Search

B Corp, the movement seeking to change the role of business in society, has launched in the UK.

While regular companies exist for the interests of their shareholders, B Corps are companies where the interests of employees, communities and the environment rank alongside those of shareholders. B Corps are also required to change their legal documents so that employees, communities and the wider environment rank alongside shareholders in decision making processes. B Corps formally commit to the B Corp community principles through signing a declaration.

Global B Corps include Patagonia, Hootsuite, Ben & Jerry’s and Change.org and Kickstarter. In the UK 61 businesses have been certified, including Ingeus UK Limited, Generation Investment Management, The One Brand, Cotswold Fayre, Bates Wells Braithwaite, Cook and Volans. 

James Perry, director at B Lab UK,the not-for-profit which exists to support the community of UK-based B Corps, commented: “Britain has shaped so much of the modern global economy, and remains the world’s leading financial centre. But it’s obvious that the global economy needs to evolve so that profit, people and planet are all served by business. We must consign to history the idea that we have to choose between them.

"The B Corp movement is enabling businesses to make a positive contribution to all three. We stand on the shoulders of giants here, and are hugely grateful for the welcome we’ve had from an inspiring group of leaders from business, government and the social economy. We look forward to working together with them in this long term endeavour to create a new economy that serves people and planet as well as profit.”

To find out more, click here. 

Image: Walmart is among several top companies to commit to 100 percent renewable energy, through projects including the use of solar panels at retail locations like this one in Covina, California.

Climate Week 2015 events are heating up all across New York City. On Tuesday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon addressed a group of world leaders, business professionals, activists and journalists and laid out his vision for a low-carbon future. He was joined by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), and the two unveiled a new U.N. Climate Change Secretariat initiative on climate neutrality, called Climate Neutral Now.

Not be outdone by dignitaries and politicians, the business community is gearing up to make its own mark on Climate Week and the road to the COP21 negotiations in Paris. Underscoring the buy-in of the business community on climate action is a bold commitment from a group of top Fortune 500 companies: to meet 100 percent of their electricity needs using renewable sources.

On Wednesday, nine top firms -- Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, Nike, Procter & Gamble, Salesforce, Starbucks, Steelcase, Voya Financial and Walmart -- joined the RE100 initiative, pledging to work toward the 100 percent renewable goal.

RE100 is an ambitious global campaign led by the Climate Group, in partnership with CDP, to engage, support and showcase influential businesses committed to 100 percent renewable electricity. The program launched at Climate Week 2014 with 12 big-name corporate partners, including Ikea, H&M, Nestlé and Philips, as well as Mars -- the first U.S. business on board.

The announcement brings the total number of major businesses signed on to the campaign to 36. Green desert economy developer Elion Resources Group became the first Chinese company to join in March, followed in May by the first Indian company, information technology leader Infosys. Last week saw the addition of Swiss financial services provider UBS, and earlier this week the first science-based company, Dutch business Royal DSM.

Exactly when these 100 percent renewable goals will be reached varies on a company-by-company basis, Emily Farnworth of the Climate Group, who oversees the RE100 program, told TriplePundit in an exclusive interview. But many firms are making significant headway after only a few months.

Ikea, for example, now meets around 40 percent of its electricity needs through renewable sources. The company also pledged $1.1 billion in June to help fund renewable energy infrastructure outside its own four walls. In another move of bold leadership, Infosys, the first Indian company to join the campaign, pledged to meet its renewable target by 2018 -- an aggressive goal that's sure to get noticed in the IT sector and beyond.

Mobilizing business on the road to Paris

The original goal of the program was to inspire 100 of the world's largest businesses to commit to 100 percent renewable power by 2020. But the group is seeing far more interest than it first imagined and plans make its target even more ambitious: to bring on 100 major companies before the Paris climate talks in December.

"This year is such a big year on climate change," Farnworth told 3p. "There are a lot of businesses that want to make bold commitments to demonstrate -- ahead of the negotiations in Paris -- that businesses are actually very serious about tackling climate change. And a 100 percent renewable electricity goal is one thing that can really back that up."

