Search

In 2015, leaders representing almost every country in the world met in France's capital city to codify the Paris Agreement, a plan to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

A critical component of the Paris Agreement are Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), or national plans put in place to reduce emissions on a country-by-country basis. NDCs are key to implementing the goals of the Paris Agreement, but at the time of signing in 2015, countries' commitments were not ambitious enough to reduce emissions to a level in line with a 1.5-degrees Celsius warming pathway. Instead, countries promised that their NDCs would become more ambitious over time, and the Paris Agreement allowed for revisions to NDCs to be submitted every five years.

More than seven years later, they still have a long way to go. A new report from the World Resources Institute shows that while 80 percent of countries have submitted a revised, more ambitious NDC, the plans are still not ambitious enough to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. 

Climate ambition must grow bigger, faster

The revised NDCs, if fulfilled, will cut emissions by a further 7 percent compared to the national commitments made in the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, in order to keep the 1.5-degrees goal alive, emissions would need to fall 43 percent by 2030, compared to a 2019 baseline.

In other words: NDCs need to be over six times more ambitious and must accelerate rapidly in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Current emissions reduction patterns still place the world on track to a catastrophic 3 degrees Celsius of warming from pre-industrial levels.

Paris Agreement mechanisms for ratcheting up the scope and scale of participating countries’ NDCs over time have improved emissions reductions goals. But current plans are not big enough or fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate pathways. For example, only 51 countries address fossil fuel-derived energy in their NDCs, and only a small portion of those plan for a reduction in emissions from fossil fuel energy. 

All totaled, the most recent NDCs submitted in 2021 would reduce carbon emissions by an additional 5.5 gigatons compared to 2015 commitments, leaving a 28-gigaton gap in emissions reductions necessary to stay within the bounds of a 1.5-degrees Celsius warming scenario. 

Climate finance is key to the Paris Agreement

A key factor in substantially lowering emissions is climate finance, and the WRI report estimates that climate finance needs to be three to six times greater than current levels in order to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

Climate finance for developing countries is already expected to be a contentious part of the annual U.N. climate talks (COP27) next month, and WRI notes that finance for climate adaptation projects in developing countries will need to increase by five to 10 times the current amount to meet global need.

Many developing countries have made NDCs that are contingent upon receiving climate financing. Over half of all NDCs include estimates of climate finance requirements, which already amount to almost $4.3 trillion, according to the report. 

The “Implementation COP” needs a better plan

Organizers of last year's COP26 climate talks called upon Paris Agreement signatories to revise and strengthen their NDCs to align with a 1.5-degrees pathway prior to November 2022 in order to create implementation strategies at COP27.

For this reason, the COP27 negotiations have been nicknamed the “Implementation COP.” However, if countries implement their NDC plans as they are currently written, the world will not be able to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. More ambitious targets and plans must be rapidly created, scaled, and implemented in order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement and avoid the most catastrophic climate scenarios.

Image credit: L.W./Unsplash

Multibillion-dollar fast fashion giant Shein is partnering with the reseller Treet to provide its customers with a dedicated thrifting platform. That the move comes as the mega clothing retailer faces mounting criticism for its environmental and labor practices — as well as even the revelation that its products could even make wearers sick — suggests that the tactic is more about saving face than sustainability. After all, a genuinely sustainable approach would require the company to not only abandon the wear-it-once culture that supports its business model, but also overhaul its entire system of production — from reportedly horrendous sweatshop conditions to the dependence on low-quality, pollution-heavy synthetic fabrics.

Shein Exchange, as the platform is called, works through the brand's app — allowing consumers in the U.S. to buy and sell pre-worn apparel without any extra fees. The platform should be available to users around the world in 2023. Adam Whinston, Shein’s global head of ESG, was quoted in Retail TouchPoints as saying, “We’re calling on our community to mobilize and keep previously owned clothing in circulation for as long as possible.” And yet a quick search of blogs and editorials, not to mention the anecdotal evidence all over Twitter, suggests that these items don’t last long enough to be recirculated. 

Fast fashion competitors such as Zara have also announced their own resale, repair and donation platforms. Those attempts at moving closer toward the circular economy, however, come as critics link these companies to both the ocean microplastics crisis and ongoing human rights violations within their supply chains.

In addition to its resale platform, Shein has also signed onto the World Circular Textiles Day agreement — which aims for a fully circular textile economy by the year 2050. And while Whinston told Retail TouchPoints that Shein is involved in “igniting a cultural movement of circularity,” the retailer is simultaneously ignoring the reality of what a circular economy based on synthetic fibers looks like.

TriplePundit previously covered the deluge of fast fashion that is choking out thrift stores and the myth that any kind of circular economy within the apparel sector is a good economy. The fact is, these fabrics shed more and more microplastics into our waterways every single time they are washed. As a result, as these cheap clothes age and potentially cycle through the Shein Exchange, they will pollute at exponentially higher rates with each revolution through the circular economy. And that’s not to mention the carbon footprint involved in shipping barely used items across the country nearly every time they are worn.

