Search

UNICEF and The Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) has launched a landmark new partnership that will improve the lives of thousands of children and young people living in the tea communities of Assam, India and reduce their vulnerability to exploitation and trafficking. 

A new industry-wide partnership combines UNICEF expertise in child protection with commitment from all key stakeholders in the tea supply chain to address child protection issues; it is the first collaboration of its kind involving the tea industry at state, community and national level.

ETP, a membership organisation of tea companies and retailers that works to improve the lives of tea workers, smallholder farmers, and environment in which tea is produced, will use their reach with producers at all levels of the supply chain and unique understanding of the tea sector to help ensure the project’s success.

The three year partnership, which will provide education, engagement and empowerment programmes, will be funded by the Dutch Sustainable Trade initiative (IDH), and ETP members: Tesco; OTG ; Tata Global Beverages (Tetley, Tata Tea); and Taylors of Harrogate (Yorkshire Tea), and Typhoo.

Across India every year, more than 80 million children leave school without completing eight years of education and 43% of girls are married before the age of 18. In rural areas, especially those that grow and produce tea, child protection issues, particularly for girls, are a huge challenge. Children who live in these communities can be difficult to reach with their vulnerability exacerbated by a number of issues including poverty, gender inequality and caste discrimination.

UNICEF has been working in India, alongside the government, for over six decades to create and strengthen child protection structures and protect young people, particularly girls, from exploitation and abuse.

This experience tells us that it is only when grassroots community work is combined with a commitment by all the key stakeholders in the tea industry - the private and public sector, government and the supply chain – that a long term difference can be made to the lives of children and young people.

The ambition through this multi-stakeholder partnership is to strengthen the child protection response in Assam to prevent child labour and trafficking, thus changing the lives of thousands of children.

Peer to peer groups, which are designed to give young girls the confidence they need to stand up for their rights – such as not being forced into a marriage – and ensure that they are better able to enjoy their childhood will form a centre point of this ground-breaking new partnership.

The partnership will initially focus on rolling these peer to peer groups out across 350 communities in over 100 estates across 3 districts of Assam. This will lead to more than 25,000 girls being equipped with the knowledge and ‘life skills’ to help them secure a better future and reduce their vulnerability to violence, abuse and exploitation.

Through the creation of child protection committees, this project will also ensure that at least 10,000 other community members are trained and empowered to prevent child exploitation from happening in tea communities and so they better understand children’s rights.

Empowering communities with knowledge about the reality of traffickers is crucial as often they are ignorant about the fact they are handing their daughters over to be trafficked, thinking that instead they are giving them a chance of a better life.

The child protection committees will give them a forum to openly discuss such issues, and as community members generally know which families are vulnerable to allowing their children to be trafficked due to their financial situation, they will work proactively to identify these families to see how they can support them through this period. This intervention at community level will help ensure that child protection structures are more robust and better able to protect vulnerable young girls.

Tea estate owners’ knowledge of child protection will be increased through a range of work using existing structures such as village organisations and tea estates’ welfare officers and mother clubs, to help make sure that everyone understands why it is important to protect children and how they can keep them safe.

By taking a multi-stakeholder approach and working with the state government and enforcement agencies to strengthen child protection in Assam, together we hope to reduce the number of children in danger.

The collective ambition in forming such an alliance is to make a lasting difference to communities by providing long-term solutions. UNICEF has been working in India for over sixty years, by combining this expertise with ETP’s deep and longstanding relationships in Assam, we have the opportunity to create long lasting change for thousands of children. 

The ground is being prepared for our transition from linear to circular thinking. But what does it really mean for business? Miranda Ingram reports

Remember when brown paper and bits of string were kept in kitchen drawers, hems were let down - and eventually ripped up for dusters - and anything that came with a plug was sent off for repair? Back before we were seduced into today’s disposable lifestyle, “waste not want not” was a normal way of thinking.

Now it’s back, relabelled the Circular Economy and with a clutch of new buzzwords: cradle to cradle, cascade economics (reuse of materials), closed-loop, biomimicry, zero waste, collaborative consumption, remanufacture.
But this time we are talking waste not want not on an industrial scale.

The world’s population continues to grow and is estimated to reach 9 billion somewhere around 2050. By 2030 we are looking at a worldwide middle class of 5 billion consumers wanting to enjoy prosperous lifestyles.

At the same time, our natural resources are vanishing at an alarming rate.

Clearly our linear, “take-make-dispose”, economy is unsustainable. Soon there will be nothing left to take. The circular - or closed loop - economy rejects the idea that products reach their ‘end of life’ and, through reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling, aims to turn one product’s waste into another product’s raw materials thus banishing the need to mine new resources as well as the idea of throwing stuff away.

Put simply, the circular economy strives to mimic nature where everything is reabsorbed into the eco-system and there is no such thing as waste. Under the circular economy, waste management companies will become resource management companies. The ultimate aim is to decouple growth from environmental impact.

