Search

In July, it was widely reported that the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, had been “defeated” in his attempts to water down the UK’s carbon budget - which sets out a world-leading, legally-binding target of 50% greenhouse gas reduction across 2023-2027. The Chancellor was on record as not wanting Britain to be a world-leader in fighting climate change, but thankfully many in business took a different view; and it was their lobbying for good that played a crucial role in persuading the Government to stay the course on its previously agreed climate change strategy.

Crucial interventions included one from the influential Prince of Wales’ Corporate Leaders Group, which includes senior leaders from Allianz, Anglian Water, Interface, Kingfisher and Unilever. In all, ten business signed a letter to the UK Prime Minister in March urging him to maintain the UK’s fourth carbon budget at its current level. They wrote: “The UK has a strong tradition of leadership on climate change, underpinned by a cross-party consensus to deliver a low-carbon future. As business leaders we value this clarity and commitment, and wish to see it maintained.”

Such lobbying for good is no flash in the pan. In the US, BICEP’s Climate Declaration (now signed by eight hundred businesses) was influential in emboldening the Obama administration in June to maintain its pursuit of significant, new carbon pollution standards for power plant – arguably, the single largest step to reduce CO2 taken by any country in the world to date.
Nor is lobbying for good a modern phenomenon. The great philanthropists of the industrial revolution realised that legislative intervention can be a great force for good. William Lever lobbied for state pensions, John Cadbury campaigned against the use of young boys as chimney sweeps and Joseph Rowntree made sure that some of his key trust funds were able to ‘change the laws of the land.’

And it’s not just big business that is coming out to play. Smaller players are increasingly entering the arena, such as Co-operative Energy – who in May helped force a little reported Government U-turn on community energy tax relief in the UK. In the US, The American Sustainable Business Council, a national partnership representing 200,000 businesses, has lobbied hard for (and won) the placement of preferential candidates to key administrator positions.

Of course, the glass is by no means half full – the likes of BusinessEurope and the US Chamber of Commerce still permeate their luddite views and wield disproportionate, negative influence. As Christiana Figueres, Executive Director of the UNFCC, has noted: progressive voices are still “outgunned and outfinanced by fossil fuel lobbying.”

But something is most definitely stirring. More and more, businesses are grasping that volunteerism and corporate responsibility will never be strong enough to support pioneers in their competition against the unscrupulous. Public policy intervention is required to change the rules and shift the bar for the allowable lowest common denominator. Across the globe, the logic of lobbying for good is overriding the cultural aversion that has traditionally operated against it – and maybe, just maybe, we can hope again for breakthroughs in trade justice and a global climate change convention.

Paul Monaghan, is director of Up the Ethics and co-author of the new book ‘Lobbying for Good’.  

 

Ethical Performance readers can save 15% when purchasing Lobbying for Good (Do Sustainability, 2014) from the publisher. Use code EPER15.

By Gerod Rody

The handshake is a fixture in the business world, whether establishing new contacts or closing a deal.

Likewise, the pat on the shoulder has been a gesture of professional affirmation for years, though more recently it’s gone out-of-vogue as patronizing. These and other forms of touch are a valuable part of non-verbal business communication, but we at Pinchot believe that there are even deeper ways to engage. Enter the hug.

Scientists agree that touch is an essential human need (especially for the workplace), and while the handshake is nice and all, it doesn’t function in quite the same way as a mutually respectful embrace. According to one researcher, “Hugs have positive impacts on self-esteem, relationships and upon the body’s ability to cope with stress.”

A business hug is the next level of connection, sharing vulnerability and mutual respect in a non-threatening embrace. Not as foreign as the European double-kiss, or as dubious as the “good game” butt pat, the hug is for many a “just right” balance of care and respect. Many at Pinchot count the hug as a key part of their community experience, and something they take with them outside the Pinchot network. Some even cite the hug as a factor in improved confidence, stronger relationships with coworkers and deeper connections in building a solid business network.

Business pros need hugs too!

Here are some appropriate business hug scenarios:

• Your startup was just featured on NPR


• You’re selling a business to a fellow alum


• You’re graduating with your MBA 


• You nailed your presentation (or you didn’t!)


• You just got your dream job 

While never a requirement, a hug can be a powerful way to connect with partners and colleagues. We make sure that our students know to always keep the hug trump card in their back pocket, should the business-appropriate moment arise.

Gerod Rody is Director of Marketing for Pinchot University.

Details about the National Security Agency's "Prism" surveillance program have entered the news in dribs and drabs since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked revealing documents about the program to the Guardian and the Washington Post in June of last year. The unsettling insights revealed by Snowden generated quite a stir in the press, and large tech and telecom companies faced a wave of consumer backlash in the wake of the ongoing story.

Last September, while Snowden was living under guard at a secret location in Russia, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer seemed caught off-guard when a reporter raised questions about NSA surveillance at the 2013 TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco.