When TriplePundit asked Shein for comment, a representative said: “As the topic of microfibers — which are present in all materials like cotton, wool and performance wear — continues to be an important area of research for the industry, we've joined other industry leaders in forums hosted by Textile Exchange and the AAFA to discover solutions that can help mitigate this issue effectively. Educating our consumers about how to care for their garments (wash less, wash cold, line dry) is an area we plan to build more content around to encourage our customers to reduce wear and tear over the life of their garments.”

While the point of a circular economy is to reduce pollution, waste and the unnecessary use of resources, Shein has said nothing about cutting production or changing its business model. Rather, the retailer admitted that “resale threatens to cannibalize the sale of new items.” By keeping buyers within its marketplace, Shein can continue business as usual — driving sales toward its latest inventory and continuing to encourage the mass purchase of clothes meant to be worn once for Instagram or the club under the guilt-relieving guise that they can be shipped on to a second life.

Of course, Shein’s lip service to the circular economy does nothing for its reported labor record — another source of contention between the brand and its primarily Gen Z customer base. Instead of operating its own industrial textile plants, the retailer relies on a series of small suppliers that have been found to require workdays anywhere from 12 to 18 hours long, 28 days per month, according to an investigation from Channel 4 and The i newspaper in the U.K. With a pay rate of just pennies per item, workers are reportedly required to complete a minimum of 500 garments per day and are subject to substantial fines for even a single mistake. By outsourcing its labor, Shein has distanced itself enough to hide behind plausible deniability of the abysmal labor practices and unsafe workplaces that go into producing its products. Additionally, workers and consumers alike are at risk from the excessive amount of lead that has been found in the clothing.

As for how Shein is responding to such reports about its supply chain, the aforementioned representative said: “We are extremely concerned by the claims presented by Channel 4, which would violate the Code of Conduct agreed to by every Shein supplier. Any non-compliance with this code is dealt with swiftly, and we will terminate partnerships that do not meet our standards. Shein’s Responsible Sourcing standards hold our manufacturing suppliers to a code of conduct based on International Labor Organization conventions and local laws and regulations governing labor practices and working conditions. We work with leading independent agencies like TUV, SGS, OpenView and Intertek to conduct unannounced audits at supplier facilities. We have requested specific information from Channel 4 so that we can investigate.”

If these documented labor abuses aren’t enough, rumors rage across Tik Tok regarding supposed pleas for help being found on garment care tags. While evidence is lacking, Shein’s failure to respond to statement requests from both the U.K. and Australia in regards to modern day slavery prevention has raised further questions about whether the company could be benefiting from forced or child labor. 

To top it off, the fast fashion brand is quickly becoming infamous for stealing intellectual and cultural property — from sticker designs to Muslim prayer rugs, Mayan style embroidery and much more. Shein and its parent company have been sued for copyright and trademark violations no less than 50 times in U.S. courts alone. Plaintiffs include individual artists as well as major designers like Oakley and Ralph Lauren. The true number of designers affected is likely unknown, however, since many who claim to have had their designs stolen do not have the means to bring a lawsuit.

Ultimately, Shein’s inadequate attempt at a resale platform has nothing to do with doing the right thing for customers, workers or the planet. The mega retailer’s only purpose is profit — that much is more than clear. 

Image credits: Adobe Stock

A more sustainable U.S. economy is slowly taking shape, partly due to the growth of the corporate ESG (environment, social and governance) movement. However, the work is far from over. Even as the impact of climate change takes hold, standards for ESG reporting and transparency are still in flux. Partisan state policies are also creating new roadblocks. Depending on the results of the U.S. midterm elections next month, ESG advocates could find themselves battling Congress as well as state-level officials. 

ESG is still working out the kinks

ESG reporting is a profit-making effort at heart. It defines action steps that support a holistic approach to corporate health, with climate change providing the essential context for economic decarbonization.

The evidence in support of ESG reporting is beginning to grow. One key test occurred when the market crashed in March 2020 after COVID-19 lockdowns began. ESG funds were outperforming the S&P 500 as of January 2020, and they also demonstrated that they were better equipped to handle the upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic than conventional funds.  

In April of 2020, Morgan Stanley noted that funds focusing on green infrastructure were in a better position to benefit from the anticipated green recovery. The firm Morningstar also weighed in with a positive outlook for ESG investing. 

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

More recently, a note of caution has emerged. In September, Bloomberg noted that “plain-vanilla” funds were doing better than ESG funds, partly due to the influence of Russia on energy stocks.

The publication Investment Week also recently noted the absence of a strong positive correlation between two ESG rating systems developed by Morningstar and the firm Refinitiv. 

In addition, CNN also weighed in with a dire warning earlier this week: Based on an exclusive analysis provided by Refinitiv, CNN reporter Nicole Goodkind wrote that “the rapid pandemic-era uptick in ESG fund investing has now stopped completely” and that “ESG funds in September saw their largest outflow of investor cash since the March 2020 recession.”

Follow the money

That sounds dim enough, but Goodkind also took note of the influence of partisan politics on ESG investing in the U.S. Specifically, she described how policymakers in some states are targeting ESG firms.

