Search

It’s one thing to be told you’re getting a discount; but everyone loves having cash wired into their account. Such an incentive could encourage more utility customers to save on their energy usage. Charts comparing current usage to that of the previous year may be eye-catching and arouse curiosity, but cash generates far more attention.

To that end, MeterHero, a Web-based utility monitoring tool, is looking to encourage people to conserve water and energy through cash rebates sponsored by businesses with sustainability goals.

Such a tactic is important because water scarcity will only worsen over the coming decades. California’s water struggles have long been documented. Las Vegas and Atlanta are also dealing with water scarcity. Even Chicago, located in the water-rich Great Lakes region, could face water shortages in the coming decade. While agriculture continues to consume most of the freshwater in the United States — 70 percent more or less, depending on the source — municipal water agencies need to save every drop, as the cliché goes. The same goes for energy. Consumers may be giddy over filling their tanks for less than 20 bucks, but oil and gas prices will eventually rise again as the population increases and economy grows.

MeterHero started out as a business application. Users could create an account, upload old utility bills to set a baseline reading, and then MeterHero’s technology would crunch the numbers and sort out ways to save money. Meanwhile the company started a pilot program in Wisconsin that connected businesses with local residents. Those who achieved water savings received discounts and gift certificates from sustainably-minded organizations. Eventually MeterHero’s technology advanced to the point at which the company claimed it could track any meter, anywhere in the world.

Such access to data is important because it allows anyone to benefit from a rebate system — not just homeowners or landlords of apartment complexes. If a resident has access to a meter and can upload the information to MeterHero, eventually that person can reap some savings. And in an age of smart meters, which are now installed at over 40 percent of homes, there is even more incentive to be conscious about energy consumption. Water-metering technology is not as sophisticated, but with more cities levying fines for excessive water usage, there should be even more motivation to conserve this precious resource.

For now the cash rebate program is at a pilot scale. Users sign up for the service, sort out what local businesses participate in the plan, and then upload their data or link their utility accounts online to MeterHero. Businesses can showcase their commitment to sustainability by offering rebates and incentives to participants and offsetting their own energy or water usage. Once a baseline  has been established, participants can receive rebates via PayPal, Bitcoin or Venmo. True, it will take a while for a program like this to catch on. But if we as a society are going to become far more aware about the resources we consume, the use of a carrot approach such as MeterHero will be far more effective than the stick of fines and other penalties.

Image credit: EVB Energy Ltd.

Based in California, Leon Kaye has also been featured in The Guardian, Clean Technica, Sustainable Brands, Earth911, Inhabitat, Architect Magazine and Wired.com. He shares his thoughts on his own site, GreenGoPost.com. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram.

By Seamour Rathore

How often does the promise made by a company in its marketing and advertising fail to match up to the real customer experience?

That’s the brand gap. And where one exists, the credibility and fortunes of any business are at risk. If, however, a company’s promises are delivered by its people at every touch point – in person, on the telephone and via social media, then it’s achieving a “living brand."

It’s the employees who breathe life into a brand.

To achieve a living brand, organizations should not only focus on the rational and transactional side of running a business, but they should aim to embrace the cultural, emotional and communal aspects too.

Achieving “brand balance”

Any company or organization must balance its propositions to its two key audiences: its customers and the promises it makes to them and its employees and the equal promises it makes to them.

While most organizations have brand guidelines, processes, targets and methods of working, a lot of businesses pay much less attention to creating belief in the brand amongst employees. While millions may be spent on advertising campaigns to customers, employees can be neglected, compounding the issue of unfulfilled customer expectations.

Once only the boardroom was concerned with questions such as: “What do our customers expect? What does the future look like for us? What do we stand for?” But at today’s successful businesses, they are burning questions for everyone who works there.

In an organization with a living brand employees are both confident in and inspired by their company. The culture is different too: Employees help to co-create the company’s future on an ongoing basis – they want to be part of the story.

Behavioral change

The most important way to deliver this strong "living brand" is by engaging your people with meeting your customers’ challenges. By encouraging employees to see the business from a customers’ point of view, they can identify common causes and fights. This process drives the behavioral change needed to deliver on customer promises.

At Instinctif Partners we’ve helped unleash the power of an organization’s people at many businesses.

One global company gave its people the space to use their knowledge to come up with ideas to solve a major business challenge. The leadership team said at the outset they would sponsor the best ideas and put money into piloting them for 12 to 18 months.

Effectively, the company championed the problem-solving abilities of its entire employee base. It was an example of smart leadership. Rather than relying on a few brains (leadership team), it reaches out to the collective brains of the workforce to solve the company’s challenges.

But it also created a deeper connection between its people and the brand promise, and therefore the customer.

We’ve also worked with a European company that realized when the call script was king, no one benefited – not the customer, not the call center teams, nor the bottom line.

So, what did they do? They asked their people to identify and seek solutions for their customers, which they were then empowered to action. It’s still early days, but the process is paying off with improving customer satisfaction ratings.

So, if a company wants to truly deliver on its promises to customers, it has to start doing something differently. Engage its employees in its products and services. Bring the customer to life. Encourage its people to create new strategies and solve business challenges. Just doing the rational, process-driven, nuts and bolts of running an enterprise is no longer enough. And keeping those promises will be that much harder.

Here are three interventions to consider moving toward creating a living brand:

1. Confidence in employees' customer knowledge

No one knows your customers better than your frontline staff. Of course, that doesn’t negate the need for market research, net promoter scores or customer segmentation. But the people taking the calls, serving all day or advising the public have privileged insight into what’s really going on.

