Search

By Earl W. Shank

Sustainability’s emerging popularity has enthralled many young people, interested in dedicating their lives to work in the field, developing privileged understanding of the term’s meaning. The new wave of forward-thinking professionals possess sustainability knowledge, but they treat the knowledge like a special right granted only to a select few. Sustainability professionals, by and large, need to develop empathy to understand the perspective of others and begin to work collaboratively with those with whom at first they may disagree.

This empathy-lacking sustainability ideology views education and intellect as nearly synonymous for knowledge about environmental issues and social causes, and dismisses the notion that anyone could genuinely be uninformed about the matter. However, “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (Hanlon’s Law).” Sustainability has not always been a concept at the forefront of consideration, and many people merely lack adequate exposure to the importance of thinking beyond short-term profitability.

The emergence of powerful buzzwords like “change agents” and “triple bottom line” seem to further delineate between the doers and the do-noters of sustainability. It might be suggested that only a select number of workplaces and jobs in those workplaces cater to the needs of sustainability-minded employees. In reality, every job at every business or institution working on any cause or objective could use a dose of hardworking, thoughtful sustainability.

Unfortunately, sustainability is often defined by best and worst practices; in one hand a collection of companies and actors are placed on a pedestal of what sustainability looks like, while in the other the most deplorable companies and unsightly actions are held as examples of what unsustainable looks like. It is here that the adversarial mindset about sustainability begins. This is the privileged mindset, a modern tale of haves and have nots.

Sustainability demands system wide solutions and not merely behavior confined to a single business or set of positive actions. The world needs more young professionals excited about going beyond comfort and seeking out employment at companies other than those which immediately come to mind as sustainability leaders. Success should not be confined to only finding an avenue to work for one of the pedestal companies.

Change agents, out of fear for being ostracized from their ideology, often refuse to engage with the companies and individuals who fall onto the other side of the spectrum. In the process, significant disparity is created between the doers and the don’ters.

Some of the companies whom are the least sustainable are also the biggest and the most powerful. It is scary to challenge their way of doing business. It is especially scary to challenge their way of doing business internally through a constructive dialogue for fear of being labeled a sell-out.   For this reason, individuals most apt to be able to improve their business practices instead elect to complain about these companies rather than finding positions to make direct change within these companies.

Big powerful companies are exactly where change agents should be focused. The impact of even a small sustainable change to their business procedures could easily have a positive impact exceeding the largest sustainable change to one of the pedestal companies. Harry S. Truman summed up this philosophy when he said, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” It should not matter whether it is an organic farm or a fossil fuel company who gets the credit if the outcome is a sustainable solution.

Building bastions of sustainability at the expense of system wide sustainability is the easy way out. To change institutions built without regard for sustainability, their practices must be challenged from the inside. We have to begin looking for opportunities to work together and not apart and stop delineating between the sustainable and the unsustainable. We, as change agents, have to stop putting ourselves on the same pedestal that prevents being collaborative for the sake of positive, sustainable change.

Image credit: "Sustainability image light bulb at sunset" by Intel Free Press is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Earl W. Shank is the Sustainability Coordinator at the University of New Mexico's Office of Sustainability. His work entails developing strategy to engage university stakeholders about how to incorporate sustainable solutions. 

 

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there’s no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

Did you miss out on any of the year's biggest news? There's only one way to find out. Give that inbox a break, and spend five minutes catching up on the hottest sustainability headlines of 2015.

1. Largest Seawater Desalination Plant to Open Next Year

As we learned earlier this year, the San Diego area will soon be home to the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere. But with a steep $1 billion price tag, the question is whether the Carlsbad Desalination Project will be worth it from a financial and environmental perspective. Read on. 

2. Dark Horse May Outdo Lithium-Ion Battery Storage

Lithium-ion batteries are the star of the energy storage show these days, especially after the launch of Tesla's Powerwall home battery. But back in February, all eyes were on a promising alternative: vanadium. On Feb. 17, Fremont, California-based Imergy announced the introduction of its largest line of vanadium-flow batteries to date. (For those unfamiliar with vanadium, it is a soft element that naturally resists corrosion.) Capable of operating 20 years or more without the need to replace electrolytes, Imergy's ESP 250 series can deliver 250 kilowatts of electrical power for four or more hours. Read on. 

