Search

I recently launched a book that mapped out the disruptive global trends today’s companies needed to futureproof themselves against. The book in turn launched a stream of conversations, each person describing yet another sector, company or movement in need of futureproofing.

I did not, however, expect Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), itself a force disrupting the status quo of business, to be added to the list.

It was Wayne Dunn, Professor of Practice in CSR at McGill and President of the CSR Training Institute, who first described CSR’s ailment to me. In his words:

CSR is often somewhat ghettoized inside corporations, off playing in a sandbox of its own at the margins of the business.

Much of the reason for this is that the CSR professionals (myself included) have not done a good job of helping corporate divisions like Finance, Engineering, Operations, R&D, etc. to understand why CSR is important for them.

 Recent research lent credence to Dunn’s assertion, underlining that all was not well in the CSR camp.  Despite widespread adoption of CSR in business, little meaningful progress has been made across a range of metrics. Greenhouse gas emissions, for example, have grown nearly twice as fast over the past decade as compared to the past 30 years.

We’ve seen enough case studies to know that CSR makes financial, as well as social and environmental sense. We also know that not adopting CSR will ultimately lead to business disaster.

So why isn’t CSR working? The obvious answer is that our current business model isn’t conducive to creating the radical change that’s needed to restore our planet’s health.

As Michael Townsend writes

…if maximizing profit is our primary purpose, then everything else will be subservient to this aim. We can, perhaps, seek to optimize the returns we make while delivering a balanced range of environmental and societal impacts, but it is highly unlikely we can aim to maximize profits at the same time. We cannot serve two masters. In this framing, CSR only ever can be an adjunct to the main purpose of the business.

If that’s the case (and I believe it is), CSR will continue to be treated like risk management window dressing, creating little more than shiny reports to assuage shareholders. It will remain marginalized, and eventually die the quiet death of a failed experiment.

Evolution through innovation.

Peter Bakker, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, described the demise of CSR in his talk at the Sustainability Science Congress in Copenhagen. However, his key argument was that leading companies are going beyond CSR by integrating sustainability into everything they do. Witness Nike’s Considered Design and Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan. In short, the old-school concept of sustainability as risk management is being usurped by the idea of sustainability as innovation.

This model makes sense for two reasons.

First, innovators thrive on constraint. As ad legend David Ogilvy said “Give me the freedom of a tight brief.” Being forced to design a car that goes further on less gas or packaging that biodegrades not only provides focus, but spurs original thinking.

Second, eco-innovation creates a culture that eco-responsibility can’t match. We may not be able to steer companies by the old ‘profit at all costs’ ethos anymore, but as the failed experiment of CSR has shown, we can’t expect business to adopt responsibility if there is no reward. Innovation provides that reward.

So is CSR doomed? Yes. But if innovation is what steps into its shoes, we shouldn’t be grieving its passing.

Submitted by David Correll

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

In Economics, a “Jevons Paradox” has two parts. First, improvements in a technology (say, an engine) cause that technology to use resources (say, fuel) more efficiently. This seems all well and good, until you meet the second part.  In the second part of a classic Jevons Paradox, people consume more of the resource as a result of the new, more efficient technology — because, hey, why not right?  Now we can afford it! Therein lies the paradox: in attempting to conserve resources, sometimes our technological advances end up making them less costly, and thereby increasing their consumption by the general public – the exact opposite of the intended effect. 19^th century Economist William Stanley Jevons first described this phenomenon in his observations of coal consumption in England following the introduction of the steam engine.

A Jevons Paradox is a funny —and maddening— bit of social science that has played out again and again throughout world history. Now, it is one that portends real changes for sustainable supply chain management in 2015 and beyond. Technological advancements are conspiring to force business sustainability and supply chain management thinkers to meaningfully ask ourselves an important question: why did we start pursuing business sustainability in the first place? After all, when oil and gas are cheap; as developments in advanced and additive manufacturing erode the sustainability spillover effect of localism; and as we look ahead to re-imagining our supply chains in the emerging and asset-less, “sharing economy”: what happens to the purported link between “going green and saving green” that has undergirded business sustainability thinking since at least the 1980s?  In a future with less linkage between sustainability and profitability, what is the enduring business rationale for supply chain sustainability? 

