Search

In late 2012, a class science project in Lagos, Nigeria created a buzz on the social media airwaves. Four teenage girls had created a power generator using human urine. The 14- and 15-year-olds, who created the project in an effort to find a safer generating system for local families that depend on gas-powered systems to generate electricity, figured out a way to separate and use the hydrogen from pee to essentially create electricity.

The girls were immediately hailed as forward-thinking budding scientists, and their project was showcased by Maker Faire Africa. The news also kicked off a long list of blog posts and articles (that are still surfacing) discounting the girls’ accomplishments. Geraldine Botte, a chemical engineer at the University of Ohio whose research first highlighted the possibility of urea electrolysis, pointed out that while the students' actions were “empowering,” it was really “a high school project.” She went on to add that, “you will never get more energy out than you put in because you are treating urea.”

Another observer, Nathan Lee (no relation whatsoever) went even further, and with an energy typical of many of the blogs that have strived to brush off the students' thoughtful work, gave a full-page account of why this was really nothing more than a “quack gadget” and little more than a “bong [fashioned] out of an Orchy bottle.” He did add, however, that he would be “happy to be proved wrong and we can finally harness the [guys] who piss in the street and the urinal at the pub could run the lights. Anyone else got any thoughts?”

Apparently, someone else did, and their names are Bill and Melinda Gates.

In December 2013, after Bristol Robotics Laboratory in the U.K. announced that it had developed a way to fuel a cell phone from pee, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded Bristol Robotics Lab $100,000 toward the further development of “urine-tricity.”

Their methodology (which uses microbial cells as energy converters) is considerably more technical than that of the young scientists from Nigeria. It has also been able to stand up to some rather rigorous scientific scrutiny.  So far at this point, the challenge for Dr. Ioannis Ieropoulos, Prof. John Greenman, Prof. Chris Melhuish and their Bristol Robotics team is to find a way to raise the sustained level of generation and power things greater than a phone call.

Urea electrolysis isn’t new. It’s been around for some years, thanks to Dr. Botte and others that apparently aren’t subject to the “ick” factor that most of us experience when we think of powering our computers or our toaster with pee. While there have been plenty of jokes to go around about four girls from a small village developing a way to save lives from carbon monoxide poisoning, I am looking forward to seeing what they develop next. For all the hype and the grief they received from social media, their real contribution was reminding the scientific world and philanthropists like the Gates of the human factor that made this particular research so timely and so critical.  And that’s worth more than a science fair award.

Image credit: Erik (Hash) Hersman

In order to help educate the American people, the Obama administration just launched a new site, data.gov/climate, devoted to providing data and facts about climate change.

The site is designed to help people “find data related to climate change that can help inform and prepare America’s communities, businesses and citizens.” The initial phase contains data and resources about coastal flooding, sea level rise and their impacts. “Over time, you will be able to find additional data and tools relevant to other important climate-related impacts, including risks to human health, the food supply, and energy infrastructure,” the site states.

The site, launched with “leadership” from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA, was unveiled on Wednesday, March 19, when Obama administration officials met to talk about efforts by both the private sector and government to prepare for climate change impacts. A few weeks earlier, on March 4, Obama unveiled his 2015 budget request which asks for $1 billion for a resilience fund to mitigate against climate change impacts.
The New York Times points out that for now the site will be a “clearinghouse for climate science data” from certain government agencies, and will not benefit “average users." “Instead, NASA and the NOAA will call on researchers and private companies to create software simulations illustrating the impact of sea level rise,” the article stated.

The Obama administration appears to be taking climate change seriously. During President Obama’s State of the Union Address in January, he said that “climate change is a fact.” In February, Obama visited a farm in California’s San Joaquin Valley, the front lines of the three-year drought plaguing the Golden State. During his speech there, he linked the drought and climate change. "We have to be clear. A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, floods, are potentially going to be costlier and they're going to be harsher,” Obama said.

