Search

By Ceri Heathcote

For a number of years now, I have been trying to be sustainable with my style--not buying too many clothes, buying clothes to last and focussing on natural, organic and ethically made fashion.

Gradually the number of labels offering timeless and sustainable styles of clothing has increased, and I have found it increasingly easy to satisfy my desire for amazing clothes without indulging in fast fashion at all. But the transition hasn't been completely painless. At first I found it difficult to move away from the lure of the latest trends. It is pretty tough to get away from them, when you are bombarded by style advice from magazines and retailers advising of the season's latest "must-haves" and "essentials."

But without making that transition from following trends to developing my own individual style, I don't think that I could ever really have been able to describe my wardrobe as sustainable. Following trends meant that I was highly susceptible to the marketing put out there by the fashion industry to convince me that the clothes that I bought last season were no longer "fashionable'' and that I needed to buy new clothes.

Each Fashion Week we see magazines showing their take on the latest catwalk shows and summarizing their takes on what will be the key looks for the season ahead. While many of us just can't afford to buy expensive designer clothes, let alone invest in these "new looks" for each season, we are sold more affordable versions (some might say ripoffs) via the high street, which allow us to keep up with trends at a fraction of the cost. Although many will choose to ignore it, we all know there is a significant cost to these clothes in terms of the human rights abuses and environmental impact associated with their manufacture and disposal. From a style sense of view, many of the features that made the piece of designer clothing desirable in the first place--the great cut, the luxurious fabric and the huge attention to detail in the construction--are lost in the high street copies, leaving little more than a superficial or watered-down representation of the original "trend" or "look."

Slowly but surely, I think individual style (and common sense) is winning over. People are looking to street-style blogs and photographs featured on sites like Pinterest, Instagram and lookbook.nu to get their inspiration. Someone who is rocking their own unique and very stylish look in the real world is proving to be highly inspirational for many. London Fashion Week is now as much about the unique and individual style of the people photographed outside of the shows as it is about the collections being shown on the catwalks. The trends for vintage, secondhand, upcycled and DIY clothes is also a great example that many are fed up with the bland, reproduced looks on the high street and would rather do their own thing.

It can be difficult to step away from the cycle of trend-led clothes that fill the high street shops. But once you do, you will see how many more satisfying possibilities there are. Fast fashion is a bit like a drug: You are constantly needing your next "fix," but it will never really satisfy you for long. The only way to be truly sustainable with the fashion that you wear is to develop your own individual style--to buy the clothes that work for you and make you feel good but will also do so for years to come. I couldn't put it any better than Vivienne Westwood when she said, "Buy less, choose well."

It just so happens that there are plenty of innovative and socially and environmentally responsible fashion brands with their own unique signatures. These brands are great for anyone who wants to create their own unique and amazing style that won't ever go out of fashion.

What do you think? Can trend-led fashion and sustainability ever go hand-in-hand? Could catering to individual style make for a more sustainable fashion industry? Join the conversation in the comments.

Image credit: Melody Jacob/Unsplash

Ceri is the founder of www.style-is.co.uk, a search engine for sustainable and ethical fashion featuring fair trade, organic, vegan, vintgae and recycled clothes, shoes and accessories for women, men and children. Ceri also blogs at www.ethicalfashionblog.com and Oxfam Fashion and writes for the Ethical Fashion Forum's Source Intelligence magazine.

The prevailing thinking is that conservative Republicans are against raising the minimum wage. However, that is not true for all conservative Republicans.

Certainly not for Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist who co-founded PayPal. Thiel recently said in an  interview that he supports a California ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage by fellow conservative Ron Unz. The ballot initiative would raise California’s minimum wage to $12 an hour in 2016. Thiel told the San Francisco Chronicle that he's against raising the minimum wage “in theory,” but in practice he thinks “the alternative to higher minimum wage is that people simply end up going on welfare.” He thinks that raising the minimum wage should be considered “seriously.”