"A lot of companies are looking to go public with some big goals ahead of [COP21], so I'm hopeful that we'll be on track by the end of the year."

Climate Week is the ideal place and time for this latest round of Fortune 500 firms to announce their commitments renewable power. With December’s climate talks quickly approaching, this key milestone event sends a timely reminder to negotiators that leading businesses want strong climate action from governments, while increasing demand for renewables themselves.

This perfect storm of factors hits the nail on the head when it comes to the Climate Group's original aspirations when it launched RE100 at Climate Week last year: to re-think electricity generation and supply in a way that's focused on "driving corporate demand" with an ultimate goal to "influence the broader power sector," Farnworth said.

"If you can change the way that companies are talking about engaging on the issue of switching to renewables, then you can have a big influencing factor on the whole sector," she explained.

"Although the individual corporate commitments are obviously very important and extremely impressive, what we're really hoping with [RE100] is that, overall, we can galvanize support for a 100 percent renewable electricity future."

American firms pick up the pace on climate action

America’s business drive to a low-carbon economy has been picking up speed recently. Some of the most recent RE100 partners, including Walmart, are doubling-down on prior commitments to source 100 percent renewable power. The big-box retailer first made known its desire to go renewable nearly 10 years ago and is also part of the EPA's Green Power Partnership.

"Walmart set out on its journey to be powered by 100 percent renewable beginning in 2005, and today’s pledge with RE100 further affirms the importance of our aspirational goal," Enrique Ostale, president and CEO of Walmart Latin America, said in a statement. "With much of Walmart’s projected growth over the coming years set to take place in Central and Latin America, we are committed to increasing demand for renewable energy globally.”

Walmart and Goldman Sachs were also two of 13 companies in July to commit to reducing their emissions as part of the American Business Act on Climate pledge – and the White House is expected to announce new names next month.

In short, it's becoming clear that the business community isn't about to leave climate action and adaptation up to world leaders. We've heard business after business report that climate change is already posing risks to their supply chains -- not to mention leaders in the space taking it a step further and identifying climate action as an opportunity.

TriplePundit will keep our eye on RE100 as we move closer to the COP21 climate talks. Watch out for commitments from your favorite brands, not to mention potentially huge changes within the utility sector as demand for renewables reaches new heights.

Image credit: Flickr/Walmart

Ready for Paris? The upcoming United Nations climate negotiations are shaping up to be the biggest, potentially most historic gathering of global climate and environment leaders in human history. But just what is going to happen in Paris? And why is the meeting called COP21?

In fact, Paris is the latest in a long series of international conferences and negotiations on climate change and environmental issues. Though climate change was highlighted by scientists as early as the 1950s, only in the 1990s did it begin to garner serious attention from governments across the world as a potential threat to the global economy. Since then, there have been regular meetings between high-level international diplomats nearly every year, though the outcomes of these meetings have, thus far, been mostly disappointing.  Hopefully that might soon be changing.

Here's a run-down of the prior U.N. talks on climate change and what we can expect in Paris.

1992: U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Better known as the Rio Earth Summit, this historic event included many attendees who felt strongly that momentum was there for strong action to protect the world's environmental heritage now. More than 170 governments participated, with 116 sending their heads of state or government.

The conference was focused on more than just climate and included many other aspects related to environment and sustainability. This included toxins, water, transportation and clean energy. The Convention on Biological Diversity was opened for signature at the Earth Summit, and has turned into the premier global instrument to protect biodiversity globally.

One of the major outcomes of the Earth Summit was the development of the groundwork for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). The UNFCC would become the home for all climate-related negotiations globally. It was ratified in 1994, and it was decided that the framework would be followed by sessions of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and its subsidiary bodies to negotiate and agree upon further action.

One of the best moments to come out of the Rio Earth Summit was the below speech by 12-year-old Severin Suzuki. In a meeting that was dominated by white-haired diplomats and arcane negotiations, it was a sign that the future of the climate movement was in the hands not of government bureaucrats, but regular people, especially the youth who would face the brunt of climate change.

