Search

Business leaders are calling on business to tackle water issues in the UK. With the backing of the government, Business in the Community (BITC) has brought together water companies, other businesses, and key stakeholders to work collaboratively on the challenges, and encourage other businesses to take action on water to help build a fairer society and more sustainable future.

The BITC Water Taskforce, chaired by United Utilities ceo, Steve Mogford, is calling on all UK businesses – large and small, from every sector, be they at the beginning of their journey or further along – to consider their relationship with water and take action to improve their resilience to the risk of periods of too much and too little water.

To mark the start of a three year plan of action, the group has launched a report ‘Securing the Resources for Future Prosperity’, which highlights the water challenges faced in the UK, reasons why businesses should take action and what they need to do. The report uncovers many stories of how businesses are already rising to the challenge.

Gudrun Cartwright, head of innovation and partnerships, BITC said: “Water management should be part of all sustainable business strategies. Rising sea levels and changes in rainfall patterns are just the beginning of an increase in flooding and drought in the UK. There is a clear and urgent need for UK businesses to act now and respond to water challenges."
 

For the full story see the February issue of Ethical Performance.
 

Concept cars at automobile shows generally offer the following: great opps for selfies, dreams over driving a vehicle that will never exist and, of course, the occasional eye roll. But this week at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit, one concept car dazzled because of its design and its potential to transform the automobile industry: General Motors' (GM) Chevrolet Bolt EV, which could hit the market as soon as 2017.

The Bolt is a huge step closer toward the holy grail of electric vehicles (EVs): affordability and sustainability — the latter of which in this case is defined by range, the current bugaboo of most EVs. Sure, we love Tesla for its phenomenal design and range of 265 miles between charges. Unfortunately, the sticker price, which ranges between $70,000 and $90,000, is out of range of most of our budgets. GM’s Chevy Spark EV could be a car for the rest of us, with a price of about $20,000 after federal rebates. But with a range of about 82 miles, it fails to snag interest from most consumers due to that massive hurdle: “range anxiety.”

This electric car, however, hits a sweet spot. On Monday during its introduction at Cobo Hall in Detroit, GM executives, including CEO Mary Barra, touted its $30,000 price after federal tax incentives, along with its promised range of 200 miles. Considering the average commute per day hovers around 50 miles, this four-door hatchback could snare plenty of interest in the coming decade.

The Bolt is riding the coattails of its cousin, GM’s Chevy Volt, which is enjoying increased success and praise despite the ongoing naysaying about the future of plug-in electric cars and the fallout of batteries catching fire not so long ago. But as GM representatives repeatedly reminded me during my time in Detroit, Chevy Volt owners rank as the most satisfied automobile owners across the board.

Their obsession with driving hundreds of miles without having to fill up, affection for the car’s design and enthusiasm over how the car performs on the road have created a cult following any brand would kill for. The 2016 Volt promises even more, including an overall lighter car, quieter ride, that all-important fifth seat in the rear and the ability to drive 1,000 miles between gasoline fill-ups. If GM can deliver on these new features, that goodwill can carry over to the future release of the Bolt.

The Bolt’s range and price could deliver a one-two punch that entrench EVs into the mainstream. True, current cheap gas prices offer somewhat of a threat: Sales of trucks, after a decade of stagnation, are surging. But the stubborn truth is that oil prices will spike again; we just don't know when. And one reason why Volt owners are so enthusiastic about their cars ties in to our current busy lives, real or perceived — few of us enjoy the task of filling up at the gasoline station. Add the fact millennials are ever keener on having a car that does not have the conventional internal combustion engine (and avoiding cars, period, if they can), and we see more reasons why GM could have a potential goal mine in the Bolt.

Long vilified for its burial of the EV1, and viewed suspiciously for its venture in electrified cars, GM’s latest move signals that the automakers are getting it. An EV with mass appeal could transform the automobile industry — and fluster the oil companies in the process.

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.

Disclosure: GM covered the cost of Leon Kaye’s attendance at NAIAS.

By Jon Whiting Climate change is here, and it will affect every country as it worsens. But the harsh reality is that its effects won’t be felt equally.

