Search

Representatives from the world’s nations will meet in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 12 to craft a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The world is already almost halfway to the 2 degrees Celsius global temperature rise that experts warn we just can’t go beyond, according to data released earlier this month by the U.K.’s Met Office. Before this year’s end, we could make it halfway to the 2-degrees benchmark.

Fortunately, there are ways that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be reduced. Scaling up renewable energy is one key measure, as a recent report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) found. Achieving a 36 percent share of renewable energy by 2030 would provide half of the emissions reductions needed to keep temperature rise to 2 degrees. 

The world’s population is expected to continue growing, and that means electricity demand will also continue to rise. Over the last 40 years, the world’s population grew from 4 billion to 7 billion people, and electricity generation grew by over 250 percent. “This growth will continue,” the report declares. In 2030 there is predicted to be over 8 billion people in the world, with 5 billion living in urban areas. World electricity generation is predicted to increase by 70 percent.

Unfortunately, the average emissions intensity of electricity production has “barely changed” during the last 20 years, the report states. The gains from the increasing deployment of renewable energy and less intensive fossil fuels like natural gas have been offset by the increasing use of coal and less efficient power plants. “Without a substantial increase in the share of renewables in the mix, climate change mitigation will remain elusive,” the report warns.

If we continue with business as usual, we will not keep emissions down to the recommended level. Under current policies and national plans, average carbon emissions will only decrease to 498 grams of carbon per kilowatt-hour of energy (g/kWh) by 2030. And that is not enough to keep carbon levels below 450 parts per million (ppm), the level that climate experts warn we don’t want to exceed. However, doubling the share of renewables would reduce emissions to 349 g/kWh, which is equivalent to a 40 percent intensity reduction compared to 1990 levels.

The good news is that solar photovoltaic (PV) prices have decreased by 80 percent since 2008. They are expected to keep on falling. Solar PV can compete without subsidies. Power from a new 70 megawatt (MW) solar plant being built in Chile is expected to sell on the national spot market and compete directly with fossil fuel-based electricity, the report cites as an example.

The price of onshore wind electricity has also decreased. Since 2009, it has fallen by 18 percent and turbine costs fell almost 30 percent since 2008. That makes onshore wind the “cheapest source of new electricity in a wide and growing range of markets,” the report proclaims. And even better news is that renewable power capacity has increased by 85 percent over the last 10 years. Currently, renewable energy accounts for 30 percent of all installed power capacity.

Business is playing an important role in renewable energy deployment. There are several examples cited by the report, including Ikea’s use of wind and solar energy to meet 37 percent of its energy needs. Google’s investment of over $1.4 billion in wind and solar power is another example. However, more investment needs to occur. The total investment in renewable energy increased from $40 billion in 2004 to $214 billion in 2013 (excluding large hydropower), but it fell short of the $550 billion needed annually until 2030 to double the global share of renewable energy and “avert catastrophic climate change,” the report warns. 

Renewable energy offers a “route” to reducing GHG emissions. Electricity accounts for over 40 percent of man-made carbon emissions. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and bioenergy are 10 to 120 times less carbon intensive than natural gas, considered to be the cleanest fossil fuel, and up to 250 times lower in carbon than coal. The report estimates that doubling the share of renewables, combined with more energy efficiency, can keep atmospheric carbon below 450 ppm.

That is good news indeed and something for the world's representatives to think about as they meet in Paris.

Image credit: Flickr/Martin Abegglen

There will be more hens in the U.S. that can escape being confined in spaces so small they can’t flap their wings. Two companies have recently committed to sourcing cage-free eggs. And as Josh Balk, director of food policy at the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), told TriplePundit: “This is certainly good news.”

One of those companies is the fast food chain Jack in the Box which plans to have its entire egg supply cage-free by 2025, according to its animal welfare report. The company has almost 3,000 restaurants in the U.S. and also owns Qdoba Mexican Eats, which has almost 700 restaurants. 

“In response to evolving research on cage-free housing environments, and to consumers’ changing expectations and preferences, we have informed our egg suppliers of our expectation that they transition the majority of our egg supply to cage-free by 2020, and to fully transition to cage-free eggs by 2025,” the recently released report states. 

