Search

Some coal mining companies are getting a bargain on federal land and skirting export royalties, buoying their profits at the expense of taxpayers, according to a report released by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this month.

Initiated last year by committee chairman Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who will soon step down to join the Senate Finance Committee, the report found that several state Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offices sold tracts at below-market prices to mining companies and also shared information with the companies during the leasing process, which would violate protocols for the “blind lease” process used to get taxpayers a fair deal on public land sales. The same report also found that coal companies in several Western states booked coal exports through trading desks, thereby skirting the 12.5 percent export royalty payments due to taxpayers.

A separate report from the Government Accountability Office released earlier this month found that the BLM’s federal coal leasing program lacks sufficient oversight and sometimes fails to properly value the land it sells to mining companies, costing taxpayers an estimated $200 million in lost revenue.

Besides raising serious questions about federal and state employee misbehavior, the revelations also beg the question: How much does coal, the cheapest and most used energy source, really cost U.S. taxpayers? If we look at all the ignored costs of coal--preferential land leases, direct subsidies, not to mention collateral damage to public health and the environment--is this fuel source really the cheap, patriotic option that we should continue to subsidize, and how do the costs, all considered, stack up against renewable energy sources?

Let’s focus on solar, since that industry has received significant subsidies and also the most scrutiny of all renewables, post Solyndra-gate.

In 2010, direct federal subsidies to the renewable energy industry totaled $14.6 billion, up from $5.1 billion in 2007. Solar installers received $1.1 billion of those 2010 subsidies, according to the EIA.

To give these numbers some perspective, the coal industry has been receiving subsidies since 1932, and in 2007 the industry benefited from about $4 billion in direct government assistance. In 2010 this number shrank to just $1.4 billion. However, estimates on current coal subsidies vary widely, depending on how one accounts for indirect benefits like railroad subsidies that cut transportation costs. The Environmental Law Institute puts total coal subsidies from 2002 through 2010 at $25.4 billion. The price of generating electricity using coal has steadily risen since the 1970s and the cost of coal (including taxes) per million Btu increased 90 percent in the 10 years since 2002, hitting $2.38/million Btu in 2012.

Meanwhile in the renewable energy world, the cost of solar energy has dropped 50 percent since 2008, driven in part by falling solar panel prices as demand grows and the technology gets more efficient. While solar remains an expensive option for many areas, overall the industry is nearing cost competitiveness with stalwarts like coal, even without federal subsidies.

Variations in state subsidies for both industries, plus changes in solar capacity in different geographic areas, make nationwide apples-to-apples comparisons for coal- and solar-generated electricity difficult. But, a recent analysis by Lazard, a financial advisory firm, put utility-scale solar generation within range of the cost of coal power by 2015. Without subsidies, the levelized cost of energy (the cost of producing electricity, including capital costs, fuel and other operating costs) from utility-scale solar plants in 2013 ranged from $89 to $104 per megawatt-hour. But the firm estimates that the bottom end of this range will hit $64 per MWh in 2015 due to the continuing drop in solar panel and system costs. By comparison, coal generation costs between $65 to $145 per MWh.

Coal remains by far our biggest source for electricity, fueling 37 percent of the country’s power. Solar accounts for 1 percent (overall, renewable energies make up 12 percent).

There are pros and cons for every fuel sourced and used in America, and industry advocacy groups on both sides will always spin the numbers to their benefit and make the energy portfolio debate more simplistic than it is in reality.

But there are a few undeniable facts that might start to reshape the energy debate over the next few years: climate change is a very real problem, the environmental risks of clean coal are now better understood (just ask West Virginians in the wake of the Elk River spill) and renewable energy companies aren’t going away anytime soon--subsidies or no subsidies.

Image Credit: greatlettuce, Flickr

Guess what? It turns out that Valentine’s Day chocolate you recently enjoyed might have been the product of child slave labor. If that’s true, and if the multinational corporations responsible for producing that chocolate ignored or unwittingly aided the use of child labor in their foreign supply chains, can they be held liable in U.S. courts? For now, the answer appears to be a resounding (and perhaps encouraging) "maybe."

Chocolate and human rights

First, a few words about chocolate. Until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made news with its December 2013 opinion in Doe v. Nestle, I was mostly in the dark regarding the chocolate industry’s exploitative underbelly. I was keenly aware that my coffee habit perpetuates barely-livable wages for farmers in South America and East Africa; that my affordable clothing probably came from a Bangladeshi factory that may have recently burned to the ground (with the workers trapped inside, of course); and that my steak can likely be traced back to a corn-fed, hormone- and antibiotic-laden cow who once lived on a farm that spewed feces into the water supply. But chocolate? Surely that is produced by well compensated, humanely treated and unionized farmers, yes?