1997: COP3 in Kyoto, Japan

Five years after the Rio Earth Summit, it was becoming more and more clear that climate change could have catastrophic impacts on livelihoods across the world, especially as reports from the newly-formed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) began to form a scientific consensus on the problem.

The Kyoto COP led to the now-infamous Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in 2005 and is set to run until the end of this year. As one of his final decisions as chief executive, United States President Bill Clinton signed the protocol. However, in order for the treaty to become binding, it needed to be ratified by the Senate. When Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush made removing the signature one of his key campaign goals, it became certain that the United States would not take part in Kyoto in any meaningful way.

The Kyoto Protocol was considered weak by many. Besides the glaring absence of the United States, and fellow major-polluter Australia, it put almost no limits on the ability of developing countries to emit CO2. This meant that, even as countries in Europe and Japan slowed down their emissions, they were more than made up for by the boom in emissions from the global South, especially the rising powerhouse China, who in 2007 overtook the United States to become the world biggest carbon emitter. Global carbon emissions continued to rise throughout the early implementation of Kyoto.

2009: COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark

2009 was a year of hope and expectations. The election of President Barack Obama in the United States, who is a stated supporter of climate action unlike his predecessor George W. Bush, and a growing understanding that developing countries had to play a greater role in sharing the burden of emissions cuts led many to believe that this would be the year that a strong global climate agreement could be reached.

What resulted was seen by many as a disaster. Days of closed-door meetings that shut out environmental activists and community leaders led to a weak deal brokered by President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao that was far, far below expectations. The U.S. committed to just a 4 percent drop from 1990 levels, and the deal made no obligations on developing countries to make cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Some poor countries, like the Maldives, that were already facing land-loss due to rising sea levels, were angry, and scientists argued that this plan would lead to a 3.5 degrees Celsius temperature rise by the end of the century, an increase that would results in serious catastrophic impacts that could harm millions globally.

Since Copenhagen

There have been several meetings since 2009, though I wouldn't blame you if you didn't know anything about them. None of them have received nearly the attention and hoopla of Copenhagen, and all have been marred by lingering negativity from the failure of 2009.

Nevertheless, there have been strong steps made in the past five years -- most notably an expansion of the United Nations REDD program, which aims to provide funds to protect tropical forests from being cut down, a major source of climate-changing emissions. Moreover, greater data-gathering technology and more sophisticated scientific analysis has allowed the IPCC to produce better-researched reports that show what the impacts of climate change will be for countries around the world. Moreover, yearly weather patterns are showing that we are currently on the worst-case-scenario path -- as every year we hit a new record for the hottest year, again and again.

The road to Paris

The tide began to shift last year when hundreds of thousands of climate activists gathered in New York City for the People's Climate March in September, calling on global governments to take action on climate. It followed the historic U.S.-China climate deal, announced jointly by President Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jingping, earlier that month, which gave rise to the hope that perhaps the world was ready to tackle what is its biggest challenge.

This year, the world is coming to Paris to determine what will succeed the Kyoto Protocol which expires at the end of this year. Compared to 1992, or 1997, the movement is more diverse, and it is coming with ideas and solutions, not harbingers of disaster. Whereas in the past, businesses often opposed strong measure, today, many are firmly standing alongside climate justice advocates calling on governments to tackle climate change head-on.

Stay tuned to TriplePundit as we'll be covering the Paris Climate Talks from now until the end of negotiations. Share your thoughts with us on  Twitter at #NzymCOP21

Photo credit: CIAT/Flickr

Today, TriplePundit, Novozymes, Four Twenty Seven and The Climate Reality Project came together at #NzymCOP21 for a special Twitter Chat about the case for responsible business and the importance of COP21. This chat coincided with Climate Week NYC.

All eyes are on the city of Paris, which will host December's 21st Conference of Parties (COP21), widely expected to be our last chance to get a global commitment to halt climate change!