“While, of course, five to 10 years is a long time for chickens to remain in cages, this is still great progress,” wrote Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) in a blog post. “And while cage-free, of course, does not  solve all of the animal welfare problems in egg production, Jack in the Box’s announcement represents a major step forward.”

Pacelle noted that 2015 “is the year that the nation decided to shed battery cages in favor of cage-free production.” He cited Taco Bell’s recent announcement that 100 percent of its 6,000 restaurants will use only cage-free eggs by Dec. 16.

General Mills is the second company to commit to sourcing cage-free eggs. In a recently updated animal welfare policy, the company committed to sourcing 100 percent cage-free eggs for all of its U.S. operations by 2025. “Eggs are an important ingredient in many of our products, and we strive to ensure that the hens laying these eggs are treated humanely,” the policy stated. 

General Mills noted in its policy that Häagen-Dazs, its largest international business, already sources only cage-free eggs for all of the ice cream produced in Europe. 

Both commitments “further demonstrate that these systems have no place in our country,” Balk said. He added that the two commitments are “going to affect many egg-laying hens.”

Why are companies embracing animal welfare?

Why are more and more companies creating animal welfare policies? One of the main reasons is because of consumers. A 2010 study by Context Marketing found that 69 percent of those polled said they are “willing to pay more for food produced to higher ethical standards.” Over 90 percent identified three main qualities they associate with ethical standards and one of them was “treats farm animals humanely.”

More recent surveys found similar results. A survey conducted in August 2015 by the Hartman Group found that 44 percent of those polled said they wanted to know more about how food companies treat the animals used in their products. Almost half (47 percent) said they support companies that avoid inhumane treatment of animals, a six-point increase from a similar survey in 2013. Sixty-five percent said they wanted animals raised in as natural an environment as possible.

Here are results from other surveys:

• Almost 95 percent of those polled by American Humane in 2014 said they were “very concerned” about the welfare of farm animals.


• 69 percent of respondents to a 2014 survey by ORC International said they prioritize animal welfare as a significant factor in deciding what foods to buy.


• A survey of West Coast consumers, commissioned by Foster Farms, found that 49 percent “completely agreed” that they are more concerned about animal welfare and how animals are raised for food than they were five years ago. And 74 percent “completely agree” that they would like more large producers to raise animals for food in a humane way.

Back in 2008, California voters passed a ballot proposition commonly known as Prop 2 that required egg producers to house hens in systems that allow them to stand up and fully move their wings. The law went into effect on Jan. 1. Prop 2 “was the first indication from society that consumers think confining animals is cruel,” Balk said. And now across the U.S. “we’re starting to see a rising sentiment against it,” he added.

Consumers are becoming even more informed now. Balk attributes that to two things: media attention and social media. There have been numerous articles about animal welfare in general and the cages that house far too many hens in the U.S. There have also been undercover investigations. Before social media, organizations like HSUS would have to send out videos to news organizations and activists. Now, social media allows people anywhere to post videos from undercover operations and millions can see it. “It was impossible to do that before social media,” Balk said.

Image credit: Flickr/Matt MacGillivray

American heavy equipment giant Caterpillar has launched the pilot-phase of its Technicians for Africa Project, an e-learning website for people who aspire to become a technician in Nigeria, Mozambique and DR Congo.

“This is just one of the ways that we’re looking to boost the skills in the industry as a whole. There is a vital need for skilled labour across these sectors in Africa. We are proud to see the launch of this initiative,” said David Picard, Region Manager responsible for Caterpillar’s distribution in Africa.

The website, which is available in French, Portuguese and English, is leveraging Caterpillar’s existing, state of the art e-learning solutions and makes them available for anyone in the three countries that has the ambition to develop a career as a heavy equipment Technician.Those who register for the curriculum will have the opportunity to upgrade their knowledge and upon successful completion of the curriculum, will earn a certificate of completion.

The e-learning curriculum, which contains 18 modules of easy-to-understand, technical insights about safety and basic fundamental systems like electrical, hydraulics and powertrain, complements the paid-for e-learning platforms that are available to Caterpillar’s dealers and customers.

