Search

By Geoff Ledford

The human body is an amazing machine, made up of individual muscles and organs that work together to support life. Consider this for a moment: While most machines simply wear out with use, our bodies actually get stronger the more we use them.

At thinkPARALLAX, we believe that corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication is a similarly remarkable entity. An effectively-communicated CSR story can produce tremendous benefits for an organization – from engaged stakeholders to a growing bottom line. Disney cartoon villains excepted, corporate responsibility provides a cause that most people can rally around. And, like a human body, the overall health of an organization’s CSR communication also depends on many parts working in unison.

However, in our experience we’ve seen firsthand what can happen when the essential “organs” of CSR communication strategy fail to come together. Potentially transformative CSR initiatives get buried in the pages of dense, technical reports, robbed of their power simply because they were not communicated properly.

To help organizations avoid such unwitting pitfalls, thinkPARALLAX has released our newest issue of Perspectives, The Anatomy of Healthy CSR Reporting. The piece discusses the following five components of healthy CSR communication that are sometimes overlooked.

1. Tailor your message to your audience

Effective communication requires an organization to leverage the full range of tools and communication channels available. That means social media, video, infographics, customer-facing communications, internal campaigns, special events, speaking engagements, paid media, and so on. Don’t be afraid to think beyond the report!

2. Infuse hard data with human connection

The best sustainability communications balance facts with an emotional appeal that makes them relevant. GHG emissions, product life cycle analysis, and supply chain impacts are weighty, technical issues that, on their own, may alienate certain audience segments. Numbers and hard data become more meaningful when they are woven into a narrative.

3. Back up your claims with verified and relevant data

While emotional appeal plays a crucial role in effective sustainability communication, it can be a slippery slope. It’s well and good to have a picture of your CEO shaking hands and kissing babies, but you’d better have good solid data to back up such images and make them relevant.

4. Talk with your audience – not at them

If you’ve ever watched a good stand up comedian interact with an audience, you’ve already experienced how effective audience engagement can be. Audiences love to be asked participate – especially when the subject in question is something that they care about. Give your audiences a place to tell you what they think, feel, and value, and your audiences will engage with your CSR communications openly and enthusiastically.

5. Have the guts to tell the whole story

Sustainability is hard. We don’t have all the answers. In the face of the environmental challenges facing our planet, that’s a difficult reality. But that doesn’t make it any less true. Unfortunately, many corporations view sustainability reporting as a story that can only be told using sunshine, smiley faces, and rainbows. While this might seem like the “safe” strategy, such an approach is inherently short-sighted. Brands that really want to make inroads with their audiences must be comfortable addressing issues that don’t have an immediate solution.

The full issue of Perspectives examines each of these parts in more detail, provides more examples of each strategy at work, and offers tips for maximizing the effectiveness of CSR communication. To read more, download the full version of The Anatomy of Healthy CSR Reporting. 

Geoff Ledford is a Creative Strategist at thinkPARALLAX – a strategic creative communications agency with a passion for building brands with purpose. We work at the intersection of business strategy, sustainability, and communication. Our values stem from the belief that profit and sustainability are not mutually exclusive – good business means doing the right thing. We cultivate knowledge, spread awareness, and create purposeful connections with audiences.

Apple, Diageo, Sainsbury's, Roche Holding and Google are among CDP's ranking of corporate 'A listers' for their actions to mitigate climate change. 

The international not-for-profit CDP holds the most comprehensive set of global corporate environmental data and has just issued its annual Climate Change Report on behalf of 822 investors representing US$95 trillion.

The new publication includes the 2015 Climate A List, which comprises those companies identified as A grade for their actions to mitigate climate change. Nearly 2,000 companies submitted information to be independently assessed against CDP’s scoring methodology; 113 have made the list, which features brands from around the world such as, Apple, Microsoft and Google, the three largest by market capitalization.

CDP’s executive chairman and co-founder Paul Dickinson says: “The influence of the corporation is mighty. The momentum of business action on climate change suggests we have reached a tipping point, where companies are poised to achieve their full potential. They need ambitious policy at both a national and international level that will support them in this regard and will catalyze participation from industry at scale.”

Access the report here. 

 

Picture credit: www.dreamstime.com

 

With only 58 days to go before entries open for next year’s National CSR Awards (NCSRA), its organisers have announced new and expanded categories.

With the introduction of three international awards - Best International Sustainable Community Project, Best International Conservation Project and Global Sustainable Transport – all 24 award categories* look to address the key business issues that are essential to creating a more sustainable future.

Karen Sutton, chief executive, NCSRA, explained the rationale behind the revamp of the award categories: “We wanted to ensure that the awards are an accurate reflection of where business is making progress in all aspects of CSR and sustainability and the revised categories do just that.