Thiel is a billionaire who, although he identifies as a conservative Libertarian, has given much money to Republican causes. These include $1 million to Club for Growth, an anti-tax group that Politico describes as “tea party aligned,” and almost $4 million to Endorse Liberty PAC for Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign. Thiel even gave campaign contributions to Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in 2012, and Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. 

Thiel deviates from political lines, however, when it comes to raising the minimum wage. And so does Ron Unz, who argues what he calls the “conservative case for raising the minimum wage,” as he stated in a blog post on his website. Unz hopes that in California, “liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans could come together in a bipartisan coalition to support raising our minimum wage to $12 per hour.”

Thiel and Unz are not the only conservatives calling for the minimum wage to be raised. Last month, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly called for raising the minimum wage. "The Republican Party should really wise up and stop opposing raising the minimum wage. It should be 10 bucks an hour,” O’Reilly said. “The GOP needs to stop working against working people." Phyllis Schlafly also called for raising the minimum wage because it would “elevate many low-wage earners above the income threshold that qualifies them for benefits and should result in reduced welfare spending.”

Some companies are already paying their employees higher minimum wages. 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. Just one day prior to Gap’s announcement, the Congressional Budget Office released a report about the impacts of raising the federal minimum wage. The CBO report concluded that raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would increase the pay and family income for most minimum wage workers.

Image credit: Hubert Burda Media

The International Fund on Agricultural Development (IFAD), a financing agency within the U.N., on Feb. 20 stuck a five-year global agreement with Unilever that aims to better train and connect smallholder farmers to the marketplace. The partnership--the first of its kind between IFAD and the private sector--will aid Unilever in reaching its ambitious goal of integrating 500,000 small farmers into its supply chain by 2020 and provide training on sustainable farming methods. The new initiative was announced at IFAD’s annual governing council meeting by Unilever CEO Paul Polman at a panel event called Small Farmers=Big Business.

No specific activities have been announced, and it is unclear where or when the partnership will unroll. So, why is this story even interesting? Two reasons: One, it shows that Unilever is taking food traceability concerns seriously and looking to get a jump over other large multi-nationals on the issue; and two, it shows Polman’s genius in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) realm. The partnership also raises some questions over just how a multi-billion dollar corporation is going to do business with one-acre farms in Timbuktu—an arrangement that often, to say the least, has mixed results.

Food traceability is all about knowing where your food is coming from. It’s no surprise that consumers are more and more interested in the source of their daily bread, with meat recalls and salmonella outbreaks becoming an all too regular occurrence, not to mention issues of underpaid workers, deforestation, pesticides, etc. More and more people—and not just the 401k’d farmers market regulars—want to feel good about what they are buying and eating and, thankfully, companies are responding.

This IFAD partnership is a way for Unilever to respond to these concerns by working with small farmers in India, Indonesia, China and other developing countries. Initial scoping plans for the partnership also include training on more sustainable farming methods, so Unilever can hit the environmental as well as economic development angles.

The question is: Will the Unilever-IFAD program, and others like it, amount to more than a really great marketing story to wrap around packaging?

The impact of this program will of course only be proven in execution, and transparency and sound oversight will be key to the process. As a global company with $68.4 billion in annual turnover, Unilever obviously would have insane leverage over smallholder farmers in any normal transaction. But as a quasi-public agency, IFAD has a responsibility to provide transparency around program protocols and results.

While Unilever has done relatively well to provide transparency to its own sustainability claims (an outside accounting firm audits company metrics, but without much detail on methodology), there is still some marketing sleight of hand. For example, the company claims that it has helped 45 million people gain access to safe drinking water since 2005—by selling its line of water purifiers in India, Bangladesh and other emerging markets with high incidences of water-borne disease. Water purifiers in India are a growth market that bring profit to Unilever and, incidentally, improve consumer health. (Their cheapest model in India is $20; the average monthly per capita income in that country is about $124).