As it turns out, no. Chocolate is just like everything else, and we should all now feel doubly guilty when we indulge.

According to the World Cocoa Foundation, West African countries like Cote d’Ivoire supply more than 70 percent of the world’s cocoa market, and much of that cocoa is farmed by children. Some of the children end up farming cocoa because they need work; others are sold by their families to traffickers or farm owners. The slave and child labor practices of the cocoa industry have been well documented, and legislation aimed at clarifying the sources of consumer chocolate even made its way to the Senate back in 2001 (where, to nobody’s surprise, it died).  The aborted U.S. legislation, introduced by Democratic Congressmen Harkin and Engel, led instead to the creation of the well-meaning but toothless Harkin-Engel Protocol (aka the “Cocoa Protocol”) -- a voluntary agreement among the world’s major chocolate producers to end the worst forms of child labor in their supply chains. Yet, years after the Cocoa Protocol’s adoption, UNICEF estimated that as many as “200,000 children are [still] involved in the worst forms of child labor on cocoa farms throughout Ivory Coast."

Chocolate in the courts

Which brings us back to Doe and the real point of this post. Nearly a decade ago, three former cocoa farmers from Mali (the “Doe Plaintiffs”) filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, against Nestle, Archer Daniels Midland (“ADM”) and Cargill (together, the “Chocolate Defendants”) under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”). The Doe Plaintiffs alleged that they were trafficked into Cote d’Ivoire from Mali at young ages (between 12 and 14 years old); spent years working on Ivorian cocoa farms that supplied the Chocolate Defendants; were never paid for their often grueling work; and were frequently beaten.  Further, they claimed that the Chocolate Defendants were liable for aiding and abetting the forced labor, cruel and inhuman treatment, and torture they suffered at the hands of the Chocolate Defendants’ Ivorian cocoa suppliers.

How did the chocolate defendants “aid and abet” human rights violations?

Mostly by implication. According to the Doe Plaintiffs, the Chocolate Defendants had especially close relationships with their Ivorian suppliers and, as a result, exercised significant control over the suppliers’ operations and conduct.

Moreover, “[a]s part of Defendants' ongoing and continued presence on the cocoa farms, Defendants had first hand knowledge of the widespread use of child labor on said farms, in addition to the numerous, well-documented reports of child labor by both international and U.S. organizations.” Doe v. Nestle, 2009 WL 2921081, at para. 45 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2009) (Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint).

Put another way, the Chocolate Defendants had to know about the abusive conduct and, despite having the power to change that conduct (or sever the relationships), the Chocolate Defendants did nothing and instead continued to rely on these suppliers for cheap labor and cocoa.

Wow. Yet, as compelling as those allegations may sound, the California District Court threw the case out because--and I’m oversimplifying a bit here--the aforementioned Alien Tort Statute “does not recognize an international law cause of action for corporate violations of international law” in the first place.  Doe, 748 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1124 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (my emphasis).

But I thought that was the whole point of the ATS...

Well, you thought wrong! Over time, the ATS has generated a rich and confusing body of law, and the question of the statute’s application to corporations was recently addressed in the landmark 2013 Supreme Court decision, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (where Nigerian citizens alleged that Shell and other oil companies aided the Nigerian government in violently suppressing resistance to drilling operations). Plenty of smarter people have opined on Kiobel and the evolution of the ATS, but suffice it to say that, as of the end of last year, the prospect of successful ATS claims against corporations (at least for conduct occurring outside the U.S.) appeared dismal.

Yet, the Doe Plaintiffs appealed anyway and the Ninth Circuit, playing David to Kiobel’s Goliath, reversed (!). In December of last year, the court held that Kiobel actually supported ATS liability against corporate defendants like Nestle, et al., and granted the Doe Plaintiffs leave to replead. (Don’t bother asking how or why the Ninth Circuit reached this conclusion, but it was probably right.)  An unexpected victory for the plaintiffs and international human rights lawyers around the world, to say the least.

Access to justice

So, that’s great, right?

Well, Ninth Circuit-inspired hope aside, the prospect of corporate liability for human rights abuses still looks pretty grim. The truth is that many U.S. courts remain hostile to claims like those pursued in Doe, and even if the Doe Plaintiffs wind up prevailing in the Ninth Circuit, it is hard to imagine such a decision holding up on appeal to the Roberts Court.

Of course, local courts -- to the extent they even exist -- are unlikely to be any help to plaintiffs alleging human rights violations against multinationals. As Human Rights Watch observed of Cote d’Ivoire in 2010: “The [Ivorian] judicial system remains plagued by corruption, a lack of independence, and insufficient resources.” Unfortunately, those are traits shared by many states on the African continent and beyond, particularly in regions with cheap labor and abundant resources.

