies, such as Facebook parent Meta and Salesforce, are also letting workers go after ramping up hiring over the past couple of years, when the pandemic made consumers increasingly reliant on the tech sector.
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said earlier this month the layoffs at his company will impact about 18,000 employees. Jassy said the job cuts will mostly affect the company’s retail division and its PXT organizations, which handle human resources and other functions. Other teams, including the company’s Alexa division, have also faced layoffs since November.
The company said charities that have been a part of the AmazonSmile program will be provided a “one-time donation equivalent” to three months of what they earned last year through the program. They’ll also able to accrue additional donations until the program officially closes, it said.
Amazon noted in the blog post it will also continue supporting other charitable programs, such as its housing equity fund that aims to build more affordable homes.
Three Million Dollars in Grants Available Over the Next Three Years
SUBMITTED BY VINYL SUSTAINABILITY COUNCIL • PUBLISHED 01-18-23
The Vinyl Institute (VI), a U.S. trade association representing the leading manufacturers of vinyl, today announced the formation of VIABILITY, a first-of-its-kind, industry-wide recycling grant program aimed at accelerating post-consumer PVC recycling across the country. The grant program will make available up to $1 million in funds each year over the next three years from four PVC resin manufacturers in the U.S. (Formosa, Oxy, Shintech, and Westlake).
“Each year, more than 1.1 billion pounds of vinyl material is recycled in the U.S. and Canada. However, post-consumer material accounts for less than a fifth of that total,” said Ned Monroe, president and CEO of the Vinyl Institute. “We can do better, and we will. With VIABILITY, we are demonstrating VI’s commitment to help the industry reach its goal of increasing post-consumer recycling volume to 160 million pounds by 2025.
Individual grants issued through VIABILITY are available to qualifying industry collaborations such as trade associations, material recovery facilities, construction and demolition waste facilities, recyclers, or colleges and universities in amounts up to $500,000. The funds may be used for the purchase of equipment, process investments, research and development, educational programs, and program management that supports long-lasting and sustainable recycling of vinyl products. A seven-member grant committee of the Vinyl Institute will choose recipients of the grants.
The first round of grant applications is due on March 1, 2023. The Vinyl Institute will announce the awarding of grants no later than 60 days after a grant application deadline.
“Vinyl has and continues to be an integral part of our daily lives – from the pipes that deliver clean drinking water in our communities, to the windows and siding on our homes, to the floors in our kitchen, to the cars we drive and the packaging for the food we buy at the grocery store,” Monroe added. “It is our responsibility to identify pathways to grow PVC recycling. VIABILITY is a deliberate and compelling step in that direction. We are eager to identify worthy vinyl recycling programs.”
By Leon Kaye from Triple Pundit • Reposted: January 16, 2023
The growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has attracted its fair share of criticism in recent years just as it has become central to the conversation about how to scale up and improve ESG performance across corporate America.
To be fair, such concerns about AI are warranted. After all, humans are still designing these systems, so bias is still a risk at many levels, whether it comes to face recognition technology or how companies vet potential hires. Some brands, in fact, have pledged to work together to prevent algorithmic bias from entering the workplace. Google is an example of a company that says it is striving to teach developers about fairness considerations when building, evaluating and deploying AI and machine learning models.
Nevertheless, AI systems in aggregate can offer the ESG practitioner one important tool that will be hard to overlook: The ability to deal with the overwhelming amount of data through which teams must sift as they gauge their companies’ performance.
Some ways in which AI can prove to be useful, and score that “ah-ha” moment among the skeptics is when it comes to the “E” in ESG — as in measuring and finessing environmental performance. As the World Economic Forum (WEF) reminded us last week, one of the most difficult sets of data to measure are Scope 3 emissions, notoriously pesky to track as they comprise companies’ emissions coming from their supply and value chains. Chasing suppliers down for that data — if they’ll even measure and then reveal such information in the first place — is a task no sane person would demand from another. But reporting systems that run on AI can help solve that problem; WEF points to a BCG study concluding that companies harnessing such technologies are about twice as likely to both measure their emissions effectively and reach their emission reduction targets.
Further, while poorly designed AI systems are at risk of amplifying humans’ biases, at the same time on the “S” for social front, they can help to identify top candidates for jobs while identifying teams of current employees who are at risk of being disengaged. Optimized AI platforms can potentially smooth out potential rough patches between managers and their direct reports. “Managers’ biases can also creep in when it comes to setting goals for employees. AI can help by comparing employees’ goals against others with the same tenure and then alerting managers if they’re consistently assigning fewer or less important goals to certain workers,” wrote technology journalist Linda Rosencrance last year.
Outside a company’s office, AI and machine learning platforms can team up to identify possible snags within a supply chain — a lesson many organizations are still learning after what occurred worldwide during the global pandemic. Supply chain managers can deploy these technologies to help monitor human rights violations such as forced labor or risks including unsafe working conditions.
