Search

The £5.69m Guinness Alternative Energy C fund continued its top ranking amongst UK Registered funds over the past year to 31 December 2013 with a cumulative +67.62% performance. It nevertheless contrasted sharply with weak past three- and five-year performances at -18.59%/142nd and -18.71%/124th, respectively.

Sarasin Sustainable Equity USA P US$ fund retained its runners up spot from the previous period to 30 November 2013 with +43.55% against +34.10%/17th over three years. Kames Ethical Equity B Acc fund came third over one year (+37.37%), ranked fifth over three (+51.01%) and fourth over five years (+131.29%). The £68.32m Premier Ethical A Inc. fund moved up one spot to fourth from top over the past year with a marginally improved +36.57% performance against +57.61%/2nd over past three and an outstanding +110.33% over the past five years. SUNARES lagged the sector again with -36.42%/155th rank over the past year (-64.34% over three years).

For US Mutual funds, Firsthand Alternative Energy fund stole a march on its rivals again over the past one year with a +93.71% performance (-11.00%/199th over three years), followed by the $23.66m Guinness Atkinson Alternative Energy fund with +61.54% (though negative over three and five years at -21.27% and -17.97%, respectively) and the $323.58m Eventide Gilead N fund in third with +52.93% (+81.13% over three years and +213.43%/4th over five).

The sector’s bottom five funds lay in negative territory on the past one-year view: GuideStone Funds Extended-Dur Bond GS2 fund at -5.10% to GuideStone Funds Inflation Protected Bond GS4 at -8.64%. But the sector displayed the best peer group cumulative return (+100.79%) over the past five years.

MAP Clean Technology Fund I top ranked among European Funds with +146.13% over the past year and shaded LSF Asian Solar & Wind A1 fund at +145.80% (-15.35%/994th over past three). The €8.16m Incometric Global Valor B fund ranked fifth over the past year with +49.39% and has performed well over the last three years recording +55.56%/9th rank. SUNARES takes the wooden spoon in the sector again with -38.01% (out of 1,115 funds) and -63.27% over one- and three-year periods, but was positive over five (+15.35%).

The UK Individual Pensions sector displayed the best peer group average over one-year and three-year periods with +27.37% and +38.43%, respectively. Top ranked fund here over the past 12 months was Sanlam/Kames Ethical Equity 8 Pension fund with +38.67% versus +55.98%/11th over the past three years.

Every Wednesday at 4pm PST / 7pm EST (and every once in a while at other times) TriplePundit will take 45 minutes or so to chat with interesting leaders in the sustainable business movement. These chats are broadcast on our Google+ channel and embedded via YouTube right here on 3p.

The sharing economy is a movement of movements emerging from the grassroots up to solve today’s biggest challenges, which traditional institutions can't manage alone. New and exciting solutions are changing how we produce, consume, govern, and solve social problems. In the same vein, the maker movement, collaborative consumption, the solidarity economy, open source software, open government, and social enterprise are a few of the movements showing a way forward based on sharing. At the core of this societal turnaround is both modern and infinite wisdom – "that it’s only through sharing, cooperation, and contribution to the common good that it’s possible to create lives and a world worth having".

What do you know (or want to learn) about the "Sharing Economy?" On Wednesday, January 29th, TriplePundit’s Founder, Nick Aster, engaged in a conversation with Neal Gorenflo (Founder of Shareable) and Nicco Mele (Founder of EchoDitto). Click PLAY below to watch and learn!

About Neal Gorenflo

Neal is the co-founder and publisher of Shareable Magazine, a nonprofit online magazine about sharing. As a former market researcher, stock analyst, and Fortune 500 strategist, Neal is perhaps an unlikely voice for sharing. An epiphany in 2004 inspired Neal to leave the corporate world to help people share through Internet startups, publishing, grassroots organizing, and a circle of friends committed to the common good. Neal has become an expert on the sharing economy through entrepreneurship, research, writing, speaking, and as a avid practitioner. He has consulted with Institute for the Future, Sitra, and Lowe's Home Improvement, and has been featured by NBC Nightly News, Fast Company, Christian Science Monitor, Sunset Magazine, CBS Consumer Watch, and ABC 7 Live. He has recently spoken at SXSW, Sustainable Brands, SOCAP, and ShareNY. His recent writing is featured in YES! Magazine, 7x7 Magazine, The Urbanist, and the anthology Open Design Now. 

