Search

Mike Wallace, former director of the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI’s) North American operations, has joined BrownFlynn as managing director.

In his new role in Los Angeles, Wallace will be responsible for expanding the firm’s market presence and brand in North America, developing strategic partnerships, providing innovative corporate responsibility and sustainability solutions to clients, and helping shape strategic direction.

“We’re delighted to have Mike on board and are excited to capitalize on the market growth potential afforded by his joining our leadership team,” said Barb Brown, principal and co-owner of BrownFlynn. “The demand on corporations and other organizations to better measure, manage and disclose sustainability information and initiatives is rapidly expanding across North America—and globally,” she added.

Wallace is an internationally recognized expert and leader in the sustainability field with 20 years’ experience advising corporations, non-profits and government agencies on the development, implementation and continuous improvement of sustainability strategies and initiatives.

For the past four years, he led the successful re-entry and funding of GRI into the North American market after spending one year at GRI’s headquarters in Amsterdam.

Wallace commented: “After exploring many options, I chose BrownFlynn as the ideal company and the one most closely aligned with my values and professional goals. The firm’s reputable and consistent market engagement made them a fantastic choice for me in all corners of the sustainability field.”
 

By Mike Elm

On Nov. 21-22, 2013, Scotland played host to 500 delegates from more than 30 countries who came together for the inaugural World Forum on Natural Capital. One of the main aims of the World Forum was to move the debate on natural capital forward to action.

Today is the 100^th day since the conference started, and exciting developments are taking place across the world. Just this week at The Economist’s World Oceans Summit, attended by influential global figures including the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, natural capital was a prominent theme. This reflects the fact that natural capital accounting is gaining prominence across international organizations from the private, public and voluntary sectors. Indeed Christine Lagarde used her recent Dimbleby Lecture to say that pricing environmental damage correctly is essential, “because it will help to reduce the harm today and spur investment."

The Business Hub

From the business side, the end of last month saw the launch of the Natural Capital Business Hub  a collaborative project between the Corporate Eco Forum and The Nature Conservancy, supported by the Natural Capital Coalition (formerly the TEEB for Business Coalition), in consultation with a vast array of business and NGO leaders. The Hub builds on the success of The New Business Imperative-Valuing Natural Capital, a collective statement from 24 leading companies that investments in natural capital can reduce risks and costs, fuel growth and build brand.

Currently, more than 40 leading companies--representing over $1.4 trillion in combined revenues--are featured on the Business Hub including Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Disney, Shell, Kimberly-Clark and General Motors, along with more than 15 opportunities for collaboration. In January, Microsoft identified "Finding New ways to measure Natural Capital" in its five sustainability predictions for 2014. To get an impression of the scale of organizations involved, consider that many of the companies involved in the Hub are also featured on another list: Forbes’ World’s Biggest Public Companies.

The Index

Another exciting development since the World Forum is the Natural Capital Leaders Index released in January as part of the Green Biz and Trucost ‘The State of Green Business 2014" report.

The Index is designed to recognize companies demonstrating natural capital leadership--and, in addition, break new ground by identifying those companies that are truly "moving the needle" by decoupling growth from natural capital impact.

The Natural Capital Leaders Index features two categories of leaders. On the one hand, there are the Natural Capital Efficiency Leaders such as Intel, Aberdeen Asset Management and National Australia Bank that have used natural capital most efficiently to generate revenue over the past year. The second category is the Natural Capital Decoupling Leaders which include the likes of Ford, AMEC and Hertz that have increased revenue while decreasing natural capital impacts over the most recent five year period.

The awards

Alongside the Index, responsible management of natural capital is coming out as the basis for awards; it features as a category in the Guardian Sustainable Business Awards and is the theme for the Global Leadership Award in Sustainable Apparel (GLASA). The shortlist for GLASA includes the Kering Group (Puma’s parent company) and the Natural Capital Coalition both of which played an important role at the World Forum.

The EP&L

In February, Novo Nordisk became the first pharmaceutical company to publish an Environmental Profit & Loss (EP&L) account, but this kind of reporting remains very much the exception. Novo Nordisk’s is the first EP&L to emerge since Puma published the original EP&L account way back in 2011. We will see more EP&L accounts by 2016 as Kering will publish accounts for all of the group’s luxury and sports brands.