“A large number of Republican-led states, 20 and counting, have said they will remove ESG-focused firms like BlackRock from managing assets in their state retirement plans. BlackRock has so far lost more than a billion dollars in commitments because of these changes, according to Robert Jenkins, head of Lipper Research at Refinitiv,” Goodkind reported.

Goodkind did a service to the profession of journalism by taking note of the partisanship that is driving opposition to ESG reporting, and singling out the Republican Party.

The fact is that “both sides” are not slinging the “woke capitalism” canard at BlackRock and other firms. Both sides are not making an effort to dissuade corporate policymakers from adopting ESG principles. Only one side has cut itself adrift from fact and evidence, not only regarding ESG reporting but across the board on a wide range of issues. The gap is especially evident in climate science, where the U.S. Department of Defense has also adopted a strong climate risk management position at odds with Republican orthodoxy.

Short-term gloomy, long-term rosy

Though Goodkind paints a gloomy picture on the ESG investor side, she also references a new KPMG poll of 1,300 CEOs, including 400 in the U.S., that sounds a more positive note.

The poll does indicate that a substantial number of CEOs have already paused their ESG programs amid fears of a looming recession. In addition, 59 percent said they plan to pause or reconsider their ESG programs in the coming months. 

Still, considering the aggressive anti-ESG posture adopted by the Republican Party in the run-up to the midterm elections, it is possible that some of the KPMG respondents were hedging their bets to some degree. Business leaders who have committed to ESG reporting may be preparing to make a sharp pivot if the Republican Party wins control of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate or both. (The KPMG survey was conducted last July and August, after opposition to ESG emerged as a partisan political strategy linked to fossil energy interests last spring.)

In fact, KPMG reached a positive conclusion for ESG over the long run. “Companies that embed ESG into their long-term business strategies will unlock value. In fact, 70 percent of U.S. CEOs believe their ESG programs improve their financial performance,” the report reads.

Despite the possibility that control of Congress will pass into Republican hands, KPMG also made the case that ESG reporting is here to stay. “CEOs increasingly agree that ESG programs improve financial performance, which includes being able to secure talent, strengthen the employee value proposition, attract loyal customers and raise capital,” the report concludes.

On ESG reporting, accountants are counting themselves in 

Another indication of the staying power of ESG comes from the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. Last summer, the organization created the new title of “global head of environmental, social and governance” and conferred it on the Australian CPA Jeremy Osborn, who began his career with Unilever.

“Osborn’s hire represents AICPA and CIMA’s continued commitment to provide all accounting and finance professionals with the resources, tools and skills they need to support the transition to more responsible business practices, enhance the reliability of ESG-related disclosures and place long-term value creation at the heart of corporate activities and reporting,” AICPA wrote in a press release dated July 12.

With AICPA taking a hands-on approach, the prospects for standardizing ESG reporting have improved. That should help push back against partisan interference, while also satisfying environmental advocates who are concerned about greenwashing in ESG reporting.

“Working for the world’s largest and most influential accounting organization is a great opportunity for me to help move the needle on ESG management, measurement and reporting, which provide sustainable foundations for long-term value creation by organizations,” Osborn emphasized.

As for the Republican Party, its leadership has given up trying to reconcile its anti-business stance on ESG principles with the party’s longstanding claim to represent the interests of business owners and investors.

Perhaps they have concluded that their voters simply don’t care about the contradiction. Perhaps they are right.

One way or the other, the picture will come into focus once Election Day 2022 has come and gone.

Image credit: Jonathan Simcoe and Amy Shamblen via Unsplash

Employees proved during the pandemic that they are more than capable of stepping up, and they are seeking to be rewarded — and trusted — in kind. But many companies’ leadership still view the workplace through a 20th-century lens. The result is that many current and would-be women leaders are moving on from their organizations.

It's a pipeline of talent that’s broken at both ends. According to a joint LeanIn.Org and McKinsey study, on one end is the “broken rung” problem. For the eighth year in a row, women are being held back in corporate America: For every 100 men who are promoted from an entry level to manager, only 87 women score a promotion, and that number declines to 82 for women of color. Meanwhile, more women leaders are leaving companies; for every woman at the director level who gets promoted, two women directors are leaving their companies. Add what’s happening with junior and the more senior women leaders, and it’s clear women face daunting odds when it comes to achieving equality and equity in the workplace.

What some are now calling the “great breakup” is a vicious cycle, or should we say what’s happening is more linear as it’s gone from a cycle to, now, a mass exit. As women leaders watch their peers head for the doors, they do the same. To say the pipeline of talent is broken is an understatement: At this rate, it’s beyond repair. The pipe has busted.

Editor's note: Be sure to subscribe to our Brands Taking Stands newsletter, which comes out every Wednesday.

So, what’s going on? At the highest level, it’s easy for a male CEO to proclaim a grandiose return to the office when he doesn’t face the same pressures as many women executives, many of whom are forced to make an impossible balancing act.