About Nicco Mele

Nicco is an entrepreneur, angel investor and consultant to Fortune 1000 companies – is one of America’s leading forecasters of business, politics, and culture in our fast-moving digital age. Nicco’s first book, The End of Big: How The Internet Makes David The New Goliath, published in 2013, explores the consequences of living in a socially-connected society, drawing upon his years of experience as an innovator in politics and technology. Since his early days as one of Esquire Magazine’s “Best and Brightest” in America, Nicco has been a sought-after innovator, media commentator, and speaker. He serves on a number of private and non-profit boards, including the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard and Breakthrough.tv. Nicco is also co-founder of the Massachusetts Poetry Festival.

The Production Tax Credit (PTC) expired on Dec. 31, and the wind industry is waiting to see if it will be extended, causing great financial uncertainty. The credit was extended on Jan. 1, 2013, for one year, but has been a source of contention in Congress. The uncertainty around the tax credit has made mid- and long-term planning in the renewable energy industry difficult because the tax credit has such a significant impact on the financial viability of projects. It has lapsed several times over the last 20 years and was extended at the last minute for 2013.

The PTC is a 2.3-cent per kilowatt-hour credit for electricity generated by wind, geothermal and closed-loop biomass projects for the first 10 years of operation.  It also credits 1.1 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity for landfill gas, anaerobic digestion, hydroelectric, municipal solid waste, hydrokinetic power, tidal energy, wave energy and ocean thermal.

There was a boom in wind farm construction in late 2012, as developers pushed to complete projects because the future extension of the tax credit was unknown. Despite the extension of the tax credit into 2013, wind farm construction was relatively slow over the year because many projects were pushed through in 2012. During the first three quarters of 2013, 2,400 MW of wind capacity were under construction, according to the American Wind Energy Association. By comparison, there were 8,400 MW of wind capacity under construction in the first three quarters of 2012. Although the PTC was designed to help the industry, it has created boom and bust cycles and made planning difficult.

Is the PTC an important aspect of tax policy and should it be extended again?

What's Not to Love?

Opponents of this tax credit believe that renewable energy shouldn't get special treatment. If it isn't financially viable by now, it shouldn't create a tax burden for the American people. Although estimates vary, the extension of the PTC for 2013 could cost the taxpayers $6.1 billion over 10 years.

Because renewable energy projects were disproportionately prevalent in Texas, Iowa, North Dakota and Oklahoma last year, these states received a larger portion of the pie, according to a study by Institute of Energy Research. California and New York were the largest "net payers," paying in $195 million and $162 million more than they received.

The PTC originally credited developers 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour between 1994 and 1999. The incentive has expired four times, creating boom and bust cycles in the industry. The current credit at 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour keeps pace with inflation. Despite the increasing maturity of technology since 1994, the credit hasn't tapered off, as it has for the investment tax credit for solar energy. Some believe that the 2013 production tax credit was too generous and doesn't push the industry to innovate because there isn't an incentive for using new technology that has less known results.

Some opponents of the tax credit have concerns about wind energy in general. People often raise concerns of bird fatalities at public hearings about the potential siting of a new wind farm. Although wind turbine advances have decreased fatalities, wind turbines kill an estimated .27 birds per gigawatt-hour of electricity.

In some ways, the PTC has helped fill the void of a comprehensive energy policy that promotes energy diversity, economic security and low-carbon sources. The result is a patchwork of state policies, renewable portfolio standards, preferential tax treatment and tax credits.

The Good

Proponents say the tax credit is keeping energy costs down -- reducing carbon emissions and boosting the economy. The oil and gas industry has many subsidies of sorts, such as the ability to lease public lands for oil and gas drilling. A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office states that royalty rates for oil and gas drilling on public lands are too low.