As for companies with a very specific mission, AI is achieving what used to take huge teams of professionals to accomplish. Take the plant-based protein industry, which on one hand can harness this technology to determine what raw materials can recreate the texture and nutrition of meat at a competitive cost — while on the other AI-driven sequencing can even improve their flavors, too.
Finally, at a time when more investors adopt an ESG framework to hone in on companies’ governance structures, AI can also lend an assist. Companies with operations spread all over the globe need to know in real time how regulations differ in different companies and here in the U.S., even in different states. Next-generation risk modeling can help corporate boards make decisions with the best possible information as they evaluate market trends and potential risks. “As for governance, a focus on data sovereignty and the creation of a single view of real-time data ensures that data is treated with respect,” Mike Hughes wrote for Forbes last month.
Effective ESG practices provide companies with an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to environmental sustainability, community and equity by integrating these tenets into everyday business processes and company culture.
By Jess Welser – Director of B:CIVIC and CSR, Denver Metro Chamber Leadership Foundation • Reposted: January 16, 2023
As I look back on the stories shared in this year’s Good Works Colorado content hub, I’m thrilled to see how our state’s leaders have enthusiastically implemented environmental, social and governance policies (ESG) and invested in corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts.
ESG and CSR are constantly evolving. ESG is a framework for measuring and managing risks and opportunities around a company’s commitment to environmental, social and corporate governance. CSR is a reflection of what a company believes, expressed by how it impacts its stakeholders internally and externally. We like to think of it as how a company aligns its social and environmental activities with its business purpose and values. Or elevating business for good. More and more, ESG and CSR are recognized as an essential component of a smart, viable business strategy for Colorado companies.
This was one of our founding goals at B:CIVIC, an affiliate of the Denver Metro Chamber Leadership Foundation. Alongside business and community leaders, B:CIVIC is increasing the amount of impact and collective good for the Colorado community. After eight years of doing this work, there are a few lessons we want to share with business leaders who are on their ESG and CSR journey.
1. Now’s the time for ESG.
As our community faces unprecedented social, economic and environmental challenges, local corporations are taking ownership of their impact through ESG. Effective ESG practices provide companies with an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to environmental sustainability, community and equity by integrating these tenets into everyday business processes and company culture.
As ESG practices advance in Colorado and across the globe, it’s important that business leaders continue to develop and enhance their ESG strategy. Like the ever-changing world around us, these strategies must remain nimble to meet the moment — whatever that moment has in store.
2. It pays to invest in CSR.
As we head into what may be a recession, many companies are preparing for economic downturn by downsizing budgets, instituting travel freezes and more. Though the immediate future remains uncertain, we know CSR programs and personnel are an important investment for a company’s long-term success.
To ensure continued engagement, we are encouraging CSR leaders to double down. The economic downturn will impact industries differently, but we can anticipate that employee giving and engagement will experience a decline. Further, economic hardship causes increased stress among employees. To encourage connection, focus on promoting skills-based volunteering and employee well-being programs that boost morale and build community. As we continue through these uncertain times, we challenge CSR leaders to get creative with their CSR strategies. It pays to invest in the community and your people, especially in times of economic hardship.
3. Colorado is a good place to do business.
Did you know Colorado is one of the best places to do business? In a 2022 CNBC ranking, Colorado came in at No. 4 in America’s Top States for Business list. The state also ranked No. 12 in the category of life, health and inclusion. These rankings are in large part due to the social impact commitments of our business community — commitments that are continuing to grow alongside our economy.
The secret’s out: People, organizations and businesses are making the move to Colorado to join in on the great benefits this state has to offer. As the business community grows, the resources available for CSR and ESG will grow with it. The future is full of possibilities for CSR and ESG impact.
4. Create the infrastructure today to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
When business leaders invest in a company’s CSR infrastructure today, they are better prepared to speak out and advocate for the issues that matter to their community and stakeholders. In a recent report released by the Edelman Trust Barometer — a metric that studies trust in business, government, NGOs and the media — it was found that employees care about how their leadership demonstrates commitment to the community.
According to the Trust Barometer, when considering a job, 60% of employees stated that they want their CEO to speak out on controversial issues they care about. Eighty percent of the general population want CEOs to be personally visible when discussing public policy with external stakeholders or work their company has done to benefit society. Further, 60% of people surveyed will choose a place to work based on their beliefs and values.
It’s clear the workforce wants business leaders to stand up for the issues that matter to them. Implementing ESG and CSR practices is a great way to demonstrate your company’s commitment to the community.
As your team is planning for next year, we hope that you consider the above guidance to maximize the impact of your CSR and ESG practices. Want to keep the conversation going? Reach out to our team at B:CIVIC. Together, we can increase the impact and collective good of the community.