3. The Countries Likely to Best Survive Climate Change

A map released in January by the Eco Experts gives us a peek at which countries are likely to best survive climate change -- and which are most at risk. The map visualizes data from the University of Notre Dame’s Global Adaption Index, which analyzes 192 countries on 45 internal and external indicators of climate change exposure. The findings highlight the need for richer countries to do more to support poorer nations and help them prepare for the severe impacts of climate change. Read on. 

4. As the California Drought Worsens, the State Has to Make Some Tough Choices

As California enters its fourth year of drought, all eyes are out West. This year, many predicted that California’s reservoirs have only a year’s supply of water left. Some took aim at lush green lawns and sparkling swimming pools; others pointed the finger at power plants and the agricultural sector; still others sparked protests criticizing the bottled water industry. Last month, the state issued the first mandatory water restrictions in its history.

While the blame-game is likely to continue, one thing is for certain: California will have some tough choices to make if the drought persists. And, lest you think the Golden State will shoulder all the burden of drought-plagued citrus fields kindling-ready forests, the economic impacts of California's water woes could reach across the world. We'll certainly have our eye on this story as it develops, but it's worth catching up on any details you may have missed. Read on.

5. Burlington, Vermont Now Runs on 100 Percent Renewable Energy

Earlier this year, Burlington, Vermont, made waves for becoming the first city in the U.S. to be powered 100 percent by renewables. (Some may say Greenburg, Kansas, was the first, but we are talking about a town of 800 people versus 42,000 in Burlington.) Reliant on coal a generation a few years ago, Vermont’s largest city has slowly revamped its energy portfolio, culminating in the purchase of a hydropower plant late last year. Read on. 

6. Tesla Releases a Home Battery

The Interwebs went wild this month when news broke about Tesla Motors' foray into the energy storage space. With the launch of its home and business battery, the Powerwall, Tesla created a new arm -- Tesla Energy -- that promises to bring the automaker's battery expertise to the next level. The batteries are already sold out until 2016. If you were lucky enough to snag one, this information may be of use. Read on.

7. Rethinking the Grid: Personal Power Stations, in Your Garage

Entrepreneurs worldwide are raising a question that goes something like this: What if we decided to think outside our box and imagine that instead of myriad electrical wires joining our houses, we got our household electricity from rooftop solar panels instead? And what if those panels pumped electricity into an array of batteries in our garages? Or into an electric vehicle that had the capacity to store that power and send it back into our homes?

These questions piqued the interest of 3p readers last month, and it seems leading companies just may make this hypothetical a reality. Read on. 

8. ‘Organic Ready’ Corn Takes Aim at GMO Cross-Pollination

Corn is one of those plants that relies on the wind to cross-pollinate and is subject to the drift from other corn fields. Most of us have heard stories about organic farmers who have found their rows of organic corn infiltrated by genetically-modified pollen from neighbors’ fields. But Frank Kutka, who specializes in plant breeding techniques, may have devised a solution with his 'organic-ready' corn. Read on.

9. Boomers’ Sustainability Diet: Five Steps to Losing 20 Pounds

Okay, okay, so this isn't exactly a news headline. But 3p readers went nuts for correspondent Bill Roth's 'Boomers' Sustainability Diet,' aimed at helping baby boomers like himself shed stubborn pounds by adopting a more sustainable lifestyle.

The newly-svelte Bill is down 20 pounds and counting, and he explains how he did it -- without fad diets or fasting -- in a three-part series on TriplePundit.  Read on.

10. 30 CSR Pros to Follow in 2015

Want to make sure you never miss another headline? Give these 30 corporate social responsibility (CSR) pros a follow on Twitter, and they'll make sure you never miss a beat. From corporate sustainability executives and consultants to bloggers and social media mavens, these folks will keep you plugged in all year long. Read on.

Image credits: 1) Carlsbad Desalination Project 2) Imergy Energy 3) Eco Experts 4) Leon Kaye 5) Flickr/Lizard10979 6) Tesla Energy 6) Flickr/Mike Linksvayer 7) Flickr/Aimee Custis Photography 8) Frank Kutka

We all know climate change is happening. And we here at TriplePundit spend a lot of time making the business case for action. There are indeed many reasons for companies to respond to the threat. Those near the coast might face flooding, and those with production overseas could see disruption in supply. However, when it comes to reporting on this risk -- there are few benefits to making the connection between these "acts of god" and a larger global temperature rise.