"For example, we’ve changed 2015’s Carbon Offsetting to Carbon Neutral because the days when social responsibility could be treated as an add-on to business-as-usual are gone. Companies cannot simply give money to compensate for unsustainable practice.”

Companies of all sizes are urged to enter. “Whether you have 10 employees or 10,000, the awards are looking to reward and recognize business excellence and innovation in CSR and sustainability. All entries have an equal chance of winning,” added Sutton.

Entries open on 4 January 2016 but early registration of interest is encouraged.

To register your interest and to learn more about the Awards, click here. 

 

*The 24 categories for 2016 are:
Overall Excellence in Social Responsibility
Best Newcomer to CSR
Best Community Project 
Best Community Development 
Best Partnership in the Community
Best International Sustainable Community Project
Best International Conservation Project
Best Educational Project (multiple awards for Equality, STEM and Apprenticeships)
Innovation for Workplace Practices
100% Green – Carbon Neutral 
Clean Energy Project
Community Energy Project
Built Environment (multiple awards for domestic and commercial)
Green Supply Chain (multiple awards for large and SME)
Nutritional & Health Awareness Initiative
Outstanding Individual Corporate Leadership
Outstanding Individual Community Hero (Nomination award – FREE)
Construction Waste Neutral
Best SME – Charity Support (under 50 staff)
Global Sustainable Transport

 

“Growing congestion due to a booming economy.”

“An influx of new people into already crowded cities.”

“Rising real estate prices.”

Sounds like the San Francisco Bay Area today, no? But actually, these are clips from newspapers stories in the 1950s, when San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose saw rapid population growth due to soldiers returning from World War II and the first phase of the baby boom.

That is when the region embarked on a plan to build what was then the largest public works project in American history -- the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, now known as BART -- which opened in 1972 and is, today, a vital pipeline for the region, carrying more than 400,000 people each workday.

Today, the Bay Area is in the midst of another boom, due to the region's lucrative tech sector. The region's population has grown by 200,000 since 2010, and another 2 million are expected by 2040, while our regional transport system – highways, buses, BART and Caltrain – are already reaching peak capacity. Yet, there is little momentum for the type of massive, public works project we saw in the '50s and '60s.

Here's how we got into this mess.

Missing links

The Bay Area was initially not a single metropolitan area, but three. San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose all grew with very different political, urban and, ultimately, transport structures. Then came the suburbs.

“As suburban populations centers got more power ... they wanted to get away from [big urban areas], and so they created their own cities and transit agencies,” Rod Diridon Sr., with the Mineta Transportation Institute, told TriplePundit.

With the sprawl that came with the post-World War II population boom, these suburbs sprung up and filled in the gaps between – and spread beyond -- the three initial populations centers. Highways became a fixture in the region, and, besides BART and, to some extent, Caltrain, transit was left to the individual cities and counties that were reluctant to cede control to a regional authority.

That means, today, there are an astounding 27 different transit agencies operating across the nine counties that make up the Bay Area -- which, according to Gerry Tierney, an urban mobility expert at Perkins + Will’s San Francisco office, is one of the chief reasons we lack a comprehensive regional transportation system today.

“When you have 27 separate transit agencies, it is impossible to get coherent transportation planning that will operate on a complete Bay Area basis,” Tierney told Triple Pundit.

“We have a 19th-century political structure trying to address 21st-century problems.”

In the early 1990s, 32 regional business leaders, community activists and academics came together to push to address the region's lack of integration as part of the Bay Vision 2020.

The commission's final report, which quoted then University of California-Berkeley chairman Ira Michael Heyman, sounds incredibly prescient and is apt to the challenges facing the region today.

“As with most people in the region, we cherish the Bay Area and seek to assure its beauty, livability, economic strength, and the opportunities it affords those who live here. We have concluded, however, that these qualities are in jeopardy because we have no effective means for addressing the problems that cross city and county boundaries. Only by some changes in the structure of government in the region can we tackle increasing traffic congestion, long commutes between home and job, shortages of affordable housing, loss of valued open space to urban sprawl, predictable air pollution, and deterioration of our economic base."

The report set out an initial plan to merge the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Air Quality Management District in order to integrate planning and decisions for land-use, transportation and air quality. This would then lead to greater integration of the region's myriad transit agencies. It went to the state legislature, where it passed the House but, after intense lobbying by agencies and certain Bay Area cities, it was defeated in the Senate.

“My guess, it would put them out of business,” said Diridon, speaking of the opposition to what seems to be a common sense plan. “Instead of having three different very powerful boards, three different executive staffs, and so on and so on, you'd have one.”

“That would [have been] the first step in beginning to merge the transit agencies.”

