Search

“I would buy more sustainable clothing, but…” Sound familiar? Even in the middle of the green bubble that is San Francisco, we at TriplePundit hear this phrase all too often, usually followed by a series of hurdles including accessibility, price, information and lack of variety in clothing styles.

Over the past two months, TriplePundit’s sustainable fashion media channel has uncovered emerging solutions to each of these obstacles. While we’re encouraged to see that large mainstream brands are at last moving in a more responsible direction, it has been the smaller pioneers who have conceived of the products and models that are revolutionizing the industry.

Companies like NAU, Threads4Thought and Patagonia offer diverse product lines appealing to a variety of consumer preferences. Websites such as Modavanti and apps like Orange Harp enable people to make responsible purchasing decisions at the tap of a button or touch screen. Brands like OSMIUM and Appalatch have cracked the nut toward selling clothing made in the USA at reasonable prices. Indigenous’ Fair Trace tool tells the story behind each of its products by connecting the consumer to individual artisans with the simple scan of a QR code.

Unfortunately, most consumers are not yet familiar with these breakthroughs, and so, continue to shop as they always have. At the same time, more consumers every year report  that they are willing to shop more responsibly (and even pay a bit more), if given the opportunity. In a world where most closets are filled with the likes of mainstream “fast fashion,” there is a cavernous gap between these reports and actual behavior. This begs the question: What do consumers mean by “opportunity”?

In this era of online shopping, it’s easy to assume that physical retail is fading toward the obsolete. Yet, according to a recent poll conducted by HuffPost, 32 percent of respondents never shop online and a full 54 percent only shop online once a year or less. Popular reports indicate that as much as 90 percent of retail sales still occur in-store. This means that by relying upon online sales exclusively, sustainable fashion could be missing out on up to 90 percent of its potential market

The in-store experience is especially critical for lesser known, sustainable brands whose value is often tied to story. “Store touch is still the pinnacle of customer interaction,” explains Mark Spera, owner of BeGood, a socially responsible and eco-friendly retail shop in San Francisco. “Until a customer feels the clothing, gets used to the fit and quality of the garment, and hears its story, small brands are at a significant disadvantage.” Even the most prominent inherent e-commerce brands like Warby Parker and Bonobos have recently transitioned to creative omni-channel retail models to increase conversion rates and consumer awareness.

Traditional brick and mortar requires deep pockets, but there are alternatives for small fashion brands and designers. A pop-up shop presents the affordable and convenient option of a temporary offline retail channel. Plus, the pop-up demonstrates a natural value alignment for the sustainable business, who can make use of the estimated 10 percent commercial real estate vacancy rate. What’s more, according to Indochino CEO Kyle Vucko, it just might offer the best possible opportunity for engaging more deeply with the consumer: “Pop-up retail is something we have committed to doing because it’s the best way to create a wicked retail experience.”

Ushering the pop-up into mainstream retail is Storefront – a company that has removed the roadblocks of traditional brick and mortar and opened the gateway to the temporary, yet elegant, retail experience. “We streamline the search, payment and insurance, which make opening an offline store as easy an online one,” explains CEO Erik Eliason.

Since opening it’s first-ever pop-up to sell sustainable clothing, candles and art in downtown SF’s Westfield Shopping Centre in December of 2012, Storefront has provided retail space for more than 1,000 merchants in New York City and San Francisco. The results, according to Storefront Co-founder Tristan Pollock, are nothing short of game-changing: "Pop-ups create more vibrant communities while delivering a new revenue stream back to the brand. For every dollar spent on retail space, $7 goes back to the business.” Armed with an ambitious vision for growth and fresh backing of some very impressive venture capitalists, Storefront has already announced its launch in Los Angeles and is turning its sights to a city near you.

Could the arrival of Storefront's pop-up represent the long-awaited opportunity to bridge the gap between small brand and conscious consumer?

Image Credit: Charisse Kenion/Unsplash

General Mills just issued its 2014 Global Responsibility Report. I received an advanced review copy and spoke with Chief Sustainability Officer Jerry Lynch to get his perspective. The 121-page report is organized into five major sections: Health, Environment, Sourcing, Workplace and Community. These are consistent with the company's mission of “Nourishing Lives- making lives healthier, easier and richer – for 147 years.”

Triple Pundit: One statement in the introduction really impressed me. “Our business depends on the availability of natural resources and the strength of the communities where we operate.” This neatly sums up the reason why companies should care about and invest in corporate social responsibility and sustainability. It's the awareness that companies do not exist in a vacuum, and that in fact all of their inputs (raw materials) and outputs (sales) are in constant interaction with ecosystems that are subject to continuous change and are sensitive to factors that they themselves can have a significant impact upon.

Jerry Lynch: Thank you.We take the output of Mother Nature, then add value to it for our consumers. So if the front end of that business model breaks down, we're in a world of hurt. The focus of our work is to conserve and protect our natural resources and the communities that our business depends on. So it's really a hard-nose business imperative behind this.

