Search

By Nicole Skibola

Every sustainable development consultant has found themselves in a conversation with a client desperate to preemptively or defensively placate civil society groups. I’ve been in countless conversations with clients and colleagues who roll their eyes at the mere mention of an NGO group and strategize as if they were preparing to negotiate a hostage crisis.

As a practitioner who has worked extensively with businesses -- but started off my career in human rights advocacy -- I understand the tension between stakeholders and businesses. Stakeholders can slow project completion, advocate for regulatory hurdles or demolish a business reputation in a matter of hours. It’s how they push change forward. I like to think of stakeholders as an integral part of a system of checks and balances, there to ensure that economic growth occurs in a sustainable way that benefits the largest segment of the population as possible. Whether or not you agree with the activities of NGOs, there is one thing for certain: They are here to stay. Stakeholder “engagement” traditionally follows the same core principles of organizational change management (OCM). OCM is a framework for managing the effect of new business processes, changes in organizational structure or cultural changes within an enterprise. In simple terms, OCM is the process of supporting employees to understand how changes in business processes will affect their roles, relationships, and organizational culture -- and to adjust accordingly. Here’s why a change management approach doesn’t always work with stakeholders: They are not as easily managed. Stakeholders are, by definition, working outside of the organizational confines. They aren’t afraid to lose their jobs or make you look bad and will even expose your efforts to bribe them into compliance. The real sticking point: Think of the opportunities for inclusive, sustainable growth that companies often miss out on because they talk at stakeholders rather than actively engage them around solutions. A real world example is useful. Our firm had a client engaged in sustainable power generation. The client came to us after they had engaged in superficial messaging to the surrounding community. Initial ethnographic research would have revealed that virtually all conflict could have been eliminated if the client had eliminated water usage from a nearby lake (sacred to the local indigenous community) and had settled land disputes associated with the project. Angry stakeholders reached out to Amnesty International, and a small militia group formed, threatening the security of the company’s operations. In the end, the development was postponed indefinitely, causing a loss in the billions. In addition to the client’s oversight of understanding fully the economic, cultural and social fabric of the community, the client feared that early transparency would have hampered their plans. Rather, they took a management approach, shooting out messages that sought to appease, rather than engage. Here’s another real world example: A client (public affairs executive at a multinational pharmaceutical company) had consistently engaged with civil society groups through shared advocacy efforts, continuously consulting powerful NGOs for all of his community relations affairs. The company had a product recall and could have suffered a catastrophic blow to the relationship. However, because the client had built so much relationship capital with the relevant NGOs, they actually offered to help him divert the crisis. Because guess what? NGOs want to help companies become better corporate citizens, and they often will cooperate with players who they deem authentic in their efforts. Despite the fact that many businesses consider this tale of urban legend quality, I’ve seen it happen on multiple occasions. Recent practitioners like Stephanie Draper from Forum for the Future have highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement, rather than management. These newer schools of thought focus on collaborative problem solving that examines corporate impacts from a systems perspective. Relevant questions include: Where are the power dynamics in the systems? How do diverse stakeholders interact from a social, economic and policy perspective? Where are the leverage points for change within the business ecosystem? As a recent article from the Guardian Sustainable Business Blog pointed out, stakeholder engagement requires a new set of skills that many corporate professionals are not exposed to -- that is researching the links and impacts from the systems to community and project level, understanding the business case for stakeholder relationships, and even realizing the true drivers of most advocacy groups. That being said, I thought it would be useful to for readers to begin understanding what I think makes a successful stakeholder engagement strategy.

Know and respect your stakeholders

Stakeholders are not just communities who are directly impacted by corporate activities. They include families, local governments, and local and international advocacy groups. Map all of a project’s stakeholder’s -- big and small -- and understand their motivations. Motivations are a an important piece of mapping leverage points in a system. Don’t forget to respect stakeholders through respectful, meaningful communication. Yes, most of the time they will know when you are not being authentic.

Do your homework

Ethnographic research is time intensive and expensive. The basic premise of this research is that it is qualitative -- meaning it extends beyond data to understand the lives, and cultural and social fabric of a community. Revisit the first example above. Closer research would have revealed the supreme importance of the lake in the community, as well as the fact that land rights were at issue. Understanding all of the potential problems up front paves the way for coming to constructive solutions down the line.