In order for businesses today to survive, they have to think and operate globally and respond to customer concerns about social inequality and environmental health. Still, there is a fine line between business-as-usual and “change the world capitalism”; Unilever is really good at toeing it.

It is no secret that the IFAD initiative will be more than just a transaction between Unilever and shareholder farmers—it's also a brilliant market play. The company needs new customers in the developing world to sustain its growth. The same Sustainable Living Plan that aims to source agricultural materials sustainably and “enhance the livelihoods of people across [the] value chain” also has the company doubling growth by 2020. In order to achieve this, Unilever is taking a profitable volume growth strategy, in large part focused on creating new customers and new products in emerging markets (which account for 55 percent of revenue). The company’s growth is very much tied up in the economic well-being of its current or would-be customers in poor countries. By working with IFAD and smallholder farmers, Unilever is not only making its its supply chain more sustainable, it is also trying to ensure it has a sustainable customer base for years to come.

This is why Paul Polman is the sweetheart of the CSR crowd and investors. He can find that overlapping sliver in the Venn diagram of shareholder concerns (profitable growth) and the concerns of rich world consumers (products traced to fair sources). But what really makes him unique is his ability to play the long-game. He actively seeks out long-term investors as shareholders, rather than speculators looking to make a quick turnaround, which allows him more space to test the running CSR theory that improving the lot of everyone will ultimately yield sustained company returns. He is writing a new script for CEOs, like this quip from a past interview with The Guardian: "I don't think our fiduciary duty is to put shareholders first….if we focus our company on improving the lives of the world's citizens and come up with genuine sustainable solutions….ultimately this will result in good shareholder returns.”

Let’s hope he can prove himself right.

Image Credit: IFAD, Facebook

We have seen the level of income and wealth disparity in this country reach unprecedented levels. The reasons for this are numerous. Many of them, as documented by Robert Reich's book "Aftershock," have occurred as the direct result of policy decisions that were made regarding tax codes and the deregulation of Wall Street.

Wall Street speculation has had a huge impact on the distribution of wealth. With a constant barrage of new, sophisticated derivatives, high-speed trading algorithms and don't-try-this-at-home tricks that are only available to those with huge portfolios, they have turned investing into a spectator sport for the rest of us. All the big action and the big money goes to the big guys, while a few percentage points fall through the cracks for everyone else. This is what the players proudly call a free market.

It's no longer just stocks and bonds. In order to feed this greedy machine's enormous appetite, new opportunities must be found with ever-higher returns. Things like real estate, home mortgages and now “private equity assets,” which used to be within the reach of ordinary working-class people as a way to enhance their earning power, are being scooped up and dragged into the Wall Street coliseum. We can only sit and watch as these are devoured, their prices driven up beyond the reach of ordinary mortals. Home mortgages are the most recent example. Everyone has seen how this game led to the complete collapse of the world economy, with millions feeling the brunt of it, many of them still recovering. The players, who made this all happen, got off with a slap on the wrist, much as football, baseball, and basketball players get away with their misdeeds.

Now their scouts have eyed another target: farmland. According to a study conducted by the independent policy think tank Oakland Institute entitled "Down on the Farm," the first years of this century saw an enormous land grab in the developing world: 500 million acres, an area eight times the size of Britain, was bought or leased by speculators. This often occurred at the expense of food security and land rights. When the price of food spiked in 2008, this was a buy signal to investors, screaming out, “Farmland is valuable now and will be even more so in the future.” This, of course, is exactly what they are looking for--a big growth opportunity (no pun intended).

Unfortunately, as the result of this speculation, which drove food prices even higher, the number of hungry people in the world rose to more than 1 billion. So much for ending world hunger.

Now, they are setting their sights on American farmland. It's worth a lot and will be worth even more as the population grows. People are always going to need to eat. Large-scale investors with an estimated $10 billion to spend are cruising for deals right now. According to the report, large investors are lining up to purchase an estimated 400 million acres that is expected to become available over the next two decades. That amounts to half of all U.S. farmland.