While the U.N. talks themselves will be crowded with policymakers and state representatives, there will be many upcoming opportunities for the business community to get involved in the intervening months. During this Twitter Chat, we discussed best practices for companies that want to make their support for a global commitment on climate change known to the world.

This Twitter Chat marks a kickoff to an online discussion we’ll be hosting at #NzymCOP21 through the December climate talks.

During #NzymCOP21, our panelists shared their answers the following questions, and more:

• Why are all eyes on COP21?


• Why do we need science-based targets instead of incremental targets?


• What does carbon pricing really mean? What impact would it have if we had a pricing scheme in place?


• Should companies prepare to show up in Paris?


• What other ways can companies get involved from around the world?


• What happens with the COP process if no deals are struck?

• Claus Stig Pedersen (@Novozymes) - Senior Director, Head of Corporate Sustainability at Novozymes


• Emilie Mazzacurati (@427climaterisk) - Founder and CEO at Four Twenty Seven and climate adaptation expert


• Kenneth Berlin (@KennethBerlin) - CEO of The Climate Reality Project

• The TriplePundit Team:
  
  
  • Nick Aster (@NickAster) -- Founder and Publisher
  
  
  • Marissa Rosen (@MarissaR1) -- Director of Social Media
  
  
  • Jen Boynton (@JenBoynton) -- Editor-In-Chief
  
  
  • Mary Mazzoni (@Mary_Mazzoni) -- Senior Editor

It's being called the single biggest leap in fossil fuel divestment in history. On Tuesday, during Climate Week 2015, oil and gas divestment supporters and media gathered in a packed room at New York's Paley Center for Media to hear this year's tally of divestment commitments made by companies and private investments across the globe. With last year's count at $52 billion, and a modest number of companies and private investors signed up, the Divest-Invest campaign aimed to triple the number of commitments from universities, companies and individuals who previously relied on oil and gas investments as part of their portfolios.

The organization did far better than that assertive goal.

"To date, 430 institutions and 2,040 individuals across 43 countries and representing $2.6 trillion in assets have committed to divest from fossil fuel companies," says the organization. The surge translates to a 50-fold increase in divestment assets since last year's Climate Week.

Part of that boost was due to recent decisions by some 40 educational institutions to divest, either wholly or in part, from fossil fuels. The University of California, Georgetown University and Oxford University were among the largest. The $130 billion in divestments is representative of the impact that student protests are having across the world, said Alden Finney, a student and divestment organizer at the University of California.

"Students come to the table because they realize climate change is an injustice," Finney said.

Governments are also stepping up to the plate. Increasing pressure from constituents, and the financial impact of climate change, has been encouraging state and local governments to redirect their pension fund investments. One of the largest divestments occurred this month, when the California General Assembly voted to yank its $476 billion in pension fund investments from those companies that get at least half of their revenue from coal. And U.S. cities aren't the only local governments to have a change of heart. Australia's Capital Territory and the Australian city of Newcastle also backed away from oil and gas investments.

"The average emember of our valuation funds is 30 years old," said Simon Sheikh, CEO of the Fossil Fuel Free Super Annuation Fund in Canberra, Australia, and they want to ensure that their investments match their future retirement needs.  "They want their pension funds to be right along beside them" when they retire, Sheikh told 3p.

On hand to lend support to the campaign was actor Leonard DiCaprio, who has announced that he has dropped fossil fuel investments from both his personal portfolio and the assets of his philanthropic organization, the Leonard DiCaprio Foundation. DiCaprio has been a leading supporter of the efforts to fight climate change, so the announcement is no surprise. But it helps to underscore a key point in this investment shift, said Dr. Ellen Dorsey, conference moderator and executive director of the Wallace Global Fund: Charities are making the change in large ways and shifting the balance in energy investment strategies.

"The philanthropic sector has been a substantial force in this movement," Dorsey said. More than 140 organizations have pledged divestment recently, adding another $10 billion to the tally.

