Search

There are more than 7 billion people on our planet today, and we all know we’re up against some huge social/environmental challenges. But, awareness alone doesn't reduce pollution, grow food or heal the sick. Talk doesn't help someone out of poverty; that takes doing. And Manoj Bhargava, billionaire CEO of 5-Hour Energy drinks, is committed to doing just that.

A college dropout, monk and wildly successful entrepreneur, Bhargava is a perfect mix of pragmatism and empathy. Alongside his team of doers, he’s on a mission to do nothing less than change the world. "The more wealth you get, the bigger your duty becomes to help those who have less, who are suffering,” he stated in the documentary film, "Billions in Change." “The more you are given, the more that is expected from you. It’s that simple.”

Lucky for him, Bhargava just happens to have been given a whole lot. His company, 5 Hour Energy, makes one of the largest consumer products in the world. His net worth is over $4 billion, and he’s giving away 99 percent of it. His initiative, Billions in Change, is a movement to save the world through the widespread implementation of solutions which generate clean energy, make fresh water and improve our health.

Housed in a laboratory outside of Detroit, Bhargavaj, alongside his Stage 2 Innovations team, has invented a number of simple technologies that can make a huge difference in billions of lives. “Stage 2 is filled with tinkerers, guys who spend time in their garage building stuff, engineers,” Bhargavaj explained. “These are guys who would probably work here even if I wasn’t paying them.”

Their mission is to develop groundbreaking innovations which benefit mankind and “help the poorer half of the world make their lives better."

“If it doesn’t make a big difference, we won’t do it,” explained Stage 2 engineer Dr. Jack Junni. “Life is too short to spend time doing things that don’t have a big impact. We’re here to make a difference."

And this doesn’t necessarily take large amounts of money. It just takes doing the right things and inventing the right things. “If it doesn’t make us money, but it improves lives, we’re still going to do it. We concentrate on those things that are going to be incredibly useful.” This starts with finding the meaning behind the project, the purpose, then asking questions: How can we make a sizable difference to alleviate human suffering? Who has the technology for this? Who can make this happen?

Free Electric

Bhargava believes that the largest area of work for the future lies in energy and water. They are the real solutions to health, livelihood and alleviating poverty. Everything requires energy, it is the great equalizer, and yet over 3 billion people around the world have no electricity or electricity for only a few hours a day.

It is for this reason that the Stage 2 Innovations team created the Free Electric hybrid bicycle. It harnesses human mechanical energy to provide electricity to people when they need it the most. You pedal for one hour and have electricity for 24 hours; it’s that simple.

If brought to scale, the Free Electric bicycle could have the largest effect of anything in the last 100 years. Unlike solar/wind generated energy, relying on human energy means that as long as you have humans, you have energy.

Additionally, this invention doesn’t generate any pollution. Each hour that is spent producing energy keeps one pound of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And, given the fact that we’re currently pumping 25 billions pounds of matter into the atmosphere every year, this could make a huge difference. The only side effect to this invention is that the user gets stronger and healthier. It is probably the cheapest, most practical way of getting electricity around the world .

The Rainmaker

Water is fundamental to human life, and yet half the world’s population lives without it. Over 3 billion people lack adequate access to fresh, clean water for drinking, farming and sanitation. During long periods of drought, like that in California, the problem becomes more serious. But what if we could make more water? This was the question Bhargava posed to the team of engineers at Stage 2 Innovations.

Their solution, the Rainmaker, turns sea water, or any dirty water, into fresh distilled water. It mimics nature by heating the water and turning it into water vapor. Then, the machine distills the water vapor and turns it back into water.

The Rainmaker can be used to make distilled water or any level of clean water. While current technology can only take sea water and turn it into drinking water, it cannot turn it into water which can be used for agricultural purposes because it still has too much salt. This easy, modular system can be used all over the world. From fresh, clean water comes better health, food and livelihood for farmers.

Bhargava is driven by the fact that the work is never done. And to him, it’s not about the money. “Good stuff doesn’t come from money,” he explained. "History has proven this to be true and yet we still chase it. Mobs of Ph.D.s don’t come up with great inventions; it’s a couple of guys in a garage.”

Billions in Change is proof that a single person with a small team can actually affect change on a global scale. If these inventions are implemented worldwide, they have the potential to raise billions of people out of poverty and improve the lives of everyone – rich and poor.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

By Raminder Chowdhary

Countless agricultural commodities form the building blocks of thousands of products that are manufactured and traded globally by corporations. Over the past decades, the demand for agricultural produce for feed, fuel and food purposes has been a key driver of deforestation and responsible for over 50 percent of it.

Forests cover around 30 percent of the planet’s surface, provide habitat for over 80 percent of the earth’s terrestrial biodiversity, are the source of livelihood to over 1.6 billion people, and provide unrecognized ecosystem services for our food, energy, climate and water security. Approximately 15 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are caused by deforestation in the tropics and subtropics – equivalent to the global transport sector.

Yet, we are losing forests at an unprecedented pace. Over the past 50 years, over half of the natural forest cover of our planet has been lost.

Enter the global corporations: The “big four” commodities -- palm oil, soy, beef and paper/pulp -- are the building blocks of countless products traded globally. Conversion of forests to agricultural commodity plantations has been the largest single cause of deforestation in recent years. As demand for these commodities grows, we can expect global agricultural cropland to expand by 42 percent by 2050. This demand cannot be met without incurring significant business and environmental risk. Complex global supply chains are generating positive forest footprints leading to the creation of unexpected reputational, operational and valuation risks for most corporations.

