Search

Over 50% of global online consumers across 60 countries say they are willing to pay more for products and services provided by companies that are committed to positive social and environmental impact, according to a new study by Nielsen.

The propensity to buy socially responsible brands is strongest in Asia-Pacific (64%), Latin America (63%) and Middle East/Africa (63%). The numbers for North America and Europe are 42% and 40%, respectively.

“Consumers around the world are saying loud and clear that a brand’s social purpose is among the factors that influence purchase decisions,” said Amy Fenton, global leader of public development and sustainability, Nielsen. “This behaviour is on the rise and it provides opportunities for meaningful impact in our communities, in addition to helping to grow share for brands.”

The Nielsen Global Survey on Corporate Social Responsibility polled 30,000 consumers in 60 countries to understand: how passionate consumers are about sustainable practices when it comes to purchase considerations; which consumer segments are most supportive of ecological or other socially responsible efforts; and which social issues/causes are attracting the most concern.

For full details see the July issue of Ethical Performance
 

The gender imbalance throughout ICT and computing education must be rectified if the UK is to meet the growing demand for IT professionals, and secure the future growth of the sector, says a new report from BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT and e-skills UK.

The Women in IT Scorecard reveals that girls account for just 6.5% of those taking A level computing. However, they consistently out-perform boys in computing and ICT A levels.

The Scorecard examines participation rates and trends by gender from secondary education through into the IT workforce. It includes international comparisons by gender in IT occupations and the IT sector, as well as an evaluation across other STEM subjects.

Gillian Arnold, chair of BCSWomen said: “While there are some good indications in the findings that suggest there is progress is some areas (for example - an increase in the number of women working in IT part-time), it's still not enough. We need to work together, as individuals, educators and businesses to tackle the issue. We know girls and women are good at computing and we need to translate that ability into action, and inspire them to see IT as a career option that offers them great career opportunities.”

The report also investigates whether the low representation levels of females is a problem limited just to the IT workforce in the UK, or is an issue that needs to be addressed throughout STEM subjects and across the globe. The research shows that in a comparison with other European nations the level of female representation in IT positions within the UK is slightly below the norm, but also shows that the gender imbalance is a problem in all 15 of the EU nations.

Karen Price OBE, CEO of e-skills UK adds: “Women have a significant contribution to make to the IT sector and it is vital for the economy that we ensure they have the opportunity. Employers care deeply about the gender imbalance and are committed to taking action to improve it. This joint report provides the evidence we need to face the problem head-on, and to develop hard hitting and effective interventions to solve it.”

The full report can be downloaded here. 

 

Picture caption: © John Valenti | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

When we started this series on Sustainable Seafood, we couldn't have imagined that it would culminate with action taken at the highest level of U.S. government. Thanks for reading, Mr. President!

This morning, President Barack Obama announced an initiative to tackle seafood fraud and illegal fishing in the United States. His announcement coincides with the Global "Our Ocean" conference convened by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. In President Obama's announcement, he referenced the negative financial repercussions of overfishing as one of the key reasons for the initiative:

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing continues to undermine the economic and environmental sustainability of fisheries and fish stocks, both in the United States and around the world.  Global losses attributable to the black market from IUU fishing are estimated to be $10-23 billion annually, weakening profitability for legally caught seafood, fueling illegal trafficking operations, and undermining economic opportunity for legitimate fishermen in the United States and around the world.

As Beth Lowell of Oceana noted in an earlier post, between 20 percent and 32 percent of seafood imported into the U.S. comes from illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. "These pirate fishermen often use illegal gear, fish in prohibited areas or catch endangered and threatened species. Illegal fishing is a major threat to the worldwide fishing industry, undermining decades of conservation measures and provoking billions of dollars in economic losses." Oceana sites traceability -- that is, tracking seafood from catch to plate -- as one of the key solutions to the global problem.

President Obama's initiative starts with stronger guidelines and better enforcement of existing traceability standards: 

 It shall be the policy of the United States for all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud by strengthening coordination and implementation of relevant existing authorities and, where appropriate, by improving the transparency and traceability of the seafood supply chain.

Oceana hailed the announcement as a huge victory for ocean health. Said Lowell:

President Obama’s announcement is a historic step forward in the fight against seafood fraud and illegal fishing worldwide. This initiative is a practical solution to an ugly problem and will forever change the way we think about our seafood.