When asked what would happen if Yahoo ignored an NSA data request or shared it with the press, Mayer uncomfortably replied: "Releasing classified information is treason. It generally lands you incarcerated."

Companies are often left with few options once the U.S. government starts putting the screws to them. So, how do NSA data requests fit in with overall corporate responsibility? What is a company to do when faced with a request that seems to counteract its responsibility to consumers? We spoke with three key experts in corporate social responsibility (CSR) to find out the answers.

A few months before Mayer spoke at TechCrunch Disrupt, Yahoo, along with other tech giants like Google and Microsoft, asked a U.S. surveillance court to open up records that would allow companies to be more transparent, but the requests were denied. “Releasing information that could induce adversaries to shift communications platforms in order to avoid surveillance would cause serious harm to the national security interests of the United States,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote in the redacted brief, issued on Sept. 30, 2013, as reported by PC World.

Predictably, companies, concerned citizens and privacy advocates were furious. But they got a bit of a reprieve in February, when the Obama administration agreed to relax some of the restrictions that barred companies from disclosing how many data requests they receive from the NSA. Under the new rules, a company can now report on how many requests for member data it has received, the number of accounts impacted and the percentage that they respond to. The rule came with some caveats: Although the aggregate data covers a six-month period, it can only be published six months after the reporting period has passed. The rules also prohibit young tech startups from disclosing data about NSA data requests for their first two years in operation.

Lawsuits from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook were dropped as a result of the new rules, but companies were quick to note that further change was needed. “We filed our lawsuits because we believe that the public has a right to know about the volume and types of national security requests we receive,” a representative for Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook told the New York Times in a joint statement. “While this is a very positive step, we’ll continue to encourage Congress to take additional steps to address all of the reforms we believe are needed.”

Nancy Mancilla, founder and CEO of ISOS Group and a leading expert on CSR reporting, also spoke in favor of further reform in a recent interview with Triple Pundit: "It's ridiculous that for six months [companies] are quarantined before they can release that information. In this digital age, with companies that are in that space, it just doesn't seem right."

What's a company to do?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been particularly vocal in its stance against NSA spying, participating in several rallies in Washington including Stop Watching Us in October 2013 and The Day We Fight Back in February. A year after the story first hit the press, the organization released a white paper calling for further privacy reform.

Along with action points for Congress, the president and the courts, the ACLU provided five ways for tech companies to take action:

1. Insist on warrants: Surprisingly, warrants based on probable cause are not always a given when it comes to NSA data requests. In their call-to-action, the white paper's authors note, "The fact that the government often withdraws requests when companies push back demonstrates just how out of control the government’s informal information-gathering has become."


2. Notify users of surveillance requests: Companies are now permitted to disclose the number of data requests they receive, although with some limitations, yet many choose to remain silent, the ACLU notes.


3. Minimize data collection and retention: On the surface, this may seem a touch unreasonable, but the ACLU has no qualms with businesses holding onto data for as long as they need it for standard operating purposes, while noting, "Companies shouldn’t be holding onto our information without a truly valid business reason to do so."


4. Encrypt and protect our communications: The ACLU suggests tech companies use encryption software like STARTTLS to protect email sent from one service (like Gmail) to another (like Hotmail).


5. Publish meaningful statistics about government surveillance requests: The authors note that "technology companies are the only ones who can give the public a full understanding of the way in which the government is using its various law-enforcement authorities to collect user data" and called for more reporting to the fullest extent the law allows.

Marc Gunther, veteran journalist, speaker and editor at-large of Guardian Sustainable Business U.S., gave an additional suggestion to companies looking to spur change:

"The other thing that's incumbent upon them to do is to get active in the public policy arena," Gunther told Triple Pundit. "So if [companies] feel like there are either too many requests or if the requests aren't fully supported by evidence, they need to be very loud in Washington about trying to put some restrictions on the government's efforts to pry information out of them ... Transparency -- and noisy transparency -- is a pretty good weapon."

Mancilla of ISOS Group agreed, saying "it's almost [a company's] duty" to get active around policy that impacts its users. That said, both experts agreed that being as transparent as possible under the law can do a great deal to ease users' minds and help companies recover from damage to their reputations. Elaine Cohen, CSR strategy expert and founder of Beyond Business Ltd., a social and environmental business consulting firm, agreed, saying disclosing information about data requests is a "very powerful part of this dialogue."

The USA Freedom Act: A chance for reform

Introduced in October 2013 by a Democratic senator and a Republican House member, the USA Freedom Act seeks to significantly limit the collection and use of Americans' information under current spying laws. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a lead author of the Patriot Act and co-sponsor of the bill, had strong words for current data-gathering practices:

"I authored the Patriot Act, and this is an abuse of that law," Rep. Sensenbrenner told the ACLU. "This misinterpretation of the law threatens our First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights. Congress never intended this. I will rein in the abuse of both the Patriot Act and the U.S. Constitution with the support of the American public."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and co-sponsor of the bill, echoed Sensenbrenner's sentiments, saying the "government has not made its case that this is an effective counterterrorism tool, especially in light of the intrusion on Americans' privacy rights."

