Search

A new spreadsheet-based tool to enable pharma companies to estimate the carbon footprint of tablet medicines in blister packs has been unveiled.

The tool, a first of its kind for the pharmaceutical sector, was developed in collaboration with the Carbon Trust and funded by industry body the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) together with pharma giants AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-(J&J), Eli Lilly, and Pfizer.

The tool will help companies estimate the carbon footprint of tablet medicines in blister packs in a way that the Carbon Trust says is “relatively quick and easy”. A range of data has been incorporated into the model which covers carbon emissions for active pharmaceutical ingredients, transport and distribution, formulation and packaging, retail and use phase and finally the disposal of the packaging.

Sonia Roschnik, head of the NHS Sustainable Development Unit, commented: “[The tool] adds real value to the body of evidence emerging around the carbon footprinting of pharmaceutical products which account for approximately 20% of the NHS carbon footprint. This tool should be useful to manufacturers, commissioners and providers to start highlighting carbon hotspots and to target work to reduce emissions further.”

You can download the tool here.

Picture credit: © Falko Matte | Dreamstime Stock Photos

The renewable energy sector will soon be driven by emerging economies according to a new report from research agency Frost & Sullivan.

The shift in market power will be down to the economic development and revised energy priorities in those markets which will drive a more sustained increase in the adoption of wind, solar and biofuels.

The report documents that while less than 50 countries worldwide had renewable support policies in place in the early part of the last decade, this number has now reached over 120. Investments in renewables have also risen dramatically over the past decade.

"The EU has set binding targets to source 20% of the bloc's total energy consumption from renewable energy sources in 2020, and targets for individual member states range from 10% for Malta to 49% for Sweden," said Harald Thaler, Frost & Sullivan’s energy and environmental industry director. "Climate and energy policies as well as long-term price-based incentives, such as subsidies and tax benefits, can substantially boost renewable energy penetration and innovation."

While the sector has escaped relatively unscathed from the vagaries of the global economic downturn, it is beginning to feel the pinch now as investments begin to decline significantly.

Urbanisation, population growth, and energy security concerns are other key drivers for the rise of renewable energy capacity in emerging regions such as Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. Further enabling accelerating the uptake of new energy sources in developing countries is the need to diversify to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and the dramatic fall in the cost of renewable energy.

"Concerted renewable energy strategies have been in place in countries such as China, India and Brazil for some time, and other emerging markets are now promoting renewables in a more systematic fashion," added Thaler.

Picture credit: © Guyerwood | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

Tiffany & Co can trace 100% of its diamonds to a known mine or supplier (with multiple known mines) according to the internationally celebrated jeweller’s latest CSR report.

The report also highlights the fact that the company boosted the economies of the diamond-producing countries of Botswana, Namibia and South Africa by $90m (£57m, €67m)) in 2012 – up 43 per cent on the year before.

The company says the rise was due to increased purchases of rough diamonds which are purchased from countries that participate in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.

Read the full story in the September issue of Ethical Performance.
 

New salary figures show the existing gender pay gap in the UK is being aggravated by a 50 per cent bonus pay gap.

The data, published annually by CMI (Chartered Management Institute) and salary specialists XpertHR, reveals male managers earned average bonuses twice as big as those of their female counterparts over the last 12 months – £6,442 compared to £3,029 – on top of average basic salaries almost 25 per cent bigger (£38,169 compared to £29,667).

Analysis of the National Management Salary Survey, which includes data from more than 43,000 UK workers, shows men stand to earn over £141,500 more in bonuses than women doing the same role over the course of a working lifetime.

Both the gender bonus and gender pay gaps are more pronounced at senior levels. At £36,270, female directors’ bonuses are dwarfed by the average amount taken home by male directors in the last year – £63,700. Even without taking bonuses into account, the data shows that the gender pay gap increases with each rung of the management ladder. At entry level women are faring better, earning £989 more than men on average, but by middle-management they receive £1,760 less than men and at director level the gap widens to £15,561 (an average basic salary of £140,586 for men and £125,025 for women).

Ann Francke, CMI Chief Executive commented: “Despite genuine efforts to get more women onto boards, it’s disappointing to find that not only has progress stalled, but women are also losing ground at senior levels. Women are the majority of the workforce at entry level but still lose out on top positions and top pay. The time has come to tackle this situation more systemically.”

Read the full story in the September issue of Ethical Performance.