Had the bill passed, it could have allowed a powerful regional agency to plan for the challenges now facing the region. Moreover, it could have avoided absurd situations like the one now facing Caltrain. The commuter rail between San Francisco and San Mateo and Santa Clara counties is facing a steep budget shortfall: Three of the agencies that fund it – San Mateo County's SamTrans, Santa Clara County's VTA and San Francisco's MTA -- are planning to cut subsidies, despite the fact that Caltrain is not only the region's most efficient system, but has also seen higher ridership growth than services run by the three agencies.

New, informal transit

There is another side-effect of the region's transit shortcomings: Entities setting up their own as informal systems. The most well-known of these are the controversial tech shuttles.

Before the shuttles emerged, driving was the optimal choice for those commuting to Genentech, Google and Facebook's campuses, which are far from mass transit; hours on public transit was deemed unfeasible. Many commuters don't stick to a single transit agency area, but travel across the region and across multiple jurisdictions that, to this day, don't connect, coordinate or have a combined fare structure. Shuttles were created to fill in a missing gap, and are used not only by tech companies, but aso by UC-San Francisco, Mission Bay, and even cities like Emeryville and San Leandro.

“It is estimated that up to 45 percent of non-automobile users in the peninsula are on private shuttles,” Tierney said. For Tierney, shuttles are an integral part of the region's transport picture, and are likely here to stay, but they need to work together with existing, public and private transportation infrastructure.

This shows that companies are aware of the transit challenges in the Bay Area, and it is an opportunity. Remember that crisis in the 1950s? Then, it was Bay Area business leaders who pushed for transit measures that led to BART. This time, as the region faces another challenge, it is yet to be seen if the new business tech bigwigs are willing to push for the comprehensive, regional, integrated transit system we so desperately need.

Next we'll look at initiatives and solutions to the regional transportation challenge, and what role tech companies can play in helping build coalitions for change that not only benefits them, but Silicon Valley and the Bay Area as a whole.

Image Credit: Eric Fischer via Flick

Talk to any restaurant owner, and you will likely find that food waste is one of the top concerns when it comes to revenue loss.   A 2013 study conducted by Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), on behalf of the Food Waste Reduction Alliance, indicated that more than 84 percent of the food waste generated by surveyed U.S. restaurants ended up in the landfill.  Only 1.4 percent was donated, while 14.3 percent was recycled, and most of that was reclaimed as cooking oil.

On average, say the authors, that translates to 15.7 percent food loss across the industry, or 3.3 pounds of food waste per $1,000 of company revenue. As the survey points out, that's a significant loss for both large and small companies in the restaurant sector. For a corporation with a billion-dollar revenue, it works out to more than 3 million pounds of consumables that are paid for, but not used.

The survey also uncovered some interesting statistics regarding the barriers that restaurants commonly face when it comes to donating or composting leftover food.  Most of the conventional restaurants and quick-stop eateries organization surveyed said transportation constraints, limits in storage capacity and insufficient on-site refrigeration were the greatest impediments to donating extra food to charities. Barriers to recycling/composting food waste included "insufficient recycling options," management or building limitations, and transportation challenges as major reasons why recyclable food usually ended up in the landfill.

Addressing the national food waste challenge

Fortunately, cities like San Francisco and Seattle are working to address those challenges by ensuring that recycling and composting options are available and used by businesses as well as private residents. But as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have discovered in recent years, many companies lack the knowledge and familiarity with processes that allow them to divert their food waste to secondary uses.

In 2013, the two agencies took up this issue and launched the U.S. Food Waste Challenge in an effort to educate and incentivize small businesses in food waste reduction procedures. The agencies found that, just like private homeowners, businesses benefited substantially from tools that allowed them to track their food use and the waste they generated.

The EPA also found that small restaurants (in the BSR survey, these were identified as those businesses with 10 or fewer outlets), were able to overcome their obstacle to composting when they joined together to take advantage of commercial composting services.

"Sometimes a single restaurant will not generate enough for the [compost] haulers to come or to outweigh the cost of getting the contract.  When small restaurants join up under one contract, it makes it more economical and easier for them to gain access to compost options," said the EPA.  Joining together as a neighborhood effort also means there are less trucks on the road and less emissions associated with the supply of services.

Of course, not all of the waste occurs at the preparation stage. A substantial amount of purchased, uneaten food is left on the table in U.S. restaurants, often due to abundantly large servings that are abandoned, rather than packaged up in "doggie bags."

"Customer engagement and interest is another key element for wasted food reduction in restaurants. Customer support of repurposing foods like leftover prime rib from Monday being used in Tuesday’s pot roast," says the EPA, helps ensure that uneaten food isn't destined for the landfill.

In the kitchen, coming up with innovative ways of repurposing chicken, beef, vegetables or other foods that weren't used the day before can reduce food spoilage at the preparation stage. Smarter, leaner approaches to menus help trim revenue loss as well. "[The] support of less choices on the menu to ensure that 4 pounds of lamb are not thrown away for the 1 pound that is sold allows the restaurant owners to make these choices without fear of losing their customers or money."

