Search

Sometimes all you need is just the right framework to keep moving forward and reach your goals. This might also be the case in the fight to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold experts  agree will avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The framework, which was presented last week at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the U.N. was quite simple: All we need to do is to add $1 trillion in clean energy investment per year through 2050. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) such an increase in clean energy investment will significantly increase the chances of maintaining the 2 °C limit.

But how do we do it exactly? This was one of the main issues on the agenda of 550 leading investors from all over the world who came to the U.N. to this biannual summit co-hosted by Ceres and the U.N. Foundation.

As the investors learned from Michael Liebreich, CEO of Bloomberg New Energy Finance this might be more of a challenge given the current levels of investment in clean energy and the trends we see in the last two years. In 2013, he told the audience, global investment in clean energy (low-carbon clean energy resources and energy efficiency technologies) was $254 billion - down 12 percent from 2012 ($289 billion), where we saw a decline of 9 percent in investments comparing to the record year of 2011 ($318 billion).

As you can see we’re now at about quarter of the investment needed according to the IEA. Whether it means that this glass is three-quarters empty or one-quarter full depends on your point of view, but the gap between what we need and what we have is there. We need to close it no matter what.

To do so, Ceres issued a new report entitled Investing in the Clean Trillion: Closing The Clean Energy Investment Gap, providing 10 recommendations for investors, companies and policymakers on the ways to reach the ‘clean trillion’ goal. Before getting into the recommendations it might be worth mentioning the timeline set up by the report authors – the goal is to double the annual clean energy investments to $500 billion by 2020 and reach $1 trillion annual investments by 2030. This means that even if these goals are met, we’ll still need to see an annual average increase of 5 percent in the total investments between 2030-2050 to meet the IEA’s goal: $36 trillion by 2050.

So, how do we get there? As mentioned, the report offers 10 recommendations that are divided to three groups: mobilizing investor action to scale up clean energy investment, promoting green banking and debt capital markets and reforming climate, energy and financial policies.

If there was one thing you could learn from last week’s summit it was that these recommendations make sense to both policymakers and financial leaders. After al,l recommendations such the ones calling to develop capacity to boost clean energy investments, elevate scrutiny of fossil fuel companies’ potential carbon asset risk exposure, or support government policies that result in a strong price on carbon pollution seem to go hand in hand with long-term thinking, fiduciary responsibility and better diversification and risk mitigation.

Yet, it was also clear from the summit that understanding the problems as well as the solutions is not necessarily the issue. Speakers said time and again that we need to act now on climate change and increase investments in clean energy. I also bet most attendees agreed with the notion that, “with responsible investing we can create a stronger economy for everyone,” as Thomas DiNapoli, New York State Comptroller, who manages that state’s $160.7 billion pension fund and oversees its employee retirement system, put it.

The issue is that is seems very hard for an economic system that is heavily based on fossil fuel and on a short-term financial system to make systematic changes that to some extent undermine the way it has been operating for a very long time. The current system seems to be just too involved in ‘business as usual’ to enable the pivoting to clean energy investments and climate change policymaking that participants see as so essential.

Take for example Richard Trumka, the AFL-CIO President representing more than 12 million workers who was very clear, just like two years ago that we need to act now to fight climate change. “While we play the politics of denial, physics persists,” he said, calling business and investors not to stay on the sidelines. At the same time he voiced his support for the Keystone XL pipeline project and said only a day before the summit that "anything that makes sense and creates jobs and is sound environmental policy as well, we will be doing it. [With respect to] the XL pipeline, there's no environmental reason that it can't be done safely while at the same time creating jobs."

I’m quite sure that with most speakers and participants in the summit the situation is quite similar: Clear rhetoric on climate change and clean energy will somehow be combined with actions that are much more likely to reflect business as usual incremental change at best.

Will the ‘clean trillion’ framework change that? Will it be enable the financial sector to stand up now and make the necessary shifts in capital, as Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change urged it to make? It’s hard to tell, but while it’s easier to think why it wouldn’t work, I’d like to adopt the overall positive spirit of the summit and believe that $36 trillion clean energy investments is actually nothing but possible.

[Image credit: Office of the NYS Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli]

Raz Godelnik is an Assistant Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons The New School of Design. You can follow Raz on Twitter.

