Search

With the start of the COP21 climate talks, today marks the end of the beginning for global climate action: a decisive step forward.

Or, to put a more pessimistic slant on it, the beginning of the end of a stable climate.

But why be pessimistic? Sure, there’s certainly a lot of heavy lifting to do between now and Dec. 11, but no Conference of Parties has begun with so many members already committed to climate action (170 as of this writing). Delegates are ready and -- dare I say it -- eager to walk away from Paris with a deal.

"Governments from all corners of the Earth have signaled through their INDCs [intended nationally determined contributions] that they are determined to play their part according to their national circumstances and capabilities,” Christiana Figures, executive secretary for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) said in an Oct. 30 press release.

The mood is reminiscent of the high hopes felt at the outset of COP15 in Copenhagen. Even if COP15 pales in comparison to the opportunity now before us, one important lesson we can take away from 2009 is managing expectations. It's reasonable to ask: What if we don't reach our goals in Paris? Does it mean the end of the U.N. COP process? That's what many said in the wake of COP15, but after the hand-wringing and acrimony eased, did everyone throw in the towel and give up?

We wouldn't be here now if that were the case.

The lesson of managing expectations learned at COP15 is balanced by the lesson of perseverance. The disappointing outcome in Copenhagen six years ago compared with the ambitious start in Paris today demonstrates the resilience of the COP process.

“I think Copenhagen was that decisive moment for the UNFCCC,” Evan Juska, head of U.S. Policy for The Climate Group, told TriplePundit. "After Copenhagen, the fact that the UNFCCC was able to change course and mobilize wide support for a new approach in just three years bodes well for its future. Years ago that kind of course change would have been hard to imagine. It’s a testament to both the increased momentum for action on the issue, and the leadership of the UNFCCC under Christiana Figures."

Defining success

Before we get ahead of ourselves theorizing how we move forward in case of failure in Paris, we should first ask what success looks like. At a press conference last week attended by TriplePundit, U.S. special envoy, Todd Stern, laid out three broad but critical items he expects to see in a successful agreement at COP21:

• Acceleration of the transition to a clean energy, low-carbon, resilient economy


• Participation from all parties (nations)


• An unambiguous signal sent to cvil society and the private sector that world leaders have taken the issue on -- that there is "no going back."

Elaborating on these fundamental points, Stern added: "In terms of the critical issues, we need strong mitigation ... We need excellent transparency. It’s important that all countries and observers can see what everybody’s doing, whether they’re following through on the commitments and pledges that they’ve made. We need strong provisions on adaptation. All countries have a real challenge in adaptation, and this agreement means to enhance and increase the focus on adaptation.

We also need strong provisions on financial and other kinds of assistance to poor countries that need it, and we need to move this agreement from the old-style, backward-looking bifurcation between two distinct categories into a world which is forward-looking, where there is differentiation across the range of countries. Countries can’t be expected to do more than they’re able to, but we shouldn’t just have this antiquated way of bifurcating climate change."

The complexity of any international agreement belies the notion that we will come home with a neat and tidy package encompassing every element of implementation. "There are going to be a whole host of steps that will follow the agreement," Stern said. "First of all, with respect to the elements of the agreement itself, there will be many situations where we include, in the actual agreement text, a paragraph or two on a particular issue where there will then need to be further guidelines ... developed hopefully over the next year. We don’t want this to drag out for a long time.

For example, in the area of transparency: We will need enough guidance in the agreement reached in Paris itself to point the way quite clearly to what countries have decided to do. But even with the best guidance possible, there will be a lot more detail; there will be more granular issues that need to be worked out in the course of guidelines that will be negotiated, again, we would hope next year. And that will be true for any number of issues."

Climate action on the ground

Even with national commitments and global agreements, the nuts and bolts of climate action happens on the city streets, in our homes and businesses. Large-scale commitments are translated into a host of smaller actions like energy-efficiency initiatives, solar panel installations, and building-out electric vehicle infrastructure, to name but a few.

At the regional level, new regulations like the Clean Power Plan in the U.S. allow states to manage their own path to a low-carbon economy. New building and design technologies are already transforming manufacturing and the built environment.

Initiatives like the Compact of States and Regions bring together state and regional emissions reductions contributions through a global reporting mechanism. "In less than a year since it was launched," said the Climate Group's Evan Juska, "we’ve seen leaders from state and regional governments spanning North and South America, Europe and Australia announce collective climate targets that would save 7.9 GtCO2e [gigatons of CO2 equivalent] by 2030 -- greater than the U.S.’s carbon emissions in 2012."

Regardless of what happens in Paris," Juska continued, "this bold climate action by states, regions, cities and businesses will continue to be the main driver of [a] global climate push, demonstrating what is possible and backing up nations’ broad goals with tangible action."