Establish legitimacy

This may be self serving, but I consider one of my my powerful strengths as a consultant to be that I have worked in civil society. I understand the behaviors that cause communication breakdowns and misunderstanding. I believe that corporate actors and NGOs are essential actors in our society, but that both just need a little help speaking the same language. I consult my human rights friends regularly to get a sense of what issues are surfacing on the horizon.  In short, I am a bridge. Make sure that there is someone in your organization who has a similar skill set, even if that person is a consultant.

Keep an open mind

While I by no means am an expert in Lean Startup methodology, I can say that I deeply respect the premise: leave attachments and expectations behind until you validate your hypotheses. In CSR terms, this translates to approach your NGO and community partners with an open mind. You do not necessarily know better because you have worked in business. There is always the possibility for a solution that shifts the paradigm or addresses a conflict in a way that you would not have expected. Be prepared to iterate programs or strategies and bounce new hypotheses/ideas back and forth. Judge your final strategy/program/product by the data, not by moral or value-based beliefs in what the wrong or right answer is. * Stakeholder engagement isn’t easy. It’s an exercise in patience, compromise, and periodic failure. Most of all, it’s about knowing the system in which we our our business operates, understanding the drivers of all stakeholders in that system, and making decisions (or compromises) based on those underlying drivers. Systems theorist Donella Meadows sums it up quite beautifully. “We can't impose our will on a system. We can listen to what the system tells us, and discover how its properties and our values can work together to bring forth something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone.” Nicole Skibola is a principal with Centurion Consulting, a firm dedicated to identifying, addressing, and innovating strategic and operational opportunities around all facets of sustainable development.

Editor’s Note: To learn the basics of SolarCoin and catch up on the first five posts in this series, check out the SolarCoin page at theblisspoint.org.

By Sam Bliss

Our energy systems must transition away from fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic climate chaos. What's more, this shift to carbon-free energy has to happen fast -- even more quickly than the rate at which renewables are currently replacing oil, gas and coal.

SolarCoin is a novel strategy for accelerating investment in solar power. If it scales up -- meaning that people begin treating SolarCoins as money -- then it could work toward achieving the clean energy economy we need to save the climate.

But it's not inherently socially equitable. In fact, as I show in SolarCoin and social equity, part I, SolarCoin has the scary potential to contribute to accelerating the growth of wealth inequality.

Getting SolarCoins

There are two ways to be eligible to claim SolarCoins: you can have a roof or yard with solar panels or you can own a solar project with capacity greater than ten kilowatts (kW). (The cutoff was set at 10 kW to distinguish household solar systems from commercial arrays.) Each megawatt (MW) of solar electricity generated earns one SolarCoin.

Beyond claiming SolarCoins for generating electricity, there's a third method for getting some of the digital money: you can trade for them in online currency markets.

All three ways to acquire SolarCoins for your digital wallet present substantial barriers to the poor. People with no roofs, no yards, no access to credit, and no dollars to trade (nor experience using the interwebs for currency exchange) stand to benefit most from holding SolarCoins, especially if they get them while they're cheap and the currency gains value in the future. Yet society's least wealthy populations have scarcely any chance to put up solar panels, own a solar power installation, or trade for SolarCoins online.

Fortunately, there are ways to increase access to SolarCoins through each of these pathways.

Residential solar

For residential solar systems (under 10 kilowatts of capacity), SolarCoins are earned by the resident of that property, not the owner of the solar panels. This way, the solar leasing boom gets SolarCoins into the hands of all the people using that power, instead of just piling up digital money in the coffers of companies like Sungevity and SolarCity that put panels on homes and rent them to the residents.

Each solar generating facility has just one 'claimant,' yet it is plausible that multi-family dwellings with rooftop solar could split SolarCoin revenues. If apartment communities team up to lease solar panels, they can share the revenues from selling power and the earned SolarCoins.

Also, granting SolarCoins to more people increases the value of the digital currency (think about how the value of U.S. dollars is supported by its worldwide acceptance as valuable money). A new currency only works as useful money for transactions if lots of folks have it and businesses accept it, which will be the case if they can use it to reward customers, pay employees, or buy inputs.