Earlier this month, Tyson Foods sent a letter to the hog farmers who supply it with pork asking them to adopt more humane practices. The letter asked hog farmers to stop using manual blunt force to euthanize sick or injured piglets and improve housing for pregnant sows. Using manual blunt force “may not match the expectations of today’s customers or consumers,” the letter stated. Tyson is requiring contract farmers to end the use of blunt force euthanasia and adopt more humane methods by the end of 2014. When it comes to housing, the letter points out to farmers that sow housing “should allow sows of all sizes to stand, turn around, lie down and stretch their legs.” Contract farmers are asked to implement improved sow housing beginning in 2014.

The letter also asks pig farmers to increase oversight of their operations. One of the practices pig farmers are asked to adopt is video monitoring to increase oversight. The letter stated that video monitoring “is a tool that can improve on-farm animal care and help avoid animal mistreatment,” that can also “help reduce biosecurity risks.” Tyson is asking farmers it contracts with to install video monitoring systems by the end of 2014.

The company is in the second year of an animal well-being program called FarmCheck. The program includes on-site farm audits and an Animal Well-Being Advisory Panel. As part of the program, Tyson will increase third-party sow farm audits in 2014. The company started conducting third-party audits in 2012.

The announcement and the letter come just weeks before Tyson’s shareholders are set to vote on a resolution that asks the company  to disclose the financial and operational risks associated with the use of gestation crates. The Humane Society of the U.S., Green Century Capital Management, and the United Methodist Church Benefit Board, Inc. co-filed the shareholder resolution in August. “Rising concerns over these cages have rapidly shifted the marketplace, with dozens of top global food brands—including Tyson customers—demanding change,” the proposal stated. “Tyson’s failure to disclose the risks associated with the indefinite inclusion of gestation crates in its supply chain is of concern to shareholders.”

Smithfield recommends its contract sow farmers convert from gestation crates to group housing

The same week as Tyson’s announcement, Smithfield announced that it is recommending all of its contract sow farmers to convert housing for pregnant sows from gestation crates to group housing. The company is asking sow farmers to convert to group housing by 2022 and will use a “sliding scale of incentives to accelerate that timetable,” according to a press release. Sow farmers who make the commitment to switch to group housing will receive contract extensions once the switch is complete. In 2007, Smithfield committed to converting all of the pregnant sows on its company owned U.S. farms from gestation crates to group housing by 2017. The company’s international pig farms will complete their conversions to group housing by 2022. Smithfield’s company owned pig farms in Poland and Romania finished converting to group housing “a number of years ago.”

Consumer demand is driving the shift away from inhumane pig farming practices

Many major companies have made commitments to eliminate sow gestation crates from their supply chains, including Burger King, McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Subway, Oscar Mayer, Kroger, Safeway, Costco, Denny's and Jack in the Box. Consumer demand is one of the drivers in the shift away from inhumane pig farming practices, as Josh Balk, Director of Corporate Policy for the HSUS, pointed out to me last summer during an interview. Balk said that how farm animals are treated “causes a more visceral reaction,” Balk points out. “Most people have pets and that’s their connection with animals. We would be outraged if our cats and dogs were treated this way.”

Photo: Ed Mitchell

If there is one thing we in the West love, it’s our gadgets. Smartphones, tablets, iPottys – we’ll take ‘em all. And the rest of the world is catching on – in Q3 2013 the global smartphone market grew 38.8 percent, thanks to China’s growing appetite for low-cost Android phones.

This is because technology is awesome. Through it we can access information (and each other) like never before in the history of the world. Using a smartphone or tablet, we can FaceTime a friend living on the other side of the country, then text message one living on the other side of the planet (for free) using Viber. Letting our friends, ex’s and high school acquaintances know about the gluten-free burrito we ate for lunch last Tuesday has never been easier.

Technology’s awesomeness is the primary focus of the Consumer Electronics Show (CES), an internationally renowned electronics and technology trade show held each January in Las Vegas. Attended by major companies and industry professionals worldwide, it is the place to be if you want to be “in the know” of the latest and greatest in the tech world.

But this year, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich reminded us that the cost of producing these technological wonders goes well beyond dollar signs. Always absent from the final price tag of these items are the externalities of shattered human dignity and lost lives.

Wait. What? You ask. How does my awesome phone hurt people?

Three words: rare earth minerals.

Consisting of elements such as copper and even rarer tungsten, neodymium, dysprosium, coltan and terbium, rare earth minerals are what make the magic of technology possible. While China produces 90 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals, a significant concentration exists in the eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) near the Rwanda border.