The U.S. has long been a leader in the fight against illegal trade and fraud. We applaud the Obama administration for taking the helm on this comprehensive approach to ensure that our seafood is safe, legally caught and honestly labeled.

The initiative also includes language directing existing agencies to support international nations in setting up similar initiatives. Finally, the order creates a task force, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, specifically charged with  combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and seafood fraud.

Secretary Kerry spoke in favor of the announcement in his conference remarks:

I’m very appreciative for the President’s announcement about the effort to deal with illegal fish that come to the marketplace. We can all do more, and if there’s no market, we have an ability to really be able to begin to diminish the impact of illegal and undocumented, unwarranted fishing, and we want to do that, needless to say.

Leonardo DiCaprio was also on hand to present at the conference and shared his support for the initiative. Said DiCaprio, "It’s fantastic to start off the day by hearing President Obama commit to expanding marine reserves in U.S. waters and taking serious steps to prevent illegally caught fish from entering the marketplace." He went on to describe the negative impacts of overfishing and pollution he's personally witnessed around the world.

Right now, fishermen are incentivized to commit fraud because they can earn good money on illegal catches without much risk of getting caught. Traceability removes those incentives, which will shift the market in favor of sustainably caught fish. Sustainable, market-based solutions are our bread and butter here at TriplePundit, and we are thrilled to see the U.S. executive branch take additional actions to protect our oceans and future fish stocks.

Image credit: State Department photo/ Public Domain

Because of the state of the fishing industry today, small fishermen find themselves squeezed between massive international fleets and heavily depleted stocks. In their fight for survival, many are finding themselves becoming both educators and advocates along the way. In grappling with these forces and trying to find a way to keep afloat, they may have just hit on a key principle that lies at the heart of the sustainability journey.

I spoke with two fishermen on the New England coast (on different days), who both wear multiple hats.

Chris Brown is both the owner of the Brown Family Seafood Co. in Rhode Island and also the president of the newly formed Seafood Harvesters of America (SHA), a group that, among other things, is focused on lobbying Capitol Hill, to ensure that the concerns of commercial fishermen are represented in the re-authorization of the Magnuson Stevenson Act (MSA).

Josh Wiersma is the Manager of Northeast Fisheries Groundfish Sectors XI and XII in New Hampshire. He is responsible for the implementation of the sector management system established in 2010. Josh is also the founder of New Hampshire Community Seafood, a community supported fishery (CSF).

Triple Pundit: Josh, can you give me some background on where the New England fisheries are today and how we got there?

Josh Wiersma: The Grand Banks were once so abundant with cod that they were key to the early development of our country, particularly in New England. By the 1960s, massive trawlers came in and depleted the stocks, much of which was shipped overseas. The government encouraged this trend because of the huge fortunes that were being made and the belief at that time that fish stocks were inexhaustible. By the 1970s, catches had plummeted, and the science began to catch up with reality. This led to the passage Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1976.

The original law gave the U.S. territorial control over its waters. It was amended with the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, and then, 10 years later the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. The amendments have attempted to reconcile the science with the economics.  The law established eight regional councils to manage the fisheries and a fish management plan for every fish that was deemed overfished. This established science-based catch limits that were enforced down to the level of individual boats. Scientific advisors would annually determine the acceptable biological catch (ABC).

3p: That seems like a good thing, was it?

JW: Well, the intentions were good, but the trip limits led to hugely wasteful regulatory discards because it was difficult to control how many fish a given haul would bring in.

3p: So if you caught too much, you had to throw the excess back, most of which was already dead. Is that what you mean by regulatory discards?

JW: Right. So that led to the implementation of the sector management system. Sector groups were developed, which were really harvest cooperatives, and the limits were then allocated by sector rather than by individual boats. My primary job as manager of the New Hampshire groundfish sectors, which includes 36 fishermen, is to oversee this. If you pool everyone’s quota together, we collectively have about half a million pounds of cod and a million pounds of Pollack we can legally catch. These rights can also be traded or sold between sectors. The price fluctuates and it reflects what is happening in the ecosystem. If the stock is becoming depleted, the “shadow value” is going to increase. So the system incentivizes sustainable fishing.

3p: Sounds like cap and trade.

JW:  Exactly. It is a cap and trade program for fish.

3p: So that must be an improvement.