Says Lukas Ross, an Oakland Institute fellow and author of the report: "If they succeed in consolidating control over our land and infrastructure, this new class of land barons could imperil our nation's food supply."

How is that? Well for one thing, the lands they purchase will not be managed for maximum food production. They will be managed instead to maximize profits for their new owners--whether that means industrial farming, biofuel production, turning the land over to oil and gas, or even renewable energy production. Meanwhile the speculation will drive land prices and tax assessments up, making it harder for traditional farmers to hold onto their property or to ever get it back if they lost it.

In some cases, land prices will go up so high, farmers will be extremely tempted to sell. Will they? Consider the demographics. Today, 57 percent of all American farmers are over 55-years-old, while a meager 5.3 percent are 35 or younger. What do you do when you want to retire and your land is worth a fortune to a big investor willing to pay far more than your neighbor can?

This is an attractive investment for those who, after the debacle of the financial crisis, are looking for a safer alternative to stocks, bonds and derivatives, especially at a time when farming has reached unprecedented levels of productivity. What's at stake here is nothing less than who owns our food supply.

Considered in the light of some of the Wall Street tactics we've already seen, like leveraged buyouts (LBO), those often predatory purchases of companies that are bought and then dismantled for a quick profit, this is a frightening prospect.

The report includes the story of Willy Reid, a farm worker who tried managing a bio-dynamic farm for a group of investors. Frustrated and discouraged by their short-sighted meddling, Reid left, saying:

“When managed by people in offices who have no understanding of farming, you essentially have outsiders telling you what to do, putting business before natural systems and telling you when and when not to spread compost or order seeds."

Willy's farm was owned by a Waldorf school. Imagine if it were owned by TIAA-CREF or Goldman Sachs. What would their incentive be to see that the lands are managed sustainably? But it's worse than that, really. Many of these farmers unwittingly sign complex, and some might say predatory, leases that absolve investors of any responsibility with clauses in which the lessee will be “ harmless” for “all liabilities, obligations, claims, damages, penalties, causes of action, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and expenses)” associated with the property.

This is a trend clearly worth keeping an eye on and possibly asking our representatives to regulate. Though considering the amount of influence Wall Street money has in Washington, it might be asking a lot to expect meaningful action.

Image credit: Willie Peat: Flickr Creative Commons

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. 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 format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

The Earth loses 50 soccer fields’ worth of forest land every minute of every day, according to data from the University of Maryland and Google.

But a joint effort from the World Resources Institute (WRI), Google and a group of 40 other businesses, governments and nonprofits aims to reduce that staggering statistic. Last week, the team of public-private partners launched Global Forest Watch, an online forest monitoring and alert system that seeks to reduce deforestation and improve forest management worldwide.

Using satellite technology and an open data system, the new mapping platform will show forest clearing in “near-real time,” providing monthly data on tree cover loss in the humid tropics at a resolution of 500 meters (1,640 feet). Global Forest Watch will also display annual data on tree cover gain and loss for the entire globe at a resolution of 30 meters (98 feet). Anyone with an Internet connection can view the forest map for free, download its data and sign up for daily forest fire alerts from NASA.

“Businesses, governments and communities desperately want better information about forests. Now, they have it,” said Dr. Andrew Steer, WRI president and CEO, in a statement. “Global Forest Watch is a near-real time monitoring platform that will fundamentally change the way people and businesses manage forests. From now on, the bad guys cannot hide and the good guys will be recognized for their stewardship.”

Governments can utilize Global Forest Watch’s data to evaluate the effectiveness of their forest management policies, while nonprofits and communities can use the tool to keep an eye on forest land they are trying to preserve, WRI said on its website. Companies that have pledged to buy forest-friendly commodities like palm oil or paper can identify suppliers participating in illegal deforestation and better monitor their commitments.

“… Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan has set targets to source 100 percent of agricultural raw materials sustainably. As we strive to increase the visibility of where the ingredients for our products come from, the launch of Global Forest Watch– a fantastic, innovative tool–will provide the information we urgently need to make the right decisions, fostering transparency, enforcing accountability and facilitating partnerships,” said Unilever’s CEO Paul Polman in statement.