Through the Food Waste Challenge, restaurants also have access to a number of innovative software tools that help them fine-tune their purchasing and usage of the products they buy.

"Just-in-time software provides real time operational planning tools for managing large networks.  This includes scheduling and rescheduling of deliveries, lean manufacturing planning, and solutions for a mobile workforce that can quickly respond to customer needs," says the EPA. The software also "allows our participants to inventory and learn what their actual food use is, then allow[s] them to plan and execute the purchase of only what is needed, which helps them to reduce their wasted food."

Donating leftover food: The Bill Emerson Act

Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, said that restaurant owners are often afraid to donate food to charity organizations. "There is a perception of liability," he said, that often makes businesses reticent to give away unused, day-old food. However the Federal Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act, signed into law by the Bill Clinton administration in 1996, serves to indemnify businesses that are willing to donate to charities. Additional state laws provide their own support for similar charitable efforts.

The U.S. Food Waste Challenge program also teaches restaurants and other businesses that sell-by dates on cans and other products are only meant as a guide to help purchasers know when a product is considered freshest. But a recently passed sell-by date "doesn't mean mean it's bad," said Stanislaus, and doesn't mean it can't be donated if it isn't going to be used.

The type of wrapping that is used on take-out products also helps ensure a longer shelf life. "Efficient packaging and storage can increase the life of food products. Meat that is vacuum-sealed will remain fresh three to four days longer than meat that is wrapped in plastic," said the EPA.

Composting and recycling everything else

San Francisco's Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance of 2009 ensures that all private and commercial residents recycle and compost their reclamable materials, including food scraps. Other cities have since followed this example, with mandatory or recommended policies on composting and recycling that vary according to each municipality. The EPA and USDA Food Waste Challenge also works with restaurants to increase their access to composting and recycling options for those foods that can't be reused or given away.

Lastly, certification programs like those provide by the privately-run Green Restaurant Association help incentivize both restaurants and their patrons to think about the ways that they can ensure the food they purchase isn't wasted. The association's standards cover more than waste reduction, with a holistic approach to sustainable, affordable business operations.

"Leftover food is no longer seen as waste or something that people should push to the back of their refrigerator," the EPA pointed out. New strategies, innovative apps for our mobile phones, and thoughtful programs that help ensure restaurants and consumers get the most out of the food they buy translate not only to savings in what gets put into the fridge, but also what gets subtracted from the revenue at the end of the day.

Image credits: 1) Patrick Feller; 2) Business for Social Responsibility; 3) Environmental Protection Agency

Last month, the USDA announced a goal of cutting food waste in half by 2030, and every day more people are waking up to the reality that food waste is an urgent problem.  Establishing a target and setting food efficiency as a priority is a step in the right direction and a move that has the potential to have a big impact on public health, the environment and the economy.  But how are we going to get there?  

Food Shift, an organization based in Oakland, California, is dedicated to this issue and has compelling insights into both what needs to happen on the ground with the launch of the Alameda Kitchen and what needs to happen to shift the system in a more sustainable direction.

One thing is for sure: We can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results.  Despite over 50,000 organizations across the country that recover and redistribute surplus food to feed the hungry, 40 percent of food in the U.S. is still getting wasted and 49 million Americans still lack access to healthful food.  As deeply as I feel connected to the hard work, big hearts and best intentions within the traditional models of food recovery and food assistance -- they aren’t solving the problems.  

Inspired by the nationally acclaimed nonprofit social enterprise, D.C. Central Kitchen, Food Shift is launching the Alameda Kitchen to transform fruits and vegetables that would otherwise be wasted into nutritious, affordable food products and meals for low-income populations.  In the process we’ll provide job training for the formerly homeless.

Here’s what Food Shift is doing differently and why it’s important in the effort to reduce wasted food and hunger.

Make it financially sustainable

Despite the value of their services, most food rescue and food assistance groups have limited resources, inhibiting their ability to hire staff, build capacity, and acquire necessary infrastructure to meet demand, expand their programs, improve efficiency, or innovate to meet current community needs.

As an alternative to the traditional charity model, Food Shift’s Alameda Kitchen will produce and sell food products to support the ongoing operations and growth of the program. It’s critical that both food recovery and food assistance groups expand the metrics by which they are calculating their impact to include not just the social but the environmental and economic benefit of their services in order to attract the resources they deserve to sustain their work.

While Alameda Kitchen demonstrates one approach, there are many more ways food recovery and food assistance could innovate in this realm.