Short-Term (2015):  The Supply Chain Sustainability Paradox of Falling Fuel Prices

That the world price of oil and thereby associated commodities like gasoline and natural gas has fallen precipitously in 2015 is old news. But, that many analysts believe that, for the short-term anyway, ~$50/barrel crude oil, ~$2/gallon  gasoline, and ~$3/MMBtu natural gas is the new American normal is extraordinary news that threatens to topple one of first pillars holding up the conventional business case for sustainability —that ‘going green saves green’. A founding principle of business sustainability efforts has always been that burning less fossil fuels conserved a scarce resource and mitigated CO₂ emissions, while also reducing expenses on hydrocarbon inputs that were, heretofore, expected to become ever more costly.  But in 2015, when fuel prices are low and are expected to stay there in the short-term, why continue to invest in supply chain re-design to conserve fuel? This change in thinking is already underway as, for example, auto dealerships report shuffling their lot inventories away from once popular hybrids and back again to meet recently renewed demand for heavier and sportier vehicles.

Medium-Term (2015 – 2020): The Supply Chain Sustainability Paradox of Advanced and Additive Manufacturing Technologies

Another related, but distinct pillar supporting the classical business case for sustainable supply chain management relates to proximity and localism. As socially-aware personal and commercial consumers, we have been endlessly encouraged to shop locally, source locally, and in some cases even “on-shore” or “re-shore” our production facilities closer to consumers in the name of community and stakeholder engagement. Once upon a time, of course, this also made its own kind of business sense too — especially when it once took weeks to ship product (often times from gigantic Asian production facilities) to the largest consumer markets (mostly in the Western world). Putting production facilities closer to consumers once cut lead times for prototyping and for mass production, availing early adopters of more agile, on-trend supply chains that carried less inventory on their books and in their warehouses. This confluence was, again, part and parcel of the old business case for supply chain sustainability. But, it too is a pillar that is crumbling under technological change.

What happens in a manufacturing future where there is little social fabric left to invest in and negligible lead time and inventory left for managers to try to minimize? Advanced and additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing) are growing by leaps and bounds, and are poised to make this scenario plausible in the medium-term. Indeed, recent analysis suggests that over 320,00 industrial robots were sold in the last two years alone that are capable of rendering both “blue collar”, and even many “white collar”, jobs extinct from future supply chain and production operations. Moreover, consider additive manufacturing, wherein all of the stocking, sorting, cutting, treating and handling of a traditional manufacturing assembly line can be replaced by a single robotic “extruder”, which is capable of accomplishing all of these once laborious tasks by simply layering thin lines of goo. (In case you missed it, a last bastion of necessary localism — the neighborhood take-out joint — was recently stormed by additive manufacturing, when NASA scientists commissioned a way to 3D print a pizza to space.)  Moving forward, advanced and additive manufacturing are ready to offer all of the old supply chain agility and operational benefits of localism, but with only an insignificant fraction of the old requisite investment in a company’s surrounding local community. Looking ahead, why then would companies invest in improving their surrounding communities, when those communities increasingly stand to become just another place to plug in their robots?

Long-Term (2015 and Beyond): The Sustainability Paradox of the Sharing Economy

Looking even further out, the sustainability-profitability link stretches even thinner. Consider that right now, you can own a cab company without ever owning a vehicle (Uber, Lyft); a global hospitality network without ever owning a bed (AirBnb); and a professional workforce without ever owning a desk (Liquidspace). Given that a huge portion of a firm’s environmental footprint is embodied in its physical buildings and vehicles, why would any sharing economy company carry this part of their environmental footprint on their own books? Couldn’t a company just shove that burden overboard into the vast ocean of networked contractors that brands like Uber and AirBnB rent their physical resources from? Good things about these companies and the sharing economy idea aside (and there are many good things), all of this service to customers without any physical footprint attached to the brand name that the customer sees makes the brand itself a chimera, impossible to ever physically touch, and thereby unaccountable for an environmental footprint that it cannot leave. In a sharing economy, the brand name stands to become so divorced from the physical resources and tangible assets that it consumes, that the old means by which sustainable supply chain management practices were once thought to generate consumer good could weaken to impractical irrelevance. A third pillar crumbles.