So with policies that facilitate multi-family solar projects, a growing number of people can become residential solar electricity producers. These groups can earn SolarCoins, which in turn benefits the whole SolarCoin community by increasing its exchange value. But only the wealthy can own large solar installations, right?

Solar ownership

Community solar projects extend the opportunity to own a share of a large solar power installation to a wider population -- those with roofs unsuitable for solar because of shade or unfortunate tilt; renters and condo-dwellers who don't control their roofs; and those who can only afford a small investment in solar. Below I propose a new way to spread SolarCoin-earning investments to even more people, but keep in mind that the same benefits apply to any community solar project that decides to split SolarCoin revenues among those who share ownership.

Mosaic, a solar project crowd-funding platform, helps address unequal access to solar investment opportunities. The minimum investment to finance a Mosaic project is $25.

Here's how Mosaic works: A 'borrower' seeking to finance a solar energy project uses Mosaic to connect with investors looking for a steady return. After the installation starts producing electricity, the revenue from selling that power pays back those who invested in it, plus interest.

SolarCoins could provide extra incentive to invest in solar power for anyone with $25. The borrower of Mosaic-funded installments could claim SolarCoins for the megawatts of electricity produced and then distribute them to investors in proportion to their share of the project's up-front costs.

This way, Mosaic investors would earn a rate of return and SolarCoins. Three main benefits would arise from this arrangement.

First, everyone who loans to Mosaic projects would get a bigger reward. Beyond the fixed monthly payments that return their principle investment plus interest, Mosaic investors would be paid in SolarCoins.

Second, people without large sums of money to invest could earn SolarCoins for their ownership stake in large installations. Finally, growth in the SolarCoin economy means growth in the money value of SolarCoins.

A mutually beneficial partnership between Mosaic and SolarCoin would mean additional incentive to join both communities -- the former could promote additional returns to investors, and the latter would see an increase in value as more people hold and transact the currency.

Online exchange

But what about rich folks' inherent advantage in accumulating SolarCoin through online currency trading? Anyone can turn dollars into Bitcoins into SolarCoins, so individuals with lots of dollars can pile up stacks of digital money.

This problem is a harder nut to crack -- it's difficult to dream up any new currency that doesn't favor the already-wealthy. But one invention exists that allows anyone with web access to get some SolarCoin in their digital wallet, for free.

Third-party charitable faucets, like this site, give away small amounts of SolarCoins in order to grow SolarCoins' value as a means of exchange by spreading the currency into more hands. From a social equity standpoint, faucets give cash-strapped regular Joes and Janes the chance to take part in this new social economy.

Yet plenty of room for innovation remains in the quest to grow the SolarCoin community with less bias toward well-off people. What if we could each receive one SolarCoin for signing a petition advocating progressive legislation that favors low-carbon energy (or burdens fossil fuels)?

How about everyone with zero dollars invested in fossil energy companies gets ten SolarCoins? Poor people would be able to cash in immediately, and folks with investment portfolios would get a SolarCoin bonus for joining the global movement to divest from dirty energy!

Money for good

These ideas barely scratch the surface of possibility for digital (and physical) currencies to make our money economy more socially just and environmentally mindful. And remember, strategies for getting a new currency into more people's hands can increase that currency's value, as long as its supply remains reasonably scarce overall.

Thus, for the SolarCoin community, measures like a reward for divestment are not only progressive but  self-interested. The same can be said for partnering with Mosaic or creating multi-family collectives to help more people become solar power producers.

In summary, growing the SolarCoin community to include people who can't get solar panels easily will not only offset or reverse some of the currency's built-in unfairness; it will also increase its value (which in turn drives investment in solar power).

The next post in the series will explore one more way that cryptocurrencies like SolarCoin promote social equity and benefit some of our society's hardest-working and least-compensated members. Stay tuned!

Image credits: 1) SolarCoin 2) Climate Policy Initiative 3) Mosaic 4) Ekavi Beh

Sam is an aspiring ecological economist and writer. You can read his work at theblisspoint.org. Sam’s digital wallet does not yet hold any SolarCoin thanks to his technological incompetence, but you can help change that — simply send SolarCoins to: 8Rs7YHL4z5jeNenpMD3X4BnaMZstx7QwEk

The OECD has launched a regional well-being website based on an interactive map covering the organisation’s 34 member countries. It rates 362 sub-national regions with a relative score out of 10 in eight categories: income, health, safety, services, civic engagement, education, jobs and environment and reveals some large disparities. 