The challenge now is to change mindsets - of both manufacturers and their relationships with consumers.

Using research prepared by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the leading think-tank on the circular economy, the ground is being prepared for our transition from linear to circular thinking. The first big event promoting the circular economy, organised by Resource, was held in London last year and is being repeated next month. The Davos Forum put it on the agenda last year and again last month. The EU has passed a number of Communications alerting member countries to the benefits.

For while the concept of the circular economy make perfect sense, the key to persuading business leaders into a new way of thinking is to highlight the financial rewards.

Alongside the moral arguments, “the transition to a circular economy will be driven by the promise of over one trillion US dollars in business opportunities”, said Frans van Houten, ceo of the Dutch multinational Philips, addressing Davos last year.

Philips, one of the pioneers of circular economy thinking, saved €471m last year by the reuse, remanufacture and refurbishing of materials.

In adopting its Communication “Towards a circular economy: a zero waste programme for Europe” last year the European Commission calculated that using resources more efficiently will bring new growth and job opportunities: better eco-design, waste prevention and reuse can bring net savings for EU businesses of up to € 600bn, while also reducing total annual greenhouse gas emissions. Additional measures to increase resource productivity by 30% by 2030 could boost GDP by nearly 1%, while creating 2m additional jobs.

“If we want to compete we have to get the most out of our resources, and that means recycling them back into productive use, not burying them in landfills as waste,” commented Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik. “Moving to a circular economy is not only possible, it is profitable.”

The key to success is a shift in thinking by both manufacturers and consumers. What is referred to as the ‘functional service economy’, ’performance economy’ or ‘sharing economy’ involves concentrating on selling services rather than products - the consumer becomes the user. Through leasing models, companies compete on quality, durability and standards of service rather than price.

“This requires a fundamental redesign of business and our end-to-end value chains,” says van Houten. “Instead of selling products, we should retain ownership and sell their use as a service. Once we sell the benefits of the products instead of the products themselves, we begin to design for longevity, multiple reuse, and eventual recycling.”

A perfect example is the Wales-based Riversimple which manufactures eco-friendly cars then offers mobility as a service rather than selling the cars. For a fixed fee, consumers will receive the car, fuel, insurance and maintenance to run it. Riversimple will retain ownership of the car - it is therefore in the manufacturer’s interest to make the car as durable and sustainable as possible.

Leasing, sharing, swapping, auctioning and bartering are rising forms of exchange which both reduce pressure on resources as well as reducing the waste often inherent in ownership. The DIY giant B&Q developed Project Box, which allows customers to ‘borrow’ toolkits for a service fee, when they realised that most toolkits are used for only 2 percent of their intrinsic value.

“People’s attitudes are changing. We can begin to see a world in which users of expensive and vital heavy equipment in the construction industry, for instance, will be willing to lend out their machinery to other companies when they don’t need it,” said Bill Stephenson, CEO & Chairman of the Executive Board of DLL global financial solutions partner, addressing Davos last month.

“We are at the foothills of this revolution,” he continued. “We need a new circular economy model to build truly sustainable business. The vital question is how to develop the new value chains that will underpin this. In our business, we are engaged in regular discussions with our partners, shaping new circular approaches such as second life markets, where goods are refurbished and marketed to new customers, extending the life of the product and building new revenue streams.”

The circular economy has its corporate fans. MBA Polymers, Cisco, Unilever, Renault, Desso (carpets), Novelis (aluminium sheet), Philips and Kingfisher (DIY) are publicly nailing their colours to the mast. Industry platforms such as the Better Cotton Initiative, Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Initiative, Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition and the Sustainability Consortium are also on board.

Investors, too, are starting to take notice. As Ellen MacArthur of the eponymous foundation puts it: “if you had the choice of buying shares in a company that relies solely on virgin raw materials or one that has built a take-back system into its business model to feed its remanufacturing operations, which one would you choose?”

Nevertheless, for all its inherent good sense, circular economy is not a term on everyone’s lips - it’s not something politicians are talking about never mind consumers. Are we really on the verge of transition to a circular economy?
Maybe, maybe not, believes Sally Uren, Chief Executive of Forum for the Future.

“There is increasing interest in the Circular Economy. When we polled over 2000 of our network members on trends we thought might be important for 2015, half thought that the circular economy would disrupt conventional business in the next two years, half thought not.”

“I suspect we are close to a tipping point, one which will be accelerated as the business case becomes ever clearer, no waste means more cost efficiencies and upcycling and recycling creates new markets.

“True, we don’t hear politicians waxing lyrical on the notion of a circular economy, but then, particularly in the UK, there isn’t much sense coming from any political quarters on an array of sustainable business initiatives.

“My guess is that we will see increased momentum in 2015, and increased evidence that a circular economy is actually a pre-requisite of a sustainable one.

“But I don’t think we will ever really hear consumers talking about the circular economy in the same way they talk about recycling – which is of course central to the notion – it’s too academic a construct.