Something I heard earlier this year at a meeting crammed full of managers has stuck in my mind: One manager reminded his colleagues that, decades ago, frequent guests at grand hotels were greeted by name, their particular foibles all forecast and dealt with prior to arrival, because the employees believed that providing this level of service was the essence of their jobs. They didn’t need a database to remind them (as useful as such modern innovations can be!); they were never on the back foot. If your surveys demonstrate customer dissatisfaction in one form or another, or if the experience fails to live up to the brand promise, ask your people to come up with the solutions to problems within their sphere of influence.

Give them structured time to discuss and hone their ideas, and then let them go. They’ll uncover where the real problems lie and show their commitment to creating a better customer satisfaction score.

We know from various studies from Daniel Pink’s "Drive" to a recent Harvard study that people gain satisfaction from contributing to a group goal and seeing themselves as playing a role in the broader company’s success – so let them use this intrinsic motivation.

2. Commitment by writing themselves into the brand story

Employees want to feel engaged with their brand, so they should be encouraged to write themselves into its story.

Clearly articulate your brand – what its overarching promise is, what its secondary promises are and what behaviors will allow the brand to live. Then the employees can identify what they can do in their roles and teams to live the brand every day.

Encourage them to work in cross-disciplinary teams and present their solutions back to everyone at the end of the session. The leadership team should undertake further research and set up pilots, and members of the teams should have ring-fenced time to be involved in the pilots.

The contributions of employees should be communicated at every key point. They close the loop between what the brand stands for and what they do – and that’s what will make the brand truly “live."

This is “flattening” of the organization of a company’s people and a world away from the “command and control” leadership of the past.

3. Sharing the customers’ fights

The interventions above shouldn’t be viewed as discrete happenings. In 2012, over 67 percent of Internet users around the world used social networks, and this is expected to rise to more than 75 percent by 2016. Employees should have the latest social enterprise sharing apps to be able to carry on conversations around challenges and opportunities across territories and business units in real-time.

There is a growing number of social sharing tools developed for internal-only use that enable these conversations to take place and allow compelling stories and images to be shared and collaboration to happen. It is also an internal reflection of the effect that social media has had on society. It has provided a vehicle for power – in this case broadcasting information – to transfer from the few to the many.

Often, it takes a group of individuals passionate about the same thing, but from different parts of the company, or in separate countries to do great work unasked  – because they care and it adds to their feelings of autonomy, progress and satisfaction at work. This is also a way to engage the detractors in the company – if they think things need to improve, let them share their thoughts and work towards a positive change.

Promises fulfilled

Your people are the key element in creating a “living brand." Companies keen to deliver on their promises should consider doing something differently. Whether that’s engaging their employees in the customers’ fights, letting them demonstrate their know-how or helping to develop new products.

If a company only concerns itself with the tools and processes of running a business it loses out on other valuable perspectives on the world – chiefly those of its employees. And without the shared emotional connection between customers and employees the risk of broken promises will continue to exist.

Image credit: Flickr/Flazingo Photos

Seamour Rathore is an engagement specialist with Instinctif Partners.

Lack of preparation currently leaves supply chains in Brazil, China, India and the US more vulnerable to climate risks than those in Europe and Japan. While, suppliers in China and India deliver the greatest financial return on investment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and demonstrate the strongest appetite for collaboration across the value chain. So finds new research from CDP, the international NGO formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure Project and Accenture.

The research, which also incorporates information from the United Nations’ World Risk Report, is based on data collected from 3,396 companies. Climate and water data disclosed by suppliers to CDP were scored and evaluated to create a sustainability risk/response matrix.   

“While climate and water risks are apparent, the implications for businesses and economies reliant on complex supply chain models are less understood,” said Paul Simpson, chief executive officer, CDP. “That multinationals are engaging with thousands of suppliers to better manage environmental challenges and opportunities is encouraging. These companies are catalyzing progress in response to global problems.”

“What is concerning is that, despite the increase in the number of companies assessing and reporting on their emissions, the data suggests that suppliers are making either marginal or no improvements in their development of sustainable supply chains capable of weathering climate risks and other natural disasters,” added Gary Hanifan, managing director, Accenture Strategy. “The good news is that as companies transform their supply chains into digital supply networks they will gain greater end-to-end visibility, traceability and access to information to report on their compliance progress and mitigate climate risks.”

The report also notes that suppliers in France, the UK, Spain and Germany – in that order – are identified as the most sustainable.

To view the full report click here.  

 

Approximately 80 million Americans took part in the sharing economy last year – from donating unwanted clothes to renting movies from Netflix, marketing firm Leo Burnett estimates. But sharing, borrowing and renting may not be as popular as the media buzz around collaborative consumption would have us believe. According to a new report from the global advertising agency, over 50 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said they would still prefer to own, rather than share.

In The Sharing Economy: Where We Go From Here, Leo Burnett aimed to delve deeper into the findings from a recent worldwide Nielsen survey, in which the company discovered that Americans lag far behind other countries in our participation in the mesh economy.

“Given the United States represents the largest economy in the world and the third largest population, and given the wealth and access to innovation in the U.S. economy, one might have expected the country to be a leader when it comes to the emerging phenomenon of the sharing economy,” the study’s authors wrote.

But that is not the case. Thus, the Leo Burnett study focuses on the U.S. market and examines how different populations interact with the sharing economy – while previous market research studies have looked at the global sharing economy and treated each nation as a “homogenous entity,” the company said.