“Many school leavers are unable to enter the job market because they have been unable to receive enough technical knowledge when they leave school. In schools, the latest technical information isn’t always available,” explained Maurice Manders, Caterpillar’s Learning and Development Manager and also team leader of the e-learning project. “Offering an internet-based basic learning curriculum that is available to schools and students is an efficient solution to this challenge,” he added.

Some of the biggest Russian corporates have introduced an initiative to consolidate the efforts of Russian business to mitigate environmental impacts and help prevent climate change by creating the ‘Climate partnership of Russia’.

UC RUSAL, Sberbank, RusNano, RusHydro and Ingosstrakh have made the move ahead of the COP21 talks in Paris next week.

Their joint statement reads: “We call on all parties of the international negotiation process to execute a legally binding agreement that will allow countries to exercise joint responsibility in addressing climate change.

“In order to ensure that any agreement reached at COP21 is as effective as possible, we believe there is the need for a unified and generalized format of the obligations applicable for all countries; integrated mechanisms ensuring these obligations are delivered, as well as comprehensive monitoring of all countries’ compliance with the commitments undertaken.”

It states that they believe it is crucial to shift the collective focus in business to a low-carbon, green economy, and that they will strive to ensure their products comply with the highest environmental standards.

The statement stresses the importance of ensuring equal competitive conditions at a global level for all the participants of this process, as well as to introduce market based mechanisms encouraging businesses to transition to new production technologies.
 

For everything that San Francisco and Silicon Valley have been known for in the past – hippies, Apple, geeks and counterculture -- today, no industry defines the region more than the gig economy.

It is the Uber and Lyft cars on every block, or the incessant advertising that accompanied Proposition F – the Airbnb proposition -- in San Francisco earlier this month. Each day brings news of a new app raising money to revolutionize – or disrupt – another industry. You can now have someone wait in line for you at a restaurant, come to your home and cook dinner, or, soon, hire a "hunk" to be a stand-in date. Gigs are everywhere.

In many ways, it is the gig economy giants, more than the tech industry in general, that are fueling the city's recent boom. Uber is valued at $41 billion; Airbnb at $24 billion; and Lyft just reported an estimated $1 billion in revenue this year, an amazing nine-fold increase from 2014. Add in Taskrabbit, Postmates, Spoonrocket and the hundreds of others gig economy startups, and you have a tsunami of money flowing into the Bay Area.

Few of these companies existed in 2010, and it is their staff, more than Google, Apple, Genentech or the "old" tech giants, who are responsible for rising rents and crowded trains that are straining the region's infrastructure. The gig economy has transformed the region, but with with the recent shut-down of house-cleaning app Homejoy, there are concerns that the gig economy bubble may be about to pop.

What is the gig economy?

Firstly, what makes a company part of the 'gig economy,' the term de jour which has replaced the inaccurate 'sharing economy' hype of 2013? According to Matt Bencke, CEO of Spare5, a Seattle based on-demand service platform that pays people to provide expert insights in their spare time, this term is also rife with problems.

"I'm skeptical of the term gig economy – somewhat of a misnomer," Bencke told 3p. He believes that the term does not encompass the vast diversity, and differences, between the many apps and platforms transforming how we work. He prefers to call it a 'smart marketplace,' which he believes better represents the ideal of a technology that matches supply and demand in a way that wasn't possible in the past.

No matter what you want to call it (and gig economy is the preferred media term right now), there is no question where the gig capital is. Though many apps, like Spare5, do originate outside the Bay Area, this is where the vast majority of ideas are tested before they are released to the wider world. Thus, it is also right here in the Bay Area that we are seeing the initial impacts. And it is right here where we'll see the most pain if, in fact, we are in a gig economy bubble.

Bubble or no bubble?

For several years now, money has flowed into tech startups, many of which were getting millions to develop, test and roll-out gig apps. But Homejoy's shut down, and the subsequent layoffs at other Bay Area tech companies including HotelTonight and Twitter, gave many pause that, perhaps, this was the sign that the long-awaited readjustment was finally coming.

"I do think there is a shake-up coming – there's going to be more companies who fail in the coming months," Bencke told us.

The problem is that it may, once again, be the gig workers themselves who suffer most. Homejoy's CEO and founders pocketed significant salaries while the app was functioning, and they are likely doing fine. But the cleaners themselves? One day, they had a gig; the next day, they were without work.