It’s not just the life-work balance that we’ve long been hearing about: It’s time to reframe what women face as the life-work-extra work balance. Bottom line: Women leaders believe they are under-recognized while being overworked. Why? The LeanIn-McKinsey study found that women leaders are tasked with initiatives such as supporting employees’ well-being and ensuring DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) at a clip higher than their male peers, but aren’t compensated for it. And perhaps even more infuriating, 40 percent of women said such work isn’t acknowledged within their performance reviews.

In the end, it’s hard to ask for a raise when a good amount of one's work isn’t recognized in the first place.

When researchers asked women why they are leaving their employers, the three largest factors were: facing headwinds, such as constant microaggressions at the office; often being mistaken for someone more junior, at a rate twice that of men; and 37 percent said they experienced a coworker receiving credit for their ideas, compared to only 27 percent of men.

Combine the limitations of advancing their careers with the ongoing demands at work and home, and it’s hardly a wonder why women are leaving, and the data backs them up. As one women executive responded to the study: “For the first time in my career, we’re seeing people leaving and going to companies with a more generous work from home policy. So I dug into the data, and I realized something about every single person leaving. They were all women.”

Image credit: Yan Krukov via Pexels

With people scrambling for last-minute costume ideas and yards scattered with leaves in shades of red, yellow or auburn, the smell of Halloween is in the air. That means homeowners are on the hunt for fun-sized Halloween chocolate to hand out as the flocks of trick-or-treaters descend on their doorsteps.

Each year, about 90 million pounds of Halloween chocolate are purchased and eaten during that surrounding week. Chocolate may be happiness that you can eat, but that really only holds true for the one with the finished product in their hands. Row all the way up the supply chain, and you may find that happiness is only but a dream.

What makes Halloween chocolate not so sweet?

You probably don’t want to hear it, but excluding meat products, chocolate is the food that carries the second highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions behind cheese. Less than ideal, but that isn’t the biggest issue in chocolate production.

More alarming yet are the working conditions of the cocoa (or cacao) farmers, many of whom are only children. Most cocoa farmers earn less than $1 per day, and those are the ones that receive a paycheck. Many children get caught up in the cocoa ring in search of work to help support their families, while some are abducted and forced into it.

The majority of the world’s cocoa is grown in West Africa, primarily Ghana and the Ivory Coast. Approximately 2.1 million children are working on cocoa farms between the two countries. In some reported cases, children are used as slaves.

Cocoa is also grown in Latin America. Some reports of worker abuse have surfaced from Brazil, but for the most part the reports of dire working conditions on cocoa farms are concentrated in West Africa.

What can businesses do to clean up their cocoa supply chains?

Tracing the source of cocoa all the way up the supply chain to the farms of origin is tedious work, and identifying the exact farms can be near impossible, especially if you are a large producer like Hershey’s, Mars or Nestlé buying gargantuan quantities of cocoa. 

What is possible, however, is identifying where that the cocoa was harvested. Using this information, businesses can be reasonably certain whether or not there are human rights abuses and child labor involved in the supply of their cocoa.

Companies that offer ingredient sourcing and supply chain software like HowGood, a database for food and personal care products, are able to trace ingredients back to their places of origin — providing businesses with a look inside their supply chains and highlighting potential problem areas.

“Things that are happening at the ingredient level on the farm are the most critical when you’re trying to adjust your sourcing practices,” says Leah Wolfe, head of regenerative education and content at HowGood. “Most of a food product’s impact happens at the farm level — anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of the sustainability impact of a given product.”

Regarding the labor conditions on cocoa farms in West Africa, companies should look to source their cocoa from another region if they're buying in large quantities and cannot verify the suppliers. “One of the quickest ways that you can as a company lessen your labor risk is to change the location of where you’re sourcing,” Wolfe says.

With proposed legislation incoming from the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States and from other governing bodies worldwide, there has never been more impetus for companies to take a deep look into the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors of their supply chains.

Image credit: Nika Benedictova via Unsplash

Fossil fuel companies may be forced to pay the full cost of doing business as mounting lawsuits seek to hold the industry accountable for billions of dollars’ worth of damages done by the climate crisis. New Jersey is the most recent in a slew of states and local governments to ask the courts for compensation — citing over half a century of lies used to hide the consequences of releasing greenhouse gases en masse from the public in order to bolster profits. The Garden State is also asking for an injunction to block the industry from continuing to spread misinformation. Defendants include the American Petroleum Institute as well as Chevron, BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. 

“Since at least the 1950s, its own scientists have consistently concluded that fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution that can have catastrophic consequences for the planet and its people. The industry took these internal scientific findings seriously, investing heavily to protect its own assets and infrastructure from rising seas, stronger storms, and other climate change impacts,” the lawsuit reads. “But rather than warn consumers and the public, fossil fuel companies and their surrogates mounted a disinformation campaign to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change; create doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers, policymakers, and the public about the climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels; and delay the energy economy’s transition to a lower-carbon future.”