The fossil fuel industry already benefits from preferential treatment. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that three tax preferences provide $24 billion per decade in annual benefits to BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell. These companies earned $70.5 billion in profits in the first nine months of 2013, thus it is a highly profitable industry. If the oil companies receive tax preference, why not the wind industry?

In addition, there are numerous external costs to fossil fuels, far fewer than renewable energy. Fracking has high external costs, and can contaminate drinking water, cause serious health problems, reduce productivity and put strain on public infrastructure. In some cases the oil and gas industry pays for these costs, and in many cases they don't. Society or government is burdened with the unpaid costs in the form of medical bills, infrastructure costs (water treatment facilities, roads, etc.),  collapse of fisheries (and related livelihoods), and loss of biodiversity.

Although wind turbines do kill birds, they are responsible for far fewer bird deaths than other forms of energy. Nuclear power plants kill .6 birds per GWh (2.2 times the deaths associated with wind power) and fossil fuel power plants kill 9.4 birds per GWh (38.4 times that of wind power).

Solutions

The boom and bust cycles of wind energy development need to end, as they make it particularly difficult for wind turbine research, development and manufacturing to get a strong foothold in the country. Stable, long-term policy would make this possible. Since the energy playing field is anything but level, with lots of external costs and subsidies for fossil fuels, a long-term and stable incentive would benefit everyone.

Slowly tapering off the tax credit over a decade or two according to an announced schedule would give developers, manufacturers, investors and utilities information to plan more than a year in advance. Unfortunately, the only option being discussed is a one-year extension of the tax credit or no credit at all. At least there is 6,000 to 10,000 MW of capacity in the pipeline, projects that broke ground in 2013 when the tax credit was still intact.

What do you get when you cross a fuel cell with a cell tower? Would that be a fuel tower? Or perhaps a fuel cell cell tower? Probably the best people to ask would be the folks at Sprint since they just received a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy to install hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) technology as backup power to a number of their network sites.

The technology, still in development, would actually provide innovative approaches for rooftop fuel cell deployments. One approach being explored is a modular and lightweight fuel cell solution that can be installed without cranes and can be refueled from the ground – eliminating the need to transport fuel to rooftops.

The company proposed the use of fuel cells as a cleaner alternative to the more common diesel-powered backup generators, citing them as a way to avoid greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), the risk of ground contaminants and higher maintenance costs. Unlike fossil fuel-based generators, HFCs generate electricity with no environmentally undesirable greenhouse gas emissions. As a company, Sprint strives to limit the deployment of new fossil fuel generators. Sprint is working to reduce its GHG emissions by an absolute 20 percent by 2017.

The full scope and financial structure of the project is yet to be determined, but details are expected in the next 60 days. Sprint hopes to begin installing the fuel cells by the end of 2014. The primary desired outcome of the program is to develop economically and operationally viable methodologies that can be scaled up for a widespread deployment of rooftop fuel cell backup systems. Both Sprint and the DOE hope this can also promote further hydrogen fuel cell advancement across a multitude of industries.

Besides lower emissions, the fuel cell approach should allow for lower network site maintenance, which should increase network survivability during power outages -- a critical performance indicator in this industry. The fuel cell-based systems also have a life expectancy of 20 years, considerably longer than diesel systems, and they require less battery reserve power (only 8 minutes, instead of 2 hours).

It wasn't clear from the announcement where the hydrogen would come from or how the total cost of operation is expected to compare with the more conventional backup systems.

"We are excited to once again partner with the DOE to bring a new fuel cell technology solution to the market," said Bob Azzi, chief network officer at Sprint. "To date, we’ve deployed approximately 500 hydrogen fuel cells in our network. This technology will provide backup power for our network and could extend to other industries as well."

Sprint and the DOE have worked together previously to deploy hydrogen fuel cells as an energy source for their network. Sprint pioneered the introduction of fuel cell technology to ground-based networks in 2005. In 2009 the DOE provided a $7.3 million grant for Sprint to support fuel cell technology advances including the development and testing of a 72-hour emergency backup system. Rooftop cell sites comprise almost 25 percent of Sprint’s total network locations for which fuel cells have not been an option for deployment until now. As much as 30 percent of total network cell sites are located on rooftops in some major metropolitan areas.