It seems to me that the ATS exists for these very reasons; otherwise, what are foreign victims to do when a major corporation contributes to international human rights violations? Access to effective remedies is the third pillar of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the current realities have led some nations to call for a binding treaty on business and human rights.  Yet, it is hardly clear that such a treaty would solve the access-to-justice problem.

So what is the way forward? First, we can hope for a well-reasoned, positive outcome in Doe, and for (favorable) clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the application of the ATS to corporations. In the meantime, we can work toward strengthening the rule of law and encouraging multinationals to continue to take seriously and work to implement the Guiding Principles. It may be a dim light, but it’s there.

Image credit: Flickr/little*star

In the wake of the tragic New Year's death of a 6-year-old girl in San Francisco caused by an on-duty Uber driver, along with another recent collision involving a Lyft driver, the public’s attention has turned to the insurance gaps in the fledgling ridesharing industry. To help bridge these gaps, Lyft announced last week a new Peer-to-Peer Rideshare Insurance Coalition, comprised of transportation companies, regulators, insurance providers and other stakeholders that have come together to address how the insurance industry can continue evolving to support the ridesharing economy.

With the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as a founding member, the coalition’s mission is to build a foundation of insurance best practices, policies and information for P2P ridesharing. Earlier this week, Lyft published an official list of the coalition members, which in addition to Lyft and CPUC includes: Sidecar, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for U.S. DOT, Allstate Insurance, Esurance, Farmers Insurance and even Uber (although initially it was reported that Uber would not take part).

Lyft says the coalition will work to drive additional partnerships between insurance carriers and P2P ridesharing participants, while providing information resources for regulators, drivers and riders to “ensure a safe and trusted future for the emerging peer economy.”

Since launching a year and a half ago, Lyft says it has successfully increased transportation safety in three fundamental ways:

1. Established background check and driving record standards that are more strict than taxis, limos and black cars and the most stringent in the industry;


2. Used technology to create more accountability and trust through in-app feedback, ratings and photos as the only company in the space to have all these elements for both passengers and drivers;


3. Pioneered the first-of-its-kind $1 million excess liability policy in 2012.

Lyft says after working with insurance carriers, it can now provide additional insurance solutions for Lyft drivers, including:

• Collision: Contingent policy - $2,500 deductible and $50,000 maximum applicable to drivers who have purchased collision coverage on their personal policy;


• Uninsured motorists: Added to $1 million Excess Liability policy - covering drivers if they are hit by an uninsured motorist that is at fault;


• Underinsured motorists: Added to $1 million Excess Liability policy - covering drivers if they are hit by an underinsured motorist that is at fault.

There is no doubt it will be some time before all of the insurance and liability questions surrounding the sharing economy, especially those related to ridesharing, are answered. But it is heartening to see Uber and Lyft working together for the public interest, even as they continue to be engaged in bloody competition for ridesharing supremacy.

Uber has been taking advantage of its more than $200 million investment from Google Ventures to bring Lyft, it’s main rival, to its knees. For example, last year Uber launched a “Shave the Stache” campaign, which featured Lyft-bashing ads plastered on the sides of trucks and, perhaps ironically, city buses. The ads criticized Lyft’s “donation” approach to payment and sought to convince drivers to switch to Uber.

Image credit: Flickr Spiros Vathis

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)

Brought together on Sir Richard Branson's Caribbean island retreat by the Carbon War Room and Rocky Mountain Institute, to work out a framework to effect a transition away from fossil fuels, six Caribbean island nations have agreed to replace diesel-fueled power with a mix of clean, sustainable renewable power generation, energy storage systems, and greater energy efficiency.

The founder of both the Virgin Group and Carbon War Room, Branson is spearheading the “Ten Island Renewable Challenge,” an initiative that aims to promote and foster renewable energy development, enhance climate change resiliency, and support entrepreneurs and local businesses across the Caribbean Basin.

“Islands are a microcosm of larger energy systems around the world and offer an excellent test bed to demonstrate and scale innovative clean energy solutions,” Rocky Mountain Institute co-founder and chief scientist Amory Lovins stated.

On the Front Lines of Global Warming

Island nations are on the front lines when it comes to global warming, as sea levels rise and threaten sparse freshwater resources and stronger storm surges raise the threat of inundation and loss of life and property. Typically reliant on imports of diesel and fossil fuels, island nations can also boast some of the highest energy prices in the world.

Looking on the bright side, island nations typically have a lot going for them when it comes to renewable energy potential, as well as the wherewithal to adapt and develop modern ways of life that are sustainable ecologically and socially, as well as economically.