Faith organizations in particular, says the Divest-Invest report, are stepping forward to encourage the transition from fossil fuel investments. "Faith leaders of diverse religions and creeds are demanding our world’s leaders take meaningful action to curb climate change at the U.N. climate negotiations in Paris in December." More than 120 different organizations, representing $24 billion, have made a commitment to switch to sustainable investments.

"For faith communities, the earth is our house and we want to pass it on at least as good as we received," said Rev. Fletcher Harper of Green Faith. He noted that it isn't just Christian communities that are stepping forward to call for divestment, but "Muslim and Hindu" communities as well. A coalition of Muslim leaders from 20 countries recently made an appeal for investors to divest from oil and gas industries.

Jewish communities, as well, have stepped forward to advocate for divestment. In February 2014, a consortium of faith-based organizations wrote to Pope Francis, calling on the Vatican to support divestment efforts. The request was co-signed by Rev. Harper and Rabbi Jonathan Keren Black, president of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change, a multi-faith coalition. Similar calls have been heard here in the U.S., Canada and Israel.

The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, opened the press conference by noting the significance of the announcement. It "shows the real strength of this momentum for change," Figueres told the audience. She said there are three underpinnings to shifting the world's economy away from fossil fuels and climate change, which she said has already been proven to be, in part, a by-product of fossil fuel carbon emissions.

The capital shift away from oil and gas investments "must keep pace with the scientifically-defined timelines" set for reducing global warming, Figueres said. And the shift must be "rapid but orderly."

Governments and investors must work hand-in-hand through strategies that incentivize this shift, such as carbon pricing, subsidies that incentivize change and other innovative options.

"Investing at scale in clean, efficient power offers one of the clearest no-regret choices ever presented to human progress," Figueres said at Climate Week.

Other speakers included but weren't limited to Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., president and CEO of Hip Hop Caucus, who highlighted the effort of artists to bring discussion about fossil fuel divestment to the fore, and May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, who noted that as momentous as the $2.6 trillion announcement sounds, it's only a benchmark.

"We're not done," Boeve said decisively. There will be more public marches and calls for divestment across the world, including in Japan and the Vatican. There will also be efforts to spearhead the divestment of a dozen cities in the U.K.

"These numbers mean a lot of things," Boeve explained. But most importantly, it means businesses and investors aren't the only ones who need to take climate change and fossil fuel divestment seriously. "We need governments to divest also."

Image credit: Flickr/James Ennis

The emissions-rigging scandal that Volkswagen has driven into keeps getting worse. What was originally disclosed to be a “defeat device” installed in half a million diesel-powered cars could affect as many as 11 million of the German automaker’s vehicles. These revelations mark a stunning fall for VW, which earlier this year made good on its long-term goal to leap ahead of Toyota as the world’s largest automaker. Shares in the company’s stock have fallen 20 percent, its CEO is under fire and trust in its brand will be long tarnished.

As if we did not have enough of kicking a company while it's down, viewers of Sunday night’s Emmy Awards were treated to Audi commercials featuring Kermit the Frog singing “It Isn’t Easy Being Green,” while NFL football fans were treated to another line of the company's commercials touting “truth in engineering.”

But those indulging in Schadenfreude over VW’s woes need to take a step back and see the ramifications of their choice to cheat emissions standards in favor of vehicle performance. These events are a massive setback for the automotive industry at large, which for decades had long resisted any mandates, from seat belts to better fuel mileage, to implementing new environmental or safety measures. The past several years, however, have seen a shift, as automakers improved their cars’ environmental performance while investing in next-generation vehicles — even at a time of low petroleum prices. VW wanted to capitalize on increased interest in clean vehicles without actually meeting the standards and they got caught.

For Germany, VW’s shenanigans are a kick in the gut for a progressive, proud and accomplished nation that has long been carrying Europe — economically, politically and morally (as in the refugee crisis) -- on its shoulders while its neighbors bicker and absolve themselves of any responsibility. As CNN deftly points out, VW and its portfolio of brands, are a critical cog in Germany’s economic engine. If consumers worldwide start spurning German cars, the sputtering of the world’s fourth largest economy will come at a terrible time as it copes with an additional 1 million people who have crossed its borders.

