Spain, Barcelona, Mercat de Sant Antoni Market, canned seafood display. (Photo by: Rosie Irene Betancourt/Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Companies should make their voices heard by participating in critical stakeholder events. By Jamie Gibbon & Katy Hladki from Pew Trusts • Reposted: July 26, 2023
With catch worth more than US $40 billion dollars per year, tuna is one of the most important species for supermarkets and other companies in the global seafood industry. So it is critical that its catch is closely monitored to help protect the sustainability of the species.
But that isn’t the case. Of the over 20,000 registered vessels catching and transporting tuna throughout the world’s ocean, only a small portion are independently monitored.
However, that may soon change. Retailers are hearing from their customers that the sustainability of the fish they buy is more important than ever. To ensure greater transparency, which can lead to more sustainable management of tuna species, retailers can—and should—become more active in calls for increased oversight and data collection on the vessels bringing tuna to the market.
In June, Walmart, one of the world’s largest global retailers, committed to improving transparency in the data collection of its tuna supply chain and will soon source exclusively from vessels with 100% observer coverage, through either human observers or electronic monitoring (EM), which uses cameras and sensors to collect information on fishing activity. This level of commitment to transparent, well-managed tuna fisheries is commendable, and while some retailers have made similar calls for transparency, more should do the same.
Making a commitment to 100% observer coverage in tuna supply chains is an important first step. But to ensure that there is sufficient product to meet consumers’ needs while also fulfilling this transparency pledge, retailers should get more involved in the policy process, letting government officials and fishing companies know that sustainability is a priority for the buyers.
Direct engagement with regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) is one way for retailers to do that. RFMOs govern most of the world’s shared commercial fisheries and regulate both the amount of fish caught and how they are caught. By advocating for region-wide EM programs, market members can help ensure that all vessels fishing for tuna will have the tools and rules available to easily collect data on their catch and operations and share that information with government regulators and the companies that buy their fish. That can help retailers meet their commitments to consumers.
Public pressure is already starting to pay off. In the Indian Ocean, where retailers have warned that continued overfishing of yellowfin tuna could affect their buying decisions, governments recently agreed to the world’s first EM standards, which will allow fishing vessels to use cameras and sensors to collect data required by regulators. Similar discussions are underway among Atlantic and Pacific ocean fishery managers, and retailers should advocate for RFMOs in those regions to adopt and implement EM programs that include standards and pathways for improving and increasing observer coverage.
Companies buying and selling seafood directly benefit from healthy tuna stocks. As such, they bear responsibility for ensuring that fisheries are well managed and that vessels are capturing and reporting accurate and transparent data. Through their purchasing practices, sourcing commitments and advocacy actions at RFMOs, businesses can help protect the long-term health and stability of global tuna stocks and ocean ecosystems.
Major retailers committing to increased transparency and data collection can help profoundly improve practices throughout the seafood supply chain, which in turn will promote the health of the ocean and fisheries globally. This will pay dividends to those companies—and seafood consumers worldwide—for a long time to come.
Jamie Gibbon is a manager and Katy Hladki is a senior officer working on Pew’s international fisheries project.
Sustainable supply chains are vital and attainable. Image: Photo by Lenny Kuhne on Unsplash
Sustainability is not an elusive concept that competes with traditional metrics of profitability and efficiency, but one that can be measured and achieved by using what you have more intelligently. By Saar Yoskovitz, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Augury via the World Economic Forum • Reposted: July 26, 2023
Supply chain disruptions and inventory concerns continue to trouble governments, businesses and consumers worldwide. Even as supply chain bottlenecks begin to clear up, severe sustainability and supply problems remain due to the amount of waste traditionally produced by retail and manufacturing sectors and the increasingly stringent metrics by which they are judged by investors and consumers.
Moreover, with ongoing geopolitical contention in Europe and Asia, inflationary challenges and increased consumer spending, the manufacturing and supply chain industries are under pressure to navigate constant obstacles.
The interconnectedness of the supply chain
To find solutions, we need to look at the interconnectedness of the supply chain. Factories, for example, play a prominent role in mitigating a host of supply-chain problems and can help lower the impact of inflationary pricing by working more efficiently in several ways. Worn down and inefficient machinery, for instance, slows production, causing bottlenecks and wasting energy and materials.
Furthermore, labour costs increase as more people are brought in to address broken machinery and even more money is lost when the factory line pauses production.
Where does sustainability come in?
Often, efficiency and sustainability are seen as competing interests, but what if there was a way that companies can establish both in their manufacturing processes and support supply-chain efficiencies?
A focus on sustainability on the factory floor can reduce waste (most obviously by lowering costs and increasing yields) while alleviating pressures across the supply chain. How so? When fewer materials are needed to create a product, less mining, harvesting and sourcing of these materials is required, thus involving less processing, trucking and warehousing and minimizing potential pain points in other areas of the supply chain.
And, when machines operate efficiently while producing quality goods, there is also a chance of fewer recalls around issues in the manufacturing process. This, in turn, diminishes the inventory volume of goods travelling back through the supply chain, alleviating another host of problems. These benefits compound; improvements in quality issues boost sustainability and customer service scores.
Running manufacturing assets better and more efficiently can help organizations realize their sustainability goals and serve customers better, while easing supply-chain pressures ahead of the holiday bloat.
To do so, we must consider machine and process health through a predictive lens.
Machine health
There are three key components to machine health: mechanical problems, design problems and operational problems. Every industrial leader must understand how the factory level is performing across these three measurements to ensure production runs smoothly.
Monitoring for mechanical problems includes monitoring temperature, vibration and magnetic data to identify changes ahead of complete machine failure.
Design problems come to the forefront when individual machines undergo extra amounts of stress due to an inefficiently designed production facility. By getting ahead of these issues, facilities can avoid unplanned downtime, delays, bottlenecks and inconsistent product quality, tying back to the efficiencies detailed above.
Operational problems come into play with the human element. Even with a perfectly designed machine, people make modifications and unknowingly create additional issues.
Continuously monitoring machine health can curtail unplanned downtime and boost productivity to new heights that will be felt throughout the supply chain. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, running assets more efficiently can also save US manufacturers $3.3 billion in waste caused by downtime, reduce energy consumption by 12% to 15% and avoid up to 6,500 workplace accidents annually.
But machine health is only half of the equation for solving industry concerns. Process health offers a look into the interconnected inputs and elements of a full production system and other contributing factors, which, when misaligned, become part of the industry’s sustainability problems.
Process health
Manufacturing and supply chain leaders are aware of profits left on the table, but that does not have to be an accepted standard. There is a critical measurement that can combat inefficiencies and losses. Enter process health.
According to a report by ARC Strategies, there is an estimated $1 trillion lost due to unplanned downtime in the process industries. To bridge the trillion-dollar gap, organizations can unlock productivity by honing their machine health and optimizing production by 40% and improving energy use by up to 30%. Those are significant markers.
Process health helps leadership prevent losses from occurring in the future by analysing data at every step and level of production. It can also identify optimal process settings and establish connections between dynamic and complex variables. It is a no-brainer for industry leaders who want to see significant improvements in quality, throughput, energy and reductions in CO2 emissions and waste.
Big picture vision
The supply chain is a complex structure that is the backbone of our economy. While there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution to address the dilemmas of late, repositioning our understanding of the interconnectedness – starting at the factory floor – can illuminate opportunities that may not have been as apparent.
Continuously monitoring machine and process health can reveal untapped potential. In fact, it is estimated that 10% to 20% of manufacturing capacity is shadow capacity or production capabilities that exist within current manufacturing lines, but are going unused. Embracing shadow capacity has positive implications for onshoring, productivity and efficiency.
As supply chain obstacles continue amid ongoing geopolitical turmoil, fluctuations in consumer spending and a possible recession, it is high time we rethink the relationship between sustainability, manufacturing and the supply chain. Sustainability is no longer an elusive concept that competes with traditional metrics of profitability and efficiency, but one that can be measured and achieved by using what you have far more intelligently.
By Michaela Barnett, Founder, KnoxFill, University of Virginia, Leidy Klotz, Associate Professor of Engineering and Co-Director, Convergent Behavioral Science Initiative, University of Virginia, Patrick I. Hancock, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Virgini and Shahzeen Attari, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University via The Conversation • Reposted: July 25, 2023
You’ve just finished a cup of coffee at your favorite cafe. Now you’re facing a trash bin, a recycling bin and a compost bin. What’s the most planet-friendly thing to do with your cup?
Many of us would opt for the recycling bin – but that’s often the wrong choice. In order to hold liquids, most paper coffee cups are made with a thin plastic lining, which makes separating these materials and recycling them difficult.
In fact, the most sustainable option isn’t available at the trash bin. It happens earlier, before you’re handed a disposable cup in the first place.
Our results show that a decadeslong effort to educate the U.S. public about recycling has succeeded in some ways but failed in others. These efforts have made recycling an option that consumers see as important – but to the detriment of more sustainable options. And it has not made people more effective recyclers.
Experts have long recommended tackling the waste problem by prioritizing source reduction strategies that prevent the creation of waste in the first place, rather than seeking to manage and mitigate its impact later. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other prominent environmental organizations like the U.N. Environment Programme use a framework called the waste management hierarchy that ranks strategies from most to least environmentally preferred.
The U.S. EPA’s current waste management hierarchy (left, with parenthetical explanations by Michaela Barnett, et al.), and a visual depiction of the three R’s framework (right). Michaela Barnett, et al., CC BY-ND
The familiar waste management hierarchy urges people to “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” in that order. Creating items that can be recycled is better from a sustainability perspective than burning them in an incinerator or burying them in a landfill, but it still consumes energy and resources. In contrast, reducing waste generation conserves natural resources and avoids other negative environmental impacts throughout a product’s life.
R’s out of place
In our surveys, participants completed a series of questions and tasks that elicited their views of different waste strategies. In response to open-ended questions about the most effective way to reduce landfill waste or solve environmental issues associated with waste, participants overwhelmingly cited recycling and other downstream strategies.
We also asked people to rank the four strategies of the Environmental Protection Agency’s waste management hierarchy from most to least environmentally preferred. In that order, they include source reduction and reuse; recycling and composting; energy recovery, such as burning trash to generate energy; and treatment and disposal, typically in a landfill. More than three out of four participants (78%) ordered the strategies incorrectly.
When they were asked to rank the reduce/reuse/recycle options in the same way, participants fared somewhat better, but nearly half (46%) still misordered the popular phrase.
Finally, we asked participants to choose between just two options – waste prevention and recycling. This time, over 80% of participants understood that preventing waste was much better than recycling.
Recycling badly
While our participants defaulted to recycling as a waste management strategy, they did not execute it very well.
This isn’t surprising, since the current U.S. recycling system puts the onus on consumers to separate recyclable materials and keep contaminants out of the bin. There is a lot of variation in what can be recycled from community to community, and this standard can change frequently as new products are introduced and markets for recycled materials shift.
Our second study asked participants to sort common consumer goods into virtual recycling, compost and trash bins and then say how confident they were in their choices. Many people placed common recycling contaminants, including plastic bags (58%), disposable coffee cups (46%) and light bulbs (26%), erroneously – and often confidently – in the virtual recycling bins.
This is known as wishcycling – placing nonrecyclable items in the recycling stream in the hope or belief that they will be recycled. Wishcycling creates additional costs and problems for recyclers, who have to sort the materials, and sometimes results in otherwise recyclable materials being landfilled or incinerated instead.
Although our participants were strongly biased toward recycling, they weren’t confident that it would work. Participants in our first survey were asked to estimate what fraction of plastic has been recycled since plastic production began. According to a widely cited estimate, the answer is just 9%. Our respondents thought that 25% of plastic had been recycled – more than expert estimates but still a low amount. And they correctly reasoned that a majority of it has ended up in landfills and the environment.
Empowering consumers to cut waste
Post-consumer waste is the result of a long supply chain with environmental impacts at every stage. However, U.S. policy and corporate discourse focuses on consumers as the main source of waste, as implied by the term “post-consumer waste.”
Other approaches put more responsibility on producers by requiring them to take back their products for disposal, cover recycling costs and design and produce goods that are easy to recycle effectively. These approaches are used in some sectors in the U.S., including lead-acid car batteries and consumer electronics, but they are largely voluntary or mandated at the state and local level.
When we asked participants in our second study where change could have the most impact and where they felt they could have the most impact as individuals, they correctly focused on upstream interventions. But they felt they could only affect the system through what they chose to purchase and how they subsequently disposed of it – in other words, acting as consumers, not as citizens.
As waste-related pollution accumulates worldwide, corporations continue to shame and blame consumers rather than reducing the amount of disposable products they create. In our view, recycling is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for overproducing and consuming goods, and it is time that the U.S. stopped treating it as such.
Seven in 10 surveyed companies said the political and regulatory environment has had a positive impact on their sustainability initiatives in the past 12 months. By Marina Mayer from Honeywell International from Supply Chain Executive • Reposted; July 25, 2023
A sizable majority of global companies surveyed are planning increased investments in support of their sustainability targets, despite economic uncertainty, according to data released by Honeywell in partnership with The Futurum Group.
“The latest Environmental Sustainability Index confirms that large global companies are continuing to stay on pace and invest in technology and staff to achieve their environmental sustainability goals,” says Evan van Hook, chief sustainability officer at Honeywell. “Sustainability is top of mind for leadership, and they are activating top-level staff to increase involvement and traction toward goals. At Honeywell, we are well on our way to delivering on our commitment to reaching our 2035 goals, and we are helping our customers to do the same with our ready-now solutions.”
86% of the 751 global companies surveyed indicated that they plan to increase their sustainability budgets.
Seven in 10 surveyed companies said the political and regulatory environment has had a positive impact on their sustainability initiatives in the past 12 months.
74% of respondents said they were optimistic about attaining sustainability goals, particularly with respect to 2030 energy goals – a strong number but 3 percentage points lower than the last index.
Budget increases are slated across four sustainability categories: energy evolution and efficiency, emissions reduction, pollution prevention and circularity/recycling.
Improving energy evolution and efficiency is the top sustainability commitment across all geographies, with 87% of respondents citing it as a priority.
Some 25% and 20% of organizations in Latin America and Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA), respectively, plan to boost their investment in energy evolution and efficiency by at least 50% in the coming 12 months – outpacing the budgetary commitments being made in North America and the Asia-Pacific.
For manufacturing and energy companies, sustainability has become their top priority, with roughly eight in 10 organizations in both sectors citing sustainability goals as their most important initiative for the coming six months. These companies indicate that sustainability is far outpacing their other corporate priorities, including financial performance, market growth and workforce development.
82% of these organizations are optimistic that their reporting methods will meet disclosure requirements that may emerge in the next year. Managing the reporting process is a bit trickier, however, as only 38% say they have a centralized person on staff to track sustainability efforts.
“The fourth release of Honeywell’s Environmental Sustainability Index provides new insight into how organizations are reporting and tracking their previously set commitments toward sustainability,” says Daniel Newman, principal analyst and founding partner of The Futurum Group. “This quarter, we are seeing increases in investment and transparency of efforts along with a balanced approach to technology versus process when it comes to reaching goals. As we move into 2024, we look forward to sharing data about our year-over-year comparison.”
In today’s business world, many functions are outsourced. For example, at my company, we outsource payroll, IT, legal services and taxes because of the highly specialized knowledge required to do the tasks and the economies of scale achieved by the vendors. It doesn’t make sense for us to hire a full-time, in-house attorney with expertise in contracts, employment law, litigation, etc., when there is a buffet of highly specialized lawyers I can access through one relationship with a law firm—and I can rely on them as needed.
A similar theme is emerging in sustainability services. As an expert in providing outsourced CSO services, my company and others in the space help firms achieve their sustainability goals.
One of the biggest challenges faced by businesses today is finding people to assimilate all the knowledge needed to maneuver the energy transition, which places increasing pressure on businesses to reduce emissions, promote circularity and track sustainability. According to LinkedIn’s Global Green Skills Report 2022, demand for “green skills” is outpacing supply, and the specialization of “green skills” is proliferating—from climate and renewable energy to environmental awareness and corporate social responsibility.
Companies are responding to this need by appointing a chief sustainability officer, or CSO, who is expected to lead the response to the energy transition. The skills required to do this are complex, technical and often beyond the abilities of one person. It requires engineers, legal experts, market analysts, investment bankers and project managers.
Outsourcing CSO services, like outsourcing legal and accounting, allows businesses to access specialized sustainability experts. Outsourced CSOs can provide sustainability, business strategy and operational guidance related to the energy transition.
Making The Decision To Outsource
Whether you are leading a small startup or a large publicly traded firm, here are several instances where outsourcing CSO services can be an effective way to address some of today’s carbon challenges:
• New climate startups: You have launched a successful business model and are fortunate enough to be juggling multiple balls—hiring and training, sales and business development, investor relations and more. Your leadership team may not have time to keep up with global climate policies, emerging incentive programs, new competing technologies, evolving carbon markets, data standards and carbon accounting rules.
• Small or midsized privately held businesses: You have loyal customers who like your products or services, and you are growing steadily in a stable environment. Recently, these customers have been asking casual questions about the company’s sustainability efforts. The leadership team doesn’t have the time or the baseline knowledge to analyze the company’s sustainability.
• CEOs or CFOs: It’s time to update investors and shareholders about profit margins, strategic plans and key performance indicators, and they also want to see an analysis of energy transition risks and climate risks. As a believer in risk-averse governance, you know you should include this in your quarterly report, but you are not clear where to start.
• One-person sustainability departments: Pressure from the board and upper management has forced one person to research and respond to a variety of questions over the years, and their role has evolved to include “sustainability expert.” But the questions are becoming more complex and overwhelming. A climate scientist, a policy analyst and a process engineer are needed on the team to fully respond to the situation, but the budget doesn’t allow this.
Of course, outsourcing a task core to a business’ strategic direction is not always a good idea. A CSO is a part of the leadership team and has access to confidential information that is key to a company’s success and competitive advantage, which are not things that can be shared with an outside firm before establishing a high level of trust. In these cases, it is better to plan to have an in-house CSO who can incorporate these business secrets into a long-term sustainability strategy.
Getting Started With An Outsourced CSO
The CSO is usually key to building the company’s “green team” that has the passion for facilitating the energy transition and the specialized skills needed to perform the critical analysis needed. If you are outsourcing a CSO, make sure you have established an internal team with diverse skill sets; these include climate scientists, market analysts, process engineers, policy advisors, etc.
The energy transition requires a business to rethink how it’s doing business, and a CSO must frequently interact with purchasing, marketing, legal, accounting and operations, and talk their language.
A key CSO function is communicating complex technical concepts in simple language. Ask your CSO to conduct an analysis of the risks and opportunities your business faces, so when a customer or an investor casually asks what you are doing on the sustainability front, you can give a clear and confident response.
CSOs lead a company’s response to the energy transition: Look for someone who is unbiased, data-driven, aspirational in their approach, has a strong grasp of internal and external stakeholder needs, and a peer network that includes policy analysts, engineers, auditors, carbon life cycle experts, etc.
The biggest challenge in deciding whether to outsource the CSO function is how to integrate someone external into the day-to-day details of your team’s workflow. Should you give them a company email? How much confidential information should you share? Who should be the main point of contact internally for the outsourced service? Each company has to develop its own processes to govern the level of outsourcing it wishes to put in place.
Some companies starting fresh on the energy transition journey need a temporary leader with a full team of external technical resources that they can use as needed. Others, further down the path, may have an internal CSO on the team, but they need to outsource technical expertise and receive policy briefings and technical analyses, as needed.
Outsourcing the CSO function can make it easier for businesses to make sustainability and strategic decisions. An outsourced CSO can analyze the risks and opportunities a business faces due to climate policy, carbon pricing, consumer preferences or even severe weather events, so when a customer or an investor asks what you are doing on the sustainability front, you can give a clear and confident response.
The RMA aims to fill a crucial gap by offering brands, agencies and publishers a range of services to accelerate their competitive advantage through a sustainability lens. From Sustainable Brands • Reposted: July 23, 2023
As the media world grapples with its role in the climate crisis, the Responsible Marketing Agency (RMA) launched this week as a new breed of specialist with a mission to help media, digital and marketing clients to realize sustainable growth through responsible and progressive practices.
The RMA’s team of ethically minded media and marketing professionals will help brands, agencies and publishers to accelerate competitive advantage, shaping capabilities and enabling delivery of credible environmental, social and governance (ESG) roadmaps and KPIs in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
As outlined in the World Federation of Advertisers’ (WFA) and Kantar’s Sustainable Marketing 2030 report, 39 percent of client-side marketers say their companies are only now taking their first steps towards sustainable practices, citing a lack of resources, knowledge and skills — while 15 percent haven’t yet started.
To address this, the Responsible Marketing Agency aims to fill a crucial gap by offering flexible service models to cover advisory, enablement, strategy and partnerships through a sustainability lens.
A BRAND GUIDE TO DRIVING SUSTAINABLE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR CHANGE
Download SB’s new, free guide to learn how your company can create an advantage in the marketplace through sustainable and innovative solutions that influence consumer behavior. The guide features case studies, a list of other helpful resources, and five actionable steps that brands and marketing teams can take to drive sustainable behavior change at scale.
The RMA’s experts are passionate about helping clients plan for what’s next, whilst striving to ensure positive societal impact synchronized with business growth. Its inaugural clients include spirits giantDiageo and the WFA, with which it collaborated recently to create a groundbreaking report covering ten ways advertisers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the media supply chain.
As of press time, it’s unclear whether the RMA will focus more on the tactical or the creative side of marketing (or both); but regardless, its launch comes at an inflection point for marketers and advertisers — who are now working to balance market and consumer pressure to deliver impactful, engaging creative that authentically conveys brands’ values; and increasing scrutiny from regulators on the validity of brand claims; as well as increased attention to advertising as an overlooked but addressable carbon hotspot — thanks to significant supply chain emissions during both production and the massive amounts of energy used in their distribution and viewing.
The company says it will offer consultative services to create and shape programs that will drive responsible, sustainable and progressive marketing solutions. The team also helps clients to source and manage third-party relationships to advance progressive marketing programs.
“The Responsible Marketing Agency’s Manifesto states that when brands act responsibly in the media and marketing environment, their success deepens. From brand safety to sustainability, inclusion and ethical marketing practices, the modern marketer’s success hinges on making media and creative fit for progress,” says Hannah Mirza, founder of the RMA and VP of the Bloom Network, who has over 20 years’ experience — including agency, publisher and client-side roles. “However, all too frequently, ESG market solutions are immature and not fit for purpose. So, our team of plug-and-play expert advisors is determined to help in this mission, guiding clients through the ESG maze, navigating new solutions and integrated strategies.
“I love to help clients thrive in uncharted, complex situations — driving opportunities for business growth. As authentic, performance-orientated and trusted independent advisors; we are now offering a full-service capacity — including expertise on supply path optimization in programmatic, through independent analysis, to media decarbonization strategies and DEI programs.”
(BPT) – Recycling is one of the easiest and least expensive ways to help the environment. Although many people understand the significance of recycling, there is still room to improve participation and recycling rates. The Carton Council, which works to increase the recycling of food and beverage cartons, has several tips to help consumers become more diligent recyclers.
1. Make a game plan: Develop a strategy for hassle-free recycling by keeping containers within easy reach in areas where recyclable packages are consumed. Know your community’s collection schedule and have enough space to store your recyclables until the designated collection day.
2. Know what to recycle and what to throw: Keep in mind that acceptable materials vary based on the recycling program and community. Turn to your community’s website to determine what can and can’t be recycled where you live.
3. Stick it to your memory: To help stick to your recycling plan, create reminders throughout your home. Try placing notes in visible locations, such as on your refrigerator or where you place your keys, to keep recycling top of mind. Make sure to note your collection day.
4. Make a difference by being a recycling influencer: Be the change you wish to see by inspiring others to recycle. Share your recycling efforts on social media and tag your local recycling program, homeowner’s association, and even the Carton Council to inspire others to join the recycling movement.
5. Don’t judge a book by its cover: Dirty, misshapen or dented packages can still be recycled. Unless the item is covered in food, such as peanut butter or melted cheese, place it in your recycling container.
6. Own your role in the power of recycling: Take pride in your efforts and recognize the positive impact your recycling makes. Without recycling, there would be no recycled materials available to create new products. For example, 30 food and beverage cartons can be recycled to produce a sustainable ceiling tile. A ton of paper made from recycled fiber conserves 7,000 gallons of water and 17-31 trees.
Recycling is an easy way everyone can play a role in helping the environment.
Not sure if food and beverage cartons can be recycled where you live? Check our address locator at RecycleCartons.com.
Investors, customers and regulators have clued in to greenwashing and are stepping up enforcement. By Stephan Liozu from Industry Week • Reposted: July 21, 2023
The era of making fake and false sustainability claims is over. Consumers, NGOs, investors, and regulators are watching closely and are holding businesses accountable. Think twice before making sustainability claims. Do what you say and say what you do. The number of greenwashing lawsuits have exploded for the past five years. A 2020 report by Foley and Lardner reported a doubling of greenwashing lawsuits in the oil and gas industry in just 5 years.
Lawsuits are public and at times very costly. They touch all sectors across all geographies. Let us look at some examples.
Delta Airlines is facing a class action lawsuit over claims that it misrepresented its environmental impact by presenting itself in advertising and promotional activities as being “carbon neutral.”
Nike is being sued by a consumerbecause they “deceive consumers into believing that they are receiving products that are ‘sustainable,’ ‘made with recycled fibers,” and can reduce one’s carbon footprint in a move to “zero carbon and zero waste.
Hyundai Motor UK was fined for claiming that if 10,000 of their hydrogen-powered Nexo cars were on the road, the carbon emission reduction would be the equivalent of planting 60,000 trees
Deutsche Bank is under investigation by regulators in U.S. and Europe because the bank’s asset management arm allegedly sold investment products worth $1 trillion as more environmentally friendly and “sustainable” than they actually were.
Walmart was fined $3 million for making deceptive green claims” about some textile products.
Shell’s 11 board directors were sued for breach of their legal duties under the Companies Act when for adopting and implementing a so-called “Energy Transition Strategy” that fails to align with the Paris Agreement.
Let us start by defining what greenwashing means. It is a practice used by businesses to represent themselves as more sustainable than they truly are. It includes providing misleading information regarding a product’s sustainability or labeling an offer as “green” when it is not.
Greenwashing is not a static concept. It occurs on a spectrum, ranging from wishful thinking to outright deceit. Greenwashing can also be unintentional, as rules and regulations change over time. Finally, it now extends to broader sustainability concepts such as social good and human rights. Government enforcement actions and civil suits alleging greenwashing are on the rise through a myriad of different laws, including securities regulations, consumer protection laws, fraud and misrepresentation statutes and advertising standards. Bottom line, it is serious business!
I propose five steps to avoid greenwashing-related litigation.
1. Review the claims you are making across your business: Conduct an internal inventory of what claims are made and communicated to the market through all the formal and informal channels. That includes written and verbal claims. You might be surprised by the lack of governance and the variability of claims made at the divisional and regional level.
2. Review the exposure related to claims and the quality of the back-up data: Based on this inventory, evaluate the level of risks associated with the most definitive sustainability claims: The above-mentioned lawsuit examples provide a good illustration of how companies might potentially be exposed to greenwashing claims. One of the lessons to be taken from recent legal filings is that companies should avoid sweeping statements about their sustainability efforts. If a company can support concrete statements with concrete data, they are better able to neutralize and defend the greenwashing claims that are now flooding the litigation landscape.
3. Provide training on ESG, green marketing and the associated risks: Part of the sustainability and ESG capability building program should include training on greenwashing and about making sustainability claims in sales and marketing. Teams should be aware of the risks of making unfounded or exaggerated claims. In addition, the same teams should understand the need for solid and concrete data to support claims (including customer data, research data and technical data).
4. Establish a dynamic review of changes in the regulatory landscape and update the governance model: If you pay attention to sustainability reporting requirements, you realize the level of dynamism. Rules and regulations are changing by industry and by country. If you work across many industrial verticals, regulatory changes might happen without your realizing it. Dynamism therefore relates to the speed and complex nature of changes in your regulatory landscape. A review combines the use of the right regulatory benchmark software as well as the involvement of internal experts who scan the landscape. It is really hard to keep up. You might be compliant today but miss an important update in reporting requirements that could impact your sustainability, marketing and communication strategies.
5. If in doubt, bring in the experts. experts include suppliers, consultants, and your internal risk management teams. Do not improvise. It could be costly. Establish regular reviews of your marketing and sales materials by these experts as part of the governance process. Quickly take action if your claims are overstated or non-complaint.
If you are an industrial organization, you do not want to be on the naughty list of greenwashers. That is a given. You must have an internal discussion about the claims you are making to avoid potential risks of litigation. Remember that your customers, investors and regulators might be more sophisticated that you are, and they might reverse-engineer your claims. So, do what you say and say what you do.
Stephan Liozu is founder of Value Innoruption Advisors, a consulting boutique specializing in industrial pricing, XaaS pricing and value-based pricing. He is also the co-founder of Pricing for the Planet, which specializes in pricing for sustainability. Stephan has 30 years of experience in the industrial sector with companies like Owens Corning, Saint-Gobain, Freudenberg and Thales.
Conducting worst-case crisis scenario exercises can help ensure companies are as prepared as possible when, not if, disaster strikes. Indeed, too many business leaders have found out the hard way that today’s ‘it would never happen here” crisis can become a real-life corporate emergency tomorrow. Image: GETTY
By Edward Segal, Senior Contributor at Forbes • Reposted: July 20, 2023
Conducting worst-case crisis scenario exercises can help ensure companies are as prepared as possible when, not if, disaster strikes.
Indeed, too many business leaders have found out the hard way that today’s ‘it would never happen here” crisis can become a real-life corporate emergency tomorrow.
Given the nature of all the crises that could befall organizations, there is an element of urgency for practicing responses to “what-if” situations and ensuring there are plans place to deal with different disasters, scandals, or other emergencies.
Reality Checks
The crisis simulations can provide company executives with reality checks about their readiness, resources, and responses to situations that could impact their organization’s image, reputation, operations, and bottom line.
“Scenarios can be used to raise awareness, to train and reinforce skills and procedures, to assess preparedness and identify gaps, as an aid in developing crisis/emergency response plans, and even to test and improvise such plans,” Eric Stern, a professor at the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security & Cybersecurity at the University of Albany, said via email.
There are many ways in which the simulations can be conducted, such as tabletop and thought exercises, computer simulations, and role playing off-site. But no matter how it’s done, the issue is whether they are tested at all.
‘Different Definitions’
“Each company will have a different definition of a worst-case scenario—if you’re an airline, it’s a crash or a massive passenger-related issue; if you’re a tech company, it could be a cybersecurity breach; if you’re a nonprofit, it could be insider fraud,” Heather Wilson, managing director and head of crisis and litigation at TrailRunner International, said via email.
The more varied the subject of the exercise, the better. The possibilities could include accidents, strikes, the death of corporate executives, and economic downturns.
The simulations “can be inspired by recent or historical experience of peer organizations at home or abroad, expert risk analysis of contingencies that have not happened yet but are thought likely in the future, as well as by data-driven so-called modeling and simulation techniques,” the University of Albany’s Stern observed.
‘Often Overlooked’
“Worst-case scenario planning is often overlooked but incredibly invaluable in crisis communications, Zoe Mumba, senior manager for public relations and communications at Bitmovin, a video streaming technology company, said via email.
“While it is unrealistic to have an individual and tailored plan for every worst-case scenario, there should be a plan in place for how your company should respond to a crisis in the first few hours,” she said. That should include “the process for communicating with internal and external stakeholders, the approval process for communications ,and even having a template for holding statements.
‘Building Muscle Memory’
“Exercising builds muscle memory. By practicing ways of working in a crisis, a team becomes comfortable working under pressure. They understand what needs to be done, when and how,” Jonathan Hemus, managing director and crisis management consultant at crisis management agency Insignia, said via email.
“This creates confidence and assurance, which is lacking in teams who fail to rehearse. It means the team can focus on the really important parts of managing the crisis—making big decisions—rather than worrying about the process itself,” he observed.
Not Just For Brick And Mortar Organizations
Crisis response exercises are important for every business and organization, including those who operate outside of traditional offices.
Each year the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo holds a public parade, “and we do a run-through from a crisis communications standpoint,” Danielle Grossman, the organization’s director of strategic communications, said via email.
“We work through our plan from start to finish if there was some type of crisis. We mimic who is contacted first, then the chain of command thereafter and how we ultimately disseminate information to the public, if any,” she noted.
If you don’t think it’s important to anticipate and practice for worst-case scenarios, think again.
By Christopher Faires,Postdoctoral Researcher in Supply Chain Management, Iowa State University and Robert Overstreet, Assistant Professor of Supply Chain Management, Iowa State University via The Conversation • Reposted: July 20, 2023
Back-to-school sales are underway, and people across the country will be shopping online to fill up backpacks, lockers and closets – and they’ll be taking advantage of free returns.
In 2022, retail returns added up to more than US$800 billion in lost sales. The transportation, labor, and logistics involved raised retailers’ costs even higher. Product returns also increase pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and waste in landfills, where many returned products now end up.
So how can retailers fix this problem and still provide quality customer service?
We conductresearch in reverse logistics, focusing primarily on the intersection of retail returns and customer behavior. Here are some insights that can help reduce the abuse of free returns and lower costs without losing quality.
Nudging: In-store vs. shipped returns
Where a product is returned makes a difference. Items returned to the store can be restocked an average of 12 to 16 days faster than those that are mailed. Mailed returns also cost companies more: The difference between the most expensive shipped returns and least expensive in-store returns is $5 to $6 per item. That adds up quickly.
Studies show that customers may be willing to change their return behavior – with a little help.
Behavioral nudges are a technique used in decision-making to steer a person toward a specific behavior. Putting candy at eye-level at the grocery store checkout counter to encourage impulse purchases is an example, or making employee participation in a 401(k) savings program the default option. Another type of nudge involves providing more information.
If you’ve ever shopped online and seen statements like “10 out of 10 customers recommend this product” or “Only 2 items left in stock,” you have experienced the use of information to influence your decision. Nudges emphasizing sustainability may also appeal to customers and have a positive impact on return behavior.
Returning items to a store can avoid extra transportation, shipping and packaging, saving money and avoiding waste and emissions. AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
In a recent survey, 94% of merchants said customers were concerned about sustainability, according to a report from Happy Returns, a logistics firm that works with retailers.
However, a much lower percentage of customers actually make sustainable return decisions. That suggests that customers do not fully understand the environmental impact of their return choices – and it offers a way for retailers to help.
Our research found that when customers were given information about the environmental impact of the different return options, they were nearly 17 times more likely to choose an in-store return rather than returning an item by mail. Nudges like this offer a simple and inexpensive way for retailers to alter customer behavior in favor of sustainability.
Picking up returns to speed up the process
Some customers request to return an item but then wait weeks before mailing it. It’s known as customer procrastination, and it also has a cost. The longer these products remain unprocessed, the more value they can lose.
High-priced electronics, such as laptops and tablets, have short product life cycles and lose value quickly, sometimes at a rate of 1% per week. Seasonal items, such as back-to-school supplies or winter coats, become more difficult to resell if retailers get them back on shelves after demand has bottomed out. A returned item’s resale value determines its destination: It can end up back on store shelves, sold to liquidators for pennies on the dollar or sent to a landfill.
Transportation is a large expense for retail returns, for both companies and the planet. AP Photo/Mark Lennihan
A home pickup service for time-sensitive returns could reduce delays in a way that is also useful to the customer. A small number of pickup vehicles collecting returns from customers could avoid multiple shipments, reducing total miles traveled and cutting vehicle emissions, while also avoiding the need for each return to be individually packaged.
Our research found that a pickup service could help retailers collect returns faster and reduce product value loss, particularly for high-priced products and products that lose value quickly, such as consumer electronics.
How to change policies without losing customers
While several retailers have stopped offering free returns or changed their return policies over the past year, our research suggests that changes affecting all customers might not be the best choice.
Broad policy changes that affect everyone might involve limiting the number of returns per customer, charging a fee for returns or shortening the window for returns. An alternative is a targeted return policy that applies only to people who abuse the system. For example, retailers can restrict free returns for people who repeatedly buy more items than they intend to keep, knowing they can return the rest.
Offering free returns carries a cost for retailers, but ending return policies can also turn off customers. Photo: Johannes Eisele / AFP via Getty Images
We conducted two studies to explore how customers would view changes to a retailer’s return policies.
In the first study, 460 participants were significantly more likely to speak negatively about the retailer – a fictitious company, in this case – when the retailer’s returns policy change applied to everyone and affected everyone equally.
Our follow-up study asked 100 online customers about their thoughts regarding generalized versus targeted policy changes. When the return policy change targeted customers who abused returns, 44% of the participants expressed positive emotions, and only 13% expressed negative emotions.
Those positive emotions included comments like, “I would feel proud of the company for taking action against people who try to cheat the system.” Such responses indicated that participants understood that cheaters were increasing the price paid by everyone.
But when the return policy change applied to everyone, 64% of the participants expressed negative emotions. Nearly half indicated they would speak negatively about the policy change to family and friends, and 42% said they would shop at another store.
Other ways to help customers make better decisions
Retailers can also change the online shopping experience before the customer makes a purchase to avoid the need for returns.
One way is to obtain detailed customer feedback on returns and use that to provide better product descriptions to customers. Another is to avoid incentivizing the wrong behavior. Well-intentioned free shipping on orders over a set dollar amount could encourage customers to overpurchase and later return products.
Posting videos of items for sale can help buyers spot problems that photos might hide. Virtual fitting rooms that use an avatar of the customer to try on clothes virtually can help customers choose the right size the first time.
There is no doubt that managing retail returns is a difficult task. To make the process more sustainable, retailers need to help customers make choices that limit the need for a return or that minimize the impact of a return on the environment and, of course, the retailer’s bottom line.
By Eleftheria Kontou, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign via The Conversation • Reposted: July 20, 2023
More than 3.6 million electric cars are driving around the U.S., but if you live in an apartment, finding an available charger isn’t always easy. Grocery stores and shopping centers might have a few, but charging takes time and the spaces may be taken or inconvenient.
Several states and cities, aiming to expand EV use, are now trying to lift that barrier to ownership with “right to charge” laws.
Illinois’ governor signed the latest right-to-charge law in June 2023, requiring that all parking spots at new homes and multiunit dwellings be wired so they’re ready for EV chargers to be installed. Colorado, Florida, New York and other states have passed similar laws in recent years.
But having wiring in place for charging is only the first step to expanding EV use. Apartment building managers, condo associations and residents are now trying to figure out how to make charging efficient, affordable and available to everyone who needs it when they need it.
Electric cars can benefit urban dwellers
As a civil engineer who focuses on transportation, I study ways to make the shift to electric vehicles equitable, and I believe that planning for multiunit dwelling charging and accessibility is smart policy for cities.
Transitioning away from fossil-fueled vehicles to electric vehicles has benefits for the environment and the health of urban residents. It reduces tailpipe emissions, which can cause respiratory problems and warm the climate; it mitigates noise; and it improves urban air quality and quality of life.
Yet almost a quarter of all U.S. housing structures have more than one dwelling unit, according to the 2019 American Housing Survey. In California, 32.5% of urban dwellings have multiple units, and only a third of those units include access to a personal garage where a charger could be installed.
Even if installing a personal charger is an option, it can be expensive in a multiunit dwelling if wiring isn’t already in place. And it often comes with other obstacles, including the potential need for electrical upgrades or challenges from homeowner association rules and restrictions. Installing chargers can involve numerous stakeholders who can impede the process – lot owners, tenants, homeowners associations, property managers, electric utilities and local governments.
Right-to-charge laws aims for ubiquitous home charging
Right-to-charge laws aim to streamline home charging access as new buildings go up.
Illinois’ new Electric Vehicle Charging Act requires that 100% of parking spaces at new homes and multiunit dwellings be ready for electric car charging, with a conduit and reserved capacity to easily install charging infrastructure. The new law also gives renters and condominium owners in new buildings a right to install chargers without unreasonable restriction from landlords and homeowner associations.
Public chargers typically aren’t as convenient as charging at home, and chargers aren’t always available. Photo: martin-dm/E+ via Getty Images
California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Virginia also have right-to-charge lawsdesigned to make residential community charging deployment easier, as do several U.S. cities including Seattle and Washington, D.C. Most apply only to owner-occupied buildings, but a few, including California’s and Colorado’s, also apply to rental buildings.
Chicago officials have considered an ordinance that wouldinclude existing buildings, too.
Sharing chargers can reduce the cost
There are several steps communities can take to increase access to chargers and reduce the cost to residents.
In a new study, colleagues and I looked at how to design shared charging for an apartment building with scheduling that works for everyone. By sharing chargers, residential communities can reduce the costs associated with charger installation and use.
The biggest challenge to shared charging is often scheduling. We found that a centralized charging management system that suggests charging times for each electric car owner that aligns with the owner’s travel schedule and the amount of charge needed can work – with enough chargers.
Apartments in a tower in China look down on an EV charging station covered in solar panels. Photo: Zhihao/Moment via Getty Images
In a typical multiunit dwelling in Chicago – with an average of 14 cars in the parking lot – a small community charging hub with two level 2 chargers, the type common in homes and office buildings, can cover daily residential recharging demand at a cost of about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour. But having only two chargers means residents are waiting on average 2.2 hours to charge.
A larger charging hub with eight level 2 chargers in the same city avoids the delay but increases the cost of charging to 21 cents per kWh because of upfront cost of purchasing and installing the chargers. To put that into context, the average electricity cost for Chicago residents is 16 cents per kWh.
The future of charging management at multiunit dwellings will be automated for efficiency, with a computer or artificial intelligence determining the most efficient schedule for charging. Optimized scheduling can be responsive to the times renewable electricity generation sources are producing the most power – midday for solar energy, for example – and to dynamic electricity pricing. Automation can also eliminate delays for drivers while saving money and reducing the burden on the electric grid.
The current limited access to home charging in many cities constrains electric vehicle adoption, slows down the decarbonization of U.S. transportation and exacerbates inequitiesin electric vehicle ownership. I believe efforts to expand charging in multidwelling buildings can help lift some of the biggest barriers and help reduce noise and pollution in urban cores at the same time.
CNH Industrial worked with Monarch Tractor to create the New Holland T4 Electric Power, an all-electric utility tractor with zero tailpipe emissions. Photo: CNH Industrial
By Tina Casey from Triple Pundit • Reposted: July 19, 2023
With their reliance on massive combines and other large pieces of diesel-powered equipment, the agriculture and construction industries present a major challenge for electrification. Nevertheless, suppliers are beginning to offer electric options, and the global firm CNH Industrial illustrates how careful strategizing can yield rapid results.
A head start on electrification
The Electrification Portfolio Management team is a relatively new addition to CNH Industrial as the electrification industry picked up steam over recent years. The sector’s rapid rise has enabled CNH Industrial to recruit talent from a deep pool of accomplished electrification experts.
“Now that the technology is known, there is a well-defined supply chain and expertise in the market, we decided to look at the market and bring in that expertise,” said Mario de Amicis, head of the CNH Industrial electrification team.
Knowing both the customer and the technology is another foundation of the company’s strategy. While some firms have gained publicity by electrifying massive pieces of machinery, CNH Industrial assessed the demand for relatively small, lightweight utility tractors, taking particular note of the specific benefits that electrification would bring to customers.
Collaborating to accelerate electrification
Another leg of the strategy involves forming partnerships with experienced electrification companies, helping to accelerate the timeline from concept to market. For its inaugural electric tractor project, CNH Industrial enlisted the U.S. firm Monarch Tractor as a strategic partner.
The result was a prototype version of the T4 Electric Power, an all-electric utility tractor for CNH Industrial’s New Holland Agriculture brand. The prototype was produced in record time and unveiled at the company’s tech day event in Phoenix, Arizona, in December 2022.
A production model will extend to CNH Industrial’s Case IH brand as well, where the company has also introduced an all-electric mini-excavator.
Electric vs. diesel vehicles: Compare and contrast
Around 70 percent of the CNH Industrial’s electrification team comes from the automotive industry, de Amicis said. That experience shows up in T4 features that have become standard fare in electric vehicles, including battery range that can last up to a day depending on the type of work. Another key element is fast-charging capability: a bi-directional charging system enables the tractor to provide power to electric tools (such as welding machines and drills) and function as a generator for emergency or daily use.
The commercial version of the T4 will launch with remote and autonomous features. Similar to those in other electric vehicles, these elements are expected to result in significant productivity improvements.
“Farmers can remotely activate the tractor via a smartphone app,” the company detailed in a recent announcement. “Shadow Follow Me mode lets operators sync machines to work together. A 360-degree perception system detects and avoids obstacles. Telematics and auto guidance keep all functions in check for operators.”
CNH Industrial also took care to incorporate a power take-off feature and other standard elements for attaching implements to a tractor, with a high-tech twist. The T4 comes with a fleet management controller that recognizes and links the attachments, enabling farmers to run the tractor remotely through all stages of use.
All the benefits of electrification
As with all electric vehicles, the T4 eliminates tailpipe emissions and offers a significant savings on operating costs. CNH Industrial estimates a savings up to 90 percent over the cost of fueling and maintaining a diesel engine. The electric drive also delivers improvements in responsiveness, traction control and all-around handling, according to the company.
In terms of agricultural use, the electric tractor eliminates the risk of soil contamination from spills or accidents, de Amicis said. That’s an especially important consideration for regenerative agriculture, which prioritizes soil health.
On a more holistic basis, regenerative practices also prioritize worker health, making a zero-emission tractor all the more attractive.
The T4 reduces noise by up to 90 percent, according to company estimates, and tamps down on vibrations, too. That’s a significant improvement in the well-being of both workers and farm animals, while lessening disturbance for nearby neighbors.
Similar benefits are at work in CNH Industrial’s electric mini-excavator. It is sized to enable it to pass through doorways and conduct work indoors, free of the diesel fumes and noise of conventional equipment.
Next steps for decarbonization
CNH Industrial also offers farmers a methane biofuel option for New Holland’s T7 and T6 tractors. These models are a particularly good fit for livestock farms with digester equipment, which extract biogas from manure.
“Farmers grow crops and use waste products to generate biomethane, which powers the tractor, which, in turn, helps to grow those very crops,” New Holland’s website reads.
Electrifying combines and larger pieces of equipment involves another set of challenges. Here, CNH Industrial is focusing on a hybrid strategy to satisfy customer demand for both performance and efficiency, while also achieving a sharp reduction in carbon emissions, de Amicis said.
“Battery-electric, with no combustion, is a really good application for small machines,” he explained. “But when we move up, we know that — due to the limit of the power density and cost of the battery — we need to talk about hybridization for medium to large machines.
Much of the equipment attached to farm and construction vehicles is driven by hydraulic systems, which lend themselves to electrification.
“Electrification is an opportunity for efficiency,” de Amicis said. “A tractor is pointless alone. It is intended to pull and provide energy for something else — for implements. There is a lot of opportunity because of the hydraulics in implements, and if we move to electrification, we can improve controllability.”
Beyond EV batteries
As much as CNH Industrial and other firms have been helped along their electrification journey by the size and maturity of the on-road electric vehicle market, further progress in the off-road area will require a tailored approach.
The next step involves forming new supply chain partnerships to develop a battery designed specifically for high-voltage systems, de Amicis said. “We can’t simply copy and paste what the automotive industry is doing. Due to the specific requirements linked with our environment, a customized solution is required.”
The decarbonization of the agriculture and construction industries is only just beginning. But equipment suppliers such as CNH Industrial are poised to overcome the technology challenges and accelerate the transition away from fossil energy.
Hot Bread Kitchen is a New York City-based nonprofit organization that creates economic opportunity for immigrant women and people of color with training and job placement in the food industry. (Image courtesy of Hot Bread Kitchen)
When we look at what it takes to be successful in the workplace — and what makes a workplace successful — it becomes immediately apparent that workers need agency over their choices, goals and actions. It’s also clear that women and people who identify beyond the gender binary are systematically denied agency in the workplace — as in, the opportunity to make decisions, take purposeful action and pursue goals.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted myriad barriers to women’s agency in the workplace, attributable to outdated societal gender norms. In the first months of the pandemic in the United States, women’s employment fell precipitously in comparison to men. The reason? Women still tend to be more likely than men to leave their jobs or downsize their positions to take care of children and/or elderly family members when the need arises.
For those that remain in the workforce, factors limiting the agency of women and gender-expansive people abound. Women’s agency is hindered because they are more likely to fill service-industry jobs that tend to offer limited flexibility or benefits, and women with lower educational attainment are hit the hardest.
Transgender and gender-expansive people face workplace barriers due to being generally underrepresented in the U.S. workforce, and consistently enduring threats of violence, discrimination and stigma. Lack of guaranteed healthcare or paid leave, limited access to childcare, inflexible schedules, fewer opportunities to build knowledge and skills, and much more intersect to limit women and trans people’s freedom to pursue their professional goals.
This shift toward lower workforce participation among women and trans people — and the increased gender inequality that follows — has lasting implications for the future options and decision-making of workers, not to mention for younger generations. Further, lack of workforce diversity is both a result of, and leads to, lack of leadership diversity, further entrenching these conditions.
Mindful of lessons learned from the pandemic, and with the knowledge that women and gender-expansive people are critical to business’ success, we are more aware than ever that organizations and workers excel when they are led with wisdom and compassion. When ranked by their employees, 55 percent of women leaders were perceived to have these two critical traits, versus 27 percent of men. The point is not that women are necessarily better leaders, but rather that they tend to embrace leadership practices that foster more inclusive work environments for everyone, which in turn creates a bulwark against the trends listed above.
The existing gender gap in workplace leadership has real ramifications for the bottom line and for our culture. When various industries’ current leaders (who, generally speaking, tend to be men) continue to take a “traditional” approach to leadership and company policies — one that favors business-as-usual over humanity and equity — it further entrenches norms that exclude women and gender-nonconforming people from leadership positions, diminishes overall productivity, and has larger implications for generational wealth. And, as we saw in the early days of the pandemic, these approaches can push women out of the workforce entirely and limit agency for the longer term.
By embracing an approach focused on wisdom and compassion, employers — from major corporations to local nonprofit organizations — can play an important role in advocating for women’s and gender-expansive people’s agency and success in the workforce and beyond, ensuring all workers have the resources they need to excel at work and at home.
Hot Bread Kitchen provides immigrant women and people of color with culinary skills training and professional readiness programs, job placement, food business entrepreneurship assistance, social services support, bridge training, an extensive employer network, and more. (Image: Wini Lao for Hot Bread Kitchen)
How Hot Bread Kitchen supports empowered workers
This is where Hot Bread Kitchen comes in. Hot Bread Kitchen is a New York City-based nonprofit organization that creates economic opportunity for immigrant women and people of color using the vibrant food industry as a catalyst for personal and professional growth.
We support our program members — who are disproportionately affected by social and economic barriers to wealth generation and long-term stability — as they pursue their career ambitions. We support women and gender-expansive people by providing culinary skills training and professional readiness programs, job placement, food business entrepreneurship assistance, social services support, bridge training, an extensive employer network, and more.
In the years since our founding, it has become clear that these strategies are critical tools for advancing women’s ability to find and sustain employment, grow in their careers, make choices for their families, and achieve their goals.
This holistic approach has been an evolving aspect of Hot Bread Kitchen’s model. When our organization started in 2008, we were a bakery with a simple, but important, mission: teach women bakery skills and connect them with food industry employers to secure jobs. Many other workforce development programs still drive toward a similar goal today: get people who are looking for work in the door, give them relevant skills training, and connect them with a job.
While there’s no arguing that this is an important objective, working side-by-side with our participants over the years has evolved our understanding of what it means to ensure women’s agency, a thriving career, or a meaningful public life. At Hot Bread Kitchen, we learned that for our members to be successful in the long run, we needed to do more — to take an approach that supports the whole person, not just the worker.
Empowering women to succeed in the workplace demands a comprehensive approach to overcoming obstacles, both at work and beyond. But what exactly does this look like, and what can you do to help?
By Amy Brown from Triple Pundit • Reposted: July 18, 2023
The world needs to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by almost half this decade to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius as recommended by climate scientists, the United Nation warns. As companies wrestle with how best to meet their net-zero targets, technology presents an important and powerful tool to determine which approaches will make the greatest impact.
“Technology plays a key role in untangling some of those challenges and helping organizations achieve net-zero,” says Salma Bakr, product lead at the sustainability software company FigBytes.
Several mitigation options costing less than $100 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent could reduce global emissions by at least half by 2030 compared to 2019, according to the sixth assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Examples include using more renewable power generated from sources like solar and wind, transitioning to more fuel-efficient vehicles, and using more energy-efficient technologies.
That’s good news for the more than 90 percent of business leaders who say they prioritize long-term decarbonization. “Companies play a crucial role in tackling climate change and benefit from decarbonization by reducing risks like extreme weather events and policy changes,” Bakr says. “In the long run, and as more low-carbon solutions are adopted and become more affordable, decarbonizing a business saves operational costs and enhances efficiency, for example, where you pay lower bills for your energy and waste.”
Why technology is key to unlocking solutions for climate action
In the context of decarbonizing businesses, technology comes under two categories, Bakr explains: digital technologies that enable a net-zero future, and physical technologies for climate mitigation or adaptation.
These technologies complement each other in support of net-zero targets. For example, digital technologies enable efficient and scalable processing of climate data, allowing for more informed problem detection and decision-making. They also allow companies to evaluate multiple decarbonization solutions virtually and chart the best path forward, Bakr says. Together, digital technologies have the potential to reduce emissions by up to 20 percent by 2050 if scaled and adopted in high-emitting sectors like energy, materials and mobility, according to the World Economic Forum.
Physical technologies, on the other hand, enable climate mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC’s sixth assessment report shows that several of these technologies have high potential for GHG reduction at scale. For climate mitigation, this includes solar and wind power, energy-efficient appliances and lighting, and fuel-efficient vehicles. For climate adaptation, a key example is building resilient power systems which provide a diverse and stable energy supply.
How digital technologies can accelerate progress to net-zero
Digital technologies enhance decarbonization efforts in multiple ways, Bakr says. Even more good news: Organizations of all sizes across every industry already use many of these digital tools to ease their progress toward strategic goals — making it fairly seamless to digitize their approach to climate action as well.
For example, most businesses use foundational technologies to support daily tasks of measurement, reporting, and basic analytics for data-driven insights. Examples include enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, customer relationship management (CRM) systems, and supply chain tracking systems.
“This means organizations don’t have to start from scratch,” Bakr says. “For example, they can add sustainability solutions ‘on top’ of their existing systems.”
Organizations can also use decision-making technologies as part of the daily course of doing business, where machine learning can be leveraged, for example, to imitate how humans learn and ingest new data, which can improve decision-making accuracy, Bakr says. Such technologies also allow organizations to use historical data to forecast future events, or provide actionable recommendations to inform actions around decarbonization.
Another group of digital technologies increasingly embraced on the decarbonization journey are sensing and control technologies. These range from automation, robotics and drones to enhanced connectivity through the Internet of Things. By deploying these technologies, companies can more easily collect data from physical systems and more accurately control things like office temperature, humidity and lighting based on occupancy.
Yet another category are enabling technologies that support organizations to operate more efficiently. Examples include cloud computing and mobile communication, which allow organizations to scale their resources on-demand.
Technology advances ease climate accounting
“Tracking progress is crucial,” in pursuit of climate goals, “as net-zero is all about beating the clock and making progress,” Bakr says. “That’s why climate action needs climate accounting first, including a comprehensive emissions inventory. And the main challenge in establishing an emissions inventory is a data problem: data collection, consolidation, validation, verification and so on.”
This is where technology is an asset, she explains. A climate accounting solution collects, validates and verifies activity data, and conducts basic emissions modeling, reporting and analytics. Making that solution cloud-hosted “helps scale data collection, cross-collaboration across teams and geographies, and stakeholder engagement, where you can collect data from anywhere in the world and scale your computations as needed,” Bakr says.
Climate accounting systems can be integrated with decision-making technologies such as machine learning to augment the intelligence of an organization’s analytics, for example, to ensure the right emission factors are applied to calculate emissions data, she adds.
Companies and organizations that have set science-based targets should also keep watch on the “Progress Framework” under development by the Science Based Targets initiative, Bakr advises. It aims to advance the measurement, reporting and verification of science-based targets, providing clear and standardized expectations and guidance on how to measure, report and verify climate action progress against those targets.
This framework will support transparency and integrity by holding companies and financial institutions accountable for their climate targets. Development is expected to be completed at the 2023 U.N. Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP28) in Dubai in December.
Overcoming the challenge of future scenario planning
After the initial steps of streamlining a baseline emissions inventory and setting net-zero targets, an important but often challenging part of the decarbonization journey is the ability to forecast future emissions scenarios and understand associated risks and opportunities. “Many organizations find challenges in defining and analyzing net-zero scenarios,” Bakr says. “It’s a tricky and complicated process.”
But organizations can overcome that challenge by better understanding what is involved in a future climate scenario, she advises. “Scenarios should challenge business-as-usual assumptions about the future, but also illustrate a credible story comprising possible and consistent future events. Scenarios should also be relevant, meaning they explore future insights relating to the various implications of climate-related risks and opportunities. They should also be distinctive by exploring different permutations and combinations of key factors impacting future developments to generate multiple decarbonization alternatives for the organization to select from.”
Again, an organization can turn to technology to do this. “A solid climate accounting solution, coupled with decision-making capabilities, can help an organization forecast and visualize the future emissions associated with various scenarios based on the various data inputs considered,” Bakr says.
At the same time, technology isn’t a panacea, and it also has its own footprint to consider. “As we consider various technologies in the transition to net-zero, we need to also understand that those digital and physical technologies do produce emissions in one way or another,” she adds. “We need to take a systemic approach to tackling emissions reduction and stay on top of the latest research and development efforts.”
Inaction is not a possibility
Taking action is the only option, Bakr points out. “The journey to net-zero is bumpy but inevitable,” she says. Organizations can set themselves up for success with a solid climate action strategy that aligns net-zero targets with the latest climate science, and leverages technology to speed up the transition.
“This will make the net-zero journey as efficient, effective and consistent as possible,” she says. Crucially, the goal should be to invest in net-zero innovation that extends beyond any single organization’s value chain: “Focus on bold reductions, first and foremost. And if your progress strays, make sure you realign by identifying more reduction potentials.”
This article series is sponsored by FigBytes and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.
In 2018, Everlane made an environmental commitment to eliminate all virgin plastic from its supply chain. For Earth Month in 2023, the brand celebrated its progress with a limited-edition collection of “ReTrack” styles. Photo: Courtesy of Everlane
By Maura Brannigan from Fashionista via Yahoo Life • Reposted: July 18, 2023
As the fashion industry becomes more and more implicated in the climate crisis, brands and retailers are beginning to take more and more responsibility for their roles in it.
“Responsibility” takes many forms, of course: There’s true accountability and transparency, and then there’s greenwashing, in which companies of all makes and models invest more in marketing themselves as being sustainable than in tangibly tackling their environmental impact. It’s no surprise that the former is easier — and, often, more appealing — than the latter. That’s because in fashion, the climate crisis is an issue of systemic proportions. But a growing number of businesses are making key C-suite hires to rebuild those systems from the inside.
Enter the chief sustainability officer, a role tasked with addressing an organization’s approach to climate responsibility and, theoretically, minimizing the company’s environmental impact. And the job description is being written in real time.
“One of the toughest challenges in my career was creating a job for myself that hadn’t existed before,” says Reformation‘s Chief Sustainability Officer and VP of Operations Kathleen Talbot, who first joined the brand in 2014. “Sustainability was a brand-new field. When I reached out to Reformation, I had no background in fashion or business, but I was committed to learning and passionate about helping define what sustainability would look like at Reformation in the long term.”
Now a decade in, Talbot has worked to define Reformation’s environmental practices, from investing in green building infrastructure to publishing the brand’s quarterly Sustainability Report. But every retailer is venturing into this work from its own unique starting block, which makes this position a particularly challenging one.
Ahead, we spoke with folks at companies like Everlane and Depop about what a chief sustainability officer (or an equivalent title) actually does, why their job matters and how to break into the field for yourself.
How to get your big break in sustainability
Full-time roles in the intersection of fashion and sustainability are few and far between, which means that the people who currently hold them are at the top of their proverbial game — and have the experience to show for it.
While this often takes the form of a stacked resume, those in the field have an innate fascination with and appreciation of this planet, as well as knowledge of how to do better by it.
“I joke that I fulfill every stereotype you may have of a Seattleite,” says Reformation’s Talbot. “I’ve been interested in sustainability my whole life and have been aware from an early age that our future is dependent on changing our relationship with the environment.”
Talbot began her career in academia, having gotten a master’s degree in sustainability before looking to find ways to bridge the concepts she was teaching with action. Consumer products presented a new challenge: “There’s such an enormous opportunity to make things differently.”
Like Talbot, Kirsten Blackburn entered the apparel space from the outside, having previously worked in the policymaking and nonprofit sectors. While building out the advocacy program at The Conservation Alliance, which funds and partners with grassroots organizations working to protect wild places across North America, she began to explore the ways in which consumer structures, like fashion brands, can most efficiently move policy.
“When businesses pool resources and advocate for causes they care about, it makes a difference, more so than other actors in the policymaking space,” says Blackburn, director of Keen‘s environmental and social justice program, Keen Effect. “Brands — particularly privately-held, family-run brands like Keen — have a really huge opportunity to affect change.”
Justine Porterie, Depop‘s director of sustainability and DEI, entered sustainability from the corporate side, supporting large investors and fast-moving consumer-goods companies, like Unilever and PwC, with their responsible investment and sustainability strategies. After nearly a decade, Porterie joined a social incubator that investigated business opportunities to turn waste into resources.
“I stumbled upon fashion and was shocked by how wasteful the industry is,” she says. “One truckload of clothes ending up in the landfill every second — that’s mad, and what triggered the idea for my own company.”
Called Outstand, Porterie’s business specialized in curating secondhand fashion as an answer to curbing apparel’s waste crisis. She connected with Maria Raga, Depop’s former CEO, not long after, and began consulting with the peer-to-peer social e-commerce platform to help create its first sustainability strategy. Porterie officially joined the team in February 2020, and the rest, as they say, is history.
What your day-to-day might look like
At the highest level, a director of sustainability is responsible for identifying new ways to incorporate a climate focus across a brand’s operations. It’s a broad and seemingly ambitious set of obligations, but experts explain that typically, their job descriptions can be broken down into various subsets, including (but not limited to) supply chain management, political advocacy and PR and marketing.
To execute this position effectively, these folks need to touch every part of the business. At Reformation, for example, Talbot leads a team of six sustainability professionals to rally the brand’s 1,000-person employee base around a high-level vision.
“I consider us to be catalysts,” she says. “How do you actually adopt material innovations and key transitions? Identify and build relationships with strategic suppliers for decarbonization programs? Reduce transportation emissions? This work happens through daily decisions and doing ‘business per usual’ in a different way, so we’re constantly facilitating and pushing the team forward.”
The role extends beyond internal communications, of course: To functionally move the needle, those actually consuming the product need to “buy in” to the mission, too. This is where annual “sustainability reports” come in: They have different names from brand to brand, but serve a similar purpose of outlining goals and, more crucially, holding themselves — and their progress — accountable as they work toward those goals.
Everlane’s Impact Report, for example, outlines a short- and long-term strategy around its sustainability objectives by establishing three pillars: 1) Keep Earth clean, 2) Keep Earth cool and 3) Do right by people. Katina Boutis, the brand’s director of sustainability, isn’t only responsible for defining these intentions —she’s also tasked with bringing them to life.
“Our success hinges on our customers being brought along this journey with us,” says Boutis. “A really big part of what we’re doing is translating the work we do behind the scenes, not just to our own internal teams, but also to our broader community that we’re trying to foster.”
The skills you’ll want to hone
There are a number of opportunities in sustainable fashion, and Depop’s Porterie finds they all require a slightly different skillset. Working in the sustainability team at a fashion company is different than in, say, business development at a circular fashion company, or in the field at a regenerative cotton farm. But all three positions contribute to advancing the sustainability agenda in the industry. For the wider team at Depop, stakeholder management is particularly essential — after all, Porterie says, their aim is to make their agenda everyone’s agenda, so influence is critical.
“I always recommend that people keen to break into sustainable fashion start by interrogating what they’re good at and what excites them first,” she says. “Is it data, reporting, policy, technology, agriculture, marketing, design?”
Beyond individual interests, these positions also require a profound and technical understanding of sustainability and the wider fashion industry. For Kenneth Loo, co-founder and CEO of communications agency Chapter 2, this includes knowledge of the reengineering of production processes, recycling, certifications and various sustainable materials and chemicals.
“The narrative has shifted,” says Loo, whose Sustainability division at Chapter 2 supports clients in the clean-fashion spaces. “We no longer discuss mere factories, but technology platforms striving for innovation and ‘future-proofing’ that seek recognition from industry leaders.”
Finally, experts recommend a quality slightly less quantifiable, and that’s work ethic, fueled by an unrelenting growth mindset. At Keen, Blackburn describes this as a “fail-fast and fail-forward mentality,” to take the challenging, largely systemic problems you’ve been handed and come up with creative solutions to fix them.
“How can you take learnings from something that didn’t go well and celebrate it? Every day we’re uncovering something we don’t know, and that’s not unique to KEEN — that’s sustainability and climate writ large,” says Blackburn. “We’re hoping that we’re collectively doing more of the right things so that we’ll collectively make an impact in the future.”
What you’re working toward
“Sustainability is now non-negotiable in fashion, thankfully,” says Reformation’s Talbot. “Given our industry’s outsized environmental impact, there’s more customer demand to integrate sustainability into brand and product than ever. It follows that we’re seeing more career opportunities in the field open up, even compared to just five years ago.”
In short: We’re at a tipping point because people — and regulators — are no longer having it. Depop research shows that 60% of the platform’s users would rather buy from a company with environmental and social standards, and they’re not afraid to walk away or even publicly boycott those who do not meet their standards.
“Navigating increasing stakeholder expectations and changing legislative landscapes alongside business priorities is not an easy task,” says Porterie. “Until sustainability is entirely embedded in the DNA and ways of working of fashion companies, there will be space for sustainability professionals to keep on driving the agenda from within.”
These professionals have their work cut out for them, to be sure, but progress is afoot: Just last month, EU parliament voted to support a set of anti-fast-fashion recommendationsthat force the fashion industry to operate more sustainably. Then there’s New York’s Fashion Act, which aims to hold major clothing labels (i.e., those with over $100 million in global revenue) accountable for their environmental and social impacts.
“These policies are not something that I think anyone would’ve necessarily thought would be possible,” says Everlane’s Boutis. “Sustainability professionals are critical at any level in any organization, but I think there’s a special place in certain industries, like fashion, that have this ability to cut through cultural movements and spaces in that way.”
Underwater view of the ocean surface. Image via Shutterstock/Dudarev Mikhail
What’s coming next for sustainability: Mining, oceans, artificial intelligence and justice. By Dylan Siegler from Greenbiz.com • July 18, 2023
Every July, a portal into the future opens. The near future. Say, one to three years out.
During this time of year, we look into that near-future-portal — the database of more than 500 proposed speakers to our February GreenBiz conference — and patterns, distinct from prior years, emerge. We see what the corporate sustainability ecosystem will be talking more and more about next.
I don’t mean decarbonization, data or climate tech, and I don’t mean supply chain issues, nature, Scope 3 emissions or DEI. Those make up the current canon of corporate sustainability priorities, whether your company has a sophisticated sustainability strategy or is just getting started. Combined, they were mentioned more than 1,500 times throughout proposed session descriptions — I ran the write-ups through an online word-frequency counter.
Those topics will certainly be covered at GreenBiz in February, but they were likely once first glimpsed through this proposal season wrinkle-in-time trick in prior years.
Here is a look at what’s just now hitting the Top 40 charts for the first time. It’s a non-exhaustive selection of topics that represent a view to the future of rising risks and opportunities that senior sustainability executives and rising stars are starting to grapple with and want to present or talk about with peers.
What you should have on your radar
Mining and critical minerals Our applicants have tuned in to the challenges around achieving global decarbonization, particularly the energy transition, given it requires critical minerals such as cobalt, lithium, copper and other materials often mined in geopolitically iffy regions.
A sustainability head at Oracle proposes to tease out how the auto industry is achieving traceability of some critical minerals (as well as human rights, carbon and other metrics) at scale using a blockchain platform. Consultancy ERM proposes to bring together reps from mining companies with stakes in critical minerals to talk successes and failures so far in sourcing these materials in response to “customer demand and government incentives like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).” Others propose more potentially contentious dialogue: Positive takes on the controversial prospect of deep sea mining, and a celebration of a Nevada lithium mine project in an Endangered Species Act conflict.
Oceans The proposals we received this season were not only about protecting oceans, but using them. Multiple proposals promote seaweed as a solution. Seaweed-based yarn startup Keel Labs proposes to spotlight the “potential of the ocean to accelerate our planet’s development towards a more sustainable future,” while World Wildlife Fund proposes to “explore whether accelerating a market for seaweed could be a climate change solution.” Another swath of ideas from entrepreneurs position oceans as central to carbon removal.
A wave of ocean plastic-related proposals and other upstream-pollution-related content include a pitch from Dell and HP on “advancing commercially viable and socially-responsible ocean-bound plastics.”
Artificial intelligence The applications of AI proposed have gone from grand and theoretical to remarkably tactical. UL Solutions proposes a session on “how to write for AI and machine learning readers of ESG reports and communications, as these are the most ‘influential’ readers of ESG reports, parsing and mining company data for raters and rankers.” An SAP proposal promises to show how generative AI can help companies “achieve immediate transparency into their suppliers’ ESG profiles,” and Autocase offered to introduce an AI-assisted online decarbonization planning tool for real estate portfolios.
Justice This year social justice showed up in more intersectional, and specific, contexts than before, and from more innovators building justice into their business models. Supplements company Ritual pitched a session on identifying and tracking PFAS through the supply chain that would make “explicit intersections between sustainability, human rights, justice and traceability.”
Biomaterials startup erthos proposed to discuss how “the intersections of race, gender, social and economic status, and age influence how we view, engage, and protect our planet.” Startup GreenWealth Energy connected environmental justice and workforce development to public EV charging infrastructure funding by highlighting state and local government programs supporting under-resourced “community involvement in the electrification space.”
Is this everything you should be watching? No chance. Is there a good chance these topics will gain traction in the coming year? I’d bet on it. And if it’s something you should start to pay more attention to to help you do your job, we’ll include it in the GreenBiz 24 program. Speakers and sessions will start to be announced next month.
Entrepreneurs and business leaders can play a pivotal role in advancing the green building movement by transforming their offices into sustainable workspaces. Through these actionable steps, businesses can contribute to environmental sustainability while reaping benefits such as cost savings and improved workplace health.
By Ari Chazanas from Entrepreneur.com • Reposted: July 16, 2023
As concerns over climate change and environmental sustainability grow, green buildings represent a significant shift in the real estate development landscape. Defined as structures designed and managed to reduce their environmental impact, green buildings have become a focal point for businesses committed to environmental sustainability.
For entrepreneurs and business leaders, there’s an increasing responsibility — and indeed an opportunity — to transition their existing buildings or offices into greener spaces. Rooted in ecological stewardship, these architectural marvels are designed to minimize environmental impact through resource conservation and sustainability.
Energy efficiency: The first step toward green buildings
While green buildings represent a significant evolution in real estate, their implications go beyond the initial construction phase. Entrepreneurs and business leaders have a significant role to play in this green revolution. By transforming their offices into eco-friendly spaces, they can contribute to environmental preservation while fostering a healthier work environment and reducing operating costs.
Transforming an office into a green building involves several interconnected steps. The first is energy efficiency, a cornerstone of the green building philosophy. Efficient energy use not only reduces carbon emissions but also lessens reliance on non-renewable power sources. Energy efficiency is the backbone of any green building. By optimizing energy use, businesses can significantly reduce their carbon footprint. Replacing conventional lighting with energy-efficient LED or compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) can reduce energy consumption by up to 75%. Furthermore, intelligent lighting systems, such as those with occupancy sensors or natural light adjustments, can further minimize energy wastage.
High-performance appliances, rated by programs like ENERGY STAR, can offer significant energy savings over their conventional counterparts. Building automation systems, managing HVAC, lighting and other power systems, ensure energy is used only when needed, leading to substantial energy conservation. Green buildings, through energy-efficient design and sustainable practices, can lead to significant cost savings in the long run.
Harnessing renewable energy
To take the leap from energy efficiency to green energy, businesses can transition to renewable energy sources. Green buildings ideally source their power from renewable resources, thus reducing reliance on fossil fuels and minimizing carbon emissions. Installing solar panels, for instance, can help offset a significant portion of a building’s energy consumption.
If on-site generation is unfeasible, business leaders can explore renewable energy contracts. Numerous energy providers offer “green power” plans where the electricity is sourced from renewable energy projects. If installing renewable energy systems is not feasible, consider green energy contracts. Many energy providers offer plans where the electricity is sourced from renewable sources.
Water conservation and management
Water is another critical resource that can be managed more effectively. Small changes, like installing low-flow taps, toilets and urinals, can significantly reduce water consumption in the office. Going a step further, consider implementing a rainwater harvesting system. Rainwater can be collected, stored and used for non-drinking purposes, such as watering plants or flushing toilets. Low-flow fixtures, such as taps, toilets and urinals, can reduce water consumption by up to 20%.
Aside from installing low-flow fixtures and rainwater harvesting systems, businesses can explore other methods of conserving water. Greywater recycling systems, for instance, can treat and reuse water from sinks, showers and washing machines for non-potable uses like flushing toilets and irrigation. Businesses can also implement water-efficient landscaping, using native or drought-resistant plants, which require less water and maintenance. Ensuring regular maintenance to prevent leaks, which can lead to significant water wastage over time, is another practical step toward water conservation.
Waste management
Waste management is an essential component of a green office. Establishing recycling programs can ensure that waste materials such as paper, plastic, metal and electronics are properly disposed of and repurposed. If the office has a kitchen, consider composting food waste. Not only does this reduce the amount of waste going to landfills, but the resulting compost can be used to nourish office plants or donated to local community gardens. By establishing recycling programs, businesses can ensure that waste materials like paper, plastic and metal are properly disposed of and repurposed. Composting organic waste reduces the amount of waste going to landfills while producing nutrient-rich soil for use in landscaping.
Beyond recycling and composting, businesses can implement waste reduction strategies. This could involve going paperless, using digital alternatives for meetings and note-taking, and reducing unnecessary packaging in the office. Moreover, businesses can explore the concept of a circular economy, where resources are used for as long as possible, and at the end of their life, components are recovered and regenerated. This could involve initiatives like leasing office equipment or using modular furniture that can be easily repaired, upgraded or disassembled for recycling.
Enhancing indoor environmental quality
Good ventilation not only ensures an adequate supply of fresh air but also helps control indoor humidity levels, reducing the risk of mold growth. Businesses can also consider “thermal comfort,” which refers to maintaining a temperature range in which people feel comfortable. Thermal comfort depends on factors like air temperature, humidity, air movement and the type of clothing worn by people. The indoor environmental qualitysignificantly affects occupant health and productivity. Using low-VOC (volatile organic compounds) or VOC-free paints, adhesives and cleaning products reduces exposure to harmful chemicals. Additionally, incorporating indoor plants can improve air quality while creating a more calming and attractive environment.
Embarking on the journey to transform an office into a green building requires commitment and often investment. Still, the benefits — from cost savings and improved employee health to promoting a more sustainable future — make it a worthwhile endeavor. By taking these steps, entrepreneurs and business leaders are not just creating healthier, more sustainable workplaces. They are joining the green building revolution, contributing significantly to the future of sustainable real estate development and shaping the way we think about the spaces in which we work.
The evolution of the green building movement offers an array of opportunities for entrepreneurs and business leaders. By staying abreast of the latest green practices and technologies and fostering a culture of sustainability within their organizations, they can make a meaningful contribution to the environment while reaping tangible business benefits. It’s a win-win scenario, where businesses can bolster their bottom line while making strides towards a more sustainable and ecologically responsible world.
‘Regenerative’ has become the latest trend — a label that’s stuck on anything as a way of making it sound positive and reassuring. To guarantee genuine progress, we need a universal set of principles underpinning regenerative economics and a standardised way of quantifying success. By Amanda Powell-Smith from Sustainable Brands • Reposted: July 17, 2023
“Regenerative” is the new “sustainable.”
Globally, mentions of the word have gone up by 43 percent in online news stories and 282 percent on social media in the last year. Increasingly favoured by brands and companies to describe their positive approach to environmental challenges, regenerative is being stuck on everything from architecture to fashion, tea, travel, skincare and even leather.
But what does it really mean? Originally, it was mostly used to describe an approach to agriculture. Regenerative farming is about producing food while restoring degraded soils and depleted wildlife populations and plant species. In this context, the use of the word ‘regenerative’ makes sense — it’s about keeping living ecosystems in balance. Metrics exist to measure tangible outcomes, like an increased percentage of organic matter in the soil or an upswing in insect numbers. We can track change.
Things become trickier when we apply the term ‘regenerative’ to human systems. What does a regenerative economy look like and how do we judge its success? As things stand, the term remains too broad-brush to be able to answer these questions in a consistent and meaningful way.
When applied to economics, it bears many similarities to the idea of a wellbeing economy — which is about healing, recovery and recuperation. However, the use of the word ’wellbeing’ offers much greater clarity because an existing suite of metrics exists to enable measurement of both healthy people and a healthy planet.
For example, the World Health Organization provides global figures on life expectancy and mother-and-child mortality rates. Likewise, for the animal world, the International Union for Conservation of Nature updates a red list of wildlife at threat of extinction. Plant and tree species numbers can similarly be tracked; no equivalent exists for the descriptor ‘regenerative.’
To guarantee genuine progress, we need a universal set of principles underpinning regenerative economics and a standardised way of quantifying success. Otherwise, the ‘regenerative’ epithet will lose its meaning and become just another empty badge exploited by greenwashers and climate deniers alike.
For those of us working in communications, this means — as ever — being careful with our use of language. We mustn’t decide that the word ‘sustainable’ is no longer important or relevant. Its meaning is critical but remains widely misunderstood with many aligning it to the environment only — when it’s about building an inclusive and resilient future for both people and the planet.
The United Nations defines sustainable as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs;’ and we won’t achieve that without the repair, renewal and regeneration of our natural world.
We can’t let ‘regenerative’ become the latest trend — a label that’s stuck on anything as a way of making it sound positive and reassuring. Those who want to use words such as ‘sustainable’ and ‘regenerative’ must always ally them with real substance, thought and impact. Words are important and what they stand for matters to us all.
Over two-thirds of consumers between the ages of 18 and 34 are likely to purchase from companies committed to Sustainability. From Viant • Reposted: July 17, 2023
IRVINE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Jun. 6, 2023– Viant Technology Inc.(NASDAQ: DSP), a leading people-based advertising technology company, today released the findings from its new Consumer Sustainability Study, revealing that over two-thirds of consumers between the ages of 18 and 34 are likely to purchase from companies committed to sustainability. Furthermore, of the more than 1,000 consumers surveyed, 69 percent agreed that businesses have a responsibility to reduce their environmental impact. As sustainability priorities continue to grow among brands, Viant’s new report underscores the importance of sustainability for consumers and how sustainability is a key driver of consumer purchasing decisions.
Key takeaways from Viant’s Consumer Sustainability Study:
When it comes to sustainability, consumers prefer action over words: When asked how important it was for brands to take action towards reducing their carbon footprint, versus just talking about their commitment to sustainability, 65 percent of consumers cited that action was important.
Gen Z and Millennials hold businesses accountable for sustainability: Consumers 18-34 years old feel most strongly that businesses have a responsibility to reduce their environmental impact, more so than those 35 and older.
Renewable energy can positively impact brand perception, especially among younger consumers: Almost three-quarters (74%) of consumers between the ages of 18 and 34 expressed that they would view a brand positively if they are utilizing renewable energy sources. When analyzing all age groups (18+) surveyed, 67 percent of consumers cited that they would view a brand positively if they are utilizing renewable energy sources.
“Our latest research demonstrates that consumers are increasingly looking for brands to not only talk about sustainability and about reducing their carbon footprint, but to take real action,” said Jon Schulz, Chief Marketing Officer, Viant. “As sustainability remains top of mind for both brands and their customers, we are pleased to offer our clients a number of leading-edge solutions, including our Adtricity program, which help brands take real action to achieve their sustainability goals.”
To further support brands and agencies in understanding their carbon footprint from advertising, this week Viant launched its new Carbon Emissions Calculator to help advertisers assess the carbon impact of their digital campaigns.
To learn more about the findings from Viant’s Consumer Sustainability Study, please click here.
About Viant’s Consumer Sustainability Study
This survey was fielded online and reached a total of n=1,197 respondents. Respondents were consumers in the US (18+) who were representative of the national population. The survey was fielded between May, 1st, 2023 – May, 2nd, 2023.
AccountAbility, the trusted global ESG Consulting and Standards firm with a three-decade history in guiding leaders to build better companies, is pleased to announce that CEO Sunil (Sunny) A. Misser recently engaged in an exclusive interview with Nareit, the worldwide representative voice for REITs and listed real estate companies with an interest in U.S. Real Estate and Global Capital Markets.
AccountAbility, the trusted global ESG Consulting and Standards firm with a three-decade history in guiding leaders to build better companies, is pleased to announce that CEO Sunil (Sunny) A. Misser recently engaged in an exclusive interview with Nareit, the worldwide representative voice for REITs and listed real estate companies with an interest in U.S. Real Estate and Global Capital Markets.
In the interview, Mr. Misser shared insights on the latest trends in ESG practices, and the evolving landscape of sustainability within the corporate sector. This was framed against the ESG predictions and patterns observed by Mr. Misser over the past decade. Notably, the Consolidation and Standardization of ESG Frameworks and Standards at the highest level, and the significant shift as ESG metrics sit alongside financial metrics in predicting the future health of a company.
“Standardization and Consolidation of ESG Standards, Frameworks, Reporting, and Disclosure has occurred. ESG Metrics are now entering the mainstream of business. With this, ESG metrics will not be used to just report and disclose a company’s financial health, but more importantly predict it,” comments AccountAbility CEO Sunil (Sunny) A. Misser.
Mr. Misser spoke in detail on emerging ESG Trends that are shaping the corporate agenda, including the impact of geopolitical disruption across all facets of the global economy: Disruption of Supply Chains, Cost of Capital, Managing Inflation, Access and Cost of Energy, and Clear Direction of Monetary Policy. Business will need to respond to this New “G” (Geopolitics) in ESG while maximizing resilience to macro shocks and prioritizing uninterrupted service delivery.
Corporate Boards have long played a key role in setting an organizations culture, values, and business practices. Now, the structure of Boards is changing. Mr. Misser spoke to this trend and the emergence of Boards that will be purpose built with diversity of thinking (beyond just diversity of pigmentation) sitting alongside gender, socio-economic, professional, and cultural backgrounds as central to effective, future-focused Boards.
These emerging trends, as detailed within the AccountAbility 7 Sustainability Trends 2023 Report, together with the economic factors impacting specific geographies and industries, make clear the need for companies to integrate sustainability into their core business strategies to remain competitive and resilient in today’s rapidly evolving global market.
The AccountAbility 7 Sustainability Trends 2023 – Highlights
The Net Zero Landscape: Against an unprecedented volume of net zero commitments, what are the risks for those that fail to act, and the opportunities for businesses to lead?
Stakeholder Activism Is Getting Louder: As businesses face increasing pressure to take a stance and demonstrate actionable progress on a range of ESG issues, how best can leaders balance this with the imperative to maximize shareholder value?
Geopolitics: The New “G” In ESG: In an era of increasingly globalized business operations, how can organizations address the outsized role that the new G (Geopolitics) is playing in the business landscape?
Building an Effective, Future-Focused Board: As demands and expectations shift, how best to equip future-focused Boards to meet the requirements of the evolving business environment?
Next Generation ESG Disclosure and Reporting: A shift from voluntary to mandatory ESG Disclosure is set to heighten attention on corporate sustainability disclosure practices. How will these changes impact ESG Reporting?
The Road to a Sustainable Value Chain: How can the integration of sustainability criteria into supply chains drive organizational shifts towards a more context-aware and competitive value chain?
Nature Based Assets Will Drive Valuations: As nature-based assets are increasingly recognized for their significant impact on valuations, what steps can companies take to achieve nature-based performance goals?
AccountAbility is committed to fostering knowledge sharing and collaboration and to helping advance the Global ESG agenda. By engaging in discussions with industry leaders such as Nareit, and with their 7 Sustainability Trends 2023 Report, the firm continues to advance the collective understanding of ESG trends, challenges, and opportunities that are shaping the business landscape.
The full Nareit interview with Mr. Misser can be viewed here.
A growing industry solution to plastic packaging pollution is to create food products that are more stable and compatible with more minimal and sustainable packaging materials. By Marty Kolewe from Sustainable Brands • Reposted: July 15, 2023
Addressing this issue requires a shift in how we develop and package our products — and compostable packaging plays a significant role in enabling a sustainable future. By increasing awareness and educating consumers on the benefits of viable, compostable alternatives, individuals can make more informed purchasing decisions and drive positive change.
But the bottom line is that the only path to sustainability is for industry to break its dependence on plastic. One widespread belief fueling our habit is that the functionality of sustainable packaging materials needs to match that of traditional plastic. This isn’t necessarily true; there are many applications where the functionality of plastic is just not needed. Take, for instance, all the baggies of screws and parts that come with an item that needs to be assembled — several more sustainable packaging options could get that job done.
Food packaging, on the other hand, does require certain functionalities. It protects the food from the environment, aids in preservation, and helps maintain the integrity and safety of the product. However, foods have varying packaging needs; so, there’s no quick fix. It’s important that we work together and think creatively to develop and support food packaging solutions that are both functional and sustainable.
Admittedly, adopting sustainable packaging is not without its challenges. Governments and regulatory bodies play a crucial role. While it appears highly unlikely that any domestic regulatory body will tax — or really, in any way discourage — the manufacturing of something as prevalent and lucrative as plastic packaging, they can incentivize the use of sustainable materials through credits or offsets for the incremental costs. Creating a favorable regulatory environment encourages companies to prioritize sustainable packaging, which would lead to more widespread adoption and a corresponding reduction in negative environmental impacts.
Valid concerns over product integrity and compatibility also pose technical hurdles. Finding materials that meet a product’s unique requirements can be particularly difficult, especially for foods with a high moisture content — such as yogurt or hummus — that do not have an inherent barrier like that of fresh fruit. While environmentally unsustainable, the water barrier functionality that plastic packaging provides is critical.
Overcoming these challenges requires innovation and long-term investment. Brands and manufacturers have the opportunity to lead the change by integrating compostable packaging options and supporting the development of new materials. Inertia within established supply chains can be overcome through the adoption of long-term impact innovation and support from well-established companies or ESG-focused investors.
But what does this innovation look like? What should these brands and manufacturers be investing in? It’s time to reevaluate how we’re approaching the solution to our packaging problem: Change the product, not just the packaging.
It is possible to create food products that are more stable and compatible with more minimal and sustainable packaging solutions. Modifying a food itself, so that it requires less functionality (e.g. barrier protection) from its packaging, allows for compatibility with a broader set of materials that include more sustainable and bio-based solutions. Integrating barrier materials in the form of coatings or outer layers is an underutilized but growing solution in sustainable packaging. Companies such as Mori and Apeel make edible barriers that are designed to be applied to fresh foods’ existing peels and to extend shelf life. Foodberry uses biomimicry to replicate the properties of fruit skins and peels — creating coatings made of fibers, phytonutrients and minerals that manufacturers can use to create self-contained, bite-size versions of their signature products. The coatings create a functional, edible barrier — just like fruit skins found in nature — meaning that even hydrated foods can be distributed in bulk, or sold in compostable or biodegradable packaging.
The benefits of sustainable packaging extend to businesses, consumers, the environment and the entire economy. It stimulates innovation and product differentiation, appealing to consumer preferences for sustainability. By bringing new solutions to the market, businesses can leverage sustainability as an innovation catalyst — reducing environmental harm, improving human health, and fostering a healthier and more sustainable future.
TH Herbert is the CEO of Semarchy, a data software company that enables organizations to leverage their data to create business value.
Giving back to those in need via your time, money or resources can be an incredibly rewarding experience. For businesses, giving back is a chance to use your status as a force for positive change and build a stronger teamwork culture in the process.
More people than ever are paying attention to brands that are taking a stance on something they care about, and employees are increasingly looking for more than just a paycheck. Aligning yourself with charitable work not only sets a great example but allows you and your team to play an active role in community improvement. With more conscious consumers and added corporate pressure to maximize short-term profits, however, many businesses need help understanding how to prioritize philanthropy.
While you don’t have to be a philanthropy-focused business to help your community, I believe that you do need to install some philanthropic spirit into your workplace. While philanthropy is essential in building a reputation for your company as a form of corporate social responsibility (CSR), it shouldn’t be exclusively a tactic to promote your brand image and profit through advertising or cause-related marketing. It’s much more than bolstering your reputation in the media—consider how your business can significantly impact the lives of others, including those within your own company.
Showing that your business is committed to positively impacting society beyond recognition and core business activities, which naturally helps build trust and goodwill among consumers, employees and other stakeholders, is what will ultimately lead to increased brand loyalty and support as a by-product.
According to America’s Charities, employee participation increases when a business decides to make a charitable choice. The company culture notably shapes how employees see their profession, so philanthropic acts, no matter how often, allow employees to use their knowledge and experience while doing good within a community. According to America’s Charities, workplace giving (donating directly from a paycheck) is the most common type of employee engagement. Approximately $5 billion is raised through workplace giving annually, according to America’s Charities.
But there are many more ways to act. Through a philanthropic culture, businesses can differentiate themselves and create a unique selling proposition that appeals to clients looking for socially responsible companies and dedicated to making a change in the world.
Philanthropy In Practice
As an example of how to put this in practice, my company celebrates an annual “Day of Giving.” Even as a highly virtual company, our team finds creative ways to make a positive impact, banding together to raise awareness and money for things like medical research, planting trees or volunteering at local charities.
It’s up to the organization to set an example. For example, during our annual day of giving, my company supplies software and services at huge discounts to nonprofits like Cancer Research U.K. I’ve found that these types of efforts can significantly raise your employer net promoter score(eNPS).
How To Incorporate Philanthropy Into Your Workplace
There are many ways to establish a culture of giving within your workplace. First off, your company itself must make giving a priority. Whether by donations, matching programs or allowing employees time away for charitable endeavors, taking steps to create a culture of generosity adds value to your business, meaning to your employees and instills why giving back is necessary.
Once people start getting involved, I’ve found that it becomes a domino effect. More employees will continue participating, and healthy, friendly competition will often develop between offices. Eventually, volunteer opportunities can expand into much larger endeavors, allowing your company to adopt a philanthropic culture on its own. Employees will feel encouraged to think outside the box, looking for ways to make a difference.
Value Your People
Before encouraging your employees to donate or volunteer for any cause with the company, you must show them that you value them. A business that treats its workers poorly won’t be able to promote a culture of giving back. If employees are unhappy, why would they want to spend more time volunteering with co-workers or contributing to company-wide charity events?
You must listen, support and properly acknowledge your employees for their work if you want to inspire them to share that value with those in need. An organizational health assessment is a good starting point. Ensure that time is taken to understand the feedback and make it actionable is key.
Volunteer As A Team
Establishing camaraderie creates a community within your work environment, allowing people to know one another more deeply. Seeing one member do something wholesome tends to encourage others to participate. Good deeds and kindness can be highly contagious.
I also recommend that you utilize suggestions from employees on charities they may have a connection with—making them a part of the decision making. You can rotate through ideas and make it a time your company looks forward to multiple times a year. It shouldn’t just be a one-time thing.
Donate More Than Money
Donating money is not the only option for charitable giving. Organizations need supplies, volunteers and resources right away, not the money to buy them later. Collecting items or organizing a volunteer day are often much better alternatives. This can also help everyone play a personal role in helping others, knowing that their items will improve other lives.
Giving back can be a great challenge for an organization; it takes time, planning and commitment. But I think you’ll be surprised about the benefits that come along with it. Creating a work environment with opportunities for community initiatives and charitable giving incites motivation for your team to succeed. Incorporating philanthropy into your business model can make your employees more responsible, inspired and satisfied with their jobs.
But progress is being made in laying the strategic groundwork for embedding sustainability into organizations’ DNA. By Vincent Ryan from CFO • Reposted: July 13, 2023
“Sustainability is probably one of the biggest culture change jobs or change management jobs within a company,” said Levi Strauss’s chief sustainability officer at a National Retail Federation trade show earlier this year. “And if you’re working for a company with a very strong culture, I often find that you can use it to pull your strategy forward,” reported Sourcing Journal.
Building a culture that embraces sustainability can serve as an accelerant, agreed the Conference Board and accounting firm Baker Tilly in a report released on July 10. For example, a prime benefit of embedding sustainability into the culture is ensuring “that sustainability is integrated into the company’s business planning processes and the microdecisions employees make daily,” according to the Conference Board report.
Environmental, social, and governance efforts and sustainability — which the Conference Board defines as “the full range of initiatives designed to promote the long-term welfare of a company, its multiple stakeholders, society at large, and the environment” — are increasingly on the minds of business stakeholders.
In addition to upcoming regulatory mandates, it’s why 494 companies in the S&P 500 disclosed some level of ESG-related information for reporting periods ending in 2021, 30 more than in 2020, according to a recent release from the Center for Audit Quality. And 320 S&P 500 companies disclosed having some ESG metrics audited, up from 282 the year before.
Slow Progress
But reporting is one thing, shifting company culture another.
So far, not many companies that participated in the Conference Board research have reached the goal of deeply embedding sustainability into their companies’ cultures. (The data is from a working group of more than 250 executives from 160 companies that the Conference Board interviewed in multiple sessions over eight months in 2022.)
According to the Conference Board, many companies are laying the essential groundwork before focusing on the cultural aspects.
It may take two to three years before a company begins to make tangible progress on the cultural front.
According to the Conference Board, the “prerequisites” for building a company culture infused with an ethos of sustainability are:
Conducting a strategic analysis to determine the sustainability areas the company should focus on;
determining whether those areas intersect with the company’s business and processes;
setting goals in those key areas and deciding how to provide incentives to achieve them;
establishing appropriate governance structures at the board and management level to achieve those goals; and
developing a core narrative that tells the company’s sustainability story.
“Once a company has those strategic elements in place, it can turn to culture — recognizing that changing culture will take time and resources,” according to the Conference Board report. “Indeed, it may take two to three years before [a] company begins to make tangible progress on the cultural front.”
The CFO’s Role
The CFO would be crucial in at least four of those strategic tasks. But a CFO also has a big responsibility to help the CEO (who the Conference Board says should take the leadership role) build the business case for sustainability and, as part of that, bring in the perspective of investors, business partners, and regulators.
However, CFOs should note that making the case for building a sustainability culture involves “both the positive ROI (return on investment) and the negative ROI (risk of inaction),” according to the Conference Board.
“Explaining the negative consequences of failing to change can be a powerful initial motivator that supports the positive case for how increasing the organization’s focus on sustainability will improve the company’s performance in the marketplace, including the markets for products and services, talent, and capital,” the report said.
Positive ROI shouldn’t be neglected, however. As columnist Steve McNally suggested on CFO.com more than a year ago, “Sustainability initiatives can impact long-term planning and value creation. Seek sustainability initiatives with a positive ROI to benefit the organization’s bottom line.”
Target Middle Management
For a cultural change to take root, it must have widespread employee buy-in. A culture of sustainability requires training employees, instilling in them a sense of personal responsibility and accountability, encouraging cross-functional collaboration, and providing incentives like senior management recognition, compensation, or both to change behaviors.
To do that, the Conference Board recommends focusing on middle management — the people making business unit-level decisions and running day-to-day operations.
“Savvy and well-resourced middle managers build buy-in and participation by translating company vision [into] day-to-day execution.”
Claire Simier is the founder and managing principal of Simier Partners.
Within enterprises today, there is an increasing focus on sustainability, with both internal and external stakeholders demanding sustainable initiatives and culture. Within the context of organizational leadership, sustainability refers to both environmental and social outcomes.
This includes everything from minimizing an organization’s negative impact on the environment to being ecologically responsible and reducing or reversing the effects of pollution and climate change. It also involves supporting the well-being of a company’s employees and stakeholders and implementing programs to reduce economic and social inequality in the various communities in which the business operates.
Given the impact of business on people and on the planet, organizations need leaders with a clear sustainability leadership commitment. These leaders must be able to effectively integrate sustainability into organizational strategy and operations, leveraging a sustainable mindset with the skills and initiative to drive the transformation needed to achieve sustainability and commercial profitability.
Adopting A Sustainable Mindset
To implement meaningful sustainable transformation, leaders must develop a sustainable mindset. Plainly stated, a sustainable leader puts sustainability at the core of the business model and is committed to the belief that the commercial success and performance of a business is directly linked with the social and environmental framework in which it operates. A leader with this mindset recognizes sustainability as a source of competitive advantage and is driven by implementing and incorporating changes with the greatest ecological and social impact—for both the short and long term. (This sometimes means taking actions at some short-term cost to profit margins, or operating in a more logistically complex way to keep sustainability at the forefront, understanding the long-term effects will result in environmental, social and economic profitability.)
Sustainable leaders consistently reflect on sustainable values and are able to respond in the most effective way to social and environmental complexities, sometimes challenging traditional approaches to business if necessary. This means promoting sustainable practices in their organizations and surrounding communities, as well as encouraging others to do the same. They both have the intention and the commitment to truly be purpose-driven, with sustainability and long-term profitability as their guiding principles.
Communicating And Relationship-Building
Conveying the mindset of sustainability relies on effective communication to create a shared vision among individuals and organizations, cultivating an environment for collective progress with similar goals. As with any good communicator, sustainable leaders are clear and direct about their sustainable goals and values, which allows them to inspire others to join in the work ahead. These leaders have a knack for breaking down complex information and data about sustainable strategy into understandable message points that are accessible for a range of different audiences. They are skilled at active listening and storytelling and are able to pivot and adapt to the shifting and growing challenges that the environment is facing.
Moreover, these individuals use their skills to build bridges between sometimes disparate groups. They understand the need to build relationships in order to broaden knowledge on numerous topics with one or two strong pillars of expertise and to convey knowledge across sectors to achieve long-term sustainability goals. They know when it’s time to engage ecosystems with specialties beyond those of their organization and can effectively collaborate with leaders in different roles to integrate action plans and key strategies.
Inspiring Others To Look Ahead
Sustainable leaders understand that they must lead by example—by living an authentic and sustainable lifestyle themselves. To get alignment on sustainability goals, they must establish their own credibility, by their passion and personal values, to inspire others. These leaders generate trust which, in turn, increases others’ willingness to work collaboratively towards shared sustainability goals.
Aligning their words with actions, they demonstrate what leading with authenticity looks like, which allows them to inspire others and shift the culture around them. They aren’t intimidated by doing the hard work of reexamining a company’s core values to ensure that the way it operates reflects their commitment to sustainability.
Moreover, these leaders have the courage to look toward an uncertain future, organizationally, ecologically and globally. The complexity of sustainability initiatives can sometimes be financially daunting to reexamine in the short-term; taking a long-term perspective requires patience and perspicacity, but can help leaders make decisions while carefully considering their far-reaching impact on the organization and its stakeholders. Sustainability leaders must recognize the long-term impacts of both climate change and social changes, and provide resources that have the potential to deliver long-lasting results. Those who can embrace and lead with purpose-driven objectives, as well as accountability and progress check-points to keep them from resorting to outdated ways of operating, will be more successful in the long term.
Bringing Everyone Together
A key component of relationship-building is involving a range of stakeholders in decision-making and taking action about sustainable approaches. Sustainable leaders who implement long-term strategies that cast a wider net of goals can better engage stakeholders. They are keenly aware and able to illustrate how integration of sustainability in businesses is both environmentally and socially responsible. Doing so will, in turn, create a competitive distinction, allowing businesses to retain investor support and attract top talent.
When employees, clients and other stakeholders encounter truly sustainable leadership—evidenced by a stated intention, practice and implementation of initiatives that meaningfully support social and environmental goals—it fosters an unusual and enduring relationship of trust and transparency. As organizations all over the world continue to shift their priorities, seek to reduce their environmental impact, save costs, engage employees, enhance their reputation and comply with regulations, leaders who embody a sustainable mindset will be at a strategic and competitive advantage.
IMAGE: ELENA REYGADAS’ ROSETTA RESTAURANT IN MEXICO CITY
The Food Made Good Sustainability Standard is the only certification designed to measure restaurants’ social and environmental impacts, wherever they are in the world. It also highlights areas for improvement and provides credibility in communicating sustainability practices to customers. From Sustainable Brands * Reposted: July 12, 2023
After 15 years of operating in the UK, the Sustainable Restaurant Association (SRA) has launched a globally accessible platform to allow hospitality businesses everywhere to take 360-degree accountability for sustainability to a standard that is recognized by industry and consumers alike.
In response to the universal scale of food-system issues within hospitality, juxtaposed by a genuine desire from chefs and industry workers to contribute to a solution, the SRA has developed the holistic, functional and global Food Made Good Sustainability Standard— which aims to level the playing field by providing businesses with trustworthy, expert-led and up-to-date accreditation, as well as guidance on continued improvement in their commitment to sustainability and credibility in communicating sustainable business practices to customers.
Developed with input from leading food businesses and international experts — including the Ellen McArthur Foundation, WRAP and the Ethical Trade Initiative — the newly global Standard is the only certification specifically designed to measure a restaurant’s social and environmental impact, wherever they are in the world.
The Food Made Good Sustainability Standard builds on The SRA’s signature Food Made Good assessment — which has been the sustainability accreditation of choice for UK foodservice businesses – covering more than 12,000 sites – since its launch in 2010, and has been used as the basis for judging the sustainability award for The World’s 50 Best Restaurants and Bars and all of its regional offshoots since 2013. Used by world-renowned chefs — including France’s Raymond Blanc OBE, Mexico’s Elena Reygadas, The Netherlands’ Richard Ekkebus and Spain’s Ángel León, all of whom embrace sustainability as a cornerstone of their cuisine — the new Standard is designed to measure a business’s social and environmental impact and is built on a 10-point framework, organised across three pillars: Sourcing, Society and Environment. In order to be both effective and globally applicable, the Food Made Good Standard is closely aligned with international norms — including the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
“In an environment in which chefs and restaurant operators understand the need to act urgently and decisively, we recognized the need for a holistic framework defining what ‘good’ looks like across both environmental and social issues,” explains Juliane Caillouette Noble, Managing Director of The SRA. “Issues like food waste, treating staff fairly and animal welfare are universal. Now’s the moment for a global conversation about what it means to be a good restaurant in every sense — with a certification that is digestible for every business, supplier, owner and guest. We are setting the Standard by which a restaurant in Buenos Aires, Beijing or Birminghamcan accurately compare its sustainability achievements and join the Food Made Good movement to build a better industry for our planet.”
Since 2010, The SRA has worked to advance sustainability in hospitality across the UK. Now, with the global Food Made Good Standard, it aims to connect businesses around the world to accelerate change towards a hospitality sector that is socially progressive and environmentally restorative. Areas of focus within each of the three pillars include:
Sourcing 1. Celebrate provenance 2. Support farmers and fishers 3. Serve more plants, better meat 4. Source seafood sustainably
Society 5. Treat staff fairly 6. Feed people well 7. Support the community
Environment 8. Reduce your footprint 9. Waste no food 10. Reduce, reuse and recycle
To achieve the Food Made Good Standard, restaurants must submit answers and evidence on the Food Made Good digital platform and must score at least 50% in the evaluation across the three pillars. Each submission is evaluated, evidence-checked and subjected to a final enquiry from SRA experts, before a final report is completed with a score and an action plan for improvement. Those that score 50-59% will be awarded a 1-Star rating; those scoring 60-69%, 2 Stars; and 70%+, 3 Stars.
“The work The SRA is doing through globally standardizing sustainability in our industry is not only inspired but essential,” Chef Blanc says. “We, as restaurateurs and business operators, need to understand where we are today to work out where we’re going tomorrow. By creating the tools needed to turn the individual’s commitment to sustainability into measurable, reportable action, the Standard is offering accountability and transparency, which are fundamental to the future of our livelihoods and indeed our lives.”
The SRA invites any restaurant, anywhere in the world to start its journey at standard.foodmadegood.org. Its ambition is to help 100,000 restaurants to transform what we eat, how we eat and the impact this has on the world by 2030.
By Tina Casey from Triple Pundit • Reposted: July 12, 2023
Leading U.S. retailer Target disappointed human rights organizations earlier this year when it failed to push back against a wave of aggressive anti-LGBTQ behavior related to its Pride Month merchandise. Now Target has another chance to get it right, and the stakes are high.
Target backs down when anti-LGBTQ activists come calling
Anti-LGBTQ activists confronted staff at several Target stores in May, during the runup to Pride Month. Instead of pushing back, Target removed the offending displays. “Target is pulling some LGBTQ merchandise from stores that it rolled out for Pride Month after confrontations with customers,” Jessica Guynn of USA Today reported on May 23.
Guynn cited a statement from Target, in which the company referred to “threats impacting our team members’ sense of safety,” as well as “volatile circumstances” and “confrontational behavior” that influenced its decision to remove merchandise.
That decision was roundly criticized by hundreds of human rights groups in a letter organized by the Human Rights Campaign on June 5. However, some saw it as a case of better safe than sorry. The confrontations at Target go beyond the actions of a few scattered individuals. They reflect a dangerous environment of anti-LGBTQ entitlement leading to physical attacks on LGBTQ events and individuals. That includes confrontations sparked by the white supremacist organization Proud Boys, a group the Justice Department has connected to the failed insurrection of January 6, 2021.
This environment of entitlement has built up over years of sustained, state-sanctioned attacks on LGBTQ rights. Critics say former President Donald Trump imprinted anti-LGBTQ activists with approval from the highest office of the land throughout his tenure ending in 2020. That was followed by a fresh torrent of state-based anti-LGBTQ legislation in 2021, on the heels of the January 6 insurrection.
New anti-LGBTQ legislation has been cropping up ever since, including a rising tide of book bans directed against LGBTQ authors. That also includes anti-ESG (environmental, social and governance) legislation, which leans heavily on the “woke capitalism” canard to stop businesses from pursuing diversity, equity and inclusion goals.
State attorneys general double down on hate
Social media has also played a key role in raising the profile of anti-LGBTQ activists. The social media effect burst into full flower in April when activists aimed their fire at a promotional relationship between the trans actor and influencer Dylan Mulaney and the Bud Light brand of AB-InBev.
Rightwing commentators including Matt Walsh said the social media campaign against Bud Light aimed to “make ‘pride’ toxic for brands,” Fortune’s Ellen McGirt reported. Guynn of USA Today quoted another such activist, who wrote on Twitter: “Target deserves the Bud Light treatment. We will work to put the pressure on them.”
Seven state attorneys general — representing Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and South Carolina — appeared to get the message.
On July 5, they issued a joint public letter to Target CEO Brian C. Cornell that all but threatens legal action unless Target stops selling any “potentially harmful” products to minors. “As the chief legal officers of our States, we are charged with enforcing state laws protecting children and safeguarding parental rights. … In light of these responsibilities, we wish to communicate our concern for Target’s recent ‘Pride’ campaign,” they wrote.
This goes way beyond Pride
The letter sparked a wave of media attention, much of it focused on several products that the attorneys general singled out for removal. However, the letter is far more interesting for its recommendations on what to put in, not what to take out.
“It is likely more profitable to sell the type of Pride that enshrines the love of the United States,” they recommended. “Target’s Pride Campaign alienates whereas Pride in our country unites.”
“We live in a different day and age from our nation’s founding. But certain immutable precepts and principles must always endure so long as America is to remain free and prosperous,” they admonished.
As for what type of products and images reflect “love of the United States” and “immutable precepts and principles,” the letter leaves that up in the air. It does, however, strongly suggest that removing all LGBTQ symbolism from products is just the first volley in an attack on any kind of image that appears to be “anti-Christian.”
“Target also sold products with anti-Christian designs, such as pentagrams, horned skulls and other Satanic products,” the attorneys general note.
More fact-free legal action from the usual suspects
The anti-Christian accusation is sensational, but it appears to be woven out of thin air. The letter apparently refers to images in a weeks-old social media post that were identified as fabricatedback on June 2, yet here they are popping up again in an official letter from seven state attorneys general.
Spotting “anti-Christian designs” where there are none is just one more example of the fact-free thinking that has come to characterize policy-making by many Republican office holders from the Supreme Court on down. It’s no surprise to find the same mindset at work elsewhere in the letter, where the attorneys general attempt to show that Target’s Pride campaign was an abrogation of its fiduciary duty to stock holders.
“The evidence suggests that Target’s directors and officers may be negligent in undertaking the ‘Pride’ campaign, which negatively affected Target’s stock price,” they charge.
That’s news to Wall Street analysts. Target’s stock was on the downswing long before the Pride controversy, falling 32 percent in 2022, according to an April analysis posted on Forbes. The analysis, conducted by Trefis, linked the company’s wavering stock price to “a slowing economy, supply chain worries and shifting consumer sentiment,“ along with inventory issues and higher logistics costs.
By May, MarketWatch discerned a spark of good news. “After a difficult 2022, when Target was one of the more highly visible examples of the inventory glut that plagued retailers last year, the benefits of being cleaner were notable in the [company’s first quarter 2023] report,” D.A. Davidson analyst Michael Baker wrote on the platform.
Bringing the news up to date on July 6, the investor organization Motley Fool was even more optimistic. “Target is dealing with major sales and earnings challenges stemming from a sharp demand shift away from merchandise categories that were booming during the pandemic,” observed Motley Fool reporter Demitri Kalogeropoulos, who completely ignored the steamy rhetoric from anti-LGBTQ activists. “Yet inventory levels are down, potentially setting the business up for a solid rebound over the next few quarters.”
If Target learned anything from Pride Month, it’s that nothing will satisfy anti-LGBTQ activists, whether it’s an unhinged individual loudly confronting a store clerk or a phalanx of state attorneys general quietly issuing letters. The best defense is a good offense, as the saying goes. And the retailer has a real opportunity to change its tune.
By Benson Hill via Food Dive • Reposted: July 12, 2023
The question was simple, yet profound.
We were at a recent conference where startups were pitching creative products to meet the needs of our changing world. The audience was full of executives and investors with the cumulative financial power to fund those changes.
During a conversation about upcycling, a leader from a global CPG beverage powerhouse raised his hand and asked the speaker, “How do you know what you’re doing is the best possible use?”
At first, a few of us were puzzled. Then he explained it was his job to find the best use of their time and money when it came to environmental, social and governance-related initiatives (ESG).
With more options available today for CPG food and beverage manufacturers to create workstreams and dedicate resources to certain initiatives, how do they choose which ones to green light? How do they know where to start or who to trust? And how do they influence authentic action while operating in times of unparalleled scrutiny?
The business world is becoming increasingly more conscious of the impact of ESG, and the food and beverage industry stands at the forefront of industries that can make a positive impact. Many of these companies want to do the right things, but they’re grappling with a unique set of challenges. They strive to avoid greenwashing. They try to reduce their carbon footprint. They focus on minimizing food waste, ensuring ethical sourcing and fostering diversity all the way back to the farm level.
Their willingness to grow and learn means the stage is set for great ESG growth. However, there are still complex hurdles to clear as they sprint from the desire to change to the finish line of ESG-related ROI.
ESG moves the needle, but is it enough?
The good news is positive consumer sentiment toward sustainability and ESG-related purchases have been growing. But there are still gray areas between how customers say they want to live and shop vs. what they actually purchase. Consider this research:
A recent analysis by McKinsey and NielsenIQ found products making ESG-related claims averaged 28% cumulative growth over the last five years (2018-2022), compared to 20% growth for products that made no ESG-related claims.
Meanwhile, an October NielsenIQ report found 78% of consumer respondents said a sustainable lifestyle is important to them.
The ESG-related retail growth stats, while significant, suggest customers don’t always buy sustainable products at a rate that backs up how they say they feel.
So why don’t they? Forty-one percent of NielsenIQ respondents said sustainable products are too expensive, while 35% said it’s hard to find ESG-related products at the store. And perhaps the most telling stat may be who they see as responsible for driving sustainability product changes: 46% said brands were responsible, 40% said local government was responsible and only 37% pointed at consumers themselves.
That misalignment of expectations may further confound CPG executives trying to make the best possible use of their budget when funding ESG products and initiatives. But it does bring one thing into relief: Short of government regulation forcing product changes, evolution in the ESG space rests on CPG’s shoulders.
A framework for vetting potential ESG partners
There are no instant ESG solutions in the CPG space. The sustainability evolution inside your company – and in the market as a whole – requires a staged approach and a fundamental adoption of new ways of working.
That’s why it’s imperative you start your ESG product innovation journey now. Your CPG brand must fully vet, substantiate and compare multiple initiatives to ensure it’s making the right choices.
Savitha Chelladurai, Benson Hill’s Director, ESG & Sustainability, said CPG leaders should think about these five things when evaluating with ESG innovators:
Look for partners – not just suppliers: Find innovators who are willing to develop programs or products together to meet your specific needs.
Validate affluency in ESG: Look for innovators who show they understand your current state and goals, and can help you lead in the space.
Connectors: Find innovators who can bring other partners to the table to jointly develop holistic solutions.
A complete view of sustainability: Find innovators who understand how sustainability goals affect your full organization.
Identify quick wins: Partner with innovators who can implement solutions that work within the context of your current business model, allowing you to see immediate impact while working through longer-term investment and infrastructure changes.
Food and beverage companies know they must redefine their product offerings for all of us to have a sustainable future. But before they can do that, they need ESG innovators to clearly answer the original, crucial question: Is this the best possible use?
Reframe your reaction to the new reporting regimen. Here’s how it can benefit you — and your company. By Dylan Siegler, SVP, Sustainability, GreenBiz Group • Reposted: July 11, 2023
At our GreenFin 23 conference last month, disclosure was on the lips of everyone from Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to Shirley Lu, assistant professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, to Brendan Morrissey, Walmart’s vice president, ESG. But while many speakers at GreenFin proclaimed a reassuring “you got this” from the stage, practitioners in the audience weren’t so sure.
Some of the top worries I heard included:
New compliance structures and frameworks raise the stakes significantly in a field where voluntary (ergo, occasionally squishy) reporting has been the norm. Consequences of not complying with CSRD, for example, will be up to EU member states, and will range from public shaming to cease-and-desist orders to fines.
While simplification and harmonization may happen in the medium term, for now the disparate standards add complexity and uncertainty for disclosers.
Human and technological resources to learn, execute on and adapt to this new paradigm are scarce — and as a result, projects that deliver tangible climate, nature and community benefits will suffer (and so will sustainability staff).
Further, in many companies, these new disclosure rules hit a nerve not because there is anything much to hide, but because they call for cooperation and lock-step alignment in precisely the areas where there is most often dysfunction: Misalignment between sustainability and other key business functions such as finance, legal and risk. Disarray behind the shiny, corporate-comms-approved veneer of the typical annual sustainability or ESG report. Shallow commitments where a deep sustainability strategy with buy-in from the Board on down should be.
That doesn’t even include the many companies without an existing materiality assessment; accounting for GHG emissions in homespun spreadsheets or not yet accounting for them at all; not engaging in third-party verification or attestation of their disclosures; inexperience with Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures reporting; or lacking budget for a consultant or a data platform.
The new disclosure paradigm may force companies to clean up the house the way I do when surprise guests call from down the block to say they’re dropping by — that is, quickly, but not thoroughly.
But the new sustainability reporting rules can be a strategic opportunity, too
An ESG professional I spoke with who didn’t have corporate sign-off to be quoted on the record offered a positive and useful way to reframe that disclosure panic.
In essence, he said, take a page from companies that have reported ESG data en route to an IPO, and make disclosure serve you. Recent studies demonstrate that solid voluntary ESG disclosures of environmental and social issues material to the business (such as emissions, human rights, and supply chain considerations) can help fledgling public companies’ valuations — even if you’re not Allbirds.
I found the redirect inspiring. Rather than a test you cram for, it’s possible to consider disclosure a talent show, and start rehearsing. You typically can’t pick and choose which metrics you respond to, but you can choose what you focus your limited energy and time on in the run-up, and make it count.
Don’t just fill in the blanks. Develop insights you can draw on outside the disclosure context: what’s material, what risks are relevant and what your stakeholders care about. All of these elements will be unique to your business.
Filling in the blanks does, of course, matter. Lean on your voluntary disclosures — if you’ve reported to CDP, you are at least part way there.
Get cozy with Comms, Legal, Finance, Risk, etc., and build a playbook together so none of what you learn is lost. It may be your company’s first rodeo, but it won’t be your last.
This much is clear: Disclosure will bring more attention to your work, especially internally. Focus on what matters, and the result could almost make it worth the pain.
From the Conference Board • Reposted: July 11, 2023
Just 13 percent of executives say sustainability is deeply embedded into their firm’s cultural DNA. Most companies are generally at the early to middle stages of building a sustainability culture, with 49 percent saying it is moderately embedded and 37 percent saying it is slightly embedded.
That is according to a new report by The Conference Board in collaboration with Baker Tilly. The report, Building a Sustainability Culture, is the culmination of a series of Working Group sessions, at which executives from companies in various sectors discussed how to develop and maintain a corporate culture that embraces sustainability.
“To take advantage of the transition to a sustainable economy, companies need to build a sustainability culture that becomes an indelible part of their organization’s character,” said Paul Washington, Executive Director of The Conference Board ESG Center and co-author of the report. “The Building a Sustainability Culture Working Group served as a valuable step in helping leaders equip their workforces with the behaviors, training, resources, and capabilities necessary to meet the unprecedented challenges and opportunities in the areas of corporate governance, sustainability, and citizenship.”
“The findings of our report underscore the need for embedding sustainability into business as usual, in addition to highlighting the distance still left to travel on the journey to a sustainable economy,” said Srinand Yalamanchili, Baker Tilly Director−ESG and sustainability. “Embedding sustainability into culture and business strategy can only be achieved by prioritizing the ‘why’–the positive return on investment and risks of inaction–and taking ownership at both an organizational and individual level.”
The Working Group convened more than 250 executives from 160 companies who met over the span of eight months to focus on how to develop and maintain a culture in which those at the organization think and act with sustainability in mind. The report provides insights into five areas: 1) what is a sustainability culture?; 2) why does it matter?; 3) how do companies build a sustainability culture?; 4) who is responsible?; and 5) how do companies measure success?
Key insights from the report include:
Companies are in the early stages of building sustainability into their culture.
Just 13 percent of executives say sustainability is deeply embedded into their company culture, with 49 percent saying it is moderately embedded and 37 percent saying it is slightly embedded.
Sustainability and cultural change need to be closely linked to the execution of the company’s business strategy.
30 percent of the respondents cite the CEO as best suited to lead the cultural transformation of the organization, followed by 28 percent who cite those responsible for the company’s business strategy and operations.
Both the positive ROI (return on investment) and the negative ROI (risk of inaction) are driving the case for building a sustainability culture.
An initial motivator: Explaining the “Risk of Inaction”—the negative consequences of failing to change.
A constant motivator: Explaining the positive case for how increasing the organization’s focus on sustainability will improve the company’s performance in the marketplace, including the markets for products and services, talent, and capital.
Employees need to feel a sense of ownership when it comes to building a sustainability culture.
75 percent of participants cite a “sense of ownership” as the most important aspect of a sustainability culture, followed by a clear mission, purpose, and values.
Companies may need to move beyond traditional training and compensation to motivate progress.
Only half (50 percent) of participants cite compensation as the most effective way of recognizing and rewarding behavioral change. By contrast, 61 percent cite internal recognition from senior management as the most effective, and 54 percent cite promotions and career opportunities.
About The Conference Board ESG Center
The Conference Board ESG Center serves as a resource, platform, and partner to help Member companies address their priorities in corporate governance, sustainability, and citizenship. ConferenceBoard.org/ESG
Sustainability in furniture manufacturing is based on a symbiotic relationship between manufacturers and consumers, that places responsibility on both sides of the supply and demand equation, says Bisley’s Operations Director, Paul Crutcher.
There’s no doubt that we as furniture manufacturers must lead the way in innovating and developing sustainability in their furniture and interiors solutions for our homes and workspaces. However, for this to be possible there is a necessity for consumers to require it. The marketplace must demand sustainable furniture solutions, otherwise the incentive for manufacturers to enthusiastically pursue a sustainable agenda based on net zero principles will diminish.
Essentially, in the modern commercial world, both suppliers and consumers have a direct role to play in ensuring the implementation of sustainable practices. And each must hold the other to account.
Fortunately the manufacturing sector is now largely beginning to move in a sustainable direction, with ethical firms and organisations clearly stating, publishing and auditing their sustainable credentials and practices.
At Bisley, our commitment to sustainable manufacturing practices, outlined in our ‘Green Book’ is core to our operating philosophy. We often use the phrase that our furniture is ‘made for life’, and while that is true of our products, we also take that ethos into every part of our manufacturing processes and company culture.
We want furniture that lasts a lifetime for our customers; made from the highest quality materials, using the latest innovative technologies and processes with minimum impact on our environment.
And we’re not alone. Across the manufacturing spectrum there are companies truly revolutionising the way they work in pursuit of a net zero agenda.
However, I often worry that while many manufacturers in the furniture sector, in which I operate, are really drilling down on their sustainability agendas, there are those who are not, and it is my belief that many consumers may not know the difference. Especially when you consider that there is rather a lot of ‘green washing’ going on out there.
For example, do consumers know the questions to ask, and the touch points to look for, when trying to identify a sustainably led furniture manufacturer or brand, from one that does little to contribute to our collective net zero agenda?
And on the flip side, are we as a sector articulating our sustainability credentials effectively to consumers, so that their knowledge is broadened? I think in both these areas, there is definite room for improvement.
So what should consumers be looking for when it comes to making conscious purchasing decisions about furniture for their homes and workplaces?
Legitimate and sector specific accreditations
A good place to start with identifying sustainable manufacturers and brands is to look for their industry recognised green certifications. These will no doubt be published on their websites, so if they’re not there, then chances are it’s because they don’t have any – a red flag. And if you’re a manufacturer that isn’t shouting about your green accreditations – it’s time to start. Remember it’s a two way street.
Fair Trade, Global Recycled Standard and Certified B Corporation are all good examples of well known accreditations that are widely recognised as denoting a sustainable company or organisation.
However, best practice certifications vary from sector to sector meaning there is no one size fits all label that clearly proclaims a company to be a sustainability champion, making it tricky for consumers to be confident in their purchasing decisions.
As a British furniture manufacturer Bisley has memberships and accreditations with a wide range of bodies, including the Furniture Industry Sustainability Programme (FISP), which is recognised as the benchmark for sustainable practices in the UK furniture industry. It is widely referenced by procurement teams and furniture specifiers as a key part of an organisations sustainable procurement policies.
The message to consumers here is – do your research. The firms that are working to sustainable standards will let you know about it and have the creds to back it up.
Materials and the circular economy
Historically, the approach to resource consumption has been very much linear (take, make, use, dispose). But things are changing as companies become more and more aware of circular economy principles, especially within the product design phase.
In essence, the circular economy aims to reduce finite natural resource extraction, so basically, our aim is to keep goods in circulation longer, so we don’t have to take more things out of the ground, and at Bisley we encourage the use of materials with a higher recycled and recyclable content.
To help achieve this, alongside general and vital energy efficiency measures within our workspaces and places, at Bisley we have been looking at the products we create from a more macro perspective.
For example, we consider a product’s full lifecycle – from upstream material extraction and processing through to end of product life. Essentially, when you’re looking at that product, you’re not just looking at the product itself. We should also be considering things like – where did those materials come from? And what’s the expected life span of the product? How will this product ultimately be disposed of? All manufactured products need to be considered from a circular economy perspective – both upstream and downstream.
However, from a consumer perspective – what does all of this mean and what kind of things should people be looking for? There are a number of ways to go about identifying companies that operate with a circular economy based ethos, but a few key pointers include:
Being repair friendly: Products will naturally degrade overtime which is when many get replaced. However furniture manufacturers can help slow the turnover process by designing pieces with easy to access/repair modular features with interchangeable spare parts and accessories, such as drawer slides or door hinges, across a wide product portfolio.
Can a product be upgraded/evolved easily?: Firms that can supply add-ons, product spin-offs (e.g – exchangeable doors or new hardware like handles), or refurbishment services can help extend a product’s purpose and lifecycle.
Take back schemes: Some firms offer take back schemes, which means that used and unwanted furniture, and their various component parts, many of which can be recycled, do not end up in landfills.
Packaging
When it comes to packaging there is so much that can be done to operate in a more sustainable way – from managing the packaging that raw materials arrive in at a manufacturing facility, to the packaging in which products are delivered to retailers/consumers – the second of these points being something that consumers are becoming more aware of, and prone to publicly calling out brands that utilise excessive, toxic packaging.
As a result it’s something that most manufacturers are becoming increasingly more savvy about.
From a waste management perspective, at Bisley over the past 12 months, 98% of manufacturing waste was recycled or diverted from landfill. This includes cardboard and plastic wrap waste from input materials and components, which are collected and baled on-site then sold back to our packaging suppliers.
Our approach to the packaging our products leave the factory in is similarly conscious and baked in from the product concept stage and right through the design process, in order to minimise materials and to help maximise space and efficiency during the transportation process.
Similarly many manufacturers are also utilising packaging materials that are made in the UK in order to shorten supply chains, and trialling new, almost infinitely recyclable packaging materials. These are things that consumers will likely be less aware of, so manufacturers and brands should make a point about publishing information about their efforts to improve their packaging processes on their websites. Share positive information.
Paul Crutcher is Operations Director at Bisley, with responsibility for Procurement, Manufacturing and Logistics. Photo: Bisley
Transportation
Despite the trend for the offshoring of production across multiple sectors over the past twenty-five years, many firms who initially embraced the concept are now beginning to swim against the tide and return home, largely led by rises in overseas wages and the time and cost involved in shipping goods great distances, among other factors.
And this is a trend that has been exacerbated by the pandemic. The onset of Covid saw those companies with longer, more complex supply chains scattered across the globe, experience complete production paralysis. And because of this onshoring, or at the very least, nearshoring of organisational supply bases is being activated across numerous sectors, so products are not stranded tens of thousands of miles away, and are near, or close to, their end market in the event of a global catastrophe. It’s a trend that is already in action in the big tech sector, with firms like Apple, Amazon, Samsung and Google moving production out of China in light of geostrategic concerns.
But also economic/supply chain issues aside, sustainability factors are at play here. After all, shipping goods halfway around the world, from their production sites to their end markets, is not a good approach to reducing carbon outputs. Which is why onshoring/near shoring is becoming increasingly more appealing to firms who are looking to deliver on net zero targets.
At Bisley, a company that has always remained true to its ‘Made in Britain’ values and never offshored manufacturing, it’s a trend we welcome. And while we do export to different global territories, our largest market remains the UK, which is why we manufacture here. That and the fact that British manufacturing is a hallmark of excellence.
With this in mind, I would suggest to consumers that have an interest in sustainability – to check where goods are made, and interrogate this rigorously to avoid brand washing. Products made and sold in the UK come with a significantly reduced carbon footprint attached to them than those made in Asia for example. Not to mention a greater likelihood of delivering on circular economy principles – like the availability of spare parts and repairability designed to extend product life cycles – outlined previously.
Smoke rises from a brush fire near Hollywood Hills in Los Angeles in 2007. Hector Mata/AFP via Getty Images
Over the past two decades, a staggering 21.8 million Americans found themselves living within 3 miles (5 kilometers) of a large wildfire. Most of those residents would have had to evacuate, and many would have been exposed to smoke and emotional trauma from the fire. By Mojtaba Sadegh, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Boise State University via The Conversation • Reposted: July 9, 2023
Over the past two decades, a staggering 21.8 million Americans found themselves living within 3 miles (5 kilometers) of a large wildfire. Most of those residents would have had to evacuate, and many would have been exposed to smoke and emotional trauma from the fire.
Nearly 600,000 of them were directly exposed to the fire, with their homes inside the wildfire perimeter.
Those statistics reflect how the number of people directly exposed to wildfires more than doubled from 2000 to 2019, my team’s new research shows.
That knowledge has implications for how communities prepare to fight wildfires in the future, how they respond to population growth and whether policy changes such as increasing insurance premiums to reduce losses will be effective. It’s also a reminder of what’s at risk from human activities, such as fireworks on July 4, a day when wildfire ignitions spike.
I am a climate scientist who studies the wildfire-climate relationship and its socioenvironmental impacts. For the new study, colleagues and I analyzed the annual boundaries of more than 15,000 large wildfires across the Lower 48 states and annual population distribution data to estimate the number of people exposed to those fires.
Not every home within a wildfire boundary burns. If you picture wildfire photos taken from a plane, fires generally burn in patches rather than as a wall of flame, and pockets of homes survive.
We found that 80% of the human exposure to wildfires – involving people living within a wildfire boundary from 2000 to 2019 – was in Western states.
California stood out in our analysis. More than 70% of Americans directly exposed to wildfires were in California, but only 15% of the area burned was there.
Hot, dry weather pulls moisture from plants and soil, leaving dry fuel that can easily burn. On a windy day – such as California often sees during its hottest, driest months – a spark, for example from a power line, campfire or lightning, can start a wildfire that quickly spreads.
Recent research published in June 2023 shows that almost all of the increase in California’s burned area in recent decades has been due to anthropogenic climate change – meaning climate change caused by humans.
Our new research looked beyond just the area burned and asked: Where were people exposed to wildfires, and why?
New homes on the edges of cities have been caught in some fires, like the one in Santa Rosa in 2017. But most of the people exposed were in neighborhoods existing well before 2000. George Rose/Getty Images
We found that while the population has grown in the wildland-urban interface, where houses intermingle with forests, shrublands or grasslands, that accounted for only about one-quarter of the increase in the number of humans directly exposed to wildfires across the Lower 48 states from 2000 to 2019.
Three-quarters of that 125% increase in exposure was due to fires’ increasingly encroaching on existing communities. The total burned area increased only 38%, but the locations of intense fires near towns and cities put lives at risk.
The 2018 fire that destroyed Paradise, Calif., began as a small vegetation fire that ignited new fires as the wind blew its embers. NIST
Wildfires in the high mountains in recent decades provide another way to look at the role that rising temperatures play in increasing fire activity.
High mountain forests have few cars, homes and power lines that could spark fires, and humans have historically done little to clear brush there or fight fires that could interfere with natural fire regimes. These regions were long considered too wet and cool to regularly burn. Yet my team’s past research showed fires have been burning there at unprecedented rates in recent years, mainly because of warming and drying trends in the Western U.S.
What can communities do to lower the risk?
Wildfire risk isn’t slowing. Studies have shown that even in conservative scenarios, the amount of area that burns in Western wildfires is projected to grow in the next few decades.
How much these fires grow and how intense they become depends largely on warming trends. Reducing emissions will help slow warming, but the risk is already high. Communities will have to both adapt to more wildfires and take steps to mitigate their impacts.
Developing community-level wildfire response plans, reducing human ignitions of wildfires and improving zoning and building codes can help prevent fires from becoming destructive. Building wildfire shelters in remote communities and ensuring resources are available to the most vulnerable people are also necessary to lessen the adverse societal impacts of wildfires.
A lack of access to safe water — coupled with socioeconomic disparities, aging infrastructure and natural disasters — is accelerating a downward spiral in quality of life for more than 2 million Americans, according to a new Xylem report. By Gary E. Frank from Triple Pundit • Reposted: July 9, 2023
The global water technology company’s analysis looks to raise public awareness of a growing water crisis in the U.S., said Austin Alexander, Xylem’s vice president for sustainability and social impact. It spotlights the increasing challenges rural communities in the United States face because of limited water access and poor water quality.
“Once you have awareness of the issue, then we can start talking about solutions and funding and all those things that can help fill the gap,” Alexander said. “But we really are just in a moment, I think, of many Americans not realizing the extent of the issue in our own backyard.”
A rural water crisis is brewing in our own backyards
More than 46 million Americans, 15 percent of the total U.S. population, live in rural areas, according to the 2020 Census. How they access water, the quality of that water, and if they get water at all is far from certain.
Persistent and serious water quality problems are increasingly common throughout the U.S. In both urban and rural areas, deteriorating water infrastructure and ineffective water treatment facilities can cause contamination in water flowing through the tap. Rural residents who get their water from wells are also at risk, as agricultural runoff, pollutants, and stormwater can seep in and cause contamination. As groundwater levels decline across the country, a growing number of wells are also at risk of running dry.
In addition to the 2 million Americans without access to safe drinking water, millions more might be exposed to contaminated water from wells and small systems that are not regulatedby the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The circumstances for water systems covered by EPA regulations are not much better. From 2016 to 2019, nearly 130 million U.S. residents got their drinking water from systems that violated the federal Safe Water Drinking Act, according to an analysis of 50,000 active community water systems conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council. Small water systems — those that serve less than 3,300 people in mainly rural communities — were responsible for more than 80 percent of all violations.
What can we do?
Xylem’s report offers a range of recommendations for individuals, businesses, nonprofits and governments looking to address these problems. The actionable steps include increasing investment in water infrastructure and expanding access to financing for rural water systems. Local tax dollars alone are generally not enough for small communities to finance water infrastructure upgrades. While state and federal aid programs exist, they’re often competitive and fall short of what’s needed, experts say. The report calls out awareness-building and public-private partnerships as a means of improving infrastructure in rural communities and filling the existing gaps.
The company also pinpoints smart water technology as having high potential for rural communities. As TriplePundit’s Kate Zerrenner has previously reported, “Having a smart system in place can provide real-time monitoring to respond to emergency situations and, optimally, mitigate damage and enhance emergency response time as well as improve the speed of recovery.” But again, rural communities need funding to put such systems into place.
On that front, Xylem has also taken steps to address the water crisis itself. The company works closely with government officials and advocacy groups, such as the Water Systems Council (WSC), on public policy to solve domestic water challenges.
Along with the WSC, Xylem helped lobby Congress for the 2016 passage of the WIIN Act, which includes provisions to help small and economically disadvantaged communities improve access to safe, reliable water. The company brings water to additional families in need through its Watermark program in partnership with the WSC’s nonprofit arm Water Well Trust.
Xylem also works with the Chris Long Foundation’s Waterboys initiative and the Water Well Trust to bring further awareness to domestic water issues. In 2021, their partnership installed a new well for a family in Bertram, Texas, who lived without running water for nearly four years after their existing well collapsed. The partnership has completed similar projects in Oregon, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, Georgia and Missouri.
Public awareness sparks action on the water crisis
The Xylem report examines the American dimensions of a growing global problem that is becoming more acute and disruptive. About 2 billion people on the planet lack access to safe drinking water, and 3.6 billion lack access to safely managed sanitation, according to the World Bank.
“Gaps in access to water supply and sanitation, growing populations, more water-intensive patterns of growth, increasing rainfall variability, and pollution are combining in many places to make water one of the greatest risks to economic progress, poverty eradication and sustainable development,” an overview from the World Bank reads.
Despite these challenges, Alexander is hopeful that increased public awareness of the water crisis could help spark more action to find and implement solutions.
“I don’t think we’ve seen a moment in time where the water crisis has been in the headlines and gaining so much attention as it is today,” she said. “We’re on the precipice of a mindset change among the general public that these issues are real, they’re here and we have to address them.”
As more companies are embracing ESG strategies, we take a look at the top 10 businesses from around the world that are leading by example By Lucy Buchholz from Sustainability magazine • Reposted: July 9, 2023
SG strategies enable businesses to navigate the shifting tides of sustainability. By integrating environmental considerations into their operations, companies can reduce their carbon footprint, conserve resources, and contribute to protecting the planet.
ESG goes beyond just “green” initiatives, extending to the realm of social responsibility, where businesses embrace DEI. By prioritising social impact, companies foster an inclusive work environment, attract top talent, and build strong relationships with stakeholders who seek partnerships with organisations that share their values. Using datasets from Just Capital, we rounded up the top 10 ESG strategies from some of the world’s largest companies leading the way to positive climate action.
Cisco Systems Inc., commonly known as Cisco, has pledged its intentions to achieve net-zero emissions across all categories by 2040. Additionally, the tech giant established an interim objective to attain net-zero emissions for global Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2025.
In its Purpose report, Cisco emphasised several accomplishments related to ESG initiatives. Notably, the company has made substantial contributions – amounting to US$477m – for community programmes.
As one of the largest telecom providers in the US, Verizon has emerged as a leading company at the forefront of ESG initiatives. The company has announced its commitment to generating renewable energy equivalent to 50% of its annual electricity consumption by 2025, while taking significant steps to address e-waste.
Verizon’s ESG strategy is built upon four pillars: governance, integration, engagement, and reporting. These pillars work together in a dynamic manner, providing a foundation for informed decision-making, genuine engagement, transparent communication and effective governance.
American multinational technology company NVIDIA Corporation is committed to acquiring or producing sufficient renewable energy to offset 100% of its worldwide electricity consumption. The company’s H100 GPUs, built on the cutting-edge Hopper architecture, boast an impressive 26x energy efficiency advantage over CPUs based on inferencing benchmarks. Demonstrating its dedication to environmental sustainability, NVIDIA proudly claims to power the most efficient supercomputer listed on the Green500 ranking for November 2022.
According to Apple Inc’s latest ESG report, the company has successfully avoided 23 million metric tonnes of emissions across all scopes. In its efforts to further reduce carbon emissions, Apple is actively pursuing environmentally-friendly designs – for instance, the transition to the Apple M1 chip in the 13-inch MacBook Pro has resulted in an 8% reduction in the product’s carbon footprint. Approximately 20% of the materials used Apple’s products are made from recycled content, and by 2030, the company aims to be carbon neutral.
As part of its environmental sustainability efforts, PayPal has set a target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. The business also recognises that effective management of ESG risks and opportunities is integral to advancing its strategy and generating value for its stakeholders. The company’s ESG strategy reflects its comprehensive approach to these issues across the organisation, categorised into four key dimensions: responsible business practices, social innovation, employees and culture, and environmental sustainability.
The Bank of America has set a goal to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across its financing activities, operations, and supply chain prior to 2050. Through its Environmental Business Initiative, the bank aims to mobilise and deploy US$1tn by 2030 to expedite the transition towards a sustainable, low-carbon economy. Bank of America is also advancing the sustainability of its operations, having accomplished carbon neutrality and procured 100% renewable electricity in 2019, exceeding their targets a year ahead of schedule.
Salesforce’s ESG initiatives revolve around creating a sustainable, low-carbon future with a carbon-neutral cloud, while striving to be a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions company and working towards achieving 100% renewable energy for global operations.
Salesforce also champions equality through initiatives focused on equal rights, pay, education and opportunity. The company’s pioneering 1-1-1 integrated philanthropy model inspires other companies by leveraging equity, employee time, and products to make a positive impact on communities worldwide.
In 2020, Microsoft unveiled its sustainability commitments, outlining plans for fostering a more sustainable future. By 2030, Microsoft aims to achieve carbon negativity, removing more historical emissions than it has generated since its establishment in 1975.
The tech giant also strives to be water positive by 2030, replenishing more water than it has consumed. Additionally, Microsoft aims to achieve zero waste across their direct waste footprint by 2030, as well as actively working to protect and preserve ecosystems.
Intel Corporation has committed to achieve net-zero GHG across its global operations by 2040, a remarkable feat in an industry known for its emissions. The manufacturing sector in the US alone contributes to approximately 23% of direct carbon emissions, making Intel’s dedication to ESG goals even more noteworthy.
In 2021, Intel demonstrated its progress in energy conservation, saving around 486 million kilowatt hours of electricity compared to the baseline date. Additionally, the company successfully reduced its total GHG emissions by 2% from the previous year.
To further its energy-saving initiatives, Intel has allocated approximately US$300m for investments in energy conservation at its facilities, aiming to achieve a cumulative energy saving of 4bn/kWh.
Intel’s dedication to ESG practices and its significant investments in energy conservation demonstrate its determination to combat climate change and contribute to a more sustainable future.
Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has dedicated the entire net proceeds from its US$5.75bn Sustainability Bond to support environmentally and socially-responsible projects.
In August 2020, Alphabet successfully issued the largest sustainability bond in history. The funds generated from this issuance have been used to finance both new and ongoing initiatives that address critical issues aligned with the company’s mission and long-term value creation goals.
Google’s sustainability strategy revolves around three key pillars, including accelerating the transition to carbon-free energy and a circular economy; empowering individuals and communities through technology; and creating positive impacts for the people and places where Google operates.
By actively focusing on these pillars, Alphabet and Google are committed to having a meaningful impact on global sustainability and promoting positive change for the benefit of society, its employees, and stakeholders.
By Dave Armon via Triplepundit.com • Reposted: July 7, 2023
Amid climate change denial and cries of “go woke, go broke” from the extreme right, at least one large U.S. investment bank has identified bipartisan support for sustainability investments that are likely to yield big returns without political drama.
Modernizing the U.S. power grid, fortifying climate-vulnerable regions, supporting carbon-removal technologies, and eliminating college education as a hiring requirement are economic drivers with support from both Democrats and Republicans, Aniket Shah, global head of ESG and sustainable finance strategy at the global investment banking firm Jefferies, told corporate sustainability executives and bankers at the GreenFin conference in Boston.
“If you work in our field of [environmental, social and governance (ESG)] investing and green finance, you are used to division and pessimism,” Shah said. “But we think there is a bigger story, which is that there are very clear areas of agreement and, therefore, optimism on ESG matters between policymakers, corporates, and civil society of different political persuasions and world views.”
Culture wars are spilling over into brand reputation and consumer buying habits. Bud Light lost billions in revenue in a boycott that began when the formerly top-selling beer sent a customized can to a transgender social media influencer. Target was assailed for selling Pride Month merchandise. Even a brand long associated with Christian conservatives, Chick-fil-A, was criticized for a hire it made years ago to improve diversity, equity and inclusion at the quick-service restaurant chain.
But passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law demonstrates there’s broad agreement from Democrats and Republicans on investments to accelerate and strengthen the economy, said Shah, who teaches at Columbia University in addition to his management role at Jefferies.
“They say the first step in solving any problem is to admit that you have one — and for the energy transition we have a significant problem in the U.S. grid, which is simply outdated for the major renewable buildout that is beginning in this country and underdeveloped in terms of transmission lines needed,” said Shah, citing Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory data estimating the new grid will be 50 percent larger than today’s, and consisting of 95 percent wind, solar and battery storage.
However, regulatory approval for new renewable power projects now takes more than four years, and transmission projects require six and a half years, Shah said, calling for an overhaul of the U.S. permitting policies.
There is political consensus to invest in climate adaptation, Shah said, pointing to $400 billion in economic damage in red and blue states due to storms, flooding, wildfires and other disasters. In June alone, the largest California property insurer stopped underwriting policies, while rates in Florida rose 50 percent, he said.
“We think technologies ranging from precision agriculture, to construction, to water-desalination, to weather intelligence and more will become increasingly important to the U.S. economy and therefore interesting places for investors to invest,” said Shah, predicting a federal plan for adaptation and resilience will be published by the Joe Biden White House.
Investment in technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere will also receive bipartisan support, Shah claimed.
“To achieve global net-zero goals, we will need to remove approximately 10 gigatons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere by 2050 for every year going forward, a several order of magnitude increase from where we are today,” he said, heralding new industries that are both nature-based and engineered will be scaled up worldwide.
Outside environmental investments, Shah pointed to the tightening U.S. labor market as a significant risk equally impacting conservative and liberal regions. He pointed to Gallup research showing sharply higher support among Democrats and Republicans for labor unions.
Employers are responding, eliminating a college degree as a requirement for a job at select companies and in multiple states including Alaska, Colorado, Maryland and Pennsylvania, Shah said. Other trends to make jobs more appealing include remote work and four-day work weeks for many white-collar roles.
“There is a growing realization that the United States is facing major worker shortfalls for the twin policies of reshoring manufacturing and accelerating decarbonization,” said Shah, citing predictions for 550,000 additional clean energy jobs by 2030, including electricians and construction roles where there are already shortages.
“This is a problem that will need to get solved,” he said. “It’s a problem that exists in states of all political persuasions, and therefore will get solved.”
Dave Armon is the Chief Executive Officer of 3BL Media, which produces the 3BL Forum and ranks the 100 Best Corporate Citizens. A former journalist, Dave spent 20 years in management at PR Newswire, where he was president and COO.
James McGowan’s career journey spans startups, agencies and multinationals, with sustainability at the core. By Shannon Houde from green biz.com • Reposted: July 7, 2023
James McGowan is a sustainability marketing leader who has taken on several of high profile roles in his career so far, working with charities, agencies, startups and multinational corporations, as well as studying for a master’s in sustainability. Currently, he leads marketing at Maeving, a British company that creates electric motorcycles.
Before Maeving, McGowan led marketing at Muddy Trowel, a company that makes gardening more accessible. Prior to that, he spent four years at Unilever — three of them as senior global marketing manager for its $3 billion Persil and Omo business.
I recently connected with McGowan to learn more about his career journey as a sustainability marketing expert. Here he draws from his wealth of experience to share advice on the need to see sustainability more holistically, how to leverage a knowledge of sustainability as a differentiator within marketing and the one piece of advice that helped him level up his career.
Shannon Houde: James, when did you spot the clear crossover between a career in marketing and sustainability?
James McGowan: It was in 2013 when I was working for an agency and I noticed a lot of organizations had a website that seemed to articulate sustainability beautifully, when the reality was that it was greenwashing. It dawned on me that nothing in the world is perfect so why give a false narrative when your sustainability journey could be your marketing campaign? That spurred me to do a master’s in sustainability. And at that point, I was at a crossroads — should I be switching my career into a sustainable lead role, or continue with marketing?
At the time, Unilever was only three years into its Sustainable Living Plan and the sustainability sector was still emerging. It was clear for me to stick with marketing because that’s where my strengths are, but to increasingly bring my understanding of sustainability into that role. Now, everything seems to be about sustainability. There’s no new innovation that can’t be launched from the marketing side that doesn’t meet certain sustainability criteria.
Houde: Is it fair to say that even as a marketer you can’t really do your day job without thinking about sustainability?
McGowan: I think there’s a more holistic side to sustainability. A lot of people jump into the environmental side but there’s a huge social impact to sustainability that people forget about. Some of the initiatives that we were driving while I was at Unilever were around stereotyping, for example. I worked for the laundry brand Persil and not that long ago it would be very common to find only a female in those advertisements. So, I take a fuller view on sustainability covering the social side and the environmental side. Ultimately, we need to serve people. Until we start serving people, we can’t really generate the profits, we need to then protect the planet so seeing sustainability through just an environmental lens is quite limiting.
Houde: Speaking of customers, is the demand push or pull on sustainability, do you think? Are companies pushing out the agenda or are they responding to consumer demand?
McGowan: There is a pull there. But take the example of laundry again. Eco is probably the most sustainable but technically it doesn’t clean as well and it’s slightly more expensive. So the technology is there, but it’s just not affordable, and we’ve got to create new markets for that. But there is certainly a lot of pull. From, say, 2025 to 2030, you’re going to see a huge change in the way that we consume these products, so I feel very confident about big businesses being able to solve these issues. But there’s some work on cost-benefit that needs to be done.
[It’s the same on] infrastructure. We’ve seen hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of investment in waste collection and recycling around the world but there just isn’t that infrastructure. And the question is; who’s going to pay for that? These things unfortunately do take time. And I think that’s part of the role: resilience and patience.
A lot of it comes back to storytelling. I inherited a project that had been attempted five times. So, how do you get a research and development team back on board a project that’s had so many knocks?
Houde: How do you differentiate yourself as a marketer and leverage that sustainability element?
McGowan: I never trained in marketing, but I’ve got a marketing career with a sustainability master’s. So, I think one of the key parts of my role is to be able to speak to people with the science and the technical skills and then translate that back into the marketing piece.
Often there tends to be a bit of a disconnect. Particularly when marketers go and talk to the science teams they don’t feel listened to but, with my sustainability piece, I could actually access the science and bring that back into the role. Within big organizations, it’s the marketer’s job to connect the outside world to the individuals within that organization, and make sure that we are getting everyone’s perspective into key decisions.
I’ve had quite an atypical career. I set up my own business, worked with subject matter experts and been at an agency and a charity. And I think — when applying to Unilever, for example — that was quite unique.
Houde: What would be your one piece of advice to others looking to break into sustainability?
McGowan: I think it’s very easy to get completely caught up in the global issue of sustainability and climate change. I remember being with some friends at a restaurant a couple of years ago and we were talking about the plastic crisis. We asked the waiter to mention in their next team meeting the plastic straws they used and even through a discussion like that you can have a lot of impact without really having to do a lot. In the last few years, I’ve certainly tried to focus on what I can do personally as well as what I can do in my career.
But other than that, keep hustling. There are amazing jobs out there. Even if you start small. Your next move is about laying the foundations for the move after that. So don’t try and solve it all at once.
LinkedIn is just a fantastic tool too. I found every job through the platform and I built a network. It’s a different kind of nepotism. It’s not your parents or your uncle that will get you a job but it’s still the people who you know and that is what LinkedIn is for.
Houde: And similarly, what specific advice has really helped you personally in moving your career to the next level?
McGowan: One of the most valuable exercises I did was looking at my own values, looking at what makes me tick and then translating the skills and traits I have to identify what work I wanted to do. When you think of sustainability, it’s incredibly broad. There’s so much to do and having a very clear purpose about what you want to achieve is really important. You’ve got to find something that you care about, and that makes you tick, because work has to be fun.
A new Forrester report shows how and why to launch an active sustainability strategy. By John Edwards, Technology Journalist & Author from Information Week • Reposted: July 6, 2023
When it comes to creating an environmental sustainability agenda, many firms do little more than announcing vague plans and goals.
A recent Forrester report finds that as many enterprises dawdle, customers and other stakeholders are increasingly demanding authentic and effective environmental sustainability initiatives and strategies that demonstrate an understanding of and commitment to tomorrow amid growing economic and geopolitical uncertainties.
The report also notes that while many enterprise architects and their teams are well positioned to prepare their organizations for the next wave of optimization, transformation, and disruption — having worked on sustainability initiatives for decades — many more enterprises are just beginning their planning.
The challenge facing sustainability planners is that while most enterprises believe sustainability is a good idea, day-to-day operational issues, staffing challenges, and budget cuts can make it hard to prioritize goals. On the bright side, the most successful sustainability initiatives not only lower costs but also improve revenue and enhance margins.
To help tech leaders kick-start their sustainability planning, Forrester distilled hundreds of conversations with CIOs, enterprise architects, and teams, to identify five strategic areas of opportunity and key actions that can be taken to improve their sustainability maturity.
Set goals and add environmental metrics to your strategic plans and budgets.
Implement tools for environmental sustainability measurement and reporting.
Integrate sustainability outcomes into your transformation initiatives.
Evaluate the role of emerging technology in achieving your sustainability goals.
Seize innovation and partnering opportunities to enhance sustainability.
Implementation Basics
Abhijit Sunil, a Forrester senior analyst, says the initiative that repeatedly came up in all conversations, across all regions, was the challenge of implementing the environmental monitoring tools and solutions required for carbon accounting. “In our research we found that the majority of organizations at this time are in a maturity level where they are automating their carbon accounting and trying to create workflows that will enable data collection from across the organization,” he says.
Sunil notes that the need for strong, reliable environmental monitoring tools is reflected in the arrival of solutions from an array of providers, including software specialists, product firms, and even consulting organizations. “We compared some of them in our report on environmental monitoring software tools,” he says.
Environmental technology tools are a prime medium for a wide range of enterprises, Sunil says. “The technology leader has a big role to play in understanding how these tools differ from each other and how they can be plugged into existing systems within an organization,” he states. “For example, how these tools can plug into ERP systems or HR management systems, and how some of these tools may be able to provide insights into data center management and cloud optimization as well.”
Getting Started With Sustainability
Embarking on a new sustainability journey requires a different approach from bringing an IT leader into a strategy that’s already at an advanced maturity level. “Our report emphasized how the tech leader can start playing a role or optimize their role in sustainability,” Sunil says.
The best way to start a sustainability mission is by understanding the contribution of IT to the overall sustainability or carbon footprint of the organization, Sunil says. The next step, he notes, is to identify the most feasible opportunities within the enterprise to make the biggest impact on sustainability.
Leadership Is Critical for Successful Sustainability
Top-down leadership buy-in is essential for a successful sustainability initiative, both within the overall organization as well as the IT stack. “The best way to counter opposition is to have a clear understanding of the ROI of investing into various sustainability levers,” Sunil says.
The report advises IT leaders to challenge their innovation teams to eliminate scope-1 emissions. “As your organization explores new materials and manufacturing processes, examine the data to find opportunities to collaborate with other ecosystem partners,” the report suggests. “Ask your existing innovation facilitators to run dedicated campaigns to collect ideas to improve your environmental sustainability and consider sharing the findings with your strategic partners and long-term suppliers.”
Sunil notes that an organization might monitor, for example, exactly how much money data center energy optimization is conserving along with carbon footprint savings. “This is also how initiatives can be funded — sustainability is often synonymous with optimization and vice versa,” he says. “In many cases, green energy may be cheaper than conventional energy.”
Sunil adds that working directly with vendors and infrastructure suppliers can be extremely helpful for technology leaders planning a sustainability agenda. As the report notes: “Together, you can move faster, identify opportunities, and leverage their ecosystem of partners to help with projects, such as data center and network optimization, automation, and software platforms.”
Well, it seems brands might be onto you and one of the reasons you really find yourself going for “softer colours.”
Research from Psychology and Marketing published in June suggested that colours, and their saturation (a colour’s purity and intensity), influence how eco-friendly we think a product is.
So, the less saturated – more muted – an object is, the more we unconsciously think that it’s more eco-friendly, even if it’s not.
After conducting five experimental studies, researchers suggest consumers link low colour saturation with a product which has a “gentler” impact on the environment.
They explained: “This perception of eco-friendliness, in turn, increases their trust in the product maker’s greenness.”
While the research doesn’t mention greenwashing, this explanation of how consumers perceive colour lends itself to that particular form of advertising.
Greenwashing is a practice where brands and corporations seem to advocate for good environmental policies without putting them in place.
A study from the EU in 2021 found greenwashing is particularly prevalent in online marketing, with many websites making exaggerated, false claims to reel in the eco-conscious among us.
As the research pointed out: “The results reveal that, by fostering perceptions of eco-friendliness and green trust, such colours favourably influence consumers’ behavioural intentions.”
As in, you’re more likely to buy it – and pay a “premium price” for it.
In fact, this does just happen with material possessions. Bright colours in any products are linked to other higher characteristics, like a higher amount of calories and a sharper taste in food, or a larger size or magnitude, in other objects.
Being green is in – even if only wearing it in subtle shades.
“It’s become a status [to be eco-friendly]. Being an environmentally conscious consumer adds to people’s sense of self,” Sigal Segev, associate professor of advertising at Florida international University told the BBC.
The expert said being green (or trying to be) helps alleviate shopping guilt in consumers, explaining: “The guilt is kicking in. People are thinking, ‘this is the least I can do, not only for myself, but also for future generations.’”
Sustainability consultant and author of the Ethical Business Book, Sarah Duncan, told BBC Future that being green helps our conscience.
“These claims make us feel better about our overconsumption, our consumerism. But the reality is that we should all be buying less,” she explained. So, rather than shopping for the latest muted summer palette this summer, perhaps we should all try to stick to the second-hand shops instead?
Climate change affects everyone but in vastly unequal ways. To address this and drive real, sustainable change, businesses must ensure their sustainability strategies do not exacerbate existing inequalities even further. By Isabel Shopley from Sustainable Brands * Reposted: July 5, 2023
When it comes to genuine sustainable development, businesses still have a blind spot. Collectively, we’re failing to address the systemic risk posed by mounting levels of inequality. This is a humanitarian tragedy and a barrier to long-term, meaningful sustainable change.
Addressing inequality — a business imperative
According to calculations by Credit Suisse, 54 percent of the $127.5 trillion in new wealth created between 2012 and 2022 went to the world’s richest 1 percent. And only 0.7 percent went to the four billion people who make up half the global population, predominantly in the Global South.
As the reality and challenge grows starker and harder to ignore, businesses are waking up to the urgent and systemic risk of inequality. It erodes trust in our political and economic system, unravels the social fabric, fuels civil and political unrest and constrains economic growth. In May, a group of more than 30 major corporations convened under the Business Commission to Tackle Inequality (BCTI) to launch a flagship report asserting that growing inequality is bad for business. The report highlights how rising inequality contributes to:
an increasingly volatile business operating environment;
supply chain insecurity;
the erosion of productivity and innovation;
regulatory and compliance risks; and
reputation risk.
It’s no surprise, then, that corporate performance on inequality-related matters is increasingly recognised as an investor priority because it creates ‘systemic risk’ to their entire portfolio. In response to this, a new framework is being developed for financial disclosures for social and inequality-related risks. The aim is to develop a disclosure framework similar to the TCFD and TNFD frameworks for climate and nature.
Inequality and climate change: 2 sides of the same coin
Aside from the business and economic cost and the vast humanitarian consequences, inequality also undermines the world’s ability to address existential global threats such as climate change. As wealthy countries outsource industries and labor to developing nations, emissions are driven up — as these nations have usually not had their industries regulated through global climate policies or modernised to become more sustainable. Additionally, poverty in developing nations often forces communities to put more pressure on the environment — which can lead to unsustainable agricultural practices, deforestation and overexploitation of natural resources.
So, inequality worsens climate change — which simultaneously fuels inequality. For example, poorer countries lack the resources to recover from extreme weather events brought on by climate change. Similarly, access to resources such as clean water, food and adequate housing is reduced as the climate worsens — further exacerbating insecurity and inequality.
Sustainable solutions must incorporate all voices
It’s clear that not everyone will feel the impacts of climate change equally. Many communities will lose more than others, compounding deep-rooted societal and systemic inequalities. Despite this, it’s these very people who will feel the effects of climate change most acutely that are often left out of the conversation when it comes to business solutions. This dangerous discrepancy can limit perspectives on the climate issue and the success and relevance of proposed solutions. It’s crucial we address the needs of those worst affected by climate change and incorporate their voices and knowledge into decision-making.
Doing so will help futureproof organisational strategies, too. To date, businesses haven’t been particularly proactive at including the perspectives of those groups most likely to be negatively impacted by climate change into their conversations and strategies to address it. But they should be. Consideration of their challenges and insights is not only fair — it can also be the difference between success and failure when it comes to setting short- and long-term sustainability priorities.
Rethinking business impact and rightsholders
The introduction of double materiality is set to change this and is driving a monumental shift in the way businesses consider impacts and rightsholders. Double materiality requires organisations to engage with two types of stakeholder: users of information and affected stakeholders, or ‘rightsholders,’ who are or could be affected by the organisation’s activities. To support this shift, companies must assess the significance of an impact according to its severity and likelihood. This methodology draws on established human rights impact-assessment methodologies with an emphasis on the rightsholder.
This is good news from an inequality perspective. By considering the views of rightsholders, a company is much more likely to take on board the opinions of those who face greater levels of inequality.
The way forward
Climate change affects everyone but in vastly unequal ways. To address this and drive real, sustainable change, businesses must ensure their sustainability strategies do not exacerbate existing inequalities even further. This won’t happen overnight; but it starts with a greater understanding of who your rightsholders and affected stakeholders are and how your business’ contribution towards climate change could impact them.
Double materiality and the BCTI’s new framework for financial disclosures on social and inequality-related risks can help with this. Ultimately, both reflect a broader, positive shift towards addressing and disclosing business impacts on sustainability-related issues — not just the impact of those issues on the business. This holistic approach to impact is key to reducing inequalities and creating meaningful sustainable change.
Image credits: Hannah Busing/Unsplash and Krystal Hardy Allen
By Amy Brown from Triple Pundit • Reposted: July 4, 2023
Weight discrimination is a common but under-identified aspect of workplace inequity that is finally getting some attention as organizations look to embrace a wider and more holistic definition of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Addressing the problem isn’t just the right thing to do, experts say — it is a fundamental aspect of social justice.
“Weight discrimination would be any form of offense, harm or oppression at the expense of one’s weight that could be detrimental to an employee’s mental, emotional or physical health,” said Krystal Hardy Allen, founder and CEO of K Allen Consulting and author of “What Goes Unspoken: How School Leaders Address DEI Beyond Race.”
Weight discrimination affects individuals across various industries and occupations. In fact, studies show the majority of employers would prefer not to hire a candidate who ais visibly overweight.
There are significant ramifications to weight discrimination in terms of lower compensation, fewer promotions, denial of health insurance and other aspects of employment. Some employees are required to meet weight requirements in order to qualify for full healthcare coverage, and studies show that overweight people earn less in their lifetimes compared their colleagues.
The mental health consequences of weight discrimination should not be overlooked as they can affect spiritual well-being and the ability to operate while working, Allen said.
“Trauma can occur in a workplace environment from peer to peer or from managers to direct reports and vice versa,” she said. “There’s a very real connection between a feeling of inadequacy or imposter syndrome and the work climate and conditions in which a manager or supervisor, for instance, may not grant you certain opportunities because they don’t feel you are ‘the right face’ for the organization or the brand.”
Weight discrimination should be on the radar of every organization’s DEI strategy as a matter of policy, practice and social justice, she advised. A native of historic Selma, Alabama, Allen grew up in a space where discussion around social justice advocacy and activism was “as normal as learning how to read a map.” For her, weight discrimination fits into that space.
“Any form of harm, injustice or oppression is an injustice,” she said. “And so, any commitment we make to bettering the world for humans is social justice work.”
Krystal Hardy Allen, founder and CEO of K Allen Consulting and author of “What Goes Unspoken: How School Leaders Address DEI Beyond Race.”
EI
While in the U.S., weight discrimination might more commonly affect those who are of a heavier weight, Allen points out that it depends a great deal on context and geography.
“Different countries present different realities for workplace climate and conditions,” she said. “In certain countries, there are body types that tend to be ‘the average’ or what one would consider to be the ‘normative’ body type or weight. It’s not just about being heavier. In some cultural contexts, being too skinny or small can be the target of discrimination, where being more voluptuous is the norm and seen as a sign of being healthy.”
Organizations need to be inclusive of weight discrimination
There are few legal protections specifically targeted at weight discrimination in the U.S. Michigan is the only state with a law making weight a protected category. And discrimination based on weight is banned in only a few cities such as San Francisco, Madison and, most recently, New York City.
Without much legal recourse, the onus is even more so on organizations to ensure this issue is acknowledged and addressed in their DEI strategies, Allen said. The first step is being aware that this type of discrimination exists and that a thoughtful approach is required to solve it.
“It takes a lot of intentionality for organizations, when they make a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, that they are not pigeonholing diversity and inclusion to only be about one identity and one lived experience,” she said.
Creating the conditions for change
Once weight discrimination becomes part of an organization’s awareness, it is a matter of creating the right conditions and climate for change. A helpful approach that Allen recommends is liberatory consciousness, a concept developed by thought leader Barbara J. Love.
The framework uses four elements — awareness, analysis, action and accountability/allyship — to change systems of oppression. And it is a way for an organization to be conscious of all forms of oppression before it applies any action, Allen said.
“It could include being mindful even in the process of planning events — for example, an outdoor physical team-bonding activity — and giving everyone an opportunity to raise concerns confidentially if needed, to be as accommodating and thoughtful as possible to every individual who works there,” she said.
For Allen, the bottom line is that “every organization should be open to an intersectional approach or a diverse way of thinking of identity and lived experiences.”
Along with awareness raising, the right policies and practices are critical, she adds. Capacity building and learning opportunities give people the knowledge of what an equitable policy actually is and bring to the forefront any biases they might be operating under.
“A change in practices and policies is vitally important because it pushes the organization to ask if they are being true to what they believe,” Allen said. “And it certainly gives protection to those who are on the receiving end of harmful acts and treatment because it gives them a sense of psychological and emotional safety, that they are cared for, that they do matter, and that the organization is invested in making sure that they are 100 percent part of this team.”
When organizations undertake an analysis, like auditing their practices, they can better understand the experience of their employees, Allen said. “That can be through a survey, focus groups [or] one-on-one interviews, but you have to ascertain and understand the current state before you move to action and develop a real plan to shift your policies, to shift your language and other unconscious forms of bias around weight discrimination.”
The good news is “that we’re incrementally getting better when it comes to this topic,” she said. “I invite all organizations to have more intentionality around weight discrimination as a way to evolve their DEI approach.”
The launch of the inaugural IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) means fashion companies are required to communicate the sustainability risks and opportunities they face over the short, medium, and long term. By Hannah Abdulla from Just Style • Reposted: July 4, 2023
These two standards lay down in practical detail how clothing and textile companies, and those from other sectors, can report how they are impacted by climate change and the environment and how they are preparing to deal with these issues, which can impact their bottom line. Their goal is to help global investors better assess the long-term value of listed companies, with sustainability reports issued alongside standard financial statements.
Together, these inaugural standards and the ISSB’s capacity-building programme aim to help build trust, confidence and much-needed global comparability to the sustainability disclosure landscape.
What are the requirements for apparel and footwear brands and retailers?
They are also required, where they use certified fibres and materials, for example GRS, BCI, GOTS, Cradle to Cradle to name a few, to disclose the percentage of the weight of the certified fibres against the percentage of raw material sourced.
What should fashion businesses know about first set of IFRS standards:
Global disclosure standards: ISSB Standards allow companies and investors to standardise on a single, global baseline of sustainability disclosures for the capital markets, with any additional jurisdictional requirements being built on top of this global baseline.
International support: The ISSB’s work has received strong support from investors, companies, policy makers, market regulators and others from around the world, including the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the Financial Stability Board, the G20 and the G7 Leaders.
Disclosure of decision-useful, material information: Focusing exclusively on capital markets means that ISSB Standards only require information that is material, proportionate and decision-useful to investors. Moreover, by beginning with climate, companies can phase-in their sustainability disclosures.
Building on and consolidating existing initiatives: IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 are built on and consolidate the Task Force on Climate Related Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations, SASB Standards, CDSB Framework, Integrated Reporting Framework and World Economic Forum metrics to streamline sustainability disclosures. Consolidation will help companies to benefit from their investments they’ve already made in sustainability disclosures while reducing the ‘alphabet soup’ of sustainability disclosures.
Reducing duplicative reporting: The baseline approach provides a way to achieve global comparability for financial markets, and allow jurisdictions to further develop additional requirements if needed to meet public policy or broader stakeholder needs. This approach helps to reduce duplicative reporting for companies subject to multiple jurisdictional requirements.
Helping companies communicate worldwide cost-effectively: ISSB Standards have been designed to provide reliable information to investors; helping companies to communicate how they identify and manage the sustainability-related risks and opportunities they face over the short, medium and longer term.
Connections with financial statements: The information required by the ISSB Standards is designed to be provided alongside financial statements as part of the same reporting package. ISSB Standards have been developed to work with any accounting requirements, but they are built on the concepts underpinning IFRS Accounting Standards, already required for use by more than 140 jurisdictions.
Developed through rigorous consultation: ISSB Standards have been developed using the same inclusive, transparent due process used to develop IFRS Accounting Standards – with more than 1,400 responses to the ISSB’s proposals. All ISSB papers, feedback and technical decision-making are available to view online.
Interoperability with broader sustainability reporting: The ISSB’s partnership with the Global Reporting Initiative enables the ISSB to build its requirements to be interoperable with GRI standards, helping to reduce the disclosure burden for companies using both ISSB and GRI Standards for reporting.
A partnership for capacity building: The ISSB’s responsibilities do not stop at standard setting. At COP27, the ISSB announced plans for a capacity building partnership programme, helping to establish the necessary resources for high quality, consistent reporting across developed and emerging economies.
Eric Block On Responsible Branding 
You must be logged in to post a comment.