Joining with the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carbon War Room this past week hosted a congress of Caribbean island nation leaders at Sir Richard's Necker Island retreat. While there, governments of six Caribbean islands – the British Virgin Islands, Colombia (of which the Caribbean island of San Andres is a part), Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Turks and Caicos – agreed to join the Carbon War Room's Ten Island Renewable Challenge.

Operation Smart Island Economies

Launched in 2012 during Rio+20, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Branson and Virgin Limited Edition gave the Ten Island Renewable Challenge a big boost earlier this month when it announced it was partnering with NRG, one of the largest power companies in the U.S., to power Necker almost entirely from renewable energy resources.

Virgin Limited Edition and NRG signed a Diesel Reduction Agreement that calls for the latter to develop a renewable energy microgrid for Necker that would meet at least 75 percent of the island retreat's power needs. It's envisioned that the clean energy microgrid will employ a mix of wind and solar energy generation along with smart energy storage systems.

The Ten Island Renewable Challenge is part-and-parcel of a broader Carbon War Room initiative: Operation Smart Island Economies, the aim of which is to effect a transition to a 100 percent renewable energy infrastructure.

The keys to realizing these aims, Branson emphasizes, is mobilizing investment and human capital in efforts to drive the cost of renewable energy down below that for the fossil fuels upon which we have come to be so dependent. As Branson stated,

“The only way we're going to win this war is by creative entrepreneurship, to make the price of clean energy cheaper than that of energy from fossil fuels.”

Toward that end, three cross-island initiatives were identified for advancement during the Ten Island Renewable Challenge Summit:

• A CARILEC/CARICOM electricity sector capacity building initiative to help support deployment of energy efficiency and renewables in the region;


• Stimulation of a regional ESCO market through PACE program development, loan guarantees and training programs; and


• Codification of standardized efficiency "playbooks" for hospitals and hotels to ensure all sites have access to proven energy solutions.

In addition, more than $300 million in capital was raised to support renewable energy and energy efficiency projects for hotels, hospitals, schools and utilities.

Image courtesy Carbon War Room/Ten Island Renewable Challenge

By Ben Goldfarb

In October 2011, as rising floodwaters threatened to submerge Bangkok, the Thai government stumbled. Officials issued conflicting reports and warnings. The city’s governor assured citizens that everything was under control, even as water began to pour into Bangkok’s northern suburbs. The flood’s toll – 815 people dead and $45 billion in damages – was exacerbated by a government that proved unprepared in the face of a crisis. Yet even as the Thai Government was bungling the disaster, Bangkok’s citizens began springing into action.

In Sai Noi, a suburb, a local residents’ committee came together to fight the flood with sand bags and water pumps, distribute food and water, and defend the area from looters. Thanks largely to the swift work of the residents’ committee--which collected money from neighbors to buy a new pump, and initiated a system of barter and labour exchange to rebuild homes--not a single resident was killed or injured, and villages were restored in less than a week. Writing in Next City, a media organization dedicated to connecting cities, the Cambodian journalist Dustin Moasa marvelled that, “With minimal help from the government, the neighborhood had survived the worst disaster ever to hit Thailand.”

The Sai Noi residents’ committee isn’t an isolated success story. All over the world, similarly informal systems and networks are delivering services typically provided by government or big private sector companies: potable water, waste collection, even ambulances. In the global South’s municipalities, these underground economies, unregulated neighborhoods and undocumented businesses flourish beneath a regulated veneer. In Lima, Peru, "shadow economies," from orange juice vendors on bicycle carts to traditional healers peddling bat carcasses, account for 60 to 70 percent of total economic activity. In some Asian cities, informal jobs contribute to the production of global commodities like garments, textiles and sport shoes--employing up to 85 percent of the workforce.

These informal structures don’t just drive economies--they also administer crucial resources and enhance urban resilience. In Accra, Ghana, a patchwork of unregulated urban farms grows everything from cucumbers to papayas, strengthening food security. In Nairobi, Kenya, garbage pickers sort through waste, performing the recycling services that the city disregards. Slum-dwellers all over the world devise innovative ways to obtain potable water, including digging makeshift wells, installing rainwatercollecting cisterns and relying on vendors selling individual plastic bags of water.

“These are cities where the government honestly doesn’t do much”, says Will Doig, Next City’s editor for the Informal City Dialogues. “Informal systems are some of the best sustainability systems they have.”

For all their nimbleness and ingenuity, informal systems confer hazards as well as benefits. Accra’s urban farms are watered with untreated gutter water, perhaps contributing to cholera outbreaks; Nairobi’s garbage pickers burn themselves with chemical waste; and illegal sewage channels in Chennai, India, pollute groundwater and coastlines. In other words, the informal institutions pioneered by the urban poor are boundlessly creative, but they can also create new public health and environmental problems.