The site comes at a time when the American people are feeling the impacts, from floods to droughts, of a changing climate. It also comes at a time when most Americans don’t think climate change is a priority. A January Pew Research Center poll found that Americans ranked “dealing with global warming” No. 19 in a list of 20 top policy priorities for the President and Congress. However, most Americans do believe that climate change is occurring. An October 2013 poll by the Pew Research Center found that 67 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence that climate change is occurring. Among those who think there is solid evidence, 44 percent think it is caused mostly by human activity. A 2006 survey found that 77 percent thought there was solid evidence that climate change occurring. Clearly, more education is needed about climate change and its impacts.

Image credit: Kim Seng

Welcome to our series of interviews with leading female CSR practitioners where we are learning about what inspires these women and how they found their way to careers in sustainability. Read the rest of the series here.

TriplePundit: Briefly describe your role and responsibilities, and how many years you have been in the business.

Laura Noctor: I am the Global Director of Corporate Responsibility for InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG). IHG is one of the world's leading hotel companies – we have 687,000 rooms in over 4,600 hotels in nearly 100 countries and territories around the world. We operate nine hotel brands including InterContinental, Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn, and Holiday Inn Express.

I joined IHG in 2008 as Global Director of Corporate Responsibility (CR). Since then, I have worked across our entire CR agenda. I project managed the initial development of IHG Green Engage - our online sustainable environmental management platform, led our team’s stakeholder engagement activities including our CR Report and more recently have taken on a broader role, driving our sustainable communities programmes globally. One of my focus areas is the IHG Academy. The programme involves our hotels creating partnerships with local community or education providers and offering work experience opportunities with the aim of helping participants to become more employable. Another programme, IHG Shelter in a Storm, supports employees, hotels and communities impacted by disaster and leverages the unique role our hotels play in society. I manage a fantastic team, and together we work to convey the benefits of these programmes and make it as easy as possible for our hotels and colleagues to get involved.

3p: How has the sustainability program evolved at your company?

LN: The CR function was still fairly new when I joined IHG; actually I was just the second person to join the team which is now comprised of 13 people globally. This growth reflects how the company is really investing in CR. We’re part of a broader Business, Reputation and Responsibility department which brings together range of functions including, Legal, Audit, Global Standards and Risk. Together, we help manage the reputation of IHG and our brands, and look for positive ways to address complex social challenges in a way that is also great for our business and key stakeholders. All our programmes are rooted in creating shared value. I’m immensely proud that we have shifted from setting up CR policies and programmes to focusing on really embedding them across the business. There is always more to do but the good news is, we now have great momentum, for example over half our hotels use IHG Green Engage and we have over 300 IHG Academy programmes in over 50 countries.

3p: Tell us about someone (mentor, sponsor, friend, hero) who affected your sustainability journey, and how.

LN: I am inspired by my nephew who is just nine years old. For him, sustainability is not even something he thinks about, it’s just what makes sense. It’s amazing to see how the green agenda especially has changed over the years to become so mainstream. It also shows us how we need to be innovating products today to meet the needs of tomorrow’s consumer.

3p: What is the best advice you have ever received?

LN: Be present. I think it’s really easy to be distracted nowadays by 24-hour communications. I love travelling, (not surprising for someone who works for a hotel company!), and when I go somewhere new, I try and make an extra special effort to absorb what I am seeing, hearing and experiencing. Last year I was lucky to travel to Iguassu Falls which was breathtakingly beautiful. I just paused to empty my mind and take it all in….

And of course this skill is really important to my day job. Especially in developing my network and making myself fully available to those I manage so I, in turn, can help them grow.

3p: Can you share a recent accomplishment you are especially proud of?

LN: Surviving the London marathon - I found it really tough going. From mile 18 onwards it really did feel like a battle of the mind to get passed the finish line. The crowd was amazing and it really made me appreciate how powerful the simple act of encouragement can be. Since then I have certainly thought about how I can encourage others. Our team spent time in 2013 focusing on a strength-based approach to leadership. Our monthly "strength call out" exercise is helping us make time to get into this discipline. It’s an approach I would really recommend.