"Self-employed 'taskers' do not represent an aspiring army of entrepreneurs, but are in fact the opposite: the most precarious layer of the working class, still forced to sell their labor power – the only commodity they truly own," said Adam Booth, a professor at Cambridge University, in a public forum.

Another major concern is the growth in 'unicorn,' tech companies that have valuations over $1 billion but have, mostly, not been able to prove sustainable revenue or profit sources. Many of these are "gig" companies, and it is likely that many of these companies are overvalued -- leading to concerns that there may be many more Homejoys to come.

Alternatives to the gig economy

Perhaps some bursting of the gig bubble wouldn't be bad. The system in place now is not geared to creating wealth for workers. The current iteration of the gig economy puts the power in the hands of a few, be it Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, worth $6 billion, or the three billionaire cofounders of Airbnb, or the countless mere gig app millionaires. Most of these companies are private and only responsible to their investors, or, in other words, other millionaires and billionaires. What is trickling down is little more than the leftover change, barely allowing most gig workers to make above minimum wage. (for more on this, see this #TechTitans series piece by Nayelli Gonzalez)

That is why, earlier this month, labor, technology and social activists gathered in New York for the Platform Cooperatives conference. The idea? Look at how cooperatively-owned platforms and technology could empower workers by putting them in control.

"Platform cooperativism is a way to put power back in the hands of the workers," Kristy Milland, who does gigs for Amazon Mechanical Turk, said at the conference.

In fact, there are numerous new startup, open-source, and cooperative gig and sharing platforms out there. Laz'ooz aims to be an alternative, decentralized ride-hailing system, while Loconomics is a cooperative version of Taskrabbit. All of these are new, and far from competing with Uber, Lyft or Taskrabbit, but they are providing an alternative that, if done well, could transform the gig economy.

"The shift to platform cooperativism is underway -- a shift toward a true sharing economy, one in which people co-own and co-govern the platforms they contribute to and rely on," Trebor Scholz, associate professor of culture and media studies at The New School, said in a statement.

The Bay Area, as the spot where gigs first took off, would be a great place to test these new technologies and perhaps better include workers' voices inside the technology that is meant to enrich our lives. Perhaps from the rubble of Homejoy, and the other apps doomed to fail, can emerge a better, smarter, more ethical smart marketplace for gigs where workers, not venture capitalists, are in control.

Image credit: why kei and Austin Distel via Unsplash

Benefit corporations are a new kind of business, but they are also the latest development in an 80-year-old debate. One side says that corporations should be managed to benefit their shareholders and no one else. The other says that corporations work best when the interests of shareholders are balanced with those of workers, customers and communities.

Today's corporate directors tend to agree with the "shareholders first" argument. But that wasn't always the case. Fifty years ago, if you had said that the only goal of your corporation was to reward shareholders, people would have called you greedy, a bad citizen.

The debate emerged in 1931, when business lawyers were seriously worried about capitalism. Adolf Berle, an original member of Franklin Roosevelt's "brain trust," wrote in the Harvard Law Review that corporate powers "are necessarily and at all times exercisable for the ratable benefit of all the shareholders." To rule otherwise, he said, would defeat the "object and nature" of a corporation. Government's role was to regulate. Businesses should follow those rules and go no further.

A year later in the same journal, E. Merrick Dodd answered Berle. His article, "For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?," describes a more expansive view. Public opinion ultimately makes law, wrote Dodd, and the public is increasingly seeing the corporation as "an economic institution which has a social service as well as a profit-making function." He cited urgent calls for corporations to provide their workers with economic security, no small matter in 1932.

Dodd cited a 1929 speech by Owen D. Young, who said:

"It makes a great difference in my attitude toward my job as an executive officer of the General Electric Company whether I am a trustee of the institution or an attorney for the investor. If I am a trustee, who are the beneficiaries of the trust? To whom do I owe my obligations?

"My conception of it is this: That there are three groups of people who have an interest in that institution. One is the group of fifty-odd thousand people who have put their capital in the company, namely, its stockholders. Another is a group of well toward one hundred thousand people who are putting their labor and their lives into the business of the company. The third group is of customers and the general public. Customers have a right to demand that a concern so large shall not only do its business honestly and properly, but, further, that it shall meet its public obligations and perform its public duties - in a word, vast as it is, that it should be a good citizen...

