Search

Most of Keurig Green Mountain's facilities are in low water risk regions, except for the one in Castroville, California. That facility is located in Monterey County, which, like nearly the entire state, is suffering a severe drought. The good news is that Keurig’s Castroville facility only withdraws a small amount of water from local supplies. That's great in a county so drought-stricken that does not allow some of its residents to do outdoor watering during the day.

Keurig’s latest sustainability report points out that the Keurig brewing system actually reduces water use as compared to conventional systems, as it uses only the amount of water that will be consumed. (About 12 to 15 percent of home brewed coffee is wasted, on average, the company said.)

Keurig conducted a water footprint analysis related to the manufacturing and use of its coffee portion packs. What the water footprint showed is that it is not a large direct consumer of water. That’s a good thing, particularly for this California girl.

Keurig is also concerned about waste. That’s why the company set a lofty goal: achieving zero-waste-to-landfill at the company’s owned and operated manufacturing distribution facilities by 2020. It is on track to meet the commitment, as it achieved an 86 percent diversion rate in 2014 -- an increase from 73 percent in 2013. Low water use and a focus on waste reduction? That’s enough goodness to prompt me to consider buying one of its brewing systems.

Oh, there’s more goodness: Keurig has a goal to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of brewed beverages by 25 percent by 2020. It achieved a 4 percent reduction in energy used for its coffee roasting process last year.

Keurig also did a comprehensive GHG footprint of its coffee value chain last year, from coffee beans cultivation to product end-of-life. What the company found is that the biggest contributor to its GHG footprint (about 55 percent) comes from brewer energy use. By the end of this year, the company will have reduction plans in place to meet its 2020 target.

K-Cup packs aren't recyclable ... yet

Alas, there is something holding me back from buying one of Keurig's single-use brewing systems, and that’s the waste each K-Cup creates. There are two features that prevent the present K-Cup packs from being recyclable. The plastic cup has to be separated from the lid and filter for the cup to be recycled. The filter is sealed to the plastic cup and that makes it difficult to separate the lid, filter and cup. The filter is also a blend of natural fibers and plastic, and that prevents it from being recycled conventionally.

Although the company has a goal to make its K-Cup packs 100 percent recyclable by 2020, it is not there yet. However, to achieve that goal, the company is “testing key design concepts for a K-Cup pack that can be easily separated and readily recycled,” as stated in its report. To that end, Keurig is investing $5 million over five years in coming up with solutions to achieve its goal through the Closed Loop Fund.

Image credit: Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.

A group of over 60 investors from Europe, North America and Australia, collectively managing $3.9 trillion of assets, have urged leading companies to use new guidance to help them “know and show” their management of human rights risks.

In a joint statement the investors backed the new ‘UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework’, published this week, and said they aim to incentivise better corporate governance, management and reporting of human rights risks.

The investors include some of the world’s largest and most influential investors such as APG, Aviva Investors, BNP Paribas, Boston Common Asset Management and Wespath.

The investor coalition argues that those companies that do not proactively assess and manage human rights issues face potential legal, reputational and other financial risks; while those who meet the ‘corporate responsibility to respect human rights’ gain competitive advantage.

The new framework is a tool that enables companies to assess, manage and disclose their human rights performance in line with the internationally-respected ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’. It  has already been adopted by companies such as Ericsson, H&M, Nestlé, Newmont and Unilever.

Companies need only report on those human rights risks that are most salient to their business activities and has been developed through the Reporting and Assurance Frameworks Initiative (RAFI) in a global consultative process coordinated by independent, non-profit centre Shift and accountancy firm Mazars. 

Submitted by Daniel Espeland

This is the most recent article in our series on Supply Chain Sustainability. For more articles, go to
http://www.csrwire.com/blog/series/75-supply-chain-sustainability-special-focus/posts

I have yet to meet a person who dislikes the taste of chocolate. We buy chocolate when we want to boost our spirit, and we give it to others to show love and affection. If not a vital part of life, it is for many indispensable. The global chocolate industry is worth an estimated $100 billion, and the leading actors are global brands such as Nestlé and Mars – some of the largest firms in the world. This whole industry is dependent on one specific input, namely cocoa beans.