3p: If you had the power to make one major change at your company or in your industry, what would it be?

LN: I’d like us to get better at really conveying the huge economic impact of the hotel industry which often goes unsaid, particularly in terms of jobs. Our average hotel employs 75 people and is supported by 10 partners and suppliers so we have a huge opportunity to change lives. Hospitality is also unique in that people can work their way up from entry roles to senior management, learning on the job. Through the IHG Academy we’re telling this story in a way that inspires people to get involved.

3p: Describe your perfect day.

LN: My perfect day must include the following: good food, drink, sunshine and travel. I would start the day with a cup of tea upon waking, followed by a lovely jog in the sunshine. A leisurely breakfast, and then onto what I would call a "serious power shopping trip" - New York would be an ideal destination. I’d close out the evening with a cocktail at sunset followed by a lovely meal with my husband.

Last week wasn’t a great one for companies in the extractive industries. In South Africa, a wage strike by the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) against the world's top three platinum producers -- Amplats, Lonmin and Impala Platinum -- entered its eighth week, with no end in sight.

In Norway, the Ethics Council of the state’s Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF or the Fund) released its 2013 Annual Report and announced that it was examining the operations of French oil giant Total, in the disputed Western Sahara, to determine whether its activities there are unethical and warrant exclusion of Total by the Fund. Days later, Norway’s Prime Minister proclaimed that the Fund would be investing a greater proportion of its wealth in renewable energy; the Fund is also considering exiting oil, gas and coal investments altogether, for environmental reasons (the arguable hypocrisy of which has been noted).

Norway operates what is by far the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, with approximately $840 billion in assets under management, so its investment decisions are powerful. For example, the World Wildlife Fund, which has encouraged Norway’s SWF to invest up to 5 percent of its assets in renewable energy, commented that such a move could have a “global impact and redefine how we use money consistent with commitments to limit climate change.”

The Fund’s Ethics Council, an independent group appointed by the Ministry of Finance, makes periodic recommendations to the Ministry on companies that should be excluded from the Fund or placed under “observation,” and the Ministry has established ethical guidelines against which the council measures companies’ conduct. A current list of excluded companies can be found here, though the council may from time to time recommend the removal of a company from the exclusion list if its conduct becomes consistent with the Fund’s guidelines.

The council typically recommends a company for exclusion due to concerns that the company is associated with gross breaches of human rights, gross corruption or severe environmental damage. All of the council’s recommendations are published in its annual reports, and the final decision whether or not to exclude a company from the Fund resides with the Ministry of Finance.

This year, the council contacted 43 companies, met with 18 and made 13 recommendations for exclusion, 12 of which resulted in decisions by the Ministry to exclude companies from the Fund. (Report, 8-9) The majority of the council’s 2013 recommendations concerned severe environmental damage; only one concerned human rights violations (the Ministry accepted the council’s recommendation to exclude Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. for using child labor in the production of hybrid seed in India).

The 2013 Report itself is worth a read, in part for its observations regarding the evolving ethical behavior of multinationals. For example, I found insightful the the council’s statement that, “Companies’ actions in resource-rich countries with weak governance systems can have a profound impact on the living conditions of the local population.” One example of this is the council’s work, over the last two years, regarding the operation of oil companies in Equatorial Guinea, the third-largest oil and gas producer in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although the World Bank ranks Equatorial Guinea’s GDP as “High: non OECD,” the average life expectancy there is 51 years, and child mortality is on par with Afghanistan. In other words, it seems the the country’s “substantial [oil] revenues are not being used to improve the living conditions of the population,” which may constitute a gross violation of human rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Though the council does not suggest that companies are to blame for the culture of corruption in Equatorial Guinea, it does recommend that companies “make systematic, deliberate efforts to prevent their activities from having negative consequences” and put in place “robust systems ... for preventing corruption, publish payments made to authorities, persons and companies closely connected to the governing elite,” and comply with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. (Report, 24) Here, here.