Technological advancements in a Jevons paradox, like the classic business case for sustainability, start out with good intentions. But, it is the second part that gets you. In 2015 and beyond, we will all be made to realize that it is the second part that is getting us too. In building a business case for supply chain sustainability that rests on conveniently profit-maximizing pillars, we have, in effect, set up our own rationale for obsolescence. Inevitably, technology marches forward, potentially making supply chain sustainability so easy for companies to affect, that future managers might just take it for granted – a classic Jevons paradox.

Resolving the Paradoxes Confronting Sustainable Supply Chain Management

It is my sincere hope that while reading these dark futurist musings, some internal voice nagged at you saying something like “but XYZ company does business sustainability because it’s the right thing to do!’, or, “hold on, buddy, my company actually cares about the natural environment and the communities that we live and work in!..”. This little voice is important, and handing it the microphone is the single best way by which we can resolve each of the three paradoxes above. Somewhere in the DNA of many companies is the founders’ vision, perhaps differently articulated, but of their business as an ethical act — of their business as an organization that in its own way once set forth to contribute a net positive to its time and place in the world. Because technological changes can, and will, continue to topple the ways that we do things — but never fundamentally why we choose to do the things that we do — I suggest that, going forward, the new business rationale for supply chain sustainability ought to rest on basic personal ethics, and no longer on conveniently profit-maximizing pillars. This strikes me as both the simplest way to answer to the question forced by the three technological changes above (why did we start pursing business sustainability in the first place?), and as perhaps the only enduring rationale for resolving these and the many other unknowable technological paradoxes that will face sustainable supply chain managers in the years ahead.

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

 

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

Carrie Hammer graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles with a degree in economics, and began her career as an advertising sales executive. At her new job, Hammer set out to dress for success, but she felt stifled with the limited options of fashionable professional clothing for women.

After years working in corporate advertising, Hammer left in 2012 to start her own company, Carrie Hammer, a custom dress line for professional businesswomen. The premise behind her brand is that "clothing should be made to fit the woman, and not the other way around."

Hammer made headlines with her debut runway show this month, ‘Role Models Not Runway Models,’ which included powerhouse women from CEOs and entrepreneurs, to the first model with Down syndrome to walk the runway at New York Fashion Week.

This week we tip our hats to Hammer for her bold choice -- and to her beautiful 'role models' who turned heads on the runway and kept us inspired.

[gallery ids="210697,210698,210699,210700,210701,210702,210703,210704,210705,210706"]

Image credits: Brian Ach/Getty Images (used with permission)

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

Walmart announced earnings on Thursday. Between fourth-quarter figures for earnings-per-share, comp sales and revenue was a stunning announcement: The retail giant plans to increase wages for 40 percent of its workforce, some 500,000 employees.

The move will bring wages for hourly associates up to $9 per hour by April, $1.75 above today's federal minimum wage, the company said. The following year, by Feb. 1, 2016, current associates will earn at least $10 per hour.

This is huge news for the company, the largest private employer in America, which has faced mounting pressure from employees and advocacy groups to increase wages. It was the target of a slew of protests last year that culminated in demonstrations at 1,600 Walmart stores on Black Friday. The company has also taken flak for holding canned food drives for its own employees. And a 2014 study estimated that Walmart workers cost taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing.

So, is the big-box giant long bemoaned as the poster child for unlivable wages finally turning over a new leaf? 

"Strengthening investments in our people"

"We're strengthening investments in our people to engage and inspire them to deliver superior customer experiences," Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in a statement. "We will earn the trust of all Walmart stakeholders by operating great retail businesses, ensuring world-class compliance, and doing good in the world through social and environmental programs in our communities."

Walmart has seen traffic slow recently: Q4 represented the first rise in shopper traffic in more than two years. McMillon's comments indicate that the evolving demands of customers -- made painfully obvious by dips in foot-traffic -- may be part of the reason for the change of heart on wages. Notice the use of the word "stakeholders" -- a shift from the shareholder value mantra to recognizing the needs of all stakeholders (including employees) has been a resounding chorus of advocacy groups.

McMillon reiterated this apparent shift in mindset in a letter to employees about the announcement. It's worth a read in full, but top quotes include: "Our actions must match our beliefs." And, "Our business is pretty simple when we boil it all down; sometimes we make it too complicated."

For its part, Walmart has made a noticeable shift toward more sustainable business practices in recent years. The retail giant is a leading private purchaser of renewable energy and has dramatically cut its energy footprint. It has rolled out policies on chemical ingredients and sustainable food and made headlines for bolstering women-owned businesses and hunger relief organizations.