Seizing the moment

All comparisons with COP15 aside, there's a feeling of inevitability. Climate change is not going away; it's clearly more urgent with each passing month. So, if not now, when?

"You get the sense that more and more countries understand the importance of this moment," Juska told 3p, "and that no deal in Paris won’t necessarily lead to a better deal down the road.

"There are still disagreements between some countries on issues like finance and 'loss and damage.' But in the end, those differences may not prevent a deal.

"Today, with 170 countries having submitted INDCs, including the U.S., China and India, most parties have a reason to see the process succeed, even if they don’t get agreement on all of their positions.

"That’s a key difference between these negotiations and the negotiations of the past, and I think it makes them more resilient."

Given all the momentum from so many parts of the world and sectors of the global economy, it's hard to imagine no deal coming from Paris. The question remains what the scale of that deal will be. As Stern put it, "We want to be careful about not trying to achieve an agreement which is just minimalist and puts off decisions too much to the future.

"This is the moment, and we want to seize it," Stern declared.

When asked point-blank by TriplePundit how the COP process can move forward absent a deal in Paris, Stern demurred: "I’m not going to indulge in the – in thinking about the downside of Paris," he said. "I’m going to prefer to focus on the upside.

"What I will say is this: The stars are more aligned right now to reach agreement than I have ever seen them ... We have a real opportunity. We are riding on the wave of those 170 targets that have been submitted. We know countries are interested in getting this done.

"The situation right now – there’s no comparison, for example, to the most recent major moment, which is 2009, when people were heading into Copenhagen ... We have this opportunity; we have this moment. Countries are going to need to be willing now – starting now, starting today, starting yesterday – to depart from some of their fixed positions, seek common ground, find that middle zone, that landing zone where we can actually get this agreement done.

"That is happening. That has been happening. It has to happen more. But we can get this done. I think we will get this done. And I’m not going to think about the alternative."

So, what if there's no deal in Paris? We regroup. We move on. Businesses, cities and states, individuals continue to make progress, even in the face of another disappointment at the international level. That effort feeds into another shot for the COP. This isn't the last chance for a global climate agreement. It's just the best chance.

So, I'll join Stern and focus on the upside. Let's leave what ifs for later, maybe never. Right now, there's work to do.

Image credit: Flickr/BK 

Food deserts, vast expanses of urban and rural areas that are void of fresh fruit and veggies, are a growing epidemic -- affecting more than 23.5 million people nationwide. Disproportionately affecting occupants of poor, low-income neighborhoods, food deserts are the result of a lack of access to healthy food.

While food deserts are often short on grocery stores and farmers’ markets, local quickie marts and fast-food chains run rampant. These outlets offer an abundance of processed, sugar- and fat-laden foods that are known contributors to our nation’s obesity epidemic and a leading cause of a host of other illnesses.

The lack of access to fresh, healthy and nutritious food fuels hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition, negatively impacting 1 in 7 homes across the country. The working poor who struggle to afford good food and lack transportation to get it are often trapped in neighborhoods that restrict their options further.

And, while hunger has no boundaries, it does impact some communities more than others. African Americans are more likely to suffer from poverty, food insecurity and unemployment than their white, non-Hispanic counterparts. Children are also among those who are most negatively impacted by food insecurity and malnutrition. There are over 15 million hungry children in the United States alone.

Proper nutrition is critical to a child’s development, and not having enough of the right kinds of food can have serious implications for a child’s physical and mental health -- negatively impacting their academic achievement and inhibiting them from reaching their fullest potential.

On the flip-side of this epidemic is the issue of food waste. The average American family wastes about 25 percent of the food they buy annually. Their trash cans eat better than 25 percent of the world’s children. The amount of food waste produced globally each year is more than enough to feed the 1 billion hungry people in the world.

In a world of rising population, increasing cost of food, and concerns about inequality and growing food insecurity, food waste is one of the greatest challenges of our time. One of the greatest tools we have at our disposal to reduce food loss and waste in our communities is to discover creative ways to redistribute food wealth.

There is one Ohio-based entrepreneur who is committed to doing just that. Floyd Johnson, the founder and CEO of Ohio Against the World, is on a mission to “feed the streets” and bring fresh, healthy, organic food to local communities.

Ohio Against the World is a lifestyle brand that reflects hometown pride. The company is committed to fighting against poverty, hunger and environmental degradation by promoting a more healthy, eco-conscious lifestyle and producing products which make the world a better place.

https://player.vimeo.com/video/128953877

“More than often I think we can evaluate a person by what they do. Are they building or destroying?” Johnson told TriplePundit. “At some point I decided that I wanted to do more than just create a streetwear brand, but to build something that actually gives back to my community and the world around me.”