In recent years, and especially with the rise in popularity of “ESG” (environment, social and corporate governance) focused investing, “corporate responsibility” has become a phrase many companies are happy to use in their advertising. There is no set definition but generally it is used as shorthand for “Our company is not a soulless machine designed to do absolutely anything–no matter how destructive, reckless or dishonest–in pursuit of a buck.” In any given case, it can be hard to tell whether such a statement means a corporation really tries to treat its customers, employees and planet decently or is just public relations blather. Talking the talk is easy, but walking the walk is hard.
To highlight those corporations that are actually serious about trying to be good guys, Newsweek has partnered with global research and data firm Statista for our fourth annual list of America’s Most Responsible Companies. This year our list includes 500 of the U.S’s largest public corporations. They vary dramatically by size and by industry. We found the largest number of responsible companies (55) in the materials and chemicals business; the fewest (12) in hotels, dining and leisure. Our overall number one this year is the computer hardware giant HP.
We are proud to present this year’s ranking and to honor companies that actually mean it when they say they are serious about being good corporate citizens.
THE RANKING AMERICA’S MOST RESPONSIBLE Companies 2023 focuses on a holistic view of corporate responsibility that considers all three pillars of ESG: environment, social and corporate governance. In total, 500 companies were identified as America’s Most Responsible Companies.The initial analysis focused on the top 2000 public companies by revenue and banks and insurance companies with total assets exceeding $50 billion.
The analysis is based on two metrics: 1. Quantitative data from KPI (key performance indicator) research: More than 30 KPIs from the three areas of CSR (corporate social responsibility) were considered for the ranking. 2. The CSR reputation of each company from an extensive survey of 13,000 U.S. residents: Respondents were asked to select companies familiar to them and then to evaluate the company’s CSR performance in general and in the three sub-dimensions: social, environmental and governance.
he selection of the companies and the definition of the evaluation criteria were carried out according to independent journalistic criteria of Newsweek and Statista. The evaluation was carried out by the statistics and market research company Statista. Newsweek and Statista make no claim to the completeness of the companies examined. The ranking is composed exclusively of U.S. companies that are eligible regarding the criteria described here. A position in the ranking is a positive recognition based on research of publicly available data sources at the time, the information provided in the validation survey and an extensive survey of U.S. residents. The ranking is the result of an elaborate process which, due to the interval of data-collection and analysis, is a reflection of official ESG data from 2020 or 2021. Furthermore, events following November 3, 2022 were not a subject of this survey. As such, the results of this ranking should not be used as the sole source of information for future deliberations. The information provided in this ranking should be considered in conjunction with other available information. The quality of companies that are not included in the ranking is not disputed. For a complete methodology see newsweek.com/amrc-2023
ewsweek and Statista make no claim to the completeness of the companies examined. The ranking is composed exclusively of U.S. companies that are eligible regarding the criteria described here. A position in the ranking is a positive recognition based on research of publicly available data sources at the time, the information provided in the validation survey and an extensive survey of U.S. residents. The ranking is the result of an elaborate process which, due to the interval of data-collection and analysis, is a reflection of official ESG data from 2020 or 2021. Furthermore, events following November 3, 2022 were not a subject of this survey. As such, the results of this ranking should not be used as the sole source of information for future deliberations. The information provided in this ranking should be considered in conjunction with other available information. The quality of companies that are not included in the ranking is not disputed. For a complete methodology see newsweek.com/amrc-2023
The 2016 Cause Marketing Halo Awards announced its 42 finalists of programs designed to yield both social and financial dividends. The Gold and Service winners in each of ten categories will be announced at the at the 2016 Cause Marketing Forum Annual Conference in Chicago June 1-2, 2016.
More than 100 entries were received in the Cause Marketing Forum’s competition for North American programs designed to yield social and financial dividends.
Programs named finalists in multiple categories include
Bank of America’s “Pass the Flame” campaign with Special Olympics promoting inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in sports and in life;
‘Think it Up’ Staples/DonorsChoose.org partnership supporting student-powered, teacher-led projects in classrooms across the country;
‘Gateways and Getaways’, a bird- and flight-centric education program for New York families from JetBlue and the Wildlife Conservation Society;
‘Dementia-Friendly Massachusetts’ which Senior Living Residences developed to help people better understand the challenges of living with dementia;
‘#Unlimited’ a tween-targeted back to school program from Old Navy and Boys & Girls Clubs of America to support summer programming for kids.
The Halo Awards will highlight many of the most innovative programs that companies and causes took at the intersection of profit and purpose last year. Some examples include:
A video game marathon that raised funds to put veterans back to work.
An app that helps autistic children make social and emotional connections.
Canvas shoes turned into artwork to support high school arts programs.
“Thumb Socks” that help persuade teens from texting and
With the proliferation of cause campaigns reaching consumers each day, the Cause Marketing Halo Awards are designed to bring clarity, innovation and best practices to light.