For decades, the DRC has been at the center of what some have dubbed “Africa’s World War” which has claimed more than 3 million lives to date. Remember Hotel Rwanda? Much of the violence depicted in the film rages on today, and is funded by the extraction of these rare earth, or “conflict minerals,” according to a report to the United Nations Security Council Committee. Besides fueling an endless cycle of violence, the trade often forces children into the dirty and dangerous work required to ready these elements for export.

Back to Krzanich – he said Intel had achieved a critical milestone and the minerals used in microprocessor silicon and packages manufactured in Intel's factories are conflict-free as concluded by third-party audits or direct validation by Intel's supply chain organization.

"Two years ago, I told several colleagues that we needed a hard goal, a commitment to reasonably conclude that the metals used in our microprocessors are conflict-free," Krzanich said. "We felt an obligation to implement changes in our supply chain to ensure that our business and our products were not inadvertently funding human atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Even though we have reached this milestone, it is just a start. We will continue our audits and resolve issues that are found."

Krzanich said Intel has implemented a process within its supply chain to validate that its sources – the smelters that provide tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold used in microprocessor silicon and packages manufactured in Intel factories – are not inadvertently funding the conflict in the DRC.

In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act held provisions aimed at reducing the use of conflict minerals, which spurred Intel and other electronics industry manufacturers to act. Will the rest of the electronics industry follow suit and expunge the sourcing of rare earth minerals from conflict zones? Krzanich has challenged them to do so.

But it will be up to consumers to ensure widespread change. Support companies like Intel that factor human rights into their supply chains. “Human Rights” certification labels for consumer tech products should be created to help inform would-be buyers.

Technological advancement doesn’t have to come at the cost of our souls, nor does doing so have to come at the cost of profitability. Forward-thinking firms like Intel are proving this. Let’s demand better, because our people and planet deserve better.

Image Credit: IBM

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).

The UK has the highest paid CEOs in Europe, according to a comprehensive new study released by Vlerick Business School.

The study looked at the annual reports of all listed companies in Belgium, France, Germany, and The Netherlands – and those of the FTSE 100 in the UK.

Financial data was analysed separately for two categories; companies with total assets of between €1 and €5 billion and companies with total assets of over €5 billion.

The median total compensation of a UK CEO of a company with total assets over €5 billion was found to be just over €4.700.000. The next best paid CEOs were found in Germany at €3.100.00. In contrast, the lowest CEO compensation packages were found to be in Belgium at €1.980.00 and France at €2.290.000

Virtually all the FTSE 100 companies (99%) still use cash bonuses to reward their top management but the value of these has dropped 20% since 2010.

In the UK, over the same period, the value of all incentives such as bonuses, stock options and shares has dropped 35%; which may explain why there was an 8% drop in the total CEO pay. Nevertheless, there was a 2% increase in incentives as a proportion of pay. In Belgium, combined incentives account for 30% of a CEO’s remuneration, whilst in Germany these make up to nearly 60%.

Xavier Baeten, a professor at Vlerick Business School commented: "One positive aspect revealed by our data is the way firms are using KPIs – more and more companies are moving towards offering non-financial incentives to motivate their CEOs. This means that companies are looking at what motivates people beyond financial incentives, which may lead to better performance. Furthermore, I believe CEOs have lost their confidence in being rewarded in shares as they are afraid the share price will drop. " 

 

Picture credit: © Gunter Hofer | Dreamstime Stock Photos

The U.S. oil and gas industry has been spending big bucks for environmental remediation, pollution control and prevention, and industrial energy management, and that figure is expected to grow at a CAGR rate of 4 percent between 2012 and 2017, according to the  Verdantix Critical Moments analysis. The analysis covered 87 oil and gas companies with revenues above $1 billion and found the industry spent $5.4 billion in 2012 in sustainability spending and is expected to grow to $6.5 billion in 2017. The study identified that the largest areas of investment were environmental remediation, pollution control and prevention, and industrial energy management, and that on-site renewable energy was the fastest growing area of spending.

For 2014, the report states that the environment, health and safety category will comprise the lion's share of the spending, and environmental remediation initiatives comprise 38 percent. Pollution control and prevention initiatives comprise 17 percent and industrial energy management initiatives total 13 percent. Reading such a report temporarily makes me feel better about the industry, but considering the degradation caused, this is merely a start.

Altruistic intentions are not necessarily at the root of such spending, as some is likely in response to regulatory action by the EPA, such as the recent announcement by Shell to spend $115 million to reduce air pollution at a Houston-area refinery and chemical plant after being found in violation of the Clean Air Act. A technology to reduce air pollution associated with industrial flares used to burn waste gas comprises $100 million of the spending. Regardless of motives, area residents will breath easier and the impact is positive. Avoiding liability is certainly another motivation for increased sustainability spending, but this has a positive impact on humanity.