It has been predicted for many years that in 2020, the world cocoa bean production will not meet the demand. By some estimates, there will be a 1 million ton shortfall, or 25 percent of 2012 global output. There are certainly many underlying reasons for this projected shortage, but the main theme is that cocoa bean production is not sustainable for the farmers. Even with a doubling in market price from 2006 to 2015, the farmers have seen little improvement. There is a disconnection among stakeholders in the value chain. To explore this notion further, we have to look to the main source of cocoa beans, namely Western Africa.

This region accounts for 70 percent of world output, and Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire alone accounts for 60 percent. In Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire, chronic poverty and poor labor conditions are driving an exodus from cocoa farming (Earth Security Index). Between 20 and 30 percent of the population in each country are directly involved with cocoa cultivation, but many farmers are looking elsewhere for a sustained income. Rubber and palm oil are more lucrative, as they require less investment and yield more consistently high crop prices. Old cocoa trees lose their productivity after around 25 years, and needs replacement – which requires pruning and fertilizing for some years before they start bearing fruits. However, much cultivated land has been run down completely, and cannot be re-planted. Ghana’s forests are declining by 2 percent a year, mostly due to cocoa expansion. For several decades now, farmers have encroached onto forests, as existing land under cocoa cultivation is degraded (Security Index).

What is missing in this equation is for the entire supply chain to invest and engage in the fundamentals of their own existence. Most efforts in the world cocoa supply chain today goes towards financial reliability for shareholders. The cocoa beans pass through various ports and financial vehicles around the world, to minimize the tax burden, before being sold on an elaborate global exchange offering many financial products in different currencies to offset future risk and secure price and supply for the eminent future. Maybe they have already developed a financial product to offset the risk of running out of cocoa beans.

Some initiatives try to engage the producers of chocolate with the producers of their vital input, mainly a pre-competitive initiative from World Cocoa Foundation called CocoaAction. CocoaAction has set sight on helping 200,000 cocoa farmers in Cote d’Ivoire. Most leading stakeholders in the cocoa industry has signed up the partake in CocoaAction, but it is widely recognized that the scale of investment and commitment needed from a new generation of cocoa farmers to overcome poverty and inequality far exceeds the capacity of efforts currently underway.

I believe the reason is that the first link of the supply chain, consisting of the millions of smallholder farmers, is repeatedly denied access to the realm of profitable business for their own products. While the whole cocoa value chain is dependent on their invaluable input, they do not know themselves the intrinsic value of their output, nor what it is actually used for. Most African cocoa farmers do not even know what chocolate looks or tastes like, as well demonstrated in a viral video of Ivory Coast cocoa farmers tasting chocolate for the first time. Divine is a fairly new chocolate company, and the only Fairtrade chocolate company that is 45 percent owned by cocoa farmers. When the farmer cooperative Kuapa Kokoo launched the idea of their own chocolate business, it was written off as 'a lovely idea, but it cannot be done' by a Ghanaian Government Representative. However, today the cooperative’s products are available in stores across the UK, and in 2013 two Divine products won Great Taste Awards. Kuapa Kokoo cooperative now counts 65,000 members, and delivers around 1 percent of all cocoa. Divine has shown that the increased integration of a farmer organization into the business value creation process can play a significant role in driving change (Security Index).

We need more examples like Divine, who dares to take on more responsibility in the supply chain. However, today’s global cocoa supply chain system is designed and developed for the large multinationals, who have shown time and again that they are not willing to pay and invest the amount necessary for a sustainable cocoa business for the future. We need to put focus on facilitating business development that includes the very foundation of the industry: the farmers.

This is the most recent article in our series on Supply Chain Sustainability. For more articles, go to
http://www.csrwire.com/blog/series/75-supply-chain-sustainability-special-focus/posts

It's about to get a lot easier for Walmart.com shoppers to make the responsible choice. On the heels of last week's jaw-dropping commitment to increase wages for Walmart employees, the retailer announced this morning at the Walmart Milestone Meeting that it will now be highlighting the 10,000 "best in class" sustainable products across 80 categories as Sustainability Leaders. That means that shoppers looking for anything from soap to printer ink can easily see which product is the most responsible by looking for the Sustainable Leaders badge.

