Search

Released in July 2012 by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), the Higg Index is a sustainability measurement tool that allows apparel companies to measure the impacts of their products across the value chain. Late last year, the SAC--a trade organization comprised of brands, retailers and manufacturers--announced an updated version of the index reflecting 18 months of development effort.

As we prepare to explore the environmental and social impact of fashion in an in-depth, four-month series, we thought it would be a good idea to take a closer look at the Higg Index 2.0.

The SAC represents companies totaling nearly 40 percent of the apparel and footwear market, Executive Director Jason Kibbey told TriplePundit, and the index is already being widely adopted at all levels of the value chain, so its reach and relevancy is clear.

As more companies jump on board, could the index inspire industry-wide sustainability standards? And what would this mean for the future of sustainable apparel?

What's new in Higg 2.0?

The biggest distinction between the first-generation Higg Index and Higg 2.0 is the updated platform. The original Higg Index utilized a fairly bare-bones Excel model. The latest iteration brings the index to an online platform developed by Schneider Electric--increasing accuracy and adding the ability to share users' sustainability data.

A company's assessment details the entire lifecycle of its products, from design to manufacturing to sale. Additionally, added and improved content in the Higg Index 2.0 includes:

• The Materials Sustainability Index (MSI) web tool, an apparel and footwear materials list released in June and since expanded to include sustainability metrics on 45 materials.


• Content from the Chemicals Management Module, which was co-created through a joint working group between the Outdoor Industry Association and the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.


• New social and labor modules, which are currently in the beta content phase with plans to expand in future iterations of the Higg Index.

While improved content surely adds to the scope of the index, particularly with respect to the introduction of social and labor modules, the shareable aspect of the updated version may prove to the most promising.

"It allows companies to see where they are relative to their peers as a whole, and what we really hope is that this inspires a race to the top," Kibbey said of the new platform. "It's a pretty strong incentive to improve, because no one wants to be at the bottom or the back of the pack."

The slow march to an industry-wide standard

Beyond friendly competition, the index--and the SAC as a whole--are centered around a decidedly collaborative model.

"One of the biggest challenges to improving the sustainability of supply chains is that every company will come with their own program, and you have some members that are manufacturers with over 100 customers," Kibbey observed.

This can lead to confusion and wasted effort on all sides, an observation shared by Desirae Early, manager of sustainability strategy at Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.), an early member of the SAC and a collaborator on the first Higg Index:

"One of the big assets of the Higg Index is moving toward that path where we'll have a common industry standard for how we measure performance in the supply chain," Early told TriplePundit. "[Manufacturers] end up focusing a lot of time and energy on just figuring out how to comply with all of these different programs and requirements."

The Higg 2.0 Index allows companies to compare their own sustainability assessments side-by-side with those of their peers, encourages a focus on specific goals and provides a framework for an industry-wide standard. The assessment process becomes streamlined, reducing both costs and headaches and freeing up time and effort for tangible improvement rather than basic compliance with pass-fail audits.

Opening the doors for long-term investment

In addition to spurring one another to higher levels of sustainability performance, sharing assessment data also allows companies to invest in long-term approaches that go beyond compliance.

"We're giving this long-term view so that [companies] can put long-term capital behind making these improvements with the assurance that it's not going to be the flavor of the month," Kibbey said.

Providing this assurance is the fact that "there's a huge percentage of the industry behind them," Kibbey says, a factor that impacts even large players like LS&Co.

"It's very difficult for any brand to go about reducing all of the impacts of their supply chain alone," Early said. "It becomes much easier if we move towards those goals as an industry and look at how we collectively figure out ways to reduce our resource impacts so that we can have a more sustainable business in the long run."

The impact on the industry

While Kibbey is the first to admit that the Higg Index is "still an experiment," the tool provides great potential for communication and collaboration that spans manufacturers, retailers and brands--which bodes well for industry-wide transparency moving forward.

"The intention behind all of this is to really shift the responsibility so that everybody takes responsibility for those areas that they control," Kibbey said, noting that the SAC hopes companies at all levels of the value chain will also continue to exchange sustainability best practices amongst themselves.

"They can have a conversation with those areas beyond them as well, and really shift the dynamic from top-down to more of a matrix, so that everybody is playing a real role and improving environmental and social performance across the supply chain."

Image credits: Sustainable Apparel Coalition and Pexels

Here's an interesting point about corporate social responsibility: Major companies can choose to lead the charge, or if they neglect to do so for too long, the democratic process may step in and do so for them on terms the companies may not particularly like. Right or wrong, this is the situation faced by many low-wage employers in the U.S. following President Barack Obama's call to raise the minimum wage.