About the Cause Marketing Forum
Now in their fourteenth year, the Cause Marketing Halo Awards are North America’s highest honor in the field of cause marketing. They are presented to US and Canadian companies by the Cause Marketing Forum, a company dedicated to providing business and nonprofit executives with the practical information and connections they need to succeed.
96 percent of Americans believe it is important for companies to ensure their employees behave ethically but only 10 percent have trust and confidence in major companies to do what is right.
Pharmaceuticals and health insurance were viewed to be the least trustworthy industries. The most trustworthy were thought to be manufacturing, technology and large retailing.
Princeton Survey Research Associates International’s 2015 Public Affairs Pulse survey polled 1,600 Americans on their attitudes about corporate behavior, big business and small business, the trustworthiness of companies and industries, levels of regulation, and lobbying and politics. The study found the vast majority of the public expects the business sector to think beyond profits and be valuable components of society.
Other interesting findings include:
More than nine in 10 Americans say businesses need to protect the environment, including 76 percent who feel it is very important that businesses limit their environmental damage.
88 percent believe companies should contribute to charities
85 percent believe they should take a leadership role in helping society in ways that go beyond their business operations
39 percent believe it is very important that businesses take more responsibility in helping the government solve problems.
How can companies communicate what they’re doing for these causes? Social media is reportedly the best way that companies can communicate what they are doing for social causes, with 45 percent calling it very effective and 38 percent calling it somewhat effective. Not surprisingly, those under 50 years old were more strongly in favor of social media communication than those over 50.
Only 15 percent say social media has a significant influence on their opinions, while almost 40 percent say it does not influence their opinion at all. Personal experiences as a customer or employee of a major company were the top factors influencing people’s opinions of a business.
Access more of the Princeton Survey here. http://pac.org/pulse/
Timberland’s partnership with Omni United will create co-branded automotive tires specifically designed to be recycled into footwear outsoles when their road journey is complete.
According to a joint press announcement, Timberland and Omni United first conceived this partnership three years ago, when sustainability leaders from both brands came together to address a longstanding shared concern. The tire and footwear industries are two of the largest users of virgin rubber. The majority of tires on the market today have a limited life span; ecologically-sound disposal at the end of that life span presents yet another challenge.
In a statement, Stewart Whitney, president of Timberland said, “Our partnership with Omni United marks a new day for the tire and footwear industries. An outdoor lifestyle brand and an automotive industry leader may, at first blush, seem unlikely partners – yet our shared values have given birth to tires that express a lifestyle, deliver performance and safety, and prove that sustainability can be so much more than a theory. It’s this kind of cross-industry collaboration that’s fueling real change and innovation in the marketplace.”
G.S. Sareen, president and CEO of Omni United said, “Omni United and Timberland are taking an entirely different view of sustainability by designing Timberland Tires for a second life from the outset. That is one of the reasons why establishing a take-back and recycling program before the first tire is sold – and choosing an appropriate rubber formulation for recycling the tires into footwear – is so critical. Our intent is to capture every worn Timberland Tire and recycle it for a second life, so none is used as fuel or ends up in a landfill.”
To bring the tire-to-shoe continuum to life, Timberland and Omni United have established an industry-first tire return/chain of custody process, to ensure the tires go directly to dedicated North American recycling facilities to begin their path toward a second life as part of a Timberland® product. Key steps include:
Tire retailers will set aside used Timberland Tires for recycling after consumers purchase new tires to replace their worn out tires.
Omni United is partnering with Liberty Tire Recycling and its network of tire collection and recycling firms to sort and segregate the Timberland Tires at the companies’ facilities.
The used tires will be shipped to a North American tire recycling facility where they will be recycled into crumb rubber.
The crumb rubber will be processed further into sheet rubber for shipment to Timberland outsole manufacturers.
The rubber will be mixed into a Timberland-approved compound for outsoles that will ultimately be incorporated into Timberland® boots and shoes. This blended compound will meet the company’s exacting standards for quality and performance, as well as its stringent compliance standards.
Timberland Tires will be sold initially in the United States at leading national and regional tire retailers, as well as online through a state-of-the-art e-commerce platform.
New research released in London this week points to the effectiveness of cause driven social campaigns activated by brands – showing superior business results than traditional brand communication stories, especially in social media.
In the report, Seriously Social by marketing consultant Peter Field, research indicates that not only were cause-driven campaigns better at delivering business effects — they also generated greater numbers of brand effects once the non-profits were removed from the equation.
Field analysed case studies from the Warc Prize for Social Strategy – a global competition for examples of social ideas that drive business results – defined social strategy as any activity designed to generate participation, conversation, sharing or advocacy.
“Cause-driven campaigns are more strongly associated with business effects,” Field stated, a finding that became even clearer when stripping non-profit campaigns out of the calculation.
Field was able to compare the impact of campaigns that associated a brand with a good cause, with the impact of those that built a story around a brand.