According to the suit, those impacts are being felt now, and New Jersey is experiencing more than its share at the forefront. The state has sustained massive hurricane damage in recent years, with 30 lives lost to Hurricane Ida and billions spent to fix the damage done by Hurricane Sandy and reinforce the coastline in anticipation of future climate catastrophes. Additionally, the state’s urban centers and coastal communities remain at risk of flooding, with low-income communities in Atlantic City and Newark in particular danger. 

The industry isn’t new to lawsuits from New Jersey or anywhere else. Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts and Minnesota have all filed suit against the fossil fuel industry as well, as has Washington D.C. The city of Hoboken, New Jersey — which has been particularly hard hit by hurricanes and tropical storms over the past decade — sued in 2020. The city also pointed to the industry’s orchestrated campaign to deceive the public on what it already knew to be true about climate change from its own scientific studies: “Defendants spent millions of dollars on advertisements that cast doubt on climate science; funded scientifically unsound research to do the same; and created expansive networks of front groups to ‘reposition global warming as theory, not fact’.”

While these tactics no doubt got us where we are today, industry representatives naturally argue that holding the oil companies to task in a court of law is frivolous and a waste of time and money. In regards to the lawsuit from the city of Hoboken, a representative from Shell said on Frontline, “We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change, but that smart policy from government, supported by action from all business sectors, including ours, and from society, is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress.”

While the irony in the statement is palatable considering the industry’s blatant crusade against cooperation and solutions, legal action may just be humanity’s best hope for bringing the climate crisis into check. Looking back on consumer protection lawsuits that changed the face of advertising and product safety, the courtroom certainly provides a legitimate path to forcing corporate responsibility.

But while states like New Jersey have access to funds and legal teams that may be able to help with recouping damages, the commonwealth of Puerto Rico is often left in the dark thanks to repeated thrashings from worsening climate crisis-fed storms and hurricanes. Additionally, the island is at risk from rising seas and eroding shorelines, as are numerous islands across the globe — many of which could disappear altogether. Likewise, the countries that have been hurt the most by climate change also have the fewest resources to pursue legal challenges. That’s not to say they aren’t fighting anyway — for example, the commonwealth recently brought a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty before the U.N. So although states like New Jersey may need to get the judicial ball rolling, the future of the climate could very well be decided in the courtroom. 

Image credit: Michael Kaucher via Pixabay

This Halloween, Mars and Rubicon are coming together to offer trick-or-treaters an easy way to collect and recycle their candy wrapper waste.

Mars, one of the world’s largest producers of candy and confectioneries, and Rubicon, a digital marketplace company for recycling, are working to grow the Trick-or-Trash candy wrapper recycling initiative launched by Rubicon in 2019. Through the program, participants can sign up to receive a recyclable “Trick-or-Trash” bag with a pre-paid postage stamp and instructions on how to collect candy wrapper waste and return it for proper recycling. 

Candy wrappers are not recyclable in most municipal recycling programs, so the wrappers of roughly 600 million pounds of candy purchased in the United States each season end up in landfills. The average trick-or-treater generates one pound of trash, most of which is plastic candy wrappers. Trick-or-Trash aims to give Halloween lovers a simple, fun and free way to combat waste. 

Mars, the maker of candy brands like M&M’s, Skittles and Snickers, knows Halloween, and company leaders see opportunity in investing to make the holiday easier on the environment. “As the authority on Halloween, it is critically important that we are investing in our biggest season in one of our biggest opportunities: recycling our packaging,” Tim LeBel, president of sales at Mars and “chief Halloween officer,” told TriplePundit. 

For Rubicon’s part, “our mission is simple: to end waste,” said Chief Marketing and Communications Officer Dan Sampson. “We want to get people off the landfill model. We don’t feel that taking trash and burying it in the ground is a sustainable way for people to operate. It’s bad for people, business, the environment and communities. We want as much waste as possible diverted from landfills.” 

From classrooms to community hubs, growing the Trick-or-Trash program for a more circular Halloween

More than 75 percent of Americans plan to celebrate Halloween this year, up 11 percent from 2021, and 93 percent of them plan to incorporate chocolate and candy into their celebrations. 

“There are several moments in the year when the amount of waste generated spikes,” Sampson of Rubicon explained. "A lot of those moments are around holidays when people are spending more on things like candy. Packaging goes up, and waste goes up at a commensurate pace. Halloween is one of those moments when the volume of waste spikes. Most of the packaging materials are not recyclable, so we tried to come up with an idea to combat this problem while having a bit of fun, and Trick-or-Trash came from that.” 

Rubicon launched the Trick-or-Trash campaign in 2019 by providing schools with candy wrapper recycling boxes, reaching 450 schools that year. When schools shuttered amidst the pandemic in 2020, Rubicon pivoted and expanded the program to include 750 businesses and community organizations.

The program reached 2,000 schools and businesses by the end of last year, and now it’s expanding once again. “Mars came to us with the idea of creating a trick-or-treat bag using the same process as our Trick-or-Trash boxes,” Sampson said. 

Trick-or-treaters sign up online to receive a bag at their homes, which can be filled, sealed and sent back via a prepaid return shipping label. “This program is in its fourth year, and with the addition of Mars, it is bigger and better than ever,” Sampson said. 