Specifically, the bill would amend Section 215 of the Patriot Act – which is used to "collect the phone records of almost every American every day," as well as gather Internet metadata en masse – so that it can no longer be used in such a sweeping fashion, Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, said in a blog post last fall.

A version of the bill was passed by the House in May, but some critics said "the bill’s language governing data-gathering was ambiguous, raising concerns that it still would allow the large-scale collection of data from phone companies and other entities," Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post reported. Senate aides told the paper last week that a compromise bill could be introduced in the Senate before the August recess.

"I don't even think this a CSR thing," Elaine Cohen said bluntly. "I think most people would agree that any en-masse infringement of privacy just doesn't make sense ... Indiscriminate, unlimited exposure of potentially sensitive information shouldn't be the way governments do business."

The bottom line

A growing number of companies are pushing for change at the policy level, and the proposed Freedom Act would create a panel of advocates from outside the government allowing a wider section of stakeholders to weigh in. While it's disconcerting that NSA data requests to companies like Google have increased by as much as 120 percent since 2009, it may be time for users to start giving some of these tech companies a break.

"The first responsibility of any corporation is to obey the law," Cohen said. "And if the law says you must reveal certain aspects of your operations, which may include some of your customer data, then a company has every duty and responsibility to first and foremost comply with the law."

"Ultimately corporations have to do what they [can] to raise awareness for things that the law is demanding that may not be reasonable or that may not be in the public interest," she continued, "but ... at the end of the day companies can't pick and choose which laws to obey."

Marc Gunther agreed, quoting what has now become a popular idiom -- if you're not paying for a service, you become the product -- and pointing to the now-commonplace practice of tech companies harvesting user data for advertising purposes.

"We, by the very nature of using a free service like Gmail, Facebook, Yahoo Mail, Twitter, etc., if we're not paying for it with dollars and cents we're in a sense paying for it by agreeing to be sold to advertisers," he told Triple Pundit. "So it shouldn't come as a shock that some of that information makes its way into the hands of the government."

With the Freedom Act making its way through Congress, this story is clearly still developing, and one thing is for certain: Just like Big Brother, we, along with companies, advocates and Internet-lovers across the nation, will be watching.

Image credit: EFF Photos/Flickr

A recent report by the University of Michigan illustrates the devastation that could occur if a 60-year-old pipeline carrying 23 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas fluids every day were to rupture in the Great Lakes, one of the largest sources of fresh water in the world.

Enbridge, the same company still cleaning up the Kalamazoo River four years after the biggest inland spill in U.S. history, has two 20-inch pipelines running from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario, directly through the Straits of Mackinac between the upper and lower peninsulas of Michigan. In July 2013, the company completed $100 million in upgrades in order to increase flow from 490,000 barrels per day to 540,000, but did not replace any of the aging pipeline.

The main problem with an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac is that the currents shift from east to west and back again every few days, and peak flow can be up to 10 times as fast as the Niagra River. The U of M report and animation shows how an oil spill would reach tourist destination Mackinac Island within 12 hours, and after 20 days, it would reach as far as Beaver Island in Lake Michigan and Rogers City in Lake Huron.

Great Lakes residents and government have already shown concern about the six-decades-old pipeline (Line 5) and the possibility for failure. In 2010, an Enbridge pipeline (Line 6B) that runs through southern Michigan ruptured, spilling between 840,000 and 1 million gallons of diluted bitumen (dilbit) into the Kalamazoo River, where estimates say 180,000 gallons remain and one of the costliest cleanups (nearly $1 billion and counting) continues four years later. Line 6B is 40 years old (younger than Line 5), but the company claims that it failed due to a type of tape coating workers used as it was installed and this coating was not used on Line 5.

“We have concerns that (Enbridge) is increasing capacity on a 60-year-old pipeline that has not been upgraded at all, and has one of the most sensitive water crossings in the world,” said Beth Wallace, (former) community outreach coordinator for the National Wildlife Federation told the Petoskey News in July 2013.

In July 2013, the National Wildlife Federation, Michigan Land Use Institute and other environmental groups and individuals held a rally at the Bridge View Park in St. Ignace (the city on the north side of the Mackinac Bridge) to air their concerns. In February 2014, the Mackinac County Planning Commission hosted Enbridge officials at a community meeting in St. Ignace to answer questions after the National Wildlife Federation released "Sunken Hazard," a report also predicting the disastrous consequences of a pipeline spill in the Great Lakes.

In the report, Enbridge claims to have a minimum eight-minute reaction time to shut off the pipeline if there were any leaks, likely resulting in a 1.5 million gallon spill in that time. However, even though it received warnings from its leak detection system in the Kalamazoo River, it took the company 17 hours to react and shut down the Line 6B pipeline after a local utility informed them of the leak. 

