Search

Award-winning actor, musician and director Jared Leto has taken on a new role...this time as a WWF Global Ambassador.

Leto (pictured above) recently travelled to South Africa with WWF to learn first-hand about the rhino poaching crisis and WWF’s efforts to save rhino populations across Africa and Asia.
 
“Being that close to majestic creatures like rhinos and elephants reminds me of the deep connection and important responsibility we have to protect and shepherd these fragile species and their habitats," commented Leto.

"I’m committed and passionate about doing all I can to help ensure that these endangered animals survive, and will continue to encourage others to get into action as well. We must join together and protect these powerful yet extremely vulnerable animals from all the senseless slaughter and double our efforts to restore their populations across Africa and Asia. It can and – with a focused global effort – will be done."

 

Picture credit: © WWF-US/Jennafer Bonello (Jared Leto with four members of the Rhino Protection Unit accepting postcards from children in the United States with written words of thanks for protecting endangered species)

The definition of "eco-tourism" is hard to nail down. If forced to, I'd probably say something like: Eco tourism is any travel whose primary purpose is the enjoyment of nature in its wild state and upon which special effort has been made to minimize negative externalities - and maximize the positive ones.  

As such, anything from a camping trip to the local state park to an elaborate international adventure would probably qualify.  In terms of grander trips, the Galapagos is probably one of the more well known eco-tourism destinations. So what are the basic ways tour companies are minimizing impact? And how are they going above and beyond?

Strict Rules Imposed

Galapagos National Park, which controls 97% of the islands, enacts strict regulations concerning where people can go, what they can do, and how many people can turn up in an one spot. Even prior to boarding the plane, travellers' luggage is screened for organic material that might worsen the islands' invasive species problem and once airborne, a pesticide is sprayed in the plane to finish any invaders off (don't ask me what this does to people).

A limited number of overnight boats are allowed to operate and each boat is equipped with a tracking device so that authorities can verify exactly who is going where at any given time. As such, tour companies are very much under the eye of park authorities and their plans and activities are largely not under their direct control. This makes for a situation where compliance with rules is a constant pressure and is very strictly abided by. The crew of our boat shared with me not only their lengthy books of regulations and guidelines but also a universal enthusiasm for the need for such rules. The general consensus seemed to be that the rules were there for good reasons and if anything needed to be tighter, not looser despite the business challenges such compliance might pose. The result, in my opinion is that guests are left with a sense of respect that they can take home with them and apply when traveling in protected areas in the future.

I wish I could say that all the boats were powered by solar energy or something fanciful along those lines, but it's just not a realistic option.  That said, waste is recycled and organic matter is discharged at sea in deep water.

Thinking Economics

Beyond the strictly environmental, challenges do remain. Specifically, the self-contained nature of cruising means relatively little money is spent by travelers directly into the local economy. The National Park remains well funded but the 3% of the islands with an ever growing population of humans has challenges and insufficient employment. In conversing about this issue, some suggest that tourism should be less restricted in populated areas to allow hotels to fill to to allow day trips in smaller boats operated directly by locals.

The central Equadorian government has put pressure on the Galapagos to allow for hotel development and this day-trip concept, which would also be far more affordable for tourists (the overnight boats tend to be on the luxury end).  However, the issue of water supply alone may be enough to make such development very limited regardless of any other debate.

Ed Note: Accommodations, travel and guidance in the Galapagos were courtesy of EcoVentura, which runs 7-night cruising expeditions around the islands.  

A top Volkswagen executive had bold words for Washington at the 2015 Electric Drive Congress seminar on Tuesday.

During his presentation, Jörg Sommer, Volkswagen's VP of product marketing and strategy, said the company believes continued legislative support is needed to reach the next level of electric vehicle adoption.

"Automakers have effectively delivered electric vehicles that can satisfy the needs of most American drivers,” Sommer said this week in Washington, D.C. “In addition to the investment we and other companies and industries are making, we would like to see federal financing support for establishing fast-charging networks in urban areas and interstate corridors."

Sommer's statements come on the heels of Volkswagen's announcement that it will partner with BMW and ChargePoint to create express-charging corridors on the East and West coasts.

Sommer went on to add a dollar figure to that commitment: The company will invest $10 million in the EV infrastructure initiative, which will add 100 fast-charging stations to both coasts by the end of this year. The company will also invest to support the installation of charging stations in certain dealer locations.

To facilitate local, state and regional infrastructure deployment, Sommer suggested that regulators will also need to support programs that reinforce these efforts to make mass EV adoption a reality, including the Department of Energy’s Clean Cities program and the Department of Transportation’s MAP-21 program. But he also noted that more investment is needed beyond these programs, saying: “We need further congressional support with the mid-term review of the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulation to extend the multiplier credits for plug-in vehicles beyond [model year 2021 vehicles].” (For background on what's to be expected in the upcoming mid-year review, check out this industry brief from Resources for the Future.)