Move beyond charity to provide jobs

We know that food alone will not solve hunger. A free meal is only a temporary fix to a complex problem rooted in unemployment and structural inequality. For the Alameda Kitchen, Food Shift is partnering with Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), a supportive housing community for individuals previously without a home and where 85 to 90 percent of residents are unemployed.  Community members will be hired as kitchen and processing staff. The revenue generated from the products we create will help us pay fair wages and allow us to expand our program to reduce waste and increase access to affordable healthy food.  

Be a catalyst for nutrition and good health

All too often food assistance centers are overwhelmed with donations of unhealthy, processed foods, like day-old cakes and sweets.  When we fail to provide healthful food for already vulnerable populations, we are simply adding fuel to fire and contributing to health issues like obesity and heart disease. Everyone deserves the option of nutritious food — and food recovery efforts should be no exception.  

The Alameda Kitchen will source locally and prioritize nutrition and improving the health of the community as a core value of our program. We are excited about the potential of creating products for local schools, senior centers, and for Hope Collaborative’s healthy corner store initiative.  By rescuing surplus food and bringing it into the kitchen we can transform slightly bruised apples into applesauce for seniors, overripe bananas into muffins for school children, or misshapen veggies into an affordable Food Shift soup!

Replicate what’s working

D.C. Central Kitchen hires unemployed individuals to process surplus produce into meals for homeless shelters, schools and other vulnerable populations, as well as operates a revenue-generating catering program.  

Last year, D.C. Central Kitchen recovered over 800,000 pounds of food, distributed 1.7 million meals, trained 85 students who had a 90-percent job placement rate, generated over $6 million in revenue through their catering program, and employed 150 staff.  

This model has been replicated over 60 times, and we need to continue replicating evidence-based solutions that shift the system and provide long-term results.

The Alameda Kitchen is a realistic strategy that embraces the potential of food to be used as a tool to empower people and strengthen communities. This is a way that we can do more than just feeding people through a soup kitchen by also “feeding” them through skill building, employment and opportunity. Rather than spending more resources on waste disposal or expanding our food banks, we need to explore, invest in and replicate innovative models that are creating opportunity and developing more healthy communities.

Food Shift recently launched a crowdfunding campaign with the goal of raising $30,000 to start the Alameda Kitchen -- with two weeks left to go, we’re $6,000 shy of our target.  The funds raised will help to pay fair wages to APC resident workers and increase access to healthy affordable food in the surrounding community. Those who contribute to the campaign can take advantage of several perks, such as a week’s worth of produce from Imperfect, an Oakland-based CSA that provides “imperfect” produce, a cheese making class from FARMcurious, a tour of Back to the Roots, or a ticket to the Alameda Kitchen launch party!  

Watch Food Shift's Alameda Kitchen video here:

https://youtu.be/_ArUrPWpMt4

Image credits: Food Shift

Dana Frasz is a sustainable food systems entrepreneur and advocate.  She is the founder and director of Oakland, Calif.-based organization Food Shift.  Food Shift is a key educator, innovator, and leader within the movement toward a more sustainable use of food and recently released a report highlighting challenges and opportunities within the food recovery space. Learn more at www.foodshift.net, on facebook, or on twitter.

Learn more about Dana here or connect with her at dana@foodshift.net or on twitter.

By Greg Doyle

“Do you know what you want to do with your life?”

Millennial after millennial is asked this question. Repeatedly. The answers vary. Some disregard the question. Others choose to use it as an opportunity to reflect on their passions, goals and aspirations.

If you are reading this, there is a good chance you identify with the latter. These passions, goals and aspirations may be connected to your desire to make a positive impact on the world. Or maybe not. But to those who can relate, I hope to provide some help, advice and context in dealing with this ever-present, and at times annoying, question.

As a recent graduate, I know this question all too well. I enrolled in college as a business major. However, as I began completing the required courses in accounting, finance and marketing, I soon felt unfulfilled. After this realization, I embarked on a quest to combine my interest in business with my passion for helping others.

Here are five things that I learned along the way, which may or may not help you in your own personal journey:

1. Find mentors

Spend some time finding mentors who you feel you can relate to. Target those who you feel have an interesting job or work at an exciting company. Throughout college I would research corporate social responsibility (CSR) leaders at brands I connected with and reached out to them via LinkedIn asking for 15 to 20 minutes of their time. I used these opportunities to learn more about their career path. Each conversation I had helped me clarify my vision for my future professional life.

2. Don't compare yourself to others

While in business school, I often found it hard not to compare myself to others. Most of my classmates were interested in working at big companies, such as General Electric and Aetna, upon graduation. It was common for business students to accept full-time job offers at the end of their junior year.

When I was asked about “my plan,” I often felt inferior because I wasn’t doing similar things. However, eventually people began to respect and support my unique interests and passions. I soon learned the importance of connecting with other business students who were feeling the same way. This allowed me to stay motivated toward my goals, aspirations and vision for my post-grad professional life.