There are, however, examples of fast food and retail companies out there that strive to pay a fair wage. And they show that companies can indeed pay more and do well. In-N-Out Burger, a fast food chain in California and the Southwest, starts its employees off at a wage of $10.50 an hour. Moo Cluck Moo, a small fast food chain based in Canton, Mich., starts employees out at $12 an hour and ratchets up the pay to $15 an hour after 60 days. So what about McDonald's? Or Burger King? Or Long John Silver's for that matter?

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez makes a good point. If In-N-Out Burger can do it--remain profitable and still provide what has arguably been deemed a superior product--why can't McDonald's? Say's Perez, "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."

I contacted the McDonald's media department about this issue a couple times, but unfortunately got no response.

In January, during the State of the Union Address, President Obama asked to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, saying: "Today the federal minimum wage is worth about 20 percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here. And Tom Harkin and George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10."

Since then Labor Secretary Perez has been touring the nation, campaign-style, making the president's case and raising support for an increase in the minimum wage. He's been visiting places like an ACE Hardware store in the Washington, D.C. area where associates make $13 per hour, which is about $5 more per hour than the D.C. minimum wage. There's plenty of precedent for a higher wage coupled with success.

So here's where it gets complicated. The Congressional Budget Office recently released its report on the effects of an increased minimum wage. The good news is, about a million people will be lifted out of poverty and 16.5 million low-wage Americans would see their household incomes increase. The bad news is, half a million low-wage earners could lose their jobs. Basically, a lot of people will see their household incomes rise by a lot, while a smaller number of households will see their incomes fall. This falls in line with what Brian Parker, co-founder of the restaurant Moo Cluck Moo has to say: "Instead of having a dozen people standing around during downtime, we have three or four. And during that time they are cleaning and prepping food...We have designed our restaurants to run efficiently and pay people more."

Mr. Parker, while paying his employees almost twice the minimum wage, also points out that he'd prefer for the government not to mandate a higher minimum wage. Perhaps if there were more companies like Mr. Parker's, the government wouldn't have to.

Image Credit: Flickr/Mike Mozart

Imagine pulling into your driveway and charging your car by parking on top of a charging system that uses a magnetic-resonance technology and does not require the vehicle to be plugged in.

What seems like a scene out of a science fiction movie, is now being tested by Toyota in Japan in three households with plug-in electric Prius hybrids. The wireless charging technology for plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles may be just a couple of years away from domestic use for auto consumers, but the infrastructure will need more time to catch up before it is widespread in commercial facilities, such as parking garages.

Toyota has been working on this technology for several years in cooperation with WiTricity, an MIT spinoff that has relationships with Audi and Mitsubishi, and Volvo is also working on a wireless charging system.

This wireless system could simplify electric vehicle charging by making the process more convenient and straightforward for drivers. It could be a game-changer for electric vehicles by serving as a universal charging station, solving the problem of having multiple plugs for different car models. In addition, it could trim down charging time to a mere 90 minutes for the plug-in hybrid Toyota Prius.

This new technology comes in response to consumer demand. “We have heard from Prius Plug-In Hybrid owners that they would like a more convenient charging operation,” said Managing Officer Satoshi Ogiso. “In response, we are developing a new wireless inductive charging system that produces resonance between an on-floor coil and an onboard coil to recharge the battery without the fuss of a cable.”

For the technology to be effective, several design challenges needed to be addressed. The car and the charging station need to be properly aligned to charge the battery, thus the system includes a parking assist feature that displays the position of the charging coil in relationship to the car. The charging station also needs to be strong enough to withstand being run over by a car without causing electromagnetic interference on nearby equipment.

Toyota's corporate reputation has rebounded quickly from the accelerator recalls that plagued the company a couple of years ago. It is on track to post record earnings for the fiscal year that ends in March. Toyota has now sold more than 6 million hybrid vehicles globally, with 1 million selling in the last nine months.

Although the Prius was initially a gamble for Toyota when it was introduced in 1997, it is now a vital aspect of the Toyota brand. Keeping the Prius innovative is essential for staying on top, particularly as more highly efficient cars and electric vehicles enter the market. This wireless charging technology could do the trick and may be available very soon.

“In general, the industry believes the inflection point for the adoption of electric cars is 2020. The money’s on that,” says Eric Giler, CEO of WiTricity. “Our belief is that wireless charging of electric cars will start to show up in production models starting in the 2016 model year.”

Photo Credit: Toyota

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNeWaVcDKEE

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.

Monsanto continues to stand its ground against disclosing information about the costs associated with the genetically modified crop (GMO) industry. On Jan. 28, Monsanto shareholders, at the urging of the company’s board, overwhelmingly defeated two resolutions that would have increased transparency about Monsanto products.