Sustainable, how? You might ask. In 2009 Walmart.com worked with the Sustainability Consortium (TSC) to create supplier scorecards to rank suppliers and encourage them to improve operations and become more sustainable -- by using energy more efficiently or increasing the recycled content of their products. After tackling suppliers and incentivizing corporate buyers to choose the products that scored well, Walmart is on to the final challenge in the list: consumer education. Through the Sustainable Leaders program, Walmart will be highlighting the environmental leaders in every product category. Customers who want to know the details, what makes each Sustainable Leader qualify, can click through to read about TSC's process and criteria. Go a click further and they can see fact sheets like this one on polyester textiles, which describes what TSC looks for from product manufacturers.

Rob Kaplan, Director of Sustainability at Walmart, told me that Walmart's biggest priority with the new project was to make it easy for consumers to make a good choice. "Consumers say they care about sustainability, but we on the retailer side don't always make it clear and easy to make sustainable choices." Companies that are considered best in class will now get highlighted on Walmart.com, and products made by those companies will get a badge signifying them as Sustainable Leaders. Customers can also filter for sustainability when they are searching for a product.

While this product promotion is only happening at Walmart.com (not in the stores just yet), Kaplan indicated that if it were successful the company would consider rolling it out in the brick and mortar stores. "We have a history of rolling out new campaigns online first," he explained, citing the retailers Made in USA and women-owned designations for products. I looked around for these products myself and found the Made in USA selections easy to uncover, but the women-owned designation was well hidden or perhaps defunct at Walmart.com.

Sustainability has certainly become a competitive advantage for even the big box retailers. Target launched the Made to Matter collection last year to highlights organic and sustainable food and cleaning products among other things. The products have been selling well, and Target recently announced that it would be doubling the number of products in the program. When I asked Kaplan how the Sustainability Leaders program  compared with Target's Made to Matter, he chuckled and said "I can tell you what I'm excited about with this program." He went on to describe the fact that Walmart's program is focus on highlighting the brands and products that are already familiar to customers. The Walmart program, he explained, focuses on affordability and making sustainability mainstream.

 Images from Walmart.com screenshots 

Last Friday Harvard University's legal team was in court to address what seems to have become iconic debate of our times: the financial support of the fossil fuel industry. Harvard Corporation, which oversees the university's investment portfolio, was sued last year by seven students who maintain that Harvard "has a legal obligation — and, more  importantly, a moral duty —to stop profiting from human suffering and environmental destruction." The group, which is representing itself, is succinct in its goal: "Our lawsuit simply asks Harvard to live up to its centuries-old promise to promote “the advancement of youth."

The issue of contention is Harvard's continued financial gain from investments in the fossil fuel industry, which the university defends as contributing to the endowments that further its scholastic efforts. Last year Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust dismissed student requests for divestment, stating that the university needed to be“clear-sighted about the risks that divestment could pose to the endowment’s capacity to propel our important research and teaching mission.”

But the students are undeterred. They have opened a website called Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. Harvard and has gained some hefty support from alumni and faculty and are gaining more media prominence each day. Last count, 200 faculty and more than 100 alumni had signed on to the divestment call.

The university's defense of its endowment strategies tugs at some well-worn issues that have been brought up on other university campuses as well. Last year the University of California defended its investments in fossil fuels by funding a grant of $1 billion to support research into climate change. The university promised it would "evaluate all strategies for achieving ESG goals as soon as practical," but has not divested. It gave the same reason as Harvard: anticipated financial losses for its endowment funds.

So does a university have an obligation to restrict its investment options if it has reason to believe that its programs will suffer? Some would argue that a university is in the business to educate, not necessarily to advocate. Unlike University of California, Harvard is a private school, with private funding overseen by a private corporation. Should it have the right to decide its investment strategies?

In this case, these budding lawyers and environmentalists seemed to put some thought into the what they see as the real issue at hand. Its business strategy they say, should be defined by what it says it is, not just by what it teaches in the classroom.