The protocol

The TEEB for Business Coalition, an associate partner for the World Forum, has undergone a rebrand after a public consultation to emerge as the Natural Capital Coalition reaffirming the interest in the term natural capital. At the end of November the coalition, along with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), launched the Natural Capital Protocol a project to develop a harmonized framework for valuing natural capital in business and investor decision making.

The Natural Capital Protocol reflects the desire for standardization that exists because with tools and methodologies existing from the likes of Trucost, True Price, PwC and Gist it can be daunting for companies at this stage to know where to look when they decide to proceed with natural capital accounting.

The report

On the reporting side a development of note occurred in February when the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) opened a consultation inviting public comment on the expansion of its global corporate reporting framework beyond climate change to include natural capital information. The expanded framework is designed to help organizations prepare and present environmental information in mainstream reports for the benefit of investors, the inclusion of natural capital in this framework is an important step.

The study

In January The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), the project from which the Natural Capital Coalition emerged, organized a scoping workshop for the ‘TEEB for Agriculture & Food" study to draw input from several experts for a future study. The Agriculture & Food study builds on the TEEB approach to draw attention to the economic benefits of ecosystems services to agricultural systems.

The countries

There are a number of countries in which natural capital has been gaining increasing prominence in these last months. In February Japan’s Ministry of the Environment, alongside Conservation International, held the "International Symposium on Natural Capital Management" which featured speakers including Pavan Sukhdev and the program director of the World Forum on Natural Capital, Jonathan Hughes.

Another point of interest coming out of Japan is the work of Sumitomo Mitsui Trust, the first company in the world to incorporate natural capital evaluation in loan criteria. They are the first, but with the existence of the Natural Capital Declaration it is surely only a matter of time until others follow suit.

Across the Pacific in Costa Rica, a law to incorporate the value of natural capital in development planning was introduced into the legislature in late November. If passed, the government and the private sector would need to incorporate relevant natural capital data and its economic importance into proposed project plans.

The forum

From Costa Rica, our journey takes us across the Atlantic back to Scotland, the host country for the World Forum, which has demonstrated leadership on natural capital over the last 100 days through the Scottish Forum on Natural Capital. This groundbreaking initiative, bringing together public, private and voluntary sector organizations to protect and rebuild Scotland’s natural capital, was launched at the World Forum with support from Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond.

The Scottish Forum’s first members meeting at the end of February saw members sign up from public, private and voluntary organizations. The list of initial members includes the Scottish government, the RBS Group, the University of Edinburgh, ICAS and Scottish Environment LINK (a coalition of Scotland’s leading environmental NGOs). The Scottish Forum will look to create cross-sector collaborations to work for the benefit of Scotland’s natural capital.

With research carried out on behalf of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency estimating that nature is worth at least £21 billion to Scotland’s economy, there is a clear incentive for a concerted effort to ensure that it is well managed. Within the Scottish government itself there has been a Natural Capital group established with its first meeting taking place next week.

The future

So, did I miss anything? What have you been doing these past 100 days? I’d love to hear about what I may have missed, and who knows maybe it will feature at the next World Forum.

It has been an undeniably exciting 100 days , with plenty of encouraging developments and it will be interesting to see how these turn into action before the next World Forum in November 2015. But these are just the start, and now we need to move forward quickly as the rate of environmental decline is alarming. Natural Capital accounting has real potential to move us towards a situation where all sectors of society, whether private, public or voluntary, recognize the benefits that we derive from nature and take action to protect and restore it.

Mike Elm (@Elmers87) is part of the project team for the World Forum on Natural Capital and also works on the Scottish Forum on Natural Capital.

The next World Forum on Natural Capital will take place in Edinburgh, Scotland on 26-27 November 2015.

With a busy week behind you and the weekend within reach, there's no shame in taking things a bit easy on Friday afternoon. With this in mind, every Friday (starting today) TriplePundit will give you a fun, easy read on a topic you care about. So, take a break from those endless email threads, and spend five minutes catching up on the latest trends in sustainability and business.

With the federal minimum wage increase a hot topic on everyone's mind, this week we rounded up 10 U.S. companies that pay each of their employees a living wage. You may be surprised by who made the list.