“However, consumer engagement with aspects of the building blocks of a circular economy, such as recycling and take-back schemes, will grow.”

MacArthur, however, sounds a warning. “In a world of dwindling resources, where the cost of raw materials is rising as demand outstrips supply, companies that fail to separate their revenue from commodity constraints will become increasingly vulnerable,”she says.

“However, innovative businesses that find ways of adapting to this new reality and consciously transition away from linear, volume-based growth can look forward to a future of sustained, long-term success.”  

Debbie Read, head of CR at Molson Coors, has worked for the international brewer for seven years. Best known for its brands Coors, Carling, Cobra and Miller, the brewer has changed a lot in the last two years, triggered by the purchase of Staropramen, central Europe’s leading beer brand. Read tells Ethical Performance about its global approach to CSR.

 

Where do you start with a global remit?
We have 2020 targets which are umbrella targets for the whole organisation. This is what we’re aiming for: global targets but with local ways to reach them. We always believe that people on the ground know what’s best.
For example, we have a global packaging target of a 6% weight reduction. This has its challenges in that some markets don’t want to move from aluminum to glass. We do both in the UK because it is a more stable market. Central Europe is still in a state of flux from can and glass and then Canada is very much glass focused. Consumer perceptions of different packaging types come into play too.

What is Beer Print?
It is our way of engaging people and is applicable to consumers in whatever country they’re in.
Every time a beer is picked up there is a beer print left behind and wherever the company brews and sells its beer it leaves a beer print on its communities, on the environment and on its business. It makes it real to people and relevant to their role. It helps guide purchasing decisions, company goals, community partnerships, employee engagement and profit. It helps drive our business.

Biggest achievement so far?
Waste has been a great success for us. We are now zero waste to landfill. Initially in the UK we didn’t know how we were going to do it. But we hit the target by 2012, so big audacious targets can be invigorating. We forced people to be innovative.
For example, cross contamination issues mean that spilt grain can’t be used as animal feed so we found a supplier who can use it as a composting agent.
There are waste brewing products which are organic and can go for cattle feed. Waste yeast goes for manufacturing Marmite and the pet food industry.

What about water stewardship?
Water is a big focus for us – after all without great water you can’t make great beer and most beer is brewed locally. However, we did review our water targets to make them – world class standards – only applicable to water stressed areas [its original goal to reduce its water intensity by 20% with respect to 2011 levels, changed to 15%]. This doesn’t apply to Burton on Trent, for example, as the water table is high. Yet in neighbouring Tadcaster if it doesn’t rain for 6-8 weeks in the Yorkshire Dales its water table starts to go down and it struggles to get enough water. Us saving water in Burton isn’t going to help Tadcaster, so having a 20% arbitrary target doesn’t make much sense because you can’t move water around.
We encourage people to view our targets as a local issue and set local targets on them.

And carbon?
Carbon is easier to quantify because there are cost implications but it’s difficult to engage people in. People don’t tend to understand it. Our target is a 15% in emissions by 2020. So we’re focusing on processes and efficiencies, for example in Burton we saved £75m by moving from cartonboard as packaging to ready printed shrink film. It even looks better on the shelf!
We’ve also just completed a new energy centre which boasts a 6.5% carbon reduction. It was a plant that used older energy so we re-streamlined processes replacing boilers, refrigeration etc.

Binge drinking often hits the headlines. What are you doing about responsible consumption?
Externally, we’ve developed lower alcohol alternatives eg Carling Zest and Carling Cooler, and internally, we ask employees to be brand champions and to promote the idea of consumption in moderation. Employees are urged to be responsible ambassadors and we are currently relaunching our employee alcohol training. We also work in partnership with Drink Aware.

In which other areas do you collaborate?
Sustaining the beer industry means keeping the right to advertise. So we are active with the Portman Group and always abide by the strict advertising codes.
We work closely at roundtables with other brewers, after all we’re all facing the same challenges. Best Practice is key in markets where we want to expand and we aim to share best practice with our competitors. We only started doing this last year. There are industry ‘hot spots’ – for example countries that don’t have a minimum age with regards to the purchase of alcohol, countries with different drink-drive limits and markets that don’t have advertising legislation – where we’re working with the likes of Diageo, Pierre Ricard and ABI.

If you could influence one major thing in sustainable business practice, what would it be?
I’d love for consumers to see sustainability as something they actually want. That is was cool and trendy rather than worthy and governance oriented. Our consumers are in downtime. They don’t want CR/sustainability messaging. They need to be able to make informed choices. We have a role in making it cool rather than an obligation.

And finally, your favourite tipple?
A Cobra come a Friday night. 

The US SIF Foun-dation’s latest biennial trends survey titled ‘Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends 2014’, marks the tenth edition of the report first published in 1995 and has revealed that total US-domiciled assets under management using SRI strategies grew $2.83 trillion (trn) - equivalent to 76% - in the two-year period to the start of 2014.