In a survey of nearly 4,500 U.S. adults, most respondents had not even heard about the most cutting-edge, media-hyped sharing companies. Only a third of Americans were familiar with brands like Airbnb and TaskRabbit, while even fewer – 1 in 5 – were aware of companies like “Netflix for Legos” Pley and parking space rental service Park At My House (now Just Park). Moreover, 3 out of 4 Americans said they hadn’t even heard of the terms “sharing economy,” “conscious consumption” or “mesh economy” – despite the concept being featured in more than 4,000 articles and 3,800 publications in the last year, the report noted.

However, nearly all Americans (96 percent) knew about the “founding fathers” of the mesh economy: eBay, Craiglist and Netflix.

When it comes to engagement in the sharing economy, more than 50 percent of Americans tend to participate with more traditional methods of sharing, as well as the more established digital avenues – rather than taking advantage of the most radical services like Uber and Airbnb. The most common sharing behaviors include using Wikipedia (72 percent); reading user-generated product reviews online (68 percent); donating clothes and household goods to charity (68 percent); loaning or borrowing a product to a friend or family member (64 percent); buying food from a farmers’ market (54 percent); and renting a movie from Netflix or a cable/satellite provider (51 percent).

In contrast, only 6 percent of survey respondents rented cars by the hour through a service like Zipcar or shared rides though Lyft or Uber rather than hailing a cab; and only 5 percent rented out their home for a short term using a website like Airbnb. So yes, sharing is happening, the report’s authors concluded, but in a more traditional manner – not the most innovative, talked-about ways.

So, why does Leo Burnett think that Americans are sharing less than our international counterparts? Despite a long history of sharing in the United States (pioneer wagon trains and 1950s garage sales, for example), our country also has a long history of private property and places high value on the concept of ownership, the report’s authors said.

“For most Americans, owning a home and a car and advancing the next generation higher up the economic ladder are still the defining characteristics of the American dream of success,” they wrote.

Countries that are communist, formerly communist or socialist – particularly if they also have Eastern cultural traditions – are more likely to engage in conscious consumption, such as Asian, Middle Eastern and African nations, the report found. North American and Oceanic countries, with our capitalist economic system and individualistic Western culture, are the least likely to do so.

That’s why 52 percent of survey respondents said they agreed with this statement, “I think most people would rather own than share, if they can afford to.” And, in general, the report found that Americans’ emotional attachment to ownership cut across demographics – gender, income, age and location.

What do these somewhat grim findings mean for sharing-based startups or companies like Pley or Kitchit looking to grow their businesses? The report, which aims to help marketers promote these types of companies, offered numerous recommendations, including reminding us that, years ago, companies like eBay and Netflix were relatively unheard-of; now they’re household names. Businesses entering the mesh economy should plan for initial niche acceptance in specific demographic segments, the authors said.

Also, keep in mind Americans’ cultural preference for ownership, the author’s advised. Companies that focus on products or services that are more established in the sharing economy – like movies or rides – will tend to perform better than products “where ownership and its benefits are very entrenched and valued, often for non-rational reasons. In a country like the United States, anything that begins to call into question the benefits of ownership or pushes too hard toward the collective will likely face an uphill battle.”

Image credit: Kyle Poff, Leo Burnett

Passionate about both writing and sustainability, Alexis Petru is freelance journalist and communications consultant based in the San Francisco Bay Area whose work has appeared on Earth911, Huffington Post and Patch.com. Prior to working as a writer, she coordinated environmental programs for Bay Area cities and counties. Connect with Alexis on Twitter at @alexispetru

Full transparency: Our 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer is out. But I am not going to enunciate further on this study. Just follow the link and see for yourself. You’ll find facts, figures, graphs, insights, trends and all that good stuff I know you will like.

What I am more interested in talking about are a few things that you won't find in the details of the study -- the hidden truths that emerge when you add a sustainability lens to the information. Why aren't companies trusted by the public?

Trust isn't rocket science. You don't have to over analyze why there is a lack of trust in this world. Look at what is right in front of the average person, and ask yourself if you would trust business if the shoe was on the other side.

1. Why should I give a damn about you? What is your purpose? Do you think your purpose as a company is to make a profit? Guess what? No one buys your product or uses your service because you want to make a profit. If your purpose is to make a profit then we are not on the same side, because your profit does not profit me.

Would you trust someone who tells you he wants to have a relationship with you, but then also tells you that his purpose is based on how he can exploit the benefit you bring to him? Profit is an outcome of being a business but not your purpose. It is an outcome of a solid relationship between you and the public but not the reason why I should trust you. And, frankly speaking, making profit your purpose is pretty silly, as it would be like me saying my purpose is breathing. No, that is a result of me being human. Profits is a result of being a business. So, remind me again why should I give a damn? What is your purpose? Why should I trust you?

2. It is completely unacceptable that the top 1 percent in this world own nearly half of global wealth. According to Oxfam, that 1 percent will own half of the world's wealth by 2016. You get that? No one but the 1 percent believes that is fair or okay. And guess what most of those '1 percenters' have in common? They are at the top of the pile when it comes to business. Every now and again you will hear a true business leader like Warren Buffet say that this isn't right. But, 99.99 percent of the time, the 1 percent are either crickets or defend the wealth gap through op-eds or lobbyists. You can't seriously think people will trust a system and institution that results in this widening, extreme inequality. Do businesses care? No, they don't. Go have a look at whether this made the World Economic Forum's list of biggest challenges or impacts on the world economy today ... I'll give you a hint -- the answer start with "n."