Picture credit: © Dreamstime Agency | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

The number of consumers willing to pay more for goods and services from ethical companies is on the rise globally, according to a new survey by market research organisation Nielsen.

The Nielsen Global Survey on Corporate Social Responsibility surveyed more than 29,000 internet respondents in 58 countries. The percentage of consumers willing to pay more increased among both males and females and across all age groups, with respondents under age 30 most likely to say they would spend more for goods and services from companies that give back. Among consumers ages 40-44, 50% agree they would pay more, up from 38% two years ago.

“While cause-marketing programs seem to resonate most strongly among younger respondents, the rapid change in sentiment among middle-aged consumers expands the cause opportunity for brands,” said Nic Covey, vice president of corporate social responsibility at Nielsen. “Today, brands can confidently focus purpose messaging on both younger and older consumers.”

Read the full story in the September issue of Ethical Performance.

© Robert Magorien | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

Google updated its 2012 carbon emission figures last week, and among the numbers is this interesting tidbit: a typical Google user can use the company's services without leaving a carbon footprint. That's thanks to Google's vigorous pursuit of offsets as part of a far ranging carbon management strategy, which has enabled the company to claim a carbon-neutral status for the past six years.

Even without the offsets, the growth of cloud computing has contributed to an extremely modest carbon footprint for an active Google user. The company calculates that it comes out to about 8 grams of carbon daily, or the equivalent of driving one car one mile per month.

Of course, the problem is when you multiply those 8 grams by hundreds of millions of Google users, you've got a carbon footprint of enormous proportions, so while it's fair enough for Google to pat its users (and itself) on the back, the takeaway here is that offsets are an essential part of an effective carbon strategy. With that in mind, let's take a closer look at what Google has done to achieve its carbon-neutral position.

What is a typical Google user?

One useful thing about Google's per-user breakdown is that it provides a specific benchmark that individuals and businesses can use to get a handle on the carbon footprint of their own Internet activity.

According to a recent post on the Google Green blog, to get to the mile-per-month figure the company assumed that a typical, active Google user does 25 searches per day, watches an hour of YouTube per day, and uses Gmail and other services.

If you find yourself, or your company, using Google services well in excess of that pattern, it's not safe to assume that your usage is carbon neutral, and it might be time for you to consider adding some offsets of your own to the equation.

The Google carbon-neutral footprint

As for Google users who fit the typical pattern, it's instructive to take a look at all of the backstage activity that goes into enabling a "guilt-free" internet experience, carbonally speaking.

One obvious strategic area is renewable energy and energy conservation, and in that regard, Google has ranged far and wide. Along with significant solar energy and wind energy investments, among the company's many projects are on-site biofuel production and heat reclamation from wastewater.

Google services also ripple out to affect other businesses and households. Google Earth, for example, was recently used by the University of California - San Diego to develop a free online solar map that helps calculate the most efficient placement for rooftop solar panels, and the company's Google.org funding arm developed an internationally recognized geothermal map.

Grow business, not carbon

We noticed a while back that the sporting goods company, REI, has been able to expand its business without a proportional increase in carbon emissions, and Google's carbon calculations demonstrate a similar phenomenon.

Last year marked the fourth in a row that Google's carbon emissions actually dropped when calculated on a per million dollars of revenue basis.

As for the key role played by offsets, Google has developed a brief white paper on carbon offsets laying out the thinking behind its strategy.

The white paper makes the case for purchasing offsets that go far beyond a company's core business activities, basically because those investments can help manage global carbon issues that are urgently in need of addressing.

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions from livestock are a significant issue, and Google's white paper highlights its involvement in methane capture from manure at a livestock operation in North Carolina, in collaboration with Duke University. In addition to managing global emissions, such projects also promote local environmental health by offering an alternative to conventional open lagoons and field spraying of animal waste.

The livestock project also has the potential to support local economic development by enabling farmers to expand their operations without running afoul of environmental regulations.

It's also worth noting that non-core offset projects can enable a company to promote a good citizen image by supporting national goals. The manure-to-gas project, for example, supports the federal AgStar program of the Department of Environmental Protection.

[Image (cropped): Google logo by Robert Scoble]

Follow me on Twitter.

While e-billing is convenient and commonplace, US consumers like paper bills and statements and don’t want to be pushed into electronic-only communications, finds a new report.

