Search

Last week’s shareholder resolution to investigate Dunkin' Brands’ use of nanomaterials in its products was not approved, but resolution organizers are still claiming success. The resolution, the first of its kind on the controversial particles, received nearly 20 percent approval from investors -- a sign of “victory,” according to As You Sow, the shareholder advocacy group behind the vote.

The resolution, filed by As You Sow (AYS) on behalf of Andrew Behar, CEO of AYS and a Dunkin’ shareholder, called for the corporation to create a report on the risks of using nanomaterials  — extremely small particles with little-understood health effects — in its Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin-Robbins food products and packaging. A 2013 report by AYS showed laboratory tests detected titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the sweet, white coating on Dunkin’ Donuts powered cake donuts. That report found the same materials in powdered donuts from Hostess, Walmart and Kroger brands, among others.

At the May 6 annual shareholders meeting, 18.7 percent of Dunkin’ investors — representing roughly $548 million in investor share — voted in favor of investigating the consumer risks of nanomaterials in food products. Austin Wilson, associate at AYS, says the organization was happy with the result -- noting that it is extremely rare for shareholder votes to reach the 50 percent threshold required for company adoption.

“The resolution itself is helpful in that it demonstrates to the company that a significant percentage of institutaional investors are concerned,” said Wilson. “We don't expect a Fortune 500 company to completely change its business model overnight. But it’s all about making progress toward addressing [investor] concerns.”

Food manufacturers see potential for nanomaterials to improve product taste, texture or quality of processed food products. The particles are also beginning to show up in food preparation packaging — silver nanoparticles, for example are used as an antimicrobial agent. Because of their extremely small size, nanomaterials have been shown to enter the body on a cellular level and the effects on human health are poorly understood.

Nevertheless, the real extent of nanomaterial use in the food industry is not entirely known. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not issued formal regulations on the particles, instead approaching the issue on a case-by-case basis. In 2012 the FDA announced that without further testing, nanomaterials should not be categorized as GRAS, or "generally recognized as safe," which means that food additives in nanomaterial form must be approved by the FDA before use. However, the agency has yet to establish any formal parameters or methodologies for testing the safety of nanomaterial food additives.

Within the scientific community, there is not even an agreed-upon definition of the term, besides a requirement that at least one dimension of the particle must measure less than 100 nanometers (a one nanometer particle is equal to on-millionth the size of a grain of sand). While nanomaterials may be composed of familiar matter, like carbon or silver, its miniscule size changes the way it interacts with humans and animals. Studies have shown nanomaterials can enter the body via inhalation or through the skin, and particles smaller than 300 nm can be taken up by individual cells. A 2013 report by UC Davis scientists found that inhalation of nanomaterials commonly found in household products, including titanium dioxide, causes lung inflammation and damage.

Shareholder resolutions may not seem the most obvious tactic to address public health issues, but AYS points to examples of past success. A 2008 shareholder resolution to Home Depot was withdrawn after the company agreed to create a sustainability report on its wood sourcing. Today Home Depot touts its commitment to sustainabile forestry, noting it sells more Forest Stewardship Council-certified wood than any other retailer. In the wake of the Citizens United case, shareholder resolutions have been instrumental in pressuring companies to disclose political campaign contributions.

As for those powdered donuts, As You Sow is looking to Dunkin’ Brands to make some moves toward addressing investors’ nanomaterials concerns.

“We hope that the company will choose to take a substantive action toward addressing those concerns,” said Wilson. “We believe that companies that are focused on corporate responsibility are setting themselves up for long-term profitability.”

Image credit: Rene Schweitzke, Flickr

By Wouter Kersten

Nature has been around for a while. People have been around for a considerably shorter time. It is not strange to notice that calls are increasing for humanity to learn from how nature works. Here I want to give a new twist to that call. In particular, I would like to zoom in on the analogies between the world of jazz music and the compositions that nature has in store for us.

Many authors have provided ample evidence of what nature does well and how we would benefit from humanity mimicking it. Since we are the allegedly most intelligent species on this planet, as I stated last year in another blog post, we would look very bad if we cannot manage to do that. In this post I will explore more possible connections between nature’s mechanisms and human endeavors.