As is the case in many other industries, labor is generally the last shoe to drop when it comes to getting serious about sustainability. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that hard to head into the board room and pitch an energy efficiency program that will save the company money in quick order. An initiative that will help a company's lowest earners at the expense of the bottom line can be a much tougher sell.

Are we trending toward higher wages?

Opponents of a minimum wage hike say higher wages would tank company revenues and be disastrous to the economy. Shareholders seem to share this concern: Walmart stock took a noticeable dip of nearly 3 percent after the announcement on Thursday. (Although it's too early to tell whether or not shareholders will warm up to the idea.)

So, just how hard will this wage hike hit Walmart?

The company posted a Q4 revenue of $131.6 billion, outpacing analysts' expectations and bringing its fiscal year revenue to $486 billion. It also bested forecasts by earning $1.61 per share. (Believe it or not, that's actually nothing for the retail giant to write home about: McMillon said the company was "not satisfied" with its performance.)

In contrast, this broad-sweeping wage initiative -- which has the potential to pull a half-million struggling workers out of poverty -- will cost the company $1 billion during this fiscal year, McMillon said. A billion dollars isn't exactly chump change, but it's dwarfed by the company's annual earnings. And, although it's more difficult to quantify the benefits of higher employee satisfaction, retention and engagement, it's not hard to argue that Walmart will see a return on its investment. Just ask McMillon:

"When we take a step back, it’s clear to me that one of our highest priorities must be to invest more in our people this year," he wrote in his letter to employees.

Walmart also has the benefit of comparing its own post-wage-hike numbers with those of other leading retailers, like Gap and Ikea, that recently boosted their minimum hourly wages. Industry leaders like Costco -- a direct competitor with Sam's Club -- and Ben & Jerry's do workers one better: The average hourly rate at Costco is more than $20, and an entry-level Ben & Jerry’s worker earns $15.97 per hour, a figure based on the living wage in Vermont. Meanwhile, state and local governments have also shifted to higher minimum wages -- most notably Seattle, which will phase-in a $15 minimum wage starting in April.

Having a mega-retailer like Walmart jump on board with higher wages is huge for advocates seeking a living wage for all. Whether other market leaders will follow suit is yet to be seen, but we'll have our eyes open.

Interested in the living wage conversation? Keep an eye out for a 3p exclusive series -- "In Pursuit of Fair Pay: TriplePundit Explores the Minimum Wage Debate" -- at the end of this month.  

Images: 1) Matt Hamilton via Flickr user Neon Tommy 2) Flickr/SocialJusticeSeeker812 3) Google Finance 

Although it’s probably too early to offer candidates for Oxford Dictionaries' Word of the Year, I’d like to suggest uberization as the word for 2015.

According to Oxford Dictionaries the Word of the Year should “reflect the ethos, mood or preoccupations of that particular year and to have lasting potential as a word of cultural significance.”

Now, my argument for the Oxford’s selection team is that in 2015 we see a shift from focusing solely on the phenomenon of Uber to a broader discussion about uberization, which could be described as utilizing the Uber business model in different sectors (from healthcare to real estate and food delivery).

I’m not sure if this is a winning argument, but with or without the recognition of Oxford Dictionaries this seems a good time to have a look at uberization and more specifically at the question that is of more interest to this space: Is the Uber innovation model others are so eager to adopt sustainable?

It’s very easy to see why the Uber model is attractive: meshing mobile technology, dynamic pricing and dynamic supply to create a disruptive and delightful user experience. After all, what could be wrong about creating a more dynamic ride-hailing service, taking the friction out of the process? And doesn’t it go hand-in-hand with Saul Kaplan’s definition of innovation -- “a better way to deliver value”? It certainly looks like it does!

Still, it ain’t all perfect in Uberland.

The problem is mainly with one of the main pillars of the Uber model -- “undercutting the higher fixed and marginal costs of conventional businesses.” Now, in fairness, this element could be found in other sharing economy services as well, including Airbnb, Lyft, RelayRides and others. The reason we talk about Uberization and not Airbnb-ization (though others do) is that Uber seems to be the most successful venture in this space, at least in terms of valuation ($40 billion) and fundraising (close to $5 billion). And frankly the company has developed and improved this element into perfection.