3p: What do you see as your major challenges in achieving this?

JL: We're looking at increasing demand for food as population grows and more people are moving into the middle class. This is happening at a time when Mother Nature is facing major challenges.

3p: What efforts to address your impact would you like to highlight?

JL: The two areas we spent a lot of time on were sourcing and water. We also describe in detail our enterprise-wide footprint, which looks at the whole value chain. When we look at our business, we find that two-thirds of our carbon footprint and 99 percent of our water footprint is in the raw materials.

But raw materials also happen to be our biggest single spend as a company. That means that there is a lot of impact that we can address and a lot of value that we can recover. So it's really an innovation challenge for us to unlock value, quality, cost savings etc., while also reducing our impact.

3p: I see that you’ve committed to 100 percent sustainable sourcing of your 10 key raw materials. How do you define sustainable sourcing?

JL: It depends on which ingredient we are talking about. Each ingredient is geographically unique, with unique challenges. We’ve been working with WWF and a number of other groups including Field to Market (also known as the Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture) and Bonsucro as well as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Rainforest Alliance and the international humanitarian organization CARE to develop those criteria.

[Note: These 10 key ingredients represent a full 50 percent of General Mills’ raw material purchases.]

3p: So how does this work?

JL: The strategy is based on creating economic, environmental and social value. Each ingredient goes through a four-phase process. The phases are: Assessment, Strategy formation, Transformation, and Monitoring & Evaluation. All 10 are currently in the transformation phase, except for sugar cane which is in strategy formation.

3p: Can you give me an example?

JL: Most of our vanilla comes from Madagascar. There the primary challenge is social. The small holder farmers are not making enough money. That leaves them open to temptation to knock down the rainforest to grow crops like rice. We are working with vanilla supplier Virginia Dare, the international humanitarian organization CARE and Madagascar-based NGO Fanamby to improve farmer incomes. They are training these farmers to cure the vanilla beans, which provide them with additional income. We’re also supporting research at [the University of California at Davis] mapping the vanilla genome and are now analyzing the vanilla plant’s responses to environmental stress, such as heat and drought, defenses against pathogens, and traits that determine fruit quality and aroma.

3p: Great. So let’s talk about water.

JL: We work with a team of PhD hydrologists from the Nature Conservancy. Together, we are assessing 75 key watersheds either where we have a production facility or a key sourcing area, or in some cases, both. We develop a strategy. We engage with other key players, including other corporations, NGOs and government agencies. Together we develop a watershed stewardship plan.

3p: Some examples?

JL: In Irapuato, Mexico, where we grow many of our Green Giant vegetables, we have completed a watershed analysis and are now working on a strategy to improve it. In China, we are assessing the Yangtze River watershed, and here in the U.S., we are conducting a detailed review of the Snake River in Idaho, which is an area where we grow a lot of wheat.

[Note: In the report the company assesses the water risk level for a number of these watersheds.]

3p: You mention the Field to Market framework. What criteria do they provide and who are some of the other participants in the consortium?

JL: Field to Market is a very broad coalition that includes all of the stakeholders involved in food production. Farmers, distributors, seed companies, manufacturers, retailers, as well as a number of environmental groups.

3p: I see there are a number of bio-technology companies involved. You recently announced that Cheerios would soon be GMO-free. What is your position on GMOs, and is it evolving? What is the value that you feel they provide to you as a manufacturer?

[Note: Credo Mobilize has organized a petition asking General Mills to remove GMOs from all of its products. As of this writing,125,000 people had signed it.]

JL: We’re faced with the challenge of feeding another 2 to 3 billion consumers, with many moving into the middle class. Our projections show that we will need 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 20 percent more water by 2050. Biotech is an important tool. The sources we rely on tell us they are safe. With it, farmers need less energy (fewer passes over the fields), emit lower GHG emissions, use less chemicals, resulting in better water quality, better nitrogen retention, etc.

So there’s a number of potential benefits there that we think are an important part of this work to get more for less in agriculture. Even the [World Health Organization] has talked abut the important potential they provide towards agricultural productivity and improved nutrition. But we’re also a consumer products company, and we recognize that there are some consumers that are concerned about GMOs and are uncomfortable with them. That’s why we provide GMO-free options. We have a large organic business, including Cascadian Farms and Muir Glen, among others

3p: Do you specify to your growers, what varieties, etc., they should grow?

JL: Quite often we buy from a supplier who adds some value by refining the raw material, so we generally don’t deal directly with farmers. Usually we can’t even trace the origins. By the time we get the refined product, there’s no way that you can trace, because the protein that marks biotechnology has been taken out of the process.

In some cases, like with vegetables, we do contract directly with farmers, but that’s not the biggest part of our business. So we’re really not doing specification, except for our organic businesses, when it comes to this.

3p: What do you specify, then?