"I think what is right in business is influenced very largely by the growing sense of trusteeship which I have described. One no longer feels the obligation to take from labor for the benefit of capital, nor to take from the public for the benefit of both, but rather to administer wisely and fairly in the interest of all."

Dodd and Berle were both elite corporate lawyers, law professors and loyal Roosevelt men. Berle saw a corporation as an aggregation of stockholders. Dodd saw it as a social institution with many stakeholders. He argued that each group had different rights and responsibilities, and the job of managers was to balance those competing interests. Dodd said that it was proper for corporate managers to confer benefits to society. He also predicted that public opinion would soon demand this.

Two decades after Dodd published his article, Berle conceded. Legal decisions between the 1930s and 1954 had supported Dodd's view, he wrote, and "the argument has been settled, at least for the time being."

The idea that corporate directors should have the legal right to protect the interests of stakeholders was not challenged for another 15 years, when Milton Friedman and other economists from University of Chicago came forward with a more radical version of Berle's 1931 argument. The doctrine of "shareholder primacy" quickly went mainstream in 1981, as Ronald Reagan kicked off the Decade of Greed.

Image credit: JSTOR

By Marianne Smallwood

On Thanksgiving Day, more than 9 out of every 10 Americans will be celebrating one of the country’s most treasured holidays. Over 46 million people will travel, eat bountiful meals of turkey and stuffing, watch football, and express thanks for loved ones in their lives. Taking root in a cherished (and historically controversial) time long ago when pilgrims and Native Americans broke bread and feasted together in goodwill, Thanksgiving Day is recognized as a day when Americans come together to share meals and love with family and friends. And the day after, more than 96 million people will go shopping.

Now where did that come from? While Black Friday is generally understood as the time of year when retailers finally go from the red (operating at a loss) into the black (earning a profit), this widely-held theory, is in fact, inaccurate. Black Friday originated in the 1950s in Philadelphia, when suburban shoppers and tourists would flood into the city after Thanksgiving and ahead of the annual Army-Navy Saturday football game. Philadelphia police would have to work overtime, traffic worsened and the increased crowds led to increases in shoplifting. Dubbed as “Black Friday” by local authorities for the stress on their resources, it wasn’t until the late 1980s when local and national retailers began using the day to their advantage, offering annual discounts to lure shoppers to stores and reshaping the narrative that more positively describes Black Friday as the point in which stores turn a profit.

And although presented as an enjoyable rite of passage in which unbeatable deals are offered on must-have items, Black Friday has regularly resulted in crime, injury and death. In 2008, two men were shot at a Toys R’ Us when their female companions began squabbling while shopping. Also in 2008, a Walmart employee was crushed to death when 200 shoppers rushed the entrance doors to reach store deals; a 28-year old pregnant woman and three others were also taken to the hospital. In 2011, a 61-year-old man fell to the floor at a Target in West Virginia; rather than aid the man, shoppers kept walking and even stepped over his body. If shopping at all costs has become a bigger priority than family, friends and helping others, that’s a bigger problem that no amount of thanks and turkey can justify.

Attracted by glossy ads and tweets, I’ve also shopped on Black Friday, and my experience has always been frustrating and disappointing. I found myself buying things I didn’t need or want simply to justify the time I’d wasted driving to stores, hunting for parking and fighting through the crowds. As consumers increasingly turn to online purchasing to avoid said crowds, retailers have made Black Friday deals available online, offering bargains and free shipping all week long. Why fight unnecessarily for parking spaces and $50 off when you could pre-purchase from the comfort of your own home? Why are we compelled to spend a holiday shopping amongst thousands of other people, looking for things we don't need but will buy simply because they're on sale?

Several retailers support prioritizing family over shopping frenzy and are helping to make the decision easier. Barnes & Noble, GameStop, Costco and TJ Maxx are all closed on Thanksgiving Day. Outdoor retailer REI has set an even higher bar by closing its doors on both Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday and giving its 12,000 employees a paid day off to #OptOutside.