See, public companies in the U.S. are already required to report on material risk to the SEC on their 10-K documents. And so, the fear goes, if climate change is listed as a risk, a company will appear vulnerable and may weaken its financial position. That's true even if the climate change risk is discussed in a sustainability report as opposed to more formal financial documents.

Silvia Garrigo, manager  of global issues and policy at Chevron Corp., explained during a break-out session at this week's Ceres conference: "The SEC has defined materiality in a legal way. If you have a separate mode of communication where you use the word in a different way and disclose different things, there is a big quandary."

Who decides what's material?

While the word "material" has a specific legal definition when it comes to financial reporting, things are a lot more fuzzy in the world of sustainability reporting. While the various reporting agencies have adopted the word "material" as a signal to companies that they need to get serious about reporting on the core issues, by pulling a word directly from the financial disclosure world they have created confusion and, for better or worse, pressure.

The goal of requiring companies to disclose risks is, of course, to give investors the information to make informed investment decisions. A natural tension exists, as companies want to present themselves in a positive light while following the letter of the law.

Garrigo pushed back against the sustainability reporters who called for increased disclosure via the 10-K. "The goal is to devalue the company based on stranded assets. There’s no reward for doing that."

Morgan Scott from the Electric Power Research Institute questioned the premise that the sustainability reporting community is pushing for companies to weaken their financial positions. "Is it really devaluing the company?" she asked. "The point is that you recognize the risk and can explain how you handle it." Theoretically companies that do so are stronger for it, but it is hard to say how the financial community would respond to radical transparency.

Connecting the dots to climate change

Even when a company's managers agree that the impacts of climate change need to be disclosed as risks, that doesn't mean that they are on board with blaming climate change. Leading climate change adaptation consultant Emilie Mazzacurati explained: "Given the way our financial system is set up, many of the true impacts of climate change are externalized from the system, so they aren't actually financial material." That is to say that, since companies aren't paying for the true cost of water or energy right now, the fact that these will be more expensive in coming years due to climate change is not a material risk worth reporting.

However, everyone agreed that the impacts of climate change are affecting companies now.

One participant, speaking under the Chatham House rule, explained that Hurricane Katrina caused $50 million in damages for a transportation company. However, the size of this company's market cap made this figure a drop in the proverbial ocean bucket. The incident was listed as an act of God, one of those disasters that just happen sometimes.

Does it matter if this and other weather-related disasters are caused by climate change?

Garrigo argued that it didn't really matter in terms of preparing for increasingly severe storms. "We have platforms to extract oil and gas that are fragile to droughts, fragile to hurricanes. Whether or not it is tied to climate change, we have a responsibility to make those systems more resilient." And they do.

However, I think it does matter how companies talk about these issues. Considering each individual storm on its own means that the increased collective risk will go ignored. We need companies to lead the way in recognizing climate change risks, since government lags behind in setting a price on carbon. Yet, until the rules of reporting catch up with the risks of climate change, companies have little incentive to do the hard work of projecting the true risks of doing business in a warming world.

Image credit: Jeff Rowley, Flickr

There are two types of corporate-supported foundations. The first are the mostly benevolent: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or the Ford Foundation, which work on social projects that are quite far removed from the business of their founders' companies (in this case, Microsoft and Ford Motor Co., respectively).

The second are the corporate fronts. For example, the American Petroleum Institute, or anything connected to the Koch Brothers. These put on a facade of social care but focus on topics directly connected to the bottom-line of their main funders. See climate-denying science or pushing for government policies that benefit big business.

Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org initiative, with a stated noble goal of bringing Internet access to the billions around the world currently lacking it, might have showed its true colors as one of the latter this past week when its free application launched in Indonesia and India to waves of backlash from net neutrality activists and widespread concerns that it was promoting a Facebook-centric Web.

India and Indonesia are the world's second and fourth most populous countries and also the largest untapped Internet markets. Thus enter Internet.org, which is currently focused on proving a basic suite of Web tools for free, in partnership with major telecom companies in both countries.

The problem – Internet.org's goals are remarkably in-line with Facebook. In fact, at NXCon in Jakarta in 2014, a Facebook, not Internet.org, spokesperson told me and an audience of mostly young, male Indonesians about how the company is working offline in rural Indonesia to ensure that when users get online, they'll want to get on Facebook first.