Not convinced? Consider the scale of impact of a single corporation. Take the case of Wilmar International. The company is an agri-business conglomerate and one of the largest palm oil cultivators. It is a discloser to the CDP’s forests program and hence committed to zero deforestation. If it delivers on its commitments, the expected savings could be more than 1.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2020 – roughly equivalent to the combined annual carbon emissions of Central and South America from energy consumption.

Now that I have your attention, let us have a closer look at the biggest of the big four - palm oil: an edible oil used globally and found in a wide variety of products including chocolate, soap, shampoos, cookies and cosmetics. Other industries where it is used are livestock, meat sector, and biofuels. Some of the best palm oil plantations can generate up to 10 times more oil per unit area than soybean, rapeseed or sunflower. Hundreds of thousands of small farmers depend on palm oil for their livelihoods.

More than 50 million tons of palm oil is produced annually, and over 85 percent comes from Malaysia and Indonesia. Palm oil production is also rapidly expanding into other areas of the world, including western and central Africa, Latin America, and Papua New Guinea. India and China are the largest importers. So much for facts.

The problem

The growth in demand for palm oil is fueling deforestation and depletion of peatlands. A study by Carlson et al. (2012) found that deforestation for development of oil palm plantations in Indonesian Borneo is becoming a globally significant source of CO2 emissions. Cutting down or burning tropical rain forests to plant oil palm releases large quantities of stored carbon. Many of Indonesia’s national parks have suffered deforestation due to illegal logging and palm oil plantations. Palm oil plantations have replaced the habitat of many endangered species, including primates such as the orangutan.

Several reports from Greenpeace from 2007 onwards (Cooking The Climate, Frying The Forest and Palm Oil's New Frontier) and a 2009 report from Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) titled Permitting Crime have highlighted the problems of land grabbing, destruction of peatlands and rain forests, exploitation of communities, etc.

We the consumers need to realize that leading global brands in fast foods, packaged foods and personal care are using a commodity that is causing the destruction of rain forests and peatlands. Before you react to this, the great news is that palm oil can be produced sustainably when large corporations commit to deforestation-free palm oil in their complex supply chains. Distressing is to know that many companies are lagging far behind. How can we as consumers differentiate?

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) prints an annual Palm Oil Scorecard evaluating the commitments made by leading corporations. The 2015 scorecard raises an important question: Why are so many of the world’s biggest brands still using unsustainably-produced palm oil and contributing to deforestation and peatland destruction? 

Guess which global corporations had no commitment to using certified sustainable palm oil: Target, Costco, Wendy’s, Domino's, Walgreens, Dairy Queen, etc. (Interestingly, after the report we saw new commitments rolling in at an unprecedented pace.) Keep in mind, these are commitments and we have to see how these translate into actions.

A 2013 Report by WWF assessed 130 retailers, food service companies and manufacturers from Europe, Japan, U.S., India and Australia. The findings were astounding and the report named and shamed a large number of global buyers. Of the 130 companies surveyed, fewer than half purchase palm oil that meets the social and environmental standards set by the the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), a voluntary scheme that now covers about 40 percent of palm oil production. This was quickly followed up with a punchy short film titled "Unseen." The report questioned that with certified palm oil so easy to source, why are so many companies failing to hit their own sustainability targets?

The report identified many buyers in the 100 percent club. Unilever, for instance, one of the largest palm oil buyers in the world and a founding member of RSPO, buys all of its palm oil from certified providers. Twenty-four of the 78 manufacturers in the study do likewise. U.K. supermarket brands Sainsbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and Asda feature in a similar leading list of 21 retailers that buy 100 percent certified.

Then there were the laggards. A second tier of companies like Procter & Gamble and McDonald's that bought just 13 percent of their palm oil from certified sources. At 17 percent, PepsiCo is another big name on the laggard list.

What needs to be done

• Palm oil plantation companies: Those managing plantations need to ensure they are improving yields from existing plantations and expanding only into areas with low carbon storage


• Companies in palm oil related business need to ensure that their supply chains are not responsible for deforestation and peatland depletion. Buy from RSPO certified sources.


• Downstream retailers and consumers can play a crucial part in ensuring that supply chains are deforestation free. Insist on product labeling that is clear on whether certified sustainable palm oil has been used.


• Most governments need to enact product labeling laws ensuring that manufacturers are not concealing ingredients by using generic titles. Like “vegetable oil” for palm oil.

Image credits: 1) Flickr/chem7 2) FAO 2013

Raminder Chowdhary: After earning two Master’s Degrees in Economics and Business Admn., from Delhi University & UT - Austin, I worked around the World for various MNC’s for 20+ years as a supply chain specialist. It was time to change tracks and I set up One Earth Foundation - an NGO focusing on conservation of natural eco-systems, preservation of traditional wisdom and environmental education. I am a regular speaker on various regional and national forums promoting the need for higher levels of corporate participation in social and environmental issues facing us today. I have had the opportunity to initiate and successfully implement numerous projects in the sectors of TK & TCE preservation, special needs groups, and livelihood challenges for indigenous communities, water, large scale forest and lakes stewardship drives and engaging students in various ecological initiatives.

Jennifer Pryce, president and CEO of the Calvert Foundation, opened her plenary remarks at SOCAP 2015 in San Francisco (Oct. 6-9) by inviting the audience to close their eyes and picture an impact investor. (I invite you to do that now.)

What does that person look like? Do you picture millennials? Women? Latinos? The future of social capital investing lies with these people, said Pryce, as she announced Calvert’s newest initiative on its Vested.org platform. The new initiative, called “Raíces” (Spanish for “Roots”), targets Latin American and predominantly Latino communities in the U.S. with $25 million in social impact investments by retail investors.