The map below highlights that while climate change is caused primarily by rich, technologically advanced nations, its impact will hit the poorest nations hardest. Most European and North American countries are relatively better prepared and less vulnerable to the effects of climate change, while many countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East exhibit a dangerous combination of high vulnerability and low preparation.

The map, by the Eco Experts, visualizes data from the University of Notre Dame’s Global Adaption Index. The index, published annually since 1995, analyzes 192 countries on 45 internal and external indicators of climate change exposure.

The index is built on two variables: ‘vulnerability’ and ‘readiness,’ for which a country gets a separate mark for each. These scores tally up to produce an overall total indicating how the nation would fare.

The findings highlight the need for richer countries to do more to support poorer nations, helping them prepare for the severe impacts of climate change.

Ultimately, there will be no winners from the effects of climate change. Take, for example, the United States: Despite ranking fairly well in the index, fortifying itself against rising ocean levels could cost more than $1 trillion, according to the U.S. EPA’s sea-level experts. Meanwhile, increased heat waves, droughts and extensive downpours are all expected to wreak havoc on many parts of the country.

Eight out of the top 10 countries considered most at-risk from climate change by the index are located in Africa. Hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts and flooding are all real dangers for some of these areas, and this is compounded by a lack of national strategy to counteract the effects. Chad ranked lowest in the index, suggesting it will be the country hardest hit by climate change.

Seven out the top 10 countries considered least at-risk from climate change, according to the index, are from Europe: Norway ranks at the top and has done so since the index started in 1995. These countries cannot become complacent and must continue to prepare for the impacts of climate change.

Image credit: Flickr/markdoliner

The news from China seems to be improving. First, the Asian nation agreed to target peak carbon emissions and produce 20 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030. Now China is beginning to take action on pollution, a problem that has become quite severe.

The Chinese Supreme People’s Court just announced that it will reduce the court fees required for environmental groups to bring lawsuits against polluters. The ruling applies specifically to “social organizations involved in public interest litigation” targeting environmental concerns.

Litigation fees are one of the many ways that a government can tilt the playing field one way or another in the continuing conflict between industry and those concerned with protecting the environment for future generations. High court costs make it difficult for small nonprofit groups or individuals to defend their interests in court. This new development will make it easier to hold polluters accountable.

Environmental groups in China are registered and regulated, and there are more than 700 of them. Yet air quality in China is among the worst in the world: Data collected by the U.S. State Department showed that air quality in Beijing only met U.S. standards for healthy air, which require a reading below 35 micrograms per cubic meter, 21 percent of the days in the year. The annual average was 99.4 micrograms. The good news is that the trend shows that emissions declined from last year, but only by a modest 3.3 percent. While the average improved slightly, there were actually 24 “hazardous” days last year, compared with 23 the year before.

The court’s action likely reflected the sentiments of Premier Li Keqiang, who officially declared war on the Chinese smog problem last March. The war plan includes banning high-emissions vehicles and shutting down some coal plants. It might also include the use of smog-clearing drones that are currently in development. The drones will use a parafoil-type design to disperse smog-clearing chemicals that react with the smog particles, causing them to drop to the ground.

But smog is not China’s only pollution problem. The water there is also quite contaminated. China’s own Ministry of Land and Resources, after monitoring close to 5,000 sites in over 200 cities, has proclaimed that nearly 60 percent of all underground water is not safe to drink. In Lanzhou, benzene -- a known carcinogen -- was found in the drinking water, and the taps were turned off for a time. Water officials there blamed industrial pollution.

As evidence of the new crackdown, the Chinese court ordered six chemical and pharmaceutical companies to pay $26 million in fines for discharging acid into the Rutai Canal and Gumagan River at sites near a densely populated area. Those are the largest fines ever levied by a Chinese court for pollution. The lawsuit was brought by Taizhou City Environmental Protection Association, a public interest group that was only established in February. The chairman, Tian Jun, is also the head of Taizhou’s Environmental Protection Bureau.

The fact that the government is now taking serious action will be a major relief to everyone who lives there. And it will force all companies to take the issue seriously whether they had previously been inclined to do so or not.