Lisa N. Woll, ceo of US SIF and the US SIF Foundation, reflecting on the rise of impact investing strategies stated: “While the variety of labels - ESG, Ethical, Green, Impact, Mission, Responsible, Socially Responsible, Sustainable and Values - can sometimes be confusing, the core message is clear. A growing number of investors, institutions and financial professionals are deploying and managing capital to build a more sustainable and equitable economy.”
As a result the level of assets identified as following SRI strategies now account for more than one in every six dollars under professional management in the US. Woll added: “Sustainable investment strategies are being applied across asset classes to promote corporate social responsibility, build long-term value for companies and their stakeholders, and foster businesses that will yield community and environmental benefits.”

The report, which was conducted between May and August 2014 and based on a survey of around 1,500 investment management firms and institutional asset owners identified as implementing sustainable investment strategies or believed to be new SRI-investment entrants, asked recipients to detail whether they “considered ESG issues” in their investment analysis and portfolio selection, list the issues considered and provide the value of US-domiciled assets affected as of 31 December 2013.

US SIF’s researchers noted that much of the growth could be explained by “the expansion of the investment funds offered by money managers that incorporate ESG factors into investment decision-making.” The value of assets managed at the start of 2014 by investment firms considering ESG issues grew more than three-fold - up from $1.4trn at the start of 2012 to $4.8trn.

In a similar fashion, the pool of assets to which institutional owners - including public pension funds, foundations and educational endowments - apply ESG criteria has grown to $4.04trn - up 77% since 2012. Over the two-year period to 2014, the number of private equity and other alternative investment funds considering ESG factors grew to 336 with $224 billion (bn) in assets (2012: $132bn/301 funds).

Following the shooting of 26 people on 14 December 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the report noted that policies restricting investments in weapons manufacturers have spread. Here US SIF’s report stated: “Since 2012, consideration of these criteria by money managers has grown nearly four-fold in asset-weighted terms to affect $588bn.” Among institutional asset owners, concerns over weapons now apply to $355bn in assets, equating to a near five-fold increase.

Separately, Sudan remains the “leading social issue” for institutional investors as regards assets affected, with restrictions on investing in companies doing business in this country affecting $2.7trn in assets.

Katherine Garrett-Cox, chief executive of Alliance Trust Investments, a UK fund management firm and member of UK Sustainable Investment & Finance (UK SIF), echoing trends in the US pointed out late this January in a Forum comment in City A.M. that: “Over the past 12 months I believe that there has been a real change in the [investing] mindset, and socially responsible investing (SRI) considerations have truly entered the mainstream investment consciousness.”

 

Picture credit: &copy  John Hix&nbsp | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has just concluded in Davos. It’s one of those gargantuan, international, annual events that while attracting heads of state, fails to engage heads on the street. Even The Telegraph ran an article entitled: “What’s the point of Davos?”

It’s a question I put to Aron Cramer, president of BSR, who was attending his 11th WEF. “Davos works on multiple levels,” he told me. “Ideas are shared and networking happens. The quality of participants is very high and people come to generate new ideas.” However he admits that those ideas take time to come to fruition. “It takes time to have real impact. We don’t live in a top down society any more. We have a blended governance approach and that’s the way change happens. Davos continues to help foster such changes.”

So Davos is not an end in itself – what conference ever is? – but it can be a catalyst for change. “The world will not be saved by Davos,” said Cramer. “But it helps build momentum for change.”

Look back to 1992, and remember that South African President F. W. de Klerk met Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the annual meeting, their first joint appearance outside South Africa and a milestone in the country’s political transition.

I suppose that’s the true value of Davos, its potential for legacy. Its ongoing attempt is to address the question: Are we being good ancestors? (Jonas Salk).

Talking to David Schofield, head of CSR at Aviva, recently he spoke too about the importance of legacy and the desire for a business’s CR strategy to create a positive social impact that lasts. While Aviva is currently in the process of wrapping up its 5-year Street to School programme, its work has inspired lasting change: governments have changed laws and instigated new policies. Indeed, isn’t it inspiration that drives change as much as regulation or policy?

So if your invite to Davos got lost in the post, other forms of inspiration have been thick on the ground this month, despite January being one of the ‘bluest’ times of year. If you’ve not caught up with the Alex Lewis story, then I urge you to check it out on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-30803004). Entitled ‘The year I lost my limbs was the most brilliant of my life!’, it’s an amazing story of courage and strength, passion and love, in the face of incredible change.

I’ve also been taken aback by stories on the International Platform on Sport and Development website. There is incredible, awe-inspiring work being done by Dar al-Yasmin (DAY), an NGO that has been operating in the village of Zaatari in Jordan since early 2014. The Syrian refugee population in the village now outnumbers that of the Jordanians. Every second weekend, a large group of DAY volunteers make their way to the village to facilitate youth activity days. These activity days, or Habaybi as they are called, include interactive games, sports and projects focused on music, art, and physical well-being for both Jordanians and Syrian refugees between the ages of 5 and 16, who live in a world where change is the only constant.