On a positive note, the council concludes that the way in which companies view and express their responsibility for human rights is changing. For example, the council notes the existence of “many initiatives at both the national and international level that aim to improve working conditions.” The council also believes that companies are responding more quickly to allegations of human rights abuse and implementing remedial measures sooner than ever before. (Report, 30) If true, certainly a welcome development and reflective of the impact of the Guiding Principles.

In addition, companies would be wise to take note of the council’s focuses for 2014, which include:

• Increased scrutiny in connection with “environmentally damaging fishing and the conversion of forest into plantations”;


• Extractive companies operating in Western Sahara (as reflected by its focus on Total);


• Labor rights, particularly in the textiles industry; and


• Companies in the oil and gas sector operating in countries presenting a “particularly high risk of corruption.”

Interestingly, the 2013 Report also had an added political context, in that it served as something of a response to the Ministry of Finance Strategy Council’s earlier report, which sought to “reduce the political effectiveness of the [Fund] as an actor, through private markets, in the development of corporate governance and social responsibility standards.” In 2013, the Strategy Council advised the Ministry to reassign the Ethics Council’s work to Norges Bank, and recommended that the Ministry no longer publish the reasons for excluding particular companies.

It seems beyond dispute that the Strategy Council’s recommendations against publication would severely undercut the power of the Ethics Council’s work. As the council puts it:

The “public reasonings [of the Ethics Council] have been one of the most important components of the present system. Publication of recommendations has given the general public insight into the work being done, and the opportunity to evaluate whether the guidelines safeguard ethical values.” (Report, 12-13)

In other words, the council’s reports serve a shaming function as well as a financial one. Furthermore, the publication of the Ethics Council’s recommendations has helped focus international attention on corporate social responsibility and business and human rights. A number of other investors follow the council’s recommendations, which compounds the impact -- and heightens the deterrent effect of -- the Ministry’s decisions. Hiding the reasoning from view would lessen the shaming effect and give some investors cover for keeping Fund-excluded companies in their portfolios. Let’s hope the Ethics Council wins this debate and can continue its important work in socially responsible investing.

Image credit: Flickr/i_am_neuron

By Marion Dupont

With the dozens – maybe hundreds – of G4-related articles that have been published in the last few months, it’s difficult to write something fresh about the topic. And yet, I think I still haven’t read a single piece highlighting the bridges between G4 and the other major trend that has been shaking up the sustainability reporting world lately: social and online reporting.

Nobody seems to draw the line between publishing a report based on the Global Reporting Initiative's G4 guidelines and publishing a digital version of such a report online. Is it because companies can only advance one step at a time? Do you feel like you’ll either need to choose between investing time, resources, money and efforts into a beautiful online report that will leverage your audience, or following the new and exciting version of the GRI framework instead?

It’s a shame because online publication and G4 reporting actually do form a great couple, as they both focus on the most important aspect of your corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting: your stakeholders.

By putting materiality at the core of your reporting process, the G4 makes sure your report’s content will focus on what’s important for your stakeholders. By publishing your report online, you will significantly increase your audience, providing incentives to access the information and engage with it. More interesting and relevant content aligned with more open access are two faces of the same coin: a real and meaningful stakeholder engagement process based on comprehensive information and accessibility. One shouldn’t go without the other, unless you are ready to miss out on an incredible opportunity to convince your stakeholders about the impact of CSR on your organization and so, to influence their decision-making through CSR reporting.

As a result, here are the top five reasons you should publish your next G4 report online:

1. More direct engagement and social dialogue

Meetings, phone calls, public events, online polls and, more recently, social media, are so far the most useful tools to engage in dialogue with stakeholders around CSR performances.