Impact investing has been largely the purview of those with lots of capital, and options for impact investing at the retail level are still relatively rare. I sat down with Margot Kane, vice president of strategy at the Calvert Foundation, in order to find out more about the thinking behind the Vested.org platform in general and Raíces in particular.

Raíces and Vested.org

“Raíces is for people who have not traditionally thought of themselves as investors,” Kane told me, “but would like to try investing in people and communities that matter to them.” The Raíces platform gives people an easy way to experiment, and hopefully do more as they shift their perception of what investing can mean.

The Vested.org website, of which Raíces is a part, is a portal that gives individuals the ability to invest in the Calvert Foundation’s Community Investment Note, which has attracted more than 15,000 investors since 1995 and seen more than $1 billion invested. To date, every investor has been repaid.

Raíces is one of more than a dozen investment areas on Vested.org, including affordable housing, small business, fair trade, education, women’s empowerment, older adults and more. Anyone with a U.S. tax I.D., a bank account and an address can invest in a Note with as little as $20. When you invest on the Vested.org site, your money is pooled with the thousands of investors in the Note, and the Calvert Foundation uses the number of people investing in each area as an indicator for its fund deployment strategy.

Well-designed interface

After all the discussion, I had to log in and try it for myself. The first thing I noticed is the brilliant design of the website that puts a very human face on the reason I am here – to invest in people and communities that I care about. The faces are of real people, doing real work. I like it.

The simple, clean interface tells me to select my term of investment. The longer I keep my money in, the greater the interest paid, from a 0.50 percent return for a one-year investment to a 3 percent return for a 10-year investment. Next, I enter my investment amount. I can enter any amount between $20 and $10,000. I hit the big “invest” button, which takes me to another very simple form that ask for my social security number, date of birth, address and phone number. The final screen asks me to enter my bank routing number and account number. And that is it. I am off to the Raíces! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.). The account service used is Goldstar Trust Co., a branch of – and I’m not making this up – Happy State Bank (FDIC insured).

The changing face of the financial services sector

“The financial services sector is changing fast,” Kane told me, “and demographics are changing fast. We need to anticipate the audiences of the future.”

To that end, Calvert partnered with Think Now Research in order to understand the profile of the likely Raíces investor. The Vested.org site as whole provides an important feedback loop that helps Calvert understand people’s impact investing behavior.

“We are throwing a lot of things in the water to see what floats,” Kane said. For now, the platform is exclusively for individual investors, but institutional investment options may follow down the road, as millennials and others grow impatient with traditional investment options and exert pressure on institutions for ethical portfolio choices.

Additional thoughts

As I see it, the trend in disintermediation of financial services will grow in the years to come. Another platform, STASH, launching in a few weeks, will let you invest as little as $5 at a time. Its taglines include, “Investing is better when you do it together” and “Easy investing for everyone. Why let the old guys have all the fun?” Another platform aimed at millennial investors is Dough, “an investing platform for do-it-yourselfers,” which aims to demystify and simplify investing for those who are serious about learning how the stock market works.

On the other end of the spectrum, the SOCAP plenary session also included representatives from both Bain Capital ($75 billion in assets under management) and BlackRock ($4.72 trillion in assets under management) to discuss their new social impact initiatives. It is a hopeful sign that these powerhouses are finding it strategically important to discuss plans for social impact investing, even if it is still unclear what it will mean in practice at these firms. What is clear is that we may have reached an important tipping point in a national dialog of what our money is for and how we should be using it to effect the change we want to see.

Follow Julie Noblitt on Twitter @noblittje

Image credit: Photo courtesy of Opportunity Fund, a portfolio partner of Calvert Foundation.

Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in LinkedIn Pulse.

By Paige Morrow

The B Lab was officially launched in the U.K. this past September, offering a certification scheme for companies to show that they have successfully combined profit with a commitment to making a positive contribution to society. B Lab has existed in the U.S. since 2006 and is now making the leap across the Atlantic to expand into Europe.

Origin of B Corps

The B Corp movement has captured significant attention and certified over 1,300 companies in 41 countries. So, are B Corps the future of responsible business? Yes and no. Other forms of purpose-driven organisations have always existed, whether it be as cooperatives or non-profit/charitable entities. Even a regular ‘C’ corporation can choose to pursue a social mission as part of their business and many do.

Nearly 50 leading legal scholars from universities including Cambridge and Cornell signed a statement last year concluding that: “Contrary to widespread belief, corporate directors generally are not under a legal obligation to maximize profits for their shareholders.” This gives latitude to boards of directors to make decisions that might cause a dip in short-term returns, such as Costco’s commitment to pay a living wage.

Value-add of B Corps

What is special about B Corps is that they build social commitment directly in their governance to support and protect it. Another unique feature is that B Corps have a recognizable brand that allows consumers to make educated decisions about what products to buy and companies to use. Rather than evaluating the merits of each given business, an individual may rely on B Lab to screen companies for certain requirements in terms of working conditions, supply chain management and their relationship with local communities. In this sense it is similar to the Fair Trade label but goes one step further by requiring the company as a whole to meet ethical obligations. The logic is that businesses should not be able to benefit from the label unless they can show that they are run fairly across the organization, not just for one specific product such as tea or coffee.

The focus on purpose could also help social entrepreneurs. Tom Fox, policy lead at UnLtd, which supports social entrepreneurs in the U.K., says:

"[Social entrepreneurs] are showing an increasing appetite to use a conventional business form for their social venture, but formally embedding their social purpose can be regarded as novel and unusual by some stakeholders.”

UnLtd would like to see the launch of B Lab U.K. as a “step forward in the normalization of embedding social purpose into the heart of business."