Additionally, Sommer suggested that state and federal governments could also lead the way by adopting electric vehicles for their own fleets:

"We’d like to see more state and federal organizations commit to cleaner fleets by purchasing EVs and [plug-in hybrids]. This should be a U.S. government priority, and federal purchasing guidelines should reflect that by giving fleet purchasers the flexibility they need."

Sommer is surely on to something here: Including the military, the U.S. government operates more than 600,000 cars, buses, SUVs, ambulances, and light-, medium- and heavy-duty trucks. A footprint of that size means great potential to spur shifts in the market.

This fact isn't lost on President Barack Obama, who noted these figures in a 2009 executive order that effectively kicked off the government's first Electric Vehicle Pilot Program.

Launched in 2010, the program leased 116 plug-in EVs to 20 federal agencies and called for a 10 percent increase in alternative fuels (including electricity) every year until 2015. However, despite some impressive moves from the postal service, fleet electrification has been slow.

We've already seen the impacts that small shifts can have when rolled out across an entity as far-reaching as the federal government: Back in 2013, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimated that energy efficiency programs could save the U.S. economy $1 trillion by 2030.

For Volkswagen's part, it will continue to invest in EV adoption in the U.S. and abroad: In addition to the company's EV charging initiative, it will partner with SunPower to offer e-Golf owners “premier access” to SunPower’s upcoming home solar energy storage solution. The company also turned heads in October when it announced it will roll out more than 20 electric vehicles in China over the next few years. The move may signal what's to come for Volkswagen in the European and North American markets as well, a company rep told TriplePundit after the announcement.

"While we aren't able to provide specifics, VW is looking at other plug-in offerings for both Europe and North America," said Darryl Harrison, Volkswagen's manager for brand communications for the West. "Those offerings include [plug-in electric vehicles], EVs and other e-mobility solutions."

Volkswagen isn't the only automaker doubling down on electric vehicles: At the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS), Chevrolet unveiled its Bolt EV -- which, with 200 miles of electric range at a $30,000 price after federal tax incentives, has the potential to push EVs into the mainstream. And, of course, Tesla announced last year that it would open-source its technology to boost EV market share.

So, will the federal government follow suit? Only time will tell, but a push from top automakers can only help.

Image courtesy of Volkswagen

Mary Mazzoni is the Senior Editor of TriplePundit. You can follow her on Twitter @mary_mazzoni. 

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.

When it comes to corporate responsibility, far too many major brands are like a bad boyfriend: Sure, their claims sound great at first, but it doesn't take much follow-up before their true colors come out, leaving you disappointed and in desperate need of a rebound.

But hey, Valentine's Day is just around the corner, and no one wants to hear those stories. To celebrate this day of love, this week we're tipping our hats to seven brand crushes that have never let us down.

1. Method

Method is one of those brands you just have to love. The company launched in 2001 with a few natural home cleaning sprays. By the following year, its products were on the shelves in Target stores nationwide. In 2009, Method became one of the first Cradle to Cradle endorsed companies, with 37 C2C certified products at launch, among the most of any company in the world (now up to 60 certified products and counting). In 2012, it rocked the packaged goods industry again by creating soap bottle packaging made almost entirely from recovered ocean trash.

Method hopes its new factory on the South Side of Chicago will be the first LEED Platinum certified factory in the consumer packaged goods industry. The company already revealed plans for the largest rooftop farm in the world atop its factory, which will produce up to 1 million pounds of produce each year. The fact that Method never overtly claims to be "green" only makes us love them more.

2. Unilever

In our opinion, Unilever's CEO Paul Polman is enough reason for the company to make our list. In a 2014 survey, Unilever annihilated the competition in sustainability leadership, largely thanks to the "striking" emotional appeal of its CEO. When investors criticized the company for spending its time on social good programs in the developing world, rather than maximizing shareholder returns by all means necessary, Polman famously retorted, "If you don’t like it, go somewhere else."

And, in what is an unfortunately rare occurrence, Unilever's business practices match up its sustainably-minded CEO: In rankings that lambast other companies for falling short, Unilever consistently earns top brass as one of few exceptions. (Seriously, take your pick: deforestation, palm oil practices, carbon emissions, the list goes on and on.) If that isn't enough to make you swoon, the company is also well on its way to sending zero waste to landfill, and it struck a five-year global agreement with a U.N. agency that aims to better train and connect smallholder farmers to the marketplace.

3. Chipotle

Far ahead of the pack, Chipotle has been focusing on sustainable sourcing since 2008. The company has gradually increased its sustainable sourcing practices, starting with hormone- and antibiotic-free meats and building up to local produce sourcing. Along the way, it captured hearts and minds with cause marketing ads that shed light on factory farming and sustainable agriculture.