Let’s start jamming: Nature provides a combination of slow processes of mastering life’s skills with relatively more short cyclic adaptation to circumstances. That combination of a solid basis complemented with more dynamic adjustments has turned our natural environment into a most formidable development engine. Proficiency in being a living planet takes time, but that does not exclude the option to introduce new variations. This is done as part of an autonomous process or forced by circumstances, say an increasingly thick blanket caused by one of its species. Earth has a lot of experience to fall back on to venture in an adjusted direction, provided it is allowed the opportunity to do so.

Now let’s see what jazz, and especially improvisation, has in store for us. As explained in this video, it is a misconception that improvisation strikes as lightning. In fact, it is anything but an act of randomness. It has serious grounding in some fundamental and recognizable components: base tunes, rhythm, melody, harmony, internal consistency. This grounding takes time. According to the famous statement in Malcolm Gladwell’s "Outliers," becoming proficient in anything takes 10,000 hours. Let’s not discuss the exact number. The point seems to be: Before you can aspire to do something special you need to have the basics covered. Jazz experts often compare it to learning to speak or write: You can’t say or write anything meaningful if you don’t know any words.

So here is the analogy: You need experience to be able to change things. Oh yes. This goes against notions that tell us that relying on experience from the past in general blinds you how things could be done differently. What I think is closer to the truth is this: you may need “inexperience” to suggest very new elements, say ideas or even more importantly make new connections. But you need experience to see how these might fit, be developed further and actually lead to something that makes sense. As long as you are open minded enough to blend the new with the more mature. Just like in nature, old and new generations can best work together. A young animal benefits from the experience of the group it lives in, even if it also has to find out things on its own.  And the older generation might then help to channel new experiences into benefits for the group. Perhaps a tropical forest is an even better metaphor than a group of animals, so feel free to apply these thoughts on that example.

What might we learn from all these musings? I hope it is this: Do not discount the past, cherish solid skill building, introduce novelty by playing with variations to tunes and create new compositions by jamming in new combinations, age and background wise.

Most of all: Don’t rush through life doing “new things” and making changes all the time just for the sake of “moving forward." If you appreciate the notes you will get more enjoyment out of creating new songs.

Wouter Kersten is amongst other jobs working as an Innovation manager at Enviu, which basically means making a job out of establishing new connections, in particular in the field of social entrepreneurship. He can be reached at Wouter@enviu.org or you can follow him on Twitter.

Can a very popular shoe company make strides to be more sustainable while continuing to grow? The latest Sustainable Business Performance Summary by Nike, Inc. proves that a company can grow while doing good for the environment. The summary outlines all of Nike's sustainability achievements, which include energy, waste and water reduction. Those achievements include a 26 percent energy use reduction per unit processed in major global distribution centers from 2011 to 2013. The company also achieved a 16 percent energy use per square foot in corporate offices from 2011 to 2013.

Carbon reduction is another achievement outlined in the summary. By the end of 2013, the footwear company achieved a 13 percent reduction in carbon emissions per unit, towards the goal of a 20 percent reduction by 2015. Nike reduced  carbon emissions per unit in Nike Brand footwear manufacturing by 17 percent from 2011 to 2013, and reduced carbon emissions per unit in inbound transportation by 29 percent from 2011 to 2013. In addition, the company reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2.8 percent from 2011 to 2013 while achieving a revenue growth of 26 percent.

Other achievements outlined in the report include:

Waste

• Reduced waste from finished goods manufacturing across Nike, Inc. by 8.6 percent, against a 10 percent target


• Reduced average shoebox weight per unit by three percent against a 10 percent target


• Reduced manufacturing waste in Nike Brand footwear by 35 percent since 2005


• Diverted 44 of waste from landfills in 2013 at Nike World Headquarters


• Diverted 92 percent of waste from landfills in 2013 at major global distribution centers

Water

• Improved water efficiency by 23 percent per unit in apparel materials dyeing and finishing, as well as in footwear manufacturing, from 2011 to 2013 -- surpassing its 15 percent goal, despite an almost 20 percent increase in production


• Increased participation in the Nike Water Program by 50 percent from 2011 to 2013


• Made the H2O*Insight Tool available to the industry in 2011, and currently 95 non-Nike manufacturing facilities and three non-Nike, Inc. brands are using the tool


• Contract footwear manufacturers have improved efficiency of gallons of water per pair by 23 percent compared from 2011 to 2013


• Nike Brand apparel dyeing and finishing vendors have improved their efficiency of liters per kilogram by 10 percent from 2011 to 2013

Retail stores in North America increase purchase of RECS, two distribution centers produce renewable energy

Nike Brand retail stores in North America have increased their purchase of renewable energy certificates (RECs). In 2013, North American retail stores offset 46 percent of their energy use through purchasing RECs. All 204 of North American retail stores purchased RECs in 2013, up from only 2 percent of stores in 2012.