Johnson is taking steady, measured steps toward this ambitious goal. He started sourcing products from sustainable wholesalers and investing his profits into developing community gardens and food projects. His vision evolved from a school project into a social enterprise which uses fashion and food as a vehicle for social change.

“I believe that food waste and food desserts are connected,” Johnson explained. “We reclaim abandoned lots and unused spaces in poor neighborhoods and transform them into thriving community gardens. We’re also educating the community and offering them an alternative to unhealthy food. I believe the youth are the future of our planet. If we feed our youth, we feed our planet."

From a food truck that delivers fresh, organic, pressed juices to food deserts, to offering raw food cooking classes to families in need, Johnson is constantly developing creative ideas to alleviate issues around poverty, hunger and food waste. “Leftover fruits and vegetables from the garden can be pressed into juices. Food scraps can be composted into soil for our gardens. Everything works together,” he explained.

And, despite the name, Johnson’s sights are set on more than just Ohio. He envisions several licensed brands following suit. “Ohio Against the World is about coming back to where you’re from and making it happen in your own backyard,” Johnson explained. “We are all battling against things that negatively impact our communities.”

Image courtesy of Ohio Against the World, used with permission

Image: Residents protest Google's use of public bus stops for its private bus line. 

If you live or work in San Francisco, Google bus sightings are as common as the tech-hipsters they serve. These behemoths of steel, plastic and laminated glass, moving like whales in crowded city streets, ferry tech workers to and from their plush Silicon Valley jobs – and have become a divisive symbol of everything that’s wrong and right about the tech industry’s perennial boom.

Coined “Google buses,” the long-haul commuter shuttles (most operated by third-party vendors) transport Google, Facebook, Apple, Yahoo and other tech employees day-in and day-out. Riders hop on at designated stops throughout the city to leave their urban dwellings for corporate campuses about an hour’s drive south of San Francisco, where most are bestowed with free food, on-site laundry services and massages, among other amenities.

According to the 2015 Silicon Valley Index (PDF), an annual profile of the area’s people, economy and society, San Francisco’s workforce is predominantly young and well-educated, with 47 percent of the population between the ages of 18 and 44, and 53 percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. About 12 percent of the city’s inhabitants work in tech, with average annual salaries of $125,000. Comparatively, tech jobs make up only 4 percent of overall jobs in the state of California.

This is all well and good, except that the influx of tech workers to San Francisco in the past years has driven up the cost of living, housing prices and rental rates, thanks to the laws of supply and demand, and left many local citizens disgruntled and asking questions. Not to mention this stands in stark contrast to the area's rising poverty levels.

Protests and lawsuits

Last year, a group of residents decided to officially take issue with the buses, citing illegal use of public bus stops.

“On an average weekday, these illegal commuter shuttles (“Illegal Shuttles”) have more than 35,000 boardings per day, on more than 350 shuttle vehicles, and use more than 200 MUNI [public bus] stops around the city,” wrote plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit filed against the city and county of San Francisco in 2014. “The city has allowed these Illegal Shuttles to operate illegally.”

The Coalition for Fair, Legal and Environmental Transit, the SEIU Local 1021, and other local activists filed the lawsuit in the state court to bring attention to the “significant environmental impacts, including air pollution, impacts to pedestrian and bicyclist safety, delays to public transportation systems, and displacement of low- and moderate-income members of the community that live and work in areas near proposed shuttle stops,” as stated in the court documents.

Concerns about gentrification and displacement of city residents was top of mind to many protesters who famously picketed in front of tech buses back in 2013.

Buses here to stay

At a recent San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's (SFMTA) meeting, the board of directors unanimously voted to permanently approve a Commuter Shuttle Program that began in August 2014 and has also caused much controversy.

"The notion that shuttles are causing gentrification ... is simply not connected to the data that we have," said SF board of supervisors member Scott Weiner at the hearing, as quoted by CNN. "Whether or not they have access to shuttles, they're going to live here."

The new version of the Commuter Shuttle Program goes into effect on Feb. 1 and will include stricter regulations, including restricting larger shuttle buses from smaller streets, charging a per-stop fee of $3.67 and requiring greener fleets to reduce emissions.

According to a recently published SFMTA report, commuter buses transport about 8,500 people for round-trips every day and actually help remove nearly 4.3 million vehicle miles traveled from the region’s streets each month. The report also states that about half the riders would drive to work without the shuttles, indicating that the buses do in fact help decrease traffic and pollution.

“It’s a mixed bag,” said a former Google employee, who preferred to go unnamed and now works in San Francisco. “The buses are making it more likely that Googlers are choosing to settle in San Francisco, and at the same time, equally to blame in this whole debate is the city of San Francisco itself, which has opposed the construction of new housing. That would help ease the supply constraint, which would in turn bring back down the housing market to a reasonable level. Yeah, you can blame the millionaires, but it’s never that simple.”