The new website is part of the OECD’s Better Life Initiative, which looks beyond economic growth to measure overall well-being.

“Where people live has a huge effect on their quality of life,” said Rolf Alter, OECD Public Governance and Territorial Development Director, presenting the website at a conference of the EU Committee of the Regions in Brussels. “By zooming in like this, we can really see the big differences that exist between regions and work out what local and state governments must do to reduce them.”

The eight well-being factors, shown as different-coloured petals, are based on data measured at regional level on household income, life expectancy, homicide rates, broadband access, voter turnout, level of education in the workforce, employment rates and particulate matter in the air. 

The score out of 10 indicates how a region is doing relative to others in the country and across the 34 OECD member countries. Clicking on a petal reveals the underlying indicator and a more detailed scoreboard positioning the region in its country and in the OECD.

Check it out here.

New research offers proof that investment in, and subsequent reporting of, corporate social responsibility (CSR) improves a firm’s stock price.

Professor CB Bhattacharya, E.ON Chair in Corporate Responsibility and Dean of International Relations at ESMT European School of Management and Technology, examined stock market reactions to CSR communications, specifically the release of CSR reports, and found compelling new evidence linking CSR to stock prices.

The research was based on a sample of Fortune 500 firms who released CSR reports between 2005 and 2011. It found that annual stock prices react positively to changes in CSR performance when a firm has released a CSR report in that year. This confirms that CSR reports convey new information that’s seen as relevant and as having value by the market, says ESMT.  

It also revealed that significant cumulative absolute abnormal returns and significant cumulative abnormal trading volumes occur around the release dates of CSR reports – suggesting investors do revise their expectations of future cash flows and/or risks of a firm in reaction to the release of its annual CSR reports and make trading decisions accordingly.

ESMT says that this is the first piece of research to examine whether and how the stock market reacts to the release of standalone CSR reports.

The research involved an event study that captured immediate short-term reactions of the stock market to the release of CSR reports. Following prior literature on event studies, Bhattacharya used both price-based and volume-based proxies to measure market reaction to CSR reports.

Bhattacharya says: “This research provides useful new information on an under-examined, yet critical stakeholder – investors. It shows that stock markets positively value the timely release of CSR reports helping to significantly strengthen the business case for CSR and lay to rest the argument that investors attach little value to CSR performance.

“It builds a strong business case for publishing standalone CSR reports, particularly for socially responsible firms. It also finds that there is an even greater benefit for firms, who operate in a weaker information environment, to publish an annual CSR report.”

The research was carried out in collaboration with Kun Yu from the College of Management at the University of Massachusetts and Shuili Du from the Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics at the University of New Hampshire.

Read the full report here. 

 

Picture credit: © Anthonycz | Dreamstime.com

 

The Coca-Cola Company and its Foundations, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are expanding its “Project Last Mile” to include 10 African countries over the next five years.

The public-private partnership - currently focused on Tanzania and Ghana - applies Coca-Cola’s logistic, supply chain, distribution and marketing expertise to help African governments maximize the ability to get critical medicines and medical supplies the “last mile” to those who need it most in remote communities in Africa.

The commitment to expand includes an investment of more than $21m from the partners, as well as the official addition of USAID to the coalition. The next country where Project Last Mile is being implemented is Mozambique. The additional seven countries are in various stages of identification and discussion with local governments.

“We know our business can only be as strong as the communities we serve... Project Last Mile has been a great and growing success so far, and we look forward to working with our partners to improve lives across more communities and more countries,” commented Muhtar Kent, chairman and ceo of The Coca-Cola Company.

Cosmas Mwaifwani, the director general of the Medical Stores Department in Tanzania added: “Since we began working with our partners in 2010, we have been able to increase the availability of medicines in medical clinics by 20-30% in some places where we have implemented the direct distribution model. Additionally, the partners have shared distribution tools with us to enable us to efficiently reach more than 5,500 health facilities.”
 