Although the increase in sustainability spending may seem impressive on the surface, US oil and gas extraction is booming and set to break recent records. When compared to soaring output, spending is really flat at best. U.S. crude oil field production has climbed over the last few years back to the late 1980s levels. The International Energy Agency predicts the U.S. will surpass Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer in 2015. The Energy Information Administration even predicts the U.S. will surpass Russia as the biggest natural gas producer.

This is in large part due to hydraulic fracturing or fracking, a process that has recently allowed certain natural gas reserves to be drilled that were cost prohibitive a couple decades ago. Although natural gas is cleaner burning than coal, fracking does emit methane (a potent greenhouse gas), and causes air and water pollution.  This cheap and abundant supply of natural gas also hasn't been helpful for making renewable energy competitive with fossil fuels. Federal regulation of fracking is largely non-existent, thus relying on a patchwork of state regulations to require safe and clean practices during extraction. Many believe that practices aren't safe enough, resulting in significant environmental damage.

The increase in oil and gas extraction has been credited as helping the economy recover, although this outlook ignores the external costs of contaminated well water, asthma attacks, climate change, collapsing fisheries, and so on. The health and environmental costs that society shoulders due to this polluting industry continues, albeit mitigated by some clean up efforts.

When compared with the output growth of the oil and gas industry, the increase in sustainability spending pales in comparison. Although this spending certainly helps mitigate the huge impact this industry has on greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, worker safety, and so on, this is not a green industry.

In the midst of an international trade dispute over solar components and threats of Chinese tariffs, Michigan-based Hemlock Semiconductors permanently laid off 400 workers in Michigan and Tennessee last March. The company makes polysilicon, the main material for producing photovoltaic solar cells. Sure, a huge percentage of solar panels have been coming from China. But U.S. companies manufactured a significant portion of the polysilicon that went into those panels. The polysilicon was made here, sent to China, assembled into solar panels, and sent back here. The supply chain, being what it is, still benefited U.S. companies and workers, and Chinese companies and workers I might add, as solar use grew. Everybody wins. Economics at its best.

But on Monday, those tariffs became a reality. China, arguably the U.S. and Europe's largest rival in renewable energy manufacturing, announced tariffs of up to 57 percent against polysilicon imports coming from the United States. Polysilicon imports from, for example, Hemlock Semiconductors in Hemlock, Michigan, produced by hundreds of men and women in Michigan and Tennessee.

These international trade disputes can seem somewhat academic until you can point to an actual family kicked to the curb because mom or dad lost a job. Or a whole community losing millions in economic activity. Then the cold, distant world of trade disputes hits way too close to home in a very real way.

The Coalition for American Solar Manufacturing protested China's move on Monday. The coalition keeps a tally of all the businesses and jobs it represents. As of today that number is 243 solar-technology installers, producers employing 22,362 American workers all over the country. The industry represents a significant amount of jobs and revenue for the communities they inhabit.

The CASM feels the tariffs are retaliatory, in response to a trade case SolarWorld (backed by CASM) filed against China's state-backed solar cell and panel industry in October 2011. In addition to the new tariffs, China has announced making illegal and export intensive subsidies available to its own solar industries.

China has a long and storied history of bucking World Trade Organization rules and obligations, resorting to subsidies, currency manipulation and retaliatory tariffs at the expense of U.S. companies and workers. The nation is currently facing claims from the European Union of "dumping" solar glass components, subsidized by China and sold at below market value. Those shenanigans are felt acutely in the growing renewable energy sector in the U.S., though China would certainly argue its measures are justified as the nation has filed its own disputes with the WTO against the European Union for renewable energy subsidies.

The U.S.'s own on-again-off-again support for the renewable energy industry, particularly the Production Tax Credit, have not been helpful either, giving Chinese companies an opportunity to swoop down and cash in on the abandoned spoils of half hearted U.S. efforts to encourage the industry.

Here in the U.S., we are watching the renewable energy market expand while U.S. renewable energy companies seem to be struggling to maintain a secure footing. These trade disputes and frail U.S. policies are costing American jobs, innovation, and businesses.

By Shivani Siroya

With over 16 billion dollars flowing through mobile money platforms in Kenya alone, mobile money is continuing to expand rapidly, even into the deepest rural communities around the world. With it comes a valuable distribution platform providing newfound access to technology and information. In the financial sector in particular, various organizations and agencies are partnering up with telecommunications companies (telcos) to use mobile phones as an innovative means for providing an array of financial services to those previously unreachable and unbanked.