Two of Nike’s key global distribution centers produce their own renewable energy. The European Logistics Center in Laakdal, Belgium, has six wind turbines with generation capacity of 1.5 megawatts (MW) each, as well as a solar installation. Together, they generated 14.4 million kilowatt hours (kWh) in 2012 and 17.6 million kWh in 2013. The Nike China Logistics Center in Taichang has a solar heating system that produces renewable energy for the facility, including 97,000 kWh in 2012, and 123,000 kWh in 2013.

Nike increases contract factory assessments

Nike uses its Sourcing & Manufacturing Sustainability Index (SMSI) to assess contract factory performance. At the end of 2011, 49 percent of its contract factories scored bronze on the SMSI. By the end of 2013, 68 percent had reached that score. Factories that do not achieve bronze level performance within a defined timeframe are reviewed by senior leadership and are given penalties, such as a reduction in orders and are even considered for removal from its contract factory base. In 2013, 94 percent of its contract factories went through a full assessment of labor, health, safety and environmental compliance. The same year, violations were recorded in 16 percent of factories, a drop from 29 percent in 2012, partly due to Nike’s decision to reduce its contract factory base.

Photo: cheukiecfu

By Joseph Hong

In broad terms, we live in an era of increasing globalization and interconnectedness. However, among ever-changing global variables, human rights atrocities represent a shocking and enduring constant, challenging the promise of “never again.” The final frontier for inclusive worldwide progress has been comprised of mass crimes against humanity, from Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Darfur, to North Korea and Syria. In other words, the actual impact of corporate social responsibility is limited due to a lack of engagement and hope for a better world.

This is not to say that business has remained absent or antithetical towards human rights issues. Over the past few years the concept of corporate social responsibility has traveled lightyears towards progress. Today, many firms recognize that maximized and sustained shareholder value is inextricably linked to the health of various stakeholders in local and global business ecosystems. Principled labor relations, respect for consumer needs and minimal harm to the environment are common themes for companies who claim to uphold ethical business practices.

The cynic may point out that profits are tied to positive public perceptions and that there is a strong correlation between declining stock prices and negative press surrounding illegal or unethical business practices. But even a nominal endorsement of corporate social responsibility is still demonstrable progress that shows that business and human rights are not mutually exclusive.

At its best, social responsibility is perhaps embodied in social entrepreneurship and impact investing, where firms seek to simultaneously optimize economic, social and environmental returns in helping to eradicate global poverty. Best practices involve building the financial and technical capacity of underserved markets and scaling up the delivery of basic social services such as education, healthcare, water and food.

Nonetheless, the intersection of business and human rights is bounded in its current conceptual framework. And global society has light years to go in bridging the gap between ideal and reality -- particularly when it comes to the scope and scale of corporate social responsibility in addressing cases of crimes against humanity, and not just seeking growth markets after the fact. This begs the question: What positive role can socially responsible business leaders play in protecting human rights and dignity?

In her book "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power points out that the dearth of policy solutions stems from a lack of political will, given the lack of interest and pressure from the American public. But business advocacy can fill this massive moral, economic, and political void of inaction -- advocacy is where firms and individual business leaders acting in a private capacity can have real, demonstrable impact. Business inherently has a unique positioning to add value to global society in creating effective incentives for political leaders to act with moral courage. In terms of enlightened self-interest, preventing and stopping mass atrocities helps to remove stagnant barriers to global economic growth and unprecedented shared prosperity.

A recent example of a relative success story was in 2007 when the Armenian diaspora in America, a relatively small diaspora community of less than a million, hired lobbying firms to push for a non-binding resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives that officially recognized the Armenian genocide in 1915. Another example of social business engagement was divestment and boycotts to help end South African apartheid.