Can a corporation pray?  Can it attend religious services?  Is it free to don religious garb?  In other words, can a corporation exercise religion?  All of those are questions raised by the Hobby Lobby case (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and the related case, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius), likely to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming days.  More specifically, the issue facing the Court is whether a for-profit corporation be exempt from the Affordable Care Act (also called ACA or Obamacare) requirement that all companies cover certain FDA-approved birth control methods and devices as part of the health insurance packages offered to their workers.

This essential question has been percolating in the federal appeals courts for some time and has resulted in what is referred to as a circuit split -- three circuit courts have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two others have upheld it.  This means the federal appeals courts (the highest in the land below the Supreme Court) don't really know what to do with this aspect of the ACA and the Supreme Court should step in and clarify.

The featured challenger in this case, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., is a chain of arts and crafts stores owned by the Green family (devout Southern Baptists, apparently), the members of which have committed to run the company according to Christian religious principles.  Hobby Lobby doesn't have a problem offering its employees insurance that covers most forms of birth control, it only objects to the coverage of drugs and/or devices that “end human life after conception.”  (More on the other challenger, Conestoga Wood Specialties, here.)

Hobby Lobby's legal argument is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) -- a 1993 federal law that states, in pertinent part, that the government "shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion" -- provides it with an exemption to the contraceptive rule.  If Hobby Lobby is right, then the government can only override the exemption if it can demonstrate a compelling public interest for doing so.  As Pew helpfully explains, prior to the RFRA the government only had to demonstrate that a law that supposedly burdened one's religious practices advanced a "legitimate" government interest.  This "legitimate interest" standard was articulated by the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith, which backed away from the "compelling interest" standard that had previously been the law of the land.  Religious groups were up in arms after Smith, prompting Congress to step in and, via the RFRA, change the standard back to the more exacting "compelling interest."

Crucially, the RFRA applies explicitly to persons and is silent on its application to for-profit corporations, such as Hobby Lobby.  So, in order for Hobby Lobby to invoke the RFRA in the first place, it must succeed in convincing the Court that it is covered by the RFRA, which is tantamount to arguing that a corporation can "exercise" religion.  One would be forgiven for scoffing at the suggestion, but according to recent Supreme Court precedent, the argument isn't so far-fetched.  In its infamous Citizens United decision in 2010, for instance, the Court held that corporations and individuals shared the same First Amendment rights to political speech -- i.e., the right to make unlimited political donations.  The very same First Amendment also protects an individual's right to freely exercise his or her religion (under the so-called "Free Exercise" clause), so it's not that much of a stretch to imagine the Court extending this aspect of the First Amendment to for-profit corporations, too.

Yet, even if the Court were to apply the RFRA to Hobby Lobby, the company would still need to show that the ACA's contraceptive provision is a "substantial burden" on its religious freedom.  To accept that Hobby Lobby's religious freedom is substantially burdened simply because it is required to provide its employees with health insurance plans that will cover certain forms of birth control, however, would appear to test the bounds of reason.  After all, Hobby Lobby is not forced to hand out IUDs and Plan B pills in its employees' orientation packets.

The ostensible burden on Hobby Lobby's religious freedom, rather, is really just a potentiality -- the prospect that it may have to pay for something in which it does not believe.  In other words, it is entirely possible that no Hobby Lobby employee will ever seek coverage for the types of birth control with which the company takes issue, in which case the burden would remain theoretical.  Unless, of course, we're really just talking about the philosophical burden on Hobby Lobby -- the company is burdened simply by being subject to this particular provision of the ACA, which conflicts with its politics -- in which case the Court's response ought to be: too bad.  Hobby Lobby's view on the morality of certain forms of birth control may ultimately prevail in the marketplace of ideas and be legislated as such, but for now, it hasn't, and the company simply has to deal with it.

During oral argument in the Hobby Lobby case, the questioning eventually came to focus on the supposed abortive effects of the birth controls at issue.  Justice Kennedy closed his questioning by asking whether, in Solicitor General Donald Verilli's view, a for-profit corporation could be compelled to pay for abortions.  Roberts clarified by asking: “Isn’t that what we are talking about in terms of their religious beliefs? That [Hobby Lobby and Conestoga] have to pay for these four methods of contraception that they believe provide abortions?”