One resolution, re-filed by Harrington Investments Inc., called for the board to issue a report detailing the financial risks and operational impacts related to certain GMO production. The issues included the costs of “seed contamination of non-GMO crops” and “damage to farmers’ reputations, livelihood and standing in the community” resulting from lawsuits that have ensued with neighboring farmers.

John Harrington, CEO and president of Harrington Investments, charged that the board “increasingly keeps stakeholders in the dark, about the true financial risks of GMOs … The corporation spends an incredible amount of shareholder money to prevent American consumers from knowing the extent to which it controls our national food supply.”

More than 60 countries around the world ban GMO-grown food. Others have taken actions to limit Monsanto's investments, such as in Malvinas Argentinas in northern Argentina, where a labor appeals court just ruled that the construction of a Monsanto plant was unconstitutional. Harrington said that wheat shipments to Japan were refused at one point after inspectors found a rogue GMO-infected grain in the shipment.

Recent polls in the U.S. show that as much as 90 percent of Americans want GMO foods identified and to have “the option to consume non-GMO products.”

Backing up Harrington’s statement was a petition signed by more than 160,000 people calling for more transparency about Monsanto’s procedures.

The other resolution called for Monsanto to work with federal regulators to establish GMO labeling standards.

The resolution calling for a risk report received 6.51 percent of the vote, while the resolution calling for the company to work with federal regulators received 4.16 percent of the vote.

Despite the defeat of both resolutions, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant conceded that, “There is a recognition that we need to do more.” Whether that means that the company will actually work with the federal government to establish guidelines for GMO food labeling is yet to be seen. If Grant’s comments on the matter are anything to go by, it isn’t likely however. While the company supports voluntarily labeling, he said, it was Monsanto’s position that GMO labels could confuse consumers.

The company and those who have invested their money in Monsanto’s future are becoming increasingly aware, however, that consumers want more transparency and more ability to decide whether to buy GMO products.

“The momentum is clearly turning against Monsanto, and I think the company owes the shareholders a detailed explanation of what this is really costing the bottom line,” said Harrington.

Image credits: Alexis Baden-Mayer

By Brandon Doll

Sports are very much a part of my fabric. My father played college football at the University of Southern California, and my grandfather played and coached football in the National Football League. I have been active in sports since the age of five, both as an athlete and coach. I worked for a youth sports education nonprofit called Positive Coaching Alliance for my MBA summer internship and am currently working part-time for the NFL’s Oakland Raiders with hopes of parlaying the position into a full-time role with the Raiders or another professional sports organization after graduating with my MBA.

Because sports are such a big part of my life, I often draw upon business and leadership examples from the sports world. Therefore, you can expect no different from me when articulating how my approach to supporting women in business and leadership has changed over the past semester, largely motivated by my involvement in Professor Kellie McElhaney’s Women in Business class at the Haas School of Business.

I have been familiar with the story of Jackie Robinson for a long time, but it was not until I recently watched Warner Brothers’ "42," a cinematic portrayal of Robinson’s story, that I realized how much this film resonates with me in terms of my approach to supporting women in business and leadership.

Wesley “Branch” Rickey, played by Harrison Ford in "42," was an innovative professional sports executive, best known for breaking Major League Baseball’s color barrier by signing African American player Jackie Robinson in 1947.

There was no statute officially banning African Americans from Major League Baseball, only a universally recognized and unwritten rule that no club owner had dared break. This rule was perpetuated by culturally entrenched racism and a desire by club owners to be perceived as representing the values and beliefs of the everyday, American, white male.

Similarly, although there is no rule or law that women should not serve as CEOs, board members or senior-level managers of large corporations, culturally entrenched sexism exists and inhibits a woman’s ability to climb the corporate ladder.

Rickey’s determination to desegregate Major League Baseball was born out of a unique combination of idealism and keen business sense. His idealism was derived from an incident involving a team for which Rickey worked early in his career. While he was managing at Ohio Wesleyan University, African American player Charles Thomas was refused accommodation at the team hotel because of his race. Though an infuriated Rickey managed to get him into the hotel for the night, he never forgot the incident and later said, “I may not be able to do something about racism in every field, but I can sure do something about it in baseball.”

The business element was based on the fact that the Negro Leagues had numerous star athletes, and logically, the first Major League Baseball team to sign them would get first pick of the players at an attractive price.

When battling a culturally entrenched ideal, one approach is to tug at the heartstrings of your "opponent" with an ethically-based argument; however, we all differ in some way on our approach(es) to such issues. Ultimately, everyone speaks green (money, that is)–and to me it is far easier to make the case when an issue clearly affects the bottom line.