With regards to the current humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, Human Rights First runs a project called Stop the Atrocity Supply Chain. Socially responsible business leaders can push for political action in blacklisting and placing targeted sanctions on those companies and state entities from Russia, Iran, and North Korea that supply and finance mass atrocities in Syria. As for North Korea, an issue which I have worked on for many years, there is zero or negative political will to address North Korea’s human rights violations that have been going on for decades, including systematic torture, starvation, and repression, as well as a network of concentration camps. In February 2014, a United Nations Commission of Inquiry stated, “The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”

As Augustine put it, “Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.” If the reduction of mass murder, starvation, enslavement, torture, rape, and persecution are to be incorporated into the criteria for assessing the metrics and impact of social responsibility, corporate foundations and philanthropic giving can no longer be the main applications of corporate engagement with global society. Business must become part of the solution in stopping oppressors and their enablers from acting with impunity. More comprehensive and ethical business engagement with the world today can help to stop mass atrocities tomorrow and improve the quality of humanity for decades or centuries to come.

Image credit: Flickr/calamity_photography

The writer is an MBA candidate at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. The views expressed are his own.

By Jay Lund

A bold idea born of big dreams: that’s how many iconic American companies got their start. It may be the best description of the bill that ultimately established Yellowstone National Park and sparked a worldwide trend of designating parcels of land for public enjoyment. Yet keeping this natural treasure open and accessible to more than 3 million visitors annually presents a unique set of challenges that Yellowstone’s administrators are addressing today with the same innovative spirit that first established the park.

Functioning as a park has an undeniable environmental impact on the very lands those millions visit and enjoy. Yellowstone’s leaders appreciate the fact that they could fall victim to their own success, and in 2010 established a five-year plan to elevate Yellowstone as a world leader in environmental stewardship. In other words, lead by example by being one of the greenest parks in the world. The Yellowstone Environmental Stewardship, or “Y.E.S.” Initiative, is the kind of private/public collaboration you hope makes a meaningful impact – and as a representative of one of the industry brands privileged to participate, I can attest that what we’re working on together is making a difference.

Mountain-high environmental management goals

Yellowstone set ambitious environmental management goals to achieve by 2016. Using 2003 figures as the baseline, Yellowstone leaders said they want to:

• Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30 percent; and by 2025 achieve a 50 percent reduction in GHG emissions


• Reduce electricity consumption by 15 percent


• Reduce fossil fuel consumption by 18 percent


• Reduce water consumption by 15 percent


• Divert 100 percent of municipal solid waste from landfills

These are bold and audacious objectives considering the park– all 2.2 million acres of it – holds nine visitor centers and museums; more than 2,000 hotel rooms and cabins, 1,500+ buildings, and well over 400 miles of roads (300 of them paved).  The magnitude of the effort to bring this initiative across the finish line required a public/private partnership, with an eye on high impact projects small and large. In the end 27 opportunities were highlighted.

Three Ps to Y.E.S.

The key to a successful Y.E.S. Initiative meant embracing three Ps: public-private partnership. The Yellowstone Park Foundation found the right set of corporations and educational institutions ready to support the initiative through products, services, and financial support that helped the park thoughtfully execute the Y.E.S. Initiative and maximize the effort in leading the way for other parks in the National Parks Service.

With two years left in the program, how are we doing? Here are two examples:

Lamar Buffalo Ranch: This site was a prime opportunity for improvement, with sleeping cabins that sit in the Lamar valley inside the park; temperatures reach -40 degrees below zero most winters. New windows were donated, upgrades to insulation and the addition of programmable thermostats in the cabins resulted in a 50 percent reduction in energy use in the first 12 months.

Mammoth Clinic: The most recent priority project in the program, this 1960s era building at the park’s headquarters serves the medical needs of all park staff as well as all visitors to the park each year. Andersen donated windows for the building retrofit, which was completed this past January. Energy data was taken before the remodel, to compare during a 12-month energy consumption analysis. We expect the results to be a significant reduction in energy use by the clinic.