But it is a point of view that the state of Massachusetts Attorney General's office doesn't accept. The state is being sued as well, forced to take a stand on whether students who pay tuition to an institution have the right to expect certain conduct  in return.

In December the state and the university's filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The university states that the case is without merit because of a "lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted." Among other things, it has rejected the coalition's assertion that the university has "intentionally invested in 'abnormally dangerous activities'" and that this provides a basis for relief.

It may say volumes about the weight of the case that after Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Paul Wilson heard the vigorous arguments on both sides, he declined to rule. His stated that he would "take the matter to advisement," and give more consideration to the arguments.

Whether the plaintiffs win the case or not, their effort to force the pen of one of the country's oldest educational institutions will still leave a mark. Fossil fuel investments may still be popular, but perhaps not for institutions that champion a forward perspective toward business management. My bet is that we will see America's scholastic leaders moving away from controversial business strategies and choosing ones that underscore a more cooperative spirit to encourage enrollment. Whether that is a good strategy in itself is fodder for another good debate. But unlike a few years ago, climate change and the ramifications of fossil fuel investment seem to finally be a source for open discussion.

 Image: VirtualWolf

I keep on reading that companies are doing great work on the climate change and general sustainability front. Renewable energy commitments, zero emissions, forests being hugged - all the good stuff that should make us feel warm and fuzzy. So why are we still in so much trouble?

Why is climate change running hot? (Pun absolutely intended). Why are we still losing forests left, right and center? Why are we still fighting for basic worker rights? Why is the gap between the rich and poor expanding faster than our economy? Why are people dying of diseases that have a known cure? Why are we going to miss so many of the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs]? Why did Wilson throw that ball? (Go Pats!)

The simple truth is that a majority of companies are still simply not doing their part. For every forward looking one out there, we have a thousand bad ones. How do we make sense of this? As per my usual habit, I drew a picture on a white board under our "Soapbox Issue(s) of the Week" to try and make sense of it all.

Let's start at the bottom...

Too many companies are simply snake oil sellers. Of course, they won't tell you they are selling you snake oil. They will promise you the world - this will satisfy your thirst, look good on you, drive like a dream, fuel the heat you need, protect you from the bad guys, keep your money safe, etc. They will whisper sweet things in your ear but like a bad date leave you feeling pretty awful in the morning. Heck, they might even publish a sustainability report and share some big goals with you. You will listen to them on the conference circuit and read their insights on Twitter. But scratch the surface a bit and you will realize that they are nothing but snake oil sellers. The truth: They are the reason we are in so much trouble.

The Blah brands are those who are mostly harmless but with little meaning in them. They might flirt and promise you beautiful things but underneath it they are shallow and useless. They don't bring anything of real value to the world apart from putting some lipstick on a pig. They are typically the fashion brands, alcohol companies and other products that don't harm the world much. They tend to advertise a lot and seek celebrity endorsements. They photoshop real life and sell you an empty dream.

The Offset brands aren't too bad. They offset all the bad stuff they do. They don't naturally make the world a better place but they try to find meaning by offsetting their negative impact. They tend to be large companies who have a mix of good and bad products. Someone else will sell you the bad stuff so why not them? At least they offset the bad stuff. Obesity? Here is a nice salad and we will sponsor some activity app. Plastic bags? No problem - we will find a new way to recycle them into carpets. They try hard but know that these activities aren't really the solution to the problems we face.

Moving up the pyramid we get to the brands I love... The Purpose brands and the Activist brands.

So far I have left out naming any specific company because it is too easy to slam the usual targets. Not my style. But this is the uplifting bit and now I can name a few. The usual suspects. Let's start with the Purpose brands.

Purpose brands are brands that have a clear purpose in making the world a better place. They typically started because they wanted to address a specific social or environmental problem and their business model is focused on making the world a better place. Who doesn't like Toms? And I know you want to drive a Tesla. But purpose brands need not originate from a purpose space - it can become part of the brand over time. Timberland turned from a boot company to a boot company who wants to make the world a better place. Simply put - these brands have purpose. And we love them for that.