1. Costco

Costco has long been a leader in social sustainability, starting its employees at $11.50 per hour with an average wage of $21 per hour, not including overtime. Last year, Costco CEO Craig Jelinek earned plenty of praise, and cynicism, for his vocal support of an increase in the U.S. minimum wage---underscoring the company's commitment to fair pay.

2. Gap, Inc.

Just last week, Gap, Inc. announced that it will increase the minimum hourly rate it pays American employees from $9 per hour in 2014 to $10 per hour in 2015. The 45-year-old company that includes well-known retail brands like the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic employs 90,000 people in the U.S. and 137,000 worldwide.

3. QuikTrip

This Oklahoma-based convenience store and gas station chain offers entry-level employees an annual salary of around $40,000, plus benefits, the Atlantic reports. Defying the stereotype that paying higher wages is bad for business, QuikTrip has expanded to 645 locations across 11 states.

4. In-N-Out Burger

In-N-Out Burger, a fast food chain and veritable cult food classic in California and the Southwest, starts its employees off at a wage of $10.50 an hour. U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez recently noted the chain's elevated wages and wondered why its competitors couldn't follow suit, saying: “I find it a remarkable notion that McDonald’s can’t afford to pay an increase in the minimum wage but In-N-Out Burger can.”

5. Trader Joe's

The natural foods chain is somewhat secretive about the way it runs its business, but it is largely considered to be a well-paying employer in the grocery industry. According to Glassdoor, the average Trader Joe's crew member earns $13.20 an hour. Pay starts at around $9, but raise opportunities come often, and employees have the opportunity to earn a $2 per hour raise every year.

6. Patagonia

Outdoor retailer Patagonia made headlines last year when it included nine styles in its Fall 2013 line that were Fair Trade Certified by Fair Trade USA. This step, a first from a major retailer, is the first in the company's commitment towards fair trade sourcing. Here in the states, the retailer also starts its sales associates at $10 per hour, according to Glassdoor.

7. Zappos

While many Web-based retailers operate their call centers in the developing world, paying operators meager wages and providing no benefits, Zappos, the online apparel company owned by Amazon, pays up to $16 per hour for its call center representatives.

8. Ben & Jerry's

Ben & Jerry's is a big name in the sustainability and social good spaces, so it's no huge shock that it treats its ice cream scoopers well, too. An entry-level Ben & Jerry's worker earns $15.97 per hour, a company spokeswoman told the Huffington Post in an email---a figure based on the living wage in Vermont.

9. Sun Light & Power

Sun Light & Power, a Berkeley, Calif.-based solar installation company, was founded in 1976 and is one of America's oldest solar companies. It also pays all of its employees a living wage and covers 50 percent of their individual/family health insurance premiums, according to B Corp.

10. Boloco

Boloco, a Boston-based burrito chain with 23 locations across New England and the Mid-Atlantic, pays its entry-level workers anywhere from $9 to $11 an hour, most of them making $10, reports ThinkProgress. While these wages more than exceed the average for a fast food employee, the company's CEO isn't stopping there. When speaking about his company's starting wage last year, Pepper told the Huffington Post, "We can and must do more."

Image credit: Flickr/Annette Bernhardt

Based in Philadelphia, Mary Mazzoni is an editor at TriplePundit. She is also a freelance journalist who frequently writes about sustainability, corporate social responsibility and clean tech. Her work has appeared on the Huffington Post, Sustainable Brands, Earth911 and The Daily Meal. You can follow her on Twitter @mary_mazzoni.

For those who find that trying to read a nutrition label on a package of food is something akin to trying to decipher the jargon on last year’s climate change report, good news: the FDA now hears you.

This week the federal government proposed some changes to the 1993 nutrition labeling system that we find on packaged foods in supermarkets. They aren’t huge and they aren’t jazzy, but even my nutritionist dad would have been impressed with the tweaks.

After all, if you want someone to remember the information, give them the facts first, right? Most of us are wowed by numbers, not by scientific names for the pieces and parts that make up our food. To many of us, 5 percent saturated fat speaks a lot more plainly than "saturated fat 1 gram."

The newest edition to the label is the "Added Sugars" line, which is no doubt directed at educating us about the sugar that often gets added to our food during preparation. It’s a great idea, especially for diabetics who must avoid additional sugar.