The National Wildlife Federation states:

The Enbridge pipelines that cross the Straits of Mackinac have never spilled oil into the conjoined waters of Lake Michigan and Huron, according to government officials. But evidence is mounting that there is reason to be concerned. The Line 5 pipeline that crosses the Straits has a history of problems, just like the company that owns it. Pipelines deteriorate as they age, according to engineering experts, and the Line 5 pipes at the Straits have been subjected to fierce underwater currents, intense external pressure and varying water temperatures for nearly 60 years...Unless action is taken, an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac isn’t a question of if—it’s a question of when.

More than 150 people came to the St. Ignace meeting from around the state to listen and ask questions. Enbridge spokeswoman Jackie Guthrie answered many questions, especially the repeated query about what the company would do if there was a spill. The EUPNews reported her response:

... The bottom line is we can speculate all day on worst-case scenarios. What I can tell you and what we’ve tried to show you are all of the different safety mechanisms that we have in place to ensure that hopefully we don’t have any incidents but if we do, we work with our OSRO, and the coast Guard and all of these other places to ensure that we contain it as quickly as possible and return it to, return it back to the state in which it was.

At the end of the meeting there were still many people with questions, especially regarding the Kalamazoo River spill, which the company steadfastly resisted talking about, inciting anger amongst attendees. Reassurances that they would "return it back to the state in which it was" clearly did not appease the audience since the cleanup on the Kalamazoo River is still ongoing and residents there have been heavily impacted. Enbridge concluded by stating that it did not intend to replace the pipeline, but it also did not intend to pump dilbit through Line 5, either. This provides no comfort to the many environmental groups that remain convinced that a spill is an eventual certainty.

Earlier this month, 19 environmental groups sent Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), a letter urging him to make the safety of the Great Lakes a priority and require Enbridge to be more transparent and meet more stringent regulations. U.S. Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked the Department of Transportation to investigate the pipeline's condition in December 2013, after Enbridge increased the daily capacity of Line 5. DoT officials reported that Enbridge had implemented many safety precautions. Despite these assurances, concerns remain about the pipeline's safety and the devastation a spill would cause.

“The Great Lakes supply drinking water to 42 million people,” Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, said in a statement to The Huffington Post. “We can’t afford another potential Enbridge oil pipeline spill like what happened in the Kalamazoo River. All of the Great Lakes states have a vital stake in avoiding oil spill hazards in the Straits of Mackinac.”

Image credit: Andrea Newell

On Tuesday the U.S. National Labor Relations Board found that McDonald's is a joint employer with its franchisees and can be held accountable for the franchisee's poor labor practices. The NLRB sided with workers who filed cases against McDonald's claiming that the corporation is the one really calling the shots because it exerts tight controls on nearly every aspect of a given store's operation, including employment practices.

This has broad implications for many other companies with closely-controlled franchise requirements, and may even pave a trail for the fast food unionization movement.

In April I wrote about a Hart Research Poll which showed a shocking 89 percent of fast food employees faced some form of wage theft. Such wage theft comes in many forms from requiring work before clocking in and after clocking out, to making all sorts of unjustified automatic deductions from employee paychecks, including meals that were never eaten or items that went missing from the restaurant. For one of the most egregious forms of wage theft, employers exploit the corporation's own time management software to doctor employee paychecks, shortening time or making it seem like employees had gotten a break when they hadn't.

And yet, when these rampant problems come to the fore, major fast food corporations have traditionally been able to say, "It wasn't us, it was the franchisee."  While the corporate entity may hold tight control over business practices all the way down to the color of the drapes, they have classically held that they aren't accountable for poor labor practices because they don't control that part. This week's decision will make it a lot more difficult for McDonald's to make that claim and distance itself from the bad labor practices of its franchisees.

According to the NLRB, McDonald's very much does exert influence over labor practices. The corporation supplies software that tells the owners and managers how many employees to use in a given hour, as well as the software employers exploit to doctor time cards. McDonald's also has the ability to intervene when they believe an employer is paying its employees too much.

This week's decision is a result of 181 complaints from McDonald's employees who felt they were illegally fired, threatened or somehow penalized for their pro-labor activities. Richard F. Griffin Jr., the labor board’s general counsel, said that out of the 181 complaints, he found merit in 43.

Unsurprisingly, McDonald's is planning on challenging the decision. The company warns it sets a dangerous precedent that would impact businesses from dry cleaners to car dealerships and possibly even staffing agencies, and that it flies in the face of decades of established law. For certain, it imposes a bigger liability burden on corporations and would require closer scrutiny of franchisee labor practices.

The bigger problem for McDonald's, however, may be the implication the ruling has regarding a national pro-labor drive to increase fast food worker wages to $15 per hour. Previously, McDonald's was able to shed itself of involvement saying it doesn't set employee wages and has no influence over what franchisees pay. That defense is cracked by the NLRB's new stance, and opens the doors to giving union advocates a single entity with which to negotiate and from whom to demand higher wages.