As pressure to go paperless from banks, utilities, telecommunications companies and other service providers grows, a majority of US consumers wants to keep the option to receive paper bills and statements, says a survey published by Two Sides. More than six in 10 consumers say they would not choose a provider that does not offer paper bills and statements, and 88% want to be able to switch between electronic and paper bills without difficulty or cost. The survey of 2,000 US consumers was conducted for Two Sides by research firm Toluna.

"More than eight in 10 believe that cost savings are the driving force behind the 'go paperless' marketing hype, and many are suspicious of marketing claims that going paperless will 'save trees' or 'protect the environment'. In fact, 50% of those surveyed said they either did not believe such claims, felt misled by them or questioned their validity," said Phil Riebel, president of Two Sides.

"Even though half of survey respondents believe that reducing environmental impacts is one of the reasons companies are switching to electronic billing, 72% also believe that print on paper can be a sustainable way to communicate when produced and used responsibly," Riebel added. "It's also important to note that more than one-third of survey participants reported that they print some or all of their electronic bills at home, so the claim that e-bills are paperless really isn't true in many cases."

The Two Sides survey reaffirms consumer attitudes revealed in similar surveys conducted by other organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom including Consumers for Paper Options, Two Sides UK and Keep Me Posted.

Picture credit: © Genarosilva | Dreamstime Stock Photos
 

Submitted by Guest Contributor

By Clint Robertson

When states started deregulating their energy markets more than a decade ago, competition was introduced in hopes of driving down market prices for electricity and giving the consumer the power to shop for energy.

But perhaps the most notable opportunity in deregulation is the consumer’s ability to go green. Many retail suppliers offer green energy plans, which allow customers to purchase renewable energy, generated from infinite resources, such as the sun or wind.

While deregulation can give consumers more control over their own carbon footprint, how are deregulated states fairing in the race to go green? Has the policy paved the way for renewable expansions? Are they in fact greener than their regulated counterparts?

Renewable Energy In The United States

With so many eco-savvy consumers, it's no secret that the country is trying to become a greener place. Despite the fact that there's no national mandate for renewable energy use, 30 states and the District of Columbia have voluntarily implemented renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to increase electricity production from environmentally friendly resources. Because these states have a mix of deregulated and regulated energy markets it’s tough to say whether either market is greener.

Take Texas for example.

Its renewable portfolio standard was part of the same legislation that deregulated its energy market. In total, the RPS calls for the state to produce 10,000 MW of electricity by 2025. Since deregulation and the RPS were implemented in 2002, renewable energy production has risen from 1 percent to 7 percent in the state. But the jump should come as no surprise since Texas surpassed its RPS goals by 2010, reaching the 10,000 MW mark 15 years early.

In 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration also named the state number five in the nation for renewable energy generation.

No Correlation Between Deregulation And Renewable Energy

But Texas’ strides to go green seem to be canceled out by its carbon emissions. From 2000 to 2010, Texas led the nation in carbon dioxide emissions, producing 7.5 billion metric tons, according to the EIA. It emitted 75 percent more CO2 over the time period than the second highest carbon-emitting state, California, which suspended its deregulated energy market in 2001.

On the other end of the spectrum, Washington State, a non-deregulated market, generates more renewable resources than any other state. In total, Washington produced 74.9 gigawatt hours of clean energy in 2010, according to the EIA's most recent data. With such varying production across the United States, it seems that there isn't a correlation between renewable energy generation and the deregulation of energy markets.

Deregulation Leads To Grid Improvements

Though deregulation may not play a role in renewable energy production, many believe deregulation is paving the way for smart grid technology. And advancements in the power grid make it easier to get green energy from generation companies to the power grid and finally into people's homes.

According to a report by GridWise Alliance and the Smart Grid Policy Center, there is an obvious relationship between states with retail electric choice and investments in grid modernization. Out of the report’s top 15 states in smart grid deployment, 11 operate with a full or partly deregulated energy market. It also found that areas with electric choice implement smart meter programs and grid education programs, which help generate investments in modernization of the system.

The reason that deregulated areas have been more successful at grid modernization may be, at least in part, because of utilities. Many of the utilities in regulated areas generate their own electricity. If demand for their fossil fuel-powered energy decreases, they will lose revenue. It's important to note that this is not as much of an issue in deregulated areas where utilities are responsible solely for the delivery of electricity, not the generation or sale of the commodity.