Is it just a coincidence that Internet.org fits in perfectly with this corporate strategy?

Also concerning is privacy. Internet.org states that “[Facebook collects] information when you install, run or use any of our services, including the free websites and services provided through Internet.org.” That is right. Facebook. The initiative isn't actually a nonprofit. It is directly connected to Facebook, the same company that gave the NSA access to its data. Thus, any data collected by Internet.org could, potentially, be used by Facebook when it sells ads in the future, through your new Facebook account.

This is all part of a larger strategy to expand Facebook's control of the Web. Just look at the social network's recent move to have media companies, such as the New York Times, post content directly within the social network through a revenue-sharing scheme. The cycle works like this: Internet.org introduces Facebook to you, and content – your friends photos, events and, now, news – keeps you in. Your data, however it was gathered, can be used to sell you ads that expand Facebook's growing profits. What use is the “Internet” when you have Facebook?

Growth sooner rather than later

In the end, the key driver is that Facebook needs growth – and India and Indonesia are the two biggest sources of growth, especially since China remains closed, much to Zuckerberg's chagrin. Getting new users to immediately join Facebook via Internet.org will allow the company to meet projections already built into its rising stock price.

Unlike their American counterparts, Indonesian Web users are notorious for their ability to use multiple tools. Dual SIM phones are everywhere, allowing users to choose which network matches their need. India's hundreds-million-strong middle class netizens are as savvy as their American counterparts, and are pushing for net neutrality laws on-par with what the Federal Communications Commission approved in the United States last month

Thus, Internet.org, a tool meant to bring the web to millions, may have the effect of turbocharging the net neutrality and Internet access fights in both countries. Whoever wins may determine if the future of the Web is Facebook, the Internet or both.

Photo Credit: Esther Vargas

California's new renewable energy target, proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown during his inaugural address in January, is not only achievable: It would result in as much as $51 billion in annual savings for the state's residents, according to an analysis by Strategen Consulting that “quantifies the economic and societal impacts” of the governor's proposed goals.

Ahead of schedule when it comes to meeting a current goal of sourcing 33 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, Gov. Brown proposes raising the state's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) target up a big notch – to 50 percent by 2030.

Strategen's analysis, contained in a report entitled, Impact Analysis: Governor Brown's 2030 Energy Goals, “provides convincing evidence that the governor's plan is economically sound, environmentally beneficial, and achievable,” the new energy consulting company states in a news release.

An economic boost, lower healthcare costs and a healthier environment

According to Strategen's analysis, realizing Gov. Brown's proposed new clean energy plan would create 1.2 million job-years of employment in construction, manufacturing, sales, service and support across California's energy infrastructure sector, along with a boost in economic activity resulting from energy savings.

“The associated reduction in pollution,” moreover, “will save lives, reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of life for all Californians,” Strategen asserts.

Prominent among the key benefits resulting from carrying out the new clean energy plan, Strategen highlights:

• $51 billion in annual savings from 2030 on, or $4,000 per household each year;


• Carbon emissions footprint will drop by over 102 million tons per year, a reduction of 42 percent from 2015 levels – equivalent to planting a forest the size of Maine;


• 739 fewer deaths each year due to the emissions reductions;


• Creation of 1.2 million job-years by 2030, including 870,000 job-years in the wind and solar industries (up from 44,700 today);


• Significantly decreased vulnerability to volatile fossil fuel prices, along with enhanced grid efficiency, reliability and resiliency thanks to renewable resources backed by energy storage.

"This analysis describes in clear, quantitative terms how Gov. Brown's vision will translate to an enormous benefit in so many areas critical to public health, economic stability, energy security and quality of life," Strategen Consulting founder and managing partner, Janice Lin, was quoted as saying.

“We already have the advanced technologies and technical capabilities, which when combined with legislative and regulatory support and backed by forward-thinking investors, will propel California to a global leadership position in energy sustainability and independence."

Strategen lays out a long-term strategy that, among other things, entails taking advantage of “innovative grid strategies and technologies” that state policymakers could use to craft policies capable of realizing the goals set out in Gov. Brown's new plan.

“Many of these technologies are available today, with some being developed in California. All are rapidly descending the cost curve, including solar, energy storage, wind, LED lighting, and electric vehicles (Evs),” Strategen points out.