3. We talk about people as consumers instead of people, partners, communities, etc. Businesses see these people as units that consume their products or services and not as real people with individual tastes, likes, behaviors, etc. If you see people as a commodity, you dehumanize them. And people get that. Again, will you trust an institution that sees you as a means to an end? There is no true engagement in this relationship. Consumers are seen as people to talk to and not with. At best you will engage them about the things you are interested in and not what they are interested in.

4. Businesses are constantly asking to pay lower taxes and/or get subsidies. Don't say you don't. Apart from the large companies who do get subsidies, almost every food company benefits from the U.S. addiction to corn -- heavily subsidized. These are often the same businesses who will speak out against providing health care or fight any regulations that hold them more accountable. Do you seriously think it is fair that the richest of the rich own most of the world, pay little taxes and get subsidies? If you do, then you seriously do not get how trust works.

5. You don't look after our interests. Go and have a look at why companies pay lobbyists. They pay lobbyists to protect their corporate interests even if it might not have a societal interest. Even those companies who do lobby for some good issues tend to spend way more money on lobbying for things that have little societal benefit. And then they want to hide it by not saying how much they are giving and to whom. Through these actions, the business world is telling the public that it cares more about itself than them. Again, this is not good for trust. Relationships are meant to be based on what is good for both parties, otherwise it's simply a transaction.

--

There are many reasons why the world does not trust companies, but these are a few that stick out for me. But they also beg the question: Why are certain companies trusted?

Why do people trust Ben & Jerry's? Because it's a company that stands up for what we all believe. Why do people trust Patagonia? Because it's a company that will sometimes do things that seem to hurt its business in the short term -- but are good for society. Why do we trust Levi's? Because instead of telling us it's the perfect company, its leadership is constantly trying their best. Why do people trust Tesla? Because the automaker is transparent and open about its challenges and willing to lead into the unknown. Why trust Chipotle? Because the company told us it made a huge mistake and honestly looks like it's trying to fix the problem. Why trust Warren Buffett? Because he is a real person who knows his assistant should not pay a higher tax rate than him.

Learn from these and many others. But more importantly, stop complaining you aren't being trusted and then not really do anything about the issues I raised earlier. Change behavior or accept that you will be less trusted while other businesses thrive.

Trust me... It will work [Pun intended]. We don't want to not trust you. But trust must be earned, and most businesses just simply don't deserve to be trusted.

Image credit: Flickr/Terry Johnston

A series of quick & dirty opinion pieces by Henk Campher. Senior Vice President, Business + Social Purpose and Managing Director of Sustainability at Edelman (www.edelman.com) out in the Wild West of San Francisco.  Disrupter of purpose. Engineer of big ideas. Slayer of myths. Social media junkie – @angryafrican. He never wears ties. Ever. But always wears an accent with a strategy and opinion in his back pocket. Please note this series will not focus on individual companies and any reference is purely to provide color commentary. His new book, Creating a Sustainable Brand is available here.

Follow Henk Campher on Twitter.

Mars Inc., the US$33 billion dollar company known for chocolate but also a huge global player in prepared foods, pet care and beverages, has announced what it says is a more aggressive policy towards addressing deforestation within its beef, soy and paper supply chains. Last week’s announcement is a follow up to the company’s deforestation agenda that it made a year ago.

The change is important because deforestation is the cause from 15 to 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions—in addition to its effects on water security, biodiversity and economic disruption for the world’s poorest people. The demand for paper products is one part of the problem, but the world’s growing appetite for protein, notably beef and soy, are the biggest reasons behind deforestation. Meanwhile companies are scrambling to create more rigorous deforestation policies as consumers become more interested in how their favorite products are manufactured and sourced. To that end, Mars has set some goals on how it sources some of its most important raw materials over the next several years.

Rising demand for soy has led to the conversion of more forests into farmland. Currently 70 to 75 percent of the world’s soy supply comes from the Americas. More soy exports from South America to China has boosted the economies of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay—the Rio Plata between Buenos Aires and Montevideo becomes a traffic jam of freight ships full of soy after it is harvested throughout this region. But the cultivation of soy has also transformed Brazil’s savanna-like cerrado and rain forests into vast swaths of farmland. To that end, Mars promises that by 2018, all of its soy purchased from Brazil will adhere to the Brazil Forest Code—though environmentalists will point out this 50-year-old law all too rarely results in enforcement and persecution.

Related to soy cultivation is beef production, which has also seen a massive increase in Brazil. Over the past decade Brazilian beef herds have increased by one-fourth while beef production has surged by almost 40 percent. Mars has stated that before 2018, beef from Brazil will only be sourced from providers who do not purchase cattle that grazed on what had been primary forest clearing in the Amazon Biome. Again, Mars is relying on that pesky Brazil Forest Code as it asks all of its suppliers to trace where they procure all of the raw materials by mid-2016.

Packaging is a big part of any food company’s supply chain, and Mars promises improvement on this front as well. The company says it will only use virgin paper products sourced from traceable origins by the end of 2016. Before 2021, Mars says it will only use paper products from certified, verified or recycled sources. Full supply chain traceability should be possible by the end of 2016.