JL: What we’re specifying, typically, is food safety, first and foremost. Next comes nutrition and product quality attributes, and then finally, there would be the functional attributes in the production system (like a rising characteristic in a dough-based product). So that’s how those relationships work at this point in time.

3p: Looking at the reporting section of the report, I see you’re falling short on energy savings. Your goal was to reduce consumption by 20 percent by next year, and so far, you’ve only reduced consumption by 10 percent since 2005. What went wrong there, and what are your plans to recover?

JL: A lot of that has to do with product mix. Recently we’ve been selling a lot more baked goods, like muffins, instead of the mixes. As you can imagine, it takes far more energy to make muffins than muffin mix because we have to do the baking. Our energy team has been auditing the cereal production operation, which is the most energy intensive product from a production standpoint.

We’ve installed more meters, optimized dryer efficiency, updated our boilers, and improved efficiency of lighting, HVAC, refrigeration and pumps. That yielded a 6 percent improvement, close to 60 million kWh ... So we are working hard on this, keeping in mind that our production facilities represent only about 8 percent of our total carbon footprint.

3p: Interesting. I’m thinking that if you look at this from a system perspective, someone has to bake those muffins, and you can probably bake them a lot more efficiently than your customers can, because you bake in large batches. Maybe you need to think about how you are reporting these numbers, since you’re penalized for something that could actually save energy.

JL: That’s a good idea, thank you.

3p: Despite the fact that you’re a bit off-target on energy, you are actually on-target with GHG emissions. So that means that when you further improve energy, GHG should get even better.

JL: Yes, the goals were set back in 2005, and they are beginning to diverge. Acquisitions outside the U.S. have helped us on the GHG front. Yoki, in Brazil, which has biomass energy, uses peanut shells to fuel production. Here at home, in our Cheerios operation, oat hulls are fed into a biomass burner. This creates 90 percent of the steam required. Excess energy is sold to an energy company.

You know, the company started with hydropower in Minneapolis at St.Anthony’s Falls, where Gold Medal Flour was first made.

3p: Speaking of water, it seems like the acquisition of Yoplait has been a challenge in that regard.

JL: The reasons we’re down 22 percent is because these are rate-based goals. We’ve always been a licensee of Yoplait in the U.S. Eighteen months ago, we purchased the remaining global sales. When we added their water intensity into the mix, that took us backwards. This is a water intensive business, and we see an opportunity there for a reduction [of] 11 percent against our 20 percent goal.

3p: Going back to your involvement in collaborative efforts, like Field to Market: I see that some of the participants are direct competitors, like Kellogg and Unilever. Talk to me about that.

JL: That’s simple. All this work is pre-competitive. It has to be. We’re trying to make enormous changes and none of us is big enough to move the market alone.

--

Join Triple Pundit for a Twitter chat with General Mills and CSRwire on April 23 at 12 p.m. PST/3 p.m. EST. Jerry Lynch, as well as General Mills Sourcing Director Steve Peterson, will be on hand to answer questions on sustainable sourcing.

To register, just send out the following tweet: I’ll join @gmills_jerry @CSRwire & @triplepundit to discuss what it takes 2 reach 100% #susty sourcing http://bit.ly/GenMillsSusty #GenMillsSusty

Image courtesy of General Mills

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He writes for numerous publications including Justmeans, ThomasNet, Huffington Post, and Energy Viewpoints. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining romp that is currently being adapted for the big screen. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

Citi Bike is hitting some bumps in the road as NYC Bike Share, the operating company, struggles to meet revenue targets and deal with ongoing operational snags, according to recent news reports. As the popular New York City bike-share program — which, unlike most programs, does not use public money — approaches its first anniversary, NYC Bikeshare is seeking to raise $20 million through investors and sponsors to smooth out problem areas and eventually expand. But, despite the program’s popularity, new sponsors have reportedly been hesitant to jump on board, concerned that heavy branding from Citibank, the namesake corporate sponsor, on bikes and kiosks would drown out any real marketing opportunity.

So, should Citibank, which -- lest we forget -- received $476 billion in bailout funds in the wake of the financial crisis, bail out the fledgling bike-share program in a good-faith CSR gesture? Or should NYC Bike Share shoulder the blame for poor management and revenue planning?

The Citi Bike program raises revenue in three ways: membership/rental fees, advertising and sponsors like Citibank, which paid $41 million for program branding rights. While resident New Yorkers have been keen to sign up for access to the two-wheelers (annual memberships surpassed the 100,000 mark last month), tourist ridership, which generates more profit than annual passes, trickled to a halt during this year’s arctic winter.

Besides lackluster temporary pass purchases, NYC Bike Share has had to deal with unexpected increases in costs from storm damage, as well as the high cost of redistributing bikes by truck to better match expected demand. Meanwhile, Public Bike System Co. (PBSC), the Canadian manufacturer of the bikes and kiosk software, filed for bankruptcy in January, and NYC Bike Share’s general manager resigned last month.