Edging into mainstream business

Initially B Corps were mostly small start-ups and it was uncertain whether the movement would have a significant impact on mainstream business. In the past couple of years, however, we have seen increasing interest from established firms that wish to adopt the label to signal both to investors and markets that they do business differently.

Now, stock market listed companies are jumping on board and B Lab has adapted its certification process to take into account the complexities associated with large multinationals. Natura, the Brazilian beauty product company, was the first public company to be certified. Ben and Jerrys became certified and its parent company Unilever (which is publicly listed) has expressed an interest to certify the whole group.

The expansion into bigger companies has brought with it criticism. For example, Etsy maintained B Corp status after its initial public offering, which could help it to protect the company from pressure by capital markets to maximize short-term profits, but recently came under fire from NGOs for using a corporate structure that reduces its tax burden.

What does it mean to be a responsible corporation?

The certification of publicly held companies has taken B Lab into the heart of the debate about what it means to be a responsible corporation:

• Is it possible to do 'good' while providing returns to investors?


• How much tax should a responsible company pay when it is perfectly legal to “optimise” its tax burden?


• How much should the CEO earn relative to the lowest paid or average worker?


• Should companies avoid suppliers or countries with known labour violations or instead push to improve working conditions?


• How should complaints by workers or local communities be handled?

Many of these questions have been debated for years by the International Labor Organization and human rights advocates in the context of the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as the emerging discussion on a human rights treaty covering multinational companies. However their focus tends to be on creating rules for companies to obey rather than transforming business from within.

Integrating social purpose into core business

Rather than advocating for external regulations to prevent corporations from misbehaving, the B Corp movement focuses on embedding a social purpose within a company’s DNA. As this movement gathers momentum, it highlights the need for an open debate on the purpose of the corporation, whether it be a certified B Corp or not.

Image credit: Flickr/Francesco Sgroi

Paige Morrow is head of Brussels Operations at Frank Bold, a purpose-driven law firm. The firm leads the Purpose of the Corporation Project, which invites businesses, academics, policymakers, and civil society to debate the future of publicly traded companies. Connect with us on @purposeofcorp or on our Linkedin Group.

By Dai Howells

The ‘connected city’ has now made the leap from being an idea -- a notion spoken of only in future tense -- to something real, tangible and firmly on the horizon.

Even just a few months ago, the idea of a city in which real objects could communicate and send messages seemed like something out of a film, not quite for this world, yet. However, as is customary in the tech world, a few months is a lifetime. And now we’re not only seeing a greater understanding of the Internet of Things (IoT), but companies and official bodies are also actively looking at how they can harness its potential.

In fact, Arqiva has teamed up with SigFox to provide connectivity across more than 10 U.K. cities, to supplement the work being done with Bristol is Open, Digital Greenwich and the smart city initiative in Milton Keynes. This presents proof, were it needed, that we’ve bridged the gap between theory and reality.

So, if this is happening at the rate it appears to be, and expert opinion suggests that the IoT could have an even more disruptive impact than the Internet itself, what can we expect it to bring to our cities in terms of efficiency and sustainability?

How the IoT will improve efficiency

Efficiency has been the buzzword when it’s come to actually explaining what benefits the IoT will bring. It’s all well and good explaining the technology behind what it can do, but people need to hear what it can offer them and how it would make their lives easier, cheaper or more straightforward (or, even better still, all three). For this, efficiency steps up.

Think about all the ways a city is currently inefficient. Refuse collectors, for example, schlep halfway across town – through dense traffic – to empty high street bins that are only a third full. An alert system that more reliably informed these collectors when to empty the bins would make their lives demonstrably more efficient.

Traffic – as touched on earlier – is another. What about using the IoT to reduce congestion? This falls under both categories: efficiency and sustainability. Through more accurate (not to mention real-time) reporting of congested areas, the powers that be could introduce measures to reduce build ups. The result would not only be quicker journeys for all road users, but also fewer emissions as cars sit idling – and that’s not even mentioning the stress saved from being one of the many sat in traffic.

The same is true of parking. How many hours are wasted in our cities every day as drivers circle time and time again looking for spaces that seemingly never turn up? Again, better monitoring and reporting could almost eliminate this tortuous process overnight. Drivers would be better directed to spaces as and when they become available, meaning the emissions and time savings noted above are increased further still. There’s also a financial impact, as cars that find their way to empty spaces quicker will mean council-run car parks turn over a greater profit. If, for example, there’s an empty space in a side street down which few drivers are turning, it’s sat empty without any money being taken. Divert traffic to it and profits increase. Another tick in the box for both efficiency and sustainability.

The IoT’s sustainability credentials

There are other sustainability benefits on offer in social housing, with councils better able to monitor energy and water usage among tenants. With the data to hand, any potential defects can be picked up immediately, meaning problems can be fixed before they get much bigger.

It’s a similar story for council buildings or any other under public control, thanks to the wealth of new data that the IoT will make available. For example, clear figures in black and white will illustrate which buildings are most energy efficient and, conversely, which need to be improved. Figures could also be tied in with data from elsewhere. So, the time an office’s air conditioning units first come on can be cross-referenced with the time its first employees arrive. Compare this once again with the time it takes the air conditioning to reach an optimum temperature and you could end up leaving it half an hour later every morning before it needs to be automatically switched on. In one small office this would be a marginal gain, but factor it out to the countless others up and down the country, and it provides immeasurable efficiency and cost improvements.

In being an emerging technology, the IoT still has aspects that are unknown. Some people, as the trend line of hyped products or services will attest, will grossly overestimate its capacities. Others won’t be expecting quite how revolutionary it will be – and are in for a surprise. Either way, the above examples are just some of the things we could see being achieved very shortly down the line. What it actually goes on to manage could be so much bigger.