Being inspired by stories such as these may well help you attack your 2015 CR strategy with a renewed vigour. And more importantly, ensure that change happens.

liz.jones@ethicalperformance.com

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandhi. 

Launched in 2010, Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan has pledged to double the company's growth while reducing its environmental and social impacts across its operations and supply chain. Zero waste has been one pillar of the CPG giant’s plan. The company has made steady improvements in just a few years, and last week it announced that all of its factories have achieved the company’s goal of sending zero non-hazardous waste to landfill.

According to Unilever, its waste diversion efforts have resulted in €200 million (US$225 million) in savings while boosting social enterprise projects and jobs. The ways in which Unilever has avoided pitching garbage are almost as diverse as the company’s product line.

In Egypt, the Middle East division of Unilever took on several tactics to eliminate waste. One program involves the company sharing and sorting recyclable waste with local residents, who then can repurpose the material into products they can use or sell. Another project distributes waste paper to Unilever employees, who churn it into handicrafts or stationery. The workers have a choice to keep the profits or use them towards credit for transportation or education.

Many of those employees who take advantage of the program are disabled, and under Egyptian law, disabled workers must comprise 5 percent of a company’s total workforce — but those jobs only offer low-paid, menial work. In a country where 25 percent live in poverty and unemployment is at best 13 percent, such steps like this are needed as Egypt continues to suffer political turmoil and sluggish economic growth.

Elsewhere in the region, Unilever’s Lipton plant in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, which is the company’s second largest tea plant worldwide, used to generate over 333,000 square feet (31,000 square meters) of waste annually. During the past few years, in addition to reducing and recycling paper packaging, the company installed a composting machine to treat the by-products resulting from tea production. Tea dust is also captured and used as fertilizer. Producing 1.2 million tea bags an hour and 6 billion annually, the factory now sends no waste to local landfills despite providing exports to 50 countries.

In addition to tea, Unilever also has a massive ice cream business. Of course, manufacturing all those frozen goods generates a huge demand for energy, in addition to unpleasant waste that is difficult to dispose. At its plant in in Saint-Dizier, France, the company contracted with Degrémont, a water treatment company, to install equipment that churns that waste into biogas. Not only has the factory saved money on its electricity consumption, but it has also reduced costs from the elimination of hauling the waste to a recovery center.

Across the pond in Clearwater, Florida, where Unilever operates another ice cream factory, little steps added up: from selling five-gallon buckets to local stores to reusing cookie liners as garbage bags. Unwanted office furniture and supplies are also sold to a local Habitat for Humanity office, which in turn sells them within the local community — also creating jobs.

Unilever is aligned with its competitors, including Colgate-Palmolive and Procter and Gamble, which have made progress on cleaning up their supply chains and eliminating waste. Now comes the hard part: In an era of disposables from razors to shampoo bottles to plastic cookie trays, what level of responsibility are these companies going to take for their products once they leave store shelves? As municipalities worldwide struggle with diminishing landfill space, the past response of leaving it to consumers and retailers is no longer sufficient. Taking the initiative on extended producer responsibility would be a huge positive step forward for these companies.

Image credit: Leon Kaye

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.

Nearly a third of the United States’ solid waste stream is product packaging – Capri Sun drink pouches, Starbucks coffee cups or  Arrowhead water bottles – according to nonprofits As You Sow and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). But Americans only recycle an estimated 51 percent of these packaging materials, the organizations say, and less than 14 percent of all plastic packaging – the fastest-growing type of product packaging.

And leading companies in the fast food, beverage and consumer goods/grocery industries are falling short when it comes to addressing the environmental impacts of their packaging, the two groups say, releasing their findings in a joint report last week.

The study, Waste and Opportunity 2015: Environmental Progress and Challenges in Food, Beverage and Consumer Goods Packaging, reviews the packaging practices and policies of 47 major companies and evaluates them by four standards: reducing waste at the source of the packaging (using reusable packaging or choosing packaging with less material), using recycled-content material, designing packaging for recyclability, and supporting recycling collection efforts for packaging materials.

Not one of the 47 companies surveyed earned the report’s highest ranking, “Best Practices.” But six companies were able to achieve the second-best standing, “Better Practices,” in the fast food and beverage sectors: Starbucks, McDonald’s, New Belgium Brewing, Coca-Cola, Nestlé Waters North America and PepsiCo.

Starbucks, which demonstrated the most leadership in its packaging practices in the quick-service restaurant sector, incorporates 10 percent recycled-content paper in its coffee cups and is the only large fast food brand that consistently provides customers with in-store recycling options. The coffee giant adopted the lofty goal of serving 25 percent of its beverages in reusable mugs or tumblers but had to reduce that target to 5 percent, after employees were not aggressively promoting the reusable service ware program, the report finds.