Barriers to Solar Power

According to a report by the Edison Electric Institute, solar power is the largest threat to the current utility model. There were approximately 200,000 distributed solar customers in the United States in 2011, 70 percent of which were concentrated within 10 utilities service areas.

Though many regulated utilities have escaped the threat of incoming solar projects for now, the report assesses the risk for the current utility model should solar continue to grow within the nation. So it's not likely that utilities that generate electricity will make is easy for consumers to get green energy in regulated areas.

Regardless of whether a state has a deregulated energy market or not, it’s up to the utility to deliver electricity to people's homes. And without grid modernization there are plenty of barriers for renewable energy. First of all, renewable energy is often generated in remote locations that don't have access to transmission.

Additionally, there can be a lack of interconnection rules, which make it difficult — sometimes impossible — to connect renewable energy to the utility grid, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And to top it all off, utility rate structures can increase the cost of green energy through added charges and fees.

Obviously there are things that hinder renewable energy from entering the power grid in every state. But it seems that more deregulated states have taken greater strides toward innovating for a secure energy future by advancing the grid technology that connects people with clean power.

About the Author:

Clint Robertson is a freelance writer who has held numerous positions in the energy industry. His work promotes ways to educate the general population and reduce the carbon footprint for the betterment of the world by focusing on our need for renewable energy sources.

The past 12 months have been a notable period for ethical fund performance with the average ethical fund posting gains of 24% compared with 18% growth from the average non-ethical fund.

The latest survey from Investment Life & Pensions Moneyfacts survey examined the performance of ethical funds, conventional non-ethical funds, index trackers and the FTSE 100 over a number of investment periods (see table below). It also compared ethical funds within the three IMA sectors that contain the most ethical funds (£ Corporate Bond, Global and UK All Companies).

As the table below shows, ethical funds have also outperformed UK Index Trackers (23%) and the FTSE 100 (18%).

Richard Eagling, head of investments and pensions at Moneyfacts, said: "Ethical funds have clearly benefitted from their lack of exposure to 'unethical sectors' such as mining, oil and gas and tobacco, which have been amongst some of the poorer performing areas of the market over the last 12 months."

Over three years ethical fund returns have also edged ahead of non-ethical funds, with the average ethical fund up by 36% compared with growth of 31% from the average non-ethical fund, whilst after five years there is very little difference in performance levels.

At first glance, the 10-year performance figures are less flattering for ethical funds, with the average ethical fund growing by just 56%, less than half the growth of the average non-ethical fund (128%). But these figures are distorted by the fact that sectors such as China /Greater China and Global Emerging Markets, which have experienced extraordinary growth, do not house any ethical funds with a 10-year record.

However, comparing ethical funds within the three IMA sectors that contain the most ethical funds (£ Corporate Bond, Global and UK All Companies) shows that in each case there is only a small gap between ethical fund performance and their non-ethical peers. For instance, over ten years the average Global ethical fund is up by 127% compared with growth of 131% from their non-ethical peers. Furthermore, the top two performing ethical funds across all sectors over 10 years - Kames Ethical Equity (199%) and Ecclesiastical Amity International (188%) - have both delivered returns that overshadow many of their conventional rivals.

Picture credit: © Anatoliy Babiychuk | Dreamstime Stock Photos

RobecoSAM’s new study has found Sweden to be the most sustainable country in the world.

The study, which evaluates 59 countries (21 from developed and 38 from emerging markets) on a broad range of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors relevant for investors, ranked Sweden top with a score of 8.25 out of 10. Rounding out the top three were Australia and Switzerland with scores of 7.87 and 7.83 respectively.

Sweden earned high scores across almost all criteria and contrary to many developed countries, also scored well on environmental factors such as the use of renewable energy sources and CO2 emissions.

The framework primarily focuses on mid to long-term factors that have an indirect impact on a government’s ability to repay its debt or raise revenues, but that are not considered by traditional sovereign ratings.

Results indicate that a stronger sustainability profile corresponds to a lower insurance premium, suggesting that there is added value in gathering information on risks related to a country’s sustainability profile in times of risk aversion.

Investors’ demand for long-term oriented strategies that integrate ESG considerations across a range of different asset classes is likely to grow; particularly in the wake of the financial crisis, which exposed some of the shortcomings of traditional measures used to evaluate country risk.

This the first Country Sustainability Ranking produced by RobecoSAM and Robeco; Robeco began to conduct research into country level sustainability in 2008.