He found that media usage for cause-driven campaigns was more strongly focused on online, WOM/earned media and traditional advertising channels (excluding TV). Brand story campaigns, in contrast, made wider use of media channels and, as they were more likely to be short-term campaigns, included much more activation.
These patterns had an impact on subsequent effectiveness. The business effectiveness of cause driven-campaigns was found to increase markedly over time, whereas that of brand story campaigns did not.
“Again, this is a reflection of the short-term outlook of the latter group,” Field said, who suggested that conclusions about effectiveness drawn over a period of less than six months would underplay the true strength of cause-driven campaigns.
In a significant new report, CDP has demonstrated that among S&P 500 Industry Leaders, those corporations who have made significant efforts to reduce their impact on climate change have much improved financial performance and return on equity (ROE) than those companies who are not taking such steps and do not disclose their carbon impact. CDP’s analysis shows that, on climate change management, S&P 500 industry leaders:
Generate superior profitability: ROE 18% higher than low scoring peers and 67% higher than non-responders.
Have more stability with 50% lower volatility of earnings over the past decade than low scoring peers.
Grow dividends to shareholders: 21% stronger than low scoring peers.
Exhibit value attributes attractive to equity investors.
The report presents the progress achieved by 70% of S&P 500 companies in integrating climate change risk management into strategic planning, taking action towards emissions reductions and demonstrating a long-term view of how to best manage the assets of shareholders. In the report, Paul Simpson, CEO of CDP says, “There is a palpable sea change in approach by companies driven by a growing recognition that there is a cost associated with the carbon they emit. Measurement, transparency and accountability drives positive change in the world of business and investment.” Here are the CDP leading companies and their corresponding three year return on equity. In commenting on the report, HP Chairman Meg Whitman said, “By integrating sustainability across the entire value chain, companies can capture return on capital today and build leadership and business value for their future. These investments help companies create a competitive advantage, build stability, and provide assurances to stakeholders that they are well positioned for the challenges of the 21st century.” Read the CDP Climate Action and Profitability Report here
The World Health Organization reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died – one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk.
Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.
The new data reveal a strong link between air pollution exposure and cardiovascular diseases and cancer. The new estimates are not only based on more knowledge about the diseases caused by air pollution, but also upon better assessment of human exposure to air pollutants through the use of improved measurements and technology. This has enabled scientists to make a more detailed analysis of health risks from a wider demographic spread that now includes rural as well as urban areas.
“Cleaning up the air we breathe prevents non-communicable diseases as well as reduces disease risks among women and vulnerable groups, including children and the elderly,” says Dr Flavia Bustreo, WHO Assistant Director-General Family, Women and Children’s Health. “Poor women and children pay a heavy price from indoor air pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cook stoves.”
“The risks from air pollution are now far greater than previously thought or understood, particularly for heart disease and strokes,” says Dr Maria Neira, Director of WHO’s Department for Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. “Few risks have a greater impact on global health today than air pollution; the evidence signals the need for concerted action to clean up the air we all breathe.”
After analysing the risk factors and taking into account revisions in methodology, WHO estimates indoor air pollution was linked to 4.3 million deaths in 2012 in households cooking over coal, wood and biomass stoves. The new estimate is explained by better information about pollution exposures among the estimated 2.9 billion people living in homes using wood, coal or dung as their primary cooking fuel, as well as evidence about air pollution’s role in the development of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and cancers.
In the case of outdoor air pollution, WHO estimates there were 3.7 million deaths in 2012 from urban and rural sources worldwide.
Many people are exposed to both indoor and outdoor air pollution. Due to this overlap, mortality attributed to the two sources cannot simply be added together, hence the total estimate of around 7 million deaths in 2012.
“Excessive air pollution is often a by-product of unsustainable policies in sectors such as transport, energy, waste management and industry. In most cases, healthier strategies will also be more economical in the long term due to health-care cost savings as well as climate gains,” says Dr Carlos Dora, WHO Coordinator for Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. “WHO and health sectors have a unique role in translating scientific evidence on air pollution into policies that can deliver impact and improvements that will save lives.”
“Brands often fall short of their potential to do good – reputation without responsibility. Brandkarma will change that.”
Upendra Shardanand, founder Daylife
Welcome Brandkarma.com – the first social community that will rate and review brands ability to do good in the world.
Consumer research has repeatedly demonstrated that people expect businesses to operate responsibly and to contribute to positive change in the world. Many people say that if brands fail to operate responsibly, they will stop purchasing the products that the brand provides.
Brandkarma.com was launched to empower consumers to better translate those beliefs into action. Brandkarma.com allows consumers to see brands holistically – not only the quality of their products but the brand behaviors toward their employees, their community and the planet at large.
According to the 2014 State of Green Business report published by GreenBiz Group in partnership with Trucost plc., companies around the world are struggling to make progress on climate change, resource efficiency and natural capital dependency.