All of this has amounted to what the city’s transportation commissioner, Polly Trottenberg, recently described as “a number of financial and operational challenges.” NYC Bike Share, a subsidiary of Portland-based Alta Bikes, is hoping to redress these with a new round of funding. The problem is, according to media reports, that potential new sponsors (understandably) don’t want to put money into a rolling Citibank advertisement.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has ruled out public funding as an option for the program and has forbidden the operator to issue rate hikes until they sort out operational issues.

Despite program hiccups, the Citi Bike program has been a runaway success from the perspective of its namesake global financial institution, which just failed a Federal Reserve stress test and is currently embroiled in a $400 million loan fraud scandal in Mexico. As Elyssa Gray, creative marketing director for Citibank, recently told Advertising Age, the company netted $4.4 million in earned (free) media coverage in the 10 months since launch. Citibank committed a total of $41 million over five years (equal to $8.2 million per year) to have its name and signature blue logo hue splashed across bikes from Brooklyn to the Upper East Side.

The marketing move appears to have achieved its initial purpose, which was to turnaround negative perceptions of the bank following the financial meltdown that started in 2007. Citibank’s internal metrics suggest that it has achieved this aim: According to Gray, all marketing metrics tracked by the company saw a double-digit jump in the first three months after launch, including a 25 percent increase in “brand preference.” In the same April interview with Advertising Age, she indicated the company might even expand the bike-share advertising model to other cities.

Citigroup drew $20.1 billion in revenue in the first quarter of 2014 with a net profit of $3.9 billion, up 4 percent from the same time last year. At the time of writing, there were no reports that the bank would be contributing additional funds to the Citi Bike program.

Once we accept corporate marketing into the services we use on a daily basis, what responsibilities, if any, should those sponsors have in ensuring adequate operation of those services? Of course, program operators should be capable and held accountable for missteps, including, in this case, what may have been an undervalued sponsorship price -- considering  the benefits Citibank has accrued and the difficulty of attracting additional sponsors. Nevertheless, highly visible branding should theoretically force sponsors to keep some skin in the game — if the program is a failure, it damages brand value. But it appears Citibank is already satisfied with the marketing results from an outstanding program start and has sufficiently distanced itself from the bike-share operator to avoid brand damage.

Which begs the question: Once the sponsors have reaped the desired goodwill through a knock-out launch, how do you keep corporate partners invested in success when they have no motivating incentive?

Image credit: Flickr, Mike Licht

Climate change is making the news for a number of reasons, including Showtime’s new series called “Years of Living Dangerously.” The rise in greenhouse gas emissions is responsible for climate change, and the majority of scientists agree that most of the increase is caused by human activity.

That said, there is a bit of good news when it comes to U.S. GHG emissions. The Los Angeles Times reports that greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. decreased by 3.4 percent from 2011 to 2012. The report is based on the EPA’s recently released inventory, which cites “multiple factors” for the decrease in emissions -- including reduced emissions from electricity generation, fuel efficiency in vehicles, a decrease in the price of natural gas and reductions in miles traveled. Greenhouse gases in 2012, according to the inventory, were 10 percent below 2005 levels. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent.

U.S. GHG emissions in 2012 totaled 6,526 million metric tons of carbon equivalent. Carbon dioxide accounted for most (82.5 percent) of all GHG emissions. The largest source of carbon emissions was fossil fuel combustion. Methane accounted for 9 percent of the emissions, while nitrous oxide accounted for 6 percent and fluorinated gases accounted for 3 percent. Methane emissions decreased by 10.8 percent since 1990. Most methane emissions came from domestic livestock, natural gas systems and wastes breaking down in landfills.

Data on GHG emissions from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), released earlier this year, is not entirely positive like the EPA’s data. Once all data is in, energy-related carbon emissions in 2013 are expected to be more than 2 percent above the 2012 level. The EIA attributes the small increase to “coal consumption in the electric power sector,” pointing out that coal has “regained some market share from natural gas since a low in April 2012.” However, there is some good news. Emissions in 2013 are slightly more than 10 percent below 2005, according to EIA data. The EIA characterizes the decrease as “ a significant contribution towards the goal of a 17 percent reduction in emissions from the 2005 level by 2020 that was adopted by the current administration.” The EIA data shows more good news. Carbon emissions from energy activities decreased four out of six years since peaking in 2007, and in 2012 they were “historically low.”

Regional cap-and-trade programs in the U.S.

The U.S. does not have a cap-and-trade program on the federal level, but there are several regional programs in place. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a program to cap and reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. It involves Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The RGGI began selling auction permits in 2008. In 2012, California’s cap-and-trade program took effect. A year later, on Jan. 1, 2013, the enforceable compliance obligation began for GHG emissions. California is working with Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba) through the Western Climate Initiative to develop “harmonized” cap-and-trade programs. Perhaps through these regional efforts, U.S. GHG emissions will continue to decrease.