Unionization: The next frontier

Amidst lawsuits and protests surrounding San Francisco’s commuter buses, Facebook shuttle drivers, officially employed by the contractor Loop Transportation, voted 43-28 to join the Teamsters Local 853 last year.

The union and Loop Transportation reached an agreement earlier this year to include an hourly wage increase to $24.50, hourly pay differential for drivers who work split shifts, a six-hour minimum for drivers who do not want to work split shifts, and corporate contributions to defined pension funds.

Prior to this agreement, Facebook drivers were paid $18 an hour and split daily shifts. Some drivers were said to have to sleep in their cars or at the company’s shuttle yard in the hours between driving Facebook employees to work each morning and returning them to the city in the afternoon.

A week after Facebook drivers unionized, drivers at Apple, eBay, Yahoo and Zynga voted to join the Teamsters, too.

On bus driver well-being, Apple had this to say: "Over 5,000 Apple employees in the Bay Area take advantage of our commute alternatives program every day. We’re working with the bus companies to help make a number of changes for the more than 150 drivers of our commute shuttles, including funding a 25 percent increase in hourly wages, premium pay for coach and shuttle drivers who work split shifts, and improving the driver break and rest areas.”

Google remains the last fleet of drivers that is not unionized. Earlier this year, the tech giant announced to its bus contractors that it would increase driver wages by 20 percent, to an average of $24 an hour. That caused union leaders to speculate that Google’s actions were motivated by the desire to prevent drivers from unionizing, a claim which underpins a recent federal complaint filed by the San Francisco office of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

With or without unions, Google bus drivers are part of an ever-changing landscape of tech entitlement that is changing the city of San Francisco and all of its inhabitants. Those who can afford to stay do, some get creative, and others leave. What becomes of those in the middle remains to be seen.

Requests for interviews with Google and Facebook went unanswered by press time.

Image credit: Evan Blaser and Chris Martin via Flickr

A few weeks back, we posted a story describing the substantial amount of technology that is ready and able to confront the looming climate challenge. The article contained a sizable list of technologies on both the supply and demand side of the energy equation. It pointed out that solar and wind are already less expensive than coal in most places and described the 10 winners of the 2015 U.N. Climate Solutions Award.

A similar, but far more comprehensive, study was released last week by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP). The report, which was developed by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), in collaboration with researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, consists of two volumes.

The first volume, Pathways to Deep Decarbonization, describes “the technology requirements and costs of different options for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.” Dr. Dan Lashof, chief operating officer of NextGen Climate America, one of the sponsors of the research, said: “This is by far the most rigorous and detailed study of what it will take to achieve a transition to clean energy in the United States. It demonstrates that a climate-friendly transformation of our energy system is not only achievable, it would increase our prosperity, protect our environment and strengthen our national security.”

The report describes an in-depth analysis of various energy scenarios, based on a simulation of the national power system with resolution down to hourly supply and demand for the years up to 2050. The research was directed at the following four questions:

1. Is it technically feasible to reduce U.S. GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, subject to realistic constraints?


2. What is the expected cost of achieving this level of reductions in GHG emissions?


3. What changes in energy system infrastructure and technology are required to meet this level of GHG reduction?


4. What are the implications of these technology and infrastructure changes for the energy economy and policy?

The analysis identified four distinct scenarios, namely high renewable, high nuclear, high CCS (carbon capture and storage) and mixed case, that all met the criteria of reducing overall overall net GHG emissions to no more than 1,080 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e), and fossil fuel combustion emissions of no more than 750 MtCO by the year 2050. Each scenario followed a distinctly different path. The model also demonstrated the ‘technical feasibility of reducing net non-energy and nonCO2 GHG emissions to no more than 330 MtCO2e by 2050, including land use carbon cycle impacts from biomass use and potential changes in the forest carbon sink.”

The median cost of these scenarios, with some degree of uncertainty, was just over $300 billion or 0.80 percent of U.S. GDP. That is roughly half of the 2015 military budget. These costs did not include the numerous net non-energy benefits such as reduced health care costs due to less pollution (which are estimated by the EPA to reach a level of $65 billion by 2020) or any of the other many costs of climate change, such as responding to increased levels of catastrophic weather events, which, though nearly impossible to quantify, are expected to be substantial.

Substantial infrastructure changes will be required in three areas: highly efficient end-use of energy in buildings, transportation and industry; decarbonization of electricity and other fuels; and fuel switching of end uses to electricity and other low-carbon supplies. All of these changes, across all sectors of the economy, will be required to meet the target of an 80 percent GHG reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

These scenarios indicate a shift of the transportation energy supply toward either electrification or the use of fuels, such as hydrogen, that are produced by electricity.