“While more and more companies are undertaking a growing number of initiatives to reduce their environmental impacts, there’s very little progress to show for it. Company initiatives are not having an impact at the scale needed to address such challenges as climate change and the availability of water and natural resources,” said Joel Makower, GreenBiz Group executive editor and the report’s principal author.
The seventh annual edition of the report, which measures the global progress of large, publicly traded companies in addressing a myriad of environmental challenges, reveals little meaningful progress across most metrics, including greenhouse gas emissions, water use, waste disposal and other pollutant impacts.
“The environmental impacts of business – air pollution, biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and water scarcity – are threatening the ability of our finite stock of natural capital to deliver sustainable growth,” said Richard Mattison, CEO of Trucost. “The challenge for business is to identify growth models that result in reduced environmental impact.
”The report also names the 10 sustainable business trends for 2014. Among them are the growth of collaboration among big corporations to solve mutual sustainability challenges, the growth of chemical transparency for consumer products, the emergence of “shadow pricing” as a means for companies to assess their environmental risks and net-positive buildings.
The 2014 report includes the launch of the Natural Capital Leaders Index, a new methodology for identifying companies that are growing their revenue while reducing their environmental impacts. The 2014 Index found 34 companies from 10 countries that met Trucost’s criteria, which include increasing revenue between 2008 and 2012, disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions and a decrease in environmental impacts during that same period.Among the 34 “decoupling leaders” are Carnival Corp., CSX, Intel, Kimberly-Clark, National Australia Bank, Pearson, Tata Power and Verizon.The Index further identifies US and Global “efficiency leaders” that use the least natural capital to generate revenue compared to sector peers – the more traditional sustainability leaders – which include Adobe Systems, AMEC, BMW, Ford, Manpower, McGraw Hill Financial, Pepco Holdings and Sprint Corp.The metrics from the report were drawn from Trucost’s assessment of 4,600 of the world’s largest companies representing 93% of global markets by market capitalization.The State of Green Business report will be the centrepiece of the upcoming GreenBiz Forum (Feb 18-20), taking place in Phoenix, AZ, where speakers will address many of these trends and metrics.The free report can be downloaded from GreenBiz.com.
New reports cites increased funding, senior leadership appointments, management engagement and reputation enhancement goals for corporate citizenship. The Center for Corporate Citizenship has released its The Profile of the Practice 2013. The report explores how the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions of business—corporate citizenship—are managed in today’s business world, and how these practices have evolved since the last report in 2010.
“Corporate citizenship is managed at higher levels, corporate citizenship leaders are better compensated, and more companies establish both board committees and official budgeted departments to manage their programs,” said Katherine Smith, Executive Director, Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship said in a statement. “These are all signs that CSR continues to be more deeply embedded in business as more executives realize that positive environmental, social and governance measures correlate to positive financial performance, improved reputation, and solid risk management.”
Among the key findings in the survey:
More than 70% of companies cited enhanced reputation among the top three business goals they are trying to achieve through their corporate citizenship efforts. The next most frequently cited goals are improving employee retention (45%), improving employee recruitment (41%), attracting new customers (33%), and improving risk management (22%).
The chief executive is more involved in developing strategy, setting goals, and communicating corporate citizenship than reported in both 2008 and 2010. More than 25% indicate that their chief executive is highly involved in corporate citizenship program evaluation.
Almost 100% of companies have a corporate citizenship budget today, while just 81% reported being budgeted in 2010.
Almost 60% of companies have an executive leading corporate citizenship. This is a 74% increase over what was reported in 2010. Close to one-third of corporate citizenship leaders are within one level of the chief executive.
The survey was conducted in the Fall of 2013 of 231 companies and their corporate citizenship strategies, operational structures, and business practices were analyzed.
About the Center for Corporate Citizenship
The Carroll School of Management Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College is a membership-based knowledge center. Founded in 1985, the Center has a history of leadership in corporate citizenship research and education. The Center engages more than 400 member companies and more than 10,000 individuals annually to share knowledge and expertise about the practice of corporate citizenship through the Center’s professional development programs, online community, regional programs, and annual conference. The Center is a GRI-Certified Training Partner. For more information, visit the Center’s website at www.BCCorporateCitizenship.org.
With little fanfare and a noticeable lack of press coverage, the National Research Council released its report: Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises last week. The 200 page report suggests that a wave of species extinctions rivaling the dinosaurs’ demise might well be coming within the century — and that the time has come to set up early warning systems to detect this and other imminent climate catastrophes.
One of the authors, Anthony Barnosky, made this comment on the report: “Our report focuses on abrupt change, that is, things that happen within a few years to decades: basically, over short enough time scales that young people living today would see the societal impacts brought on by faster-than-normal planetary changes.”
The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, U.S. intelligence community and the National Academies, which is made up of The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.
Abrupt Changes Already Underway
Some of the abrupt changes are already taking place, according to the report.