JW: It is, at least in some ways. The problem is: It’s going to benefit those who are the biggest, the most efficient and the most mobile. They are going to be the ones who will obtain the most fishing rights. The small day boat fishermen are now at a disadvantage. Now the next amendment to MSA will attempt to address this question of fleet diversity to protect small boat fishing communities.

[Speaking of small boat fishing, this would be a good time to bring Chris into the conversation.]

3p: Chris, can you tell me how you’re approaching this in Rhode Island?

Chris Brown: We’re trying to create a stark contrast between American product that is harvested ethically, morally and legally and in conjunction with a conservation effort and that of imported fish. When you import a fish, you are also importing the ethics and practices that accompany that fish. Traceability is now available to the personal consumer.

3p: Can you walk me through how that works? Obviously the fish aren’t born with bar codes on their tails.

CB: We have a specific quota that we’re allowed for the year on certain species We’ll go out and catch those fish and land them, and weigh them at a federally permitted dealer. Then we load the data from the Federal Vessel Trip Report into the ThisFish website.

3p: I see. It shows the name of the fisherman who caught it, where it was caught, and perhaps most important, when. Very cool. Now you get a story along with your fish. So tell me how the game has changed for you. I see that you’ve developed new nets. Can you tell us a little about that?

CB: It used to be that we would try and catch everything at the same time, because economically, that can be more rewarding. Though it’s not as precise and quite often you have bycatch, so it’s not as efficient. Now the incentive is to try and catch things one at a time. So you have to be smarter.

The new nets we’ve developed take advantage of the behavior of particular fish. Some fish swim down when trying to escape, others tend to go up. Once you know that, you can design a net that appeals to the escape mechanism of the fish you don’t want to catch. So if you’re fishing for small mesh species like squid or whiting, you don’t want flounder mixed in with them. So you put an opening in the bottom, knowing that the flounder will swim down and escape through the opening, which reduces bycatch.

3p: Josh, can you talk about how the game has changed from your perspective?

JW: What we’ve chosen to do here in New Hampshire, to help keep our small fishing community vibrant, was to start a CSF. What this does for us is allow us to get the same price for various species whether it’s cod or traditionally lower value species like king whiting or cape shark. That’s important because if we have to compete with the big boats for the fishing rights to catch cod, we’d go out of business. But we can carve out a niche, and make a living fishing underutilized species as a fresh fish product that consumers can buy within 24 hours of offload. This model has not been around for a long time, so we’re trying to educate the public about our story. We have 15 fishermen serving our CSF and they comprise 'the rest of the fishermen in NH.'

3p: So, we’re looking at two different philosophies here. One is very targeted, market-driven, which involves going after the species that bring the highest price at auction. That favors the big operators with their big boats and huge nets. The other is more eco-system based in that it follows the contours of what is available. The CSF model supports that approach since the subscribers commit to buying whatever fish the boats bring in.

CB: Years ago we harvested that way. I referred to it as harvesting a swath of biomass. You cut a sample of the ocean and harvested it all. Then you would sell what fish you could for good fish, and the rest went to fish meal for fertilizer. We removed so many fish from the ocean using that approach, it was amazing how resilient the ocean was. We know now that biodiversity is the key to systemic productivity. When everything is in balance, the ocean can crank out some amazing numbers.

3p: So when we talk about overfishing, it’s really not just about the numbers it’s also about the way the balance has been disturbed by targeting specific species.

CB: That’s right, it disrupts the food web. Single species management is the road we have traveled for 30 years now as a nation. Fisheries science has only been around that long, and we’re still learning. Now we understand that you can’t just worry about one thing. It’s systemic productivity that you have to focus on.

3p: So which approach is more sustainable?

JW: The fish being sold at auction can be considered as sustainable as fish selling through the CSF under current definitions. That is because New England boats are all subject to a very strict set of rules that govern their fishing activity.  Because we now all fish under a hard catch limit set by the best available science, we are considered sustainable if we manage to stay under these catch limits. But, sustaining the ecosystem as a diverse complex of healthy stocks is another type of sustainability called "ecosystem based management." Our current definition of sustainability in fisheries science and management does not address ecosystem based management.  It focuses on single stocks at a time and doesn't consider the interactions between stocks; predator prey relationships; or the bio-economic effects of fishing behavior (e.g. changing gear to target more underutilized stocks).

3p: So a key difference between selling fish through the CSF versus selling it through the global auction, is that one will be priced based on its perceived desirability, while the other is priced based on its abundance. In other words, one is responding to a market signal while the other is based on an ecosystem signal. Can you give me an example of how this comes into play?