For this reason--and because governments can feel undermined by informal solutions--such systems are frequently targeted for harassment or eradication, often with ruinous consequences for the people who depend on them. In Johannesburg, South Africa, urban "street cleansing" programs have swept away unlicensed food vendors whose stalls are critical sources of nutrition and income for impoverished families. “As cities develop, governments often try to push informal communities out to the edges, marginalizing them geographically, socially and economically--or try to formalise them," says Jessica Rosen, sustainability advisor at Forum for the Future.

That’s a problem, says Rosen, since many of the qualities intrinsic to informal communities--their mobility, their adaptability and their reliance on social networks--are the same ones that make them so valuable. In Bangkok, where state hospitals can’t meet the needs of the city’s 8 million residents, a corps of more than 4,000 volunteer ambulances acts as a vast first-responder system. Although Bangkok’s "body-snatchers" have been accused of thievery, taking bribes and even witchcraft, Doig warns that simply formalizing the ambulances would likely make them less effective. “Ideally you would figure out a way to use the ambulance system’s flexibility and nimbleness to work with the city and the hospitals," he says. “The goal is to integrate the formal and informal, to let them coexist.”

Durban, South Africa, offers a vision for how municipalities might nourish informal systems without suffocating them. For years, Warwick Junction, a sprawling marketplace on the edge of Durban’s inner city, thrived as a hotbed of informal trade--but it was also neglected and run-down. Instead of bulldozing the bazaar, in 1996 the city launched the Warwick Junction Project, an initiative headed by South African architect Richard Dobson that built pedestrian bridges, provided childcare and established buyback programs for cardboard salvagers. Keith Hart, the anthropologist who coined the term "informal sector" has called Warwick Junction a model for how poor people can "enliven a city center, generate employment for themselves and expand services" in cooperation with urban planners.

Can the success of Warwick Junction be replicated? That’s the question that the Informal City Dialogues, a collaboration funded by The Rockefeller Foundation, with Forum for the Future and Next City, set out to answer. Over two years, this global, multi-stakeholder project aimed to foster a conversation about the role of informality in creating inclusive and resilient future cities. Crucially, the dialogues involved six local partners: the African Center for Economic Transformation (ACET) in Accra; Chulalongkorn University Department of Urban and Rural Planning in Bangkok; Transparent Chennai in Chennai; FORO Nacional Internacional in Lima; Ateneo de Manila University School of Government (ASoG) in Metro Manila; and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in Nairobi.

Between 2012 and 2013, the dialogues brought together an eclectic group of stakeholders in each city, from government officials in London to slum leaders from South Africa. In early 2013, stakeholders in each city convened to develop "futures scenarios": visions of what the six cities--Accra, Bangkok, Chennai, Lima, Manila, and Nairobi--will look like in 2030. Later, the same groups got together and used those future scenarios to come up with innovations that will help those cities remain resilient against the pressures like climate change and population growth and create a more inclusive city for the informal sector. The innovations range from an initiative that will provide legal knowledge and access to affordable legal support to informal groups in Bangkok, to an economic forum for local traders to promote more secured livelihoods of the sector in Accra. The Rockefeller Foundation has awarded generous grants to organizations in each of the six cities as seed funding for the innovations.

As the world’s urban planners gain a better appreciation for the informal sector, some designers are also trying to apply its lessons in developed nations. Baltimore-based architects Kuo Pao Lian and Pavlina Ilieva argue for what they call "self-generative communities," or urban environments that mimic the mixed-use layouts, energy independence and versatility of informal systems. Lian and Ilieva have drawn inspiration from informality in cities like Tijuana, Mexico, Rio de Janeiro and Caracas, Venezuela, when designing urban environments in Baltimore, Dallas and New Orleans. “You’re seeing massive populations [in informal communities] creating their own electricity, collecting their own water, building their own dwellings, educating their own children, against a backdrop of poverty and violence”, says Lian. “We’re not celebrating that situation, but we can learn from it.”

Photo credits: Next City, B A Raju/Next City

Ben Goldfarb is a postgraduate at Yale University and the Editor of Sage Magazine.

Thanks to a new Long John Silver's ad campaign and its upcoming elimination of trans fats, one of my guilty pleasures could soon feel a bit less guilty.

A new set of ads raise the Jolly Roger in honor of sustainable food and more environmentally sound eating, citing the benefits of fish from fewer methane emissions when compared to livestock, and real free-range food from "the final frontier," otherwise known as the North Pacific.

It's no accident this brand change is coming at the breakwater of Lent, when millions of consumers switch their diets and many fast food restaurants start promoting their fish sandwiches. Judging from the networks on which the new campaign will premier--Discovery Channel, the Weather Channel, HGTV, ESPN2 and TNT--Long John Silver's is arguably targeting an environmentally conscious and educated audience.