According to Cone Communications, 62 percent of global consumers report using social media to engage with companies around social and environmental issues. But all this dialogue is happening outside the report and not inside of it. Corporations should see their reports as an engaging and interactive tool to converse with their stakeholders, and not only as a communication (top-to-bottom) tool to let them know what’s happening.

By making sure your report is online and providing the right features to your stakeholders, they’ll be able to leave public comments, rate your content, share their favorite stories on social networks and especially, provide great feedback about your report and performance. This meaningful engagement will help you adapt your materiality matrix to what they truly think is important and improve your reporting over the years.

2. Improved transparency and trust

In today’s world, consumers, employees and any type of stakeholders who have an internet connection can take screenshots, share comments on social media and give their opinion on anything available online.

Your report is not spared: Conversations are already happening on the 2.0 Web space, debating about your organization’s performance. You can’t avoid them by hiding your CSR report at the back of your corporate website. But on the contrary you will demonstrate transparency and build trust with your stakeholders if you let them engage with your report, share their opinion and spread the word on social media.

As John Friedman (Corporate Responsibility Communications at Sodexo) recently said on Twitter: ”If you worry about what your employees will say about your company on social media, your problem is not social media." Transparency is a key value of the GRI G4 and can be facilitated by an online publication.

3. Interactive storytelling

Have you ever wondered why most people don’t read sustainability reports? Because they aren't attractive and engaging enough! People don’t consume pages and pages of text anymore; they need short and fun content to browse on their smartphones and share on their Instagram or Pinterest accounts. Inserting videos or visual infographics in your online report is a much more effective way to broadcast your message. For instance, G4 put the emphasis on describing your value chain which is -- let’s admit it -- not the most fascinating part of a sustainability report. Try to represent it by using interactive content or maps your readers can play with.

4. Better fit to stakeholders

The other problem with the traditional CSR report is that we all get the same content, whether we’re customers located in the U.S., employees based in Europe or suppliers working in a factory in China. But all the different types of stakeholders are not interested in the same topics, and they don’t have time to go through the entire report to search for the information that targets them.

Effective Web-based publications now play with different levels of information by providing filters according to their targeted stakeholders groups, so that you can access aspects that are material to you in two clicks. Besides, it is becoming easier for stakeholders to understand presented data by changing their units, scopes or years using interactive charts.

5. A clearer picture of your audience

With tools like Google Analytics, it’s easy to know how many people accessed your online report, read it or shared it on social networks. You’ll also be able to know where they’re coming from and how long they viewed each page of your report. It will become a lot easier to know the stories that captivate them the most, or the part that didn’t interest them, to keep improving your reporting storytelling.

Companies now have the opportunity to increase the impact of reporting more than ever by going online. Digital reporting will not change the mind of corporations that don’t want to be transparent or are not ready to play the game. Change takes time, it has always done. However, whether you’re a first-timer or an experienced reporter, keep in mind that providing new incentives and tools to produce better reports will not only increase your performance and reputation, but also put your stakeholders back at the center of your reporting process.

Marion Dupont is the Marketing Manager of Wizness and helps companies create and publish interactive CSR reports online. She tweets @Wiznessplatform.

It's time for another Stories & Beer Fireside Chat on Thursday, March 20 at 6:30pm Pacific (9:30pm Eastern) at the Impact HUB San Francisco - and online via web cam.

Please join us in person at Impact HUB San Francisco for our latest “Stories & Beer Fireside Chat” on Thursday, March 20th at 6:30pm when TriplePundit's Founder, Nick Aster, will be chatting with Dan Fibiger of GAP Inc and Erin Decker of Salesforce.

In this chat, we’ll go behind the scenes with two seasoned sustainability reporters at major corporations. We’ll aim to ask and answer: How does sustainability reporting play out in the trenches? Erin and Dan will share tips and lessons learned. The chat will be valuable for anyone interested in bringing increased transparency to their organizations' transparency or getting into the sustainability reporting field.

[LIVE VIDEO WILL PLAY BELOW ABOUT 7PM PST]

We're dedicating this month's Stories and Beer to sustainability reporting in honor of our upcoming GRI-certified sustainability reporter course happening in San Francisco March 20-21. More info here.