Compass Intelligence recently named Sprint as the most "eco focused" wireless carrier. The company has been widely recognized for its environmental commitments to decrease energy use, enable more eco-friendly mobile solutions and offer industry-leading wireless recycling programs.

Last year, Sprint was the only telecommunications company named to CDP’s S&P 500 Climate Performance Leadership Index (CPLI), which highlights companies that demonstrate strategies committed to improving their impact on the environment. Sprint was also named for the third consecutive year to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) North America, which tracks the corporate sustainability performance of the top 20 percent of the 600 largest companies by industry in the United States and Canada.

Cell tower image: EMFNews.com/Flickr Creative Commons

Fuel cell image: Sprint

RP Siegel, PE, is an inventor, consultant and author. He co-wrote the eco-thriller Vapor Trails, the first in a series covering the human side of various sustainability issues including energy, food, and water in an exciting and entertaining format. Now available on Kindle.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.

The sharing economy may have been a raving success with consumers last year, but not necessarily with big city governments. First there was Airbnb’s dustup with the city of New York. Now there is FlightCar and its legal challenges with San Francisco and Millbrae, Calif.

Probably one of the most innovative sharing economy models to come along, FlightCar was started by three college dropouts: Kevin Petrovic, Shri Ganeshram and Rujul Zaparde (actually Petrovic and Zaparde didn't even make it to orientation). It’s the quintessential proof that sometimes ingenuity, drive and moxie can carry you almost as far as a degree.  Their idea was to offer the harried airline passenger a way to avoid parking their car at the airport, where fees mount up and become an added overhead to vacations and business trips.

"FlightCar lets people parking at the airport rent their vehicles out to other travelers," says the company website. To ensure that there are no liability hassles, every car is insured with a $1 million policy. The renter pays a nominal cost for the use, and the owner gets a free car-cleaning and 20 cents per mile. In a metropolis like San Francisco, that change can add up.

Their idea was so popular that it garnered $5.5 million in venture capital and a roll-out at SFO, which is owned by the city. As the trio quickly found out, not everyone is fond of the sharing economy concept.

Parking fees are a big issue to airports, particularly those the size of SFO, which has steep overhead to contend with and relies on those fees for revenue. From the city’s point of view, FlightCar wasn’t paying for taxes and other fees that are normally paid by car rental agencies. From FlightCar’s vantage point, they don’t maintain a location at the airport; in fact, since the business operates out of Millbrae (just outside the airport boundary), the owners argue, they aren’t even based in the city of San Francisco. Therefore, they shouldn’t have to pay fees and taxes that regular car-rental agencies pay the city.

But that’s not the only problem that the company has faced with its neighbors lately. On Nov. 4, the Millbrae Planning Commission voted to pull  FlightCar’s conditional use permit. The city listed a number of non-compliance issues, all of which FlightCar insists have already been addressed or had nothing to do with its conditional use permit. Two weeks later, the company launched a lawsuit, stating that Millbrae "thoroughly and capriciously prejudice[d] the rights of the plaintiff by denying it the ability to operate its business."

Local San Mateo County resident Doug Radtke noted in his blog post on the day the lawsuit was launched that there may have been other options available to the city council before trying to "kick out a business because folks on the planning commission think it's a 'failed experiment'; there are rules, laws and procedures."  He questioned "why there was no formal abatement process" such as disciplinary or corrective action taken if the city felt the business wasn’t complying with regulations that would have lessened the chance of being slapped with a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the showdown between FlightCar and San Francisco has only just begun. The city and FlightCar went to court last week, but there’s been no official word of the outcome. While San Francisco has some hefty arguments on its side, it may be hard to shake the public image of robbing hard-working, well-intentioned teens that were sharp enough to see a better way of doing things.