JW: Yes, dogfish (also known as cape shark) is a fish we don’t eat a lot of here, but it is a staple for fish and chips in England. Last summer the EU decided to ban all imports of shark, because of the high concentrations of PCBs -- even though the shark caught here, unlike those caught in Europe, meet the requirements. That completely shut off our market.

The problem with this is that our fishermen need to be able to catch and land cape shark in order to be able to fish for ground fish. Because if they don’t, since this fish is an apex predator ... it will eat all of the ground fish and destroy their nests. But no one wants to go out and fill their nets with thousands of pounds of dogfish and not be able to sell it at the end of the day. Now we are trying to develop a local market for these fish. These are really good fish, though they need to be caught and preserved correctly.

CB: I can see the industry becoming driven by the science, which will really be focused on managing the ecosystem. We’ll need to become far more flexible to take advantage of these sine waves of abundance, as they roll across the screen, fishing the tops off of them, trying to keep things in balance.

3p: So the game changes from one where we’re focusing exclusively on a market signal, regardless of what the ecosystem is saying, to incorporating that ecosystem signal, and perhaps being more responsive to that.

CB: The ocean will tell you what is available. You have to be flexible. You have to be adaptive. What do you want to do? Do you want to try to manage and make a living in the ocean that does not exist—the one that you’re dreaming about? Or do you want to work with the one that’s before you? I’m thinking that you might as well work with the ocean that’s in front of you. If we try to encourage a healthier balance of stocks, it can heal itself.

3p: That’s a great point to close on. It seems that your job (and my job) is to educate people so that they understand that we don’t get our food, or anything we use for that matter, from some make-believe world that exists on some analyst’s spreadsheet, but from a real world that is alive like we are. That is the real message of sustainability.

--

I think it’s a little bit like the difference between “True North” and magnetic North. We like to use “True North,” or geographic North on all our maps because it aligns so well with our theoretical constructs. But in reality, the magnetic pole running through the center of the Earth deviates from this by several degrees and like many other natural systems on our planet, it is constantly moving and always in flux. That is why a sailor strictly following geographic North will eventually become lost.

That might be a perfect analog for our situation today; having forsaken ecologic North for economic North, we too have become lost. We need to go back to using the actual planet as our True North if we hope to sustain ourselves for generations to come.

Image credit: Flickr/marada

Multinational food, drink and confectionery company Mars, Inc. recently announced the completion of one of the world's largest coral reef restoration projects off the southern coast of the island of Pulau Badi in southern Indonesia. Located just 20 kilometers (~12.5 miles) from a Mars cocoa processing factory on the neighboring Indonesian island of Sulawesi, Mars' project also includes the establishment of a new marine protected area and development of a local industry in which ornamental tropical fish are raised.

Part of the Coral Triangle, the tropical coral reefs and eastern Pacific Ocean waters surrounding Pulau Badi and Sulawesi are recognized worldwide as being home to the richest marine biodiversity on the planet. Unsustainable fishing practices, such as the use of dynamite and cyanide, have devastated large tracts of coral reef and associated fish populations -- robbing local residents and communities of food and nutrition, as well as livelihoods.

Spanning an area of 7,000 square meters (~75,347 square feet), the project entailed installation of over 3,000 “specially-constructed, innovative structures on which coral fragments grow to rehabilitate and re-establish native fish populations,” Mars Symbioscience elaborates in a press release. Realizing the multi-faceted project was a collaborative effort on the part of the island community, Mars Sustainable Solutions, itself a part of Mars Symbioscience, and employees participating in the Mars Ambassador Program.

Restoring coral reefs and local livelihoods

Fish and fishing have long been mainstays of life on Indonesia's islands, providing essential food, nutrition and livelihoods. Destructive fishing practices, such as fish bombing with dynamite and cyanide fishing, decimated Pulau Badi's coral reef and associated fish populations and led to erosion of the island itself.

Mars' Pulau Badi project rebuilds and revives what had long been the ecological foundation of islanders' lives and livelihoods. In addition to the installation of underwater structures for the rehabilitation of the coral reef, Mars Sustainable Solutions' staff and participants in the Mars Ambassador Program worked hand-in-hand with islanders and the local community to replace destructive fishing practices with sustainable ones and develop alternative business models. These include seahorse farming for the global aquarium trade and abalone farming for local consumption.