Image credit: Amjad Hamid: Flickr Creative Commons

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

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Haiti has long been plagued by natural catastrophes as well as political-economic strife. Looking to break a cycle of poverty and environmental degradation, multinational businesses, multilateral development banks, foreign aid agencies, non-governmental organizations and local communities are working to help put Haiti on the path to recovery from a devastating 2010 earthquake.

Haiti has the highest rates of deforestation of any country in the world – a mere 2 percent of Haiti's original forests remain. Deforestation on such a grand scale has contributed significantly to a host of profound, persistent socioeconomic problems. Loss of soil from erosion, higher and more extreme incidences of flooding, degradation of water resources, and habitat destruction have all but crippled agriculture and drastically reduced biodiversity in Haiti. Compounding this, shifting seasonal rainfall patterns and less in the way of precipitation are also taking a heavy toll.

Deforestation, agricultural development and the cycle of poverty

Smallholder farms provide the traditional and often sole means of livelihood and survival for the large majority of Haiti's large rural population. It's estimated that around two-thirds of Haiti's population relies on small-scale farming for basic subsistence and their livelihoods.

Official statistics from Haiti's government and multilateral agencies such as the United Nations and World Bank estimate agriculture accounts for some 40 percent of Haiti's GDP and 60 percent of employment. Unofficial statistics put the number of smallholder farms -- ranging in scale from 0.50 to 1.5 hectares (1.24 to 3.7 acres) -- at around 1.1 million, Hugh Locke, co-founder of Haiti's Smallholder Farmers Alliance, a partner with Timberland in a milestone-setting community agroforestry development project, told 3p in an interview. [Ed. note - more on this tomorrow]

Offering a clear indication of just how closely and inextricably intertwined are poverty and environmental resource degradation, rural Haitians – for wont of access to affordable, reliable energy sources – continue to chop down trees in order to survive from day to day.

Besides clearing forests to create new farmland and pasture, rural Haitians use the firewood for cooking and make charcoal for sale in Haiti's cities, where it continues to serve as the predominant cooking fuel, Locke explained. These and other environmentally unsustainable and socioeconomically pernicious practices all but assure the cycle of poverty and environmental degradation will continue across succeeding generations.

Climate change is also having a negative impact on agriculture and rural communities in Haiti, exacerbating the effects of unsustainable farming practices and environmental resource degradation. “There has been a discernible rise in temperatures over the past 10 years,” as well as greater uncertainty regarding the timing and amount of seasonal rains, Locke pointed out.

“There's less and less arable land because of deforestation and climate change – there has been loss of topsoil, erosion and more flooding. The spring rainy seasons have become very unreliable or don't occur at all, particularly in the north, which now suffers from prolonged drought.”

Breaking the cycle with agroforestry

Back in 2009, Locke and fellow SFA co-founder Timote George started searching for a corporate partner that was willing to fund their vision of engaging local farmers in and around the rural, northern coastal town of Gonaïves to plant trees and help reforest Haiti. The 2010 earthquake that left over 200,000 dead, 300,000 injured and all but leveled the capital, Port au Prince, delayed their efforts.

Having subsequently begun to develop an agroforestry co-op in which local farmers would plant trees across a 40-square-mile area, SFA's co-founders approached Timberland, asking if the company would sponsor the project.

“The bottom-line goal was to plant trees. Only smallholder farmers are willing and able to do that, but they're living in poverty, at a basic subsistence level,” Locke elaborated. “They just don't have or can't take the time to focus on anything with longer-term benefits when they have to focus entirely on basic, day-to-day survival.”

On their first approach, SFA's co-founders envisaged the farmer reforestation project taking the same form of the traditional NGO “cash for work” model: Farmers would be paid to plant trees on their lands and provided with basic tools and training.

“The response was that [Timberland was] willing to assist by financing a project for farmers to plant trees, but they wanted to see an 'exit' strategy that would assure the program's long-term sustainability,” Locke recounted. “Demonstrating financial independence was not something I was particularly interested in, but after long, hard study and experience, I've be come a zealous convert."

A model for sustainable agroforestry development

Coming up with a credible sustainable and market-based project model posed a stiff challenge. “It's a huge problem, especially in a place like Haiti where the level of agriculture is so depressed,” Locke elaborated. Previous sustainable developments projects based on a “cash for work” model had been tried and eventually wound up failing.