Can't make it in person? The event will stream live on this page, just bookmark it and come back. Converse via Twitter with hashtag: #3pChat.

 

Schedule:

6:30 – 7:00 – beers, grilled cheese, and networking
7:00 – 8:00 – fireside chat and Q&A
8:00 – 8:30 – networking

About our guests

Erin Decker

Erin Decker is the Sustainability Manager for salesforce.com, where she is responsible for setting, managing and executing the global environmental strategy.   She’s passionate about the ability of technology and cloud computing to help make the world a better place.  Erin is an active participant in the ICT technology conversation and has conducted ongoing research around the energy efficiency of cloud computing.

At salesforce.com, Erin draws on her past work in accounting, software start-ups, and environmental grantmaking to inform her work.  Erin has a BS in Accounting and a BA in German from Indiana University, and an MBA in Sustainable Management from Presidio Graduate School.

Dan Fibiger
Daniel Fibiger is the Senior Manager of Strategy in Gap Inc.'s Social and Environmental Responsibility department, where he is responsible for developing innovative strategies that seek to improve social and environmental performance in Gap Inc.’s supply chain. He previously managed Gap Inc.’s sustainability reporting, serving as the lead author for the company’s 2011-12 Social and Environmental Responsibility Report.

Prior to joining Gap Inc., Dan was Program Manager at the Responsible Sourcing Network, a project of As You Sow, coordinating the multi-stakeholder network of apparel companies, NGOs, and investors seeking to end forced child labor in Uzbekistan's cotton sector. Before working at the Responsible Sourcing Network, he was a Research Fellow at the International Labor Rights Forum in Washington DC.

Balfour Beatty's UK and Ireland construction business has become the first in its sector to sign up to the Disability Confident campaign.

The Department for Work and Pensions' campaign is aimed at helping employers to remove employment barriers and to give disabled people the opportunities to fulfil their potential.

As part of Balfour Beatty's commitment to the aspirations of Disability Confident, the company is to develop an employee training initiative to help employees understand unconscious bias, the subconscious preferences people can have for certain types of people, and how overcoming or understanding unconscious bias can help build a more inclusive culture. This material will then be shared with the company's supply chain and across the construction sector.

Balfour Beatty Construction Services UK Chief Executive Officer, Nicholas Pollard said: "1.3 million people within the disabled population want to work and we want to access the widest possible skills and talent. To achieve our full potential as a business we need to make sure we have open-minded and inclusive leadership that embraces the opportunities a diverse workforce offers.

Balfour Beatty is rolling out its unconscious bias training in 2014 to its 9,000 plus UK construction employee base.

The company is also driving a number of diversity initiatives across its UK business and supply chain. This month, Balfour Beatty and Parsons Brinckerhoff's UK businesses became members of Stonewall's Diversity Champions Programme [www.stonewall.org.uk], Britain's leading employers' forum on sexual orientation and the largest non-governmental intervention of its kind in the world which helps businesses develop inclusive workplace cultures.
 

The environmental impact of the clothing industry is large and varied. The most significant factors depend highly on the energy, toxicity and water life cycle of the material in question. In general the largest contributions occur in the material production phase (e.g. agriculture), clothing production phase (factory) and usage phase (washing and drying). These are in the form of energy, water and chemical pollution.

A number of companies are taking steps to produce clothing more responsibly and with a lower impact on the planet. Perhaps best known is the selection of low-impact materials, such as organic cotton, which greatly reduces pesticide use. Other materials that have one or more sustainable characteristics include soy, bamboo, hemp and recycled plastic.

Then there are trends that reduce consumption such as recycled clothing, where scraps, rags and pre-worn items are refashioned into new forms. New designs that are multifunctional, like the Versalette, which can be worn 30 different ways have also come on the scene. The idea here is allowing you to pack lighter on your journey through life, with a few items that can meet a variety of needs.