“California is already on track to generate 33 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020,” the clean energy consulting specialist continues. “Meeting the 50 percent renewables target set out for 2030 will require the continuation of solar and wind installations at similar rates for another 10 years, while adding complementary resources, such as energy storage, to assist with renewable resource integration.”

*Images credit: 1) California Newswire, Brad Alexander, Governor's Office of Emergency Services; 2), 3) Strategen Consulting

By Max Bloom

It makes no economic sense to run more than one set of wires from electric power generators to homes and businesses. That’s why consumers haven’t had a choice about the source of their electric power – whether it be an investor-owned utility (IOU), municipal utility or electric cooperative. Enabling consumers to choose between competing energy providers is a paradigm shift, and with the advent of community choice aggregation (CCA), that shift is in gear.

CCAs allow counties, cities and unincorporated areas to “aggregate” demand and procure their own electricity generation. The incumbent utilities retain responsibility for transmission, distribution and billing. Most CCAs operate on an “opt-out” basis, meaning customers in the CCA service areas are enrolled in the CCA by default, but can choose to opt-out at any time. Typically, 80 to 85 percent of customers in opt-out programs choose to go with the CCA.

Today, 5 percent of the U.S. population and 1,300 municipalities, including the cities of Chicago and Cincinnati, receive their electric power through CCAs, which operate in seven states (Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, California, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Illinois) comprising 30 percent of the U.S. electricity market.

The earliest CCAs first appeared in Massachusetts and Ohio in the late 1990s. But the differences between those early iterations and today’s CCAs are fundamental. “As we moved west, we got more and more sophisticated,” says Paul Fenn, author of the original CCA legislation in 1995, and CEO of Local Power, a CCA consulting group. The key development was the shift in emphasis from low rates to the generation of new, local renewable energy projects.

In the early days, with prices of renewables high, CCAs focused on reducing electric rates and purchased low-cost power through the wholesale markets. As renewables became more affordable, the next generation of CCAs added “green” to their mandates and grew their portfolios by purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs).

Marin Clean Energy (MCE), California’s first CCA, was launched in 2010. Sonoma Clean Power (SCP), the second California CCA, went online in 2014. While they still compete with PG&E for the lowest rates, and include some RECs in their portfolios, both CCAs are now focused on localization – generating local renewable energy projects and creating local green jobs.

“RECs are the norm for programs like ours to provide green power at an affordable price,” says Geof Syphers, CEO of Sonoma Clean Power. “The reason we turned away from them had to do with the fact that we wanted to promote California renewables.”

“There’s nothing wrong with using RECs transitionally,” adds Fenn. “But if RECs become the whole paradigm for CCAs … There are no local or regional benefits [such as] green jobs, economic multipliers or local economic development.”

Noting the difficult evolution of CCAs, Fenn points out: “A big part of the challenge was how to step from one rock in the pond, which is the world of wholesale generators, to the second rock in the pond, which is the development of local renewables and energy efficiency.”

Today’s CCAs can offer consumers both competitive rates and a high percentage of renewables. For example, MCE’s default “Light Green” option charges customers $80.98 for service using 50 percent renewables, whereas PG&E charges $82.42 for equivalent service using only 22 percent renewables.* MCE customers can also choose a “Deep Green” option (100 percent renewables at slightly higher rates) or “Local Sol” (100 percent local solar at the highest rates).

Both MCE and SCP also encourage local build-out of residential and commercial rooftop solar by crediting customers an extra cent per kilowatt-hour for excess electricity. “We launched with [NetGreen], an enhanced net-metering program to further incentivize building systems that meet 100 percent of customer load,” notes Syphers.

CCAs also enjoy the flexibility to tailor their renewables portfolios to local opportunities. SCP has contracted for 50 megawatts of power from Calpine’s existing, Sonoma-based Geysers facility, the largest geothermal electrical project in the world. SCP draws another 70 MW from a new California solar farm, and has contracted for an additional 12.5 MW from an innovative floating solar photovoltaics facility that will cover six water treatment holding ponds in Sonoma County. Sonoma’s “flotovoltaics” project will go online in 2016 and will be the biggest project of its kind in the U.S.

Ditching a provider of reliable electricity – even if the power is expensive or dirty – can seem like risky business to many cities and counties. But the success of CCAs in California, and the natural appeal of freedom of choice, is lowering resistance. Many additional California counties and regions – including San Luis Obispo, Alameda, San Mateo, Monterey Bay Area and Santa Monica Bay Area – are moving toward adopting a CCA model.