McDonald’s, the other “leader” among fast food chains, according to the report, uses more than 30 percent post-consumer recycled-content material in its paperboard sandwich boxes.

Among the top-performing beverage companies, Pepsi is the only brand to have used a set amount (10 percent) of recycled PET plastic in its bottles for the last 10 years, and Nestlé Waters committed to using 50 percent recycled plastic in all of its Arrowhead half-liter bottles.

Honest Tea, owned by Coca-Cola, plans to reduce packaging waste by switching some of their “Capri Sun-type” plastic pouch packaging to more recyclable aseptic cartons. The report’s author raises concerns about the proliferation of this flexible, laminated plastic pouch packaging for goods from dried fruit and dog food to detergent: It is currently not recyclable anywhere in the world.

New Belgium Brewing was the only brewer that has entered the national debate on extended producer responsibility, supporting companies taking financial responsibility for the collection and waste management of their product packaging.

Quick-service restaurant and beverage companies that received the lowest ranking in the survey -- for showing little to no leadership on packaging sustainability -- include: Arby’s, Quizno’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Jack in the Box, Dairy Queen, Domino’s Pizza, Papa John’s Pizza, Heineken, MillerCoors, Boston Beer and Red Bull.

The report did not assign grades to the consumer goods and grocery companies it studied – from Campbell Soup and Clorox to Target and Whole Foods – due to the complexity of this market sector. But the study did note some significant commitments to reducing packing and finding reusable alternatives for transportation and stocking packaging. Walmart has cut packaging across its global supply chain by 5 percent, while Unilever has promised to slash the weight of its packaging by a third by 2020.

Despite these modest accomplishments, As You Sow and NRDC say that the quick-service restaurant, beverage and consumer goods/grocery industries have a long way to go before we truly make a dent in the rising tide of product packaging clogging our landfills, oceans and waterways. The dismal amount of recycled-content material in packaging, the difficulty to recycle food-soiled packaging and Capri Sun-type pouch packaging, and failure of most companies to take responsibility for the waste they create are just some of the barriers to reducing the toll product packaging takes on the planet, they say.

“Single-use food and beverage packaging is a prime component of the plastic pollution in our oceans and waterways, which kills and injures marine life and poses a potential threat to human health,” says Darby Hoover, report project editor and NRDC senior resource specialist, in a statement. “Companies have an opportunity and an obligation to curb this pollution. Better packaging design and improved support and adoption of recycling are key to turning the tide on this unnecessary waste.”

Image credit: Flickr/Ruben Schade

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

Editor's Note: This is a recurring series of excerpts from Marc Stoiber's new book, “Didn’t See It Coming." 

A few years back, I attended a conscious capitalism brainstorm at the Ventura, California, headquarters of Patagonia.

Patagonia is an incredible company. Founded by Yvon Chouinard as a means to supply himself and his “dirtbag climber” friends with quality equipment, it has grown into a global brand without sacrificing its environmental, design, quality or ethical business ideals.

As part of my visit, I did a tour and met some of the employees. I have never come across a more enthusiastic, intelligent, genuine, committed bunch. These guys were off the proverbial charts. I was awed. I felt envious. I began to suspect some kind of smart and happy juice in the water supply.

Even in that group of cheerful overachievers, one person stood out. Chipper Bell, our guide for the company tour.

Chipper bore more than a passing resemblance to the dude in "The Big Lebowski," from his insanely laid-back demeanor and Jeff Bridges looks to his cartoon California accent.

As he toured us through the company, however, it became apparent there was more to Chipper than met the eye.

Passing through the materials research department, we ducked as someone flipped a Frisbee to Chipper, calling out that his design had finally arrived.

Chipper was ecstatic, explaining to us that this disk was created using recycled materials and sustainable processes. After a bit of back patting, one of us asked why creating a sustainable Frisbee was such a big deal for him. Chipper replied with dude nonchalance that he was a Frisbee freestyle world champion, shrugged his shoulders, and ushered us on.

We were still digesting this nugget when Chipper opened the door to the stairwell where employees stashed their surfboards. He pointed out his board and explained that anyone at Patagonia could skip out to surf when nearby breaks were pumping, as long as they got their work done later. Again, one of us piped up and asked what Chipper loved most about surfing. He replied that he ran a surf school when he wasn’t at Patagonia, and he was most inspired by his special-needs and disabled students.

Again, we were stunned into silence. Who was this dude?

The tour ended as Chip took us to his desk and told us what he did at Patagonia. Turns out he wasn’t in community relations, product research or sustainability, as I had imagined.

He was Patagonia’s receptionist.

As he put on his headset and cheerfully waved goodbye, I discreetly asked one of our Patagonia hosts to give me the full Chipper story.

“Did he tell you he almost got to run the company?” My host smiled.

“No, he left that one out,” I said, picking my jaw up off the ground.

Turns out there was a companywide vote a few years back to elect a new president. Chipper came in a close second. Our Frisbee champion, surf school owner, dude receptionist had come a hairbreadth from running Patagonia.