Among common fabrics, life cycle analysis shows that cotton uses roughly 40 percent less energy than polyester, but cotton growing requires a great deal of water, which is a problem in dry areas. Only about a third of cotton goes into fabric production; the rest consists of seeds, stalks and lint byproducts that can be used to make Viscose (rayon).

Levi Strauss & Co. just made an exciting announcement about changes to its production process that will reduce water usage. Before we get into it, it’s worth taking a minute to talk about water. When talking about water conservation, things get a little complicated. It’s true that all water that is used eventually returns to the global water supply. So what’s the big deal? For one thing, it could return polluted, or it could end up somewhere else. Both of these outcomes could require considerable energy to reverse. It could also be overdrawn so that it’s not there when you need it. Water that was used to grow oranges in Florida, for example, eventually gets returned to the world’s water supply. However, it could be shipped many miles away in the oranges, and end up in a different watershed. That’s why it’s worthwhile to look separately at water usage and water consumption.

This analysis of cotton shows that for woven fabric, water usage is highest in the textile manufacturing phase, which accounts for around 60 percent of usage, while water consumption is highest in the agricultural production phase which accounts for about 70 percent.

The definition of these two terms is important. Water usage refers to all of the water applied, both directly and indirectly, in any given phase of the product’s life. You can think of it as the gross amount of water used. It is important when there is limited capacity. Water consumption, on the other hand, refers to water that leaves the watershed from where it was taken. This would include irrigation water that is taken up by the plant and is either carried off with the harvest or evaporated. Another example is when washing a shirt, all the water used in the wash is considered water used, but only the water remaining in the shirt when its done, which will eventually evaporate, is considered water consumed. Large amounts of water consumption can leave an area dry, as water is transferred elsewhere.

This puts the actions taken recently by Levi Strauss into perspective.The company has developed a new process that will allow it to use 100 percent recycled water in parts of its jeans production process where water usage is very high. The process was piloted by one of the company's supplier factories in China, where 100,00 pairs of women's jeans were produced using this process. The switch saved some 12 million liters (3.2 million gallons) of water. The process is shown in the infographic below.

The company has worked with textile industry engineers to develop a standard to be used across the industry. Standards are very important for delineated recommended practices and behaviors in the industry. The North Face recently developed a new standard for responsible down production that it gifted to the Textile Exchange.

There are a variety of standards for industrial water recycling. The highest is zero water discharge, which Gilbert O'Neal, president of the Institute of Textile Technology, doesn't think Levi's is achieving here, because that would be too expensive. Still, saving 120 liters of water for each pair of jeans is nothing to sneeze at.

Levi's championed its Global Effluent Requirements back in 1994 which specifies the water purity level that must be achieved before the water leaves the factory -- which, according to Reza Hosseini of the Levi Strauss & Co. sustainability team, is often, “cleaner than when it comes in.”

Now the company is improving on that by taking water that has already been used in the finishing process, and using it again and again, as long as its purity can be maintained.

These steps also build on the Levi's already established Water<Less process, an earlier modification to the finishing process that came about after the company did a life cycle assessment of its 501 jeans and Dockers original Khakis. That process, which reduced the amount of water used in finishing, saved roughly 699 million liters of water between 2011 and 2013.

Levi's should be applauded for its continuing pursuit of ever-higher efficiency. It goes without saying that while the company is helping to save the planet by reducing water consumption, it is also saving money for itself and its suppliers.

Image credit: mrjn Photography/Unsplash

It's been a year since Sheryl Sandberg published her book, "Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead," and we're betting that many of you have read it, or at least are familiar with its themes. We know our readers are a great source of information and knowledge. Now we'd like your take on some topics from the book and if they have had any impact on your life. Tell us your stories.

1. The first part of the book talks a lot about how women should get by in a man's world. "Should women play by the rules others created?...I understand the paradox of advising women to to change the world by adhering to biased rules and expectations." Do women still have to get by in a man's world, or are things changing? If so, how? If not, why not?