Some environmentalists may roll their eyes at these promises, especially considering the ongoing problem over deforestation in Brazil and its government's slow and often disinterested response to addressing this huge problem. Mars may also appear too cautious with the speed at which these changes are occurring, but cleaning up any supply chain the size of Mars’ is a gargantuan task. With its movement on issues including sustainable palm oil, however, Mars has shown that it is one of the more responsible companies within its space. If everything goes as planned and promised this decade, Mars could become a leading example of how self-regulation can not only enhance its reputation, but save the company money as well. Despite the ongoing collapse of the cost of oil, the world’s raw materials will only continue to increase in price this coming decade--being more responsible and sustainable is the only smart business choice.

Based in California, Leon Kaye has also been featured in The Guardian, Clean Technica, Sustainable Brands, Earth911, Inhabitat, Architect Magazine and Wired.com. He shares his thoughts on his own site, GreenGoPost.com. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram.

Image credit: Mars Inc.

It is easy to think of Masdar as the company who built the Middle East’s sustainable city in the middle of the desert, but the Abu Dhabi company is more than that: it runs a clean technology investment fund with about half a billion dollars, and has also become a major global renewable energy investor. Its latest initiative, another solar energy project in the West African nation of Mauritania, will provide clean energy in seven towns throughout this country of 4 million.

The new solar power plants are a follow-up to Masdar’s installation of a large power plant outside the capital city of Nouakchott two years ago. That project provides 15 megawatts of green power, and at full operation provides up to 10 percent of Mauritania’s electricity needs. This new project now expands solar across the country, with seven cities benefitting from a total of 12 megawatts of solar—enough to displace 6 million liters of diesel fuel and over 16,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.

Masdar will issue tenders for these projects in the next several weeks and says it promises to include local suppliers and contractors when feasible. Completion of all of the projects is scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. Most of the new plants will be built oversized so they can eventually generate additional capacity if needed. After they launch, the plants will provide about 30 percent of the cities’ electricity needs while reducing the amount of diesel needed during peak demand by 70 percent—reducing pollution while ensuring a more secure delivery of electricity.

This announcement, made during Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week, follows what had been a busy fall for the company. Masdar is working with the United Arab Emirates’ Pacific Partnership Fund to build new solar power projects in the South Pacific nations of Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands. The company is a player in the wind power sector, too: Masdar is partnering with a utility in Oman to build the first utility-scale wind farm within the Gulf Region, a 50 megawatt project that according to the company will power 16,000 homes. A wind farm in Samoa is also under construction.

Expect more of these projects in the coming months, even with oil sinking well below US$50 per barrel and approaching US$40. Yes, despite all the talk that low oil prices are Saudi Arabia’s ploy to sabotage the global (especially the American) fracking industry, the only thing that can be predicted about oil prices is that they are always volatile. Those prices will rise again, and for far too long many of the world’s poorest countries have been undermined by oil’s costs jumping like a yo-yo. Renewable energy is a path towards energy security for these countries—and its cost is steadily approaching parity with that of fossil fuels. Therefore these projects are an effective way for the United Arab Emirates’ government to conduct foreign aid, and for Masdar to reap profits.

Based in California, Leon Kaye has also been featured in The Guardian, Clean Technica, Sustainable Brands, Earth911, Inhabitat, Architect Magazine and Wired.com. He shares his thoughts on his own site, GreenGoPost.com. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram.

Disclosure: Masdar covered Leon Kaye’s travel costs to Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week.

Image credits: Ji-Elle

One thing I promised to look into, after having won the trip to Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week 2015 based on a vision of my city in 2030, was to get a sense of the vision for this place in the same time frame.

Abu Dhabi is clearly one of the most sustainability-focused, forward-thinking cities in the world. This stems from a massive commitment on the part of the iconoclastic ruler Sheikh Zâyed bin Sulṭân Âl Nahyân, father of the current ruler.

The country's wealth came from oil, which allowed it to sprout from a minor fishing village into a bustling modern city in just the past 50 years. Given Abu Dhabi's harsh environment, it is not an easy place to implement a brand new vision. Yet, the combined mounting pressure of rapid growth and dwindling water supplies give a unique shape to the challenge the emirate faces. It was a credit to the Sheikh that he recognized that a major step in the direction of sustainability -- something few others were doing at the time, especially in this part of the world -- was just the right medicine for his people.

Perhaps the most critical issue here is water. Situated in a desert, atop a non-renewable aquifer alongside the Persian Gulf, Abu Dhabi doesn't have a lot of opportunity to safely expand its supply. The Gulf, isolated from the Indian Ocean by the Straights of Hormuz, already has salinity levels considerably higher than most places. That means that the use of desalination plants, which return salt back to the Gulf after purifying water for human consumption, is limited.I think my hometown of Rochester, New York, would be happy to trade some of our water for some of Abu Dhabi's sunshine if that were possible. But given that the emirate, with a population of 2.3 million, could potentially double in size in the next 15-20 years, the water shortage presents a big challenge.

One vision for 2030 here, says Kirk Duthler, a consultant who works with Environmental Agency Abu Dhabi (EAD), is to reduce per capita water consumption by 80 percent. This will require some sense of sacrifice, to be sure, but Abu Dhabi currently uses water at a rate three times that of the U.S. Irrigated forests, outdoor plants and lawns, as well as washing cars, are all luxuries that will have to be cut back on in this very dry part of the world. Water-saving technologies will also play a role, as will the increased use of recycled water, which is already being used to help nourish roadside plants.

But probably the most effective action is the one the government just took, which was to put, for the  first time, a tariff on water.

Believe it or not, this city -- which has aspirations to become a paragon of sustainability, rated among the best in the world -- has provided both water and electricity, free of charge, to UAE citizens  up until now.