The reverse trick-or-treat bags became available online on Oct. 6, and the initial run of 5,000 bags sold out in five hours. “Bags were available in all 50 states, and we had purchases in all 50 states,” LeBel of Mars said. “Word got out very quickly. We were overwhelmed by support.” Thousands more bags are reserved for communities where Mars associates live and work — including Topeka, Kansas; Waco, Texas; and Newark, New Jersey. “Because of the incredibly positive response, by the hour we are revisiting what more we can do. It’s just one step in creating a more circular holiday,” LeBel continued.

How are candy wrappers and Trick-or-Trash bags recycled?

“The composition of an average candy wrapper is usually a mix of materials that doesn't lend itself to simple recycling in the way a can or a bottle does,” Sampson explained. “There is plastic in them, but there is also often aluminum and other materials. Additionally, wrappers are so small that they are not easily recycled, either.” 

Rubicon’s recycling partner, G2 Revolution, is tasked with processing the Trick-or-Trash bags. At G2’s plant, bags are emptied onto a conveyor belt and inspected for non-recyclable materials, which are extracted and discarded. The wrappers are then cleaned to remove food residue, and the clean wrappers are turned into pellets — which is the process material for creating new products. “Individual wrappers, when discarded, are almost impossible to recycle,” Sampson said. “When we collect in bulk, like in Trick-or-Trash, they can be effectively processed and recycled.”

“The brilliance is in the simplicity of this program,” LeBel added. “It’s consumer friendly and super easy. Most people are trying to do the right thing, so if you can make it easy for the consumer to do it, you can make some magic.”

Making a movement

While reducing waste is a critical mission for Rubicon, Sampson also emphasized the importance of educating young people about sustainability — and Halloween is a great time to do it. The company partnered with the National Wildlife Federation to create educational programs, lesson plans and reading lists for children of all grade levels, which are available for free on the Trick-or-Trash website. “We have built in this component because it’s important for us to educate future generations,” Sampson told us. “We can help teachers show their students how recycling works and why it’s important.” 

The boost from Mars was well timed as Rubicon looks to expand the impact of its Halloween programming even further. “Given our mission, we are always looking for partners with true commitments to sustainability,” Sampson said. "We have expanded our footprint and are making a bigger impact on waste that is generated at Halloween, and Mars is accelerating this.”

This article series is sponsored by Mars and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image courtesy of Mars Incorporated 

Meal delivery startup Daily Harvest is teaming up with the American Farmland Trust and California Certified Organic Farmers to provide $10,000 grants to 12 historically underserved farmers in California’s Central Valley and Central Coast. The grants aim to help farmers scale their operations and expand organic acreage and come as California is confronting a historic drought. Notably, all of the grantees are Latino farmers, and half of the grantees are women.

Historically underserved farmers often lack access to resources due to race or gender. For example, Latinos make up 97 percent of farmworkers in California, yet only 3 percent of them own their own farms. The new program gives these Latino farmers grant funding, technical support and market access through a three-year transition to more regenerative production practices. 

“For many of these farmers, land access is their biggest challenge," Rebecca Gildiner, Daily Harvest’s director of sustainability, told TriplePundit. "Being able to access land, let alone own land, is challenging. For example, one of our growers was recently able to lease two acres, but she is told what she is and is not allowed to grow, so it is difficult.”

“Many farmers also face language barriers and cannot access government resources in their primary language," Gildiner added. "Farming is so risky, and farmers that have more of a safety net are able to take on more risk. The farmers we work with in particular are small-scale with tight margins, so they face even more risk."

The technical training starts with a simple program they call “tailgates.” These tailgates provide community-tailored opportunities for farmers to come together for direct farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchanges. California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) sponsors the events and provides farmers with information about their grants to assist with regenerative and organic practices.

“The communities of growers can apply to fund anything they need, from compost to cover crops to tractors. It’s not prescriptive," Gildiner explained. "From there, we look to bring growers who are interested in organic transition into the next phase of one-on-one support, where CCOF and American Farmland Trust can give on-farm support through an organic transition. We want to find market outlets for growers, and we want small-scale farmers to have the resources to be a part of the regenerative movement. We want to increase representation in our supply chain, because regenerative agriculture has to be people-focused and take care of humans.”

Daily Harvest’s partners say they are taking the long view. They recognize that each farmer’s challenges are unique, and organic or regenerative agriculture may not be the immediate answer for all of these farmers.

"This program is committed to supporting farmers continuously over the three years of transition with grant funding, technical support and market access," said Jessy Beckett Parr, chief program officer at CCOF, in a public statement. "Long-term partnership is what makes the implementation of regenerative practices on the road to organic transition successful."

Gildiner added: “Our program is distinctive, because although we believe in organic agriculture, we don’t want to be prescriptive. There may be challenges [for a grower] that makes it so that organic doesn’t make sense to them at the moment. So, we bring broad technical and general assistance to the growers to be supportive through their process.”