Image credit: Mike Mozart : Source

Editor's Note: A version of this post was recently featured on the CSR Reporting Blog.

I am often asked, by clients or people I meet in the course of my work: What is the difference between embedding corporate social responsibility (CSR) into business decisions and doing business that improves sales and profits, provided its ethical?

When you talk about embedding CSR into business decisions, it's hard to know where business stops and CSR sets in. After all, both should lead to better business results. How can you know when a business decision has integrated CSR principles, or if it was based solely on goals of delivering income and profit growth? Doing "good" business, beyond philanthropy and community investment, is just doing good business. Or is it?

I often answer this question rather simply, in a way that more or less aligns with the direction described in the Big Idea of Porter and Kramer, who explain:

"The solution lies in the principle of shared value, which involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress. Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the margin of what companies do but at the center."

My answer, then, is about the considerations involved in developing new business initiatives or products. If it's about selling more to create economic growth (which is, in general, a good thing if business is done ethically), then this is hardly embedded CSR. Economic growth alone, as we have seen, does not always produce equitable social benefit and even risks perpetuating many of the global divides -- poverty, malnutrition, access to medicine, etc. -- that society faces today. Embedded CSR means approaching business development in a different way, that includes an assessment of the social and environmental impacts of potential decisions, and the social and environmental imperatives in the markets where a company operates. In making such decisions, then, economic considerations as well as social and environmental considerations share valuable weight in the decision-making process. The outcomes are measurable benefits to business, to the economy and also equitable social advancement.

So far, I suspect, there's not much new here for the rather enlightened readers of this blog. Most of you already will already be familiar with shared value and integrating CSR type concepts. So let's get to the point. It's this. Vodafone. Mobile Technology. Economic Empowerment. Measurable Outcomes. Connected Women.

Earlier this year, Vodafone published one of the most fascinating reports I have read in a long while about the effects of mobile technology on women's empowerment and improvement in quality of life. It's called: Connected Women. This actually missed my radar a few months back when it was launched, in March, at a Vodafone Connected Women Summit. Better late than never, I guess, and what's more, it's still relevant, of course. I learned about it this week via an item from IndiaCSR, reporting the launch of the Connected Women report in India by Cherie Blair.

The report is the summary of research for the Vodafone Foundation conducted by Accenture Sustainability Services. In addition to assessing the impact of increasing mobile ownership among women, Accenture modeled the potential social, economic and commercial impact of five services in the areas of education, health, safety, work and loneliness in 2020. These services are:

1. Mobile learning for adult literacy


2. Text to Treatment: using mobile payments to cover travel costs to receive maternal healthcare


3. An alert system for women at high risk of domestic violence


4. A mobile inventory management system for rural female retailers


5. New services to connect elderly people to their family, friends and carers.

The research ran in 27 markets around the world where Vodafone does business.

Conclusions are summarized in this infographic below, with the overriding message that the services Vodafone provides in the markets where it does business could enable 8.7 million women to improve their lives. Around the world an estimated 300 million fewer women than men own a mobile phone.

I guess we all know that mobile technology can support education, health, safety and work so it is clear that improving access in these areas will have social benefits. The Vodafone report looks at each of these issues in detail, and in relation to the special opportunities that women could enjoy, providing perspectives, data and impacts. There are some very compelling examples. The thing that I found most eye-opening is the issue related to loneliness. I guess, at some level, we know that phone and Internet can help older people feel connected. We have all heard the stories of delighted grandparents who sent their first email to their grandkids. But loneliness as a social issue is perhaps more real and more extensive than we imagined. In Spain, for example, 38 percent of people over 65 that live alone or have limited mobility report feeling lonely, the research shows.

"Loneliness and social isolation in old age can lead to sadness and anxiety and can even affect physical health. It is particularly a problem for women, since they are more likely to live longer and to live alone in old age."

Vodafone's initiatives in this area meet such real social needs -- perhaps even ones that haven't yet been fully articulated -- and open up opportunities for great business. Vodafone cites a potential $1.7 billion annual economic benefit to society in 2020 through reduced healthcare costs and informal carers being able to return to work. This translates into a potential $450 million cumulative revenue for Vodafone through 2020. Just by helping older women feel more connected.

One of the neatest things in this report is the summary of findings and impacts.

In each area, there is a clear benefit for society and a clear revenue opportunity for Vodafone as a result of empowering women through technology. The report closes with four recommendations, that place focus on doing business differently, engaging in partnerships and considering new business models.

Focus on women’s needs and preferences: Only by understanding their different needs as well as user preferences in each market, can operators provide the tailored services that will be valued by women customers.

Local implementation with relevant partnerships: Operators will need to work in partnership with NGOs, partners and funders to launch programmes at scale. Working with local partners will enable operators to leverage their expertise and networks to reach more women more effectively.