Combining coral reef restoration, marine conservation and sustainable development, the project's completion “will help meet the long-term security needs of the people of Pulau Badi and provide income opportunities, allowing them to catch fish for lucrative local and international markets,” Mars highlights.

Commenting on the project, Dr. Susan Williams, professor at the University of California, Davis and its Bodega Marine Laboratory, said: "I have watched this Mars project over the years and am not aware of anything of this scale.

"The beauty is that the technology is more easily transferable than other reef projects I've seen. The corals expand very quickly, possibly because the technology is based on a simple structure that does not shade the corals very much or impede water flow around them, enabling them to thrive.

"Rebuilding the coral reef ecosystem is needed by the local people, but also offers promise to improve the ecological and economic sustainability for the future of the region."

Added Muhammad Natsir Sulaiman, head of the Pangkep Fish and Marine Affairs Department:

"This work has literally brought back life to the island community and the Badi people, which can serve as a role model for other islands. It is critical to keep the all-important coral reef sustainable and the fish that inhabit it, for food and the livelihoods of our people.

"We thank the Mars team who has been an invaluable partner to the people of Sulawesi and we will work hard to ensure the future of the reef not only survives but flourishes."

Check out the Mars Symbioscience website for more on the company's efforts to promote and foster ecological sustainability and sustainable local livelihoods, as well as 3p's coverage of Mars' investment in a utility-scale Mesquite Creek wind farm in Texas.

Image credits: 1) & 3) Mars; 2) The Coral Triangle Atlas

Last year was a “bumper” year for corn production in the U.S., as American farms harvested nearly 14 billion bushels, enough to fill a freight train longer than the Earth's circumference. However, “climate change, unsustainable water use, and inefficient and damaging fertilizer practices” pose a real and present threat to the long-term productivity of U.S. corn production -- threats that ripple through U.S. corn's extensive and vital supply chain, according to a new report from Ceres.

Nearly doubling in size over the past 20 years to yield $67 billion a year in revenue, corn is America's biggest and most important crop. Nearly one-third of U.S. farmland -- an area equivalent to two Floridas – is being used to grow corn. This is far more than the second and third largest U.S. crops, wheat and soy. In addition, U.S. farmers grow, harvest and export more corn than their counterparts anywhere in the world. That's the good news.

Last year's record corn harvest -- and the corn industry's growth over the past two decades -- masks serious, and growing, threats from climate change, inefficient water use and over-reliance on fertilizers, Ceres report authors highlight in Water & Climate Risks Facing U.S. Corn Production.

Impacts across corn's trillion-dollar value chain

The impacts and risks posed by corn as it's produced today in the U.S. are felt well beyond the crop's extensive, trillion-dollar supply chain. According to Ceres:

“In 2013, the top 45 companies in the corn value chain earned $1.7 trillion in revenue, which is more than the annual GDP of Australia.”

Overall, researchers found that 16 separate sectors – from fast food companies to fertilizer manufacturers to grocery retailers – depend on U.S. corn as a key ingredient for their products, or as a market for their inputs and services.

The environmental damage and threats resulting from corn production extend from U.S. waterways to the Gulf of Mexico, where fertilizer runoff has created one of the world's largest marine “dead zones.” Corn production as practiced today also poses threats to soil fertility and volume, as well as a being a big contributor of the greenhouse gas emissions that are pushing climate past a critical tipping point.

Of corn, climate change, water and fertilizer use

For all the corn that's produced in the U.S., the vast bulk of it isn't consumed directly by humans. Just 10 percent of last year's corn harvest went to direct human consumption, Ceres notes in its report. Almost 75 percent wound up in animal feed or was used to produce ethanol to fuel vehicles.

As spelled out in the third, recently released U.S. National Climate Assessment, variability in weather across the U.S. is increasing, as is the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, which heightens the risks to agricultural production. Adding to this in 2014 is an anticipated El Nino event in the Pacific.

Evidence of what can be expected: The drought that hit the Midwest in 2012 drove the price of a bushel of corn up to a record-high $8. California, where farms produce most of America's fruits, nuts and vegetables, is in its third year of severe drought. As a result, prices of a wide variety of common grocery items are rising sharply.

Extreme weather events hit hard and fast, as do their effects. In that, they provide a shock and offer something of a wake-up call on climate change. Compounding these risks are the inter-related issues of inefficient water use and over-reliance on fertilizers.

Corn, irrigation, aquifers and runoff

Growing water demand for irrigation and “unchecked” groundwater withdrawals for corn production are a double whammy that's increasing the pressure on already stressed water sources, “in particular, the High Plains aquifer that spans eight Great Plains states and California's over-extended Central Valley aquifer,” Ceres highlights in the report's executive summary.

Another longstanding and growing threat results from farmers' over-reliance on fertilizers to boost crop yields. Most of those chemical fertilizers wind up traveling into and through waterways, which has lead to the creation of the Gulf of Mexico “dead zone.”

Ceres found that 87 percent of irrigated corn production takes place in water-stressed regions. As the report authors point out, “[C]orn growers in the Mississippi River Basin lost nearly half a billion dollars-worth of fertilizer in 2013 due to agricultural run-off into the Gulf of Mexico's 'dead zone.'”

Among Ceres' researchers other key findings:

• Over half of the country’s irrigated corn production, worth nearly $9 billion annually, depends on groundwater from the over-exploited High Plains aquifer, which extends from South Dakota to Texas;


• 87 percent of irrigated corn is grown in regions with high or extremely high water stress, meaning there is limited additional water available for expansion of crop irrigation. Many of these same regions can also expect worsening water shortages due to climate change. Corn-growing areas in Nebraska, Kansas, California, Colorado and Texas are the most vulnerable;


• $2.5 billion of corn grain is grown in 20 counties over portions of the High Plains aquifer where groundwater levels are rapidly declining. Five counties in particular have over $150 million each in annual corn grain production at risk from groundwater depletion: Yuma County in Colorado, and York, Hamilton, Adams and Filmore counties in Nebraska;


• 36 ethanol refineries are located in and source corn irrigated with water from the High Plains aquifer. Of these, 12 refineries, with an ethanol production capacity worth nearly $1.7 billion a year, are in areas where aquifer water levels are dropping.


• Inefficient fertilizer use in 2013 cost growers $420 million from run-off into the Mississippi River, and eventually the Gulf of Mexico. (Nitrate pollution due to fertilizer use by agriculture also costs water utilities $1.7 billion a year according to the USDA.)


• 60 corn ethanol refineries with $8.8 billion in annual production capacity are sourcing corn from watersheds with high local nitrogen pollution from agriculture.

Commenting on the research results, report author and Ceres Water Program director Brooke Barton, said:

“Escalating corn production for our food, livestock and energy industries has put the corn sector on an unsustainable path, especially in regard to water quality and water use impacts and the growing ripples from climate change.  Corn buyers have an important role in recognizing this challenge and it’s encouraging that some are already trying to influence agricultural practices. Still, much more action is needed.”

Added Bridget Scanlon, a groundwater specialist who leads the University of Texas's Sustainable Water Resources Program, “No doubt, groundwater resources are being strained by corn production, especially in Kansas and my home state Texas, which face extraordinary groundwater depletion challenges.

“The U.S. corn sector needs to greatly reduce its dependence on the High Plains aquifer. Failing to do so will have long-term negative consequences, including reduced agricultural productivity and less water for other uses.”

Corn buyers advocating for sustainability

Advocating for the development of sustainable business solutions for more than 25 years, Ceres represents a broad-based coalition of institutional investors, businesses and public interest groups. Leading an effort to enhance the sustainability and resilience of U.S. corn production is one aspect of “Valuing Every Drop,” a broader effort to enhance water conservation, sustainability and shared, responsible use, as well as Ceres' climate change and other issues-driven sustainability work.

According to Ceres:

“[A] growing number of food and retail companies that rely on corn are developing supply chain initiatives to encourage more resilient and sustainable agricultural production in the sector, which has nearly doubled in size in the past two decades.”

In support of these corporate sustainability efforts, Ceres' report authors offer the following recommendations regarding their corn purchases and relationship with producers and distributors:

• Setting a corporate policy with time-bound goals for sourcing agricultural ingredients (including corn) that are grown more sustainably;


• Integrating requirements for more sustainable agricultural production into supplier codes and procurement contracts;


• Supporting corn growers to adjust farming practices by providing direct agronomic assistance, performance guarantees and credit, as well as financial support to local and regional organizations that assist farmers;


• Supporting federal and state government policies that address climate change and encourage risk-reducing, environmentally beneficial farming practices and water stewardship.

As GNP Co. Sustainability Manager Paul Helgeson explained: "A critical factor for improving the environmental performance of production agriculture is to get the individuals managing the land, the farmers themselves, to see that environmental stewardship enhances profitability and is crucial to the long term viability of modern agriculture."

*Images credit: 1) Grant Wood, "American Gothic," via Wikipedia. All others: Ceres

Clothing retailer American Eagle Outfitters is expanding its partnership with I:Collect (I:CO), a closed loop textile recycling company. AE added a clothing and shoes recycling program in all of its 823 stores in the U.S. and Canada, beginning June 14.

The program allows customers to drop off unwanted clothes, shoes and textiles from any brand into boxes marked I:CO at any North America store. The customers will then be rewarded with a text code for $5 off a pair of AE jeans to be used in the store that day. The proceeds from the program will be donated to the Student Conservation Association. The expanded program builds on a pilot program with I:CO in AE’s corporate offices, in six stores and in San Francisco, and it is I:CO’s largest North American partnership.

I:CO works with more than 60 partner brands to collect and sort donated clothes, shoes and textiles in over 50 countries. Other brand partners include H&M, Levi Strauss & Co., Footlocker, Puma and Forever21. I:CO’s  goal is to integrate 100 percent of the textiles and shoes collected into a recycling process by 2020. To date, 30 percent of the collected items are recycled in a closed loop system.

Reaching that goal will help reduce water use and carbon dioxide emissions: Producing just one T-shirt uses 10,000 to 30,000 liters of water and generates 3.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions. With a recycling process in place, only 5 to 10 percent of water and carbon are used or produced.

Some end uses of collected materials include using textiles for insulation materials or as cushioning and filling material for stuffed toys, insoles or bags. Old shoes are turned into floorings, keyrings, protective packaging, pellets or hard casing.

“We are committed to helping protect the environment through sustainability programs at American Eagle Outfitters and believe that launching the recycling program with I:CO will be a great way to make a big impact in protecting our planet,” said Helga Ying, vice president of External Engagement and Social Responsibility at AE. “With the help of our customers, we can prevent clothing and shoes from being simply tossed away so they can be reused or reverted to basic materials for manufacturing, producing far less waste.”

The expanded I:CO program builds on AE’s recycling efforts. The company has recycling programs in place at its corporate offices and distribution centers in the U.S. and Canada. In distribution centers, a wide variety of items are recycled, including cardboard, batteries, aluminum cans, toners, paper, plastic bales and shrink wrap.

In 2010 alone, its Pennsylvania and Canada facilities recycled 183,951 tons of paper and 6,021 tons of cardboard bale. That same year, AE donated 33,000 pairs of ripped jeans to Habitat for Humanity to be recycled into housing insulation and 138,000 pieces of broken jewelry to Materials for the Arts, which provides free materials to charitable and educational organizations for use in arts programs. The company also holds yearly two-week event every August called "Clean and Green" to encourage employees to get rid of confidential corporate documents in an environmentally-friendly way.

Image credit: Mike Mozart

By Evrim Oralkan

Capitalism as we know it is over. Enter Ben & Jerry’s, Starbucks, Whole Foods Market, Panera Bread, TOMS Shoes, and other companies that have soared in the wake of Great Recession cynicism with a heavy focus on “conscious capitalism.”

Charitable giving and a corporate focus on sustainability are not only becoming profitable; they’re becoming necessary for survival. In 2013, 97 percent of companies surveyed reported allocating specific budgets for corporate citizenship, compared to 81 percent in 2010.

This supports a growing trend toward socially conscious consumption. Consumers prefer to buy from businesses they perceive as “doing good.” In fact, 50 percent of global consumers said they’d be willing to pay more for goods and services from socially responsible companies.

The best thing about donating, though, is that it has two-way benefits. When J.C. Penney and the World Wildlife Fund worked together to produce a line of T-shirts bearing the WWF logo, the charity received the proceeds from more than 1 million shirts and expanded its audience. J.C. Penney got to associate its brand with an organization doing meaningful work.

But business leaders should think beyond revenue when they consider charitable giving. Knowing their hard work is making the planet a better place can amplify employees’ motivation.

How to Get Your Team Behind Charitable Giving

However nice a corporate social responsibility initiative might sound on paper, you may find that your employees are reluctant to embrace charitable giving. They might worry company profits will be taken from other valuable areas — such as employee salaries and bonuses — or they may disagree about the best cause to support.

With these concerns in mind, you need to think carefully about how you introduce the idea to your team. Here are five proven tips to help you rally your troops behind charitable giving:

• Research suitable charities beforehand. You should have a few causes and institutions in mind before you bring the idea to your team so your employees know you’ve thought this through. Do your homework on a site such as Charity Navigator to make sure the organizations you have in mind are responsibly managed.


• Be transparent. Thoughtfully explaining why you want to try something new will always work better than announcing a sudden change without an explanation. If employees understand your motivations, they’ll be more likely to get excited about it themselves and support you.


• Brainstorm together. Hold a brainstorming session with the whole team to get everyone involved in the process of choosing a charity. Ask for employee suggestions, create a list of causes that align with your organization’s goals, and vote to determine the group’s favorites.


• Choose young causes. Getting behind an organization that’s in its infancy might help the team feel more connected to the cause. With smaller institutions, it’s easier to see how you’re making a difference because they’re often closer to the ground, helping those in need or responding to disasters.


• Give rewards. Consider rewarding your employees when they volunteer for the cause your company supports. A free T-shirt, an afternoon off, or a fun team event will boost morale and create some positive associations with charitable giving. Of course, if a charity event is on a Saturday or Sunday, make employee participation completely voluntary.

Our team learned these lessons when we decided to start donating a portion of our proceeds to a good cause. Through collective brainstorming, we determined that we wanted to have a direct impact on making Miami a better place to live. We also found that it was important to our team to help those in need and create opportunities for everyone in the community.

Because of these insights, we decided to focus on local causes. We chose Lotus House Shelter, which provides support and shelter for women, youth, and children experiencing homelessness, and Locust Projects, which helps promote the arts and assist artists in Miami.

By working as a team and focusing on how we could make a real difference in our corner of the world, we made a giving decision we could all get excited about and became a kinder, more motivated business. By following these tips, you can make giving back an integral part of your organization, which will make your company more appealing to your customers and give your team fresh motivation to succeed.

Image credit: Flickr/zenlight

Evrim Oralkan is the founder and CEO of Travertine Mart, a boutique online flooring company specializing in premium-grade travertine pavers, tiles, and pool coping. Until Travertine Mart’s founding in 2007, travertine could only be found in brick-and-mortar shops. Travertine Mart has provided a cost-effective solution that brings high-quality travertine straight to your door. Travertine Mart was named to the Inc. 5000 list in 2012 and 2013 and was a nominee for the 2013 Edison Award.

Released in July 2012 by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), the Higg Index is a sustainability measurement tool that allows apparel companies to measure the impacts of their products across the value chain.

Late last year, the SAC – a trade organization comprised of brands, retailers and manufacturers – announced an updated version of the index reflecting 18 months of development effort. In this interview, Nick Aster talks to Timberland's Margaret Morey-Reuner about sustainability at Timberland and how the Higg Index is coming into use.

Image credit: Flickr/george079

New research shows that no progress is being made on tackling race inequality in management. The organisation behind the report, Business in the Community’s race equality campaign Race for Opportunity, is calling for a government review to racial barriers in the workplace and for ‘and race’ to be added to the UK Corporate Governance Code to ensure ethnic minorities progress into management positions at the same pace as the general working population.

‘Race at the Top’ finds that only one in 16 top management positions and one in 13 management positions are held by BAME (Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic) people, despite the fact that one in 10 people in employment are BAME.

Sandra Kerr OBE, Race for Opportunity Director, Business in the Community, commented: “By 2051, one in five people in the UK will be from an ethnic minority background, representing a scale of consumer spending and political voting power that business and government alike cannot afford to ignore. The gap must not be allowed to widen further, but without action, little will change.”

“I am calling on government for a ‘Lord Davies’ review to amplify understanding around the barriers BAME employees face in reaching management positions, and for two simple words – “and race” – to be added to the UK Corporate Governance Code. We urgently need these to happen if we are to ensure that we don’t pass the point of no return.”

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of management positions held by BAME people are clustered in just three sectors: banking & finance; distribution, hotels & restaurants; and public administration, education & health.  The majority of management positions within the energy & water, construction, legal, media and political sectors continue to be held by white people – mirroring the state of play in 2007.  

 

 For the full story see the July issue of Ethical Performance

Picture credit: © Goldenkb | Dreamstime.com