SFA, NGOs, and the international aid and development community saw direct evidence of that between 1980 and 2000, when the U.S. government sponsored an ambitious program that aimed to pay farmers to plant as many as 100 million trees across Haiti. The program, Locke recounted, “came with the best intentions. They handed out trees, paid the farmers and provided training, but only a handful [of the trees] lived because they had no immediate economic value to the farmers.”

The fundamental flaw in such projects, Locke said, is that “if you create a project predicated on continual payments in a 'cash for work' program – you pay them to plant better seeds, improve harvesting and adopt more sustainable agricultural practices – when the payments stop, so do the improvements.

“From day one I realized that, in order for it to be sustainable, at no point would there be a cash exchange to anyone or for anything ... Even given a successful 'cash for work' program, the cash payments will eventually come to an end. No one wants to make payments forever.”

Rather than taking a traditional NGO "cash for work" approach, SFA’s co-founders, in partnership with Timberland, instituted a community agricultural development model whereby farmers volunteer to grow trees in order to earn seed, tools and training. That includes education and training regarding how to cultivate an appropriate mix of plants and tree crops on their lands.

Among a host of associated sustainable benefits, the payback for farmers has been healthier soils, land and water resources, higher quality crops, and greater yields. In sum, after five years the agroforestry project has resulted in a sustainable, robust and resilient mix of plant and tree crops that has raised farmers' incomes and given them free time they have not had for many years to engage in other family and community-based activities and development work.

Tomorrow we'll share the details of the partnership with Timberland.

*Image credits: 1) Smallholder Farmers Alliance; 2) Timberland

Zero waste has become the mantra at companies across the board, from vineyards to CPG giants such as Procter and Gamble. The waste diversion bug has hit General Motors (GM) as well, as the automaker continues to increase the number of its facilities that are landfill-free. The brain behind new ways to get rid of garbage is GM's global manager of waste reduction, John Bradburn, often called the “MacGyver of waste” by his colleagues at the company’s campus in Warren, Michigan.

Among the many ways in which Bradburn’s team diverts garbage from permanent interment in dumps has a human, as well as an ornithological, side to it. GM’s continued success with its Chevy Volt means more batteries moving through the company’s supply chain as they are hauled from suppliers’ warehouses to their final installation within a new Volt. Unfortunately, the composite that does a fine job protecting the cases during their transport is difficult to recycle. But several years ago, Bradburn found a way to repurpose these cases, and he made many friends with conservation groups in the process.

These battery cases, which have an A-frame shape to them, can easily be converted into bird and bat houses. With the addition of some scrap wood, hinges and a few screws, hundreds of these cases have been built and distributed across GM’s facilities, the United States and even overseas. These houses have become a lynchpin within GM’s wildlife habitats program as they have helped to provide nesting spaces for bats, wood ducks, owls and bluebirds.

Chevrolet employees have worked with NASCAR and volunteer organizations to install these boxes around the vicinity of a racetrack in South Carolina. Now, these boxes are finding their way across the Pacific Ocean in eastern Russia.

It turns out the scaly-sided merganser, a species of duck that live along the border area between China and Russia, have taken quite kindly to these boxes. As is the case with most birds, spring is a critical time for this breed of ducks as they look for safe place to lay their eggs. With only about 2,500 known to exist in the wild, providing a secure home for these ducks is crucial to their survival.

The design of these bird houses allows a local NGO to monitor the houses without the need for workers to approach them too closely, which would not only spook the birds, but also leave a scent trail for their natural predators.

When designed for bats, they achieve another purpose: They eliminate the need for insecticide as bats do an effective enough job ridding an area of bugs and other pests.

And from Boy Scouts to student groups, they offer GM an engaging way to work with local volunteering organizations. Plus they are easy to build: With the assistance of David Tulauskas, GM’s director of sustainability, we could assemble one in a few minutes. The result is a unique way for the automaker to reach out to the community and develop a role in local and international wildlife preservation.

Image credits: 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.

Disclosure: GM covered the cost of Leon Kaye’s attendance at NAIAS.