We’re not done yet. We just committed to providing one of our most efficient windows, the 100 Series, to be used in a new dormitory under construction near the site of Old Faithful. These windows are a great example of the unique approach to an environmentally-friendly solution favored in the Y.E.S. Initiative: the window profiles utilize reclaimed wood fiber from our manufacturing operations and have SCS Indoor Advantage Gold certification.

Collaborative success across the centuries

Philosophers, poets and politicians have all contributed to the centuries-long conversation about our country’s natural resources that were eventually designated parklands. Preserving the beauty and vitality of these extraordinary lands ensures our country’s richest assets will be enjoyed by present and future generations to come. The Y.E.S. Initiative is really about “making sustainability more sustainable” or ensuring our national parks always contribute to a greener society.  The work we do today is an important investment in that vision, not just in the future potential of our National Parks, but in the past vision and leadership that led to their creation in the first place. It’s just one example of how drawing inspiration from the past helps us unlock the potential for an even greater, greener future.

Jay Lund is chairman, president and CEO of Andersen Corporation.

Protestors are targeting the Lloyds Bank AGM in Edinburgh today, accusing it of destroying people’s lives and fuelling climate change by bankrolling the global coal industry.

Protestors from the World Development Movement (WDM) are displaying placards reading ‘Lloyds: Stop Bankrolling Coal’ and will play on Lloyds’ marketing with a banner reading ‘Because Climate Change Matters’.

WDM says that Lloyds has invested a total of £3.4 billion since 2009 in mining giants BHP Billiton, Anglo American and Glencore Xstrata, the companies behind the massive Cerrejón mine in Colombia. Cerrejón is the biggest coal mine in South America and is fiercely opposed by local people.

Climate and energy campaigner Alex Scrivener  from WDM commented: “The coal industry is destroying lives and livelihoods on every continent with the help of Lloyds and the other coal-addicted big banks. For the sake of the people suffering from coal mining, and the sake of the global climate, Lloyds should pull out of coal.”

Last month the protestors targeted Barclays over the same issue.

US telecoms giant Sprint is to be one of the first companies to use AirCarbon, a new carbon-negative material made from greenhouse gas.

The materia,l manufactured by California-based Newlight Technologies, will be used in black and pink cell iPhone cases.

AirCarbon uses a proprietary carbon capture process to convert air and greenhouse gases (GHGs) into a plastic that has similar durability and performance characteristics to petroleum-based plastics. The conversion technology can synthesize high-performance thermoplastics from a wide range of sources, including methane and/or carbon dioxide from agricultural operations, water treatment plants, landfills, anaerobic digesters, or energy facilities. 

“AirCarbon offers a new paradigm in which products we use every day, like cellphone cases, become part of the environmental solution,” said Mark Herrema, Newlight Technologies co-founder and ceo, who addressed Business in the Community's Responsible Business Week last year.

 “Newlight’s mission is to replace petroleum-based plastics with greenhouse gas-based plastics on a commodity scale by out-competing on price and performance – harnessing the power of our choices as consumers to make change.”
 

An online platform where buyers will be able to browse the sustainability credentials of suppliers is under development by the World Bank Institute (WBI) and Sedex.

The free-of-charge Open Supply Chain Platform will enable firms of all sizes to upload, share and track data covering issues such as ethics, labour standards and environmental factors. It is expected to go live later this year.

Sedex and WBI say the platform will enable suppliers to benchmark themselves against core international standards and provide guidance on areas of weakness, in turn enabling them to drive improvements and share information on performance with buyers. 

For buyers, the platform will inform sourcing decisions by empowering them to search for, and source goods and services from suppliers that demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of sustainability requirements and commitments.

As such, the developers maintain that it will help create a more level-playing field for supply chain data by offering a range of functionalities to drive sustainability performance in global supply chains.

Carmel Giblin, CEO at Sedex commented: “The Open Supply Chain Platform will deliver a step change in the uptake of responsible behaviours and practices by businesses. It will foster governance, sustainability and social development impacts in global supply chains.”

Benjamin Herzberg, Program Lead, Open Private Sector, World Bank Institute, added: “The World Bank is committed to scaling up development impacts and achieving the goals of ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity. It is thus essential that we encourage the private sector to adopt open and collaborative behaviours that favor social, environmental and governance outcomes. That’s the purpose of our Open Private Sector Platform.”