What this entails will be nothing less than a doubling of the electricity supply by 2050, while at the same time reducing its carbon intensity to 3 to 10 percent of its current level. It would further require an average vehicle fuel economy in excess of 100 miles per gallon and a shift of 80 percent of vehicles away from combustion engines.

These are severe shifts which will not be easy to achieve, though, as the study shows, they are clearly possible. The analysis is necessarily conservative in that it cannot see around technological corners, and in fact does not include advancements already being demonstrated in third- and fourth-generation biofuels, as well as dramatic improvements in engine technology such as those being studied at Oak Ridge National Labs. The ability to safely include a higher level of liquid fuels will reduce the demands on the electric generation infrastructure.

The fourth question is the subject of the second volume, Policy Implications of Deep Decarbonization in the United States. That report provides a roadmap for what policy makers at the national, state and local levels need to do to enable a low-carbon transition. It describes how businesses and whole regions could benefit in an energy economy where the dominant mode shifts from purchasing fossil fuel, with historically volatile prices, to investment in efficient, low-carbon hardware, with very predictable costs.”

The report provides policy makers and businesses with a detailed understanding of what deep decarbonization will actually require in terms of scale and timing of investment, rates of technology adoption, distribution of costs and benefits, and risks associated with different options.

It will facilitate a policy discussion that can move beyond emissions targets to the required end state of an energy system that can meet those targets.

Finally, it provides a new lens on analytical approaches and policy prescriptions in the energy and climate domain, with the key question being whether and under what conditions they are effective in driving an energy system transformation. Some of the policy guidance in this report is not yet on the policy radar.

Image courtesy of USDPP

By Vincent Molinari

Millennials didn't see “Wall Street” when it was first released in 1987. Many were born years after its release, while those who were alive were either still in diapers or barely out of kindergarten. Most, however, are familiar with Gordon Gekko’s famous utterance that “greed is good,” and they know exactly what they think of that maxim.

In a survey conducted in October 2014, 75 percent of millennials polled said it was important for brands to give back to society. Socially conscious investments grew by $6 trillion between 1995 and 2014, and more than half of that growth came between 2012 and 2014.

With 67 percent of millennials considering their investments as expressions of their social, political and environmental values, it’s clear who is driving this growth.

This isn’t a more honest and caring generation than those who came before it; the core issue is transparency. Millennials have grown up in a world where technology and social media have made information abundant. If they want to learn about a company’s environmental credentials, then they need only to pull out their smartphones.

People are now empowered to find the truth, and companies need to recognize this in their business planning. So if you want to attract the millennial investor, you need to have the right credentials.

Having a good PR firm won’t help you

Window dressing won’t work anymore. Soda companies can no longer sponsor parks and playgrounds to distract from their own complicity in childhood obesity, and chief executives can’t plant a few trees to disguise the fact that their businesses are chopping down thousands.

Millennials are too savvy for those gambits to work. Whether it be through responsible farming, providing proper working conditions in factories, or retrofitting offices with LED lighting and green technology, businesses need to earnestly engage with sustainability programs.

The cost of not doing so can be devastating. Both General Motors and Toyota have suffered for their corporate deceptions, and now Volkswagen is facing an uncertain future. In the wake of revelations that the company misled the public over its diesel emissions, share prices fell by 23 percent.

With a movie already on the production line, the possibility of an $18 billion fine from the EPA, and regulators investigating a second software irregularity, it will take a long time for Volkswagen to recover its positive brand image.

Most businesses are not guilty of such an egregious breach of trust, but to entice millennial investors, you need a record that is consistent and ethical.

Transforming into an ethical investment opportunity

Many millennials may have been born in the 1980s, but they don’t share that decade’s values. You need to commit to social and environmental justice to win their confidence and earn their investments. Two companies are leading the way on this front.

The first is Unilever, which launched its Sustainable Living Plan in 2010. The company has set aside concerns about stock prices and quarterly reports and has committed to buying all of its agricultural raw materials from sustainable sources. Since then, it has invested heavily in improving sanitation in countries like India.

Accenture is another company going to great lengths to engage with the world beyond its shareholders. Since 2011, it has invested more than $220 million in helping people to gain the skills necessary to work and succeed, forming partnerships with charities like Concern Worldwide to fund conservation agriculture programs in Zambia and Malawi.

How can you follow this lead? Here are three ways to change your company and make it more attractive to millennial investors:

1. Deliver a transparent supply chain. People dig deep. You may have good business practices, a strong work environment and pay a fair wage, but if you’re buying goods and raw materials from others who don’t conduct themselves similarly, you’re open to the charge of hypocrisy. It’s no longer acceptable to be naïve about where such materials come from — as Nike and Apple executives have learned at their own expense.

Both companies have since gotten a handle on the problem, but wouldn’t it have been better to avoid the scandal in the first place? Exercise due diligence with your whole supply chain, and be completely transparent with customers and investors.