The city of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan calls for the implementation of a CCA, a not-insignificant development given that San Diego represents 40 percent of San Diego Gas and Electric’s customer base. After a decade of bureaucratic haggling, San Francisco’s CCA, CleanPowerSF, is finally expected to go online later this year.

Sustainable Westchester, a New York CCA, was approved in February 2015 by the New York Public Service Commission, and is an integral part of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) plan to revamp that state’s energy strategy.

These new CCAs will likely take localization to the next level. “All the new CCAs down the [California] coast are talking about actual in-city, local renewable development and behind-the-meter energy efficiency,” says Fenn. “They’re talking about it in LA County, San Diego and the three-county Santa Cruz CCA.”

The next frontier in the evolution of CCAs may be solar bonds or "H bonds." These municipal bonds would provide funds for residents and businesses to finance renewable energy projects, the debt for which would be paid as a line-item on electric bills, i.e. through “on-bill financing.” Solar bonds would face many of the same challenges and opportunities as property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing.

Authority to issue H bonds was approved by voters in San Francisco in 2001, although no bonds have yet been issued. With financing a primary obstacle to the development of rooftop and other solar projects, the availability of solar bond financing could help unleash a flood of new renewables development.

For now, the most powerful financing tool most CCAs have is their customer base. “When we sign a contract to buy 25 years of power from a renewable facility, what we put up as collateral is the fact that our customers pay their bills,” says SCP’s Syphers. “They pay them about 99.5 percent of the time, which is a really good collections rate.”

In today’s complex world, we may already have too many choices. Proponents of CCAs are hoping consumers of electricity are prepared to take on one more.

*Based on typical usage of 463 kilowatt-hours at PG&E’s rates as of March 1 and MCE’s current rates for the April 2015 to March 2016 fiscal year under the Res-1/E-1 rate schedule.

Image credit: Calpine

Max Bloom is a freelance journalist and marketer of renewable energy products and services.

Editor’s Note: This post is part of a student blogging series on The Business Of Sports & Sustainability. Students attend the Presidio Graduate School which offers the only MBA-level sustainability program focused exclusively on the sports industry. You can follow the series here.

By Saul Estrada

Brazil is under an immense amount of pressure to deliver on its promise of Olympic gold. The 2016 Summer Olympics are now less than two years away, and the situation remains complicated in Rio de Janeiro. Demonstrations against corruption, poor public services, and the billions of dollars being spent on the World Cup and the Olympics are widespread.

Countless construction projects continue to be delayed, nearly half of Rio’s homes remain without proper connection to city sewage infrastructure, and violent crime continues to prevail as the city’s biggest threat. Despite these doubts, one stadium stands proud and prepared to shoulder the weight of a nation.

The Maracanã in Rio, South America’s largest stadium, was first built in preparation for the 1950 FIFA World Cup. It is as much a sporting arena as it is a historical monument for Brazilians, and now, as the Maracanã prepares to host the opening ceremony for the Rio 2016 Olympics, it’s prepared to show the world a new face.

The Maracanã in Rio received LEED Silver recognition in June of 2014 for its efforts to improve energy efficiency, reduce water consumption and carbon emissions, improve the local environment, and implement more efficient use of construction materials. The stadium was assessed in the areas of sustainable space, water, energy and atmospheric efficiency, materials and resources, internal environmental quality, innovation, and processes.

The highlight of the project is undoubtedly the solar photovoltaic plant installed on the roof of the structure: Approximately 1,500 solar panels give the Maracanã enough generation capacity to power the equivalent of 240 homes. The project meets 9 percent of the stadium's power needs, and though that might not seem like much, it serves as a critical platform for engaging staff and fans: Green energy now has a global stage to raise environmental awareness worldwide.

Energy-saving devices and a rainwater capture system that uses the modern roof to collect rainwater were also critical parts of the renovation. These projects together have reduced overall water use by 40 percent. “The rainfall captured by the roof is used to water the pitch and in the restrooms – all of which are equipped with intelligent faucets and flushing systems.” The Maracanã has also partnered with networks of local recycling material collectors to improve the waste management process and formalize recycling practices. The separation of recyclable material from the waste stream represents jobs and revenue for the collectors, and 7 tons of recyclables are diverted from landfill each month as a result of these partnerships.