Maria Narez is among the Latino farmers receiving a grant. Narez owns and operates her own vegetable farm near Salinas, California, and for her, scaling her business is one of her biggest challenges. In the past, accessing land and buying equipment has been too cost prohibitive. "The most difficult thing for me right now is financially my ability to expand," she said. Narez is using her grant to scale up operations at her farm.

"A more just and regenerative food system starts with the people who grow our food," said Rachel Drori, founder and CEO of Daily Harvest. "This program aims to tackle systemic issues at the root by giving historically disadvantaged farmers in California's Central Valley and Central Coast the tools they need to expand their operations while scaling organic and regenerative approaches that benefit growers, consumers and the planet."

Gildiner agrees that a people-centered approach is crucial as the program works each of these 12 Latino farmers. “Regenerative does not have one definition," she told 3p. "We are working with ATF and CCOF to take a place-based approach to growing diversity in our supply chain. Our program is complex because regenerative agriculture is complex. However, we aren’t scared to take that on, because that’s how you solve the problem." Gildiner noted that Daily Harvest aims to expand this programming to wherever there is demand from farmers. 

Image credit: Daily Harvest via PR Newswire

Some grim news recently surfaced: Wildlife populations across the globe are plunging dramatically. Vertebrate populations, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, have dropped by 69 percent on average since 1970. Discouragingly, these WWF and Zoological Society of London studies show greater declines every time they’re released. Given these alarming drops, it’s not surprising that 1 million plants and animals are currently threatened with extinction. Yet biodiversity plays a crucial role in maintaining the health, productivity and stability of our environment — which we depend on for our economy, well-being, and health. 

What’s at stake if wildlife continues to disappear?

We’re tightly linked to the other species on this planet, receiving a multitude of benefits from nature. For starters, bees, bats and birds pollinate many plants, including crops. Food production across the globe, worth $235 billion to $577 billion annually, relies on pollination by honey bees, native bees and flies. And just like vertebrates, we’re seeing declines in pollinating insects from pesticide use, habitat destruction and parasites. 

In addition to pollination, wildlife helps in other aspects of agriculture. Birds, beneficial insects, snakes, bats, and other mammals like skunks and coyotes consume pests that otherwise would harm crops. And they eat a lot of them! For instance, a single barn owl can eat more than 11,000 mice over its lifetime, pests that otherwise would have consumed 13 tons of crops, seeds and grains. This pest intake translates into a lot of savings: One estimate found that bats prevent agricultural losses in the U.S. to the tune of $22.9 billion each year. 

Beyond the bucolic world of cultivation, wildlife provides substantial value as a source of food, clothing, raw materials and recreation. For instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that 41 percent of the U.S. population participated in wildlife-related recreational activities such as fishing, hunting and the viewing of animals in their natural habitats. That year, Americans spent nearly $76 billion watching animal species such as birds and marine mammals, while they spent over $26 billion on hunting expenses. On a similar note, direct consumption of wildlife can be a lucrative industry. U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated over $255 billion in sales and supported 1.8 million jobs in 2019. Finally, the booming field of ecotourism can generate income for local communities while helping preserve wildlife and local habitats. 

What can businesses do for wildlife?

WWF is calling not only to stem the loss of biodiversity, but also increase the extent of nature by 2030. How can companies pitch in? First of all, wildlife declines are a symptom of a much wider set of environmental problems, and tackling these will help. By far, their biggest threat comes from the destruction and fragmentation of habitats. However, if global warming isn’t limited to an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius this century, it’s likely that climate change will become the main driver of biodiversity losses in the future. If that weren’t enough, overexploitation, pollution and invasive species also are a menace to many species in the wild. 

Many businesses have already taken concrete action to help wildlife. For instance, protecting and restoring habitat benefit the animals that live there, and some businesses have already committed to this cause. Businesses can also avoid habitat destruction in their day-to-day operations. For instance, they can prevent development or operations in habitats important for imperiled species and biodiversity, employ strategies reducing their impacts on wildlife, restore previously degraded areas, or engage in biodiversity offsets and voluntary compensatory actions.

Combatting the illegal wildlife trade is also beneficial. Businesses can take a number of steps including sharing information, working to stop the transport of illegal wildlife products, raising awareness and declaring a zero-tolerance policy for this trade. The Trade, Development and the Environment Hub brings many organizations together across multiple countries to make the trade of wildlife, meat and agricultural products more sustainable. 

Finally, tackling climate change is good for the environment and businesses. Many companies have already set science-based targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Other steps businesses can take to fight global warming include reducing energy consumption and waste, encouraging employees to take public transit or carpool, choosing more environment-friendly infrastructures and equipment, and choosing suppliers with good environmental practices

Everyone, including businesses, should play a role in helping wildlife populations recover. Losses of wildlife are symptoms of a disease, but one that’s curable. If we address the root causes, wildlife will bounce back. 

Image credit: Janko Ferlic via Unsplash

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting is a big undertaking, but companies are realizing the benefits, encouraged by demands from consumers and investors. But once all of the reporting work is done, that information needs to be communicated to the public.