What looks to be the decision of a few rogue executives will long tarnish the reputation of a company that has not only enjoyed a solid record of engineering and customer satisfaction.

But Volkswagen’s self-immolation also reflects on many of us who have been deeply involved within the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement. Last week, Volkswagen led the Dow Jones Sustainability Index automotive sector. This week, it was called to the carpet for environmental sins only to admit several days later it deceived millions of customers in the pursuit of profit. We obviously need to take a step back and look more deeply at what we're measuring.

When a company pitching a product tied to depleting municipal water sources as well as obesity, like Cola-Cola Enterprises, is listed on the DJIA, we should scratch our heads. When a company such as Unilever, which boasts about 2 billion people a day using its products to “look good, feel good and get more out of life,” also makes this prestigious sustainability listing, the logic should give us pause and make us scratch our heads. Companies that ordinarily would fall under the radar, such as Thai Oil — which is also on the DJSI despite a questionable record on human rights — reveal a global business culture that awards and rewards itself on “sustainability” and “responsibility” but frequently does not match accolades with accomplishments.

Unfortunately, while the ideals behind corporate social responsibility certainly have merit, the overall execution has been deeply flawed. The trend in CSR has been to focus more on goals and aspirations, and less on concrete and tangible results. Companies often highlight what they say they will do in 2020 or 2025, and focus less on what happened last year or in 2015. Professionals in this space travel across the U.S., even the world, to present their findings at conferences and congratulate themselves on how well they are doing. And all of this is backed up by relentless public relations professionals, who issue streams of emails with platitudes such as, “our inclusion in the DJSI is due to our success integrating sustainability into our core decision-making, and delivering sound long-term plans for sustainable development.”

Sadly, they get away with it, because no one is going to follow up five years from now and ask about whether they achieved those benchmarks touted earlier in the decade. Why would it be any different? Questions at these events are less about “What have you and your company done?” and more about “Are you going to X conference in X city?” The result is an industry that is built upon self-congratulation.

When companies decide to place emphasis more on how to style a responsible company, and less on substance, we in turn create a culture in which a few people at a corporation feel as if they can break the rules in the belief that no one will notice.

This saga at VW should, therefore, send a strong message to companies that -- no matter how good their storytelling is, no matter how lofty their goals are, no matter how many villages were helped or carbon emissions diverted -- most people want to know these organizations are having a real, positive impact. Once egregious behavior, such as the installation of defeat devices, is publicly revealed, that trust is gone, and it will take years for reputation and stock prices to recover.

It is time for companies to focus less on rankings, less on platitudes and less on generating positive press. Honesty, transparency and real impact will not only keep the public’s trust, but also, pragmatically, keep those customers and build a stronger, more reputable and sustainable company in the long run.

Image credit: Bull-doser via Wikimedia Commons

Published earlier today on Triple Pundit.

While rain forests have long scored attention for their role in trapping carbon, discussions concerning the Arctic have centered on whether or not, or how much, we are going to allow companies to drill for oil far up north.

Now, scientists are suggesting the Arctic should have renewed focus for another reason: Climate change, accelerated by the melting of permafrost and resulting greenhouse gas emissions, could cost the global economy, in the long run, as much as $43 trillion.

This analysis was published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a joint group of scientists from the University of Colorado and the University of Cambridge. In a letter, the study's lead authors, Chris Hope and Kevin Schaefer, suggest that the Arctic region is warming at approximately twice the rate of the global average.

Why is this a potential threat? Hope and Schaefer’s team posit that the melting of permafrost, in addition to the loss of ice sheets in Greenland and the far northern islands of Canada, will lead to the release of countless billions of tons of not only carbon dioxide, but also far more damaging methane gas. The release of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will cause a bevy of problems: Damage and loss to real estate in coastal areas, the loss of crops due to higher temperatures, decrease in electricity from hydropower, and increased use of air conditioning are just a few examples of the hits to the global economy. Those losses would far outweigh any economic benefits, such as the opening of Arctic shipping routes, investment in low-carbon transportation or economic development in the world’s far northern regions.