Though Rio continues to face many challenges, the Maracanã stands as a symbol of pride and resilience. It demonstrates to the nation, and world, that old can again become new, without having to start from scratch. In an age of fancy new stadiums, a renovation-based solution might just be the thing we need in order to draw a greater number of individuals and organizations into the sustainability conversation.

Image credit: Flickr/Arthur Boppré

Saul Estrada is an operations professional with experience in building, energy and technology whose obsession with efficiency drives passion for the design of sustainable operating systems. LinkedIn.

The Intertubes have been buzzing with news of a new pilot project that will provide 500 "state-of-the-art, eco-friendly" food carts to vendors in New York City. That's a hefty chunk out of the estimated 8,000 food carts plying the streets, and the switch is expected to have a big impact on emissions from the tiny mobile kitchens.

City officials and MOVE Systems, which is supplying the carts, estimate that each of its new MRV100 models will cut down on greenhouse gases by 60 percent for each cart, and cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 95 percent.

That all sounds great, but when you get into the nitty gritty the picture gets a little more complicated.

Food carts: The good, the bad and the ugly

To be clear on the terminology, the new food carts are carts, not trucks. Depending on their size and staging location, they don't need to be towed to their selling location. You can simply push them down the street by hand.

Since they don't have diesel engines, that means your typical food cart is already one step ahead of food trucks in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

With the kind of tweaks engineered by MOVE Systems, food carts can also provide entrepreneurs with a relatively low-cost, eco-friendly startup opportunity.

TriplePundit has recently noted that food carts (and trucks) can provide a mobile, flexible solution to the "food desert" crisis besetting some communities.

The problem is that the typical food cart relies on highly volatile propane fuel, which has been implicated in a series of food cart (and food truck) fires in New York.

In New York City, a lax environment for enforcing food health and safety regulations has also bedeviled the mobile food industry.

An eco-friendly food cart solution

MOVE Systems has taken on both sides of the problem.

On the fuel side, the MRV11 uses no propane. The resulting cut in emissions is expected to be the equivalent of removing almost 200 cars from the road per cart, based on calculations provided by the organization Energy Vision.

On the food safety side, the MRV11 packs a full kitchen designed for sanitary operation into a small space.

Here's the rundown from the eco-friendly food cart announcement:

"The MRV100 vending vehicle included a restaurant-grade kitchen with refrigeration and a sustainable energy system that utilizes solar power, alternative fuel, and plug-in hybrid technology. Each cart will be modeled after a stationary kitchen and will be equipped with refrigeration and sink for proper food preparation."

MOVE systems has also leveraged the aforementioned entrepreneur-friendly nature of food carts by partnering with the company First Data to provide MRV100 vendors with its Clover point-of-sale mobile technology.

The whole package is designed to practically sell itself, but the vendors who get the first 500 won't have to fork over the dough. A basic food cart ranges in price from $15,000 to $25,000, and MOVE is giving its carts away to the first 500 vendors who apply.

We're guessing that business model is designed to get the new carts out onto the streets as quickly as possible, where they can start drawing customers away from other carts, providing more vendors with an incentive to make the switch.

... Or maybe not, as the case may be

The MRV100 certainly makes a great case for eco-friendly food carts as far as curbside emissions go, but buried farther down in the press materials is some more information on the alternative fuel that is replacing propane.

That turns out to be compressed natural gas (CNG) provided by the company Clean Energy Fuels.

The bulk of Clean Energy Fuels' business is in fossil natural gas, which brings up a host of undesirable sourcing issues related to the natural gas drilling method known as fracking.

We're going to hold off on tooting the eco-friendly horn for now, but keep in mind that Clean Energy is also marketing a renewable biomethane, so some day in the sparkling green future those eco-friendly food carts could be serving up fine food without the need for either propane or fossil natural gas.

Image credit: MOVE Systems.

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

By Marc de Sousa Shields

Everyone who knows even a modest amount about corporate sustainability understands that only a fraction of what contributes to company value is adequately measured.

While sustainability proponents intuitively know that the contribution is great, we have generally failed to convince legions of sustainability skeptics that estimating sustainability ROI is hard at best, impossible at worse.