3. Learn as much as possible

In addition to networking, I soon learned the value in new experiences. By exploring opportunities for professional growth, such as internships, conferences and student organizations, I met others who shared similar interests, built a strong resume and, most importantly, further refined my interest in social impact. But learning can be as easy as picking up a book (or reading articles on TriplePundit). Ask your mentors (see No. 1) for suggestions.

4. Recognize "no" as an acceptable answer

It is OKAY to say “no” when asked, “Do you know what you want to do you’re your life?” Industry professionals often ask this, in some variation, when they meet students in interviews, at networking sessions, etc. Instead of saying “yes” and explaining your interest, try saying: “I’m not sure. It is hard for me to say because I have yet to be exposed to all the different opportunities that are out there.”

I used this response constantly throughout my four years in college. Instilling this perspective will allow you to get in the habit of viewing your career interests as an evolutionary process. I still don’t know what I want to do with my life. But as soon as I started to view professional development as a constant process, the pressure to come up with “a plan” quickly faded away.

5. Be honest with yourself

Stay committed with your interests. Define your set of values. This will allow you to remain committed to making a difference in the world.

Image Credit: Flickr/Moyan Brenn

Greg Doyle is a Business Development Associate at Good Sports, a nonprofit that helps to lay the foundation for healthy, active lifestyles by providing athletic equipment, footwear, and apparel to disadvantaged young people nationwide. He can be reached at gregory.doyle@uconn.edu. 

By Blair Libby

In the neighborhoods surrounding colleges and universities, a growing number of houses are dedicating themselves to environmentally-conscious and sustainable living. At CITRUS (Community Initiative To Restore Urban Sustainability) House, students from Santa Clara University are practicing a cooperative and eco-friendly lifestyle.

CITRUS House began in 2005, when “House Mama” Lauren McCutcheon (class of ‘03) and her roommates decided to create a community hub for sustainable living. Under the mantra of “think globally, act locally," CITRUS residents began to invite neighbors and students to documentary showings, potluck dinners, gardening parties and, on occasion, spontaneous jam sessions. The founders’ vision was to go outside of the college cocoon and seek human engagement -- the most powerful element of a low-impact, community-building lifestyle. Sharing, contributing and celebrating are the key aspects of life at CITRUS.

In the spirit of collaboration, CITRUS has most recently worked with SCU’s Food and Agribusiness Institute to host workshops on sustainability in the kitchen, as well as organic gardening and composting. The home is also a frequent host for LOCALS (Living Off Campus and Living Sustainability) and BLEJIT (Bronco Leaders for Environmental Justice Investigating Truth). Situated in an urban area, CITRUS helps demonstrate to students that no matter where you end up, it’s possible to live with reverence for the planet by living intentionally and respectfully. Some of that urban sustainability is realized in the San Jose Bike Party. Every third Friday, a group of nearly 30 students meet at CITRUS to bike to downtown San Jose, California, where they join up with the thousands of other community cyclists taking part in the ride.

In addition to growing backyard tomatoes, leafy greens, peppers, herbs and fruit trees, living in CITRUS means making a commitment to cultivate sustainable eating habits. The kitchen is stocked first from the garden, then from the local farmer’s market to buy what’s in season. When residents include animal-derived foods, they try to obtain them from farmers and ranchers who are certified humane, organic and the like. Therefore, practicing vegetarianism or veganism becomes habitual for most tenants. “Eating and shopping at farmers’ markets changed my diet dramatically," said current resident Jordan Webster (class of ‘16). "I went from eating meat daily to a mostly vegetarian diet.” And all those red plastic cups? They’re washed and reused too.

Besides food, taking shorter showers, air-drying clothes, and using green cleaning products or natural alternatives are crucial to a sustainable community. As students come and go every four years, they leave behind furniture, dishes and other household tools, some of which can be inherited and shared between generations of residents. Whatever is discarded is picked up and offered to incoming students and neighbors around Santa Clara.

CITRUS’ vision is that it continues to be a "training ground" for sustainable living in the urban environment. The students who live and visit there have an opportunity to educate, share, and experience a culture that’s often missing from college students’ lives. In inspiring others, CITRUS acts as a seed for lifestyles that tread more lightly on a beautiful planet.

Image credit: Santa Clara University 

Blair Libby is a senior at Santa Clara University, studying Environmental Science and living in CITRUS House.

Travel companies with a good environmental record are increasingly gaining a commercial advantage, finds new research from ABTA, the Association of British Travel Agents. 

The survey reveals a steady increase in the number of people prepared to pay more for a holiday with a company based on a better environmental and social record. A quarter of people (25%) said they would be prepared to do so, up from one in five (19%) in 2011, after having dropped to only 14% in 2012.