When talking about it in economic terms, such as undercutting costs or efficiently allocating human beings and their possessions, the Uber model doesn’t sound that bad. One might get suspicious, though, when thinking about the resemblance to Frederick Taylor’s principles of scientific management, where Taylor argues for breaking the work for tasks (he claims the concept of task is “perhaps the most prominent single element in modern scientific management”) and finding the most cost-effective way to complete them.

I’m mentioning Taylor for two reasons: First, it’s interesting to see how Taylor’s principles -- that were for so many years associated with management of large organizations -- are now echoed in the principles of an advanced innovation model. Second, Taylor was interested in finding the best way to maximize the prosperity of both the employer and the employee.

Now, uberism is not Taylorism even though it aims to create hyper-efficient marketplaces and claims to improve drivers’ financial security and quality of life. The difference is that Taylorism was all about creating better control and predictability and reducing uncertainties for both the employer and the employee, and the Uber model doesn’t seem to do it -- at least not for the employee. Maybe it is because Uber drivers are not employees but independent contractors who ”don't enjoy the security and benefits of traditional jobs.”

As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich puts it: “This on-demand economy means a work life that is unpredictable, doesn’t pay very well and is terribly insecure.” This is, of course, just one opinion. And we should not forget that the Uber model also provides greater flexibility and apparently an opportunity to make more money per hour of work.

Still, when I go back to Saul Kaplan’s definition of innovation (“a better way to deliver value”), or other definitions of innovations like that of Autodesk’s Carl Bass (a “process by which we change the world, making things better”), I am not sure whether the Uber model really meets these definitions, especially when it comes to service providers: Is it really benefiting them? Is it really making their lives any better?

And let’s not forget the bigger picture: Do we really want to see sector after sector become more uberized, resulting in an on-demand culture that dominates the (gig) economy?

It would probably be great for the consumer, but would it be any different from unsustainable economic activities like fast fashion or fast food? And we could also assume that many consumers will also be on-demand service providers, so would it actually be that great for them? I doubt it.

So, you might wonder if I think that it would be better to ditch the Uber model and go back to hailing taxis. The answer is no. I don’t like hailing taxis and would like to have better and more delightful experiences. At the same time, I believe that sustainability is not just about addressing environmental challenges, but also about addressing social ones.

It means that we need to find an innovation model that is committed to improve not the prosperity of a small number of shareholders, but the prosperity of a large number of stakeholders, including service providers.

We can’t and shouldn’t try to stop progress, but I believe we could find a better innovation model than the Uber model -- one that has a better balance between fairness and flexibility, opportunities and equality. We need a model that, at the end of the day, will create not just disruptive and delightful experiences, but also an eco-system that delivers better value to all of its participants.

Image credit: Yscouts, Flickr Creative Commons

Raz Godelnik is an Assistant Professor of Strategic Design and Management in the School of Design Strategies at Parsons The New School for Design. You can follow him on twitter @ecolibris

The derailments of two cargo trains earlier this week are prompting questions about safety precautions for North America's rail systems. They're also spurring debate about whether crude oil shipments have a place on the rails that pass through America's small towns.

More than 60 people were evacuated from their homes in the small town of Montgomery, West Virginia, after a CSX train carrying crude to a refinery derailed and caught fire. One house was destroyed, and the town's drinking water was contaminated by an oil spill.

Less than 48 hours earlier, another oil train traveling through eastern Canada burst into flames when it derailed in a forested area near Timmins, Ontario. The fire was still burning late this week. Rail authorities say the train and the tracks had both been inspected prior to the train departing the depot.

The West Virginia accident occurred during adverse weather that had prompted weather and driving advisories. It is unclear whether the Ontario accident was related to weather issues, although most of the eastern portion of Canada has been experiencing increased snow and ice, prompting travel and weather warnings.

With the increase in crude oil shipments across the U.S. and Canada, some environmental groups are expressing concern about the safety of residents along rail routes. They noted that many areas are unprepared for an accident resulting in oil spills to drinking water or uncontrolled fire, such as the incident that occurred this week in West Virginia. Forest Ethics pointed out that an estimated 25 million Americans live along rail routes that carry crude shipments and that, since 2008, rail shipments have increased by 4,000 percent. Its oil blast zone website provides a map of the crude oil shipments that cross North America, which extend across most states and provinces.