And, for better or worse, they’ve revamped the serving sizes for larger appetites. The old serving sizes didn’t always seem to make sense to every diet, age or body size. But unfortunately, the new approach may not either. If the government wants us to be aware of the amount we’re eating in sugars, fats, etc., why change the portion sizes on labels just because “people are eating larger serving sizes”?

The new label proposes changing the portion size to the amount that is normally eaten these days in a serving. So that 12-ounce bottle of orange juice will now be considered one serving because we’ve been drinking it that way as a snack (and because the manufacturer packaged it that way).

"These updates would reflect the reality of what people actually eat, according to recent food consumption data," says the FDA. "By law, serving sizes must be based on what people actually eat, not on what they 'should' be eating."

But how will that help people understand portion sizes? Isn’t it better to encourage manufacturers to tailor that packaging to what should be a normal portion for the most healthy portion size?

If a candy bar that has 300 calories and 20 grams of fat is labeled as one serving, will we really find the will power to say the government's wrong and put away the rest of the candy?

The proposed labels aren’t perfect, but according to the FDA consumer update, they aren’t chiseled in stone, either. Yet. The FDA is asking for input which you can do at its official docket page. Let them know what really speaks to you.  After the 90-day comment period, companies have two years to implement the changes.

Images: FDA

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) has withdrawn its certification of Swedwood, a forestry subsidiary of furniture giant IKEA (which also goes under the names Swedwood Karelia and IKEA Industry).

According to the FSC, a recent trip to the Karelia Forest in Russia revealed that the company has been harvesting old-growth trees in the protected regions of the Russian forest, which is located near the Russia-Finland border.

The subsidiary has leases to log 700,000 acres, as long as it does not cut down old-growth trees and trees in specified areas. According to FSC’s report  there were “major deviations”  from regulations that included the suspected harvesting of 600-year-old trees.

IKEA’s profits last year exceeded $4 billion. Approximately 1 percent of the world’s wood supply is said to be harvested by the Swedish furniture company.

According to the Swedish environmental organization Protect the Forest, concerns about IKEA’s operations in Karelia date back more than a year. According to PTF’s website,  a petition containing 180,000 signatures from environmental organizations was submitted to IKEA about two years ago "with demands and suggestions for how Ikea should transform their forestry and preserve valuable old-growth forests.” IKEA was encouraged to work with environmental experts who were formulating a master plan for the protected forests of Karelia.

In fact, as we reported  in December 2012, questions were already being raised about Swedwood’s logging practices, which the Global Forest Coalition said included logging the areas that are now being investigated in 2014.

IKEA issued a statement downplaying the relationship of the suspension to environmental concerns. Per an IKEA spokesperson, "[the] deviations mainly cover issues related to facilities and equipment for our co-workers, forestry management as well as training of our forestry co-workers." No further statement could be found on its website regarding the suspension, but a company spokesperson told MailOnline that "[the company's] full focus is now on correcting the remaining deviations and reinstating the FSC certificate urgently," saying that the furniture giant sees the suspension as "highly temporary."

PTF, however, says that FSC issued the suspension because of environmental violations that included included “logging of key biotopes, insufficient dialogue, lack of environmental consideration and work environment issues.”

“But unfortunately, the audit report does not address clearly enough our main concern over the FSC-certified logging of intact tracts of natural forests,” said Linda Ellegaard Nordstrom, a director of PTF. “The report raises several deficiencies, but does not describe the main problem, which is that pioneer exploitation, with fragmenting and breaking into the last intact forest landscapes and tracts, does not fit to FSC's principles and criteria. Thus we believe that the FSC label is still far from being a guarantee for sustainable forestry.”

Swedwood Karelia announced on Feb. 11 that it was suspending operations in the Karelia Forest and would be leaving the area. The news prompted some scathing criticism from several regional environmental organizations, including Friends of the Earth Sweden.

"IKEA’s departure from this part of Karelia, with its high concentration of old natural forest, clearly shows that it is not ecologically, socially, or economically sustainable to harvest old-growth forest, which are a non-renewable resource,” said the organization’s representative, Klas Ancker.

It also has prompted some concerns by PTF, as to the fate of a fully-operational mill in the Russian Republic of Karelia.

“Since IKEA now intends to leave Karelia, our opinion is that they have a great responsibility to make sure that whoever possibly buys their factory has a genuine environmental commitment and does not accept timber from intact forests,” said Ancker. “IKEA owes this to Karelia.”