The lead attorney for the challengers, Paul Clement, confirmed Chief Justice Roberts' view that the case is, in fact, really about abortion.  Yet, if that is indeed true, then we ought to consider whether these specific methods of birth control really are so-called "abortifacients."  According to the amicus brief filed by a number of medical groups led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, “there is a scientific distinction between a contraceptive and an abortifacient and the scientific record demonstrates that none of the FDA-approved contraceptives covered by the [challenged] Mandate are abortifacients.”

What if Hobby Lobby wins anyway (a distinct possibility)?  Hobby Lobby's political opponents warn that, if a for-profit can use religion to escape this particular federal law, it would open theflood gates to corporations claiming that they are not bound by others.  At oral argument, Justice Kagan gave voice to these concerns, recognizing that, were Hobby Lobby to prevail, private employers would then be allowed assert religious objections to gender discrimination laws, minimum wage laws, and family leave and child labor laws, all of which would be subject to what Kagan described as the “unbelievably high . . . compelling interest standard.”

A decision in Hobby Lobby is expected before the Court breaks for the summer (June 30), so be on the lookout.  As always, SCOTUSBlog is a great resource, as are anything by Jeffrey Toobin, Dahlia Lithwick, and Adam Liptak.  Stay tuned.

Image credit: Flickr/fanofretail

The recently launched, four-pronged suit against the state of Vermont’s genetically modified organism (GMO)-labeling law comes as no surprise. Last week, a group of the country’s largest grocery organizations filed suit against Vermont for its passage of a law (Act 120) requiring all manufacturers to label those products that contain GMO ingredients.

Big Food four stand up for GMO

The four “Big Food” companies -- the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers -- allege that Vermont’s newly minted law contravenes federal law and cites the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the right of free speech and the commerce clause. It also cites the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment for Act 120’s “vagueness” in its prohibition of the use of certain words, such as natural, and other descriptors that the Vermont law has deemed confusing to consumers.

The plaintiffs defend their suit based on four counts relating to labeling mandates, alleged marketing restrictions and violations of the commerce clause. They have argued that Act 120 imposes unreasonable requirements on food manufacturing companies, which would be required to amend the labels on thousands of products before the act goes into effect on July 1, 2016.

GMA: The consumer already has the tools

They also assert that the state has acted beyond its capacity and that provisions already exist at the federal level for the consumer to make informed decisions, called the Organic Food Production Act.

“The Act appears not to recognize that the USDA has established the very system that the Act suggests is missing. Under the USDA’s “certified organic” program, food that qualifies for the certified organic label cannot be produced using GE plants or GE derived ingredients,” says the suit. It also suggests that voluntary labeling through programs like the Non-GMO Project already provides a voluntary method for consumers to select foods that don’t contain GMOs.

The power of commerce

It’s no surprise that the plaintiffs have hinged this suit on the powers of the federal commerce clause. It’s a popular tactic these days, as North Dakota demonstrated last May with its controversial suit against Minnesota’s New Energy Act. At the same time that Vermont’s GMO-labeling bill was moving through the state legislature last April, another issue was being fought out in Minnesota district court that would virtually upend the state’s efforts to regulate the purchase of “dirty” coal power. Stating that the New Energy Act regulated issues that were under the purview of the federal commerce clause, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richards Nelson enjoined the state from enforcing parts of the law, effectively stalling some of the boldest efforts made to date to curb carbon emissions by power companies. In effect: Minnesota’s clean energy law conflicted with the Constitution.

In both situations, the power of the consumer to decide what is sold within his or her state has been placed at odds with federal agencies which many states say are failing to step up to the demands of their constituents – despite voters’ efforts to get federal laws enacted, first. In the case of GMA et al vs. Vermont, the plaintiffs allege that consumer desires and voting bloc expectations aren’t enough reason to provide manufacturing transparency.

Federal organic laws: A chicken-and-egg story

Interestingly, although the suit mentions the “certified organic” program, it fails to mention that federal organic laws were actually the outgrowth of enforced state regulations in California. This leads to a quandary not unlike the chicken-and-egg story: If states don’t have the right to regulate the foods imported and sold within their borders (except when there are proven safety issues at hand), then why has California been successful in regulating food production through laws enacted by the ballot box? And why did the federal government think it was such a great idea to pattern the majority of its regulations after California’s already-enforced laws?