Currently, there are over 200 mobile money ventures, with high success potential in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. In Kenya, the mobile money service M-Pesa has proven significant success with 18 million mobile phone users subscribed and 43 percent of Kenya’s GDP flowing through the service.

By allowing users to send, receive, spend, and even save money all through their mobile phones, mobile money provides a low-cost platform and a level of accessibility never before seen in formal banking. The simplicity of mobile money and its ability to provide affordable and accessible banking services has transformed the financial possibilities and opportunities available for the unbanked and underserved.

With close to half of the Kenya’s population participating in the country’s popular M-Pesa mobile money service, countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Somaliland, Tanzania, and Uganda have been quick to adopt the technology. In 2013, financial giants Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Google, along with a multitude of banks have partnered with government organizations and non-governmental social service departments to jump on the mobile money bandwagon and launch these services worldwide.

The question remains: Is mobile money enough to solve this problem of financial access and inclusion? While mobile money services certainly provide a crucial first step to financial inclusion, the industry is now looking beyond basic remittances. Providing mobile users with a full array of mobile financial products and services is the next step towards an inclusive financial system.

Fortunately, the expansion of mobile money has paved the way for new financial products for the unbanked, such as our solution at InVenture our product - InSight – is a simple SMS, Voice, Web and Android – tool that allows individuals in the informal economy to perform daily money management and receive a formal financial identity. Our dynamic algorithm uses cash flow data collected by the system to synthesize an individualized credit score for each user. This information is then shared with product and service companies as well as financial institutions to help individuals qualify for affordable access to business loans, housing, insurance, education services and everyday essentials.

InVenture is now focusing on partnering with mobile money providers, NGOs, and other mobile applications to integrate InSight into their service offerings and allow users to seamlessly extend their mobile subscription into a formal financial identity.

The industry as a whole is now focusing not only on providing access to a wider array of consumer and banking products, but also on increasing education about the importance of savings and credit and on improving the efficiency and financial reach of current providers and retailers. We believe that in order to open up the global marketplace, it is critical to ensure that a proper financial foundation is established. Our goal is that through InSight, we will provide millions (perhaps billions) of individuals with the awareness and formal identity they need to create their own futures and build economies where more people can thrive.

In 2013, companies began to push the envelope of mobile money, moving beyond product introductions to financial literacy and access initiatives. In 2014, we hope to accelerate this movement through innovative collaborations with organizations like the Vodafone Americas Foundation and others that bring together telcos, financial institutions, mobile money providers, and other key industry players. Together, we can make the dream of full global financial inclusion a reality.

Ed note: Vodafone Americas Foundation’s annual Wireless Innovation Project is now accepting grant applications from top innovators in the mobile technology field that have the potential to make a decisive change in the world. Applications for 2014 are due February 3rd!

Shivani is currently the CEO and Founder of InVenture. InVenture is a mobile technology company providing simple credit scoring and accounting tools to the >4 billion people across the globe currently lacking a formal financial identity. InVenture's work has been recognized by USAID, TED, Economist Vodafone, Bloomberg, and Forbes. 

She is a 2013 Ashoka Fellow, 2013 TED Fellow, 2011 Echoing Green Fellow and 2011 Unreasonable Institute Fellow. Shivani holds a M.P.H from Columbia University and a B.A. from Wesleyan University.

Twitter: @inventure @shivsiroya 

Urbanization of America’s once pristine countryside is the latest theory to be offered for why lightning deaths have been declining in the U.S. recently.  According to the National Weather Service,  23 people died from lightning strikes in 2013. That’s a mere drop in the bucket compared to 60-70 years ago, when the numbers were in the hundreds.

So is it the American love for city life and tall buildings that has changed that statistic?

Maybe - or maybe not.

The NWS pointed out in its August 2012 bulletin that educating the public about the dangers of lightning, especially in areas like Miami and communities close to water, has made a big difference in reducing fatalities in large population areas.

So have the various warning systems that have been put in place since the 1940s, which aren’t necessarily limited to dense population areas. Not surprisingly with the technological advancements of the 21st century, lightning detectors now come in a variety colors, shapes, and sizes, ranging from fit-in-your palm to ground-based. Of course, as one Miami community unfortunately found out, they aren’t 100 percent on track. A young boy died after being hit by lightning while walking to football practice in the city before his coach could sound an alarm.