Photo: Wigwam Jones

Toddlers and preschoolers exchanging toys through the sharing economy – no, it’s not a scene from Portlandia’s recent sketch spoofing collaborative consumption, but the idea behind a startup that rents out Lego sets to kids and other fans of the iconic plastic bricks.

Billed as a “Netflix for Legos,” Pley ships its members a new-to-them Lego set, lets them play with it as long they like and sends customers another set once the previous toys are returned. The company offers a 15-day free trial and has three subscription plans that include all shipping costs: $15 per month to rent out small Lego sets, $25 a month for medium-sized sets and $39 a month for the largest sets.

Worried about the cleanliness of playing with rented toys? Pley sterilizes the plastic bricks with an eco- and kid-friendly solution that kills 99.99 percent of germs and bacteria and meets the same standards the Food and Drug Administration applies to restaurants, according to the company’s website.

The environmental benefits of lending Legos – rather than producing and disposing of new, individually-owned sets – are obvious, but Pley boasts on its website that each set it rents out saves a tree over the lifetime of its rental. To date, the company said it has prevented 90,200 pounds of ABS plastic from being manufactured, which has avoided 3.9 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.

The startup also helps members get rid of their own unwanted Legos in an environmentally responsible way: Customers can ship old Legos to Pley for free and receive credit towards the service. As part of a special offer for Earth Day, the company will give out $10 for every pound of plastic bricks – double its standard $5 trade-in rate.

Pley’s co-founder Elina Furman came up with the idea for the Lego lending service when the mom of two felt overwhelmed by the amount of the toys her children had and was concerned their copious material possessions were turning her kids into “little monsters,” Furman told Fast Company. Furman, who founded the daily email service A-List Mom that boasts 70,000 members, also wanted her children to turn off their TVs and computers and engage in play that stimulated their minds – like building with Legos. But stocking her home with Lego sets was expensive: Furman estimates she spent $2,000 dollars on the plastic bricks. After searching for a Lego subscription service and finding no such company, she decided to start one herself.

Because children’s clothes, toys and gear are, by nature, only used for a brief amount of time, they seem like perfect candidates for the burgeoning sharing economy. But rental companies for baby’s clothes haven’t had success: Plum Baby Gear shut down two years ago, and Good Karma changed its name and rental model and became the online consignment store Moxie Jean. Lending out toys is much different than renting clothes, however, which come in so many different styles and sizes that it makes it challenging to base a subscription service on them.

Starting at $180 a year, Pley’s membership fee may seem pricey – until you realize how expensive Lego sets are (a Star Wars Death Star will set you back $400) and how quickly kids get bored with and neglect their toys. And 15,000 families agree, all signing up for Pley subscriptions since the company launched last year. The startup, that has shipped 75,000 Lego sets from its warehouse in San Jose, Calif., is clearly still growing: It just secured $6.75 million Series A funding and has expanded from a two-person founding team to a 23-person staff, Fast Company reported.

Image credit: Pley

Passionate about both writing and sustainability, Alexis Petru is freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area whose work has appeared on Earth911, Huffington Post and Patch.com. Prior to working as a writer, she coordinated environmental programs for Bay Area cities and counties. Connect with Alexis on Twitter at @alexispetru

By Robbie Hall

There have been countless keynote sessions and workshops that have piqued my interest at the Annual Social Enterprise Alliance Summit, but one in particular that I would like to share is from a personal interview I had with Eric Weinheimer after the “State Of The Art on Employment Social Enterprises” session.

During the session Eric had mentioned “the thing no one is talking about” in regards to social enterprise and the strain it can put on your infrastructure if you are not adequately prepared. He drew the comparison of The Little Rascals and how often, when confronted with a troubling situation, the group would say, “Let’s put on a show!” This is similar to how some people view social enterprise. When you feel the pressure of X, Y or Z in your business or industry your instinct may switch to “Let’s become a social enterprise!”

It can seem like a quick fix to a problem. But when you do not have the necessary resources to support your goal then ultimately you end up with an unstable and unsustainable business.

Robbie Hall: Why is it important to be part of a larger community like SEA?

Eric Weinheimer: It is important to be part of a larger community like SEA so that you can learn about all of the innovation and the execution that is occurring in the social enterprise sector around the country. There are a ton of ideas, but who’s actually executing on those ideas? Who’s bringing these ideas into reality, and who’s doing it on scale? If we were not part of this SEA community, we would not have access to those best practices, networks, role models and inspiration.

RH: What would your advice be to anyone looking to join or become a social enterprise?

EW: Creating a social enterprise requires a great deal of resources, energy and inspiration. And if it is not managed properly, the creation of that enterprise can distract people from other important work that the nonprofit organization might be doing.You want to make sure that your proposed social enterprise complements, supports and enhances your mission. If it doesn’t, then you shouldn’t start a social enterprise.