Image credit: Flickr/Neil Kremer

Dai Howells is a journalist and technology expert working on behalf of Arqiva. Arqiva is a communications infrastructure and media services company which broadcasts through satellite and mobile technologies.

Solving large-scale problems like climate change usually requires a combination of top-down (government-mandated) and bottom-up solutions (voluntary actions).

Many sustainable business pros favor the bottom-up approach because it allows companies to decide for themselves the most effective ways to act. Plus, such solutions don’t have that Big-Brother sense that mandated actions tend to have.

But the biggest problem with bottom-up approaches is: If everyone just does what they are comfortable with, it may not turn out to be enough.

That’s the situation we are in as we approach the upcoming climate talks in Paris. Previous agreements neglected the top-down approach that would effectively tell each country what would be expected of them in terms of emissions reductions. In advance of COP21, countries have come forward with voluntary targets, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. But by and large, those targets have not been sufficiently aggressive to achieve the overall levels of reduction needed. We might need the strong hand of mandates.

That brings us to the question of science-based targets, a phrase that has been circulating in advance of the COP21 meeting. Science-based targets are those that correspond to the level of action that scientists agree is necessary to reduce emissions in the time remaining to avoid dangerous climate instability.

Roughly speaking, experts estimate that no more than about a trillion tons of CO2 can be put into the atmosphere, and that we have already emitted just over half of that (515 billion tons) since the Industrial Revolution. That would suggest that we have lots of time to ramp down, but we don’t because we emit so much more today than we ever have before. Instead, limited to only 485 billion tons, we need to eliminate carbon emissions entirely by 2100, and most of that has to occur before 2050.

Furthermore, estimates vary widely, with some suggesting that total limit should be closer to 250 billlion to 350 billion tons. For reference, global emissions in 2012 were around 29 billion tons. That means that at the current rate we could use up our allowance in 17 years, or if the more conservative estimates are correct, less than 10.

With that in mind, a number of companies are stepping up to the plate and committing to science-based targets, as reported by the Science-Based Targets initiative, a collaboration between CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute and WWF. The group has put together a manual on how to go about setting science-based targets, a draft of which has been posted on the Web and is available for public comment. The 69-page document lays out a detailed rubric for calculating and reporting the targets, including a section on recommended reduction strategies, and even a section on financing reduction measures.

Some companies have already committed to science-based targets, including Coca-Cola, Procter and Gamble, and General Mills. Each has set a different reduction goal for 2025, ranging from 28 to 50 percent, depending on their current emission levels. These companies, along with NRG Energy, Autodesk and Siemens, have come out publicly to explain why “setting science-based targets today is expected to give companies a competitive advantage in the low-carbon economy of tomorrow.”

Any agreement in Paris will take place between the 195 governments that will be sending representatives, but companies do have a key role to play. After all, they are directly and indirectly responsible for a great deal of emissions. Says Emma Stewart, head of sustainability solutions at Autodesk: “Business will have to play a big part in delivering the emissions cuts that countries pledge to make at the U.N. Climate Change talks in Paris at the end of this year. By setting out our plans early, we can signal to political leaders that we take our responsibilities seriously.”

More than 80 percent of the world’s 500 largest companies have, in fact, set emissions reduction targets. Unfortunately, most of them are not aggressive enough.

The science may be clear, but the solution it provides means a lot of hard work and a change from the status quo. That means scientists have become very adept at talking economics.

Novozymes CEO Peter Holk Nielsen recently told me: “When [scientists] are allowed to contribute, we actually make things happen, and people usually listen. The tricky thing is when you talk to people who have no clue what the science is. What we have found there, at least up until fairly recently, was that it would be much more effective to talk about job creation than to talk about the science of climate change.”

That is to say, scientists have had to turn away from science to get the job done. But that doesn't change the fact that science provides clear answers.

Mind the Science studied 70 energy-intensive companies that are jointly responsible for 9 percent of the world’s emissions. Of these, only 28 (40 percent) have set aggressive, long-term goals. The others have set either short-term goals, inadequate goals or no goals at all. That last group includes 22 companies, representing 3.3 percent of all global emissions.

These very companies are in a position to do a great deal to move the needle down to where it needs to be. They may also be among those with the most at stake financially. Of course, the question of today’s dollars versus tomorrow’s lives will be very much in play at the Paris summit. According to Rachel Cleetus, lead economist and climate policy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who spoke with TriplePundit by phone:

“It’s important not to see Paris as a single moment in time. This is going to be the moment when we lock in a very strong framework that we have to keep improving on. The opportunity in Paris is to cement the kind of agreement that’s going to push all countries to do more — not just in terms of their reduction targets, but also in terms of how we’re going to respond to the needs of countries that are already facing the impacts of climate change.”

Cleetus likens it to the policy process we saw here in the U.S. with the Clean Air Act. “When it first came out, it was a strong framework, but we had to go back and improve upon it. That’s how things get done in the real world. You have a very strong framework and you build on it over time with the commitment of all the stakeholders, which in this case is all of the countries in the UNFCCC process.

"Even now, the Clean Air Act is under attack. So, the point is that you have to get a strong framework, then every day you have to fight for it.”

As Christiana Figueres, the U.N. climate chief, recently noted: “Everybody has the obligation now to find out where they are going to be 50 years from now … We have run out of time to be asking the other person to come forward first.”

That means it's time for countries and companies alike to commit to the science-based targets we need to limit the worst impacts of climate change.

Image credit: Flickr/Doc Searls

The entire "clean diesel" brand has come under new scrutiny in the wake of the Volkswagen emissions scandal, as reporters in search of a good story have begun to dig into the environmentally-friendly claims of other automakers.