There is growing sentiment amongst consumers too that it is the travel company's responsibility to be environmentally responsible. Over four in ten consumers (45%) agree with this, up from a third (31%) in 2011. Only one in ten (13%) think this is not the case. The majority of consumers (62%), also believe that travel companies should ensure that their holidays help the environment, with only 5% disagreeing.

The demographic of 25-34 year olds are the most likely age group (37%) to choose one company over another based on their environmental record. They are also the most likely (34%) to be prepared to pay more for a holiday with a company based on a better environmental and social record. Those with a young family are also the most likely (37%) to be willing to pay more for a holiday with a company based on a better environmental and social record.

Nikki White, ABTA Head of Destinations and Sustainability said: “This new ABTA research shows that there is a growing appetite for holidays that are provided responsibly. The fact that younger consumers, aged 25-34, are the most likely to value companies with a good environmental record suggests that we will see demand for environmental credentials further increase in the future.

"The public are also very clear in their views that they see it as the industry’s job to take responsibility for this and that there should also be certification systems in place such as ABTA’s Travelife scheme to ensure that they can quickly and easily identify companies that are taking greater steps in sustainability.” 

 

Picture credit: © Monticelllo | Dreamstime.com

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is steadily moving from a "nice-to-have" to a business imperative. U.S. and U.K. companies in the Fortune Global 500 now spend $15.2 billion a year on CSR initiatives. And as investors continue their calls for non-financial disclosures and consumers ask for more information about the products they buy, CSR is only gaining in importance.

But there's another crucial figure that sheds light on how companies are approaching CSR: In the U.S., in-kind donations, such as giving away free products to nonprofits, accounted for 71 percent of companies' CSR spending, reports the Financial Times. Cash donations tack on another 16 percent, with employee giving and volunteering making up the remaining 13 percent.

Notice a pattern here? Giving away cash or material goods like food, blankets, education software or prescription drugs is surely admirable. But many companies assume that simply by engaging in philanthropic efforts, they've met their social responsibility. They can make charts for their CSR reports; their executives can show up to shareholder meetings with some great stats; and they can communicate their shining 'success stories' to consumers via social media. But there's another vital component of CSR that's sometimes missing in this approach -- community engagement.

Yes, even companies that cut greenhouse gas emissions and water, give away cash, and generally consider themselves to be good corporate citizens often ignore community engagement in their CSR practices.

The San Francisco Bay Area, which has ballooned in both wealth and population since the influx of large tech companies, is a microcosm of the effects this missing link can have on communities around the world.

CSR in the Bay Area

The large tech companies that call the Bay Area home (think: Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter) are generally ahead of the pack when it comes to innovation. This often includes CSR, with Google stirring up air-pollution management and constructing the largest solar power plant in Africa, and Apple jumping aboard climate pledges and making big commitments on sustainable forestry.

Along with innovation on the technology front, these firms take a new -- and decidedly modern -- approach to corporate culture. It makes sense really: These companies are competing for the best and brightest talent, so they want to encourage employees to pick their firm and stick with it. So, rather than a boring row of cubicles and a yearly holiday party, large tech firms construct sprawling office parks and craft cultures more akin to college campuses than a scene from "Office Space."

This is all well and good (after all, who wouldn't want to work in an office with a gym, 24-hour cafes, laundromats and game rooms?). But on their quest to create a team mentality that rivals the parking lot before the big game, some large tech firms have isolated their employees from the already-established communities around them. This only underscores these companies' focus on macro issues like climate change and deforestation in their CSR -- and their perceived neglect of community engagement.

As companies continue to pressure Bay Area communities to build new office parks, they often fail to lobby for housing and transportation options to go along with it, placing a strain on local infrastructure. Additionally, more highly-paid residents means more shops, restaurants and trendy coffee bars — all staffed by employees who are quickly being priced out of the area. This perfect storm creates a heap of problems for Bay Area residents -- as well as significant opportunities for government and the private sector to collaborate on solutions.

Housing in a zoning-constrained region

On average, rent prices in the Bay Area have increased by 15 percent since 2014, while salaries have risen by just 2 percent. In neighborhoods like Berkeley, Oakland and Emeryville, traditionally home to middle- and lower-income residents, rent has climbed by an average of 26 percent in the past year alone.

In short, residents of all economic levels are feeling the pinch. Even families doing fairly well for themselves can become quickly priced out of their neighborhoods as rent prices dwarf salary increases, even for white-collar workers. But, of course, thanks to income inequality -- another pressing global problem that finds a case study in the Bay Area -- lower-income folks are the hardest hit.

For an example, let's look at East Palo Alto, a small city directly abutting Facebook's fancy home in Menlo Park that houses mostly working-class people of color. In a recent housing report, the city noted that it is "very concerned" about promoting more affordable housing, "particularly in light of rapid increases in prices." Right now, despite skyrocketing rents and stagnant earnings, the city only offers 80 affordable housing units. It admits this often leads residents to share apartments, causing "overcrowding and associated problems."