Global Forest Watch also strives to empower individuals and communities affected by deforestation by crowdsourcing information on forest loss from people on the ground. Indigenous communities, for example, can upload an alert, photo or video to the platform, if their forest land is encroached upon.

But can an interactive online map really combat the complex problem of deforestation?

According to WRI, similar mapping technology already has. Real-time forest monitoring maps developed by the Brazilian space agency and Brazilian nonprofit Imazon have helped the country’s government rein in illegal deforestation. While Brazil’s Amazon rainforest saw a slight increase in illicit logging in 2013, the rate of forest loss has dropped 70 percent since 2004, WRI reported on its website.

The team behind Global Forest Watch hopes it will build on the success of Brazil’s forest mapping program, bringing accurate and up-to-date data on forest loss to businesses, governments and communities worldwide.

Image credit: Flickr/tauntingpanda

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.

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.

Dr. Jeana Wirtenberg: I am the CEO of Transitioning to Green. When companies, and other types of organizations, want to move sustainability programs forward, my job is to provide them with tools to do so. They often need models for taking action and strategies for catalyzing culture change. People driving this change can get stuck. I help them avoid that or, if they’re already stuck my job is to get them unstuck. That's what we do at Transitioning to Green.

We also have a nonprofit arm, which I lead. In that role, I help people find their place and career in the green economy. We work with displaced professionals, veterans, and others.

In addition, I’m an author, professor, and researcher. My new book, just out, is called Building a Culture for Sustainability: People, Planet, and Profits in a New Green Economy. I teach in the Bard MBA in Sustainability program and I consult with the Institute for Sustainable Enterprise, which I founded, at Fairleigh Dickinson University.

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

JW: The big evolution in my business is the same as what I see as the big evolution in the sustainability world at large. We are going from sustainability as the job of a few strategists and special departments to sustainability as a natural part of everyone’s job.

It’s like the total quality movement (TQM) in the 1980s. There was a time when “quality” as a top business priority was a new concept like sustainability is today. Companies set up quality departments and quality committees, just like they do with sustainability today. But now quality is part everyone’s job and few can imagine it being otherwise.

We’re ready to do the same with sustainability, to make it a standard business practice for every type of job in every type of company. That’s less mysterious than it may sound but it leaves many people feeling overwhelmed, immobilized, helpless, and hopeless. The big evolution is to get past that – not with lectures and not with dogma but with tools that help people find self awareness about their role and discover their own power—coupled with clear steps for turning that power into action.

In my book, I draw lessons about building culture and catalog great models for action from nine major companies from a cross-section of industries—Alcatel Lucent, Alcoa, BASF, Bureau Veritas, Church & Dwight, Ingersoll-Rand, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Wyndham.

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

JW: I would have to say it was my Mom, who, sadly, passed away while I was writing my most recent book last year. I dedicated my book to Mom, with these words:  “To our dear sweet mother, Pearl Cecile Wirtenberg, who will remain in our hearts forever. Mom showed us the way to live a sustainable life.”

I go on to say more in my acknowledgments…

Mom was the quintessential embodiment of sustainability: she believed in simplicity, was never ostentatious, and always did what was right. She was intensely curious and inquiring about everything – people, business, and the world. She was a gentle soul, generous, gracious, and incredibly smart, yet always humble.”

I continue to be deeply moved by her constant inspiration and endless support for keeping me nourished spiritually and physically, even as her own health began to wane.  I am so enormously grateful that I am able to carry on her legacy through my book and my work.

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

JW: The best advice I ever had was from my sister Sharon to follow my heart. While I think logic, reason, research, and analysis are incredibly important, and what I have done for much of my life, ultimately we need to find ways to listen with both the heart and the mind simultaneously. When I have a really tough decision to make, after weighing all the factors logically, I go deep within myself to see what my heart is telling me to do, and I do that.