So far there are no allegations of criminal behavior -- Volkswagen stands alone in that regard -- but a recent article in the Guardian reveals that other manufacturers have been dancing around diesel emissions standards without running afoul of the law.

These aren't nuisance emissions, either. Diesel engines are valued for their lower carbon dioxide emissions as well as fuel efficiency and power, but there's a tradeoff. Diesel engines emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), toxic airborne pollutants that contribute to asthma and other serious health conditions.

How to beat emissions standards and stay out of jail

The trouble starts when the rubber hits the road. Last week, the Guardian reported on vehicle emissions tests in European models undertaken by the aptly named vehicle data service company Emissions Analytics. Instead of using the standard European Union (EU) test, the company conducted its own analysis using real-world driving conditions.

The findings revealed a significant increase in NOx emissions across numerous brands compared to the tests required by law, including Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat, Volvo and Jeep.

None of the cars reached the dizzying height of non-compliance that Volkswagen achieved, in which actual emissions reached up to 40 times higher than U.S. standards. However, in terms of meeting the vital public health goal of reducing NOx emissions, the difference uncovered by Emissions Analytics is significant, typically ranging from three to six times the European Union limit. The average is around four times higher.

There were also several outliers not named by the Guardian, in which the vehicles emitted between 15 and 20 times the legal limit on the road compared to the lab.

According to the report, each car had passed the European Union's required in-lab tests, leading to the conclusion that the diesel systems were engineered specifically to pass the tests first, with on-road emissions a secondary consideration.

BBC also hooked up with Emissions Analytics for a smaller survey involving only two models and found similar results: NOx emissions for both of the cars were about four or five times higher on the road.

This is not a new problem, by the way. Last year, the environmental umbrella organization Transport and Environment noted that diesel cars in the European Union routinely operate with higher NOx emissions on the road, putting the average at about three to four times higher.

How to pass the buck on clean diesel - not

In response to the Guardian, some automakers have argued the fault is in the required test -- it's not designed to reflect hills, turns, traffic and other real driving conditions.

That is true as far as meeting the requirements of the law goes, but it certainly won't help manufacturers make the "clean diesel" pitch moving forward.

The diesel market has been helped along by a classic case of greenwashing, in which lower carbon dioxide emissions and higher fuel efficiency are supposed to make diesel cars a "green" choice.

Now that the rug has been pulled out from that marketing angle, EU automakers are becoming more serious about collaborating on stepped-up standards, though apparently significant action will not be forthcoming until 2019 at the earliest.

Meanwhile here in the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency has already put manufacturers on notice that some big changes for vehicle emissions tests are in the works. In an Oct. 7 blog post, EPA director of transportation and air quality, Christopher Grundler, outlined the steps that the agency is taking -- first noting that Volkswagen's Clean Air Act violations threaten "public health and the credibility of the industry."

In addition to a thorough investigation of Volkswagen, Grundler stated that EPA will "take the appropriate steps to ensure that this never happens again," including new tests to detect defeat devices.

Interestingly, prior to the Volkswagen scandal, diesel cars were not a particular focus of EPA enforcement. According to Grundler, in the U.S. cars and other light-duty diesel vehicles account for only about 0.10 percent of NOx emissions related to on-road activity. The main focus has been on trucks, which account for about 40 percent.

However, when you get down to the local level, diesel cars can play a make-or-break role in lowering NOx emissions.

EPA is rightfully proud of its role in driving clean air progress since its founding in 1970 -- Grundler notes a 70 percent reduction in air pollution overall while the U.S. economy has tripled -- and it appears that the agency is determined not to let NOx emissions from diesel cars slip through the cracks.

Image (screenshot): via U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Last week I attended the New York City Entrepreneurs Roundtable Accelerator’s demo day, where the accelerator’s latest cohort of startups presented themselves to a large audience of investors and venture capitalists.

The presentations were great, but one thing caught my attention: None of the startups (well, except maybe one) could be considered a sustainable startup, or a startup that “is poised to make scalable, sustainable impacts.”

The majority of startups on the demo day focused on topics that have nothing to do with sustainability issues, from creating better marketing tools, automating processes and creating online marketplaces to improving shopping experiences (here and here). Overall, they want to make things better for companies and/or consumers, but not necessarily more sustainable.

This is no accident, I thought to myself. Startups just don’t seem to be interested in opportunities related to sustainability issues. But wait a second: Could this demo day be the exception, not the rule? Is the startup community all about suitability and I just don’t see it?

I wanted to test my assumption and decided to look at one of the symbols of Silicon Valley: Y Combinator (YC), an accelerator and seed fund, which over the past 10 years “has funded and helped kickstart 940 startups, including Airbnb, Dropbox, Reddit, Instacart and Coinbase.”

I looked at the list of startups that graduated from YC in 2012 to 2014 – 255 startups in total -- and tried to identify through their (unofficial) description if what they’ve been working on has anything to do with sustainability, using Adam Werbach’s definition of sustainability in a context of business:

“… Sustainability has four components. It is to protect the environment. It needs to care about cultures. It needs to have social responsibility. And it has to have economic sustainability. All four together– social, cultural, environmental, and economic– need to work together to form a sustainability initiative.”

I found out that, of the 255 startups, only 19 (7 percent) were developing sustainable technologies and services. Healthcare (here and here) and peer-to-peer marketplaces (here and here) seem to be the most popular categories.

While this is in no way scientific evidence, this little test provides an indication of the reluctance of startups to focus on sustainability challenges, which brings me to the second question:

Why do so few startups go after sustainability challenges?

I find this question extremely important. After all, innovation is key in addressing the sustainability challenges we face, from climate change to inequality. When thinking about it, I remembered a guest lecture Paul Graham, co-founder of YC, gave a in a startup class at Stanford University. In his talk Graham referred to the question of where good startup ideas come from.