It is unclear why commercial train traffic that carries flammable cargo is not restricted during adverse weather conditions, such as those West Virginia and Ontario have recently experienced. In Idaho and eastern British Columbia, where adverse conditions commonly restrict travel, train transports are rarely restricted during difficult weather. With many rural areas in the two countries depending on volunteer resources for firefighting or search-and-rescue, some areas have begun to ask if they are adequately prepared to respond to potential derailments. In May 2014, the Department of Transportation stepped up regulations requiring rail operators to advise State Emergency Response Commissions when more than a million gallons will be shipped through their states.

The International Association of Fire Chiefs responded to the announcement by noting that while communications about intended shipments are always helpful for local communities, "such notifications would do little to help local responders adequately prepare for a rail incident."

Although both the U.S. and Canada have promised increased safety regulations to prevent accidents such as last the 2013 devastating rail disaster in Lac Mégantic, Quebec, it would appear that a lot more thought needs to go into safety precautions for transporting North America's most controversial commercial product.

Image credit: Roy Luck

When it opened in 1956, General Motors Technical Center was lauded as a place where “today meets tomorrow.” The 710 acre complex in Warren is home to 61 buildings and a 22,000 acre lake, cost about $US100 million to build and symbolized America’s and Detroit’s industrial might, innovation and optimism. When it opened, over 5,000 leaders in engineering and science came for the dedication ceremony and over 180,000 people visited the Center over the next two days. Designed by Eero Saarinen, whose work also included the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and the TWA Flight Center at JFK International Airport in New York, designed what is now recognized as one of the largest modernist architectural masterpieces in the U.S. As noted during a talk Triple Pundit attended at Modernism Week in Palm Springs, the Technical Center is a leading example of mid-century architecture in Michigan, where much of this shift in design has much of its origins.

For the most part the Technical Center looks the way it did almost 60 years later. Some of the original interiors were lost, but for the most part this “Versailles of Industry” is still intact and screams more of a Mad Men than Chevy Volt vibe. The Center still is the locus of GM’s research and development and is the work address for 19,000 employees. While the function of the complex has not changed, the complex is slowly undergoing a green upgrade reflective of what more 21^st century employees are seeking in their work environment.

The first things visitors will notice (once the especially bitter Michigan winter subsides) are the bicycles that employees ride to commute between buildings. Launched last year, the on-campus bicycle sharing program, operated by Zagster, offers employees the opportunity to score a little more exercise while overall worker productivity has improved thanks to reduced waits from avoiding a long walk or shuttle ride.

Such a sprawling network of buildings requires massive amounts of energy, especially when considering all the data the company stores online. To that end, GM revamped the data center within the complex, leading to a LEED gold certification and the elimination of a larger heating and cooling system—or as a GM representative has been quoted, its redesign nixed the equivalent of a football field sized room of batteries. Energy efficiency has also scored a small boost from a 49 kilowatt solar array within the center.

While next generation technology is coded and hammered out inside, 30 acres within the complex have recently been certified as wildlife habitat on the outside. Duck boxes made out of repurposed Chevy Volt battery cases are scattered around the complex, and additional man-made lakes regularly attract migratory birds. Trees outline the perimeter of the center while more “no-mow” spaces have been designated to encourage the growth of native plants.

As GM expands its zero-waste program worldwide, this massive complex continues to reduce waste and encourage recycling: at last count the total waste generated within the Technical Center has decreased 35 percent.

GM, as has the American automobile industry at large, has taken its lumps the past 30 years. But the Technical Center has been a steady constant as the company retooled, restructured and adjusted to the changing demands from consumers. It may no longer be the world’s largest car company, but GM continues to attract leading scientists and engineers, and still reflects the vision of Charles Kettering, who was head of research at GM from 1920 to 1947. When the first plans were drawn up for the Technical Center during the 1940s, Kettering made it clear he wanted solid buildings with streamlined design that would encourage innovative thinking. “I don’t want fancy,” was a mantra he kept repeating during the Center’s conception. Hardly fancy, the straight lines and graceful curves that are a rule the complex have been largely untouched—only now they are undergoing a sustainable upgrade necessary at a time of diminishing resources and increased demands for efficiency.