And only last week, another piece of evidence emerged that suggests that urban living may not be the saving grace against being hit by lightning. The victim’s location is being blamed for the incessant hits, but interestingly, it’s urban planning in this case that is working against safety measures.

Rio de Janeiro’s 100-ft-tall Christ the Redeemer has already lost a thumb and part of a finger to recent lightning strikes this year. Those statistics are low compared late last year, when the statue was sustaining hits several times a week. Fortunately, none of the recent lightning “injuries” have been as bad as in 2008, when the statue underwent extensive restoration.

In this case, the prominence of city life below its feet is actually what’s causing the problem. An authority from the Atmospheric Electricity Group (ELAT), in Sao José dos Campos, Brazil suggested that the problem may actually be climate change due to the amount of carbon-producing cars on Rio’s busy streets.

“As the city becomes more urbanized, it creates an island of heat, because the vegetation is replaced by asphalt and homes. The increase in the number of cars is also a factor, because it generates more pollution, which contributes to the formation of lightning.” Osmar Pinto, Jr., coordinator of ELAT/INPE explained in an article by William Jones, published in The Rio Times.

In fact, in 2012, ELAT, which is part of the Brazil’s National Institute Space Research (INPE), launched a new program to address lightning concerns: the Brazilian Network of Lightning Detection (BrasilDAT). Its mandate is to "make the region one of the world’s better prepared to monitor climate change.” According to INPE, the prominence of lightning in Brazil’s burgeoning metropolis goes hand-in-hand with the country’s urban spread.

It’s also a theory that’s been explored here in the U.S. Leanna Shea Rose based her doctorate thesis on that question. The weighty-sounding thesis, A Spatial Analysis of Lightning Strikes and Precipitation in the Greater Atlanta, Georgia Region (2008) explored factors related to lightning in one of the nation’s most dangerous locations for lightning storms.

“Numerous studies have found urban enhancement of rainfall and lightning,” notes Rose. However, the reasons for these anomalies are still unclear and explanations invoking urban heating, pollutants and surface roughness have been proposed for each of these phenomena.”

As Pinto at INPE points out, research in the last couple of years indicates that urbanization doesn’t decrease the existence of lightning, but in increases it. So perhaps it isn’t urbanization that is our protecting shield, but education and advance preparation. If predictions are right about the uptick in climate change as global warming increases, community awareness and preparation  may be our strongest ally after all.

Image of lighting over Quebéc City, Que. Canada courtesy of Jp Marquis

Image of Cristo Redentor (Christ the Redeemer) statue above Rio de Janeiro courtesy of Klaus

Welcome to our series of interviews with leading female CSR practitioners where we are learning about what inspires these women and how they found their way to careers in sustainability. Read the rest of the series here.

TriplePundit: Briefly describe your role and responsibilities, and how many years you have been in the business.

Cindy Drucker: Weber Shandwick provides strategic communications and public affairs services, with a specialty in sustainability and social responsibility for clients in the nonprofit, foundation, and corporate sector. I am an Executive Vice President with Weber Shandwick’s Social Impact practice where I lead our global sustainability offering. In this role, I partner with our Weber Shandwick teams around the world to help our clients navigate the complexities of the sustainability landscape through innovative leadership initiatives, unique collaborations, positive stakeholder engagement and effective communications and public affairs strategies.

I’ve worked in the sustainability arena for 22 years – starting in 1992 when it was called “green marketing” and most of the issues were around advancing single environmental attributes such as recycling and recycled content. Today, I’m able to use the insights learned through my prior positions as head of global sustainability for SC Johnson, senior advisor to the president/CEO of World Wildlife Fund and director of stakeholder engagement for the Presidential Oil Spill Commission to build multi-stakeholder initiatives for Weber Shandwick clients that advance a more sustainable future, create shared value, and build reputation capital.

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

CD: Sustainability is embedded throughout all of our client work.  Sustainability may have started as a niche offering – but today, companies, nonprofits, foundations all understand that sustainability is a mainstream way of addressing their values and commitment to a healthy, vibrant economy and future. We bring a cadre of sustainability professionals with years of expertise in the field combined with experts in all of the communications and public affairs services.  By integrating our sustainability expertise with our full range of practices, we can best serve clients in a holistic and comprehensive way.