Branch Rickey embraced his idealism and ethics in supporting a controversial issue; however, he also made the business case for his decisions. His success as an innovative professional sports executive is especially motivating to me given my career goals and aspirations.

Throughout my Women in Business class, I was consistently presented with the benefits of investing in women, all of which are clearly supported by data. In addition, our class final project required me to create a personalized approach to supporting women in business and leadership through combining my life experiences, information covered in the class and examples of those who have come before me.

Inspired by the real-life examples of Branch Rickey and the Brooklyn Dodgers depicted in "42," I established five guiding principles as they pertain to how I will support the continued integration of women in business. These principles are vital to keeping me grounded and focused on my values as I pursue a career in the male-dominated confines of the National Football League, especially in light of its recent C+ grade in gender hiring practices and continued struggles in the area of gender equity.

The Five Guiding Principles of Integrating Women in Business are as follows:

1. Go “On the Record”: Let others know where you stand.


2. Walk the Talk: Practice what you preach.


3. Foster Unit Cohesion: Surround yourself with talented individuals who share your vision and ideals.


4. Be a Mentor: Offer your experience, network and support to those who seek it. Don’t just hold the door open for others; pull them through with you.


5. Stick to Your Guns: Once you’ve gone on the record, don’t ever back down.

Amid both positive and negative fanfare, Jackie Robinson debuted, and turned out to be a huge success. Robinson was baseball’s first African American Rookie of the Year, and while opposing baseball players, managers and fans often harassed him, he became extremely popular with the American public at large.

Robinson’s success became the crowning achievement of Branch Rickey’s illustrious career. It also set a standard and opened the door for other leaders like Bill Veeck of the Cleveland Indians, who integrated the American League later that year.

In order to achieve success similar to that of Rickey’s, I must also be true to my values and always make the business case when it comes to supporting women in business and leadership, utilizing these five guiding principles to keep my path lit.

Image credit: Robinson in Game 1 of the 1955 World Series (Source: NYT)

Brandon Doll is an MBA student at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley (class of 2014).

A version of this piece was originally published on the Redefining Business blog, a Haas School of Business publication.

President Barack Obama is moving ahead to increase fuel efficiency standards. While speaking at a Safeway distribution center in Maryland this week, President Obama cited the advantages of the fuel efficiency standards he put in place for both cars and light-duty vehicles, as well as heavy-duty vehicles.

Obama said that he is directing the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) to set the next phase of fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks by March 2016. In 2011, the Obama administration set the first new standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks which take effect this year and last until 2018.

The standards require combination tractors to achieve a 20 percent reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2018, and require heavy-duty pickup trucks, vans and vocational vehicles to achieve a 15 percent reduction in fuel consumption and GHG emissions by 2018.

Obama pointed out that although heavy-duty trucks only account for 4 percent of all the vehicles on the highway, they are responsible for about 20 percent of the carbon emissions from the transportation sector. They are also responsible for about 20 percent of on-road fuel consumption and haul about 70 percent of all domestic freight. The first phase of standards saves an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs and reduces American oil use by 530 million barrels of oil, or more oil than the U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia in a year. They will also reduce carbon emissions by about 270 million metric tons, or the equivalent of removing 56 million passenger vehicles from the road for a year, and improve air quality by reducing particulate matter and ozone, which will result in health benefits from about $1.3 billion to $4.2 billion in 2030.

“And that’s why, after taking office, my administration worked with automakers, autoworkers, environmental advocates and states across the country, and we set in motion the first-ever national policy aimed at both increasing gas mileage and decreasing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks sold in the United States,” Obama said. “And as our automakers retooled and prepared to start making the world’s best cars again, we aimed to raise fuel economy standards to 35.5 miles per gallon for a new vehicle by 2016.”

In 2009, the Obama administration set fuel efficiency standards for cars and light-duty trucks for 2011 to 2016 models, requiring vehicles for those model years to achieve 35.5 miles per gallon.

The first phase of the standard amounts to an eight miles-per-gallon increase over what cars had averaged in the past, and has saved almost a billion gallons of fuel while avoiding more than 10 million tons of carbon emissions.

Three years later, Obama issued a second phase of fuel efficiency standards, requiring cars and light-duty trucks to achieve 54.5 mpg by 2025, which will double the distance “cars and light trucks can go on a gallon of gas by 2025,” Obama said. The second phase also saves consumers more than $1.7 trillion, or $8,000 for a typical family, and reduces U.S. oil consumption by 12 billion barrels. It will reduce GHG emissions by 6 billion metric tons over the life of the vehicles.