"We’re not asking for the keys to the kingdom without doing the hard work to get there," said co-founder Rujul Zaparde in a Nov. 23 blog post. "We are asking for a clearly defined set of rules that that aren’t designed to favor incumbents — and allow us to rise to the occasion to satisfy a new customer base with rising expectations."

Image of San Francisco from SFO courtesy of Manuel Calavera

This piece has been updated since it was published to correct the following errors: only Ganeshram attended MIT, FlightCar raised $5.5 million not 3.5 million, and the company has never operated at Oakland International Airport. 

The following is an excerpt from Ice Cream Social - The Struggle for the Soul of Ben & Jerry's, reprinted with permission. Author Brad Edmondson is also making daily posts of material related to the book, including more excerpts at www.icecreamsocialbook.com. He welcomes your comments and stories here and at that website.

By Brad Edmondson

Social Stirrings - Ben & Jerry’s got serious about its "ice cream for the people" philosophy on April 26, 1984, the day the company made its first stock offering. That is when they really started sharing the company’s wealth with the communities that supported it. That was the day the company went public—but only Vermont residents could buy the stock. Co-founder Ben Cohen said the sale allowed Ben & Jerry’s to give its best customers a piece of the action.

The company needed to raise $750,000 in equity to finance a $3.25 million ice cream plant in Waterbury, about 10 miles east of Burlington, Vt. Business was booming, and the prospects for expansion were bright. Or so the founders thought. Then Ben and Jeff Furman, a long-time board member whose co-workers often describe as "the ampersand in Ben & Jerry's," tried to get a loan. Jeff remembers applying to dozens of banks before they found one that would even consider lending money to anyone who looked and acted like they did. And the bank officer added that he needed to see some equity first.

Ben came up with the idea to restrict the stock offer to people who lived in Vermont, with a minimum purchase of 12 shares at $10.50 apiece. Nearly everyone who heard the idea said that it was naïve and impractical. They told Ben that the stock offer could not reach its goal under those restrictions. But Jeff and Chico Lager - general manager, president and CEO from 1981 through 1990 - finally agreed to the plan because Ben would not back down. The fundraising deadline was upon them. They needed to stop arguing and do something. Ben set the course, and they followed it.

The in-state stock offering was a classic Ben move, an idea that seemed crazy and exasperated his colleagues but then succeeded brilliantly. Chico and Ben made their pitches in rented conference rooms around the state. They sealed the deal by handing out free samples of ice cream after they finished talking. They easily raised the money, and that was just the beginning. The offer also generated a tremendous amount of publicity and good will. By the time it was done, nearly 1 percent of the households in the state owned shares of Ben & Jerry's.

Restricting the offer to one state also made it unnecessary to register it with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which reduced banking costs. Giving ownership to a large number of people, each of whom held a small number of shares, meant that Ben could get the money he needed while retaining firm control of the company. And the sale went far beyond the standard business practice of making small donations to community organizations. It was more like a merger with thousands of patriotic Vermonters who would hassle the corner grocer if he ever ran out of Heath Bar Crunch. It was the first time the company found a big way to make its financial, social and quality objectives move forward together.

Creative thinking and flexibility saved Ben & Jerry’s more than once in those days. It came in especially handy when the company faced strong-arm tactics from Pillsbury, its chief competitor. Pillsbury, which spends millions on ads featuring a character called the Doughboy, owned Häagen-Dazs, the first super-premium ice cream in the United States. When Ben & Jerry’s started selling in Boston, Pillsbury told its distributors there that they wouldn’t get any Häagen-Dazs unless they agreed not to deliver Ben & Jerry’s.

Pillsbury’s move was blatantly illegal, but Ben and Chico didn’t have enough time or money to rely on the courts. So they came up with a dual strategy. First, they sent Jeff out to interview lawyers. Jeff found one he liked at Ropes & Gray, an elite corporate firm based in Boston. "As I was talking to Howie, he leaned back and put his feet up on his desk," Jeff said, "He had a hole in the sole of his shoe. That sold me."

Howard Fuguet specialized in antitrust law because he liked working with entrepreneurs. "I had done quite a bit of work representing underdogs," he said. "I was intrigued by Ben & Jerry’s, and I thought that we could win this." Howie became the company’s lawyer, an important advisor to the board of directors, and, as the years went by, a storehouse of institutional memory.