Explore new models and funding options: Different economic models would be required to deliver the different services at scale. An estimated $900 million in donor funding would be required to achieve wide uptake of the modelled services in health, work and education in emerging markets. The mobile learning and Text to Treatment services are likely to require ongoing, large-scale donor or public sector funding. Nominal fees for services to recover development costs and public sector investments could contribute to these costs in some circumstances. Other services, such as those focused on work, safety and loneliness, have the potential to be self financing or revenue generating.

Use local infrastructure and existing technologies: Combining projects with existing services, for example the M-Pesa mobile money transfer system, or infrastructure, such as local healthcare networks, will significantly improve reach and effectiveness.

Back to the question of how to define embedded CSR/shared value, it seems to me that this is an example of exactly that. It seems to me that Vodafone is quietly pioneering new business models and innovative ways of combining social needs with business development.

It just so happens that I am currently reading Alice Korngold's excellent book, entitled "A Better World, Inc." In this book, Alice focuses on many of the ways that companies (including examples from Vodafone) are engaging in this new economy and achieving success through addressing social needs. In fact, Alice makes the point that "only global corporations have the resources, global reach and self-interest to build a better world." She says:

"A Better World, Inc. showcases global corporations that are leveraging their formidable resources -- often in partnership with NGOs -- to help create a better world. Let's be clear: Companies are not acting selflessly. Companies are in the business of maximizing profits. Yet many international corporations are learning that solving the world's most pernicious problems is the way to win the global marketplace -- as highly profitable, sustainable businesses."

In combination with a fundamentally RATS approach (responsibility, accountability, sustainability, transparency), corporations have the potential to change our lives for the better. This Vodafone example shows how.

Images courtesy of Vodafone

Mars, Inc. has big sustainability goals. Its 2040 target is to eliminate all fossil fuel energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from its direct operations.

One way it is working towards that goal is by investing in renewable energy. It announced in April that it will invest in and build a new wind farm in Texas, which will help it meet its 2015 goal of 25 percent reduction of fossil fuel energy use and GHG emissions. Its fourth annual Principles in Action Summary contains other sustainability targets and initiatives.

Making its supply chain more sustainable is also important to Mars. As a large and global food company, it uses vast quantities of things like palm oil and cocoa. In March, it launched a new Deforestation Policy and committed to a fully traceable palm oil supply chain by the end of 2015. Mars is also the largest purchaser of cocoa from certified sources, and has increased its purchase of certified cocoa to 30 percent. The goal is 100 percent certified cocoa by 2020.

Mars is working with farmers, including basmati rice farmers in Pakistan. The company works with these farmers to help them minimize the use of chemicals, optimize water use and improve productivity through a partnership with the International Rice Research Institute. Through the partnership, farmers receive a premium price over conventionally-grown basmati.

Mars also works with women in cocoa farming communities in West Africa and Indonesia to empower them. Women do almost 45 percent of the labor on cocoa farms so empowering them helps their families. In 2013, Mars Chocolate signed the U.N. Women’s Empowerment Principles to demonstrate its “commitment to empowering women in the cocoa sector.”

Additionally, Mars is working to combat child labor and trafficking in the cocoa supply chain through partnerships with governments, NGOs and industry. In addition, Mars Chocolate has 20 Cocoa Development Centers (CDCs) across Africa and Indonesia and has 35 more planned for 2014. In some areas CDCs are linked with Cocoa Village Centers (CVCs), or small independent businesses run by local entrepreneurs. The CVCs sell approved planting material and teach, promote and implement techniques that can help smaller farms.

Missed targets prove to be opportunities for improvement

Even though Mars missed several of its 2013 targets, it is working to meet them. One of those goals is that all of its single-serve chocolate products would be at or below 250 calories per portion by the end of 2013. It only achieved 95 percent, but continues to work toward meeting that goal. Many of its popular chocolate bars, including Snickers, Mars and Milky Way, have reduced their saturated fat and and are now within the 250-calorie limit.

Another missed goal is its targets for coffee certification and packaging reduction. It only achieved 73 percent of coffee certified by 2013, but states that “we are confident of meeting our target by year end 2014.” Instead of reducing its packaging weight -- the 2013 goal was a 10 percent reduction -- the weight actually increased in 2013 by 4.1 percent, which the report attributes to growth.

Image credit: M&M’s

By Glenn Barbi

Given the specter of climate change and other environmental concerns, the global need for additional renewable energy has become a topic of increasing relevance and urgency.  While over the medium- to long-term, renewable sources such as solar and wind offer encouraging economic and environmental benefits, the initial capital cost can be a substantial obstacle when compared with the lower cost of continued operation of existing fossil fuel plants. This challenge can be exacerbated in areas served by publicly-owned utilities, wherein maintaining low pricing for customers is critical.