Image credit: DiamondBack Truck

By Tara Gould

When Spiezia Organics founder Amanda Barlow stood in front of a conference hall full of skincare industry delegates and ate a mouthful of one of her own beauty creams, it was to make a salient point: If what you put on your skin is not clean and natural enough to eat, then you shouldn’t be putting it on your skin--the body’s largest organ.

When you consider that propolene glycol is commonly used in a plethora of beauty products found on the shelves of the biggest supermarkets, her point hits home even more powerfully. Propylene glycol is used as an anti-freeze in helicopters, is banned in France, has provoked serious allergic reactions to people with eczema and can cause liver and kidney damage.

The good, the bad and the ugly of the beauty industry

Spiezia was set up 14 years ago, and they were the first U.K. company to receive Soil Association organic certification across the board. The regulations that govern organic standards for food in the U.K. are not the same as those that govern the health, beauty and textile sectors. For food to be labelled as organic it must, by law, go through a stringent, two-year accreditation process and be certified by one of several certification bodies, the Soil Association being one of them.

In contrast, lax EU regulations make it possible for beauty, skincare and cosmetics companies to brand their products "organic," "natural" and "pure" with as little as 1 percent organic ingredients, even if they also have anti-freeze, engine oil, formaldehyde and other petrochemicals lurking in those innocent-looking bottles.

Speizia Organics has won awards for sustainability. There is nothing harmful in its products or supply chain. It never tests on animals; uses traditional processes such as maceration and cold-pressing to distill herbs and flowers; packaging is sustainable; and they go local and carbon neutral in every way possible--even making sure products are made on-site in their Health and Wellbeing Innovation Centre.

A drive to nurture and protect

Alongside other certified organic U.K. brands, such as Essential Care and Green People, Spiezia is one of a handful of beauty companies that can be relied upon to deliver what it promises in its branding messages. What’s more, all of these companies are run by women. It makes sense: Throughout history women have used herbs, flowers and handmade concoctions--handed down through mothers and grandmothers--to heal and protect their families by tapping into the curative and therapeutic powers of nature. Thinking about it in this way, any company trying to market a face cream, or children’s shampoo laced with toxins, whatever the clever branding may tell us, is not driven by the same intention.

I asked Barlow how she felt, given that Spiezia put so much love, effort, commitment and energy into being organic and earth friendly every step of the way, when other unethical brands are getting away with deceitful greenwashing.

“It pisses me off,” she told me, unapologetically. “I know how much companies have to go through to get organic Soil Association accreditation. It takes a lot of effort, a lot of time and a lot of money.”

Barlow is not a maverick or eco warrior. She lives in Cornwall, England, with her family and is a dedicated woman who cares very deeply about what she does. Integrity is the driving force behind her philosophy for life and work.

“Authenticity underpins everything we do at Spiezia. Any business driven purely by commercial gain is not sustainable.”

Altruistic enterprise

"Imagine if companies started thinking about the social impact they wanted to create in the world and tied it to bottom-line performance. The potential impact could be incredible." So says Phillip Haid, CEO of Public Inc., an agency that creates scalable social impact campaigns that profit by doing good. Even Richard Branson has been recently extolling the virtues of altruistic business.

Unfortunately, in the same way that it’s easy for beauty brands to say they’re organic when they’re not, many businesses now use the "ethical" label as a way to garner respect and increase business without really looking at what the word means. But Spiezia goes the extra mile:

“I have a belief that you get out what you put into it. It’s not about paying lip service.” Barlow says.

That’s why Spiezia established the Made for Life Foundation supporting people diagnosed with cancer.

Spiezia products and ingredients are good for even extremely sensitive skin, even for those people going through chemo or radio therapy. Spiezia offers "organic days," where cancer patients can enjoy holistic treatments, organic makeovers, nutritional advice and lots of warmth and support.

In the last year, more than 600 people have come through their doors, and Barlow says that through working with people going through the cancer journey, she became even more aware of the problems associated with the lack of strict EU regulation:

“I even spoke to my local MP about it. I said please can you raise this at government level, there’s a lot of confusion.”

She explained how consultants often advise patients to eat and use organic as much as they can. So people pick up skincare and beauty products that say they’re organic when they may not be good for them at all.

Uncompromising quality control

Abi Weeds, director of the organic beauty company Essential Care is equally dismayed by the current loophole which allows "fake" organic brands to proliferate:

“This yawning gap in regulation has created a very uneven commercial playing field and is something we’ve struggled with throughout our 10-year history.”

Essential Care refuse to compromise the quality and effectiveness of any of their products to cut costs. All of the products are handmade by Margaret, Weeds' mum and Essential Care founder.