And it's not one of those brand crushes that bails when the going gets tough: This year the fast-casual chain demonstrated its commitment to sustainable sourcing by cutting out pork at more than a third of its restaurants after a supplier failed to meet company standards. The company doubled down on its position during its earnings call this month, which was basically a business case for sustainable sourcing.

4. Patagonia

Ah, Patagonia: Just like that high school crush who still makes your heart skip when you see her at holiday parties. This Ventura, California-based clothing company has been around for more than 40 years, and it has been serious about sustainability from the start.

With that much history, it's tough to describe all the reasons we love Patagonia, but here are some standouts: The company has been making fleece from repurposed plastics since 1993. It later debuted a plant-based wetsuit and even went fair trade. Patagonia also consistently irks other companies (and makes us jump for joy) around Black Friday: Its "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign, and similar initiatives that target reduced consumption, urge consumers to think twice before buying. Wow, there's a novel idea.

5. New Belgium Brewing Co.

From offering exemplary bike-to-work incentives to giving struggling downtowns an economic boost, we’ve tipped our hats to New Belgium Brewing a few times already in our 3p Weekend posts.

But these aren't the only ways New Belgium embraces sustainability: Back in 2010, TriplePundit readers voted then co-CEOs, Jeff Lebesch and Kim Jordan, as some of the most sustainably-minded in the country. (Jordan still serves as CEO of the company.) New Belgium also made its way onto our top 10 sustainable breweries list, is 100 percent employee-owned and was one of only six companies recognized in a recent study for taking responsibility for its packaging.

6. Seventh Generation

Established in 1988, this Burlington, Vermont-based brand remains an independent, privately-held company. It was one of the first to bring natural cleaning products to the mass market, and it remains one of the biggest names out there when it comes to cleaning your home without harsh chemicals.

Not one to rest on its laurels, Seventh Generation continues to be vocal about chemicals reform outside its own walls -- from leading the Companies for Safer Chemicals coalition to becoming one of the largest donors to the Whole Planet Foundation, which seeks to provide micro-financing for sustainable development projects in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

7. Tesla Motors

With the launch of the Roadster in 2008, Tesla Motors effectively catapulted electric vehicles into the mainstream. Although the cost was far out of reach for most drivers, the long-range electric sports car was the first to earn the attention of tried-and-true car junkies -- proving, at long last, that EVs weren't just for "tree-hugging hippies." Even then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed in, famously calling the Roadster a "sexy car."

The automaker's growth was swift and dominant: In 2013, it paid off a $451.8 million load from the Department of Energy -- nine years before it was due. Tesla has now set its sights on bigger things -- like its planned "Gigafactory," that will produce batteries for both vehicles and energy storage, and its decision to open-source its coveted technology to the entire auto industry. We're still waiting on that lower-priced model though, guys.

Did we miss your favorite brand? Tell us about it in the comments section! 

Image courtesy of Method

Mary Mazzoni is the Senior Editor of TriplePundit. You can follow her on Twitter @mary_mazzoni. 

Apple is going all-in on solar energy, to the tune of nearly $3 billion for solar facilities in California and Arizona.

First, the company this week said it will partner with First Solar on a 2,900-acre solar farm in Monterey County, California. Apple has committed $848 million for clean energy from the California Flats solar farm, First Solar said in a press release.

The company will receive electricity from 130 megawatts of the solar project under a 25-year power purchase agreement, which First Solar called "the largest agreement in the industry to provide clean energy to a commercial end user." Project construction will begin later this year, and completion is scheduled for the end of 2016.

Apple CEO Tim Cook said the First Solar project will produce enough power for the company's headquarters, all of its retail stores in California and many other facilities. “We know that climate change is real,” he said at the Goldman Sachs technology conference in San Francisco on Tuesday. “Our view is that the time for talk has passed, and the time for action is now. We’ve shown that with what we’ve done.” 

"Apple's commitment was instrumental in making this project possible and will significantly increase the supply of solar power in California," said Joe Kishkill, chief commercial officer for First Solar.

Apple is also making a big renewable energy splash involving its data centers, which use massive amounts of power. Earlier this month the company said a new data center in Arizona will be powered entirely by renewable energy, most of which will come from a new local solar farm. Apple said it will invest about $2 billion for the data center, which will produce 70 megawatts of clean energy, enough to power more than 14,500 Arizona homes.

The company will convert an existing manufacturing facility in Mesa into a “command center” for its global data center network. The Mesa site previously housed the failed Apple glass supplier GT Advanced Technologies (GTAT), which filed for bankruptcy in October. In a supplier agreement with Apple, GTAT was to supply "stab proof" sapphire glass for the iPhone 6, but when the facility failed to meet Apple's stringent quality standards, and efforts to renegotiate the agreement also failed, GTAT went under.