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 credits: Michigan Modern

Feb. 5 marked the two-year anniversary of paper giant Asia Pulp and Paper's commitment to halt further felling of the natural rainforest in all of its 38 supplier concessions in Indonesia. This commitment was a key part of the company's Forest Conservation Policy (FCP) announced back in February 2013.

While FCP was cautiously welcomed by various environmental groups, many remained skeptical as to whether Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) would hold the line on the promises made.

Since the 2013 announcement, central to APP's efforts has been the retention of a number of third-party organizations with expertise in evaluating both the High Carbon Stock (HCS) and High Conservation Value (HCV) of  forests within its supplier concessions. And later on, the company expanded on these efforts with the formation of a peat expert team to evaluate how best to protect this fragile ecosystem found extensively throughout supplier forests. APP stated from the outset that recommendations made by these expert teams would be adopted by the company as part of ongoing and comprehensive forest management plans.

Since work on FCP began, the pulp and paper giant committed to an unprecedented level of transparency as well -- perhaps most significantly demonstrated by its invitation to have Rainforest Alliance undertake an independent evaluation of their progress. This month, Rainforest Alliance published its evaluation of the first 18 months of FCP (to August 2014). Here are the key findings.

Third-party evaluation

The good news: Rainforest Alliance found that, "APP has met its commitments to halt the cutting of natural forest for the purposes of establishing new plantation areas, stop the building of new canals in peat-lands by its suppliers and stop all transport of mixed tropical hardwood for its own pulp supply by August 31, 2013." The report also states that APP's journey to implement its ambitious commitments has required a tremendous amount of work, while confirming that building blocks are in place.

In broad terms, APP has delivered on some key, and important, actions. However, with such a major undertaking, Rainforest Alliance found that the company's overall progress to meet commitments varies, concluding that overall progress made is "moderate." The 83-page report dives down into the minutiae, and it is in the details where great complexity is revealed and where it is evident APP still has much work to do.

Here's an example: Although APP and its suppliers are no longer clearing natural forest -- and APP is no longer receiving mixed tropical hardwoods at its mills -- the report finds that areas of forest in designated HCS and HCV areas are still subjected to degradation by third parties. Activities such as illegal logging, small scale slash-and-burn by local communities, and, in a few cases, industrial-scale mechanical clearance for palm oil or mining purposes has taken place. As a result, Rainforest Alliance concludes there remains overall inadequate protection of HCS and HCV areas.

To be fair, though -- and this is where the challenges and complexities are revealed -- APP has previously said it cannot be successful by going it alone. A year ago, before this report, APP identified problems with overlapping licenses in concession areas leading to conflicting land use with other actors. At the time, the company called for wider stakeholder cooperation with businesses, government and civil society to resolve these issues. Rainforest Alliance concedes in its report that it acknowledges "huge challenges facing supplier companies in addressing unauthorized clearance of natural forest and protecting HCS and HCV areas," going on to say in the report: "The challenges include the unwillingness or inability of local authorities including governments to enforce legal requirements."

More work to be done

Still, the report does place some time pressure on APP to conclude some of the work undertaken. The report identifies that APP's suppliers are waiting for the company to issue their Integrated Sustainable Forest Management Plans (ISFMPs) "before taking significant steps to implement more definitive measures to protect HCV and HCS areas." ISFMP's in turn are dependent upon the completion of HCS and HCV assessments, and the delivery of these was delayed, and not fully completed, as of August 2014. At the time of the report, one pilot ISFMP project was underway.

The management of peat-lands is also planned to be integrated into the ISFMPs, and Rainforest Alliance finds only limited progress has been made by the peat expert team. As such, Rainforest Alliance states, "APP faces a significant timing or sequence challenge if it is to protect HCVs or HCS."

Another important area of review was the resolution of social conflicts. Rainforest Alliance says that APP has mapped social conflicts and established processes to begin resolving these conflicts. These number in the several-hundreds, with just one pilot social conflict resolution process being completed and with memorandums of understanding or action plans in place for 10 percent of the remaining. Rainforest Alliance says APP has made moderate progress in this area.

The bottom line

It would be easy to conclude that APP has failed to meet or exceed expectations, but at the same time, given the magnitude of APP's undertaking, it would be unrealistic to expect a perfect score just two years into reforming operations. A full reading of the report shows that while Rainforest Alliance identifies much more work must be done, the authenticity of APP's efforts is not called into question.