I have found over many years of business performance measurement, that all things are measurable, including sustainability’s contribution to corporate value. Indeed, many ways to assess various aspects of sustainability’s contribution already exist.

Measuring the Big Four – water, carbon, energy and waste –with respect to ROI, for example, is done often and well. Attempts to assess social and economic elements of sustainability abound -- from human resources and stakeholder dialogue to donations programs, among others -- some with good but mostly with mixed results.

But even if these indicators were as precise as we need them to be, as a group they would still fail to capture the full extent of sustainability’s value contribution.

Why? Simply put: The sum of all sustainability indicators is always less than the whole of its impact.

An example: Does an energy reduction investment capture the value of a correlated increase in job satisfaction and the value that brings to a company?

Thirty years of brand valuation teaches us that the monetary contribution of sustainability is equal to the aggregate tangible and intangible effect on a company, a brand or a product.

Emerging in the late 1970s, brand valuation techniques were developed to estimate the contribution of brand to corporate value/earnings (e.g., Nescafe), or to a company’s overall brand (e.g., Nestles).

Initially received with great resistance, early methodologies have evolved from fairly simple tools to highly complex models providing monetary values exact enough to put a smile on even the toughest of CFOs.

The most precise of these are now used for corporate sales/mergers and legal disputes, while simpler and less costly models are employed for strategic management purposes.

Sustainability brand value is now at a place where early brand valuation once was, both in terms of precision and being viewed as a little bit nutty!

Some pretty rigorous research by ES Global (available on request), Interbrand and CSR Hub, however, agree that sustainability contributes between 3 and 15 percent of a company’s brand value depending on the sector.

According to a CSR Brand Value estimate (by ES Global), sustainability contributes about USD$900 million to Coca Cola’s USD$70 billion-plus in corporate value; for the Kenyan Brewing Co. it's $40 million, and for FEMSA, the largest bottling and convenience store firm in Mexico, it's $60 million.

Not small numbers, and substantial enough to spur more management attention, investment and value protection than sustainability typically gets.

Did Walmart know, for example, that bribery allegations against its Mexican operations in 2012 caused an estimated $3 billion loss of corporate sustainability-driven value, or that it would reinvigorate hundreds of anti-Walmart groups, which were somewhat mollified by the company’s growing sustainability reputation?

Even the best companies fly mostly in the dark when it comes to measuring sustainability’s financial impacts.

And that’s a shame, because breakaway sustainability strategies at Nike, Cemex, EcoPetro, Natura, H&M and HP, among others, have resulted in exciting sustainability value contribution.

And who doesn’t want to see more competition for that?

Image credit: Flickr - Denis Skley

Marc de Sousa Shields is Managing Director at ES Global, a corporate sustainability advisory based in Mexico. Marc has worked in over 40 developed and developing countries focusing on corporate sustainability strategy, brand, and returns. He is author of the soon to be released "Sustainable Century by Design or Disaster."   

Businesses need to celebrate ethical behaviour if they are to succeed in embedding a valued ethical culture, says a new guide from the Institute of Business Ethics (IBE).

The IBE maintains that while 75% of the FTSE100 has a code of ethics, the continuing media stories of unethical business practices show that messages about ethical practice is failing to permeate. To address the problem, it has published anew Good Practice Guide, Communicating Ethical Values Internally. 

Using case studies from organisations like Deloitte, Lockheed Martin, Heineken, L'Oréal,  Diageo, Serco, Mitie, Rolls Royce, IPF and Balfour Beatty, the guide shares examples of some ways of communicating messages about ethical values to employees so that they are empowered to ‘do the right thing’.

It also offers practical advice on how to communicate ethics through company leadership, line managers, codes of ethics, training and the workplace environment, as well as examining the latest technologies using video and audio, such as social media and gamification.

Katherine Bradshaw, author of the guide, said: “Company culture comes from the stories we tell each other. Whether those stories create an ethical narrative is another matter. By looking at ways to celebrate ethical behaviour in your organisation, and by using the tools in this Guide to tell those stories, you can communicate what ‘doing business ethically means’ for your business.”

Philippa Foster Back CBE, IBE’s director added: “As the continuing scandals in the media show, messages about ethics are not getting through to employees. This Good Practice Guide offers practical advice and case studies to help these messages, not only be heard, but understood as well. ”

 

Picture credit: © Valentin Armianu | Dreamstime.com