The new water tariff, which took effect Jan. 1, is likely to make a big difference. Not leaving any stones unturned, however, the emirate is also investing heavily in rainfall enhancement science (cloud-seeding), which will be a long-term effort with potentially huge rewards. Abu Dhabi's government has brought a number of heavyweight international scientists onboard, including Dr. Roelof Bruintjes of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado.

On the energy side of things, this area is far more fortunate, with both oil and gas as well as abundant sunshine. The Shams-1 power plant provides 100 megawatts of solar power, supplemented with natural gas. (I visited the plant and wrote about it here.)

Still, Abu Dhabi feels it can't develop this resource fast enough to keep up with growing demand, while meeting its carbon reduction goals, which is why the emirate is constructing a series of four 1.4-gigawatt nuclear plants in the desert. The plants will be built by the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp. and will come online beginning in 2017. They'll be equipped with a single-pass condenser, which is a water-saving design.

Oddly, I didn't see a lot of solar photovoltaics, at least not yet. The fact that people receive electricity for free likely has a lot to do with that. Abu Dhabi may be inadvertently  providing proof of the importance of economic incentives as a critical element in the transformation of our modern economy.

The one exception is Masdar City, a city within a city that is a showcase of sustainability that has a lot to show the world. Indeed, if half of the cities in the world (including my own) get to where Masdar City is today in 2015, I'd say we were doing pretty well. The ubiquitous solar panels are the least of it. The entire city, which will encompass about 1.5 square kilometers when complete, has been laid out with strict adherence to passive solar principles. I'm not just talking about the buildings. This was done from an urban planning perspective.

For instance, the street grid was aligned with the prevailing wind to maximize cooling, which is most welcome when summer temperatures can average 96 degrees Fahrenheit with highs of 108. Streets are kept narrow to shade the road surface. Buildings are made with lightweight ETFE materials that won't store heat and re-radiate after dark. This is part of the effort to keep the town walkable: Everything is close together. No cars are allowed inside, but driverless, electrified personal rapid transport (PRT) vehicles (pictured above) carry passengers from the parking lot and will soon connect with light rail, metro and bus.

A large, modern wind tower provides a welcome breeze on the hottest days, enhanced by mist injectors -- not unlike the solar wind tower project I wrote about last month. Masdar City currently houses Masdar Institute, which offers rigorous advanced-degree programs in various aspects of sustainability. Facilities are impressive. Also located on-site is a local headquarters for Siemens Corp., andthe word headquarters for International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) was just completed this week. Future plans include multi-family residential buildings with additional emphasis on the social aspects of the community, which currently serves mostly commuters. Despite this, many residents of the surrounding area already enjoy coming here on the weekends to enjoy the unique and pleasant atmosphere, patronizing the various restaurants and shops that line the central square.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention one other aspect of Abu Dhabi's impressive sustainability commitment: By the time 2030 rolls around, Masdar Institute's graduates will be among society's most influential thinkers, armed with an in-depth understanding of sustainability.

Perhaps even more important: Today's young school children, who will just be coming of age by 2030, are already being served by waste management and recycling company Bee'ah's Education for a Greener Generation program. The comprehensive, voluntary, bilingual program provides tools "to empower teachers with environmental teaching tools, and to educate and change students’ attitudes and behaviors."

All things considered, I came to Abu Dhabi on the wings of my vision for 2030 and came away impressed with theirs. Of course, many of the elements are also being applied elsewhere in other cutting-edge cities, but the depth of commitment here -- and the broad engagement on multiple fronts -- is among the best. For more information, check out Abu Dhabi's Urban Planning Commission 2030 Vision document.

Image credit: RP Siegel

RP Siegel, PE, is an author, inventor and consultant. He has written for numerous publications ranging from Huffington Post to Mechanical Engineering. He and Roger Saillant co-wrote the successful eco-thriller Vapor Trails. RP, who is a regular contributor to Triple Pundit and Justmeans, sees it as his mission to help articulate and clarify the problems and challenges confronting our planet at this time, as well as the steadily emerging list of proposed solutions. His uniquely combined engineering and humanities background help to bring both global perspective and analytical detail to bear on the questions at hand. RP recently won the Masdar Blogging Competition and willing be  attending Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter. 

Disclosure: Masdar covered RP Siegel’s travel costs to Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week.   

Editor's Note: 3p correspondent Bill Roth used sustainability principles to get healthy, lose 20 pounds and keep it off. He documented his experience -- and what he calls the Boomers' Sustainability Diet -- in a three-part series. This post is part one. You can read the second part here, and the third part here. 

If you are a member of the boomer generation, then this is a must-read. We are the first generation raised on fast food and suburban living. It has been a great run of cheeseburgers, fries and driving everywhere we wanted to go. But tummy fat and growing health concerns are now the unintended consequences of our lifestyle.

As a boomer, I went searching for personal answers. The answers I found have helped me to lose 20 pounds and keep it off. I am on track to lose another 10 pounds by year end. My secret sauce? I found that applying the same sustainability best practices I have successfully used in coaching businesses can be used to achieve sustained weight loss.

Easy to begin

From my business coaching I have found that the easier the change-path is to implement, the more likely change will happen and will continue to happen. So, my diet-focus is eating foods I like to eat that also help me lose weight. However, what I like to eat may not be what you like to eat. So, my first suggestion is to get on your computer’s search engine, and search for foods that are both good for you and that you think taste good. Use these foods as the foundation of your sustainability diet.