“The way to come up with good startup ideas is to take a step back. Instead of making a conscious effort to think of startup ideas, turn your mind into the type that startup ideas form in without any conscious effort … Okay, so how do you turn your mind into the type that startup ideas form in unconsciously? (1) Learn a lot about things that matter, then (2) work on problems that interest you (3) with people you like and respect.“

So, if we look at the criteria Graham established, we could narrow the possible answers to the why question into two: Entrepreneurs either don’t think that sustainability issues matter and hence don’t learn them, or they don’t find them interesting.

I tend toward the latter. I believe that most entrepreneurs understand that sustainability issues are the ones that really matter and would agree with President Obama describing climate change as the challenge posing the greatest threat to future generations and rising income inequality as the "defining challenge of our time." Well, at least I hope this is the case.

However, I think entrepreneurs just don’t find sustainability problems interesting enough to work on. It’s not that they think these issues aren't important or lack business viability – they just don’t find them interesting problems to work on as entrepreneurs.

This is partly a framing problem and partly a cultural problem. The framing problem is more general: Sustainability seems to be perceived as an issue that is addressed by governments in global conferences, regulators and large companies through their CSR initiatives. Just think of California’s drought, food waste, ethical working conditions in the supply chain, and clean energy – is entrepreneurship the first association that comes into mind when thinking about solving these issues? I doubt if this is the case with the exception of clean energy.

The sharing economy is also an exception (i.e., solution is associated with entrepreneurship), but we have to acknowledge that there are almost no comprehensive studies of its impact. You might ask yourself if this is the case why I classified p2p marketplaces as YC sustainable startups. The answer is that I give these startups the benefit of doubt that their activity reduces the need to produce new stuff (by, for example, providing opportunities to sell used furniture). But I wouldn’t necessary categorize any sharing economy company as a sustainable startup.

The cultural problem is more specific to the entrepreneurship community: Sustainability just doesn’t seem to be part of the mindset of this community. Take for example Graham’s talk – he was trying to explain what counts as an interesting problem:

“But although I can't explain in the general case what counts as an interesting problem, I can tell you about a large subset of them. If you think of technology as something that's spreading like a sort of fractal stain, every moving point on the edge represents an interesting problem. So, one guaranteed way to turn your mind into the type that has good startup ideas is to get yourself to the leading edge of some technology — to cause yourself, as Paul Buchheit put it, to 'live in the future.'”

Is there a more obvious issue than sustainability when thinking about living in the future? Well, apparently not according to Graham.

Yet, this is not just Graham. Think of all the people entrepreneurs see as heroes and want to imitate. To what degree is sustainability part of their narrative and work?

Until the culture of this space changes, together with the perception of sustainability, I doubt if we’ll see any change in the focus of new startups when it comes to sustainability. Of course there will always be exceptions. But if we want to change the status quo, we need the majority of startups to focus on sustainability issues. Otherwise, “living in the future” might not be that pleasant, not even in Silicon Valley.

Image credit: Eva Blue, Flickr Creative Commons

By Scott Fallon

Automakers face a daunting challenge. To meet new government standards, they must increase the overall fuel efficiency of their vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. That’s up from a 35.5 mpg standard by 2016, a nearly 60 percent increase in less than a decade.

And they must do this while creating affordable cars that people want to buy.

To meet this challenge, automakers are focusing on design efficiencies and increasingly turning to advanced, lightweight materials. These materials include plastics and lightweight composites, such as the carbon fiber-reinforced plastics used in Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. Why? It’s simple. Carbon fiber-reinforced plastics are up to:

• 10 times stronger than steel


• 50 percent lighter than steel


• 30 percent lighter than aluminum

We already use these lightweight plastic composites for sports equipment (have you seen a wood tennis racquet lately?), as well as prosthetic limbs, fishing rods, bicycle frames, wind turbines, motorcycles, helicopters, passenger jets, race car chassis … The family car is next.

At the recent SXSW Eco conference, I participated in a panel discussion with a former automaker from Ford, a leading energy-efficiency researcher and an engineering school president. We discussed how cars will become substantially greener and leaner in a decade, due in large part to advanced lightweight materials such as carbon fiber-reinforced plastics.

As a “plastics guy,” it is worth noting: While most news reports simply refer to “carbon fiber,” the fibers typically are enmeshed with plastics to form an advanced composite matrix. The combined materials create something much tougher than each could be on their own.

The message we brought to Austin at SXSW Eco: Dramatically increased fuel efficiency will save natural resources, slash auto emissions, cut our nation’s dependence on petroleum and save consumers money at the pump.

The million-dollar question is: Can light-weighting really achieve those benefits? Automakers think so. Here’s Ford on light-weighting (emphasis added): “Few innovations provide a more wide-ranging performance and efficiency advantage than reducing weight. All factors of a vehicle’s capabilities – acceleration, handling, braking, safety, efficiency – can improve through the use of advanced, lighter materials.”

Future lighter-weight cars will accelerate faster, have more agile crash avoidance handling, stop in shorter distances, enhance driver and passenger safety – plus become more fuel efficient, which should reduce emissions and lighten their environmental footprint.

And based on automakers’ recent concept cars using these advanced materials, future cars also will look cooler and just be a lot more fun to drive

Now, what’s interesting is that carbon fiber-reinforced plastic auto components are not new: chassis, spoilers, roofs, hoods, and many internal and external parts have been employed for a while, predominately in higher-end luxury or performance cars due to high manufacturing costs. But as automakers invest heavily in these applications, costs are coming down, and new technologies should allow these components to be produced more quickly.