Update: An IKEA spokesperson sent Triple Pundit the following statement via email: "IKEA does not use 600 year old trees in our products. The average age of the trees we are cutting in the lease is 160 years... A majority of the deviations have already been corrected and our full focus is now on correcting the remaining deviations and reinstating the FSC certificate urgently. We take our responsibility for the forests and the people who work there very seriously and we appreciate that correcting the deviations will improve the way we manage the forest in Karelia."

Image of IKEA store in Sweden: Christian Koehn

Natural gas has frequently been described as a bridge fuel to a low-carbon energy future for at least a couple of promising reasons. Firstly, there's an abundance of the stuff, and secondly burning natural gas produces only about half the CO2 emissions as coal. In theory, at least, replacing coal-fired power stations with natural gas ones, and converting large trucks from diesel to natural gas, are ways to reap significant real-time climate benefits.

That said, however, there is a general Achilles-heel in the whole natural gas energy system, which is that it's leaky. Leaks occur not only in production of natural gas, but also in storage and transmission of it, and because natural gas is 80 percent methane (CH4), which is around 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, when it leaks, it's a big deal.

And it turns out, it's a bigger deal than previously thought. A new report by Stanford University finds that America's natural gas system is much more leaky than previously estimated, and maybe up to 50 percent more so than the EPA estimates. Of course, this is pretty significant because the benefits of burning lower-CO2 natural gas as an alternative to coal and oil, must be weighed against the deleterious effects of extensive methane leakage--but how bad is it? And is it bad enough that natural gas cannot be considered a viable bridge fuel to a lower carbon future?

Climate Progress cites the Stanford report in an article which addresses the methane leakage problem extensively, and provides data on various studies which suggest natural gas production, transmission and end-use leakage could be up to 7.1 percent of the natural gas extracted. At this rate, Climate Progress reports, it would take a natural gas power station 100 years to reap a greenhouse gas benefit over a coal fired plant--or as their headline points out--"by the time natural gas has a net climate benefit you'll likely be dead and the climate ruined." Uplifting stuff, indeed!

The Stanford report suggests one of the reasons the EPA has underestimated leakages is that emissions testing at wells and processing plants were based on operators participating voluntarily, and unsurprisingly, there haven't been too many volunteers. Stanford points out that for one study, the EPA asked 30 gas companies to cooperate with emissions-rates sampling, and only six of them let the EPA on site. Likely, the more unscrupulous operators are those most likely to have gone unaccounted for in determining accurate estimates.

Ideally, we would transition from coal to renewable energy without passing through natural gas as a bridge fuel, but let's face it, that's pretty unlikely to happen with low-cost natural gas production going on right now, and going through the roof. So, does this mean we're doomed with the apocalyptic prediction which Climate Progress suggests? Maybe not, because although leakage is higher than previously believed, it's not to say it has to be.

Indeed the World Resources Institute (WRI) seems to be a little more optimistic, in their article "Capturing The Fugitives: Reducing Methane Emissions from Natural Gas," WRI recognizes the risks of natural gas's so-called "fugitive emissions" problem, and concurs that leakage rates are currently in the range of 2 to 3 percent, and even as high as 7 percent. However, their own research finds that reducing methane leakage to 1 percent or less of total production, would provide a net climate benefit over any time horizon. Furthermore, WRI asserts, encouragingly, that a 1 percent leakage target is reachable through existing state and federal policies and with widespread adoption of existing and cost-effective technologies.

If WRI are right about this, it's great news--no new laws are required and no new technologies need to be invented. That being the case, the leakage problem may just boil down to effective enforcement. WRI explains the details of what can be done to mitigate leaks in their article--and perhaps one of the most significant points made is that leaked methane is in fact leaked profits; or put another way, the 7 percent of leaked methane is energy that could otherwise be sold by the companies who are extracting the natural gas. It seems obvious that off-gassing a salable product is foolish, and if such companies invested in the technology to hit the 1 percent leakage target, WRI states, it would take only three years or sooner for that investment to pay for itself.

Since natural gas is, by all accounts, projected to remain an important fuel in the energy mix for some time to come, there appears to be no excuse in failing to take advantage of its lower carbon benefits, by preventing unnecessary leakage. At least then, while advocating for increased use of renewable energy, natural gas could at least certainly be a better choice than coal and potentially a viable bridge fuel too.