Despite these obstacles, Becton, Dickinson and Co. (BD), a New Jersey-based medical devices and supply company, established a unique partnership with the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) to develop an option for renewable energy generation and usage in Nebraska, focusing on the needs of industrial and commercial businesses. Through an unprecedented agreement with NPPD focused on purchasing the green-attributes of renewable wind energy, BD ensured that the renewable energy it purchased was “additional” (i.e. newly created for this specific purpose), reached an important milestone in its own worldwide sustainability program, and established a model for other industries interested in purchasing renewable energy within the state.

Currently, approximately 40 percent of the electricity that BD purchases in the U.S. is generated in Nebraska. Having large manufacturing sites in a state that relies heavily on coal to generate electricity, we at BD identified a clear opportunity to further our pursuit of renewable energy targets while potentially saving on long-term operating costs. As a result, we approached NPPD in 2011 with an interest in purchasing renewable energy for two manufacturing plants located in Columbus and Holdrege. Our intention was to obtain the environmental attributes of the renewable energy while also providing a hedge against the possibility of future carbon taxes increasing the price of electricity in the state.

Unfortunately, a few obstacles interfered with the potential agreement. Unlike other states that have a combination of public and private providers, Nebraska is the only state in the U.S. where all homes and businesses receive electric service from publicly-owned electric utilities. Nebraska state statute requires the utility to ensure the lowest cost of electricity for its customers, and NPPD’s initial proposal called for BD to act as a utility. However, our expertise is in the medical manufacturing area and we therefore did not feel comfortable effectively entering the utility business. Because this wasn’t a workable option for BD, the idea of a potential partnership dissolved. Despite this hurdle, we were still determined to find a way to power our operations in Nebraska with renewable energy.

Shortly after abandoning the initial proposal with NPPD, we began exploring other renewable energy options, and soon learned about the South Table wind project in Kimball County in the western panhandle of Nebraska. BD signed a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the wind farm, however, several challenges, including the lack of adequate transmission lines to eastern Nebraska, eventually rendered the project unfeasible. After a year, the PPA expired, and we were back on the hunt for a viable renewable energy source.

In 2008, NPPD had established a board-mandated goal of having 10 percent of its energy generated through new renewable energy resources, primarily wind power, by 2020. Two years after the South Table PPA expired, NPPD approached BD with a concept for a 75 megawatt wind farm and expressed interest in meeting our initial requirements — which included purchasing 75 percent of the electrical consumption of our Nebraska facilities by utilizing  renewable energy credits (RECs) amounting to 40 percent of the energy generated by the Steele Flats wind farm.

NPPD received several unsolicited wind PPA proposals and eventually selected NextEra Energy, a Fortune 200 company and wholesale electricity supplier based in Juno Beach, Fla. As part of the proposal, NextEra built the 75 megawatt Steele Flats Wind Farm in Nebraska, located between Steele City and Odell. The Steele Flats Wind Farm utilizes 44, 1.7-megawatt turbines that have been constructed near Highway 8 in Jefferson and Gage counties and has been in operation since December 2013. Based on the data of 57 percent capacity, the project can provide power to approximately 25,000 average-sized Nebraska homes when the wind is available.

Nebraska law made it necessary to establish a new way of purchasing the renewable attributes of the energy, without specifically signing a long-term contract for the electricity. Thankfully, we were able to do this and guarantee 20 years of wind-energy supply covering 75 percent of our electricity requirements.

“Under this agreement, BD is not actually buying the electrons generated by the wind turbines at Steele Flats; therefore the BD sites continue to pay the retail rate at the meter. What they are buying are the “green attributes” of that energy,” explains David D. Rich P.E., sustainable energy manager at NPPD. The agreement is structured such that when NextEra produces power at Steele Flats, they sell the power and equivalent generated RECs to NPPD. The utility then values those RECs at the power cost from NextEra minus the selling price into the Southwest Power Pool, and this is the cost that BD pays for the RECs.

BD is the first industrial customer in Nebraska to reach an agreement with the public utility for the purchase of RECs. The agreement enables us to utilize 30 megawatts of generation from the wind farm to offset electricity use from its manufacturing sites in Columbus and Holdrege and is an important milestone for the company’s worldwide sustainability program. Through the successful execution of this agreement, we have created a model that other industrial and commercial businesses may utilize. With the addition of the Steele Flats Wind Farm, coupled with the planned Broken Bow II Wind Farm (to be completed by the end of 2014), NPPD will be within 22 megawatts of its renewable energy goal.

“The opportunity with BD was a unique situation, where an industrial customer of our wholesale customers was seeking the opportunity to meet its sustainability goals,” said NPPD President and CEO Pat Pope. “Through many discussions and negotiations, we were able to get BD what they were seeking for their Nebraska operations and their sustainability goal, while at the same time adding to our energy portfolio and moving us closer to our board-established goal for renewable energy.”