The suit also doesn't mention the fact that a fair number of states have their own organic certification programs and regulations in force, which the USDA points out, "may also add more restrictive requirements due to specific environmental conditions or the necessity of production and handling practices in that State."

Where's Monsanto?

When this suit was announced, a number of advocacy groups jumped on board to alert consumers that “Monsanto had launched a suit against Vermont." Most publications do, in fact, point out that the suit is being launched by four associations, but few advocacy groups or publications have asked why Monsanto’s name is conspicuously absent from the lawsuit.

While advocacy organizations have worked hard over the past few years to link Monsanto to the GMA, the association has worked just as hard – particularly recently – to limit information about its membership, or whether Monsanto is in fact a voting member.

The list of plaintiffs on a court document such as this speaks volumes about the strength that a suit may have, but it also says a lot about just what those who fund its launch is expecting from the public, and what they may feel could be most vulnerable if consumers really don’t agree with their principles. The fact that the four associations are fighting the good fight for Monsanto’s interest but haven’t mentioned Monsanto’s membership unfortunately may not make it any easier for consumers to swallow the concept of GMO engineering.

And, as the suit has boldly pointed out, American consumers are quite adept at finding ways of moving away from products they don’t trust. With a rising number of countries rejecting or restricting GMO food manufacture and/or imports, clear labeling laws may turn out to be the easiest and least expensive compromise for all sides.

Image courtesy of GreggAvedon.com

In the new world of fashion, smart solutions are solving some of the most pressing issues when it comes to apparel production.

Retailers and designers are abandoning antiquated models of forecasting and yearlong design planning processes in favor of high-tech business platforms that empower the consumer as both buyer and style dictator. The proliferation of brands adopting user-generated, or “crowdsourced,” solutions such as Kickstarter and Krush to bestow their latest designs on the masses benefit greatly from predicting needs, scaling production and receiving upfront payments before ever hitting the cutting room floor.

Today’s online retail environment presents several opportunities for discovery and environmental stewardship. Audience engagement early in the design process provides customer agency and early adoption. By leveraging crowdsourcing as a feedback tool for production prediction, designers reduce risk and long-term environmental impact from over-production.

"Fashion crowdsourcing is the Internet-era combination of two venerable retail strategies: satisfying demand and building customer loyalty," explained Susan Scafidi, professor and academic director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School in New York City to DailyFinance.

The co-creation model provides a powerful tool for customer engagement. A study by the Cone Communications research group revealed that 84 percent of Americans believe their ideas can help companies create products and services that are a win for consumers, business and society. Roughly 60 percent of people surveyed were more likely to buy a company's products and services if the company incorporated their ideas.

Carte Blanche allows users to vote on which styles will be manufactured. As they vet their final design by their audience, users become fully engaged in the design process from sketch to fabric to fit. The winning item is then produced by high quality craftspeople and delivered to customers at their true cost.

Luevo — a fashion retail site for eco-friendly, ethically made clothing — puts customers in the driver’s seat by letting them fund independent designers while placing a reserve on products they love before they go into production.

Brands course-correct through the crowdsourcing model by reducing production to only what is asked for in lieu of what they predict the end-user might buy. The average person wears only about 20 percent of their wardrobe — efficient evidence that involving consumers in the design process has the potential to increase satisfaction and decrease the problematic reality of an estimated 14.3 million tons of textile waste sent to landfills each year.

“Crowdsourcing allows me to draw resources away from less popular styles and focus time, money, and energy into producing only the most successful ones,” Carte Blanche founder Monica Noh told Fast Company. “We eliminate guess-work in the design process and show the customer the materials we've chosen, how each garment has been designed, and where we're producing them so we only make what we need and virtually eliminate overproduction.”

As designers large and small adopt the brand-consumer collaborative relationship, the fashion world has the potential to slowly re-shape its practices in an effort to win the hearts of increasingly conscious consumers.

Image courtesy of Carte Blanche

A groundbreaking initiative launched in Panama highlights the role agroforestry can play in promoting sustainable socioeconomic growth, combating climate change and enhancing the value of ecosystems.

Establishing a precedent-setting alliance, ANCON (Panama's Association for the Conservation of Nature), the Panama Association for Reforestation (ANARAP), and the Panama Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Agriculture (CCIAP) on June 17 announced a sweeping project that envisions forestation or reforestation of 1 million hectares (2.47 million acres) of land.