For Margaret, it was a long but worthwhile journey to arrive at where they are now. She began researching the formulations back in the 1980s, after studying aromatherapy and herbal medicine. There was a lack of suitable products for her own and her family's very sensitive and eczema-prone skin. Margaret set about creating effective formulations, using only organic herbs, plant oils and natural, active ingredients.

The efforts they needed to go to in order to source organic ingredients at the beginning set them on a steep learning curve. The record-keeping and paper trail that was required in order to satisfy the standards for Soil Association certification was vast. But this established a doctrine of "Good Manufacturing Practice" which means, in their own words:

"Exacting traceability systems, label accuracy and quality control. We can literally trace all the [of] ingredients of our skincare back to the field they were grown in.”

Keen for green

Like Margaret, Charlotte Vøhtz, founder of Green People and author of Naturally Gorgeous, was motivated by a desire to create a product for ultra-sensitive skin. As a small child, her daughter suffered from eczema and allergies. and she wanted to treat them herself. Charlotte spent 11 years in the pharmaceutical industry gaining knowledge in the fields of chemistry and pharmacology and then went on to the College of Practitioners of Phytotherapy in order to gain knowledge in herbal medicine.

Green People operates a strict cruelty-free policy and uses no animal-derived ingredients in its certified organic, synthetic free beauty products. The business has seen massive growth since its modest beginnings more than 17 years ago, when it was run from Vøhtz's kitchen in Sussex, England. More than 100 of their products are certified organic by the Soil Association or EcoCert.

Charlotte is passionately committed to natural and organic ingredients, and to creating a sea change in the beauty industry:

“I see this as a ‘mission.' I am meant to be doing this. It is so satisfying to be sent testimonials telling us how we have helped transform a customer’s skin problem–and the buzz we get from knowing we can make a difference makes it all worthwhile.”

Label savvy

One might question why the laws set up around certification for beauty and skincare are so sloppy when those for food are stringent and reliable. It’s not easy to find answers. Big beauty brands have considerable lobbying power with governments to whom they pay substantial tax dividends. In the end, it usually comes down to money. But we can keep the power in our own hands by making informed choices.

If you really want to be sure you are not helping to support companies that pollute and deceive then look for these certifications on your products:

• Soil Association: A U.K.-based charity founded in 1946, Soil Association certification requires a product contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients, or more than 70 percent with amounts clearly stated on the bottle.


• EcoCert: Founded in France, EcoCert conducts inspections in more than 80 countires. At least 95 percent of the plant ingredients and total content must be certified organic and of natural origin.


• USDA: Products must contain 95 percent minimum organically produced ingredients.


• CosmeBio, also known as the Professional Association for Natural, Ecological and Organic cosmetics: Certification criteria demands that 95 percent of the vegetable ingredients result from organic agriculture and the ingredients must be of natural origin.

Image credit: Spiezia Organics

Tara Gould is a writer and senior editorial consultant at Ethical SEO (www.ethical-seo.eu).  She writes about all aspects of sustainable and ethical business, design and culture. She lives in Lewes, UK with her family.

Walmart’s grip on the retail market may be slipping these days. Three unrelated reports just released suggest that America’s box store giant has some improvements to make both inside and outside of its stores.

Last week equity researchers at Wolfe Research (WR) in New York downchecked the superstore from a "market perform" to an “underperform” rating for its current staffing and stocking practices.

According to WR, several visits by researchers to the store “show a repeating pattern of stocking issues in many departments in the store.” It isn’t clear which outlets the research firm visited or how many locations it included in its report. While not all analysts agreed with last week’s assessment, it reflects a concern by some that Walmart may be outgrowing its image as America’s most popular department store.

According to Belus Capital Advisors analyst Brian Sozzi, Walmart’s disappointing fourth-quarter earnings in 2013 point to a need to make some significant changes in its stores, and not just in terms of stock availability. The superstore has blamed its slow Christmas sales on weather and an ill-timed decision by the federal government to slash food stamps. However, Sozzi suggests that the problem may well be related to operational procedures and a lack of perception about the country’s changing market trends. Walmart needs to make tough decisions about those stores that consistently underperform, and look at cutting some of its floor space, he says, if the retailer wants to avoid future losses. Sozzi also noted that Walmart’s size–at 4,177 stores across the nation–is adding to its difficulties during tough times, and that the company needs to trim back now.

And while it’s making changes to its décor, it may soon find itself under pressure to address some exterior concerns as well. According to a white paper just released by criminology researchers at University of South Carolina, and Sam Houston State University, in some locations the retail giant’s presence not only saw a rollback in prices for local communities, it witnessed a stall in crime rate reduction.