Beyond helping client partners develop and communicate their corporate social responsibility and sustainability programs, Weber Shandwick received ISO 14001 accreditation in May of 2007 for all of our offices in the United States, exemplifying our own environmentally responsible business practices. Weber Shandwick is the only public relations firm to earn this ISO 14001 certification distinction. And, we are committed to rolling out these processes globally.  Moreover, our Washington, DC office has obtained LEED Gold Certification under the U.S. Green Building Council Rating System.

Our firm also has an active employee sustainability program. We have established an Impact project where each of our offices around the world commits to a volunteer program carried out in their community throughout the year. It really allows our teams to demonstrate our commitment to social responsibility and sustainability firsthand.

Weber Shandwick’s Corporate Social Responsibility Committee, comprised of employees from the executive suite to entry level, is responsible for setting, reviewing and delivering on our environmental objectives and targets, and working with our offices worldwide to drive progress. We also host sustainability events, often with partners such as Net Impact, to educate and inform our employees on sustainability issues on an ongoing basis.

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

CD: My Mom is my personal sustainability hero. She was an environmentalist at heart and her appreciation for nature made a big impact on me. From planting ferns and tall grasses in our garden to calling me from the breakfast table to see a bird outside the kitchen window, she was enthused by nature and all it has to offer and she instilled that same respect and appreciation in me.

From a professional perspective, my mentor was the CEO of my first job in the environmental industry. In 1992, I was working as director of environmental affairs for a plastics manufacturing company called Webster Industries. The company manufactured a variety of trash bags – collecting and using plastic scrap and waste primarily as a means to reduce the cost of raw materials. The president of the company, Raj Bal, saw the opportunity to turn the cost savings into a positive value proposition and we subsequently launched the nation’s first 100% recycled content line of plastic trash bags. We won significant marketing and environmental awards and tripled the company revenues as a result of launching the Renew brand. I toured the country working with legislators and government officials to push for recycled content legislation and an expanded recycling infrastructure and spoke about green product marketing at conferences. And I started consulting to other companies interested in learning how to market and communicate green products – early lessons that are still relevant today. That endeavor during my work with Webster Industries and the tenacious leadership by Raj set the path for my career in sustainability.

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

CD: “Where you stand depends on where you sit,” is a phrase I learned during my studies at the Kennedy School of Government.  The idea resonated with me and I try hard to apply the premise both in my personal and professional endeavors. Whether it is helping a client address a specific issue or simply planning a family vacation, it is helpful to think about the situation from the other person’s perspective instead of just your own.

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

CD: In my role with Weber Shandwick, I serve as the global sustainability/CSR lead for our work with SABIC (Saudi Basic Industries Corporation), one of the world’s largest petrochemical companies. I’ve worked in many parts of the world during my 20-year tenure in the sustainability field, but it is particularly exciting to partner with a global company that is truly committed to advancing sustainability in the Middle East. Through SABIC’s commitment, I am able to help make a difference in a part of the world where sustainability advancements can have a tremendous global impact.

And, I’m also proud of ziplining in the rain during my recent vacation in Costa Rica….

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

CD: A fear of being scolded for “greenwashing” makes many companies risk-averse. Yet, when messaged and positioned correctly, companies can take credit for progress in advancing a more sustainable future and, in doing so, align with the aspirations of their employees, investors and other stakeholders while simultaneously building a leadership advantage and business opportunities. It is about progress – not necessarily perfection. There is ample opportunity to turn sustainability data – Scope 3 emissions, GRI 4 reporting, materiality, etc. – into meaningful and effective communications that motivate employees and other stakeholders to embrace and reward sustainability leadership and innovation moving forward.

3p: Describe your perfect day.

CD: I love to travel, so my perfect day would be waking up and being surprised with an airline ticket to a city or region that I haven’t been to before. I enjoy exploring without a set itinerary or plan – really engaging with people throughout the journey. One of my favorite experiences was when my brother surprised me with a trip to Tibet, filled with adventures such as taking a small fishing boat to Samye, one of the oldest monasteries in Tibet. Traveling gives me a direct appreciation of different cultures, perspectives and landscapes which also translates into value-added insights I can bring to our clients and our work.

By Neil Barrett, VP, Sustainable Development, Sodexo

During our recent #SodexoCR Twitter chat, we were asked a number of questions that due to time (and the 140 character limit) we were unable to answer or answer fully. The hour-long chat, which touched upon a whole range of topics from integrated reporting to sustainable food systems, supply chain responsibility, and diversity and inclusion, was a first for my team. While we managed to cover quite a bit of ground, here's some context in response to the questions we were unable to get to.