Dubbed the "Alliance for 1 Million," the 20-year forestation project has three main goals: strengthen sustainable development of Panama's forestry sector; help realize the goals elaborated in Panama's National Forestry Plan; and help Panama meets its pledge to reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions by capturing as much as 7 million metric tons of CO2 per year.

The 'Alliance for 1 Million'

The "Alliance for 1 Million” forestation plan was designed by Rita Spadafora, who was recently named ANCON's executive director, ANARAP Director Robert Kroesen and CCIAP President José Luis Ford.

As the parties explain in a news release, the intention is to realize the sustainable development potential of Panama's forestry sector, help meet its commitment to reduce emissions, and gain the support necessary to protect the nation's extensive forest areas and rich biodiversity.

Implementing the plan will promote commercial reforestation projects, ecosystems restoration, development of agroforestry livelihoods and sustainable management of natural forests -- a core element in the rural economy, Alliance partners highlight.

Panama has been losing forest at rate exceeding 20,000 hectares (49,400 acres) per year. Associated degradation of land and water resources is estimated to extend across a 2 million hectare (4.94 million acre) area. Panama has carried out reforestation efforts, but those have barely managed to forest just over 75,000 hectares (185,250 acres), only 14 percent of what has been destroyed.

Reforestation, dignified jobs and employment

The Alliance expects that with complementary measures in place, the initiative would not only result in reforestation of 1 million hectares over a 20-year period, but also produce benefits that include the creation of dignified jobs, increased exports and increased tax revenues.

In addition, the alliance partners estimate that achieving the plan's goals would capture 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year; generate clean, renewable energy; reduce deforestation; and attract as much as $1 billion of investment to Panama's forestry sector in the first five years.

A public-private partnership for forest conservation and sustainable development

The “Alliance for 1 Million” plan's authors note that implementing the plan will require the participation and support of the new Panamanian government, NGOs, investors and civil society. Realizing the Alliance's goals, they elaborate, requires strengthening the institutional framework for promoting sustainable development of Panama's forestry sector.

That includes adoption of a new forestry law, defining forest land management best practices, promotion of a National Forestry Development Plan, and assuring the security of new investments in the forestry sector.

As Ms. Spadafora pointed out, the “Alliance for 1 Million” partnership is “the first step to lobby for a new forestry law that provides incentives for the conservation of natural forests and reforestation in Panama.”

Image credits: 1) Marcos Guerra, STRI; 2) Aide et al; Online August 3, 2012. Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010); 3) Panama Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) 

Iconic American motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson Motor Co. is launching its first electric motorcycle. Calling it Project LiveWire, the company gave the public the first glimpse of the motorcycle at an invitation-only event on Monday in New York, the Associated Press reports. Select customers will then be able to ride the motorcycle and provide feedback. The bike is not yet for sale.

Harley-Davidson will kick off a 2014 U.S. tour of the bike with a trip down Route 66, visiting more than 30 dealerships along the way through the end of the year. Next year, the Project LiveWire Experience will continue in the U.S. and will be expanded into Canada and Europe.

People who don’t ride can take part in a simulated riding experience through a website created for the tour, projectlivewire.com. Feedback from riders along the tour will influence plans for longer term retail availability.

The company is low on details about the motorcycle but describes the bike as “tire shredding.”  It will have a different sound. "The sound is a distinct part of the thrill," said Mark-Hans Richer, senior vice president and chief marketing officer for Harley-Davidson. "Think fighter jet on an aircraft carrier. Project LiveWire's unique sound was designed to differentiate it from internal combustion and other electric motorcycles on the market."

Harley-Davidson is getting the word out about the bike and tour through social media, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and a Youtube video. The video about the bike reminds people about the company’s past while pointing to its future. As Matt Levatich, president and chief operating officer for Harley-Davidson, said: “Harley-Davidson has reinvented itself many times in our history, with customers leading us every step of the way. Project LiveWire is another exciting, customer-led moment in our history."

There is one problem with electric motorcycles, and that is the lack of charging stations: “Electric motorcycles, for now, are practically limited by battery capacity to commutes and afternoon rides, rather than open-road touring, although range continues to improve with each passing year,” Consumer Reports points out.

Image credit: PR Newswire