That’s going to come in handy. To reach 54.5 by 2025, automakers will need to continue to improve drive trains and engine efficiency – and drastically reduce weight. Plastics are helping. Many people don’t know that modern cars already are 50 percent plastics by volume but only 10 percent of vehicle weight. That volume will increase significantly.

We should also see an increase in solutions that involve an intelligent mix of materials, instead of choosing between metals and plastics, for example. Automakers are discovering that hybrid structures with lightweight plastics can be very effective in reducing vehicle weight.

These multi-material solutions with lightweight plastics can improve safety, too, as can carbon fiber-reinforced plastic components, which can absorb up to 12 times more energy than steel and enhance safety in a collision.

As noted, automakers have already used various types of advanced composite materials in cars for some time. But BMW and Ford were the first out of the factory with production volume cars that use the latest carbon fiber-reinforced plastics for major components.

In 2014, BMW introduced the i3 in the U.S., an electric car that sold out immediately. The i3 is the first mass-produced car built on BMW’s LifeDrive architecture, consisting of a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic 'Life Module' that acts as a safety cage for the occupants. BMW declared that carbon fiber-reinforced plastic is “an especially light and high-strength material that provides outstanding protection to vehicle passengers in the event of an emergency.”

The company has announced a joint venture to triple capacity at its carbon-fiber production facility in Moses Lake, Washington, making it the world's largest carbon-fiber facility. It also plans to use “the ultra-lightweight, high-tech material for other model series at competitive costs and in large quantities" as economies of scale kick in.

In March 2015, Ford unveiled the all-new GT: a high-performance, production-volume sports car loaded with carbon fiber-reinforced plastics. The GT’s passenger cell is made from carbon fiber-reinforced plastics, and its front and rear subframes are wrapped in structural body panels of the same composite. Ford says this composite “is one of the world’s strongest materials for its mass – enabling an ultra-stiff foundation for chassis components, while creating a lighter overall package for increased dynamic performance and efficiency.”

Ford says it will use this technology broadly across its future lineup: “GT includes innovations and technologies that can be applied broadly across Ford’s future product portfolio … [For example] the all-new GT features advanced lightweight composites, which will help serve Ford’s entire product lineup moving forward.”

And other automakers are pursuing similar advances.

Reaching 54.5 mpg in a decade will be the result of an ongoing collaboration between automakers, government, academia and materials makers. I’m proud that my company is involved in that collaboration. And I look forward to celebrating success in 2025.

Image credit: Pixabay

Scott Fallon is General Manager of the Automotive Segment at SABIC, the world’s third largest diversified chemical company with more than 50 years of experience in the automotive industry. SABIC is a member of the American Chemistry Council Plastics Division’s Automotive Team.

Amazon surprised the Internet last week when it announced the launch of Handmade — an Etsy competitor that will sell handcrafted goods via its e-commerce site. According to the online giant, more than 80,000 products from about 5,000 artisans in more than 60 countries will be featured. Handcrafted wares will debut across several categories including jewelry, home, kitchen, artwork, stationary and furniture.

Making no apologies for its bold entry into the artisanal market, Amazon hit hard at the competition days before the official launch with a poaching strategy that was delivered via email. According to the Wall Street Journal, sellers received invites from Amazon a few days before the official launch, asking them to apply to Handmade.

Through Handmade, customers can shop genuine, factory-free, artisanal products that feel both local and uniquely global. Armed with prime shipping options, a database of 285 million customers and not to mention $75 billion in sales, Amazon's new platform is attractive for sellers looking to expose their business to new audiences.

“We have designed a custom shopping experience for customers looking for handmade items by bringing together many of the best artisans in the world, and they’re adding thousands of items daily,” said Peter Faricy, VP for Amazon Marketplace.

“Knowing an item has a unique story behind it creates a personal experience that customers have told us makes owning handmade items special. Handmade at Amazon offers customers more than 80,000 quality handcrafted items from around the world, and over 30 percent can be personalized by artisans to delight customers.”

Moreover, increased access to artisan goods online uniquely benefits a rising demographic of sellers: women makers. In its annual seller report, Etsy revealed that nearly 86 percent of its sellers are, in fact, women. Women-driven "micro-businesses" powered by the Amazon and Etsy platforms are representative of the rising trend of women launching enterprises as an alternative to the restrictions of a traditional 9-to-5 job.

The report also noted that 26 percent of sellers on the site had no other form of paid employment before selling on the platform, leveraging their online shop as a way to earn additional income. With the low barrier to entry, setting up shop for a stay-at-home mom or homemaker (38 percent of this demographic, according to Etsy), is as simple as completing the seller application and uploading photos.

As American consumers continue to invest their dollars in high-quality, American-made products, the influence of women makers will continue to evolve. Areas of opportunity for e-commerce platforms that make entry into the marketplace simple can begin to offer unique financing models and training to help women scale their businesses. Despite women launching businesses at a faster rate than men over the last decade, barriers to capital and investment for women owners still remain.

Amazon, Etsy and smaller competitors can uniquely develop scalable solutions beyond the platforms themselves to empower and invest in women makers. Providing access to capital could spell long-term adoption of their systems.

Becoming a seller on Amazon's Handmade:

• Register to sell on Amazon to begin the application process.


• Create your Artisan Profile to begin creating your storefront.


• Set up your products. There is no listing fee. (Etsy charges 20 cents)


• For each item sold, Amazon takes a 12 percent commission which includes payment processing, marketing, discounted shipping, fraud protection and no monthly fee. (Etsy's commission is 3.5 percent)


• Email and phone support are guaranteed.


• Associates program allows you to earn 10 percent commission for Amazon sales generated from your personal website.

Image credit: Handmade