A second step is to do a computer search on foods that the health sciences say are not good for you (like you do not already know that eating manufactured foods and beverages are not good for human consumption over a long time period). The reality is that most of us have been eating manufactured foods and fast foods our entire lives. Stop now or face the health consequences, plus the burden of increased health care costs.

No hunger!

I do not manage hunger very well. Most of us do not. The key to my diet’s success is that I eat a lot of food, and I am not hungry. Under my diet, when I get hungry I eat a banana or apple rather than cookies or nuts or something from the drive-through fast food pickup window. The only discomfort from this diet was during the first six months when my body went through withdrawals tied to the sugars, caffeine, fats, etc. that I had become addicted to from eating manufactured foods.

Lose weight plus save money!

Are you approaching retirement and needing to downsize your daily expenditures? I believe I am saving money on this diet. Yes, the price of natural and organic foods can be higher -- though there is a growing amount of experiential advice out there like "how to eat organic for $5 per day." Because I eat a lot less restaurant food and drink tap water rather than manufactured beverages, I think I am saving money. Recognizing I am still eating a lot and not really trying to lower my costs to single-digits, I estimate my daily food cost is around $20 to $25 (except when I am traveling and I have to eat at restaurants). That is $20 to $25 per day, and I am eating all I want and not at all hungry!

20-minute walk every day

The evidence is pretty conclusive that diet is only half the answer to losing weight. You have to exercise every day to lose weight and keep it off. The great news is that this can be achieved by just walking for 20 minutes every day. I wanted to be healthier faster, so I added doing 40 minutes of cardio every other day (riding my mountain bike about 10 miles). Wow, what a difference this has made in terms of weight loss. Plus I feel better about myself after my daily exercise.

You can sin and still lose weight sustainably

Let’s face it, self-sacrifice does not define our generation. I still have happy hour most days. I eat cookies, pies, biscuits and stuffing during the holiday season. But my sinful behavior has a minimal impact on my annual weight loss goal. I gain a couple of pounds between Thanksgiving and New Year's; I lose that weight, plus another 10 pounds, during the year from eating sustainably and doing at least 20 minutes of daily exercise.

Sinning makes dieting a lot less stressful. When I began this diet I was all over my bathroom scale every week. It was a frustrating day when the scale did not show weight loss. Over time I came to understand that a sustainable diet succeeds because it is solving root-cause problems created from eating industrial foods and living in my car. By sticking to sustainable actions that address the root-cause problems, my sustained weight loss just happens. Now I weigh myself once a month. Most months I lose a pound or two, and over 12 months I lose at least 10 pounds.

The 10 steps to sustainable weight loss

There are 10 steps to my Boomers' Sustainability Diet. The first five are “to do” steps that will help you lose weight. They will be covered in tomorrow's article. Then, my last article will cover the five things you should stop doing to sustainably lose weight.

Image credit: Bill Roth

Bill Roth is an economist and the Founder of Earth 2017. He coaches business owners and leaders on proven best practices in pricing, marketing and operations that make money and create a positive difference. His book, The Secret Green Sauce, profiles business case studies of pioneering best practices that are proven to win customers and grow product revenues. Follow him on Twitter: @earth2017

Editor's Note: A version of this post originally appeared on CSR-Reporting. 

In the world of sustainability, there are some names that evoke a range of strong emotions and reactions, and I suspect that BP is one of them. BP has had some extremely interesting sustainability successes, and also at least one devastating low point.

You don't even have to mention the company name: Just refer to the Gulf of Mexico, Macondo, Deepwater Horizon, I want my life back -- there are a million ways to say "BP," and most of them are not exactly positive. But if you stand back from the oil spill disaster of 2010, accept that we are still and will continue to be reliant on fossil fuels as our main source of energy for some time into the future, and take a look at what BP is doing today with a pair of fresh eyes, you may be encouragingly impressed. As I was.

I was doing my homework in preparation for a conversation with Louise Tyson, head of corporate reporting at BP (that's both financial and sustainability reporting). Louise will be sharing her insights on "giving your report complete clarity and readability" at the Smarter Sustainability Reporting Conference in London in February (still time to register). As usual, as the conference chair, I like to chat with speakers in the run-up to the conference. Ahead of our call, I navigated to BP's sustainability and reporting site after what I confess were several years of not paying close attention. I was pleasantly surprised.

BP is an employer of 83,000 people, a strong contributor to the global economy and a long-standing sustainability reporter addressing serious issues in detail in its reporting suite. BP has various reports and formats to meet different stakeholder information needs. This year's suite includes:

• A Sustainability Review for 2013 in PDF format


• Several country reports for 2013 including Angola, Azerbaijan and more


• Site reports from different local operations


• A report archive with reports in different languages and reports dating back to 1998


• An economic impact report for BP's operations in the U.S.


• A super-snazzy Health, Safety and Environment charting tool that enables you to play around endlessly to review 25 years of data in different visual formats.

Now, onto my chat with Louise Tyson:

Elaine Cohen: How did you get into the reporting role at BP?

LT: Actually, my background is not in reporting. I was in magazine publishing for 10 years and then worked in online communications. I was a consultant to BP one year, putting their sustainability report online. That was my introduction to sustainability, around seven or eight years ago. BP later hired me as the sustainability reporting manager. My first report was published five days before the Gulf of Mexico incident.

EC: How did you move from sustainability reporting to corporate reporting?