Yesterday we reported on Minnesota's efforts to increase the use of solar power in the private sector by requiring utility companies to ensure that at least 1.5 percent of their power is derived from solar sources. It's a bold idea, but one that seems to be creating some interesting synergy between utility providers and private businesses in the state.

Fortune 500 company Ecolab has announced it will join the renewable energy initiative by going solar at its St. Paul, Minnesota offices. The company, which is a global leader in energy, hygiene and water technologies, has signed a deal with SunEdison to purchase enough solar power to offset 100 percent of the electricity used by the 2,500 employees that staff its St. Paul headquarters.

It's a another boost to local utility Xcel Energy's efforts to meet the 1.5 percent mandate, and the move will work nicely with the state's self-assigned clean energy goals, as well. Minnesota has one of the highest renewable energy targets in the country and looks to be off to an optimistic start in meeting that 31 percent minimum by 2020.

SunEdison says it will kick off the project with its 200 megawatt solar array construction, whichwill be located in the Twin City area. The so-called solar gardens will be spread over 15 to 20 sites and will be managed by Bethesda, Maryland-company Terraform Power.

Ecolab's contract for 16 megawatts will meet part of that goal, making it the first large company in Minnesota to go completely solar. And, as the anchor tenant for that investment, it will provide a platform for other smaller investors to get involved. According to state law, there must be at least five subscribers involved in a given solar garden, and each garden must be no more than 1 megawatt in capacity. Ecolab's plan to go solar means not only a complement to Minnesota's renewable energy commitment, but also an encouraging boost to small business investment in the state.

Image of St. Paul, MN: Tony Webster

Editor's Note: This is the first post in a two-part series that highlights notable differences in benefit corporation law in two influential states, Delaware and California. This post originally appeared on Law360.

By Jonathan Storper

Benefit corporation law has been enacted in 19 states, including Delaware, California, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia. Ten other states have introduced the legislation.

For the first time, this new corporate form provides a legal basis for companies to have a positive social and environmental purpose in addition to creating shareholder value. Without it, the company's responsibility is to maximize value to shareholders.

Entrepreneurs find the form attractive because it provides a simple and consistent platform to protect a corporate mission and balance it with shareholder value instead of creating complex and expensive corporate class structures, which are of limited value to protect the mission in certain circumstances.

To be successful, however, founders and investors must be aligned on core values, revenue objectives and exit strategies, perhaps to a greater degree than with general-purpose corporations. This is the first new corporate form with a national scope to be introduced into American law since the limited liability company in 1977. Delaware is of particular significance because it is the recognized leader in corporate law, and over half of all public companies are domiciled there.

California is the largest state and has provided the country with the benefit corporation model legislation. Delaware differs from the model legislation in notable ways. This article compares the two states.*

*Citations to the CCC refer to the California Corporations Code and DGCL refers to the Delaware General Corporation Law.

What is a Benefit Corporation?

Benefit corporations fundamentally change how a company is permitted to act. A benefit corporation is a for-profit corporation, but in addition to creating value for its shareholders, it has three additional attributes: social purpose, accountability and transparency.

Social purpose: A difference in specifics

In addition to creating shareholder value like other for-profit companies, a benefit corporation must provide general public benefit. In California, this is defined as "a material positive impact on society and the environment taken as a whole." CCC 14601(c). The articles may (but are not required to) state a specific public benefit. Specific examples include providing low-income individuals or communities with beneficial products or services, preserving the environment, promoting economic opportunity, improving health, and promoting arts, science and knowledge. CCC 14601(e). The California General Corporation Law applies to benefit corporations except when in specific conflict. CCC 14600.

In Delaware, a benefit corporation must produce a general and specific public benefit and operate in a "responsible and sustainable manner." DGCL 362. “Public benefit” means a positive effect (or reduction of negative effects) on one or more categories of persons, entities, communities or interests (other than stockholders in their capacities as stockholders): of an artistic, charitable, cultural, economic, educational, environmental, literary, medical, religious, scientific or technological nature.

A two-thirds vote is required to change the specific purpose in both states. CCC 14610(d); DGCL 363(c).