RH: How do you deal with the tension and disengage between money and mission?

EW: It is certainly a delicate a balance. You need to make sure that your social enterprise is furthering the programmatic goals of the overall mission. But with no profit margin, there is no mission. When there is a conflict between the two, there needs to be a clear understanding for all the staff and board about which one takes priority and under what circumstances. The more clarity, the better.

RH: If you could go back, knowing what you know now in social enterprise, what would you do differently?

EW: I would ensure that we had more resources in our infrastructure to support the growth of social enterprise. I have seen the enormous strain that the lack of a strong infrastructure put on our existing nonprofit. It almost harmed the organization.

RH: What is the next step for someone looking to build up those resources for their infrastructure?

EW: There are a couple of things… You should be looking for funders who would consider grants or program-related investments for general operating and infrastructure support. But if you do not have those funders, then you should consider partnering or collaborating with complementary organizations that have similar missions, strong infrastructure and also are looking to start a social enterprise.

About Eric Weinheimer:

Eric has been the President and CEO of The Cara Program since 1996. Prior to this, Eric worked 10 years in the financial services sector. Eric earned a B.S. from Boston College and an M.B.A. from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he was awarded the Distinguished Alumni Award for Public Service. Eric was selected as a member of the Emerging Leaders Program for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Class of 2011. Eric was also selected as a Chicago Community Trust Fellow for 2013.Eric was appointed by Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to the Social Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Task Force. He serves on the Advisory Board for the Social Enterprise Initiative at The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He also serves on the Board of Directors for Streetwise, the Social Enterprise Alliance, Chicago Chapter and the Oak Park River Forest Community Foundation.

By Lewis Robinson

Women are making leaps and bounds in the business world. Whether they are benefitting their employers by sales forecasting, overcoming roadblocks in volunteerism or leading their organizations to greatness as CEOs, they are finally being recognized by companies nationwide. Here are three examples of businesses that are honoring their female employees for all that they do.

1. Anita Borg Institute

ABI (the Anita Borg Institute) awarded Bank of America the Top Company in 2014 for Women in Computing. ABI is a nonprofit organization which has dedicated itself to inspiring, guiding and connecting women in technologically innovative organizations. They chose Bank of America as this year’s winner for their Computing ABIE Award, which will be presented on May 8th at the annual Women of Vision Awards Banquet in Santa Clara, Calif, because of its representation of women among its team of technological experts (and with only a 3 percent turnover rate). Bank of America’s Global Technology & Operations Executive Cathy Bessant says that the company is developing women to be great technologists as well as great leaders, and although they have made great progress there is still much to be done. Previous winners of the award include American Express, IBM and Intel.

Along with the Top Company award, ABI also distributes Women of Vision Individual Awards for three women in the categories of Social Impact, Leadership and Innovation. The Social Impact award went to Kathrin Winkler, senior vice president of EMC Corp. The Leadership award went to the President of Harvey Mudd College, Dr. Maria Klawe. The Innovation Award went to Dr. Tal Rabin, who is both a research staff member and manager at the Cryptography Research Group at IBM’s T.J. Watson Research Center.

2. Salesforce

Salesforce.com has a Woman of the Month campaign that recognizes women who help make the company a popular place to work. The honorees are nominated by coworkers, and the winners are chosen by FemmeForce, an internal network.

February’s Salesforce Woman of the Month was Shawna Wolverton, Senior Director of Platform Product Management. She offers this advice to other women in the workforce: To someone who is just starting out, she says to look for advisors and mentors who can help you on your journey. For women who want to get ahead, she says to go look around and do the tasks that need to get done. And what about productivity at work? Wolverton advises booking yourself out on your calendar so that you have the time you need to get things done. Finally, she recommends that women talk to each other for help and support both in the workplace and outside of it. She says women have much to learn from each other.

3. WFF and Campbell Soup

The Women’s Foodservice Forum (WFF) and Campbell Soup Co. selected Julie Lim as the Volunteer of the Year for 2014. Julie Lim is the director of product development and national account executive for Royal Cup Coffee. The award is given to one who embodies the mission and goals of the WFF and has made both sustainable and significant contributions. Julie is active both with WFF and United Way, as well as various other volunteer programs in and around the Los Angeles area.

--

Not only are these extraordinary women examples of great leadership and service, the companies they work for are also ambassadors for helping to mentor and support women in the workforce. They are at the forefront of our nation’s growth and acceptance of exemplary women, and as such, other companies and organizations would do well to emulate their examples.

About the author: Lewis Robinson is a freelance business consultant specializing in CRM and sales. He's begun multiple corporations dealing with marketing and market research, and over the past 27 years has been recognized for his entrepreneurial advice and business insights.

It’s time for another Stories and Beer Fireside Chat on Thursday, April 17 at 6:30pm Pacific (9:30 Eastern) at the Impact HUB San Francisco – and online via web cam.