The disappearance of late-summer sea ice in the Arctic, with predictions that it may be gone entirely within decades, which “would have potentially large and irreversible effects of various components of the Arctic East Coast system including disruptions in the marine food web, shifts and habitats of summary mammals, and erosion of vulnerable coastlines.”
Because the Arctic region interacts with a large-scale circulation systems of the ocean and atmosphere, changes in the extent of sea ice could cause shifts in climate and weather around the northern hemisphere. The Arctic is also region of increasing economic importance for diverse range of stakeholders, and reductions in Arctic sea ice will bring new legal and political challenges this navigation routes for commercial shipping open and marine access to the region increases for offshore oil and gas development, tourism, fishing and other activities.
Rapidly increasing extinction of plant and animal species at a rate already “probably as fast as any warming event in the past 65 million years, and it is projected that its pace over the next 30 to 80 years will continue to be faster and more intense.” The report cites the following scenarios for species extinction.
If unchecked, habitat destruction, fragmentation, and over-exploitation, even without climate change, could result in a mass extinction within the next few centuries equivalent in magnitude to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. With the ongoing pressures of climate change, comparable levels of extinction conceivably could occur before the year 2100; indeed, some models show a crash of coral reefs from climate change alone as early as 2060 under certain scenarios.
Destabilization of the west Antarctic ice sheet, an “abrupt change of unknown probability,” carries the threat of sea-level rise “at a rate several times faster than those observed today. “
Early Warning System
In the face of these threats, the report urges development of an Abrupt Change Early Warning System (ACEWS) to closely monitor signals of tipping points drawing near, digest the data and feed it into the best predictive models that can be developed. “We watch our streets, we watch our banks,” the report’s chief author, climatologist James White of the University of Colorado at Boulder, told the Los Angeles Times. “But we do not watch our environment with the same amount of care and zeal.” In a press statement releasing the report, Mr. White said “The time has come for us to quit talking and take action. Right now we don’t know what many of these thresholds are. But with better information, we will be able to anticipate some major changes before they occur and help reduce the potential consequences.”
The executive summary of the report concludes with this rather dire warning:
“Although there is much to learn about climate change and abrupt impacts, to willingly ignore the threat of abrupt change could lead to more costs, loss of life, suffering and environmental degradation. The time is here to be serious about the threat of the tipping points so as to better anticipate and prepare ourselves for the inevitable surprises.”
Unilever has launched a worldwide new initiative to motivate millions of people to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. Launched yesterday on Universal Children’s Day in Brazil, India, Indonesia, the UK and the US, Project Sunlight aims to make sustainable living desirable and achievable by inspiring people, and in particular parents, to join what Unilever sees as a growing community of people who want to make the world a better place for children and future generations.
Project Sunlight was launched with the four-minute film embedded here and created by DAVID Latin America and Ogilvy & Mather London at dawn on November 20th in Indonesia and then follow the sun to India, the UK, Brazil and the US. Additional information can be found at an online hub – www.projectsunlight.com – which brings together the social mission stories of Unilever’s brands across the world, and invites consumers to get involved in doing small things that help their own families, others around the world and the planet.
To mark the launch of Project Sunlight on Universal Children’s Day, Unilever will be helping 2 million children through its ongoing partnerships, providing school meals through the World Food Programme; supporting Save the Children to provide clean, safe drinking water; and improved hygiene through UNICEF.
Ogilvy & Mather Chairman and CEO Miles Young, explains: “Unilever asked us to find a new way to talk about sustainability that would make the benefits real for ordinary people. Project Sunlight is founded on the principle that even small actions can make a big difference and that together, we can create a brighter future. We are honored to be a part of such a positive and significant movement for the good of our client and our communities.” Famed film director Erroll Morris directed “Why bring a child into this world?” including moving interviews with expectant parents from around the world.
The project draws on the legacy of Unilever’s founder Lord Leverhulme, who believed that he could change the world with a brand of soap he called Sunlight.
Kudos to Unilever, Ogilvy, DAVID and everyone involved in this important initiative that hits at the heart of the matter: if we can’t work to improve living conditions on our precious planet, how dare you bring a child into this world.
An overwhelming majority of Americans want brands to get engaged in creating and implementing recycling programs, according to a new survey of 1000 adults by the Carton Council of North America (CCNA).
In a statement, Jason Pelz, VP of environment at Tetra Pak North America, and VP of recycling projects for the CCNA said, “First and foremost, this survey reiterates the importance of including a recycling message on product packaging. In an increasingly competitive and green‑minded climate, consumers are revealing they expect food and beverage brands to actively help increase the recycling of their packages.”
U.S. consumers also indicated that they look first to the products they purchase for environmental information, ahead of other resources, with the vast majority (76 percent) consulting a product’s packaging to learn if a package is recyclable, followed by the product’s company website (33 percent) and the consumer’s city website (26 percent).
Importantly, 45% say their loyalty to food and beverage brands would be impacted by that brand’s engagement with environmental causes.