Over 1 million people have responded enthusiastically to REI's mandate, sharing photos on social media and describing their plans for spending Black Friday outside and away from any mass consumerism. Building on #OptOutside, state governments in Minnesota, Delaware, Colorado and Oregon have waived all fees for state parks on Black Friday; California and Washington state are also offering free entrance to select national parks. After a day in which the average American will consume 4,500 calories, these states are encouraging their residents to spend time with family and friends by heading outside and hiking off the holiday calories for free.

Being in the great outdoors with loved ones beats fighting in crowds to buy things we don’t need. Forget the malls and crowds -- let’s go outside and celebrate #FreshAirFriday instead.

Image credit: Suzi Pratt/Getty Images for REI

Marianne Smallwood is currently serving as a U.S. diplomat in Thailand. Follow Marianne on Twitter at: twitter.com/marianne_is

By Neill Duffy

The opportunity to attend a recent Barclays debate at the British Library in London entitled “Is CSR Dead” seemed just too good an opportunity to miss, particularly given the esteemed panel members leading the debate -- which including two doyens of the responsible business industry, John Elkington and Mark Kramer.

So along I went, naively expecting to have this evergreen question answered and put to bed once and for all. But truth be told, my hopes were dashed.

If the delegates participating in the debate, either in person or remotely, are a reflection of the industry as a whole, then my main takeaway from the debate is that we are more confused than ever. It seems that we are more hung up on acronyms, definitions and words than on the substance of what it is that we practice and what it is that we are trying to achieve through the work that we do.

Rather than repeat what has already been summarized in numerous post-debate reports that a simple Google search will unveil, I thought I would add to the debate by providing my perspective.

So, is corporate social responsibility (CSR) dead? No, I don’t believe it is. Just as I don’t believe its many cousins, including creating shared value, conscious capitalism, sustainability, social responsibility, citizenship, the triple bottom line, greening, corporate responsibility and sustainable development, are dead. In fact, I believe the family of responsible business practices couldn’t be more alive and is in fact on the brink of gaining a seat in the C Suite to become the new normal.

Like most things in life, there’s the good and the bad. You have good CSR and bad CSR; badly executed shared value and well executed shared value. The same can be said for any derivative of the responsible business movement. For me, what’s more important than what name is used to describe a more responsible approach to business is the intention around why it is embraced and the greater purpose for which the responsible corporation holds itself accountable.

I don’t believe we live in an either/or world, but rather one where the opportunity exists to draw on the best that the various different approaches have to offer. In the process we can build a responsible business model that integrates a higher purpose at its heart and creates value for stakeholders at every interaction -- including the environment -- and makes it possible for the corporation to do good and do well.

And more and more corporations are embracing this opportunity. As Jim Stengel shows in his book "Grow": “Businesses that center their business on improving people’s lives have a growth rate triple that of competitors and outperform the market by a huge margin. They dominate their categories, create new categories and maximize profit in the long term." Stengel uses the word “purpose” to describe this intention, which he calls the “management philosophy of the 21^st century."

This purposeful approach sits at the heart of the organizations I’m privileged to work with. They have each moved beyond doing good or doing well to doing both by embracing the opportunity to adopt an approach to their businesses that improve people’s lives, limits their impact on the environment, embraces the markets, and provides value at the intersection of profit and purpose.

For the Super Bowl 50 Host Committee and the 50 Fund, the occasion of the 50th Super Bowl in February 2016 is being used as an opportunity to deliver a net positive event: one that goes beyond the traditional and uses the mega event as a platform to benefit the entire San Francisco Bay Area -- socially, environmentally and economically. At the same time, the Host Committee is focussed on delivering a great event and providing sponsors with a platform that they can use to engage with their stakeholders, support the on going development of the region and build their businesses. It’s a great example of what’s possible when a major sports organization has the right intentions.

At One World Play Project, a mission to deliver the power of play anywhere and everywhere has already improved the lives of over 45 million people thanks to the donation of over 1.6 million almost indestructible soccer balls that never go flat and don’t need a pump. Partnerships with corporate brands like Chevrolet make it possible for this B Corp to provide people with access to the benefits that play provides while also providing those partner brands with a platform around which they can tell their stories, engage with fans, build their brands and show a commitment to the communities in which they operate.