Activist brands want to change the world and are very vocal about their views. They are similar to purpose brands in many ways but they deliver it with an edge. They have a strong view of the world and not only clearly state what they stand for but also what they are against. They don't think of themselves as companies first but rather as agents of change. They are activists who just happen to be a business as well. They are not here to make friends with other businesses or "play nice. You know who they are - Patagonia, Ben & Jerry's, Chipotle etc.

So how are they different from Purpose brands? It's pretty easy to know where Activist brands stand on any specific issue without having to read a policy or public statement. And those issues need not have anything to do with their business impact. You know what Greenpeace thinks of gay marriages or poverty without them having to tell you their stand on it. The same goes for any of the activist brands. They are bold and out there.

The last two - purpose and activist brands - are who we in the sustainability/purpose/CSV/CSR/whateveryoucallit space love working with.

But I also love working with companies who want to move from Blah or Offset to Purpose or Activist. And, of course, none of us want to work with Snake Oil brands. The problem is that too many companies fall in the bottom, and bigger, part of the pyramid. Those are the companies who drag us down. Question is - where does your company, organization or client fall? And what’s your plan to get out of the snake pit?

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 book, Creating a Sustainable Brand is available here.

Follow Henk Campher on Twitter.

Image credit: Wikipedia

It has been almost two years since the Rana Plaza factory collapse outside of Dakka, Bangladesh. The disaster was not only the worst accident to hit the global garment industry, but it was also the deadliest structural accident in human history. It may have fallen out of memory for many consumers, but not for the families and friends of the 1,134 killed and about 2,000 more injured; many of the survivors endured harrowing experiences in order to escape the eight-story factory collapse. At least 29 companies were tied to Rana Plaza, including Walmart, Mango, The Children’s Place, Primark and Benetton, the Italy-based fashion house.

In the wake of the tragedy, the United Nations’ International Labor Organization (ILO) backed a fund that was tasked with collecting about US$30 million to compensate victims and the families. So far, about US$21 million has been collected, according to the Guardian. But one company with ties to the collapse was holding out: Benetton.

At first the company denied any link to Rana Plaza, despite company-branded debris found throughout the complex’s rubble in the wake of the disaster. Benetton then claimed it was supporting another fundraising scheme organized by a Bangladeshi NGO, but activists in Bangladesh and abroad were not having it. A petition drive launched on the campaign site Avaaz, and shortly afterward Benetton announced last week that it would contribute to the fund.

Several organizations joined in the campaign to pressure Benetton to contribute to the victims’ fund: Clean Clothes Campaign and Labor Behind the Label were among the NGOs highlighting the outrage in the aftermath of the Rana Plaza factory collapse. But the fact over one million people signed the Avaaz petition in less than two weeks was too much of a force for Benetton to ignore.

Activists are hoping Benetton will fill the gap and pay the remaining US$9 million so all victims will be fairly compensated. To date, Primark is the largest contributor, with US$8 million paid to the fund. Companies that have sourced from Bangladesh but not specifically Rana Plaza, including The Gap and VF Corporation, have contributed money, but NGOs claim some companies, including Walmart, have not paid enough considering how much they have sourced from the factory. Meanwhile there have not been enough funds to compensate all of the victims, with the Guardian stating only 5,000 people received 40 percent of the money to which they are entitled. The fast fashion companies that pride themselves on quickly moving cheap clothes from factory to store shelves could certainly do more see Rana Plaza’s victims and families are compensated fairly for what they have endured for far too long.

Based in California, Leon Kaye is a business writer and strategic communications specialist. He has also been featured in The Guardian, Clean Technica, Sustainable Brands, Earth911, Inhabitat, Architect Magazine and Wired.com. When he has time, he shares his thoughts on his own site, GreenGoPost.com. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram.

Image credit: Labor Behind the Label

Energy efficiency is big business. Energy audits, insulation upgrades, HVAC systems instillations, LED lighting and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems all create new “green” jobs, sustain existing jobs, fuel innovation and improve U.S. economic competitiveness. Such measures will not only reduce energy bills and alleviate strains on power grids, they benefit this and future generations by helping conserve ecosystems and natural resources and improving human health, safety and the overall quality of life.