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

JW: My new book. The book is the culmination and a true expression of my life’s work, and I believe it meets a profoundly important need in the world. My dream, and our shared dream in the sustainability world, is that no organization and no individual get left out.

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

JW: It would be for everyone to wake up one day and discover the things that have made them immobilized or helpless around sustainability are all gone.

3p: Describe your perfect day.

JW: My perfect day is a balancing act to nourish my body, heart, mind, and soul. To nourish my body, eat healthy foods, sleep enough, and exercise, preferably outdoors. To nourish my heart, spend quality time with my family and friends who I love. To nourish my mind, spend time reading, writing, speaking, listening, consulting, teaching, and training others to share my wisdom and knowledge, and in the process inspiring them to find their own passion through their work and in their life. To nourish my soul, spend time going inward each day, through yoga or other reflection, to live a life of gratitude, harmony, and peace.

A California city government enacting a strict energy efficient building code and installing electric vehicle charging stations, a wireless provider reducing its carbon footprint by more than 18 percent, and a university campus with 19 LEED-certified buildings–these were just a few of the winners of this year’s Climate Leadership Awards  from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Announced Tuesday, 19 awards recognized 15 organizations and two individuals in both the public and private sectors for their leadership in addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“The president’s climate action plan calls on the federal government to work with all stakeholders to take action to cut the harmful carbon pollution that fuels climate change,” the EPA said in a statement. “These organizations and individuals are working to do just that.”

The city of Chula Vista, Calif., Sprint and the University of California, Irvine, earned organizational leadership awards for not only developing inventories of their greenhouse gas emissions and setting aggressive emissions reduction targets, but also for providing climate action leadership to their peers, competitors and partners. For example, Chula Vista slashed carbon emissions from its municipal operations by nearly 20,000 tons, while UC Irvine cut energy consumption in campus laboratories by 60 percent.

Sprint also received a supply chain leadership award for seeking to lower greenhouse gas emissions throughout its organizational supply chain: The wireless company developed a carbon footprint of its suppliers, set a goal to have 90 percent of its suppliers meet its environmental criteria by the end of 2014, and published a guide and held workshops to help suppliers comply with these policies.

The EPA gave individual leadership awards to Sam Brooks, associate director of the federal government’s Department of General Services (DGS), and Robert Taylor, energy manager at a public water and wastewater utility in Maryland. Both men were instrumental in creating plans for their agencies to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, as well as implementing many sustainability initiatives to achieve these reductions. Under Brooks' tenure, DGS switched to renewable energy sources for 100 percent of its electricity; similarly, Taylor purchased wind power for almost 30 percent of the utility’s energy needs.

Three companies were recognized for excellence in greenhouse gas management for publicly reporting their corporate greenhouse gas inventories and emissions reduction goals: Fruit of the Loom, Hasbro and Kohl’s. Kohl’s also garnered a second award for excellence in greenhouse gas management for achieving its emissions reduction targets; other companies that received this award include Boeing, Caesars Entertainment, Cisco Systems, Ecolab, The Hartford, IBM, Johnson Controls, Mack Trucks and Novelis.

The third annual Climate Leadership Awards were a partnership between the EPA’s Center for Corporate Climate Leadership, the Association of Climate Change Officers, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and The Climate Registry.

With a constant news cycle of doom-and-gloom reports on climate change, it is encouraging to see individuals, government agencies, educational institutions and corporations be part of the solution to the biggest environmental challenge of our time.

Image credit: Environmental Protection Agency

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

Crane Currency, De La Rue plc and Innovia Security have become the first companies to be accredited under the Banknote Ethics Initiative (BnEI).

The BnEI was launched last year at the Currency Conference where eight leading companies in the industry signed up to the code. Arjowiggins Security SAS, Giesecke & Devrient GmbH, KBA-NotaSys SA, Note Printing Australia Ltd and SICPA SA are expected to be accredited by October.