USC Assistant Professor Scott Wolfe (no known relation to Wolfe Reports owner Edward M. Wolfe) and SHSU Assistant Professor David Pyrooz tracked crime rates in 3,109 counties during the 1990s, and compared those where Walmart had stores with those that didn’t. The 1990s were characterized by a dramatic drop in crime rates across the nation. It was also a period of vibrant growth for Walmart, so it made sense for the researchers to concentrate on that economic period.

“The crime decline was stunted in counties where Walmart expanded in the 1990s,” Wolfe says. “If the corporation built a new store, there were 17 additional property crimes and two additional violent crimes for every 10,000 persons in a county.”

What is even more interesting, say the researchers, is that the already prevalent crime rate in a given community didn’t appear to deter the company from building there. Instead, results of the study suggest that Walmart may have actually sought out communities that showed certain sociological trends.

“Counties with more social capital--citizens able and willing to speak up about the best interests of the community--tend to have lower crime rates,” Pyrooz says. "Counties with more crime may have less social capital and, therefore, less ability to prevent Walmart from building.”

The “Walmart Effect,” say the researchers, points toward socioeconomic conditions that seem to typify the areas the company moves into. And contrary to what may be expected by increased growth and jobs, those problems--poverty, crime and depressed economy--don’t appear to always improve after the company has moved in. It's worth noting, however, that it is unclear whether the company continued those assumed building practices, or what (if any) steps the company has taken to improve or advocate for improvements in crime rates since the 1990s.

Each one of these studies, however, suggest that the labor and operational practices that virtually built Walmart’s concept of the self-serve superstore outlet in the 1990s may well be heading for a revamp. And so do new forecasts about the retail market in general, says Sozzi. Last Christmas season’s depressed sales suggest that we may be heading for across-the-board store closures in stores in all parts of the retail sector, and a focus on smaller, leaner stores with less floor space and a smaller inventory. The analyst is predicting a “tsunami of store closures” to herald this change.

It will be interesting to watch how Walmart addresses all of these impacts, and whether it can meet the needs of a changing retail market, the call for better wages for its workers and the scrutiny of local community improvement efforts, all of which stand in opposition to the practices that built its retail success.

Image credit: Nicholas Eckhart

Speaking against the backdrop of one of the worst droughts in California history, President Barack Obama on Friday announced plans to pitch to Congress a $1 billion climate change resilience fund intended to help communities facing climate change-induced negative weather.

The proposed fund is separate from Obama’s wider climate action plan and will be included in his 2015 budget, set to be released next month. This means the fund must be authorized by Congress and will not rely solely on executive authority. According to the White House, the fund would finance research on the projected impacts of climate change, help communities prepare for its effects, and fund “breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure.”

Last week, the Assistant to the President on Science and Technology, John Holdren, said without any doubt, the severe drought afflicting California and several other states across the country is tied to climate change.

“We really understand a number of the reasons that global climate change is increasing the intensity and the frequency and the life of drought in drought-prone regions,” Holdren said. “This is one of the better-understood dimensions of the relationship between global climate change and extreme weather in particular regions.”

Holdren said these effects include more rainfall that occurs in heavy downpours, meaning less is absorbed into the earth and more becomes runoff; more rain and less snowfall in the mountains, which means less melting snow to feed rivers in the spring and summer; and higher temperatures causing more evaporation.

“Recent events have reinforced our knowledge that our communities and economy remain vulnerable to extreme weather and natural hazards,” the administration said in a statement released last week.

From Hurricane Sandy in 2012, to this year’s record-low temperatures in the Midwest, to the California drought, the evidence of climate change is everywhere. And it’s costing us.

A 2013 report by Ceres found that extreme weather events cost the United States $100 billion in 2012. Most of this went towards federal crop, flood, wildfire and disaster relief. Only 50 percent of the damages in the United States caused by extreme weather events are privately insured, which means the federal and state governments are left to pick up the remaining tab.

But rather than encourage behavior that reduces risks from extreme weather events, public disaster relief and recovery programs tend to promote behavior that increases these risks–such as agricultural practices that increase vulnerability to drought and new development in hurricane- and wildfire-prone areas.

In September, a coalition of leading scientists from around the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced it is 95 percent confident that human influence is the dominant cause of global warming. Translation: The debate is over–climate change is caused by human action.

With Congressional Republicans clinging to fiscal austerity, it seems likely the president will face opposition to the $1 billion measure. But climate change is becoming less of a partisan issue as its effects become more and more difficult to ignore. Some 80 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents now support increasing renewable energy use and more than 60 percent believe the United States should take action to address climate change, according to a Yale-George Mason University study. Only a third of Republican respondents said they agree with the GOP’s position on climate change, which has changed dramatically since 2008.