Know what? He probably would’ve been a great president. Perhaps a bit shy on management theory, but no more so than half the presidents out there.

I’d argue, however, that Chip would’ve been wasted as president. The role he has now was of far greater importance. More than any brand, any communications campaign, any iconic image, he represented Patagonia.

When I think of Chip, and the other people I’ve met at Patagonia these past years, I get a crystal clear picture of what the company represents: its values and motives; what it will always make and never make; how it will behave in good times and bad. I feel aligned with Patagonia, much like I’d feel aligned with a trusted friend. We get each other.

Interestingly, Patagonia rarely advertises. Yet it attracts a legion of loyal followers who support it in good times and bad. Its sales actually went up in the last recession, without price cuts.

I’m sure every marketer would like to know how to pull that rabbit out of the Gore-Tex hat.

Brands don’t have beliefs — people do

I think the secret to authentic brands is standing in front of us. It’s people.

If I was to use Chip as a model, I’d say the secret is people who are remarkable, attract other people and cheerfully express their honest beliefs in the products they make. Their “advertising” is the stories they share when customers come shopping.

You find these people everywhere, working for great companies: Nordstrom, Lululemon, Interface carpet.

The trick is: These people and their very genuine stories can’t be invented. Marketers can’t fabricate beliefs or values.

Ad campaigns can’t create the deep, trusting relationships that humans can. They don’t have human belief systems and values. Instead, they serve up a concoction of emotional hooks and superficial promises, hoping to leave us with a positive feeling when we hear the brand mentioned or see it on the shelf.

This worked like a charm in simpler, pre-war days. But the world has evolved and become more hostile to ad campaigns. We’re oversaturated with media. People simply don’t have the bandwidth to absorb any more vapid brand hooks. And today’s consumer has the ability to look behind the curtain and see how the brand behaves when it isn’t trying to ingratiate itself. Stories of sweatshop labor, disregard for the environment, and sociopathic pursuit of profit don’t jibe terribly well with a warm and cuddly image.

Not surprisingly, trust in brands has gone down the toilet. As Havas Media’s Meaningful Brands study points out, most people worldwide wouldn’t care if 73 percent of brands disappeared tomorrow. In North America, that number is closer to 92 percent. As Umair Haque, the study’s author, writes:

"The long-standing relationship between people and brands is broken. Much of the trust, respect and loyalty people had for many brands has disintegrated.

"You see it every day in the level of cynicism, skepticism and indifference that people have toward many brands, in many interactions. The reality is, trust in brands worldwide has been falling for the last three decades. It is not hard to see why. We have faced the greatest financial recession since the great depression. It is a recession that hangs on stubbornly in much of the world, with a sluggish rebound at best.

Then there is the fact that brands are not delivering what people want. Instead, they're trying to deliver what they always have: the same old combination of faster/cheaper/newer, while the world yearns for brands that are meaningful. Brands that improve people’s well-being in a tangible, significant, fulfilling way."

So, why doesn’t Patagonia feel the need to advertise?

Haque has the answer: Successful brands provide meaning, not superficial promises. They “advertise” by building human bonds, providing reliability and utility, behaving like trustworthy people would -- people we like, admire and want to emulate.

This isn’t done with 30-second spots or billboards. It’s done when people like me tell people like you about people like Chipper Bell, Patagonia’s receptionist.

I believe the best brands are people. They just happen to be associated with products or services.

Keep a lookout for more excerpts here on TriplePundit! 

Image credit: Flickr/faircompanies

Marc Stoiber is a brand consultant, entrepreneur, and writer. He knows how to connect dots, simplify, and add a creative twist to the most mundane things in life. Even insurance and diet bars. He has worked in the corner office, the basement, and at coffee shops around the world. His work - even the legitimate stuff clients paid for - has been recognized by virtually every international industry award for advertising and design. Marc writes on brand innovation for Huffington Post, Fast Company, GreenBiz and Sustainable Life Media. He also speaks on the subject from coast to coast, and has been featured at TEDx.  

With as much as 40 percent of all food in the U.S. going to waste, municipalities are struggling to divert garbage from landfills and increase their recycling of waste. True, retailers and restaurants could do more to prevent food from going into the trash — though local regulations often get in the way of donating food to those who really need it. But composting is the most effective option, which would at least return some of these nutrients into the local environment. Otherwise those leftovers would just sit in a landfill, emitting the potent greenhouse gas, methane, into the atmosphere.

In order to boost municipal composting, the city of Seattle is trying a strong-armed tactic to increase food waste recycling in the city of 650,000.

Last September, Seattle’s city council passed an ordinance banning food from all residential and commercial garbage. The composting law went into effect Jan. 1, and full enforcement starts on July 1. In the meantime, residents caught with more than 10 percent of their garbage can full of food waste will score a bright red tag on their trash bins warning them they are violating the city's composting law.