On the First Solar deal, Greenpeace senior IT sector analyst Gary Cook said: "It's one thing to talk about being 100 percent renewably powered, but it's quite another thing to make good on that commitment with the incredible speed and integrity that Apple has shown in the past two years. Apple still has work to do to reduce its environmental footprint, but other Fortune 500 CEOs would be well served to make a study of Tim Cook, whose actions show that he intends to take Apple full-speed ahead toward renewable energy with the urgency that our climate crisis demands."

Apple’s progress in meeting its commitment to 100 percent renewable energy helped the company earn positive scores in the most recent Greenpeace report analyzing major IT companies. Greenpeace said it will update its analysis of major internet companies’ use of renewable energy in April 2015.

Regarding the Arizona data center development, Greenpeace’s Cook said: "Arizona has some of the best solar potential in the world -- yet Arizona utilities and policymakers have been slow to tap the economic potential of solar, and some are still trying to slow the growth of solar."

Apple’s solar moves should serve as a template for other companies that want to use renewable energy, with the added plus of procuring and controlling energy on their own.

It’s a market-making transaction from a market leader.

Image: Apple logo by Paul Downey via Flickr

By Zach Bernstein

What do the United States and Papua New Guinea have in common, aside from nice beaches?

Well, as it turns out, the two countries actually have one disappointing fact in common: They’re the only two countries that don’t guarantee paid time off for new mothers. Current U.S. law, the Family and Medical Leave Act, covers only part of the workforce.

The good news is that this could be changing. Some states are considering paid leave laws of their own. Those that have already passed them continue to reap the benefits. Most promisingly, paid leave has earned a strong defender in President Barack Obama.

“Since paid sick leave won where it was on the ballot last November, let’s put it to a vote right here in Washington,” he said in his recent State of the Union speech, where the theme of middle-class economics was prevalent. “Send me a bill that gives every worker in America the opportunity to earn seven days of paid sick leave. It’s the right thing to do.”

Last year, we wrote that paid leave was one of three signs of hope from 2014, mostly due to successful efforts on the local level. So far, there’s every indication that 2015 will be the year this issue really sees momentum pick up.

One big happy FAMILY (Act)

President Obama was likely referring to the proposed Healthy Families Act, which would guarantee up to seven paid sick days. That’s just one effort to better minimum paid leave standards for America’s workforce. Another prominent bill is the Family and Medical Insurance Leave, or FAMILY, Act. That bill was introduced in the last Congress by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), and it's expected to be reintroduced in this Congress soon. (There was also a recently introduced bill which would give all federal employees paid time off following childbirth.)

While these bills address the same basic concern, they do it a bit differently. The Healthy Families Act would allow workers to take time off to recover from their own illnesses, allowing them to earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

The FAMILY Act, meanwhile, would guarantee 12 weeks of paid leave to care for family members or following childbirth, with workers earning benefits equal to 66 percent of their monthly wages. Similar to Social Security and Medicare, it would be funded by employee contributions of 0.20 percent of wages. Put another way, of every $10 earned, the contribution would be 2 cents.

Business groups like the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) support this kind of legislation because they, and so many businesses, recognize that having paid leave wouldn’t be a major burden on American entrepreneurs. Instead it would pay major dividends.

The evidence shows that productivity goes up when companies institute paid sick leave. Put simply, when workers know they can take time off for medical issues – and still get paid – they’re less stressed. That means they’re more productive. Also they are less likely to look for work elsewhere – which means less employee turnover, and lower costs for businesses.

Leave at the local level

As is often the case, it’s the states where progress is looking more likely, at least for the time being. Before this year, three states -- California, New Jersey and Rhode Island -- passed paid leave policies of their own. (A fourth, in Washington state, has been held up for years.) Then came election night 2014, when Massachusetts, along with two New Jersey towns and Oakland, California, all passed paid leave initiatives. As with issues like the minimum wage, the public is far ahead of its representatives – and that includes small business owners.

Of course, there’s still room to grow. Last year, ASBC led a campaign to show business support (PDF) for proposed paid family leave insurance legislation in New York state. That legislation did not make it through, but momentum remains strong heading into this year. Other states, like Maryland, are also pushing to get laws passed.

As always, it’s better to have a uniform system across the entire country than a patchwork of state laws, with some states offering different paid leave options and many states not doing so. But these state and local initiatives still represent the next best opportunity if Congress continues to stall. And progress at the state and local level proves to the rest of the county that paid leave isn’t going to break businesses -- and that doing right by workers can have broader economic benefits as well.

We have learned that the voice of business people speaking in support of these policies has been critical to their success. More business support will definitely be needed to keep the momentum up in the states – and build momentum in Washington. The ASBC Action Fund has business petitions for both earned sick leave and family medical leave insurance. Interested business owners can sign them as a first step in their advocacy.

In a weekly address not long after his State of the Union speech, President Obama expanded on his arguments in favor of paid leave: “We’ll help working families’ paychecks go farther by treating things like paid leave and child care like the economic priorities that they are.”

Paid leave’s progress in 2014 shows that he’s not the only policymaker who recognizes how important it is not just for families, but for businesses too. Let’s hope more will step up in 2015.

Image credit: Flickr/Colum O'Dwyer

Zach Bernstein is the Manager of Research and Social Media for the American Sustainable Business Council. Policy Points is produced by the American Sustainable Business Council. The editor is Richard Eidlin, Vice President – Public Policy and Business Engagement.

It took 50 years from the time the first gas stations cropped up until a nationwide network of gasoline and diesel filling stations emerged. Despite technological, economic and political obstacles, building out a nationwide web of electric-vehicle (EV) charging stations and supporting infrastructure is likely to emerge in far less time, perhaps as little as two decades.

On Jan. 23, two of the world's largest automakers – Volkswagen and BMW – announced they are teaming up with ChargePoint to build out EV fast-charging station corridors on the U.S. East and West coasts. The project is the largest and most ambitious since Tesla announced plans to build out a cross-country chain of EV charging stations back in late 2012.

Volkswagen of America on Feb. 10 followed up with a dollar figure, announcing it will invest $10 million in the EV infrastructure project by 2016. In a presentation given at the 2015 Electric Drive Congress in Washington, D.C., Jörg Sommer,  VW of America vice president of product marketing and strategy, also called on the federal, state and local governments to do more to promote the build-out of EV infrastructure.

A holistic, dedicated approach to overall sustainability

VW management is demonstrating a wholehearted commitment to overall sustainability throughout and beyond the value chain of its commercial activities -- whether in Germany, here in the U.S. or in any of the 22 countries in which it has a manufacturing presence. Back in November, management announced it is on track to meet the sustainability goals set out in the company's five-year “Think Blue. Factory” strategic plan.

In carrying out “Think Blue. Factory,” VW has instituted or will institute no less than 5,000 individual measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, conserve energy, water and materials, and help assure ecosystems and natural resources are protected and conserved.

“We will continue to invest in the future to become the leading automotive group in both ecological and economic terms – with the best and most sustainable products,” Prof. Dr. Martin Winterkorn, chairman of the Volkswagen AG Board of Management, said during an address at VW headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany.

EV charging, zero-tailpipe emissions and e-mobility

Volkswagen's vision of zero tailpipe emissions e-mobility lies at the core of its holistic take on sustainability in the auto sector. The build-out of EV charging infrastructure is a keystone if VW, as well as BMW and other EV auto manufacturers, plan to capitalize on the development of EV markets in the U.S. and worldwide.

With the announcement that it will invest $10 million of its own capital by 2016 in building out EV charging infrastructure in the U.S., VW America is contributing to the cause. In addressing attendees at the 2015 Electric Drive Congress in D.C. this week, Sommer stated that Volkswagen "believes continued legislative support is needed to reach the next level of electric vehicle adoption."

“Automakers have effectively delivered electric vehicles that can satisfy the needs of most American drivers. In addition to the investment we and other companies and industries are making, we would like to see federal financing support for establishing fast charging networks in urban areas and interstate corridors,” Sommer said.

In addressing 2015 Electric Car Congress participants, Sommer also highlighted the holistic approach and broad-based efforts VW has put into effect as it seeks to realize its “Think Blue. Factory” goals and vision of e-mobility for the 21st century. In addition to its recent announcement of its partnership with BMW and Chargepoint, these include a partnership with 3Degrees, a developer of renewable energy and carbon offset projects, a joint program with SunPower to provide qualified VW e-Golf customers to have high-performance solar photovoltaic (PV) systems installed, and a partnership with Bosch that offers VW EV customers home charging installation and hardware packages.

*Images credit: VW Group AG

By Victoria Griffith

The recent assassination of environmental activist Edwin Chota, who fought tirelessly to expel illegal loggers who operated with impunity in the Amazon rainforest, has implications that go well beyond the loss of a single man, as important as his work was for the defense of the Amazon. For decades, those fighting on the front lines of the green war have been terrorized in a bid to silence them and demoralize others who might take their place. And the rest of the world has failed to take notice.

Chota’s demise is all the more tragic because it was so preventable. Despite the death threats he had been receiving for months, authorities failed to provide adequate protection.

Chota, killed on Sept. 8, 2014, with four colleagues from the Asheninka tribe, led the battle to gain title to native lands on the Peruvian side of the Amazon rainforest. The murders were reportedly revenge by criminal loggers who Chota reported to authorities. His assassins were hardly lurking in the shadows. Rather, the men were killed as their entire village looked helplessly on, an example to anyone else who might dare to defend their native land. The slaying fits an ongoing pattern of Mafioso-style murders meant to subvert opposition to local gangs’ illegal activities.

It’s been more than 25 years since Brazilian rubber tapper Chico Mendes was gunned down outside his house in an incident that shocked the global green movement. The conviction of the men who ordered and carried out his execution was meant to hail a new era of accountability for violence against environmental activists. Yet since then such crimes have only escalated.

According to the U.K.-based human rights group Global Witness, 147 people were murdered in 2012 for their green convictions (the latest year data is available), compared to 51 in 2002. Brazil, where most of the Amazon rainforest is located, has the worst record; of the 908 documented environmental executions that occurred between 2002 and 2013, 448 happened in Brazil. Even those numbers vastly understate the case, according to the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT), a nonprofit based in Acre, Brazil, which places the number of assassinations in the thousands.

Authorities argue that the murder sites in question are too remote to provide adequate police protection. Yet there is little doubt that the killers believe they can act with impunity. Less than 1 percent of environmentally-motivated murders are ever brought to trial, according to Global Witness and the CPT.

Justice is hard to come by even in the most high-profile cases. In 2011, green crusaders Maria and Jose Claudio da Silva were brutally killed near their home in the Brazilian state of Para by gunmen passing by on a motorcycle. While local courts convicted the two men who pulled the triggers, they failed to imprison the farmer said to have ordered the assassinations. The slayings occurred not far from the site where the Ohio-born nun Dorothy Stang was shot and killed in 2005 over her defense of the rainforest. In a travesty of justice, it took eight years to convict one of the ranchers said to have ordered her execution. The rancher’s co-conspirator was released shortly after being sentenced to 30-year jail term; he successfully argued that he should remain free pending his appeal. Reasons for the inadequate response, say green organizations, are clear: Corruption runs rampant as gangsters pay off local authorities to look the other way.

The rest of the world should not follow suit. The rape of the Amazon and other important forest areas has far-reaching implications. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, a leading green organization, deforestation now contributes more to global warming than the emissions of the entire global transportation center. The destruction of the rainforest also has a chilling impact on biodiversity. An average 4-square-mile area in the Amazon holds 750 distinct species of trees, 400 species of birds and 150 species of butterflies, says the nonprofit Nature Conservancy.

Chico Mendes once said: “At first I thought I was fighting to save rubber trees. Then I thought I was fighting to save the Amazon rainforest. Now I realize I am fighting for humanity.” The defenders of humanity need our protection. Pressure must be applied to governments at a local, state and federal level to prevent violence against environmental activists. And when violence does occur, the killers – those who ordered the assassinations as well as those who pulled the triggers – must be severely punished.

It’s time to bring the environmental war of terror to an end. This month, Chota joined a growing list of ecological martyrs. At some point, the world may simply run out of heroes.

Victoria Griffith is the author of "Amazon Burning" (Astor + Blue, October 2014), an environmental thriller based on the Chico Mendes murder.

By Paul Huggins

Back in 1944 the Nobel Prize winner, Friedrich Hayek, discussed the important role of economics in society, explaining how it can help us to use knowledge to decide how to efficiently allocate resources, meeting society’s needs in the most effective way. But it would have been difficult for him to predict at the time quite how much knowledge we would have at our fingertips today.

At the time Hayek was writing, products were mechanical and business processes were manual.  In the 1960s and the 1970s, advances in information technology enabled a rapid expansion in the use of automation and standardization in production, driving economic growth. Progress in communications technology – particularly the rise of the Internet – created another economic boom in the 1980s and 1990s, by allowing unprecedented levels of coordination, integration and market growth around the world.

We are now entering what is being described as the third wave of IT transformation – where smart technology becomes a key part of products, so that they can communicate with us and interact with other products without human intervention. This is providing leading businesses and forward-thinking governments with the opportunity to pioneer new approaches to creating a more sustainable world.

Big businesses such as Microsoft, GE, ABB, Siemens, Oracle, Cisco and Amazon are focusing their efforts into harnessing the opportunities in a smarter world. This involves finding ways for products and services to be provided more efficiently, for example by using less energy or reducing the use of resources. This often results in significant cost savings and better environmental sustainability performance.

A smarter perspective on the world

When you look at the world through a different lens it can open your eyes to greater levels of detail, revealing fresh insights and new possibilities. For more than 400 years, advances in telescope and microscope technology have helped visionaries to break new frontiers in science.

In a similar way, smart technology and big data are today giving us a much more detailed perspective on how our economy and society work in practice, allowing us to see transactions and interactions at a granular level. The knowledge obtained from learning to understand an ever-growing mountain of data is making it possible to move from microeconomics to nanoeconomics – looking at actual individual transactions, rather than making general assumptions about the behavior of individuals.

The collection of information continues to increase at a staggering pace, with quintillions of bytes of data created every day. Technology research firm, Gartner, predicts that 4.9 billion connected objects will be in use in 2015, a 30 percent increase on 2014. Growth is expected to be phenomenal, with 25 billion connected objects expected to be in use by 2020. This includes an expectation of more than 250 million connected vehicles, opening up possibilities for better traffic management and self-driving cars.

Perhaps the most conspicuous impact to date from these smarter products has been the digital transformation of services for consumers, which are helping to dematerialize sectors such as entertainment, retail, and banking – taking them from the high street into cyberspace. But behind the scenes a lot of innovation is also happening in areas such as manufacturing, logistics, and building automation. And on the horizon there are some very exciting prospects for the application of smart technology in new areas, including healthcare, home automation and agricultural management.

In essence smart technology is about making products and services more efficient – as efficient as they can be – and with just a few exceptions, this means that they will be better and more sustainable. Process inefficiencies will be reduced and greater value will be delivered from a smaller amount of resources.

When we understand the individual performance characteristics of millions of buildings and vehicles, or the behavior of millions of people, then we can design better buildings, produce safer cars and keep people healthier.  And if we know immediately when an individual boiler needs maintenance, or when a room in the home is being overheated, then we can take immediate action to address this.

A smarter future

We are acquiring unimaginable quantities of real-time, real-world data. But the challenge with all this information is knowing what to do with it. So, what does the future hold for smart technology?

Technologies such as 3-D printing could allow for individual production runs of one, reducing waste and providing products that are precisely the right size for the job, avoiding the waste that comes from over-specification.

We know that businesses will change. Existing markets will be opened up to new entrants and displace incumbents; new markets and economic models will emerge, and some markets will disappear.

Lower transaction costs from greater efficiency could be a double-edged sword for large businesses. Some enterprises could benefit from their ability to effectively manage the knowledge they receive and become more productive. Other firms could be undermined because individuals or small businesses may become more able to do things themselves, with lower barriers to market entry.

There may even be a time when humans take the back seat in business. IBM’s CEO, Ginni Rometty, argues that we are now at the stage where so much data exists that it is now impossible for humans to write algorithms to analyze it all.

She believes we are moving into the world of cognitive computing, where computer systems will have their own analytical abilities to sift through vast mountains of data and then distil it to create new knowledge which has not been influenced by human thought. Gartner has predicted that by 2017 a company will be created that was conceived by computer algorithm.

An economic enlightenment

In the near future, businesses and governments will be able to use unimaginable volumes of rich knowledge -- generated by the use of smart technology -- to maximally optimize their business processes to meet each customer's specific needs. This would take us a long way toward achieving more sustainable consumption practices.

As Hayek suggested, economists could use this same nanoeconomics knowledge to comprehend, in much great detail, the complexities of human decision making. Real behavior, rather than questionable assumptions, can be used to develop the theories and models which better predict how economies function. In turn, these economic models will enable policymakers to create real-world economic systems that more effectively meets society’s needs in an optimal way. Smart technology could really be the key to unlocking the door to a sustainable future.

Images via iStock photo

Paul Huggins is an Associate Director at the Carbon Trust, where he leads on technology programmes. In this role he helps governments and industry understand and shape current generation low carbon technology markets to improve building and industrial processes energy performance. He sits on numerous government and industry boards and councils. Paul has extensive experience in the energy sector, with 12 years in upstream roles with BP, Shell and BHP Billiton. He has an MBA from Cranfield School of Management.

By Marta Maretich 

Social investing continues its march toward the mainstream. Sector research shows a wider variety of investors — including pension funds, mutuals and governments along with an array of private investors — are demonstrating an interest in capitalizing the blended bottom line.

This is all to the good, yet the growth of our industry is bound to expose socially beneficial companies, many of which have led sheltered existences in the care of mission-driven investors, to the stormy seas — and resident sea monsters — of mainstream capitalism.

Consider the growing importance of activist investors. These are hedge funds that take a small stake in a company — typically around 5 percent — and then launch an aggressive campaign to determine strategy and/or change leadership. The activists have gone into overdrive in recent years, carrying out successful campaigns to unseat powerful CEOs, like Microsoft’s Steve Balmer, break up giant corporations, such as Yahoo, and win themselves board seats in corporate giants like PepsiCo. Their aim is to maximize their own profits by re-engineering their investees' businesses.

Once known as corporate raiders and asset strippers, these bad boys of capitalism are now attracting positive media attention, notably from The Economist, which recently concluded that, overall, activists are a force for good in the marketplace. Their interventions can actually make organizations stronger in the long term, the journal says, bringing more rigor to companies and “waking up” passive institutional investors. Other commentators have reached similar conclusions.

Like it or loathe it, there’s no doubt that the threat of the activist investor is a now a force be reckoned with in business; even the biggest, oldest and most influential corporations ignore it at their peril.

Are they coming for us next?

With activism on the rise and activists winning new respect, should the social investing marketplace start preparing to repel attacks in the near future? Probably not.

So far activist investors have only gone after the biggest prey, targeting industry giants, like Dow Chemical and Ford, that they deem to be underperforming. Although rampant in the United States, they’ve had limited impact in Europe, which has a different corporate culture, and hardly any at all in Asia. The danger of them turning their unwelcome attentions on the small fry of social investing is, as yet, remote.

And yet the trend toward activism points to larger changes in investing culture that social investors and mission-driven businesses should pay attention to:

Investors, even small ones, are more powerful than ever. Activist investors are able to wield power with only a small stake in the company through launching proxy campaigns and winning other investors, often passive index funds and institutionals, over to their way of seeing things. The activists may have perfected the mechanisms for forcing change, but they aren’t the only ones capable of putting them to use. It’s certainly possible to imagine a future where investors use similar tactics to take over other kinds of organizations to suit their own ends.

Shareholders are increasingly taking an active stance. The example of the activists is forcing other kinds of investors to reexamine their relationship with the companies they invest in. Index and pension funds, normally passive investors or “lazy money," are being increasingly drawn into debate with company managers about strategy through the activists’ proxy campaigns. Meanwhile, the “bossy money” of private equity now has to look over its shoulder for the activists, preempting their interventions with forceful strategies of their own.

The importance of the aligned investor

The implications of these changes are likely to be felt most when social investors and businesses come in contact with mainstream investors and markets, for example when they raise capital to scale up. Yet with activism becoming the new normal, other investors, including those with social credentials, may feel the need to change the nature of their relationships with investees -- becoming even more active in shaping strategy and influencing governance decisions than they already are.

The trend toward activism places a new emphasis on the motivations and conduct of investors. For social businesses, more investor influence means that choosing the right investors, those that will really and truly support the delivery of a blended bottom line over time, is more important than ever. For social investors, and equally for mainstream investors with ambitions to enter the social investing marketplace, the trend should be cause for some soul-searching. How far are they actually willing to go to support impact? How will they react if social benefit delivery impinges on profit?

More profits, speedy exits

Taking a step back, the phenomenon of the activist holds other lessons for social investors.

The aggressive activism we’ve seen in the mainstream is all about turning bigger profits from quick exits. The approaches taken by activists maximize their own short-term profits but, despite their claims to be doing a service for the market — by shaking up complacent, bloated corporate giants and making them more efficient — it’s debatable whether they strengthen the companies they attack. Activism has been blamed for deterring inward investment, draining money from R & D, and hampering employee training -- all things that can add authentic rather than paper value to companies.

Today’s activists are not the right investors for the social sector, obviously, and their new respectability throws the difference between the social and mainstream investing sectors into sharp relief. Through their aggressive interventions, they’re managing to turn profits in a time of sluggish economic growth. It’s quite a feat, but it’s important to remember that’s all they do. They don’t prevent climate change, provide essential financial services, deliver healthcare, ease inequality or reduce poverty (except their own and their investors’). Clever and ruthless as the activists are, turning pure profit is child's play compared to the complexity of delivering profit and measurable benefit on the same balance sheet.

A new definition for the activist investor

By implication, the social investing sector needs a completely different approach to creating value through investing in businesses, and this will involve establishing a new model for the relationship between investors and businesses -- one that is collaborative rather than confrontational. The sector is now gaining practical experience about how to achieve true partnership, but a step further would be to replace the functional primacy of shareholders with the primacy of stakeholders.

For a variety of reasons, the interests of shareholders have come to dominate the world of mainstream finance, and this is what really lies behind the rise of the activists. For the social sector, finding legitimate ways to shift the focus away from shareholders, to a wider perspective that includes beneficiaries, customers, employees, habitats and communities, could turn the tide. Doing this will mean continuing to develop the infrastructure of our sector, for example establishing more legal forms that protect directors who make decisions for extra-financial reasons, and persuading governments to adapt regulatory policy.

As we move toward the mainstream, it may also mean resisting the temptation to adopt the mainstream’s norms. Despite encouraging signs that the corporate mainstream is beginning to embrace aspects of the social agenda, especially sustainability, the success of the activists reminds us that the fat bottom line is still king, even when it comes with unquantified costs. Social investors need to continue to work with businesses to find better ways to transform capital into healthy businesses with positive impacts. If we manage this, it will lead to a new, much more positive definition of the term “activist investor."

Image credit: Shutterstock

About the author: Marta Maretich writes about impact, sustainable and social investing for Maximpact.com, a deal listing portal and information hub for the new finance sector. She is Chief Editor of the Maximpact blog.

About Maximpact: Maximpact is a free global portal for the social, impact and sustainability sectors. It operates as a secure web-based listing service that allows sustainability, philanthropy and CSR professionals, as well as entrepreneurs, intermediaries, and funds to share information about initiatives and impact investment deals, online. For more information on the platform or to review latest impact projects visit: www.maximpact.com. This article first appeared on Maximpact’s blog.