Of course there's always the potential for greenwashing here. According to Long John Silver's, the fish it uses for its "core" products is wild caught. Those delicious crunchy white meat fish fillets and the crunchy, yummy bits of batter around it. Environmental groups warn about the disatrous practice of overfishing. According to Overfishing.org, at least 25 percent of fish stocks around the world are over-exploited or depleted, while 52 percent are already fully exploited.

Long John Silver's, however, states that it relies on sustainable fishing practices--sourcing its "core" products from certified supplies and sustainable fisheries in the North Pacific, in the Bearing Sea, while the lobster is sourced from Norway Lobster in Northern Europe. "Sustainable," of course, meaning that the fisheries aren't depleted to the point where the fish cannot reproduce. Most of the rest of the product, such as shrimp, is sourced from farms.  Long John Silver's points out, as well, that fish is more environmentally friendly than red meat and burgers based on the lower methane and greenhouse gas footprint of fish.

What fish, exactly, is Long John Silver's using for its delicious fried fish, which they just list as "fish"?  Well, they're a bit cagey about that, which doesn't help consumers who want to make their own informed decisions about what is or is not sustainably harvested. However LJS is making an important step forward by opening themselves up to these questions in the first place as they claim sustainable fishing practices.

Long John Silver's has also been overhauling its menu to offer healthier options. This comes after the Center for Science in the Public Interest publicly keelhauled the franchise for having one of the unhealthiest restaurant meals in America. The Big Catch plate was lambasted for having a heart-stopping 333 grams of trans fats.

Of course it will continue offering the items that I, particularly, crave in the middle of the night: the fried fish and clam strips. The chain claimed that it would end its use of trans fat oils at the end of 2013. That's a great start. They're also opening up a menu of unfried foods, such as baked cod and shrimp.

Frankly, as a huge fan of Long John Silver's, I'm heartened to see this rebranding and hope it's followed up with continued and deepened efforts toward sustainability and health.

Image credit: Nicholas Eckhart: Source (cropped)

By Richard Eidlin

Voluntary corporate sustainability initiatives and social enterprises are essential but are not game changers by themselves. In addition, we need laws and regulations that guide our economy toward sound, long-term decision-making, with full recognition of social and environmental externalities. As business leaders, we can and must support policy changes to help make the economy more sustainable.

A sustainable economy will depend on policies that will help advance change on a societal level.  Here are three important policies that will help--and specific actions you can take.

1. A Sustainable Future for Retirement

Experts say the typical worker approaching retirement needs about $250,000 in a 401(k). Most don't come close. The average is closer to $98,000--only a bit more than a third of the recommended amount. This is only one aspect of the growing retirement crisis facing our economy and our nation. Social Security expects future shortfalls since more workers are collecting benefits while fewer are paying in; the recent financial crisis forced many workers to collect early on 401(k) plans; and of course, state pension programs are going underfunded. Seventy-five million Americans do not have a retirement plan, and 50 percent of all Americans have less than $10,000 in savings.

According to polling of small business owners commissioned by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and the Main Street Alliance last year, 70 percent of small business owners identified the lack of retirement security as a critical issue to their business interests. Yet the same poll showed that only 30 percent of small businesses offer a retirement plan. The most common reason given for not offering a plan was cost, which means that most small employers want to offer a plan but believe that they cannot afford it.

What’s at Stake

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) announced a new retirement bill at a press conference in Washington, D.C. recently. The introduction of the USA Retirement Funds Act came on the heels of President Barack Obama’s proposal of a new IRA plan in his State of the Union address this year. Sen. Harkin’s plan would create an automatic enrollment and deposit system, where workers could designate part of their paychecks to go into a low-cost, easy–to-administer retirement plan.

What You Can Do

• Contact Sen. Harkin and your own senator on the committee


• See the USA Retirement Funds Act bill summary


• Read a PEW study that outlines retirement security across generations

2. Innovation for Ownership Models

One path to more economic sustainability in business is through expanding the use of different ownership models.

An Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP, is a strategy to give some ownership of a company to its employees as part of a transition from one owner to another. Rather than selling a company to new owners who may consolidate or close it - resulting in job losses - ESOPs allow owners to give employees more control over the company and more of a stake in its success.

According to the New York Times, more than 10,000 firms--including other ASBC business members like Dansko and Eileen Fisher--across almost all sectors operate with an ESOP in place. The National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) notes that those companies employ 13 million people.

Another model is represented by cooperative organizations, or co-ops. As the name suggests, co-ops are controlled by customers and employees who work together (in cooperation) to benefit each other and the community at large. They can be large or small businesses, and contrary to a popular perception of co-ops as being mostly grocery stores, they can exist in any sector, including finance, energy and agriculture.