 

Picture credit: © Macrovector | Dreamstime.com
 

Marshall McLuhan famously said: "There are no passengers on spaceship Earth. We are all crew."  While it can be applied to every sustainable challenge, this notion is clearly reflected in business efforts to be socially responsible when it comes to the role of consumers.

The idea was and still is that companies’ increasing efforts to make their value chain more sustainable need to be complemented by a growing consumer consciousness about sustainability that will translate to a greater support of companies that move away from ‘business as usual.’ In other words: Companies can’t do it alone. They need consumers on board.

Now, if you look at studies exploring consumer attitudes, you find that consumers indeed seem to be more conscious about sustainability and are more willing to incorporate it into their decision-making process.

For example, according to a 2013 Cone Communications study, 87 percent of consumers consider a company’s social and environmental commitment before deciding what to buy or where to shop. Another study conducted by Nielsen found that 50 percent of global consumers surveyed are willing to pay more for goods and services from companies “that have implemented programs to give back to society.”

Yet, when it comes to actual behavior, (almost) all of these good intentions disappear somehow, and sustainability or corporate responsibility doesn’t seem to make much of a difference for most consumers. Hence my question is: Why is it that whenever we find ourselves at the store or the supermarket we forget all the good intentions we had back home?

And there might not be a better place to look for answers than in fashion.

After the tragic Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh last year, where 1,129 garment workers were killed, there was a hope that this event will make a difference not just for apparel companies, but also for consumers. Yet, one year later, as we learn from a new BBMG report, the change in consumer behavior hasn’t been seen yet.

This report is especially interesting as it looks into the habits of 'aspirational consumers,' ones that were identified in a 2012 study “Re:Thinking Consumption,” published by BBMG, GlobeScan and SustainAbility as the largest consumer segment seeking both sustainability and consumption. “They are materialistically oriented while at the same time aspiring to be sustainable in their purchases and beliefs. Style is important to them, and they are more likely than any other group to be influenced by brands, to try new things and they love to shop,” the reports authors said.

Based on conversations with 70 members of The Collective, BBMG’s proprietary community of aspirational consumers, BBMG’s new report was aiming to see how, if at all, their shopping habits have been affected in the last year. It found that “despite the major news coverage and industry moves since the collapse, consumers’ shopping habits haven’t shifted in any substantial way.”

According to BBMG’s research, 70 percent of consumers chose practical purchase drivers (price, design, comfort, fit, etc.) as the only considerations when buying apparel, and only 4 percent acknowledged that safe working conditions for garment workers make it into the consideration set when shopping.

Another interesting finding was that “nearly 50 percent of these shoppers chose mainstream fast fashion brands as their favorites and 91 percent had no idea where or by whom their favorite brands’ clothing is sewn.” At the same time, BBMG notes consumers are not satisfied with this lack of information and “want more information to help them make better decisions.”

So one issue is clearly the lack of information about companies’ level of corporate responsibility. For one thing, we still don’t have sufficient objective measurements or tools to help us understand which companies are more responsible than the others. What we do have are mostly companies’ own reports on their CSR efforts, which can be very subjective to put it politely.

In addition, even companies that are recognized (by other parties, not just by their own people) as sustainability leaders usually fail to effectively communicate their sustainability efforts. For example, you need to have the skills of an NYPD detective to find anything about Nike’s impressive work on its website, or any substantial reminder of the work companies like Puma, Adidas or Levi’s do on social media, not to mention their products (although Levi’s is making a greater effort with their care tags).

The issue is, however, not just the lack of information, but also the fact that sustainability is missing in the stories these brands are telling. This is not necessarily about telling a sustainability story (like Patagonia does for example), but as Henk Campher, VP of business and social purpose at Edelman, explains sustainable branding is about integrating sustainability into the brand story in a way and context that people can relate to -- helping them to understand why they should give a damn about it when shopping.

Another way to look at it is that, in order to make consumers give a damn about sustainability, companies need to focus not necessarily on their products’ functional benefits (durability or design for example), but on emotional, self-expressive and social benefits -- associated with consumers’ “I feel”, “I am” and “I am with” statements respectively -- when buying or using the brand. In other words, customers need to identify sustainability with terms like excitement, sophistication, fun or empowerment rather than with recyclable or waterless to find it attractive.