Hope, a professor of business, and Schaefer, a research scientist specializing in permafrost carbon, arrived at their financial figure by using data from the PAGE09 (Policy Analysis for the Greenhouse Effect) assessment model. If current weather patterns continue, the total cost of climate change through the year 2200, in their estimation, could increase to $369 trillion — a 13 percent increase from what is generally agreed to be the long-term cost of climate change. Their study, however, is not completely dystopian. They suggest that if aggressive climate change strategies are implemented worldwide, that figure could shrink by $37 trillion.

This analysis on the potential impact of permafrost loss will grab the attention of a wide array of industries. Energy companies determined to drill in the Arctic would have to balance those gains versus the specter of an accelerated demand for fuel-efficient vehicles; insurance companies would need to assess how they insure buildings and homes in coastal areas; food companies may have to decide whether regions from which they have long sourced ingredients will still be relevant for their supply chains. If proponents of a global deal at the COP21 talks in Paris need more ammunition to make their case that climate is a matter to be taken seriously, this study will definitely boost their arguments over the next few months.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Beauregard

Nearly half of the world’s 100 largest companies, including Procter & Gamble and Duke Energy, are “obstructing climate change legislation,” according to a study released last week by the London-based nonprofit NGO InfluenceMap.

And it gets worse: Almost all (95 percent) of these companies are members of trade associations that act in the same obstructionist manner. The recently formed InfluenceMap uses a new research methodology it developed in conjunction with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

InfluenceMap’s research found that despite their public communications, few corporations have actually supported the progressive climate policies being proposed by governments globally.

“More and more, we’re seeing companies rely on their trade groups to do their dirty work of lobbying against comprehensive climate policies,” Gretchen Goldman, an adviser to InfluenceMap and the lead analyst for UCS’ Center for Science and Democracy, said in a statement. “Companies get the delay in policy they want, while preventing nations from acting to fight climate change.”

There also remains a lack of transparency around their relationships with trade associations, with very few companies willing to publicly challenge them despite “clear misalignment” between their climate positions and the actions of the associations. “That said, almost half of the world’s largest companies have also recently been involved in directly advocating against climate policy, including BMW, EDF and Boeing, companies that highlight their own sustainability credentials,” says InfluenceMap.

Corporate influence over the climate change debate and policy process is often cited as a key reason for the relatively slow progress of both the U.N. COP process and national-level climate legislation, InfluenceMap noted. “The research also shows that corporate influence over climate extends beyond the activities normally associated with lobbying, including intervention in the public discourse on climate change science and policy via advertising, PR, social media and access to decision-makers, as well as the use of influencers, such as trade associations and advocacy groups.”

Breaking the obstructive trend, Unilever (owner of Dove, Knorr, Flora and other brands) is ranked as a leader in InfluenceMap’s scoring system, supporting multiple strands of climate policy globally.  This contrasts with rival P&G (owner of brands like Gillette, Wella and Ariel), which, despite its stated support for action on climate change, is a member of BusinessEurope (recently under attack in the U.K. media for its obstructionist stance toward climate legislation), and the secretive U.S. industry group, NEDA/CAP, which has sued the EPA to prevent the agency from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Other trade associations, including the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Council of Australia, and the powerful Japan Business Federation, which counts almost every major Japanese company as a member, have all strongly opposed climate legislation for years.

Does it get even worse? Well yes. In a New Yorker piece last week, Bill McKibben, author, educator, environmentalist and co-founder of 350.org, wrote that  InsideClimate News has published the first installment of a multi-part exposé about ExxonMobil’s long history of deception on climate change.

The documents and interviews InsideClimate News conducted with retired employees and officials “show that, as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil), knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed — perhaps fatally — the planet’s response to global warming,” McKibben wrote. He continued:

“An Exxon senior scientist named James Black was, according to his own notes, able to tell the company’s management committee that there was ‘general scientific agreement’ that what was then called the greenhouse effect was most likely caused by man-made C02; a year later, speaking to an even wider audience inside the company, he said that research indicated that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere, we would increase temperatures two to three degrees Celsius. That’s just about where the scientific consensus lies to this day.” Note: This was in 1977!