What does all of this have to do with big tech companies? It's fairly simple: As these firms expand their staff and pressure communities for more space to build office parks, they rarely build housing for their employees or work with surrounding communities on plans for increased housing. Basic math (not to mention musical chairs) dictates that if more people are moving in, and the number of homes remains the same, someone is going to be left out in the cold.

While other West Coast cities solve this problem by simply building out -- a quick look at sprawling metros like Los Angeles and Phoenix prove that -- this isn't really an option in the Bay Area (nor would many people want it to be). The region sits on a peninsula, meaning space is finite. The entire Bay Area measures around 7,000 square miles, a land mass tasked with accommodating more than 7 million residents and counting. The high-rise solution used by many East Coast cities is also difficult, thanks to building height restrictions, the region's position on a fault line and, in the case of San Francisco, "sunset zoning" aimed at preserving iconic views and neighborhood character.

This all adds up to staggering prices -- and a large volume of former Bay Area residents being left in the dust. While restrictions present significant challenges, the Bay Area's mounting housing crisis is also an ideal opportunity for tech titans to use their penchant for innovation in a way that creates real impact on their communities.

Pressure on freeways and public transportation

The majority of tech campuses are located outside San Francisco, but many tech employees prefer urban life to the suburbs of Silicon Valley. This leads to congested freeways and overtaxed public transportation, as thousands of tech commuters make hour-long journeys to their isolated office complexes. To make matters worse, of the staggering 3 million commuters in the Bay Area, only about 10 percent use public transportation.

It's also worth noting that the Bay Area consists of 101 cities and nine counties. This means, when zoning and urban development proposals pop up, everyone is coming to the table with their own set of needs and demands. This has proven especially problematic when it comes to public transportation. In short: Commuters want more public transit options throughout Silicon Valley. But, in order to make these dreams a reality, tracks must pass through high-real-estate areas often hostile to their expansion.

Residents in these cities often take a NIMBY (not in my backyard) stance, pushing back against expansion of public transit systems due to concerns about noise pollution and unsightliness. Wealthy Santa Clara, for example, refused to allow the expansion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) train system for many years. As a result, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) officials were forced to modify their plans: Rather than extending the line directly to San Jose, it will come in indirectly from the east to bypass Santa Clara.

This small example proves what we all already know: Money talks. And constant push-back from wealthy areas has more or less neutered political will to gain more funding for public transit -- despite increasingly congested freeways and outrage from community groups. While tech companies have tried to remedy the issue with solutions like the so-called Google Buses, the need for permanent and inclusive solutions remains -- and innovations in public transit present yet another golden opportunity for tech firms to use their disruptive prowess for good.

A rapidly expanding service economy

While tech company head-counts explode, service economy outfits like restaurants, bars, supermarkets, pharmacies, dry cleaners and coffee shops, as well as support services like landscaping, janitorial and housekeeping staff, come online to meet the daily needs of high-income employees.

While these businesses offer many new jobs, they don’t pay very well. And with the ballooning rent prices in the region, it becomes hard to imagine how minimum-wage employees can manage to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

The numbers don’t make the case much better: Although the living wage in the Bay Area is $13.77 for a single adult, the minimum wage is still just $9. A service industry employee can expect to take home around $22,000 a year, while the business and financial operations employees to whom they serve lattes rake in nearly $85,000.

With a noted shortage of affordable housing in the region, many service-industry employees share apartments -- and we're not talking about a standard roommate situation. Often multiple families share two- or three-bedroom dwellings, causing overcrowding problems similar to those noted in East Palo Alto. As rent prices in formerly affordable areas skyrocket, these residents are often pushed farther and farther out to the fringes of the Bay Area -- where few transit options exist to serve them and their commutes to minimum-wage jobs can be nearly two hours each way.

As tech companies strive to engage their own employees and make their lives better, they should equally lobby on the local level to improve the standard of living for the service-economy workers who serve those employees. While it's not standard CSR, action at this level allows companies to serve those less fortunate -- not in some far-off country, but in their own backyards.

3p dives deeper

Clearly, the challenges facing the Bay Area are as bountiful as they are intimidating. As a San Francisco-based company, these issues are near and dear to our hearts here at TriplePundit. That's why, over the next few weeks, we'll explore them in even greater detail.

In an effort to raise awareness and put a human face to these issues, we'll talk take a closer look at what's happening on the community level with respect to housing, transportation and the booming service economy. We'll talk to real Bay Area residents about how they're faring, and explore viable ways tech firms and government can work together to achieve solutions. Our journey will take us from Downtown San Francisco to San Jose, with stops in lesser-known cities like Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Cupertino along the way. If you miss an installment, you can catch them all here.

Image credit: Flickr/Patrick Nouhailler