So basically it seems that companies need to do a better job in order to get consumers walk the sustainability talk. Can it work? Probably not all the time, as we can learn from the study with the self-explanatory “Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute,” where researchers found that  “though consumers say they care about sweatshop labor and prefer products made without it … self-interested motivation, the availability of cognitive resources, and a flexible moral context limit their ability to turn their feelings into action.”

Still, companies should try harder.  After all, weren’t they the ones getting us to believe it’s actually act like “passengers on spaceship Earth” in the first place?

Image credit: Snapshooter46, Flickr Creative Commons

Nearly 80 percent of U.S. electricity demand comes from cities and towns in coastal U.S. states. Announcing the latest in a series of initiatives aimed at spurring development of a “world-class” U.S. offshore wind energy industry capable of helping meet that demand in a clean, renewable and sustainable fashion, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on May 7 said it will provide up to $47 million each over the next four years to “three pioneering offshore wind demonstration projects.”

A total of 12 direct-drive wind turbines with an overall 67 megawatts (MW) of rated power generation capacity are to be deployed across the Fishermen's Energy, Principle Power and Dominion Virginia Power offshore wind demonstration projects off the coasts of Atlantic City, N.J.; Coos Bay, Ore.; and Virginia Beach, Va., respectively, according to a DOE news release.

All three projects entail making use of direct-drive wind turbines and innovative, “homegrown” solutions to offshore wind farm design, engineering and construction that could pave the way to developing cheap, plentiful supplies of renewable power for cities and communities along the U.S. East and West coasts.

Tapping a huge, untapped clean energy resource

Commenting on the May 7 funding announcement, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz stated:

“Offshore wind offers a large, untapped energy resource for the United States that can create thousands of manufacturing, construction and supply chain jobs across the country and drive billions of dollars in local economic investment.

“The Energy Department is working with public and private partners to harness this untapped resource in a sustainable and economic manner. The offshore wind projects announced today further this commitment -- bringing more clean, renewable energy to our homes and businesses, diversifying our energy portfolio, and reducing costs through innovation.”

Assessing offshore wind energy resources along the U.S. East Coast, researchers at Stanford University concluded there was enough clean, renewable power potential there to meet the electricity needs of at least one-third of the entire U.S., or the entire East Coast from Maine to Florida.

Following through on the "U.S. National Offshore Wind Strategy"

Expanding its efforts to promote and foster creation and development of “world-class” renewable energy and clean technology industries and markets here in the U.S., the Obama administration in February 2011 launched the “National Offshore Wind Strategy: Creating an Offshore Wind Energy Industry in the United States.”

In December 2012, DOE announced funding for seven offshore wind demonstration projects that have focused on design, engineering and permitting. DOE funding for the three offshore wind projects announced May 7 aims to realize the goal of deploying offshore wind installations in U.S. waters by 2017.

Three miles off the coast of Atlantic City, N.J., Fishermen's Energy will install five, 5-MW direct-drive wind turbines. Acting as a field laboratory for researchers to study offshore winds and the interaction among turbines, the offshore wind power installation will make use of “an innovative, U.S.-developed twisted jacket foundation that is simpler and less expensive to manufacture and install than traditional offshore wind foundations,” the DOE explained.

Demonstrating “an innovative solution for deep-water wind turbine projects and lowering costs by simplifying installation and eliminating the need for highly specialized ships,” Principle Power will install five, 6-MW direct-drive wind turbines off the Coos Bay, Ore. coast.

WindFloat semi-submersible floating foundations developed here in the U.S. will support the turbines, which will be set in water more than 1,000 feet deep, DOE highlights in its news release. “More than 60 percent of U.S. offshore wind resources are found in deep waters,” DOE notes, “including the entirety of the West Coast.”
Twenty-six miles off the coast of Virginia Beach, Dominion Virginia Power will deploy two 6-MW direct-drive wind turbines that also makes use of a U.S.-designed twisted-jacket foundation. In addition to demonstrating installation, operation and maintenance methods, a hurricane-resistant design will be tested as part of Dominion's project.

Image and video credits: 1) U.S. DOE; 2) Navigant Consulting; 3) Principle Power