Please join us in person at Impact HUB SF - or online - for our latest “Stories & Beer Fireside Chat” on Thursday, April 17th at 6:30pm when TriplePundit’s Founder, Nick Aster, will be chatting with Damien Fagan and Jesse Friedman of Almanac Brewery.

In this chat, we’ll talk with beer entrepreneurs whose farm-to-bottle practices aim to revolutionize the big environmental impacts within the industry. Damien & Jesse will share their entrepreneurial stories about what it’s like to compete with the big boys. The chat will be valuable to anyone interested engaged in changing an industry, or just interested in enjoying a responsibly produced beer.

Video will start about 7pm pacific, but don't worry you can watch any time after that:

Schedule

• 6:30 – 7:00 – beers, grilled cheese, and networking


• 7:00 – 8:00 – fireside chat and Q&A


• 8:00 – 8:30 – networking

If you're joining us in person, please register HERE.

If you're joining online, please return to this page at 7:00pm PST on April 17th to tune in to the live stream. You can also pick up the conversation on Twitter at #3pChat.

 

About Damian: 

Damian’s passion for brewing was ignited in 1992, when he made his first batch of homebrew while attending Michigan State University. That batch didn’t turn out so well, but the experience of making something that wasn’t readily available in the marketplace stuck. He’s been brewing innovation ever since. Damian co-founded Almanac Beer Company in 2010 with a vision of bringing a unique farm-to-bottle approach to brewing. As CEO of Almanac Beer Company, Damian manages general business operations of the company including strategy, finance and general administration. He also brings his award-winning branding, marketing and visual design experience to bear as Almanac’s creative director, responsible for brand strategy and positioning, marketing communications and visual design. Prior to Almanac, he was Co-Founder of Fagan Welles LLC, a boutique food and beverage design and marketing agency in San Francisco. Damian has marketed iconic brands such as Johnny Walker, Buchanan’s Whiskey, Zacapa Rum, Perrier Water, Tropicana Juices and many more.

About Jesse:

Jesse Friedman’s knowledge and passion for all things food and beer are both highly sought after and well documented. Since 2008, his culinary blog, BeerAndNosh.com, has attracted thousands of regular readers and has become a Bay Area institution—documenting the burgeoning craft beer and local food scenes in San Francisco. A deep working knowledge of the culinary arts and beer pairing expertise has made Friedman a sought after menu consultant—designing beer pairing menus for some of San Francisco’s top restaurants. As brewmaster and COO of Almanac Beer Company, Friedman is responsible for heading up beer production, sales and distribution as well as managing restaurant and retail relationships. He also develops each seasonal recipe, consulting with local farms and sourcing fruit for each release. Finally, he offers deep culinary expertise and credibility, working with chefs to create beer pairings and creating the culinary point of view for Almanac Beer Company.

In an increasingly urbanized, technologically complex and consumption-driven society, it's easy to lose sight of the advantages and benefits to be realized, as well as our fundamental reliance on, ecosystems and the services they provide.

Yet even as our preoccupation with jobs, economic growth and development has continued to intensify, we've been gaining greater understanding, and appreciation, of the value of ecosystems and ecosystem services -- not just in terms of environmental health and safety, but for their economic and broader social value as well.

On April 9, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Oxfam America released, “The Economic Case for Restoring Coastal Ecosystems,” a report that highlights the remarkable economic value and benefits realized by coastal ecosystem restoration projects carried out right here in the U.S.

Coastal ecosystem restoration: More job creation than offshore oil and gas development

The CAP-Oxfam America study of coastal ecosystem restoration projects revealed some surprising economic results. As NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Conservation and Management Mark Schaefer elaborated in a news release.

“We learned in a nutshell that there’s a win-win, if not a win-win-win, opportunity that presents itself when you invest in conservation. The economic benefits are remarkable … there’s a direct connection between what we’re doing to enhance the environment and what we’re doing to enhance economic opportunity.”

The CAP-Oxfam America study provides a basis for rethinking conventional ideas regarding return on investment, economic growth and development, including how to revitalize the U.S. economy and society, alleviate poverty, diminish widening gaps in income and wealth, and enhance innovation and economic opportunity.

Analyzing data on three coastal ecosystem restoration projects on different U.S. coasts, the project team found that for every $1 million invested in carrying out the projects:

• $15 in net economic benefits was created for every dollar spent.


• 17 jobs were created on average – almost double the 8.9 created per $1 million invested in offshore oil and gas development.


• Projects provide increased protection from storm surges, improved coastal recreation opportunities, and health benefits from increased levels of filter feeders, such as oysters.

The net 15:1 economic return and other benefits of these coastal ecosystem restoration projects flowed directly through from improved fish stocks, “due to the fact that 75 percent of the U.S.' most important commercial fish species relay on coastal environments at some point in their life cycle, with many young fish and crustaceans using habitats such as oyster reefs as nurseries,” CAP and Oxfam America point out.