Cooperatives tend to operate with a more democratic structure, with larger groups of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. The intention is that decisions are made for the benefit of the community, rather than shareholders, whose only goal is maximizing profit.

The economic benefits are significant: Cooperatives in the U.S. boast more than $3 trillion in assets and employ 1 million people, paying out $25 billion a year in wages and benefits. These benefits go directly back into the community, creating broadly shared opportunity and spurring even more job creation.

What’s at Stake

Under current laws, an ESOP in an S corporation is not eligible for the same tax benefits as those offered by C corporations. This reduces the incentives for those company owners to offer ESPOs. A Senate bill, the Promotion and Expansion of Private Employee Ownership Act (S.742), was introduced last year that would expand the tax code to cover ESOPs for S corporations.

Since co-ops remain a well-kept secret, a U.S. House bill, introduced by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), would create a Department of Housing and Urban Development program to promote cooperative development.

What You Can Do

• Send supportive messages to the sponsors of the ESOPs legislation


• Find four business reasons to expand ESOPs by Dansko CEO Mandy Cabot


• Contact the sponsor of Creating Jobs Through Cooperatives Act (H.R. 2437)


• Learn about a recent U.S. Department of Labor meeting on Workers Cooperatives

3. More Investment and Ownership Opportunities with Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding refers to raising investment funding in small increments from a large number of people, often through Internet marketing. Currently, crowdfunding exists mostly in the form of websites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, where funders can support a project in exchange for rewards like early access to products or services, but not an ownership stake in the company.

What’s At Stake

When done correctly, crowdfunding has the potential to be a very useful tool in opening up access to capital for business, especially in the context of community-based financing of local projects. In much the same way as cooperatives, they can offer a path for individuals to invest in community businesses, giving them a chance to make money from an ownership stake and offering local businesses a new funding stream.

However, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules have previously made this type of small dollar investment cost-prohibitive due to registration and reporting requirements at both the state and federal levels. Following the passage of the JOBS Act in 2012, the SEC began developing final rules for how crowdfunding would be regulated.

What You Can Do

• Read these comments (PDF) on crowdfunding regulations under the JOBS Act


• Read about some possible changes to the SEC's proposed regulations


• Visit a crowdfunding platform created by the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and the American Sustainable Business Council

Image credit: Flickr/LendingMemo

Policy Points is produced by the American Sustainable Business Council. The editor is Richard Eidlin, Director – Public Policy and Business Engagement.

By Jasmine Youssefzadeh 

We live in a time where technology is growing so rapidly that it's mind-blowing to imagine where our society will be in 10 years. This rapid change allows organizations to scale their businesses through teams of virtual employees--workers who are not physically present in the workplace. While the virtual workplace results in many positive outcomes for companies, particularly when it comes to global expansion and rapid growth, one challenge to be mindful of is a lessening sense of community and social connectivity in the work culture.

For #GiveHalf companies--social enterprises who commit 50 percent of their efforts towards pro-bono services--this challenge is something we tackle daily. The nature of our business model embeds heavy reliance on a network of volunteers to scale our pro-bono offerings, so we are forced to be introspective and creative with cultivating a strong sense of community amongst our virtual volunteers.

As early adopters of the Give Half model, we’re excited to share insight on how we foster a sense of community in a predominantly virtual work culture. It might come as a surprise that four different and highly geographically dispersed organizations can cross-pollinate skillsets, ideas and volunteer networks. But for verynice, filmanthropos, Soul Bucket and No Typical Moments, skill and idea sharing is a part of our everyday philosophy. Encouraging and supporting each other has and will continue to be fundamental to our growth and overall happiness in the workplace.

As such, we use the following underlying principles to ensure a solid sense of community exists for our volunteer network:

Spread happiness daily

The greatest productivity hack out there is simply being happy. When you're happy with your work, you'll be more productive. And when you're more productive, your business will grow.

To ensure our volunteers experience an elevated level of happiness and fulfillment from their work, we empower them with a collaborative and supportive environment and encourage them to be hands-on with leading projects. We use our social media platforms to inspire our team, and connect them with others in our network that could help advance their careers.

Let them use their passions to pursue a larger purpose

We encourage volunteers to use their unique skills towards a cause that they are passionate about. For instance, if a volunteer is passionate about eliminating global poverty, we might match them with a nonprofit client that works in Haiti.

By doing so, volunteers feel fulfilled with their work, enhance their skillsets for future employment, and are able to tangibly measure how their contributions aided a nonprofit’s mission.

Give them a sense of belonging

It’s essential for our team to feel that they're a part of a movement that's bigger than themselves and that pushes humanity forward. Beyond this, we want to foster a sense of emotional connectivity among volunteers to build an internal structure of safety, love and acceptance.