Improving energy efficiency and making use of clean, renewable energy have been a mainstay of President Obama's two terms in office – this second term in particular. Taking executive action, the President in December 2013 promised that the federal government would lead by example, setting ambitious clean energy and energy efficiency goals for all branches of the U.S. government. That includes the U.S. military, whose leaders recognize the opportunities, as well as profound threats, climate change poses both at home and globally.

Providing affordable, accessible education and training is key to realizing the U.S. military and federal government's clean energy and energy efficiency goals.

On February 13, the Department of Energy announced the first class of Marines graduated from the pilot phase of its SunShot Initiative solar energy industry training program. As the Energy Department explains, the groundbreaking program prepares “service members for careers in the solar industry as solar photovoltaic system installers, sales representatives, system inspectors, and other solar-related opportunities.”

Solar job training for transitioning U.S. military service members

The Marines who graduated from the pilot phase of the Energy Department's solar industry jobs training program at Camp Pendleton are the first of an expected 200 U.S. military service members looking to make a successful transition to civilian life by landing jobs and building careers in the fast-growing U.S. solar energy sector. The program is the latest initiative enabled through the Department of Defense's (DoD) Skill Bridge Initiative.

The DoD's Skillbridge program allows exiting military personnel to participate in civilian job training, skills acquisition, apprenticeships and internships up to six months prior to leaving service. Rounding out the pilot phase of the solar industry jobs training program, SunShot training courses at Fort Carson and Naval Station Norfolk are scheduled to begin this spring.

SunShot Initiative Director Minh highlighted how the program benefits transitioning U.S. military service members and enables them to continue working for the broad public good.

“As more homes and businesses across America choose solar power for their electricity needs, the solar industry is growing rapidly, and demand for highly skilled solar workers is on the rise,” Minh was quoted in a news release. “This new solar energy job training program will help our motivated, highly skilled service men and women gain the training they need to transition into leaders of our nation’s growing clean energy economy.”

U.S. solar and military vets: Hiring now

The Energy Department also highlighted already large, and growing, number of U.S. military veterans working in the U.S. solar energy industry. “The solar industry has long been a leader in hiring military veterans, and today, the industry employs nearly 17,000 veterans, approximately 10 percent of nearly 174,000 solar jobs nationwide,” according to the news release.

Fundamental to its success, solar industry leaders have joined in the initiative. “Five of the largest U.S. solar companies by number of employees – SolarCity, Vivint Solar, Sunrun, SunEdison and SunPower – have committed to interview military trainees graduating from the solar job training pilot program, a step that will help place qualified trainees in well-paying jobs,” DoE notes.

The pilot U.S. military solar jobs training program is an outgrowth of the Energy Department's SunShot Solar Instructor Training Network, DoE adds. Through this program, DoE runs a national network of nine centers across the U.S. that support certified solar industry jobs training at over 400 community colleges in 49 states. Nearly 1,100 students have obtained qualifications as certified solar instructors as a result. Over 30,000 have received practical, “hands-on” training that prepare them to land jobs and build careers in the U.S. solar energy sector.

*Image credits: U.S. Departments of Defense, Department of Energy

"This is the perfect time to reinvent ourselves"

Socially Responsible Investing has enjoyed a period of growth spanning back several decades that could be the envy of many other sustainable industries. Even during the economic downturn following the housing crisis of 2008, SRI kept climbing its ladder. Financial assets under SRI management now exceed $33.3 Trillion (or one in every six dollars in professional investment management), and they're being used to influence corporate governance in ways that have lasting and measurable impacts.

And yet, there's a sense that we're not moving the needle fast enough. As SRI manager Michael Kramer explains in a recent op-ed on GreenBiz.com,

"Corporate disclosure of social and environmental performance remains voluntary, and commitments to significantly reduce carbon emissions remain few and far between, even as we continue to develop new fossil fuel resources. Meanwhile, in marketing and facile public discourse, sustainability has been significantly watered down, too often simply serving as a green patina atop business as usual. It’s time that we dig deeper."

That watering down has led some to consider shifting the conversation toward "resilience" as opposed to sustainability. Kramer is among them. Kramer and his colleagues recently released a new book called The Resilient Investor. The book includes a chapter called "Weaning off Wall Street", which is a particularly refreshing strategy I'd not usually expect from an investment advisor.