Ben and Chico also crafted a non-legal strategy, in line with their philosophy of cultivating direct, personal relationships with customers. They put notices on their pints inviting customers to join a campaign called “What’s the Doughboy Afraid Of?” They mailed out packets with bumper stickers and form letters customers could send to Pillsbury’s CEO. They also flew Jerry to Minneapolis to stand in front of Pillsbury’s headquarters with a picket sign. "I was very much in favor of this," Howie said. "I could see the marketing value of the lawsuit. I might have asked them to tone down a couple of their slogans, but it was a very interesting project."

Jerry always gets a laugh when he tells the Doughboy story in speeches now, mostly because he portrays himself as hapless and nutty. "Nobody had any idea of why I was there," he said at a talk at Cornell University in 2013. But that isn’t quite true. Ben and Chico made sure that a photographer for the Minneapolis Star Tribune was there. The Associated Press picked up the story, and it ran all over the country.

The Doughboy campaign generated an avalanche of positive publicity for Ben & Jerry’s, and it put so much pressure on Pillsbury that the big company was forced to back off. It also set a pattern the company would use, with spectacular results, for decades. Instead of doing traditional advertising or marketing campaigns, Ben & Jerry’s would take their product directly to people. It would market to taste buds through sampling, and also to an ordinary person’s sense of fairness and justice by taking on social issues.

Ben & Jerry’s commitment to linked prosperity deepened a year later when Jeff and Howie led the company through a national stock offering. Again, the company went directly to its customers first. It put a notice on each pint that encouraged customers to "Scoop Up Our Stock," with a toll-free number to call for a prospectus. "It was an unusual move," said Howie, "but once the Securities and Exchange Commission people understood it, they just laughed and said, 'Why not?' We kept trying to come up with things for Ben & Jerry’s that were a little novel. I regarded it as a challenge, and they encouraged me."

As Ben, Chico and Jeff worked on the prospectus for the national stock offering, they realized that they needed to tell potential investors exactly how much of their money the company planned to give away. Ben had been giving larger and larger cash contributions to local groups, while Chico had been trying to keep the giving at around 5 percent of pretax profits. So they created the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, an independent nonprofit organization funded by the company. Its goal was to support projects that were unlikely to be funded through traditional sources. The projects they were looking for would be models for social change, ideas that enhanced people’s quality of life and community celebrations. Jerry agreed to be the foundation’s president. Jeff was the second board member, and Naomi Tannen, who had owned Highland Community, the school where Ben had met Jeff, was the third.

Ben endowed the foundation with 50,000 shares of his stock, which was a little less than one-tenth of his equity in the company. He wanted to set the company’s annual contribution to the foundation at 10 percent of pretax profits, or double the percentage that Chico had tried to maintain. Chico replied that giving this much away would make it impossible to fund future expansions without more stock offerings, which would further dilute Ben’s ownership. The underwriters added that investors wouldn’t buy into a company if it gave away so much cash, because that would reduce dividends. After a lengthy argument, Ben compromised on 7.5 percent of pretax profits, or nearly four times the national average.

Jerry Greenfield image: David Brewster

Book cover: Ice Cream Social - The Struggle for the Soul of Ben & Jerry's by Brad Edmonson

Brad Edmondson is an award-winning journalist and business consultant who helps his clients understand and benefit from social change. His writing appears regularly in national magazines, including AARP and The American Scholar. To learn more visit http://www.icecreamsocialbook.com

Seattle is abuzz with excitement this week after the Seattle Seahawks beat the San Francisco 49ers to win the NFC Championship and advance to play the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII on Feb. 2.

We at BGI congratulate the Seahawks on their exhilarating victory over a major rival. As we await the next big game, we want to also express our admiration for the Seahawks and what their sustainability efforts provide to the Seattle community even when the game is over.