LT: I realized that our financial and sustainability reporting often cover the same issues - such as climate change and human rights – and that we should be talking about them in the same voice, even if the reporting focus and purpose is different. So, when I was promoted to the head of corporate reporting role, I knew there was an opportunity to encourage more accessible language and consistency across all of our reporting. It's turned out to be a really interesting challenge. But if you had asked me if I had ever imagined that I would be doing what I am doing today, I'd probably never have guessed.

EC: How has BP's reporting changed over the years?

LT: For many years, BP was recognized as a leader in sustainability reporting. We would win reporting awards, and we were generally considered as innovative in our approach. After the Gulf of Mexico incident, things changed, of course. It became even more important that we report transparently, factually, credibly and in a balanced way – responding to the disappointment and anger of many of our stakeholders. It was very tough. We needed to provide a balanced view, clearly communicating what had happened and how we were responding. And, it was essential that our communication didn’t show up as green-washing. Over time, things have rebalanced somewhat, and now most of our stakeholders are asking us much the same questions that they would ask of any large oil and gas player.

EC: Your reporting is so detailed and includes a wide range of local and site-specific reports. How do you manage your reporting cycle?

LT: We launch our sustainability report in March, and we immediately begin on the next year’s report by getting feedback from external stakeholders on how they think we’ve covered the material issues. Over the summer, we work with representatives from our policy, risk, government and public affairs, and environmental and social teams, to pull together and prioritize a list of the most important topics. This is really powerful because it offers a broad perspective on the issues and where we are and what we should be doing. From September to December, we work on the report draft and present it to the board committee focused on sustainability issues. We then spend the first part of the year incorporating all feedback before publication.

EC: What's the policy on country reports?

LT: Country reports are developed locally by the local businesses. They decide whether they want to publish a local report. For some, it's extremely helpful as an engagement tool. We do not dictate a policy at corporate level, though we do provide a framework for local reporting, for those countries that adopt this practice. We provide positioning on group issues and other guidance. We also review the reports at corporate level before publication, to ensure there is alignment around common issues and approaches. Site reports can be very relevant to the detailed discussion at local level with local stakeholders. In general, countries and sites that report do so as a response to local demand and interest. In Azerbaijan and Angola, for example, we know this is helpful in maintaining positive relations with local institutions and government offices.

P.S.

I couldn't resist taking a look at BP's first Environmental and Social Report for 1998, at a time when there was no Global Reporting Initiative, no other reporting frameworks and hardly any other companies that even acknowledged the value of transparency, let alone actually put a report together.

It's fascinating to see how advanced this BP report was for its time, and of course, compare it to the latest the 2013 review. They are both 52 to 53 pages in length, so that's one thing that hasn't changed. Surprisingly perhaps, given the dynamic evolution of reporting and the advances in reporting practice over the years, the pioneering 1998 report has many elements that are still very relevant today.

The 1998 report contains:

• Policies, approaches and commitments -- good old DMAs in GRI lingo


• A range of environmental and social data dating back to 1990 in some cases, or later years when data collection commenced -- demonstrating continuity and consistency


• A 20-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction target - 10 percent from 1990 to 2010


• Several case studies covering different aspects of BP's operations in different parts of the world, supplemented with external commentaries developed through a process of interviews with local stakeholders by an independent consultancy -- a precursor to what is called "stakeholder engagement" today


• An "attestation statement" -- external verification and a precursor to what has become known as "assurance"


• A questionnaire with a pre-paid postage form requesting feedback on the report.

Looking at the BP 2013 Sustainability Review, you can see evidence of the transformation reporting has made over the years. The discussion is far more strategic, and much greater context and depth is provided. The upstream-downstream business model demonstrates a higher level of value-chain thinking, and the report is far more quantitative, focused and formal. The GRI, IPIECA and UNGC frameworks and principles help structure the disclosures and the metrics. New issues such as fracking and oil sands are explained, and BP's approach is described (these issues were not around in the 1998 report).

In the 1998 report, especially when compared to today's document, there is a sense of almost naive authenticity in a sort of clumsy but trust-building way. The 2013 report is far more polished, and while it is direct and balanced, I wonder if recapturing something of the early-day spirit might be an interesting thought for BP and other companies to enhance credibility. To give you a sense of this, here are a few "gems" from the 1998 report:

"Our success depends on our making, and being seen to make, a distinctive contribution to every activity in which we are involved."

"Ours is an evolving, rather than predetermined or overly bureaucratic, approach. We know that for high standards of ethical and social behaviour to thrive as part of our culture they must be felt and understood by our people. It is more important for it to be in the bloodstream than in a set of manuals."

"Diversity in internal teams (now the norm) is highly valued as it has been seen to result in more creative solutions."

"We wanted this year’s report to include more than just the ‘official’ views of the company."

"Questions of business ethics are often not clear-cut and cannot be resolved by rules alone. With this in mind, during 1998 we revised our Guidelines on Business Conduct, which provide guidance on ethical issues to anyone who has custodianship of the company’s assets or commercial relationships."

"To mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights we launched a human rights page on our internet site..."

"Our social impacts can range from positive ones, such as the creation of jobs and prosperity, to less welcome ones, such as fueling unrealistic employment expectations, exacerbating existing or latent conflicts and disrupting settled ways of life."

Anyway, that nostalgic look at the early days of reporting has given me a new sense of respect for BP and its consistent, ongoing investment in transparency. This doesn't make BP perfect, and it doesn't mean that BP should not continue to be held accountable for its far-reaching impacts on society and the environment in all that it does. But, especially after my conversation with Louise Tyson, I am more ready to believe that there is earnest intention behind the written words.

Image credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart