Search

By Leah B. Thibault

One of the (multiple) challenges that deters investment in rural low-income communities is the availability of a skilled and ready workforce.  Whether it’s retrofitting an out-of-date paper mill with state of the art equipment, building a clean-tech manufacturing plant from scratch or constructing a new branded hotel, the investment calculus includes the workforce readiness of the local community where the employees will be sourced.

As we work to bring opportunity to the nation’s most economically distressed census tracks, CEI Capital Management LLC is building workforce readiness into many of the investments we make through the Federal New Markets Tax Credit program. Created by Congress, the New Markets program is designed to incentivize investment in places that desperately need sustainable jobs -- and to serve as a seed for success that will ripple through the community and spur even more employment. In aggregate, we have created set-asides of close to $1 million for educational and worker training programs associated with these investments.  We are seeing positive results that support our triple-bottom-line mission.

One example is our New Markets work in Concord, New Hampshire. As part of the financing package to build a new Marriott Hotel, we established a powerful workforce development partnership. It may surprise some to learn that there is a significant refugee population in the Granite State. Since 2008, nearly 3,000 refugees have resettled there -- the majority of whom are Bhutanese, including many that spent close to 20 years in refugee camps in Nepal. While these new residents lack certain skills, they have a strong desire to work.

Managed by Lutheran Social Services of New England, paid for with a portion of the hotel’s New Markets funding, and with willing cooperation with the local developer and the broader business community, the effort has conducted 10 vocational training programs for refugees and immigrants since 2010.

While the first sessions focused on the training workers for hospitality jobs, Lutheran Social Services has since built on that framework, rippling beyond the hospitality industry. They’ve secured other funding and have engaged other local businesses. The training has expanded to include health and child care industries. They report that nearly 80 percent of the 94 healthcare and hospitality program graduates have found work; and 90 percent of the refugees who participated in the childcare training pilot program have registered with the state as Childcare Providers.  These figure are vast improvements over earlier data that indicated a 15 percent hiring rate for this population.

More recently, the revitalization of St. Croix Tissue, Inc., a new tissue mill in the rural Canadian border town of Baileyville, Maine, is linking workforce training with New Markets Tax Credit investments. The mill’s owners are expanding their existing pulp operations with the installation of new, high-tech machinery that will not only preserve some 300 existing jobs at the adjacent, century-old Woodland Pulp mill, but will also add up to 80 new positions at the St. Croix Tissue facility.  For the machinery investment to succeed, many of these employees will participate in the WorkReady Maine program, a collaboration of multiple public and private entities.

The WorkReady Maine program will provide training support to a minimum of 300 individuals preparing for employment in Washington County, including the estimated 60 to 80 new workers at Woodland Pulp and St. Croix Tissue. Washington County is ranked as the most economically distressed county in Maine. Current employees at St. Croix drive as much as two hours one way to hold these jobs.   Those not hired with the new program at the St. Croix facility will be linked with a Maine Department of Labor Career Center for job search and job placement assistance -- increasing not only the likelihood of success for St. Croix’s workers, but also improving opportunities for many of the area’s low-income residents.

Meanwhile, at Greenfield Solar, a solar farm in rural Western Massachusetts, the New Markets Tax Credit program offered another path to workforce development in an industry not known for being a large job creator.  Located on a capped landfill in the community of Greenfield, Massachusetts, this 2-megawatt facility is the first solar project built under the Massachusetts Green Communities Act, which aims to increase renewable energy use in Massachusetts to at least 25 percent of all energy used by 2030. As part of the funding package, the project sponsors agreed to provide $100,000 to a local community college to fund a renewable energy training program, with the potential for further funding should the sale price of state Solar Renewable Energy Credits rise.

More community development investments can assure their sustainability by baking-in training and workforce readiness into the investment. It’s the “people” part of the triple bottom line that can apply to any industry.

Leah B. Thibault is Director of Operations for CEI Capital Management.

Cooperation between businesses, water companies and the government will be key to managing scarce water resources and securing future supplies, according to a new report from the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) launched today (3 June 2014) at the Royal Society in London.

Sink or Swim, from the Cambridge-hosted Natural Capital Leaders Platform, is the result of a collaboration between nine companies across six sectors that examined new strategies to manage this economically strategic resource, which underpins many business activities.

Peter Simpson, chief executive of Anglian Water, said: “Ensuring that water is carefully stewarded and available in sufficient quantity and quality is a vital component of business success. Water scarcity can damage productivity, disrupt supply chains, put water users in competition with each other, and ultimately harm corporate trust and reputation. These risks impact sectors in many different ways, but collaboration and innovation are absolutely key to achieving resilience and to protecting the economy.”

The report presents four new financial models, each of which offers an innovative approach to achieving multi-sector water investments. The models were developed by examining the value of water to different sectors and scrutinising various income and finance streams.

The models present a broad spectrum of options for cross-sector collaboration and finance, ranging from more conventional water-company-led approaches to pure private sector initiatives. They challenge the current single sector approach and encourage joint investment by a variety of stakeholders, including water companies, retailers and farmers.

The Collaboratory’s aim is to enhance stakeholders’ resilience to water shortages, including by securing the long-term supply of produce from farmers to retailers, and offering water companies the opportunity to expand their business beyond the regulated public water supply.

Chris Brown, sustainable business director at Asda, said: “Inconsistent or unreliable supply of produce – caused by water scarcity or flooding - has a direct impact on supply chains. Retailers cannot act alone to manage necessary water supplies: a collaborative approach is needed, which is why we are pleased to be part of this initiative.”

 

Picture credit: © Ryan Pike | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

After a recent visit to Bell Aquaculture's farm and facilities in Redkey, Indiana, we've explored the company's vertically integrated model--which includes an organic fertilizer made from processing plant offcuts and an onsite fish feed mill. But the company's core product is, of course, fish.

Bell started by farming yellow perch, a local favorite for Friday fish fries, taking note of the significant drop in yellow perch population in the Great Lakes region due to overfishing and environmental stress. In the late 1960s, regional fishermen commercially harvested about 38 million pounds of yellow perch from the Great Lakes, compared to about 11 million pounds today, Bell Aquaculture CEO Norman McCowan told us. Most of this total is harvested from Lake Erie, which spans more than 4,000 square miles.

"If you choose to grow ... the yellow perch, indoors you can [grow 11 million pounds] in about 7 acres in a controlled environment," McCowan said. When you think about feeding a growing population in a resource constrained world, that's pretty tough to beat.

Rather than pumping fish full of antibiotics, Bell uses mostly sodium chloride (or salt, for us non-scientific types), as well as hydrogen peroxide for injured fish. Bell also keeps its fish healthy through the use of a closed system called a Recirculating Aquatic System (RAS), which consists of segregated tanks that filter and recirculate water. The company is able to recycle more than 99 percent of the 300,000 gallons of water it uses for its tanks. All that remains is pumped into a fully-functioning wetlands out back, where it settles through the aquifer and then back into the system.

Another perk of Bell's highly controlled system is that it allows for 100 percent transparency. To take things a step further, Bell actually set up a Web portal where buyers and other stakeholders can sign in and 'peer inside' fish tanks and examine the health of the fish, its growing condition and when it will be ready for harvest, McCowan said.

You can find Bell's fish at restaurants in Indianapolis and Chicago. It is also distributed by Fortune Fish in Chicago and Samuels & Sons in New York City and the East Coast. The company plans to phase out yellow perch this year and begin farming rainbow trout and coho salmon. Regardless of the type of fish, it's tough to ignore the passion Bell's employees have for the business and its role in developing a more sustainable food system.

"The future of fish is farming it," said Greg Scotnicki, Bell's sales director, "and it's no secret when you talk to people in the industry that the only way we're going to be able to keep up with the population and supply them with a good protein source is going to be with fish. So, it was kind of a no brainer to come to work for Bell and help put the whole story together."

Stay tuned for more coverage from our trip–including an inside look at Bell’s closed loop water recycling system–coming soon on TriplePundit.

Much in the way of human brain power, as well as time, money and computing resources, is being dedicated to analyzing the costs and benefits of alternative, less socially and environmentally damaging clean energy development pathways. Taking an alternative approach to the issue in a recently released research paper, the Brookings Institution's Charles R. Frank, Jr. evaluates five low and no-carbon electricity technologies and presents their net benefits across a range of energy and climate policy and market price assumptions.

Rather than assessing the net benefits of wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear and combined-cycle natural gas power plants from the more commonly used perspective of levelized energy costs, which can be misleading, in “The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies,” Frank, an economist and former director of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), bases his analysis on avoided emissions and avoided costs. He concludes that absent a high-enough price on carbon, a carbon tax or direct levies on fossil fuel suppliers, “nuclear, hydro and natural gas combined cycle have far more net benefits than either wind or solar.”

While providing valuable economic insights for power industry investors, operators, and energy and climate policymakers, Frank's study also highlights the shortcomings of research economists' models and thinking when it comes to guiding decision-making on energy and climate, and the dangers of relying on them as “go-to” guides for determining energy, climate and economic policy.

Low and no-cost electricity technologies: Avoided emissions, costs and net benefits

Frank lays out his three main conclusion in the introduction to “The Net Benefits of Low and No-Cost Electricity Technologies”:

1. First—assuming reductions in carbon emissions are valued at $50 per metric ton and the price of natural gas is $16 per million Btu or less—nuclear, hydro and natural gas combined cycle have far more net benefits than either wind or solar. This is the case because solar and wind facilities suffer from a very high capacity cost per megawatt, very low capacity factors and low reliability, which result in low avoided emissions and low avoided energy cost per dollar invested.


2. Second, low and no-carbon energy projects are most effective in avoiding emissions if a price for carbon is levied on fossil fuel energy suppliers. In the absence of an appropriate price for carbon, new no-carbon plants will tend to displace low-carbon gas combined cycle plants rather than high-carbon coal plants and achieve only a fraction of the potential reduction in carbon emissions. The price of carbon should be high enough to make production from gas-fired plants preferable to production from coal-fired plants, both in the short term, based on relative short-term energy costs, and the longer term, based on relative energy and capacity costs combined.


3. Third, direct regulation of carbon dioxide emissions of new and existing coal-fired plants, as proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, can have some of the same effects as a carbon price in reducing coal plant emissions both in the short term and in the longer term as old, inefficient coal plants are retired. However, a price levied on carbon dioxide emissions is likely to be a less costly way to achieve a reduction in emissions.

Economics as the “go-to” guide for energy and climate policy making

Fully and genuinely understanding any research requires a rigorous, thorough examination and appreciation of the assumptions upon which it is based. Evaluating the avoided emissions, avoided costs and thereby net benefits of alternative clean energy technologies--based on forecasts of carbon and energy market prices or imagined carbon tax--distorts and misrepresents a reality that is far more complex. That can have grave implications for this and future generations.

Rather than acknowledging or searching for an alternative means of compensating for the inability of conventional economics to fully “capture” and comprehend all the ecological and sociological or, for that matter, economic, effects, impacts and risks of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, Frank defaults to economic convention.

In his research paper, Frank turns to the economic maxim and fundamental neoclassical economics assumption that market prices, in this case for carbon and energy, incorporate and price in all the knowledge available on the subject at hand, and that all that knowledge is available to everyone. That's clearly not the case even in the oldest, well-established markets, much less the nascent markets for carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.

While they are the best market mechanism for reducing emissions achievable politically to this point in time, calculating avoided costs and net benefits of clean energy technologies based on carbon market prices and assumptions about the path of future energy prices falls far short of what is needed to guide energy policy and decision-making worldwide.

Carbon market prices do not reflect the true social and environmental costs of rising greenhouse gas emissions, or the net benefits of emissions reductions. They are determined by the supply and demand of carbon offset credits, the quantities of which on offer at any time are determined according to the rules of nascent, compromised institutional frameworks for reducing carbon emissions.

Accounting for the overall costs  and net benefits of greenhouse gas emissions

To be fair, the wide-ranging impacts and costs of present-day or future climate change are not known by anyone to any high degree of certainty. What is abundantly clear is that those risks and threats can be as profound and devastating as any faced over the course of human history.

As stated more decisively than ever in the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, the world's leading climate scientists have concluded to a very high degree of certainty that our carbon and greenhouse gas emissions are driving global warming and climate change. Historic documentary and geological evidence clearly shows that climate change has been a driving force that has led to widespread conflict and the collapse of civilizations. A large and growing body of scientific research documents similar, troubling signs taking place today.

Incomplete and potentially misleading as it is when considered at face value, Frank's analysis is certainly valuable and useful to those making decisions about electricity production wihtin the narrow context of conventional economic thinking. Furthermore, Frank does the public a service by evaluating the net benefits of electricity production from combined cycle natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectric, wind and solar energy plants from an alternative perspective of avoided costs and avoided emissions.

Given the underlying assumptions, however, such research studies highlight the inadequacy of conventional economic models and thinking when it comes to energy, climate and the environment, and the dangers of an over-reliance on them to guide energy, climate and economic policy.

At bottom, emissions-free electricity generation technology and systems that have much less in the way of negative impacts on our planet's atmosphere, land, waters and ecosystems are readily available, and at rapidly declining cost. The question is: How much are we willing to pay, or give up, for them?

Images credit: Brookings Institution, "The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies," Charles R. Frank, Jr.

In a historic vote on April 15, the European Parliament adopted the most significant corporate social responsibility measure, anywhere, to date.  Once passed at the European Council and country level, the directive will require certain large "public-interest" organizations operating in the EU to report on the environmental, social (including human rights) and governance (together, ESG) impacts of their work.  What exactly affected companies' non-financial reporting will look like in practice has yet to be determined, as the directive does not mandate the inclusion of specific language or information; however, the potential impact of the law is clear.

As The Chicago Tribune put it in its coverage of the EU law:  “Investors looking for companies with good environmental, social and governance track records will [now] find the job easier....”  In other words, capital is at stake and, among other things, non-financial reporting requirements will make it more difficult for investors to plead ignorance--and, therefore, avoid questions of potential divestment--when it comes to the social responsibility (or not) of the investments in their portfolios.  Divestment is a powerful tool, and large funds have made clear that they are increasingly willing to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to certain ESG issues.  For instance, in early May, in the face of mounting pressure from the student body, Stanford University’s Board of Trustees announced that it would divest from all holdings in the coal industry.  Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund is another well documented socially-responsible investor that, from time to time, will divest from holdings in particularly problematic industries, such as cluster munitions, nuclear arms and tobacco.  (The Business & Human Rights Resource Center has, unsurprisingly, put together a helpful compilation of other ESG-related divestments.)

Yet, the long road to the EU law resulted in a broad compromise and, as such, the directive has certain shortcomings.  For starters, the law utilizes the so-called “comply or explain” standard common to certain European compliance regimes, which holds that companies need not comply with the law’s requirements if they can sufficiently explain why they didn’t.  There is also no single standard against which behavior is measured (and no specific reference, for instance, to the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights).  Rather, companies may use international, European or national guidelines as they themselves deem appropriate.  Likewise, the law applies only to large “public-interest” entities with more than 500 employees, and will impact roughly 6,000 companies operating in the EU, as opposed to the 17,000 as initially proposed.  (According to the European Coalition for Corporate Justice, just one in seven large companies in the region will be required to report.)  Finally, as Caroline Rees of Shift points out:

[A]bsent clear and thoughtful supporting guidance, it is quite possible that the human rights reporting of many companies will continue to reflect what is easiest, rather than most meaningful, to report.... Each company could interpret the law in a manner that most closely fits its current practices, rather than adapting its practices to meet the underlying expectations of the legislation.

By far the most sweeping, the EU law is not the first non-financial reporting requirement on the books.  Denmark has an ESG reporting law, as does the U.K.  In the U.S. there are the Burma reporting requirements and the conflict mineral reporting requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (more commonly known as Dodd-Frank).  For their part, the Dodd-Frank conflict mineral rules, which require all SEC issuers to report on whether their products contain “conflict minerals” used to finance atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, have recently been scaled-back in the courts, prompting the SEC to issue a partial stay of the portion of the law requiring companies to certify their products as “conflict free” (or not).

The SEC left in place other reporting requirements (as did the D.C. Circuit in its April decision), but the first company reports have been strongly criticized for their weakness.  According to watchdog group Global Witness, most of the initial conflict mineral reports lack sufficient detail to ensure that adequate diligence has been performed on the companies’ supply chains.  In other words, the reports cannot be trusted.  This outcome has the potential to be more damaging than having no reporting requirements at all.  A report that erroneously certifies a company’s products as “conflict free” gives the company and potential investors ostensible cover, even if contradictory evidence is uncovered by watchdog groups.

So what are we to make of the EU’s non-financial reporting requirements?  Sure, they could be stronger, clearer and broader in scope, and if the Dodd-Frank requirements are any indication, there is always the chance that the rules will be walked-back over time.  However, it certainly appears that the broader trend is toward integrated reporting, as investors become savvier and companies -- like Ikea and Unilever, which came out in favor of the EU directive--more openly concerned with ESG issues.  Moreover, the business case for corporate social responsibility is widely accepted.  In a recent study by PwC, 74 percent of surveyed CEOs agree that “measuring and reporting non-financial impacts contributes to their business’ long-term success.”

In other words, the EU law is an important step forward.  Social change is incremental, and a sweeping law is more likely to suffer a premature death than a less ambitious compromise.  The European Parliament should therefore be applauded for its efforts and other countries ought to look to the EU as an example for the future.

Image credit: Flickr/itzafineday

Michael Kourabas is a lawyer and business development professional currently working for an international law firm in New York. His experience includes international human rights, CSR, and educational policy work in both the private and public sectors.

By Bob Perkowitz

According to a recent poll, 83 percent of Americans say the United States should try to address climate change even if it has economic costs. Yet Americans also continue to rank climate change far below other concerns, like health care and the economy. What’s going on? How can Americans recognize the need to address climate change, but not see it as a priority for the country?

This is the exact question that we pondered several years ago at ecoAmerica, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit focused on addressing climate and environmental issues through social science and marketing research and strategic partnerships.

To find the answer, we decided to invite the perspectives of leaders across the nation who approach climate change from a range of fields and sectors. In 2010, just after the defeat of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, we convened business, health care, faith, environmental and higher education leaders, as well as social scientists, funders and elected officials, at a national summit to discuss the steps we’d need to take in order to translate Americans’ recognition of climate change as a problem into a concerted effort toward solutions.

Two summits later, we arrived at a framework for a solution. What if we brought together some of the most respected voices from across sectors in the United States and helped them harness their collective influence to change the national conversation about climate change to focus less on gloom and doom, and more on solutions? Out of this framework emerged MomentUs, a new strategic organizing initiative designed to grow mainstream support for climate solutions in the United States.

This past week, we held another leadership summit organized expressly around MomentUs and the potential for national leaders to transform the the conversation on climate in America. More than 140 national leaders from across five key sectors--health, higher education, business, faith and local government--as well as climate funders, environmental leaders and leading social science researchers--joined us in Chicago for a day of strategic conversation about how they can individually and collectively leverage their unique influence to engage ordinary Americans.

Key leaders in attendance included Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, and Dr. Antonio Flores, president of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.

Perhaps the biggest point of convergence was the need for a new narrative on climate change. We need to clarify that climate change is not just an issue for environmentalists. Rather, it’s an issue that will affect--and in many cases already has--our health, our infrastructure, and our bottom lines. The leaders were clear, however, that this new narrative should not motivate with fear. Instead, we need to inspire hope by communicating a positive, concrete vision of a future that connects to deeply held American values like patriotism, freedom, and prosperity.

We also need the programs and infrastructure that will allow Americans to work towards solutions in their homes, businesses, congregations, neighborhoods, schools, and legislatures. We need to relate climate change to issues that people are already working on, from disaster preparedness to efforts to create healthier, happier communities. We need to fold solutions into the fabric of our communities, our economy, and our daily lives.

MomentUs will help fill these gaps and facilitate this transition toward a new narrative of climate change. It will continue to build relationships across sectors and provide leaders with the tools they need to reshape how Americans think, feel, and act on climate.

The Summit was just one step on a much longer path to accomplish these goals. Our work is far from over. But by starting with people, linking leaders, and empowering America’s leaders with what they need to effect change, we may be able to catalyze a new tide on climate change that will lift climate change to where it belongs--at the top of our nation’s list of priorities.

We're always looking for more leaders to contribute their talents and energies to this national effort. To learn more about MomentUs or to get involved, please visit momentus.org.

By Jonathon Porritt

At the heart of the notion of sustainable development lies the very big idea of justice between generations.

What makes economic development either sustainable or unsustainable is the degree to which it not only produces substantive economic benefits for people alive today (in terms of jobs, improved infrastructure, investment in skills, plus all sorts of indirect economic multipliers), but does so in a way that does not undermine the prospects of future generations to do the same for themselves in the future. As the eminent German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, once said:

“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about that since taking part in a fascinating event organised by the Business Families Institute in Singapore at the beginning of May. Its focus was on succession in family businesses between one generation and the next, and what the relevance of sustainability might be in terms of influencing that succession process.

At one rather obvious level, sustainability should come much more easily to family businesses than to those businesses, big or small, where there is no family involvement. Parents focus instinctively on what their legacy is going to be for their children (and for their children’s children), and have a deep emotional interest in ensuring that any business interest in that legacy should be as resilient and potentially long-lived as possible. This is not so much a question of intergenerational justice as intergenerational self-interest!

Nothing wrong with that. I was very struck by the number of comments at the event which celebrated the fact that family businesses are not as vulnerable to the kind of chronic short-termism that dominates both today’s corporate practice and the way capital markets operate. Maximizing short-term profit for face-less and often care-less investors may be the way mainstream capitalism operates today, but that makes little sense for a family business seeking to optimise economic wealth over generations.

This comes across loud and clear in the article that my colleague Anna Simpson wrote for our magazine, Green Futures, which highlights a number of specific examples of how sustainability is influencing that delicate process of ‘hand-over’ from one generation to the next.

A bit of history here. One of the most interesting projects that Forum for the Future did back in the 1990s was to work with a handful of large estate owners here in the U.K. to help them develop a new approach to ‘integrated asset management’–looking at all the sources of wealth available to them (natural, social, human and manufactured, as well as financial) that underpin such long-lived enterprises. One of those partners was the Grosvenor Estate, which has been managed on a more or less continuous basis for centuries. As the Duke of Westminster pointed out to us at the time: “I think we can legitimately claim to know a thing or two about sustainability in practice.”

Which provides a telling contrast with Singapore, where the majority of family businesses are still into the second (or possibly the third) generation–at exactly the point where the pressures of a world struggling to cope with the challenge of creating wealth more sustainably are bearing down upon them.

I was hugely heartened by the readiness of all those present at the event (and of the dynamic Business Families Institute itself) to face up to those pressures so creatively and with a real sense of purpose.

Image credit: Flickr/governoromalley

Jonathon Porritt is Founder Director of Forum for the Future.

Deepa Mirchandani, responsible business specialist, believes the circular econonmy is the basis for corporate survival

The days of “sustainability” being about environmental or social issues management are over. The landscape has to evolve to survive the implications of the resource constraints that we face. With that in mind, the UK Government has recently led an inquiry in to what it takes to grow a circular economy looking at the business drivers and the regulatory facilitators required in order to be successful. Still in its consultative phase, it will be interesting to see what incentives the government provides businesses with to drive innovation.

Companies are responding in various ways and buzzwords like netpositive, circularity, and conscious capitalism have emerged. At the most basic, all of these can be broken down to an understanding that waste should be minimised and positive outcomes maximised however, what we’re really calling for now is a move beyond responsibility. We’re talking about survival.

The linear economic model of take – make – dispose no longer works as the resources required to make more just aren’t available to the scale required and the traditional methods of “making” have been rendered unsustainable. The traditional methods of disposal (waste to landfill) will also only get more expensive for business. Whilst this should fill me with gloom, I actually think it’s a really exciting and creative time. Here’s the chance to do what those of us who wax lyrical about corporate sustainability have been calling for: truly embed thinking in to the very foundations of the business.

Some leading corporates are embracing thinking on what the circular or “closed loop” economy means for them and are finding ways to not only develop their products but to also restructure their business models to create new revenue streams. Businesses such as ZipCar provide car-pools and the hiring, renting and sharing of goods has become more common than ever before.
Kingfisher plc has notably been championing this cause. It rightly states that, “if done well, closed loop innovation can cushion our business from price volatility, provide us with competitive advantage, help us to enter new markets and enable us to build better relationships with customers and suppliers.” Its work as a founding partner of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which promotes thinking and practical solutions on circularity, has been backed up with clear targets for the business to sell 1000 products with closed loop credentials by 2020. Its businesses are also exploring ways to encourage and incentivise consumers to change their purchasing habits such as hiring or fixing broken tools rather than buying new ones.

What makes a business embrace this kind of approach? Though there are potentially many, here are my top three:
1. Leadership: the vision of the CEO to see financial opportunity, market differentiation and brand recognition.
2. Licence to operate: a discerning consumer base and an increasingly confident critical mass means inaction is no longer an option
3.Lack of choice: in order for businesses to survive the fact that resource demand currently outstrips supply means they either neither change their game plan or risk losing altogether

Leaders in this area are emerging and it’s because they no longer see sustainability as a nice to do but as a basis for corporate survival.
 

I grew up on a diet of watching Pot Black at 9pm on a Friday night. I’m happy to admit that I was more interested in aspiring to play the theme tune – the wonderful Black and White Rag – than pick up a cue and have a go. I can’t even tell you the sequence of colours nor how many points each colour is worth. No, despite watching it regularly for the best part of my teenage years, it never instilled a desire to play. And yet my father was once a regional Welsh junior champion so it must be in my genes. I was a huge fan too, once visiting the Preston’s Guild Hall to watch the late, great Hurricane Higgins play . I even had his autograph secreted in my pencil case when I did my O-levels to bring a little Irish luck.

So I was dismayed to hear Steve Davis’s recent comments that a woman couldn’t ever compete at World Championship level. Apparently women don’t have the “single-minded, obsessional type of brain” that’s required. And oh dear the BBC tracked down some top female players of the sport who agreed with him. “I think women find it difficult just to concentrate on snooker,” said Reanne Evans, who has a seven-year-old daughter. “I’ve got my little girl and you’re always thinking about them.” Hmmn. I think she’s referring to the lack of financial support for the female game rather than brain power. Snooker is not a physical game, it’s a game of skill so when it comes to gender, it really doesn’t count. Even the professional game agrees. The World Snooker Championship is open to both male and female players. Who knew?

We are entering a rather sporting month. What with Wimbledon, the US Open and of course the highly anticipated World Cup kicks off in just a matter of days. Again, while not a player, I’ll be watching as avidly as the next man. So it rather sticks in my craw that Richard Scudamore, head of the Premier League, is still in his role after comments made ‘in the private domain’, exposed his derogatory attitude to women. The fact that his comments weren’t the end of his career boils down to the fact that the Premier League has profited rather well under his tenure...

The cloak of ‘the private domain’ is infuriating. We all know that such comments, while unguarded – look at the furore over Prince Charles’ recent clanger – are a reflection of the attitudes we hold and our values. By letting Scudamore get away with it, football is guilty of condoning those kinds of views and that’s not right.

When it comes to sport, we need a level playing field. The move towards mixed gender events may help. In the recent Sochi Olympics, men and women competed side by side in figure skating, luge and biathlon and in equestrian events it was ever thus. Indeed, when a sport is a down to skill and technique rather than body mass, gender really shouldn’t be an issue.