At Bay.org, the San Francisco Bay Area’s largest local environmental organization, the traditional approach to not-for-profit philanthropy and grants is being turned on its head. The organization has embraced a new conversation with the Bay Area corporates, the toursim sector, local residents, and businesses focused on the health of the Bay and the lifestyle that it supports. In the process, circular value is being built for all stakeholders and the health of San Francisco’s iconic Bay is maintained and improved.

And at in/PACT Sports & Entertainment, we’re partnering with major sponsor brands, sports and entertainment properties to help them activate their purpose. Using the world's first global purpose activation technology platform and products, we’re connecting brands to the fans to enable what we call “fan-empowered giving” and in the process delivering value for our partners, for fans and for the wider community.

So, is CSR dead? No, I don’t think so. Rather, I think it and its cousins are growing up and coming of age. Time to celebrate.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/theirry ehrmann 2) Pixabay

Neill Duffy is a catalyst at the intersection of “profit and purpose” and a committed proponent of doing good and doing well approach to business. He is President of in/PACT Sports an Entertainment, Chief Catalyst at the One World Play Project and Chairman of the San Francisco Bay Area Super Bowl 50 Host Committee.

"Community is the core determinant of future path in life." - Kevin Jordan, SVP, National Programs, LISC (A Keynote Speaker at the Re+Vitalize symposium)

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Re+Vitalize symposium on "place-based initiatives" in Dallas -- an inspired gathering of nonprofits and government folks united in the goal to build stronger, vibrant neighborhoods. The philosophy of the day was logical and simple: When people in a neighborhood have the resources and support to thrive, they will wind up becoming self-sufficient, happy and productive, and the neighborhood itself will go on to thrive further. Ensuring stable and supportive places for people to live is one of the most critical social tenets of triple bottom line principles that builds a foundation for everything else that matters when it comes to sustainability.  More than 200 folks from across North America were inclined to agree as we discussed the concept of the place-based initiative.

What is a PBI?

Simply put, a 'place-based initiative' is a philanthropic program that centers on a specific geographic area with a specific local goal. The goal can range from building homes, to ensuring broadband Internet access, to providing solid educational opportunities to children.  Commonly, a place-based initiative is funded with the help of corporate or government grants, then managed by a nonprofit or a partnership between a corporation, nonprofits and other groups.  A PBI will usually begin with an assessment of community needs undertaken among a variety of stakeholders. For example, one group who presented, called Digital Opportunity for the Rio Grande Valley, is working in colonias -- neighborhoods and towns along the Texas-Mexico border which are mired in poverty and often lack basic infrastructure like sewers, paved roads and, specifically, reliable Internet access. Kids in these neighborhoods often have to head back to their schools at night in order to properly do their homework due to a lack of access at home. The initiative will provide a combination of subsidized Internet access and laptops for kids as a way to bridge the digital divide.

What's in it for a corporation?

The most interesting part of the day, however, was talking to Sanjiv Yajnik, Capital One's president of financial services. Yajnik, born in Calcutta in the era of Mother Teresa, has made place-based philanthropy a personal passion for himself as well as a priority for Capital One. Yajnik told me that while growing up in Calcutta, and subsequently working around the world, he noticed a few things about neighborhoods.  In communities where people were looking out for each other, where real interaction was taking place all the time, a certain vibrancy would be present that allowed that community function and thrive and would make that community a desirable place to be. On the other hand, closed-door communities were not vibrant, not places you'd really want to bring up a family, and the kind of places that might spiral into decline. Vibrant communities produce vibrant businesses and vice versa. Without one or the other, real prosperity can't happen and, therefore, business has two main responsibilities, according to Yajnik: One is to be massively successful in and of itself ... just being successful creates vibrancy. But business also needs to be connected to the community, and sometimes that means lending a helping hand where situations have become so dire that people cannot escape their spiral otherwise. If it's done right, it's not just charity; it's a path to self-sufficiency which can turn a downward spiral into an upward trajectory. So, according to Yajnik, a PBI is a sort of "limited-time strategy" where Capital One might come in as a partner to an area specified by the public sector as having a specific unmet need.  Examples could be anything from education, support for schools and teachers, business plan assistance for entrepreneurs, financial literacy, and the physical revitalization of neighborhood assets. Yajnik sees Capital One’s involvement in individual PBIs as being a three- to four-year commitment of support after which, if all goes well, self-sufficiency results. I asked Yajnik whether or not PBIs and other neighborhood programs should be seen as traditional philanthropy or as an investment of sorts.  After all, at some point more stable neighborhoods mean new customers for the bank. Yajnik was matter of fact about his answer, saying simply:

"A certain amount of philanthropy is required to move a place out of a downward spiral.  That's just the way it is: You give the money; it doesn't come directly back ... ultimately, this is not about getting back a financial return.  I don't have any calculation for anything coming back to Capital One -- at the end of the day, my question is: What is our responsibility as a company?"