APP's managing director of sustainability, Aida Greenbury, welcomed Rainforest Alliance's evaluation, stating: "We are pleased that the Rainforest Alliance has recognized the progress we are making." But she added: "We must have the courage to continually improve as we learn lessons from implementation."

Greenpeace's reaction to the report commends it as being a fair and balanced assessment of, "just how far APP has come in delivering its policies to protect natural forests, peat lands and other high conservation values," though recognizes the important challenges APP still needs to tackle.

World Wildlife Fund, in contrast, reserves little praise for APP, stating that "not much has changed on the ground -- forests continue to disappear, peat soils continue to be drained and social conflicts remain unresolved." WWF appears to have remained APP's strongest critic since FCP was announced in 2013.

Despite these differing perspectives, the report is nonetheless a moment of truth for APP, and an opportunity for the company to build on its efforts to address the shortfalls identified. This becomes even more important because, as Mongabay.com's reaction to the evaluation highlights, there are concerns from organizations such as Woods and Waysides International. Woods & Waysides, a nonprofit based in New Jersey, is concerned that this report says nothing about how well APP will be able to meet the group's fiber supply on a sustainable basis as the company prepares to open the new OKI pulp mill in South Sumatra. Rainforest Alliance will address that in a future report, but in the meantime, APP should expect the scrutiny to intensify.

Photo credit: By Author

Follow me on Twitter @PhilCovBlog

Carnaval is wrapping up in Brazil, which has meant several days of costumes, parades, fantastic live music and a fair share of debauchery until the wee hours of the morning. The type of partying varies depending on what city or region you happen to be visiting, but there is no shortage of revelry, food and drink. And speaking of drink: One of Brazil’s most popular beer brands, Skol, found itself and its company, Ambev, in controversy after a poorly thought-out advertising campaign.

In São Paulo, Skol ads went up last week proclaiming "Esqueci o ‘não’ em casa," which literally means, “I forgot the ‘no’ at home.”

Considering the social ills any country has, including substance abuse and domestic violence — which can get magnified during a time like Carnaval — it should not have surprised the marketing department at Skol that more than a few people found the campaign offensive. Ambev, with sales of over US$14 billion annually and owned by the beverage giant Anhauser-Busch InBev, had to lurch into damage control.

The backlash against the Skol campaign was largely due to Pri Ferrari, who herself is an illustrator in the advertising industry. Upon seeing one of the ads at a bus shelter in São Paulo, Ferrari and a friend, journalist Mila Alves, altered the poster with electrical tape and amended the message so it read "Esqueci o 'não' em casa. E trouxe o 'nunca" ("I forgot the ‘no’ at home and brought the ‘never.’") Other women began to show their indignation, and the result was a social media nightmare for Skol and Ambev. Ferrari’s post on Facebook scored several thousand “likes,” and the hashtag #SkolNunca ("Skol never") then began to spread quickly on Twitter.

“A man will never be made to feel what we feel.” – Pri Ferrari, São Paulo, Brazil, when asked about her reaction to the Skol advertising campaign.

Realizing the company was dismissing the age-old lesson that “no means no,” and its cute slogan could appear to condone rape, Ambev pulled the ads and replaced them with new messages that carried a theme of respecting others. The company also issued a halfhearted formal apology, saying the original campaign was launched with the premise of just “enjoying the good times,” but realized that the slogan in question could result in a “dubious misunderstanding.”

Pallid apology aside, Ambev at least realized how offensive its ad campaign could be to, well, about half of Brazil’s population. The stunt also cheapened a Brazilian tradition that dates back to the 19th century and is full of cultural traditions and pageantry -- not just about excessive drinking and celebrating brands that try to capitalize, in this case quite carelessly, on the fun.

Image credits: Pri Ferrari/Facebook

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.

Fun post for Friday: An interesting human behavior story from the Galapagos. Post Office Bay, on the Island of Floreana, has been serving as an improvised message board for travelers since the 19th century. Ships would periodically stop by and leave messages in the hopes that another ship might pick them up and take them to their intended destination in distant lands.

Today, it's tourists who stop by to collect postcards for delivery in their home towns across the globe.  You might say it's the world's only crowdsourced post office that specializes in hand delivery. It's also an amusing throwback to an era when technology was a far less dominant force in people's lives.

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