The argument for the shift in mindset, they say, is that resilience is proving effective in many industries, from urban planning to clean technologies to agriculture, but so far has not been used as a framework for investing. But it's not just money they're talking about. It's life.

Kramer explained that everyone, no matter how financially impoverished, has assets. People who have more money may have a lot less time, for instance. When it boils down to it, is the concept of planning one's assets for future growth that much different if it's money or something less tangible? The book lays out a plan for investing one's life assets in a 3x3 matrix. The Resilient Investing Map, as they call it, has 3 types of assets on one axis: personal, financial, and tangible. On the other axis, it has 3 types of impact areas: close to home, global economy, and evolutionary.

This framework allows me, for instance, to think about how I want to spend my free time on a Tuesday night. Do I want to put some of my time (personal asset) into a local (close to home) project? If so, I might think about volunteering with a local bike advocacy group on a community service project to fix a pothole in a bike lane. Or, I might think about writing a blog post for TriplePundit. In doing so, I invest my personal asset of time into an evolutionary outlet (teaching the people about living sustainably). In either case, I've now invested an asset of mine in a way that may well pay dividends down the road for me personally, but definitively has a positive impact on the world. Perhaps that bike advocacy group does a bike valet for my next event. Perhaps someone who reads my column makes a change in their life that ends up feeding the global sustainable economy in a way that comes back around to me (even if that's just a sense that the world is getting better).

In other words, it's diversification, that time-honored tradition of investing, broadened out (diversified, if you will) to include other assets I have. I'm investing in my life and my future, but without putting a dollar down for it. Because when it comes down to it, if all of your assets are locked up in a diversified portfolio in the stock market and the entire stock market crashes...you're not diversified enough!

During a recent Sustainability Unconference, I sat down with Kramer to discuss the finer details of how the field is changing, (and also one very cool new Sesame Street character).

The need for sustainable seafood is great. Overfishing is a global problem with about 90 percent of the world’s fisheries either fully exploited, overexploited or collapsed. The world’s fishing fleet is operating at 2.5 times the sustainable level, and several key commercial fish populations have declined to the extent that their survival is threatened. That makes sustainability standards for seafood, such as Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), very important. And MSC has recently updated its Chain of Custody Standard.

MSC’s new Chain of Custody Standards are now “more streamlined, clear and accessible,” as a press statement puts it. The new requirements are designed to make it easier for restaurants, fishmongers and caterers to use them. Published on February 20, the updated Standards will apply to all MSC Chain of Custody audits from September 1, 2015 onwards.

“The updates announced today are the result of a year-long consultation with industry representatives,” said David Agnew, Standards Director at the MSC. “They mean that the MSC scheme is more straightforward and applicable to different companies along the supply chain. Additionally, a separate version of the standard now gives greater access to businesses at the end of the supply chain, allowing them to meet growing consumer demands for sustainable and traceable seafood products.”

Some of the key changes to the Standard include:

• Clear requirements for identification and traceability of certified product.


• More specific requirements for companies to confirm the certified status of products upon receipt, and to ensure they only purchase from certified suppliers.


• Greater emphasis on competency of staff in meeting the Standard, and more emphasis on interviews during audit, in addition to checking training records.

Organizations now have three versions of the MSC Chain of Custody Standard to be certified in:

• There is the default option for single or multi-site organizations trading certified seafood.


• There is the group option for organizations with a central office function and many locations trading certified seafood such as franchises.


• There is the consumer facing option for retailers, restaurants, caterers, fish mongers or fresh fish counters selling or serving certified seafood directly to consumers.

MSC certification is the gold standard in sustainable seafood certification. Over 2,800 organizations in more than 75 countries have a Chain of Custody certificate. The organizations possessing the certificates handle over 28,000 MSC labeled products in over 100 countries. In other words, MSC certification has a global impact. And that impact means that an MSC Chain of Custody certified product comes only from wild-capture fisheries certified to the MSC Fisheries Standard. Consumers who see the MSC eco-label know the seafood they are buying does not contribute to overfishing. And for all seafood lovers who also love the environment, that is a win-win situation.

Photo: Alpha