2. Employ a diverse workforce. While quotas are cumbersome and can be hindrances, there are no excuses for a lack of diversity in the workforce. This is not just about having the requisite number of women or people of color at management level, either. They should be present in your C-suite and in the boardroom.

Economists are projecting that by 2030, women will control two-thirds of America’s wealth. Can you afford to ignore them now?

3. Build trust into your organizational structure. Barbara Kimmel, executive director of Trust Across America, noted that “trustworthy organizations do not sacrifice profitability.” Accountability needs to start at the top. When it’s weaved into the DNA of the organization, it builds responsibility at the bottom, too.

There were people who criticized Toms Shoes’s one-for-one business model as little more than a marketing gimmick. Instead of trying to shut down such criticism or pretend it didn’t exist, CEO Blake Mycoskie acknowledged it and worked to improve the scheme. In 2013, he committed to producing a third of all the shoes the company donates in the countries that the giveaway program targets.

Offering a high rate of return isn’t enough to entice investors anymore. But if you can build trust and accountability into your organizational culture, millennials will sit up and take notice.

Image credit: Pixabay

Vincent Molinari is the co-founder and CEO of GATE Global Impact, a leading electronic marketplace platform that’s helping the world’s leading organizations to standardize and accelerate impact investing. Vincent is also a managing partner at Constellation Fin Tech, and he consults with members of Congress and regulatory agencies on issues related to capital markets, early-stage companies, and secondary market liquidity.

At COP21 Prince Charles lauded Unilever's achievements in deforestation, as he expressed his hope that politicians and businesses were starting to act on the need to protect forests.

And in the run up to the Paris summit, the Dutch conglomerate and maker of Dove, furthered its position as one of the world leaders in sustainability by announcing its intention to become carbon positive by 2030. 

To acheive this, it has set a number of new targets, including a commitment to source 100% of its energy across its operations from renewable sources by 2030 and eliminate coal from its energy mix by 2020.

Notably, it has put a deadline on its Unilever Sustainable Living Plan ambition of sourcing 100% renewable energy for the first time.

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever commented: “The reality is, if we don’t tackle climate change we won’t achieve economic growth. This is an issue for all businesses, not just Unilever. We all have to act. Runaway climate change could wipe out development gains of the last century in little more than a generation. The World Bank now estimates that climate change could push more than 100 million additional people back into poverty by 2030. This is not acceptable for governments, business, civil society and humanity as a whole.”

“A high level of ambition is needed from Paris, which will act as a strong signal to investors. We also need to see businesses doing more to tackle climate change in their own operations and encouraging world leaders to be bold. We must seize the business opportunities presented by the green economy to make sure the Paris commitments are met, or even better, exceeded.”

Charities receive little more than 3% of the purchase price of some charity Christmas cards in the UK, two surveys have revealed.
Harrods, London’s largest shop, gives 3.4% to Macmillan Cancer Relief from sales of the charity’s cards, and Selfridges, the second biggest store, contributes 3.5% of receipts from its Meningitis Trust cards, reports an evening newspaper.

Hilary Blume, director of the Charities Advisory Trust, which gives information on trading and income generation for charities, was robustly critical: “It is a scandal. The public are being misled and they are usually horrified when they know how little goes to charity.
“The biggest irony is that people go into shops and think how public-spirited they are to stock charity cards.

“Retailers want to offer charity cards because it helps sales. But they want to do it at no cost to themselves.”

Among the shops investigated by Which?, the consumers’ magazine, the Co-op retail group gives 7% of its sales of cards for the poverty and food bank charity FareShare, and the budget supermarket chain Lidl gives 8% of its income from cards supporting CLIC Sargent.

The contribution at the Aldi and John Lewis groups is 25% on branded cards. John Lewis gives 10% from its other ranges.

On a more positive note, the Morrisons supermarket group is donating £50,000 ($76,000, €71,000), irrespective of the number of cards sold, to the Sue Ryder charity, which helps people with life-changing illnesses, and Tesco, the UK’s largest supermarket chain, is giving £300,000 to Diabetes UK and the British Heart Foundation.

The Co-op emphasises that it fund-raises and helps charities in many ways. For example, it hands over surplus food enabling FareShare to provide a million meals a year, and its sandwich sales will realise £50,000 for the British Red Cross. The Co-op also aims to raise millions for the latter charity during the next two years.

Lidl replies that it gives other support to its chosen charity and expects to have given £1m by the end of next year.  

Picture credit: © Gergely Zsolnai | Dreamstime.com

Korea’s Kia Motors is looking to drive the market for more environmentally-friendly cars by giving investment into fuel-efficient technologies a significant boost.

The brand’s ‘green car roadmap’ sets out its ambition to become a leader in the low emissions car market by 2020 with the motor giant’s parent company Hyundai Motor Group backing that goal to the tune of US$10.2bn.

It is anticipated that the five-year development plan will see Kia further increase its investment in research and development into new products, with a range of all-new models and highly advanced powertrains for global markets.

Ki-Sang Lee, senior vp, Eco Friendly Vehicle R&D Center, Kia Motors Corporation, commented: “Global market demand is shifting to electric vehicles, with oil prices predicted to rise in future. The electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle market will grow rapidly in the coming years, and this investment will enable Kia to meet the growing demand with a range of advanced new products and technologies.”

“We don’t believe that there is any one ‘silver bullet’ that can satisfy the demand for low emission technology within the car industry, so we foresee a wide range of eco-friendly powertrains co-existing for an extended period of time. The plans we’ve announced today represent Kia’s ambition to become a worldwide leader in advanced propulsion technology.”

By 2020, Kia’s current green car line-up is expected to grow from four current models to 11. This expanded range of environmentally-friendly vehicles will encompass a wide range of advanced powertrains, from hybrids and plug-in hybrids to battery-electric and fuel cell electric vehicles.

The first models to be launched featuring new types of powertrains under the brand’s 2020 vision for low emissions cars will be the Kia Optima PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle), which will feature a high capacity lithium-polymer battery pack and electric motor, as well as an efficient six-speed automatic transmission, and the Niro hybrid utility vehicle (HUV), which will target CO2 emissions of 90 g/km (combined, based on the New European Driving Cycle).

As part of this five-year plan, Kia is targeting a 2020 launch for mass production of an all-new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, featuring next-generation hydrogen fuel stack technology. Kia is working alongside 300 partner companies to develop the next-generation FCEV technology for global markets.

Production of the new Kia FCEV is aimed to be around 1,000 units per year, a figure expected to rise as demand for fuel cell vehicles increases.

Kia’s FCEV will feature a fuel stack similar in size to a 2.0-litre internal combustion engine, which development teams believe will offer drivers a high level of durability and power density from the advanced powertrain. Kia engineers are planning to develop the brand’s next-generation fuel cell stack to be 5% more efficient and offer 10% greater stack performance, despite being around 15% lighter and 15% lower in volume, compared to current generation fuel cell stacks. The result is a targeted range of more than 800km from a single fill-up and a top speed of around 170kph (106mph).

Kia’s research into fuel cells date back to 1998, which resulted in the creation of the limited production Kia Mohave FCEV, which enabled drivers to travel up to 690km on a single tank.

Kia is hoping that its efforts will raise its average corporate fuel efficiency by 25% (over 2014 levels) by 2020. As well as investment in advanced propulsion technologies, Kia will also replace seven out of its 10 current engine ranges with next-generation gasoline and diesel units, while increasing the number of turbocharged engines. Higher-efficiency, multi-speed transmissions are also planned, while Kia engineers are targeting a 5% reduction in the average weight of new car bodies through greater application of ultra-high strength steel. 

How have the world’s corporates responded to the refugee crisis in Europe? And what role can business play anyway? Sangeeta Haindl reports

One topic has dominated headlines this year – the Syrian refugee crisis. It’s an issue that has been fiercely debated, influenced politics, challenged borders and affected humanity.

More than half a million people have made the journey to Europe. The United Nations (UN) says that more people have been forcibly displaced than at any time since World War Two.

This refugee crisis has sparked an international debate about human rights. As the media devotes greater attention to this humanitarian disaster, many feel compelled to do what they can to help - including global corporations - which have placed human rights higher on the business agenda, recognising that it is central to good corporate citizenship and to a healthy bottom line.

One of the most significant changes in the human rights debate is the increased recognition of the link between business and human rights. Businesses are increasingly focused on the impact they have on individuals, communities and the environment. Most companies recognise the moral imperative to operate consistently with human rights principles and that the respect for human rights can also be a tool for improving business performance.

The Guardian newspaper reports that the refugee crisis is bankrupting UN humanitarian agencies, leaving them unable to provide food and healthcare to millions of desperate people. The dwindling food provisions and medical attention are driving even more refugees to Europe, and creating a generation of children – those who survive – whose lives will be shaped by malnutrition, disease, psychological damage, lack of education and vulnerability to extremist groups. And while European countries have been bickering about quotas and borders, many well-known global brands have readily got involved.

Audi made €1m in emergency aid available for refugees. The car manufacturer has been shocked by the suffering of the refugees and wanted to offer help quickly and avoid as much red tape as possible. So, the money from the corporate donation flowed directly to the local aid projects at Audi production sites. It wants to show solidarity as well as practice social responsibility at its corporate sites. Audi General Works Council Chairman Peter Mosch said: “We must not and we will not stand passively by when it comes to helping our fellow human beings in this desperate situation. We Audi employees are always there to help when it’s important – and it’s more important now than ever before.”