2. "Women are reluctant to apply for promotions even when deserved, often believing good job performance will naturally lead to rewards." Why is this bad? And why doesn't it work?


3. Sandberg talks about the difficulty for women to find and cultivate mentors and sponsors, but how important they are to career growth. "We need to stop telling women, 'Get a mentor and you will excel.' Instead we need to tell them, 'Excel and you will get a mentor.'" Is that true?


4. Famously, Sandberg has said that when it comes to work/life balance, women "leave before they leave" and they should lean in instead. Has this advice helped women in the past year? Are more women leaning in and are workplaces letting them?

"Talking can transform minds, which can transform behaviors, which can transform institutions." We hope you will join the conversation.

Send your response in a note to andrea@triplepundit.com. Put Lean In in the subject line, and in the body, put your name, the topic and your response in 150 words or less by March 28. We'll put as many responses as we can in a final post or series beginning March 31. 

Don’t tell the public transit naysayers who maintain that Americans will never get out of their beloved automobiles: Americans took a record 10.7 billion trips on public transportation last year – the highest annual ridership number in 57 years, according to the 2013 ridership report released by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). In fact, public transit rides rose by 1.1 percent in 2013, while miles driven only increased 0.3 percent.

Why the record public transit ridership in 2013? Last year actually marked the eighth consecutive year that more than 10 billion trips were taken on public transportation systems, and the APTA says the 2013 figures were part of the increasing public demand for transit that has been growing since 1995.

“There is a fundamental shift going on in the way we move about our communities,” APTA President and CEO Michael Melaniphy said in a statement. “People in record numbers are demanding more public transit services, and communities are benefiting with strong economic growth.”

Public transit ridership, which has risen 37.2 percent since 1995, has outpaced both population growth, which has increased 20.3 percent, and vehicle miles traveled, up 22.7 percent.

An uptick in economic growth is another factor behind last year’s high transit ridership, Melaniphy said. Nearly 60 percent of trips taken on public transportation are to and from work, so when more people are employed, the number of commutes on public transit climb.

And last but not least, the government’s improvements and upgrades to the country’s aging transportation systems encourage more riders to get out of their cars and into a subway car or bus.

“The federal investment in public transit is paying off, and that is why Congress needs to act this year to pass a new transportation bill,” said Melaniphy.

Many cities also saw all-time high ridership levels last year, including Cleveland, Denver, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Tampa and New York.

Heavy rail systems, which include subways and elevated trains, reported a 2.8 percent growth in ridership; eight of 15 systems saw increases, including heavy rail in Los Angeles, New York and Cleveland. Trips on Miami’s heavy rail surged by 10.6 percent when the system increased train frequency during peak service times.

Commuter rail ridership went up by 2.1 percent in 2013, with 20 of 28 transit systems reporting increases. Salt Lake City’s commuter rail witnessed a whopping 103.3 percent boost to ridership when it opened a new rail line in December 2012. Seven commuter rail systems, including those in Austin; Harrisburg-Philadelphia; Anchorage; Lewisville, Texas; Stockton, Calif., Minneapolis and Portland, boasted double-digit increases in trips taken.

Rides on light rail systems, like streetcars and trolleys, rose 1.6 percent last year, and 17 of 27 transit systems saw increased ridership. Light rail in New Orleans, Denver and San Diego all experienced double-digit growth in their number of riders. Meanwhile, national bus ridership remained stable, dipping by only 0.1 percent, and, in cities with populations below 100,000, bus rides increased by 3.8 percent.

For climate action leaders and public transit advocates, the APTA’s recent ridership report offers a glimmer of hope – a light at the end of tunnel, if you’ll excuse the transportation-inspired pun – that Americans are hungry for alternatives to our current car-dominated transportation system. We just have to make sure the transit infrastructure and systems can keep up with this consumer demand.

Image credit: Flickr/Paul Sullivan

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