Image Credit: Gerry Dincher

If your business is selling electricity, then a new analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy showing flatlining or even falling demand is not encouraging news.

In June 2013 Ron Binz spoke about disruptive forces facing the utility industry. He was Obama’s nominee for head of the Energy Regulatory Commission until Mr. Binz dropped out in the face of pretty intense industry pressure. One of the main disruptions leading to troubles for utilities is waning sales growth in the electricity sector. It’s a problem. Last year in Ann Arbor, Binz showed a chart depicting less than 2 percent growth in energy demand going forward. However, a new report shows an even worse picture for the traditional purveyors of electricity. Use has actually been falling since 2007 and continues to do so. 

Electricity use peaked in 2007 and then started to fall year after year. Electricity use in the U.S. is 1.9 percent below the 2007 peak. And in 2013 demand was lower than in 2012. Some experts argue that this negative-to-zero growth in demand is mostly because of the national recession. And for the deep recessionary years, that may have been true.

However, as the Great Recession falls further into the rear view mirror, electricity demand continues to stay flat or even decline even as the economy grows.

The ACEEE analysis explored electricity use trends going back to 1993 with a detailed focus on usage between 2007 and 2012. The study explored factors such as changes in GDP, changes in pricing, weather changes, and energy efficiency programs and policies. Between the focus years of 2007 through 2012 the dominant factors causing change in electricity usage in residential and commercial sectors appear be energy efficiency programs and policies and warmer weather. However, ACEEE indicates that there is insufficient data to understand what's going on in the industrial sector.

Regarding energy efficiency, Binz suggested we think of it this way: Today a refrigerator uses little more electricity than a light bulb did a decade ago. And a light bulb uses as much electricity as a calculator did a decade ago. That advance in efficiency isn't going backward and people aren't going to start opting for energy-hog fridges anymore. As efficiency settles in from policy changes and industry standards, it's going to put continually downward pressure on demand.

The exact reasons for weak electricity demand may not be 100 percent certain. However it's certainly in line with the idea that utilities are facing an upheaval in the electricity market. It's just one of the three major disruptive challenges:

• Flat or even negative growth in electricity demand


• Shrinking access to credit


• New technologies, such as rooftop solar

Rooftop solar was recently cited by utilities as a potential "mortal threat" to the current business model. As the market shrinks due to reduced demand it doesn't take much rooftop solar to tip the scales of that demand into constant shrinkage. That makes it mighty hard to pay back investment on massive and expensive coal, nuclear or natural gas plants. That, in turn, could make credit and investment for large centralized power plants even harder to find.

Utilities may need to start considering serious changes to the business model they've kept for so long.

Image Credit : ACEEE Website

Within five years, Chick-fil-A plans to serve only chicken raised without antibiotics in its 1,800 restaurants nationwide—in response to consumer demand for greater transparency in food production and safety. There are several restaurants and chicken processing companies that are responding to consumer skepticism about treating all chickens, healthy or not, with antibiotics.

Pew Health Initiatives estimates 80 percent of antibiotics use in this country is for meat and poultry. A staggering 29.9 million pounds of antibiotics were sold in 2011 for meat and poultry production, increasing the risk of bacteria with resistance to antibiotics. Public concern about the widespread use of antibiotics in livestock and its impact on dangerous bacteria is mounting and fueling the demand for alternatives.

"The Chick-fil-A move does signal an important market change in responding to what consumers have been demanding for some time—that we stop feeding healthy animals daily antibiotics," said Urvashi Rangan, director of the food safety and sustainability group at Consumer Reports.

Although this is an important step, Chick-fil-A is not the first national chain restaurant to undertake such an initiative. Both Chipotle and Panera Bread have been serving antibiotic-free meat for more than a decade and were pioneers in the movement. Chipotle even went a step further by requiring suppliers to comply with "humane housing standards for chickens."

“Chick-fil-A’s announcement to serve chicken raised without antibiotics in five years is a bold first step," said Janice Neitzel, principal of Sustainable Solutions Group, an organization that guides companies in responsible sourcing of animal proteins. "To do this right, they’ll want to ensure no antimicrobials are used to prevent disease, but only used when medically necessary to treat disease. At the same time, Chick-fil-A should look at issues of animal husbandry and genetics as next steps.These are important issues which Sustainable Solutions Group understands."