For the past decade, the Seahawks and CenturyLink Field have been dedicated to improving their environmental impact through the Defend Your Turf program. Defend Your Turf is focused on initiatives in four main areas: waste reduction, water conservation, energy efficiency and community engagement. Among the highlights of their main accomplishments:

Waste Reduction

• 94 percent of waste from CenturyLink Field is diverted from landfills, up from 47 percent four years ago


• Five million gallons of biodiesel were produced in 2012 from recycling cooking oil


• 100 percent of food containers are compostable

Water Conservation

• CenturyLink Field reduced its water use by 15 percent in 2012


• Low-flow water fixtures save 1.3 million gallons annually


• Cleaning processes are low-chemical and all cleaners and soaps are certified by Green Seal

Energy Efficiency

• Energy consumption was reduced by 12 percent in 2012


• CenturyLink Event Center is topped with solar panels that meet 30 percent of the facility’s energy needs


• Arch lighting has been converted to programmable, efficient LEDs

Community Engagement

• CenturyLink Field encourages visitors to arrive using public transit


• 4,600 meals are donated annually to Food Lifeline and Operation Sack Lunch


• The field’s concessions partner provides sustainable, local and organic food

These achievements are remarkable in their own right and especially so considering their ripple effect. In 2010, the Seahawks joined forces with the Sounders FC, other sports teams in the Pacific Northwest, Paul G. Allen’s Vulcan Inc. and the Natural Resources Defense Council to form the Green Sports Alliance. The Alliance is a nonprofit aimed at helping sports teams, venues and leagues enhance their environmental performance and represents more than 200 teams and venues from 16 leagues since launching nationally in 2011.

"With the support of the Alliance and its partners, members are reducing waste, conserving energy and water and eliminating toxic chemicals, among many other ongoing initiatives and accomplishments. They are integrating sustainability into their core operations, engaging fans and saving substantial sums of money in the process," said Green Sports Alliance Membership Director and BGI alumnus David Muller.

The task at hand for any sports team is clearly to work hard and win games. The Seahawks are leading the way to an even higher purpose. With nearly 2 million fans visiting CenturyLink Field every year, the impact of their sustainability efforts is significant. The nation’s eyes will be on the Seahawks on Feb. 2; we’re proud to call them our neighbors on game day – and every day.

Laura Ippen is currently enrolled in BGI’s MBA in Sustainable Business program and also works as the Website Coordination intern for BGI in Seattle. She previously worked as a Sustainability Coordinator for UnityPoint Health in Des Moines, IA and is passionate about the connection between environmental and public health.

Connect to Learn More

Bainbridge Graduate Institute prepares students from diverse backgrounds to design, lead, and evolve enterprises in pursuit of the common good. Degrees include MBAs in Sustainable Business and Sustainable Systems, an MA in Organizational Leadership, and Certificates in Sustainable Energy Solutions, Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems, and Sustainable Built Environment. Learn more at bgi.edu or by contacting admissions@bgi.edu.

By Julie Fox Gorte, Ph.D., Senior Vice President, Sustainable Investing, Pax World Investments

I recently attended the 2014 Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the United Nations, along with more than 500 other financial leaders, most of them members of the Investor Network on Climate Risk. At that meeting, Ceres, the Summit’s organizer, released the Clean Trillion report calling on investors to scale up clean energy investment to at least $1 trillion by 2030. This is the level of investment that the International Energy Agency estimates will be needed to keep additional global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius threshold, beyond which the impact of climate change is judged catastrophic. While the goal is achievable, it will be challenging.

One of the things that makes the Clean Trillion more challenging is the amount of money that goes from corporate coffers into politics, aimed at blocking any constructive action on climate and energy policy. Much of this is so-called dark money, spending that is difficult or impossible to trace to an ultimate corporate sponsor. Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a new report, Tricks of the Trade:  How companies anonymously influence climate policy through their business and trade associations. The UCS report examined company responses to the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) to see whether companies were replying accurately to the question on whether they were members of groups that might "directly or indirectly influence climate policy."

UCS looked for disclosure of memberships in four groups that actively oppose limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other constructive action on climate policy: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute. Less than half of the companies that were members of the boards of these four organizations disclosed those memberships.