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple emailed staff about his concerns for refugees in Europe, saying that the company was making a ‘substantial donation’ to humanitarian organisations working with suffering refugees.

Google is giving $1.1m to organisations that provide shelter, food, water, medical care and other essentials for people in need. The company has also been offering matching donations up to $5.5m.

Uber is offering to send drivers to collect donations of clothes and toys for charity Save the Children for free in 20 European countries.

There are many other stories, which are less prominent, yet very powerful showing this wave of positive support from companies becoming defenders of human rights.

In Germany, a country that has so far taken in more refugees than other European country, businesses are also taking stance. Mutanox, a Berlin-based fence company refused to sell razor-wire to the Hungarian government to complete a fence aimed at keeping refugees out of the country.

Mutanox was approached by representatives of Viktor Orban’s Hungarian government for razor-wire to complete a fence aimed at keeping refugees out of the company. However, the owner Talat De?er refused the commission, in spite knowing it would cost him around €500,000, claiming the government was “misusing” the wire.

Ulrich Grillo, head of the powerful BDI industry federation in Germany has noted: “If we can integrate refugees quickly into the jobs market, we’ll not only be helping the refugees, but also helping ourselves as well.”

The Confederation of British Industry and France’s MEDEF have yet to respond. Yet the benefits are clear; the refugees arriving are often young, well-educated, skilled and eager to integrate into society. They are a solution to ageing populations and come ready to work. By collaborating with the public sector, business can help to ensure that they get the training and jobs they need, plus they can also help to shape societal attitudes toward refugees.

This is a defining moment for the EU and its values of regional cooperation and the respect for human rights, which are under threat. It needs to come up with an approach based on collective action and refugee policy to share responsibility within Europe, supporting refugee protection globally. It is important that business protects the distinctive rights of refugees and that it safeguards the 1951 Convention.

What often goes overlooked is the fact that not all of these refugees will remain in Europe. One day, some will return to their homeland and when they do, they will have the skills needed to rebuild their own societies and economies, as well as provide stronger ties to the country where they sought refuge.

The importance of this investment in future state building, as well as business relationships, is vital, because investing in today’s refugees, could make all the difference in building tomorrow’s strong, stable trading partners. 

Last year, Land Rover shared how pioneering technology could be used to develop a ‘transparent’ bonnet, writes Laura Vickery, global CSR manager at the car maker.

A concept car, revealed at the New York International Auto Show, used cameras located in the grille to feed into a display on the bonnet, creating a ‘see-through’ view of the terrain underneath. The development represents safer, smarter driving and is particularly useful for drivers climbing steep inclines, or dealing with the tight confines of urban car parks.

Six months later, the business revealed its ‘360 virtual urban windscreen’ concept, which uses transparent roof pillars to give the driver a clear 360 degree view outside the car, covering blind spot angles and helping make pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles visible around the car.

Faced with these technological innovations, few would question the positive value that improving transparency can bring when applied smartly. So beyond these rather literal examples, how can improved transparency be applied to those of us working to progress the responsible business agenda?

Improved transparency does not necessarily mean more facts and figures; rather, providing more meaningful, timely and relevant information.

In 2013, I helped transform how Jaguar Land Rover measures its impact of CSR projects. Joining forces with the London Benchmarking Group (LBG), we used its measurement framework as a basis for measuring the real value and impact of corporate community investment to both business and society. The methodology also allows us to rate the depth of impact of community activities, from making a connection, a change or a transformation to an individual, and to benchmark ourselves against other companies. It underpins the working of our global CSR programme, through which we aim to help 12m people by 2020.

Businesses are increasingly aligning their CSR and sustainability projects to their core business and purpose. As well as helping accommodate issues of materiality, this can help businesses find niche or unique interventions, where they can excel using the expertise of their people and the products and services of their sector.

Improving transparency can create challenges. Culturally, some organisations find it deeply uncomfortable to share any information that isn’t wholly positive. But improving transparency is a key vehicle to increase trust with ever-more sceptical audiences.
In a world where demand for information is accelerating and customers use social and digital media to share their opinions, there is also likely to be a disconnect between people who demand immediate updates from organisations that are traditionally used to reporting retrospectively at certain times of year.

There are some exciting trends around the corner though, not least the advent of ‘Big Data’, which has the potential to radically disrupt the CSR landscape.

Transparency of ‘data for good’ is vital for any responsible business and it’s what customers and other stakeholders will increasingly expect.

The challenge we face is how we transform traditional corporate reporting and communications to meet the daily needs of empowered consumers in the digital age.

Laura Vickery is global CSR manager at Jaguar Land Rover, writing here in a personal capacity. She will be speaking at the CSR Summit in 2016.