And the measurement of success?

With a strict financial measurement out of the way, Yajnik's measure of success becomes more subjective but ultimately more meaningful. It's a very important question without a precise answer. "You can measure some things: Did the graduation rate go up? Did test scores go up? ... But this is complicated, and the answer is ultimately something that comes from the community.  The community will make the decision to say, 'Yes, we're self-sufficient now, and you're no longer required.'" As an illustration, Yajnik is especially proud of Capital One's work in the Gentilly neighborhood in New Orleans, which won the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Corporate Citizenship award in 2014; the company helped provide affordable housing and financial education, as well as economic strength and opportunity for residents. Disclosure: Travel to Dallas was covered by Capital One

By Emma Bailey

Last month, Google announced that it will invest in Africa's largest wind power farm, on the heels of the company's $12 million investment in the largest solar project on the continent. By helping to provide clean power to areas of critical need, the Internet's most popular search engine company not only helps those who need power the most, but also ensures a future supply of potential customers.

The Lake Turkana Wind Power Project will be Google's second African investment. Previously, Google supplied a large investment in the Jasper Power Project, a mega-solar farm that now provides energy for several cities in South Africa. The Lake Turkana Project will supply power for up to 80,000 homes with 310 megawatts of energy for users in Kenya. Not only will the project provide clean and environmentally-responsible energy, but it will also increase access to electricity for thousands of Kenyans who are currently without power.

Sustainable wind energy is a goal for many who want to expand clean power sources. Wind energy has proven to be more cost-effective and cleaner than coal energy. In fact, according to ATCO, coal emitted about 1,500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States in 2014 alone -- about 76 percent of the total emissions from electricity generation. With no air emissions, no need to mine, no water pollution and no waste, wind energy is one of the cleanest sources of energy available. The average wind turbine provides power for up to 328 homes per year -- the same homes would require tens of thousands of pounds of coal each.

By investing in clean wind energy, Google is helping Kenya reach its goal of increasing its grid capacity by 5 gigawatts in the next decade. This expansion not only provides support for a growing economy, but also brings the country closer to universal energy access. The Lake Turkana Project is an important part of the country reaching its energy goals, and Google's investment is critical in making the dream of having clean, reliable power a reality.

While some experts are puzzled by Google's commitment to Kenya's goal of energy independence, a quick review of the company's history makes it clear that Google has a strong interest in investing in clean power. To date, the company has invested in a total of 22 renewable energy projects worldwide, most of which are in areas of sparse coverage. There is another motive for Google besides the obvious philanthropic interest: Energy plants in areas that lack coverage have proven to be good financial investments.

However, Google has yet another reason for investing in the Kenyan project: Africa and other developing areas of the world represent some of the largest opportunities for future Internet users. As Google continues to expand its influence in the area of Internet usage, it make sense for the company to expand its investments in projects that will supply the power to bring these users online. As Google works to build new clean power plants and farms, including solar and wind projects, the company ensures that abundant energy will always be available in areas in which it wants to expand Internet usage.

The Lake Turkana Wind Power Project is just one of many that Google is or will be involved in funding in order to bring clean power to the undeveloped areas of the world. By investing in sustainable, renewable energy sources, Google fulfills three important goals: providing expanded power access to all people, ensuring that power is available for Internet use expansion, and benefiting the planet by fulfilling intelligent energy goals.

Image credit: Flickr/Lollie-Pop

Emma Bailey is a freelance writer and blogger from the Midwest. After going to college in Florida she relocated to Chicago, where she now lives with a roommate and two rabbits. She primarily covers entertainment topics and issues pertaining to the environment. Find her on Twitter @Emma_Bailey90