This is a tricky task. If companies boast about their strategy or overstate their performance — whether intentionally or accidentally — they run the risk of being labelled a greenwasher, a tag that could bring financial and regulatory consequences along with lost trust among stakeholders. Stay too quiet — also called greenwhispering — and companies can appear ambivalent about ESG issues. 

It’s a difficult balancing act but a necessary one.  Effectively communicating ESG performance is vital to avoid throwing away the hard work a business puts toward developing an ESG strategy and measuring performance.

Why is it important to communicate ESG performance?

More than ever before, consumers and investors want to support brands committed to sustainability and social impact. A study by Kantar showed that the brands consumers see as having a positive impact grow at twice the rate of other brands. Today, demonstrating that your brand is a responsible corporate citizen is necessary to ensure long-term sustainability and growth.


Research technology business Glow measures consumer perceptions of companies and their ESG efforts. Their data shows that 25 percent of consumers have changed brands because of perceived ESG performance, with the brands deemed to be most sustainable gaining twice as many switchers as the average brand. 

There are plenty of stats to show that both consumers and investors care about ESG performance and are willing to put their money where their mouths are. Being able to communicate your ESG progress and performance is a vital part of doing business today.

Despite companies’ tireless efforts, however, only 12 percent of brands have “top of mind” social issue associations with consumers. Findings like these indicate that communicating to consumers that you are sustainability-minded and conscious of your wider social impact is easier said than done. 

How to communicate ESG performance

First things first: Companies need a strong ESG strategy, complete with attainable goals and a commitment to measure progress, or they’ll have little to communicate. As companies get started, they’d be wise to focus on transparency and authenticity, first and foremost. No matter if the results are good, bad or ugly, staying transparent and authentic is the name of the game. It’s not only the easiest course of action to maintain, but also the best way to build trust among stakeholders. 

Being transparent means showing where your business is on its ESG journey, as well as where it plans to go in the future. This should be complete with intermediary goals and a commitment to keep stakeholders in the loop about progress. Authenticity includes balancing attainable short-term goals with more aggressive science-based targets that provide a realistic path forward. Any business can say it wants to be net zero by 2050, but having a concrete plan to get there is what it is all about.

Allowing consumers and investors to have an unobstructed view of all things ESG, whether good or bad, will build trust, demonstrate commitment and motivate your internal team to strive for continual improvement.

Telling an ESG story

While transparency is important, and indeed it’s increasingly required by investors and regulators, dumping data on consumers isn’t likely to be effective. For ESG data to resonate strongly, it has to be presented in a relatable way.

This is where the importance of ESG storytelling comes into play — some method of relaying your goals, intentions and progress in a way that speaks to consumers. 

When telling an ESG story, the subject of the story should be the impact, not the program. Rather than spouting numbers on how much money is being donated where, or new hiring policies that favor traditionally underserved communities, bring the people those initiatives are affecting to the front and center.

Consumers can relate to one person’s story. Piles of stats and data are valuable, but they can be difficult to strike a chord with your audience.

Where to communicate ESG performance

In today’s technological wonderland, it isn’t easy to know where to focus your messaging. Do you go for earned news coverage or paid advertising in print or TV? And what about other ways to reach your desired audiences? 

According to data from Glow, consumers in particular receive the majority of their ESG information from news coverage, advertising and social media. When asked where they would like to receive ESG information, consumers brought another preferred medium into the mix: product packaging.  

Depending on what your company sells, it can be difficult to tell your entire ESG story on a package. But combining different media while focusing on the same story or campaign will help consumers and other stakeholders begin to associate your brand with your chosen cause. Narrow your focus to something that your customers will relate with, and spread that message.

What does effective ESG communication look like?

Dove, a giant in the hair and skin care industry, has advocated for body positivity for nearly 20 years — and that hard work and consistent focus is paying off with consumers. 

In a 2019 survey from DoSomething Strategic, respondents were asked to associate brands with a specific cause, and 53 percent of respondents associated Dove with body positivity, the highest association with a single cause of all brands surveyed.

Dove’s focus on a story and social cause that resonated with customers has made it a consistent favorite among conscious consumers. Glow’s ESG brand tracking data shows that Dove is performing significantly above average for grocery brands in the U.S. driven by recognition for its body positivity campaigning as seen in open-ended comments about Dove such as, “they promote body positivity,” “they support women’s issues” and “they have a girl's positive self-esteem program.”

Dove’s leadership clearly understands their market and builds the brand’s story around a social cause that is relevant to their products. Dove's ESG initiatives also extend to other areas such as forest restoration and reducing plastic use in packaging, but the brand narrowed most of its consumer communication to the body positivity cause — and it has resonated strongly with consumers.

The bottom line

Communicating and storytelling is a vital part of ESG, but it is nothing without a strong ESG strategy. Committing to transparency and authenticity in all aspects of your company’s ESG journey, and finding a story to tell that will resonate with your consumers, is the recipe to building positive public perception.

This article series is sponsored by Glow and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image credit: Parradee/Adobe Stock