UCS reports that, even though CDP sent its annual questionnaire to 44 of the companies that are board members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only one company (UPS) disclosed that board membership. It is no excuse that the person who filled out the CDP questionnaire didn’t know whether any of their company’s memberships were in groups that opposed policy action on climate change. The CDP questionnaire specifically linked to a previous UCS report giving straightforward guidance on how to ascertain this information.

Interestingly, several of the companies that did disclose their board memberships in the four organizations opposing constructive climate policy noted that they disagreed with the groups’ positions on climate change. UCS frames this disconnect brilliantly, stating, "If companies claim they don’t agree with their trade groups' climate position, who are these trade groups representing when they fight against policy action to address climate change?"

Yet fight they do. In 2010, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce even went to the courts to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that GHG emissions endanger human health and welfare.

The Clean Trillion will have a much better chance of succeeding if it isn’t swimming upstream against the flow of public policy on climate change. Congratulations to UCS on this timely and compelling report.

Image Credit: Doug88888/Flickr

Julie Fox Gorte, Ph.D. is the Senior Vice President for Sustainable Investing at Pax World Management LLC. She oversees environmental, social, and governance-related research on prospective and current investments as well as Pax’s shareholder advocacy and work on public policy advocacy. Dr. Gorte serves on the boards of Ceres, the Endangered Species Coalition, the Sustainable Investments Institute and the American Sustainable Business Council. She serves as the co-chair of the Asset Management Working Group of the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatives and is on the steering committee for UNEP’s workstream on biodiversity.

Qatar, the 2022 World Cup host, is among 11 countries to be downgraded to ‘extreme risk’ for working conditions, due to the multiple deaths of migrant workers on construction sites for the sporting competition, according to a new global index by risk analysis company Maplecroft.

Brazil, host of this year’s World Cup, meanwhile, has made significant improvements to its working conditions over the last year and climbs 19 places in the ranking.

The number of countries rated as ‘extreme risk’ in Maplecroft’s 7th annual Working Conditions Index (WCI), which evaluates 197 countries on their minimum wage levels, working hours, and health and safety in the workplace, rose over 20%, from 49 to 60, between 2013 and 2014. This signifies a worsening global landscape for workers, especially migrants, relating to wider labour related issues, including trafficking and forced and bonded labour.

Of the 11 countries that fell from ‘high’ to ‘extreme risk’ in the Index, Nigeria saw the biggest increase in risk. Widespread health and safety violations and a minimum wage two-thirds below subsistence levels resulted in a fall from 77th to 44th in the ranking (where 1st is most at risk). Egypt dropped 29 places to 26th, Qatar went from 60th to 32rd and Yemen 72nd to 42nd. Comoros (39th), Madagascar (50th), Peru (54th), Kenya (55th), Tanzania (56th), Georgia (59th) and Bolivia (60th) fell between 17 and 8 places in the Index.
 

Unilever, its ingredient supplier Symrise and GIZ, a German federal enterprise in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development have partnered to improve the livelihoods of 4,000 vanilla farmers in the Sava region of Madagascar.

The three-year programme – partly financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) - will impact 32 communities and involve 44 schools and colleges, giving it the potential to improve 24,000 lives in one of the world’s poorest nations, the partners say.

Madagascar produces 79% of the world’s natural vanilla supply. Unilever uses vanilla as an ingredient in its leading ice cream brands, such as Magnum, Breyers and Carte D’Or. The partnership aims to secure this vanilla supply for Unilever in the future and to support the farming communities with improved access to secondary education and training in agricultural best practices.

The programme will operate through farmer field schools to increase vanilla productivity and also encourage crop diversification (farmers can earn more money from vanilla).

The integrated education programme will also support environmental education in primary schools through training teachers and providing teaching kits; and aims to establish a learning platform of rural agricultural colleges for vocational training of adolescents.

Throughout the project equal opportunities will be provided to women and girl students since they represent about 50% of the communities and are actively involved in farm management: between 20 and 30% of the farmer households are headed up by women.

 

Picture credit:  © Hlphoto | Dreamstime.com