Accountability: Performance assessments vary

In California, the corporation must assess its overall social and environmental performance on a yearly basis using an independent third-party standard, many of which are free to the public. The assessment does not need to be audited or certified by a third party, however. CCC 14630.

The standard must be developed by an entity that has no material financial relationship with the corporation, and the criteria and standard development process must be publicly available. In addition, the amount and sources of financial support for the entity developing the standard must be publicly disclosed, along with any relationships that could reasonably be considered to present a potential conflict of interest. CCC 14601(g). The purpose of these requirements is to prevent the corporation from using an assessment tool that is self-serving.

The Delaware corporation must consider the impact of its actions upon not only the shareholders but also the promotion of the company's public benefit purpose and the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation's conduct. DGCL 365.

Unlike the model legislation promulgated in other states (including California), Delaware benefit corporations do not have to assess such impacts using an independent third-party assessment standard, unless so specified in the corporation's certificate of incorporation. Otherwise, the board is empowered to make such assessment on its own. This is one of the major differences from the model legislation.

Still, the Delaware law gives a nod to best practices by making the third-party standard optional.

Transparency: Different options

The California benefit corporation must report its overall social and environmental performance to its shareholders and the public in an annual benefit report. The report must include the third-party standard selection process, the ways in which the benefit corporation pursued any general or specific public benefit during the year, and any circumstances that hindered the creation of the public benefit. CCC 14630(a). The statement must be sent to shareholders and posted on the company's website annually within 120 days following the end of the fiscal year. CCC 14630(b) and (c).

The Delaware corporation must, by contrast, affirmatively identify itself as a public benefit corporation by including those words, or the abbreviation "P.B.C." or the designation "PBC," in its name. DGCL362(c). California has no such requirement.

The Delaware benefit corporation must also, no less than biennially (annually in California), provide its stockholders with a statement as to the corporation’s promotion of the public benefit identified in the certificate of incorporation and the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct. DGCL 366(b).

The statement required by Delaware is similar to California but notably different: It must include the objectives the board of directors has established to promote such public benefit(s) and interests; the standards the board of directors adopted to measure the corporation’s progress in promoting such public benefit(s) and interests; objective factual information based on those standards regarding the corporation’s success in meeting the objectives for promoting such public benefit(s) and interests; and an assessment of the corporation’s success in meeting the objectives and promoting such public benefit(s) and interests.

The charter documents, however, may require that the corporation provide the statement more frequently than biennially, make it available to the public, use an independent third-party standard in connection or attain a periodic third-party certification addressing the corporation’s promotion of the public benefit(s) identified in the certificate of incorporation and/or the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct. DGCL 366(c).

Once an optional provision is adopted, a two-thirds vote of shareholders is required to terminate it. DGCL 363(c). These options appear to be intended to allow a Delaware benefit corporation to structure itself according to the model legislation if it wishes.

Check back tomorrow for practical differences between benefit corporation laws in Delaware and California -- from incorporating to director's duties. 

Image credit: Flickr/notionscapital

Jonathan Storper is a partner in Hanson Bridgett LLP's San Francisco office.

*The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its
clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general
information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Chipotle Mexican Grill is serious about upholding its Food With Integrity program. It’s so serious about it that the Mexican food chain suspended a pork supplier for violating the company’s standards, the Associated Press reports.

As a result, Chipotle stopped serving pork at hundreds of its restaurants. It’s the first time the company has had to stop serving an ingredient.

Chipotle found out about the supplier’s violations through a routine audit, and most had to do with how the pigs are housed. Chipotle requires its pork suppliers to house pigs humanely and not in cramped pens. The company’s website states that it has sourced 100 percent of its pork from producers who follow its guidelines.

When it comes to beef that doesn’t meet its “responsibly raised” standards, Chipotle has posted signs in a restaurant stating that the beef has been “conventionally raised.” "In this case, we won't make that kind of substitution," Chipotle spokesperson Chris Arnold told the AP.

This time around some restaurants, including locations in New York City, have signs posted that state, “Sorry, no carnitas.” Hundreds of restaurants, totaling about a third of the chain's total base, have had to stop serving pork, the AP reports.