Modern boiler chickens have been over-selected for rapid growth, resulting in genetic bone issues including twisted and contorted feet and legs. This can result in chronic pain, explained Neitzel in an interview with Triple Pundit. Animal welfare policies and sourcing guidelines can target these issues.

"The more people are raising the bar, the more the food chain will shift, and the more consumers will become knowledgeable about issues surrounding food production and why these things matter," said Chris Arnold, a Chipotle spokesman. Serving antibiotic-free meat is raising the bar, but additional issues exist that would reduce the need for antibiotic use, such as cleaner and roomier living conditions for industrial chicken producers, Rangan added.

Serving antibiotic-free protein does create sourcing challenges, as demand outstrips supply of such products from the producers. Some of the first restaurant chains were driven by carefully listening to customers. "When we began to serve meat raised without antibiotics, we were driven by two things: taste and a belief in simpler, cleaner ingredients," said Scott Davis, Panera's chief concept officer. "At the beginning, there wasn't a national supply available, but our customers pushed us to continue the journey."

Chicken producers, including Tyson Foods and Perdue Farms have been joining the trend, with the creation of antibiotic-free chicken brands. Tyson Foods recently introduced NatureRaised Farms and Perdue introduced Harvestland, both antibiotic-free product lines.

Image credit: Flickr/Link576

Sarah Lozanova is a regular contributor to environmental and energy publications and websites, including Mother Earth Living, Green Building & Design, Triple Pundit, Urban Farm, and Solar Today. Her experience includes work with small-scale solar energy installations and utility-scale wind farms. She earned an MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio Graduate School and she resides in Belfast Cohousing & Ecovillage in Midcoast Maine with her husband and two children.

Submitted by Guest Contributor

By Aaron Hurst, CEO, Imperative

When you don’t have a lot of cash to attract the best talent, you might as well try the temptation of purpose.

Forget how clichéd that sounds and you have Etsy, which has actually been able to compete with cash-rich companies like Google and Facebook for talent based on that premise. As Matt Stinchcomb, Etsy’s VP of Values and Impact, told me, they don’t have “gobs” of money like other companies but they’re rich in community.

Matt and Etsy CEO Chad Dickerson, both profiled on the first-ever Purpose Economy 100, have built the largest online marketplace of handmade and vintage items on the framework of e-commerce married with a sense of local community. Nine years into its existence, not only has Etsy created a means for people to bring their craft to a marketplace, providing added integrity to their brand of commerce, the company has also fostered a strong, caring internal culture.

As Matt reveals, the company bases its mission and ethics around a mindful, humane and transparent business, with a commitment to continually creating opportunities for its employees, sellers and community members.

“My job is giving people the means and the desire to make mission-, vision- and values-aligned decisions,” says Matt, whose main preoccupation is to develop and maintain company culture. “Knowing and caring and doing are three different things, and I feel like […] you can understand and know the values. That’s the first step: the mission, vision and values. The second is […] internalizing that, and the third is … making the decisions within that context.”

How we each internalize and personalize the pillars of our work is open to interpretation, as it should, he says. “You can’t force a culture. You’ve got to feed the yeast and just let it happen.”

Looking for some of the key ingredients to the “secret sauce” behind their success in attracting and retaining talent? Matt offered six:

1. Begin with an organizational mission that is compelling.

Etsy’s mission is to re-imagine commerce in ways that build a lasting and fulfilling world. The opportunities that that mission implies are endless, not only for those who want to have a positive impact but also for those candidates who align values, compensation and a constantly growing career.

2. Build a community of customers, employees and supply chain and unite them all in your mission.

Etsy blurs the lines and includes all its stakeholders in its community. That ensures everyone is united in a shared vision and passion. Etsy staffers make sure that anyone with a creative pursuit is able to find an outlet of expression within its community and network. The organization fosters participation, so everyone is engaged and shares in its processes and success.

3. Create space in your office for your community.

Etsy has its own school that helps employees with personal growth and professional development. Employees are encouraged to participate in and lead workshops on creative enterprises like photography, screen-printing, jazz and even mindfulness. Not only do these workshops occur during business hours, Etsy also cover the costs.