This is where creative initiatives come into play. At filmanthropos, we host quarterly Produce-A-Thons, where volunteers come together for 24 hours straight to produce a video for a cause. The experience is, above all, an incredibly unique bonding experience for volunteers to connect both with each other and with the client. At verynice, volunteers participate in fun, internal team-building initiatives as well as community workshops.

One of our most recent culture hacks involves an effort where four #GiveHalf organizations pooled their networks to participate in a virtual spin of MindValley’s LoveWeek. Loveweek is a global movement where employees give and experience love and appreciation at the workplace for five consecutive days. Given the virtual nature of our businesses, we launched #GiveHalfLove--a way for us to show virtual appreciation to our team, volunteers and friends--which has led to participants forming new friendships and has transformed the way people perceive themselves. The excitement of the initiative can be re-experienced here. Below are some of our fantastic volunteers:

Cultivating a sense of community and belonging within a predominantly virtual workforce is vital to the growth and success of any business. With a commitment to seeking creative ways to engage our volunteer network, we are pushing the boundaries of the service industry.

If you'd like to join our growing community of pro-bono volunteers, we'd love to hear from you! Please contact any of our organizations through the emails provided below to find out more about our ongoing volunteer initiatives.

Co-authored by Andrew Gottlieb, Graphics and Illustrations Courtesy of Alina Leang and Kate Slovin

As originally seen on GOOD

Jasmine Youssefzadeh is a social entrepreneur committed to finding innovative mediums for non-profits and corporates to build alliances through new media. She is Founder and Director of Production of filmanthropos, a creative agency that specializes in multi-platform storytelling for philanthropies, causes, and corporate social responsibility initiatives.

Andrew Gottleib quit his job in the sports industry with 6 months of cash to live on, zero clients, and no formal business plan to launch No Typical Moments. He stands for envisioning a world of possibility, giving back as much as receiving and helping others realize their unique genius. 

As Columbia Law School publishes a report slating the human rights record of several Indian tea plantations, a new collaboration between key players in the global tea industry has been launched by sustainability non-profit, Forum for the Future.

The Tea 2030 partners include four of the seven companies responsible for 90% of the world tea market: Unilever, Tata Global Beverages, James Finlay and Twinings, together with the Ethical Tea Partnership, Fairtrade International, IDH, Rainforest Alliance, S&D Coffee and Tea and Yorkshire Tea. It is also supported by the International Tea Committee.

The initiative calls for the sector to find legal ways to collaborate – while continuing to compete – to turn tea from a standard commodity into a ‘hero crop’ which benefits the millions who work in all parts of the industry as well as the wider environment and economy.

Collaboration will focus on three key areas: sustainable production, market mechanisms and consumer engagement.

Forum for the Future has published ‘The Future of Tea – A Hero Crop for 2030’ which identifies the challenges facing the industry including climate change, population growth, and competition for agricultural land and water. It presents four possible scenarios for the year 2030 which are designed as a tool to help businesses plan for the future and develop sustainable products and business models.

For the full story see the March issue of Ethical Performance. Subscribe today!

 

Picture credit: © Parys | Dreamstime.com
 

Labelled a 'responsible business guru' by The Guardian newspaper, and termed a 'corporate raider' by Third Sector magazine, Manny is a trusted adviser to some of the world's foremost companies and NGOs. Following careers in the business and NGO sectors, Manny has been a consultancy leader for over ten years, founding and leading the cross-sector business and society consultancy, C&E Advisory, to help clients create sustainable, commercial, social and environmental value.

He is fascinated by the inclusive development agenda and energised by the growing role that shared value can play in driving commercial, social and environmental change at scale.

Manny advises, coaches and writes on sustainable business, stakeholder engagement, corporate responsibility and community issues. His contributions have been published in a range of sources, including TIME Magazine, Newsweek and The Economist. With a passion for business and its contribution to society, Manny has worked in an advisory capacity on a wide range of issues with leading multi-national companies including Accenture, ArcelorMittal, E.ON AG, Vodafone Group, BP, Mars inc, Microsoft and Aviva.

Manny maintains a deep commitment to community and societal issues. In addition to working professionally with a wide range of NGOs, including Greenpeace, UNICEF, Cancer Research UK and Nelson Mandela's Children's Fund, he advises a number of local, national and international NGOs in a voluntary capacity. He is a non-executive/trustee of V, the major implementation body set up to significantly increase youth engagement in their communities through volunteering, a governor of the Charter School and a Fellow of the RSA.

Manny has been awarded a number of honours, including selection in 2000 as a GLT (Global Leader for Tomorrow) by the Davos-based World Economic Forum. In 1999, he was awarded an MVO (Member of the Royal Victorian Order) by HM The Queen, for services to the community. He is married with four sons and lives in London.