As of the end of 2013, BD has achieved four out of five of its 2015 Sustainability Goals which were set forth in 2009, including a target to source 25 percent of its global energy use from renewable energy. The agreement to purchase energy credits from the Steele Flats Wind Farm helped add additional megawatts of wind-power generation in Nebraska and is also well-aligned with our long-term renewable energy goals, which globally reached 43 percent of total electricity and 37 percent of total energy for the company in 2013.

“BD’s 20-year purchase of wind power from Steele Flats demonstrates a commitment to renewable energy that goes beyond a near-term strategy to one that is about creating real, long-term value for the company and our planet,” said Bryn Baker, manager of renewable energy at World Wildlife Fund, who provided early consultation that was instrumental in buttressing the decision to move to long-term purchasing agreements. “Their innovative approach and persistence in making this deal happen puts BD squarely in the leader’s circle.”

BD’s commitment to renewable energy was recognized with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Power Partner Leadership designation in 2011, 2012 and 2013. BD was given the EPA Green Power Leadership Award in 2010 and currently is listed at #12 on the EPA Fortune 500 list of Top Green Power Partners.

Looking forward, BD intends to continue pursuing further renewable energy options. Around the world, the company is looking for appropriate wind, solar, co-generation, wood gasification, biomass, combined heat and power, multi-year renewable energy certificates and other options to ensure the long-term sustainability of its power use.

Image courtesy of Becton, Dickinson and Co.

Glenn Barbi has served as Vice President of the Office of Global Sustainability since BD formed the department in 2009. Leading BD’s global sustainability efforts, Glenn is responsible for driving environmental performance and strategy throughout BD's organization.  His focus includes advancing the Company’s progress globally in the areas of product stewardship and sustainable operations. Prior to his current role, he had served as Corporate Director of Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) since 1990. In addition to his EHS responsibilities, Glenn was appointed BD's Chief Ethics Officer in 2001, a position he held until his current appointment. In this capacity, he managed a Company-wide Ethics Helpline and drove a variety of ethics and compliance training programs throughout the organization. He also serves as a member of BD’s Leadership Team.

One of the most interesting companies we've gotten to know since launching our sustainable seafood series is Bell Aquaculture.  This Indiana startup is producing not only trout, salmon and perch on a highly productive plot of land in rural Indiana, but also producing two types of fertilizer from waste products as well as fish food to sell to other farms.  It's this fantastic story of vertical integration that we told in our 5 part video series we ran earlier this summer (click here to watch all 5 parts).

A month ago, I had the pleasure of re-visiting Bell on the opening day of their new feedmill operation. A feedmill, for those who aren't schooled in the nuances of farming is a machine that grinds grain and other ingredients to produce animal food.  In the case of Bell, it means producing a wide variety of food, primarily soybean based, for fish.  It's also highly customizable for any given fish depending on the age, species and other factors.

The event turned out to be a veritable who's who in midwest aquaculture featuring Bell's own experts, politicians, and representatives of industry associations.  All of them had some great insights to share and I captured as much as I could on video, with the help of Bell's CEO Norman McCowan.  

All 16 videos are available below or on our YouTube playlist.  Simply use the menu on the corner of the video below to choose your options.

You can also click through to our playlist on YouTube to watch or share them all.

Image credit: Abhijeet Soman/Unsplash

Ed Note: Travel expenses to Indiana were covered by Bell.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) is proposing changes to its rules on information disclosure which would make it one of the most secretive financial institutions in the world, campaigners are warning.

Xavier Sol, Director of Counter Balance, an organisation which challenges public investment banks, said the move could also prompt other international financial institutions across the world to follow suit: “It would also send a worrying signal to other EU institutions facing transparency and democratisation challenges.”

According to the 2013 Aid Transparency Index, the EIB is already lagging behind other multilateral donor organisations in terms of transparency. The Index rated it as ‘poor’ – one rung above the worst rating of ‘very poor’, as part of an assessment and ranking of 60 donor organisations.

Joseph Stead, Christian Aid’s Senior Economic Justice Adviser, said: “The EIB’s record to date shows there is every reason to want to know more, not less, about its activities.

“We’re currently fighting with the Bank about its refusal to reveal its investigation into whether a Glencore-controlled mine evaded tax in Zambia. The Bank should not be hiding such information, which is of great public interest in Zambia as well as Europe.

“Depressingly, we have heard that this Zambian case is one of the reasons why the Bank is proposing to become more secretive. We urge the Bank’s top managers to think again and to embrace greater transparency.’

The most worrying details of the Bank’s proposed changes to its transparency policy, according to campaigners, is the expansion of the reasons the Bank can give for refusing to reveal information and a new presumption that all documents about the Bank’s internal investigations, reports and audits may not be disclosed even if they concern matters of public interest.

The Bank has invited comments on its proposals by 26 September 2014. 

See Counter Balance’s concerns in full here.

 

Picture credit: ©  Dreamstime.com