Coastal ecosystems: Valuable natural resources for this and future generations

In addition to the higher economic value realized by improving marine breeding grounds and commercial fish and shellfish stocks, the project team also found that coastal ecosystem restoration projects improve human health and safety by reducing the vulnerability of communities, basic public services and infrastructure to extreme weather events, such as storm surges and rising sea levels. As elaborated in the press release:

“Coastal wetlands, along with serving as essential habitats for many species, help buffer coastal communities from strong storm surges by soaking up seawater...[U]p to 60 percent of the damage done to Gulf Coast communities from hurricanes happens because there aren’t healthy barrier ecosystems in place.”

Then there is the value of these coastal ecosystems in terms of carbon capture and storage, which is likely to increase in value as human carbon and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. As CAP and Oxfam America continue:

“Many of these ecosystems also serve as major carbon sinks, thus helping mitigate climate change as well as helping protect communities from its effects — coastal sea grass, for instance, stores more carbon dioxide per square kilometer than forests do.”

Rethinking coastal resource management: More in the way of prevention

NOAA's Schaefer emphasized the need to rethink coastal development and management by focusing and investing not just in coastal ecosystem restoration, but also on projects that will prevent the degradation and loss of environments in the first place. The report authors point to the loss of sediment from the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers as an example.

Louisiana loses an area of land the size of a football field every hour as a result of the construction of levees and dams along these rivers, they note. As a result, sediment that builds up and strengthens coastal marshes, and provides nutrients to the animal and plant life in these habitats, is being withheld. That alters the dynamics of these ecosystems and leaves them more susceptible to storm surges and sea level rise.

“We need to do a better job of helping people understand what is happening to our coastlines in aggregate, over time. We gain big when we conserve and restore coastal habitats — this is a no-brainer,” Schaefer stated.

Images courtesy of the CAP-Oxfam America study

What method of electricity generation is cheaper than solar, wind, oil or even coal? Trick question; it’s energy you don’t need to produce in the first place. Energy efficiency programs aimed at reducing energy waste cost utilities only about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, while generating the same amount of electricity from sources such as fossil fuels can cost two to three times more, according to a new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).

The report, "The Best Value for America’s Energy Dollar: A National Review of the Cost of Utility Energy Efficiency Programs," looks at the cost of running efficiency programs in 20 states from 2009 to 2012 and finds an average cost of 2.8 cents per kWh -- about one-half to one-third the cost of alternative new electricity resource options. The report analyzes energy efficiency costs from states across the country, including: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.

“Why build more expensive power plants when efficiency gives you more bang for your buck?” said Maggie Molina, utilities, state and local program director for ACEEE and author of the report. “Investing in energy efficiency helps utilities and ratepayers avoid the expense of building new power plants and the harmful pollution that plants emit.”

The report says each dollar invested in energy efficiency measures yields $1.24 to $4 in total benefits for all customers, which include avoided energy and capacity costs, lower energy costs during peak demand periods like heat waves, avoided costs from building new power lines, and reduced pollution.

At an average of 35 cents per therm, natural gas utility energy efficiency programs are less than the current average price of natural gas (39 cents per therm in 2013), the report says. These figures represent a large number of diverse jurisdictions across the nation -- 20 states for electricity programs and 10 states for natural gas programs -- and show that energy efficiency has remained consistent as the lowest-cost resource, even as the amounts of energy efficiency being captured has increased significantly. Formatting, nomenclature and frequency of efficiency program reports vary significantly across jurisdictions. ACEEE recommends that states adopt best reporting practices to improve consistency and transparency of the data.

This supports a May 2013 Ceres report that claims energy efficiency could be a several hundred billion dollar investment opportunity in the United States. However, the report argues, better policies are required to unlock broad-based financing from institutional investors. The report details the results of a survey of nearly 30 institutional investors and other experts from the energy, policy and financial sectors that identified three areas of policy: utility regulation, demand-generating policies and innovative financing policies. The study finds that these three areas have the potential to take energy efficiency financing to a scale sufficient enough to attract significant institutional investment.

Energy efficiency is something everyone should be able to agree on, even for those who continue to deny climate change. The U.S. government may be unable to enact meaningful climate change legislation, such as a tax on carbon, but few could dispute the economic merits of increased efficiency.

The U.S. lags far behind many other developed nations in energy efficiency, according to a 2012 ACEEE report. But this means there is much room for improvement. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory say the U.S. can double its energy productivity by 2030 — and do so in ways that bolster the nation's economy.

Well, what are we waiting for?

Image credit: Flickr Wilson Hui

Based in San Francisco, Mike Hower is a writer, thinker and strategic communicator that revels in driving the conversation at the intersection of sustainability, social entrepreneurship, tech, politics and law. He has cultivated diverse experience working for the United States Congress in Washington, D.C., helping Silicon Valley startups with strategic communications and teaching in South America. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter (@mikehower)