The Carton Council is leading a national effort to increase access to carton recycling in the U.S. In 2009, 21 million U.S. households had access to carton recycling in 26 states. Now, 52.5 million households in 45 states can recycle cartons, a 150 percent increase that includes 64 of the nation’s top 100 cities. Food and beverage brands that use cartons for their products are encouraged to join this effort, especially in helping promote carton recycling to their customers. CCNA can provide companies with tools to inform their customers — from the first step, which is adding the recycling logo to packages and recycling information on their websites, to an extensive list of possibilities beyond that.
BSR/GlobeScan of 700+ corporate sustainability executives in companies worldwide shows decreasing levels of collaboration between sustainability functions and other core corporate functions.
Survey respondents note a lower level, and decreasing, engagement between sustainability functions and corporate functions, such as investor relations (with 37 percent of those surveyed saying they engage with investor relations, down 1 point from 2011), human resources (34 percent, down 3 points), R&D (32 percent, down 9 points), marketing (28 percent, down 14 points). The weakest area of engagement is between corporate sustainability and finance at 16 percent, down 2 points from 2011. Unless greater collaboration is made in this area, the business case for sustainability and its potential positive impact on financial performance will be very difficult to make.
“The trend toward weaker engagement between sustainability functions and core functions such as finance, marketing, HR, investor relations, and R&D, is concerning.” Chris Coulter, CEO at GlobeScan, noted, “Not only is engagement limited with these strategic areas, but collaboration between them and sustainability teams has declined—in some cases by a significant margin. While there is a clear need for external collaboration, there is an equally important case to be made for greater internal collaboration.”
Additional topline findings from this survey include:
When asked to choose which sustainability issues need collaboration the most, climate change and public policy frameworks promoting sustainability are ranked highest.
Only one in five companies has fully integrated sustainability into business.
Engagement between sustainability functions and corporate functions such as marketing, R&D, and finance remains very low.
Collaboration by BSR member companies focuses more often on engagement with NGOs and other businesses than it does on engagement with government.
Fewer companies collaborate often with governments (46 percent) or media (27 percent), both of which are rated as the most difficult partners for collaboration.
21 percent report that their company is close to full integration. A majority say that their company is either about halfway to integration (51 percent), or is just getting started (22 percent).
“The survey reveals both the sense of urgency to address climate change, and the sense that meaningful progress goes well beyond the steps a single company can take,” observed Aron Cramer, President and CEO of BSR. “No one sector—not business, government, civil society, or consumers—can ‘save us’ from climate change.
20 leading corporations – including Starbucks, Levis, Unilever and Mars -call on President Obama to follow through on climate change preparedness efforts outlined in the Climate Action Plan announced by the President on June 25th.
The corporate signatories of the letter, which rely on the stability of global supply chains for growth and profitability, cited the economic impacts of severe weather events on company operations and called for ongoing and significant investments to be made in strengthening climate change resiliency both in the United States and the world’s most vulnerable countries. Many of the signatories are members of Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy – a group of businesses advocating for meaningful energy and climate legislation.
Critical components of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan included federal investments in climate science, and support for disaster planning and risk management in multiple sectors. On the anniversary of one of the most catastrophic weather events in history, the companies reiterated the need for federal funding of programs and projects that benefit the most vulnerable communities and the businesses they rely on for employment, products and services.
“Our businesses depend upon a resilient infrastructure, resilient communities, and resilient value chains,” the companies wrote in a letter to President Obama today. “In recent years, severe weather events, combined with rising temperatures, have devastated critical infrastructure, decreased crop yields, and threatened water supplies. These trends are being felt globally… We call upon your administration to follow through on commitments for robust support of climate change resilience efforts.”
“Public investment in climate resilience is critical to the economic viability of companies we invest in that rely on consumers, labor, raw materials, and operations located in regions susceptible to extreme weather,” said Bennett Freeman, SVP for Sustainability Research and Policy at Calvert Investments. “We applaud the U.S. government for making investments in resilience and hope to see this strengthened in future years.”
“Extreme weather trends pose challenges to managing reliable supply chains and business planning,” said Anna Walker, Senior Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy at Levi Strauss & Co. “While Levi Strauss & Co. is committed to addressing its climate impact, we believe U.S. government leadership is essential for widespread action on climate resilience to strengthen communities and minimize economic disruption.”
The signatories recognized the Obama Administration’s efforts thus far to address climate change, and expressed support for public and private sector collaboration to continue advancing the implementation of the Climate Action Plan.
“The human and economic costs of severe weather are escalating and it is increasingly important that business and communities integrate climate risk into their operational and decision-making processes,” said Mark Way, Head of Sustainability Americas at Swiss Re America. “As experts on risk, everything we see points to the fact that climate change is something we simply cannot ignore.”
Eric Block On Responsible Branding 
.jpg){kind=link}
You must be logged in to post a comment.