Integrated Reporting

Integrated reporting is a ‘hot’ topic in the sustainability space these days with companies looking for the most effective way(s) to tell their stories and engage stakeholders. For Sodexo, integrating our corporate responsibility throughout the Annual Report was a natural fit; since our efforts as a responsible employer, to support local communities, to promote nutrition, health and wellness and protect the environment can be found in our operations, our supply chain, our offices and, as is often said, in our DNA.

For several years now, the required ‘Registration Document’ already included a chapter on our economic, social and environmental responsibility. It is important to share that over the last few years, this chapter has not only gotten more comprehensive with more details and information, but also become more prominent, moving forward in the report.

Several attendees asked us about the pros and cons of integrating our annual reporting with CR and sustainability metrics. As with any change, shifting to integrated reporting was not easy and required us to understand the needs and meet the various statutory requirements in countries where Sodexo operates, and to build consensus internally.

But our teams were quick to appreciate the benefits of integrating CR into our regular reporting in streamlining processes, reducing costs (of a separate report) and, above all, demonstrating that CR is integral to who we are, what we do and how we engage with our clients, suppliers, consumers, etc.

Quality of Life

@AlisonAzaria asked how quality of life services factor into our approach to corporate responsibility. Ultimately, for us, responsibility comes down to mission and values. And the mission that has guided us for almost 50 years has been twofold:

• Improve the Quality of Daily Life of our employees and all whom we serve, and


• Contribute to the economic, social and environmental development of the communities, regions and countries in which we operate.

Those are strong and powerful words and they inextricably tie our corporate responsibility and mission together. This is what we aspire to every day and everywhere. With thousands of additional people in our supply chain, 428,000 employees and 75 million consumers in 80 countries around the world, we have a huge opportunity—and a responsibility—to improve quality of life.

Using our Expertise to Influence and Encourage

Sustainable food systems is a complex topic and garnered several questions during the Twitter chat. While @iPura asked us what initiatives we had in place for improving/securing food safety across our supply chain, @MSCecolabel reminded us that overfishing is the second biggest global environmental challenge after climate change and @brennadavis7 asked how exactly we were supporting sustainable food systems.

When a brand has the kind of reach we do across our supply chain, every decision we take, from sourcing to product selection, transportation and disposal, can have significant impact. Using our influence – such as the power of our purchasing – to select and work with suppliers that share our values and commitments is important—and can go a long way in shifting our suppliers' policies and processes. Our efforts in responsible sourcing include a number of areas that are designed to help ensure a sustainable food system. We shared the example of sustainable seafood, reflecting the increasing importance and demand for people who look to the world’s oceans not only for nutrition but also a livelihood.

Increasingly, people are becoming aware that food waste – the fact that one third of the food produced for human consumption is never eaten – can and must be reduced if we are to provide for everyone on the planet within the Earth’s capacity.

Driving Behavioral Change

One of the questions we were asked, and often get, is how we drive people to change their behavior, whether it be about making healthier choices for themselves or the planet.@andrealearned called it human value, the way in which we reach consumers through our clients, knowing that the only way to get people to change their behavior is to not simply make those choices available to them; we have to bring our expertise – whether it be our chefs or our facilities management professionals introducing a new, more efficient technology – to our clients and consumers and encourage them to give it a try.

Unilever, one of our suppliers, who is also a client, refers to the concept of ‘seductive nutrition,’ which is a great way of expressing that it isn’t about surprising people that something delicious is healthy but rather making something that is healthy so enticing that people want to try it – and come back to it again and again.

Responsibility: Three Things Every Company Should Do

@steph_kennard asked us what three priorities we think every company ought to consider regarding sustainability. Rather than specific issues, which vary from industry to industry, I’d like to suggest that any company, regardless of size, is responsible for its own behavior. And so prioritizing our behavior comes down to three basic tenets:

1. Your actions define you – to your employees, your customers, your suppliers and the world. But managing one’s own footprint is not enough to really be a responsible company.


2. We believe that companies are increasingly aware – and held to account – for if and how they use their influence. If we ask clients (or consumers) to choose us based on our values, we have to do the same thing when we make our decisions on with whom to partner.


3. And as I alluded to earlier, companies can and should use their expertise to engage clients and consumers to help them do things that make their lives, and the lives of their loved ones, those in their community and around the world better.

We know that we touch the lives of millions and, therefore, improving the quality of life for millions of people is an incredible opportunity – and responsibility. The only thing more daunting than the challenge is our determination to succeed.

This piece was originally published on the CSRwire talkback blog.