Is any of this surprising? Not really, because, well, corporate power always rules. In Exxon’s case, it was “the road not taken”  in order to protect its business.

But the length and depth of the deceit and hypocrisy — at the extreme cost to the planet for nearly 40 years, and continuing to this day — is shameful, disgusting and depressing.

Image courtesy of InfluenceMap 

Power generation produces the most carbon emissions in the energy market around the globe. Currently, power generation emits enough greenhouse gas emissions to equal the emissions from all of the world’s cars. Cities use 78 percent of energy globally, according to a United Nations report, and produce over 60 percent of carbon emissions. So, they can play a big role in reducing emissions by adopting clean energy.

This year, 308 cities are participating in CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), and 162 responded to a survey about their energy use. Cities overall are making “significant strides” to shift to low-carbon energy, CDP found. Thirty-five percent of cities reported they get three-quarters of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. Over a third of the cities who disclosed to CDP this year reported having some kind of renewable energy target.

What CDP found is that, among participating cities, regions vary. For example, Latin American cities get about 76 percent of their electricity from clean sources on average, while European cities get 59 percent of their energy from clean power. Cities in the Asia Pacific region get 15 percent of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.

Some cities really stand out, and two of those outstanding ones are in California. Santa Monica and San Francisco have a 100 renewable electricity target in place. The Texas city of Austin committed to sourcing 55 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. It’s a goal the city reports it is on track to meet four years ahead of schedule through renewable power purchase agreements and energy-efficiency programs. Aspen has already achieved its 100 percent renewable electricity target. Clearly, western U.S. cities are leading the way.

But how do cities fare in other regions? One European city, Stockholm, Sweden, has the goal to be fossil fuel free by 2040. The Australian city of Canberra has a goal of getting 90 percent of its electricity from large-scale renewables by 2020. That goal will achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a financial incentive for cities to transition to cleaner power sources. Eighty-six percent of the cities who reported to CDP said they see economic opportunities from efforts to deal with climate change. A Citi report predicts that over the next 25 years about $200 trillion will be spent on energy. The cumulative lost GDP from climate change impacts, according to the report, could equate to $44 trillion on an undiscounted basis. So, investing in cleaner energy will pay off for cities. As McKinsey predicted, $1 of every $8,000 spent is required to support achieving renewable energy goals that have a clean electricity target.

That’s a small payoff to help the planet and achieve financial savings.

Image credit: Flickr/Lawrence Murray

Partner numbers at RE100 are swelling with news that a number of globally recognized US businesses have joined the campaign, pledging to source 100% of their electricity from renewable sources.

The firms include Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, NIKE, Inc., Procter & Gamble, Salesforce, Starbucks, Steelcase, Voya Financial, and Walmart.

RE100 is the global campaign led by The Climate Group in partnership with CDP, to engage, support and showcase influential businesses committed to 100% renewable electricity.

America’s business drive to a low carbon economy has been picking up speed recently. Goldman Sachs and Walmart were two of 13 companies in July to commit to reducing their emissions as part of the American Business Act on Climate pledge – and the White House is expected to announce new names next month.

RE100 was launched a year ago with 12 original corporate partners – IKEA Group, Swiss Re, BT Group, Formula E, H&M, KPN, Nestlé, Philips, RELX Group, J. Safra Sarasin and YOOX Group – as well as Mars, Incorporated, the first US business on board. 

Thirty six major businesses from around the world have now joined the campaign, with green desert economy developer Elion Resources Group becoming the first Chinese company in March 2015, followed in May by the first Indian company Information Technology leader Infosys.

Last week saw the addition of Swiss financial services provider UBS, and earlier this week the first science-based participant, Dutch life sciences and materials sciences company Royal DSM.

Picture credit: © Madmaxer | Dreamstime.com