As the local NPR station recently reported, the point is to raise awareness (or foment peer pressure) that the leftovers from this weekend's birthday party or yesterday’s Super Bowl need to go into a separate bin. The city provides such bins for a fee, and residents who opt out of that service must participate in backyard composting. But beginning in July, residents caught with excessive food in their trash bins will be charged an extra dollar on their garbage bill. Commercial properties, as well as condominium and apartment complexes, will be hit with a $50 fee.

Whether this tactic will work is a big question. Having once lived in a condo where my neighbors would dump their recyclables in my bin if I wasn't around, I can only imagine a scenario where scofflaws dump their trash into someone else’s can, pitch it in a public trash can on the way to work, or just funnel more food scraps down the garbage disposal.

But Seattle is upping the ante on composting because it has a goal to recycle 60 percent of its garbage by the end of this year. And while the greater Seattle area has a higher recycling rate than most of the U.S., the rate of recycling has slowed in recent years.

Currently, Seattle hauls more than 125,000 tons of food waste annually to composting processors, which in turn generate compost for local parks and open spaces. Clearly that rate will increase as the city improves on its waste diversion goals. The city estimates 100,000 tons of food waste is trucked 300 miles away to a landfill in eastern Oregon — wasting time, fuel and money. With the 38,000 tons of food waste the city expects to avoid sending to landfill once the new law is fully enforced, Seattle should then meet its recycling goals.

Image credit: Almdudler26

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.

Editor's Note: A version of this post originally appeared on the Environmental Defense Fund's EDF Voices blog.

By Ben N. Ratner

After months of anticipation, the Obama administration last month released its new methane emissions strategy – a plan that opens up new opportunities for industry writ large, and especially for operators that want to cut waste and get ahead.

The centerpiece of the strategy are imminent rules that will help us meet a new national goal to reduce harmful methane pollution from oil and natural gas operations by 45 percent by 2025.

But the rules also bring direct industry benefits. Here are four reasons the new methane emissions strategy is a boon, rather than bane, for America’s $1.2-trillion oil and gas sector.

1. It tackles $1.8 billion in annual waste and adds market certainty

Leaky infrastructure and unnecessary venting across the oil and gas value chain cost an estimated $1.8 billion in wasted product and lost revenue annually.

The new rules require companies to include up-to-date controls as they build out new and modified infrastructure, keeping gas in the pipeline while making new facilities more efficient.

Research shows such investments would cost the industry no more than a penny on average per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas produced, and could even save money in some cases.

The new rules also help bring market certainty.

As Goldman Sachs has pointed out, methane regulations are needed to address investor concerns, and unlock job creation and the most positive future for this American fuel.

Yes, as popular as the trend may be with consumers, today’s low oil prices cause economic pain for producers, and some operators are cutting back on costs.

But executives with vision beyond the next quarter can see that small, short-term investments in emission reduction technologies and practices are part of the longer game.

2. It builds goodwill and trust = Good for business

Recent polling by the American Lung Association found that while less than a quarter of Americans have a favorable view of the oil and gas industry, two-thirds support new federal limits on methane emissions.

Hydraulic fracturing bans in New York and Denton, Texas, reinforce that industry simply must do more to earn public trust.

Welcoming rigorous rules builds trust. That's one reason oil and gas companies in Colorado actively supported the ground-breaking policy enacted last year to begin limiting methane emissions.

Getting behind well-designed policies – and engaging in a collaborative way with the administration throughout the rulemaking process – is simply good business.

"Just say no" is not a credible position; it's time for the industry to show what it's for.

3. It sorts winners from losers

You can tell a lot about a company by how far its environmental strategy goes beyond mere compliance.

This first iteration of the national methane rules will only set requirements for new and modified infrastructure. To achieve the national target, existing sources will need to be regulated as well, and indeed, they already are in Colorado and parts of Ohio.

Speed defines winners and losers in this industry.

Leading companies will get ahead of the curve – and of their competitors – by bringing existing facilities up to the standards of new facilities before they’re required to do so.

Companies such as Southwestern Energy have demonstrated a drive to excel with their use of infrared cameras for leak detection and repair, among many other control strategies.

EQT Corp. responded to last week’s announcement saying, “We are committed to … even go beyond the White House’s focus of only new and modified emissions sources by targeting potential emissions at existing sources.”

4. It can help operators attract new talent in a competitive field

There is a well-known battle for talent in the hyper-competitive oil and gas sector. As environmental concerns swell – particularly for skilled young people in the labor force – companies can seize competitive advantage by supporting solutions-oriented environmental policies of which employees can feel proud.

With the methane strategy now announced, companies in the oil and gas sector face a choice. They can seize an opportunity and help build a clean energy future. Or they can cling to old ways of doing business that fuel uncertainty and lingering doubts about license to operate.

Image credit: Flickr/ACWA

Ben Ratner manages collaborations across stakeholder groups for EDF to build the leadership, technology and information necessary to address fugitive methane emissions.