“We allow groups of people into our offices all the time for these workshops…We have a person whose job is to basically bring the community in as well as take employees to seller studios to meet with them, to understand them. We have a whole testing department that makes sure that we’re getting sellers’ input on everything. We do a lot to make sure that that connection, that relationship, is active.”

4. Embrace your extended community.

Just like its online platform, Etsy believes in cultivating relationships with other organizations in its neighborhood and welcomes employees to bring their children to work. Rather than operate in an isolated campus or an ivory tower, their office is part of the neighborhood. Etsy employees also host meet-ups of local Etsy sellers when they travel home to scale their community and support teams on a local level by providing resources.

5. Foster openness and transparency.

Etsy hosts a town hall every quarter to share exactly what they’re working on and why. There is a live studio audience, and people – customers, suppliers, employees, etc. – watching online are also invited to submit questions. The company’s financial information is also published monthly on the site’s blog. “We try to keep that kind of direct line of communication with our customers open. And these are ideas that we’ve had since the beginning that have continued to this day.”

6. Treat what your team produces, down to HR policies, as art.

Etsy is all about craft and celebrating it in all its manifestations. “Someone once said to me, ‘The greatest thing you can do for somebody is give them an opportunity to share their gifts.’ And so I decided that we'd do just that. So you may be in customer support, but now you can be teaching cello to people in the company, and getting a chance to really express yourself in other ways.” In other words, look for beauty, opportunity and creativity in the work of your team, not just the job function or results.

Through these seemingly simple yet profound principles, Etsy manages to bring both humanity and humor to its business practices, felt at every tier of the company hierarchy. It relies on the simple formula of mindfulness: paying consideration to every player in your marketplace.

And Matt’s team works hard to ensure that the values and mission of the company are relevant to everyone within the organization so that no job feels thankless.

CSRwire is proud to collaborate with Imperative on highlighting leaders from the inaugural Purpose Economy 100. To learn more, please visit ThePurposeEconomy100.

While world governments debate the best ways to reach the 2020 advisory of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Kingdom of Bhutan has quietly taken another strong step toward environmental sustainability.

Last week, the Prime Minister of Bhutan, Tshering Tobgay, met with Nissan's Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn to hammer out a deal in which Nissan would supply all-electric LEAF cars to Bhutan to replace its conventional government and taxi fleets. The Royal Government of Bhutan wants to convert the nation’s capital, Thimphu, to a green-powered city. Transitioning its conventional vehicle fleet to EVs would bring it closer to that goal.

As part of the new agreement, Nissan will be supplying demonstration cars that can be used to promote green energy to the public and establishing quick-charge stations across the country to be used by Bhutan’s new fleet. As a sign of goodwill, it has also presented the government with two complimentary cars that it can try out on Bhutan's mountainous roads and city streets.

The 2014 LEAF currently runs about $29,000, which would be prohibitive for the average Bhutanese family. The government therefore is hoping to find ways to create subsidies that would encourage Bhutanese to transition to all-electric vehicles. Some of the options that are being considered are tax reductions or exemptions on EVs, promoting a carbon credit exchange system, and possible subsidies from internationally based agencies.

“If we can get international agencies and individuals to support us to subsidize one-third of that price, it becomes very affordable,” Prime Minister Tobgay said in a joint press conference at the time of the meeting.

He admitted that a crucial part of Bhutan’s sustainability goals is to find a way to convert to zero-emission transportation.

“We don’t want to rely on and we don’t want to buy fossil fuel,” Tobgay said.

Bhutan’s ecology gives it a substantial advantage when it comes to hydroelectric power. Although it is mountainous and landlocked, its four hydroelectric plants, which are powered by Bhutan’s river system, supply enough megawatts to sell power to India. One of its greatest obstacles to sustainability, however, remains its dependence on fossil fuels for transport, for which it must import fossil fuels from neighboring countries.

Ghosn admitted that this agreement was a “very initial step,” but one that would afford both parties significant advantages in the future. Nissan has so far managed to corner 45 percent of the world’s EV market, and has done so largely by appealing to the public-sector market. It currently has more than 100 agreements with city, federal and state governments around the world. This new agreement would give it a notable advantage in becoming the main supplier of vehicles in the world’s first sustainably run nation.

Nissan LEAF: Xiaojun Deng

Bhutan: Juan Dazeng