The code was developed by the Institute of Business Ethics (IBE) with CSR consultancy and auditor GoodCorporation translating the code into an audit framework and developing the audit methodology.

The Accreditation Council includes Philippa Foster Back CBE OBE, director of the IBE, Professor Josef Wieland, director of leadership excellence at Zeppelin University and Gerry Gaetz, president and ceo of the Canadian Payments Association.

Antti Heinonen, BnEI chairman, commented: “It is encouraging to see the level of support that the initiative has gained from across the banknote industry and its main customers, central banks, since it was launched last May. With the first companies now confirmed as BnEI members and a number of companies scheduled to join soon, I have no doubt that the initiative will become acknowledged as setting the ethical standards to which all suppliers in the industry will be expected to perform."

Leo Martin, director of GoodCorporation, added: “This initiative should be a blueprint for how an industry can work together to raise ethical standards. A number of sectors have tried to promote an industry-wide code of ethical conduct, but this is the first of its kind to really get off the ground. It is gaining international recognition and its principles have already been endorsed by the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the Reserve Bank of Australia and several others.”


Picture credit: © Redking | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

The Institute of Business Ethics has monitored over 1000 news stories to analyse the business ethics issues and the sectors most at risk of integrity lapse.

Reporting on the finance sector (including insurance companies and payday lenders) contributed almost four out of every 10 news items (37%). The most commonly reported issue for this sector was executive remuneration, accounting for 18% of stories. The bonus culture of the city was a prominent source of news in both 2012 and 2013. This was closely followed by fraud/theft (17%), comprised of numerous articles related to the ongoing ramifications of the LIBOR fixing scandal.

The highest proportion of stories on mis-selling (90%) and money laundering (82%) occurred in the finance industry. Additionally, over two-thirds of those related to behaviour/culture (70%) and insider trading (67%); the majority of executive remuneration (60%) and discrimination (54%); and just under half of those addressing corporate governance and openness with information (both 45%), also were in the finance sector.

Philippa Foster Back CBE , IBE’s Director, commented: “In the analysis of the business ethics stories in the news, it is clear that the proposals in Sir Richard Lambert’s Consultation Paper on Banking Standards are long overdue. A change of culture is needed in the finance sector inorder for trust to be restored. The IBE will be responding to the Consultation Paper in due course and encourages others to do likewise. The IBE advocates that best practice in today’s environment to help to raise standards is to reward people for ethical as well as profitable behaviour.”

You can access Ethical Concerns & Lapses 2012-2013 here. 

 

Picture credit: © Jyothi | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

Greenpeace has called on household products titan Procter & Gamble (P&G) to commit to an immediate “no-deforestation” policy after linking the company to palm oil suppliers in Indonesia which have allegedly engaged in destructive deforestation and clearing of endangered animal habitat.

The NGO has concluded a year-long investigation into P&G suppliers and found some seem to be linked to environmentally destructive practices associated with palm oil.

“As a result of rainforest destruction by Procter & Gamble’s suppliers, household brands containing palm oil, such as Head & Shoulders shampoo and Gillette shaving gel, are contributing to climate change, key tropical biodiversity loss and social deprivation,” the Greenpeace report said. It also states that palm oil production is the single biggest driver of deforestation in Indonesia, whose rainforests are home to tigers, elephants and orang-utans.

Many FMCG giants such as Unilever, Nestlé and L’Oréal have signed up to the ‘no-deforestation’ pledge and last year Wilmar International, the world’s largest palm oil trader, said it would stop trading with problematic suppliers. P&G has so far failed to follow suit.

However, P&G maintains that it is strongly opposed to irresponsible and/or deforestation and plantation practices. “By 2015, we intend to only purchase and use palm oil that we can confirm to have originated from responsible and sustainable sources. We are already working with our supplier to deliver on this commitment,” posted a P&G consumer relations spokesperson posted on the Greenpeace website.

An Ethical Performance request for direct comment from P&G was declined.
 

Picture credit: Greenpeace