Photo Credit: Flickr Bert Kaufmann

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

In a move that some might find surprising, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (GMCR) and The Coca-Cola Co. announced a major strategic partnership last week. According to the announcement, the “companies have signed a 10-year agreement to collaborate on the development and introduction of The Coca-Cola Co.'s global brand portfolio for use in GMCR's forthcoming Keurig Cold at-home beverage system. Under the global strategic agreement, GMCR and The Coca-Cola Co. will cooperate to bring the Keurig Cold beverage system to consumers around the world.”

The two companies certainly come from opposite ends of the business spectrum: GMCR, with its humble Vermont origins and Ben & Jerry's-like commitment to sustainable practices and Coke, being the oft-criticized old school corporate behemoth.

Yet, in some ways, you could say the two have been moving closer towards each other. Coke, under the leadership of Muhtar Kent, who, in 2010, won Corporate Responsibility (CR) Magazine’s “Responsible CEO of the Year” in the Large Market category, has begun taking seriously the criticisms the company has received and trying to address them. At the same time, GMCR has been getting a lot bigger, in the wake of the enormous success of the Keurig line of coffee makers. The fact that GMCR saw net sales of $4.36 billion last year, up 65 percent over the previous two years, underscores the point in its 2013 Annual Report, that, “Our values reflect our belief that a strong business is in fact, a pre-requisite for contributing to social good.”

Under the terms of the agreement, Coke will acquire approximately a 10 percent ownership in GMCR in exchange for $1.25 billion. This is clearly a big deal.

I don't think the move by Coke to partner with GMCR is as much an effort to burnish its reputation as it is to fend off the penetration of a new at-home soda brewing business model entering the market, led by Sodastream. For GMCR, it's clear that aligning with the world's No. 1 brand will be a tremendous boon for sales.

Coca-Cola is still not out of the woods yet as far as their reputation is concerned. Despite the sincere efforts it has been making, particularly in the area of water stewardship, it was still a nominee for Corporate Accountability International's 2013 Hall of Shame for obstructing national park efforts to go bottled-water- free and lobbying against anti-obesity laws in several states ranging from New York to Texas.

Company backgrounds aside, let's take a look at what they are proposing to do here. GMCR's new Keurig Cold will come out as a direct challenge to upstart Sodastream, backed with genuine Coca-Cola flavors, as well as their enormous manufacturing and distribution infrastructure. That's great for the company's business, but what does it mean for the planet?

I've had mixed feelings about Keurig ever since the first time I saw it. While tremendously convenient, and much neater to use, what about all that packaging? If you buy a pound of coffee, either whole bean or ground, that is one package. Now, you get a whole bunch of individual, single-serving size packages that get thrown in the trash after being used. Yes, I know there is a reusable option, but I don't know what percentage of usage that represents.

Admittedly, I have not seen a lifecycle analysis (LCA) of this yet, so I cannot quantify Keurig's impact. GMCR has promised that it will provide a LCA on the new Keurig Cold, and when it does I will post the results. My expectation is that it will look very good, far better than the coffee version, for one very important reason.

When you buy coffee, unless you buy pre-brewed iced coffee in bottles or cans, you are essentially buying the main flavor as a dry ingredient and nothing else. You add the water, as well as sugar, milk or whatever else you like to put in your coffee, at home. Imagine if you bought all your coffee pre-brewed in bottles or cans to heat up at home. Think about how much water would have to be shipped long distances to make that possible. Think about what the carbon footprint of that would be, never mind the expense.

Yet, that is exactly what we do with soda, which is, after all, mostly water. The amount of water being shipped in soda bottles from bottling plant, to distribution center, to store, to home is enormous.

So, moving a large portion of soda consumption over to the coffee consumption model, which is essentially what this does, will substantially reduce the carbon footprint of this business. It also has the added benefit of significantly reducing the amount of water that companies like Coca-Cola will need to withdraw from the communities surrounding their bottling plants, something that has gotten them into trouble in many localities.

This will  represent a big change for Coke, which has, whether it or anyone else realized it or not, has been primarily in the business of selling water all these years. They will still be doing a lot of that, of course, but perhaps, if this new model really catches on, there will be a significant shift to the point where their business will become more focused on the core value-add that they bring to the party, which is, after all, the flavors, and the formula that turns a glass of water into a glass of Coke.

This kind of refocusing of businesses and business models onto the unique value-adds that they bring to the market, through their innovative designs and formulations, will, I think, in a world where 3-D printers now allow consumers to produce their own products at home, prove to be an essential step in the journey to a sustainable future.

Ed note: The lifecycle assessment for GMCR's Keurig K-Cup Hot Brewing System can be found here. 

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.