Fortunately for store operators, pork only accounts for about 6 to 7 percent of Chipotle’s entree orders. Arnold said he hopes the supplier will remedy the problems and be “back on board” eventually.

Sow gestation crates are cruel confinement systems

There's a reason why Chipotle is so serious about keeping its pork supply chain free of confinement systems. Many breeding pigs in the U.S. are kept in sow gestation crates for nearly their whole lives. The crates are about 2 feet wide, leaving pigs with no room to turn around or take more than one step. The Humane Society of the U.S. states that “due to the duration and severity of their confinement, these pigs' suffering is among the worst of all factory-farmed animals.”

Farm Sanctuary details the effects gestation crates have on the health of pigs. The floors of gestation crates are typically made of slats that allow manure to fall through, so sows live above their own waste. That exposes them to high levels of ammonia, making respiratory disease common. Standing on the floors of a gestation crate, which are hard and unnatural, causes harm to sows’ feet, including foot injuries and damage to joints.

"We've got to treat animals right, and gestation stalls have got to go,” said Dr. Temple Grandin, a renowned animal welfare scientist. "Confining an animal for most of its life in a box in which it is not able to turn around does not provide a decent life."

Companies are phasing gestation crates out of their supply chains

Over the past few years, several top companies have announced commitments to phase out gestation crates, including fast food chains such as McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s and Arby’s.

Pork suppliers like Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer, and Hormel Foods, the maker of Spam, both announced that their company-owned facilities will be gestation-crate free by 2017. The pork producer Cargill has already phased around 50 percent of the gestation crates out of its operations.

Image credit: Thomas Hawk

By: Stewart Rassier

It's the new year; have you set your environmental footprint goals for 2015 and beyond? Setting emissions targets can be a daunting task, but it is also a very tangible way to demonstrate a strong commitment to corporate citizenship.

More than 4,500 companies begin the process of measuring, managing, and mitigating their contributions to climate change by completing the CDP Climate Change Questionnaire, which is a key standard for environmental emissions reporting.

Why companies participate in CDP

Initially, companies participated in CDP because of requests from investors and internal stakeholder interest. While these factors persist, an emerging third factor is driving participation: Large companies with comprehensive supply chains are strongly encouraging their business partners to participate.

A company should consider participating in CDP to:

• Understand the company’s exposure to climate change challenges


• Assess its own environmental impact


• Create a clearer strategy for addressing environmental impacts


• Build better, more transparent relationships with their investors, suppliers, communities, and customers

Preparing to report to CDP

If you are a first-time responder or looking to improve your CDP score there are a number of actions you can take to increase your transparency and performance, including:

1. Read and review the full questionnaire before you begin answering any questions. It may seem rather simple, but many respondents do not read each question completely or realize there are multiple parts to each question.


2. Review responses from other companies. Transparency is important to CDP and this process, which means most CDP climate change questionnaires are publicly available on the CDP website. For first time responders, these questionnaires are a great resource to see the type of data reported and the quantity and quality of the data. You might even consider searching for industry peers to compare and benchmark.


3. Processes and data management systems. The better your processes, procedures, and data, the better shape you will be in. Ask:
   
   
   • What data and information do I need?
   
   
   • Where can I get this information?
   
   
   • Who else within my company needs to be involved in this process?
   
   
   • What are my project plans? Deadlines?


4. Strategy is important. Respondents have a tendency to focus on the numbers and data when responding to the climate change questionnaire, to the detriment of the strategy section. Review the strategy section closely and be able to clearly articulate why climate change is important to the business and how you are mitigating your impact in the future. Ask yourself: Beyond the data, what other information do I need, especially when it comes to some of the strategy questions?

Corporate Citizenship practitioners participating in CDP consistently tell me two things about their experiences responding to CDP. One, it is a lot of work. Two, it is one of the most credible and effective processes for demonstrating corporate citizenship leadership.

What has been your experience with the CDP questionnaire?

Stewart Rassier is the Director of Executive Education and Advisory Products at the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship. He has more than 11 years of sustainability education, communications and advisory experience working with leading companies worldwide. Stewart teaches CDP Reporting: Disclosing Environmental Impacts for the Center for Corporate Citizenship.