I take heart from news from sportanddev.org which told me recently about how gender equity is made a real life experience for boys and girls participating in the One Nation Netball Cup in New Delhi, where students learn to play and win together in mixed teams. Learning to respect each other is at its core. Mr Scudamore you should take a look.

 

Within months, more than 7,000 businesses across the UK will have to report on energy use for the first time under a scheme run by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

To tackle rising energy bills and pressure from investors on businesses to deal with climate change risks, DECC is implementing a new scheme to track energy use – the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS). The scheme responds to the EU’s Energy Efficiency Directive, which emphasised the need to cut the amount of energy the EU uses by 20% by 2020.

‘Double-edged sword’
Under the ESOS scheme, any company in the UK with more than 250 employees, a turnover of more than €50m (£41.5m) or an annual balance sheet total of more than €43m will now be required to produce comprehensive reports about their energy use.
While the exact details, including penalties for non-compliance, will be revealed by DECC in June, ESOS is already being viewed as something of a ‘double-edged sword’ for businesses in the UK.

DECC’s scheme will require a significant reporting increase from UK businesses. Currently approximately 800 companies in the UK have to report on their energy use, but come June, ESOS will cover more than 7,000 companies and up to 200,000 buildings. The Directive says that all large enterprises must carry out this energy audit by December 2015, meaning they will have to start gathering information later this year.

Minimum requirement
As a minimum, firms will be required to provide energy performance information to the Government to comply with ESOS, including a review of the total energy use and energy efficiency of their organisation, and a report on the energy use per employee focused on key buildings, industrial operations and transport activities. They would need to identify information on potential savings and quantify cost effective energy savings opportunities. These should be, wherever practical, based on life cycle assessment (LCA) instead of simple payback periods (SPP). Finally, businesses must also name an approved ESOS assessor to conduct the assessment.

Businesses which are already stretched for time and resource may see these requirements as yet another burden on their bottom line. However, energy saving assessments like those ESOS demands can actually help firms identify where money can be saved. Cutting out waste and putting energy saving measures into place could potentially save the average large business £56,400 per year on energy bills*.

Without external support, though, under pressure businesses may find it difficult to gather the required information to conduct a continuous energy audit of this scale. By making ESOS part of a wider improvement programme, firms can continually identify areas for ongoing efficiency improvements, cutting energy bills year after year. With an embedded process, updates can be made constantly, and reporting becomes much easier over time.

This also makes it easier for businesses to juggle ESOS with multiple policies, including the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, Climate Change Agreements, the EU Emissions Trading System and mandatory greenhouse gas reporting. Processes such Certified Emissions Measurement and Reduction Scheme (CEMARS) in the UK from Achilles can allow companies to use energy data they are already collecting to minimise the costs of compliance.

The government estimates that the ESOS policy could save the UK around £1.9 billion between 2015 and 2030. This is, however, based on the conservative estimate that only 6% of the potential energy saving opportunities will be implemented.
With Achilles’ past experience of energy audits through CEMARS, the benefits could indeed be much bigger. The ESOS audits will recommend cost-effective ways for businesses to save energy and cut their bills, making them more efficient and competitive.

Emissions impact
Companies will want to put these into practice for the benefit of their business. The scheme will not just help individual businesses – it will also ease the pressure on the UK’s energy system as a whole and help to meet emissions targets.

Even for businesses that are not yet covered, the scheme remains significant, as big businesses that are being asked to do this are likely to ask their suppliers to follow suit in the long term. Large companies can only really know their own impact when they know what their supply chain is doing.

ESOS is a significant step towards cutting costs whilst tackling climate change through business policy. While it might seem to businesses like a burden at first, it creates a positive need for internal reporting that ultimately leads to business savings, both financial and in terms of efficiency.

It also has the potential to make a positive impact on emissions to help achieve the EU emissions guidelines. Proper awareness of DECC’s ESOS scheme in advance of the announcement will best position large enterprises for future environmental, legislative changes and continued growth.

*Source, Energy and Climate Change Minister Greg Barker, 11 July 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-efficiency-measures-for-large-firms-could-see-19-billion-net-benefit-for-uk